Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: A reminder to be careful with loaded weapons

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mill Creek, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    This story was on KOMO today. An anti-gun troll is in the comments and gets pounded by some well thought out responses. All he can counter with is, "You are a frightened gun owner!" and, "I live my life better than you so I don't need a gun." What a maroon!
    http://www.komonews.com/news/94133739.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    I cant suffer a fool long enough to finish. I got as far as him explaining how 'cops have to go where BGs live and how he lives in a nice place so he doesnt need a gun' wtf? just exactly where does he mean?

    I wish all anti-gun nuts where that stupid, if so, competitive shooting would be a Jr High school elective nation wide, FULLY funded, right after bible study.....

    J

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mill Creek, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    follker wrote:
    I cant suffer a fool long enough to finish.Â* I got as far as him explaining how 'cops have to go where BGs live and how he lives in a nice place so he doesnt need a gun' wtf? just exactly where does he mean?

    I wish all anti-gun nuts where that stupid, if so, competitive shooting would be a Jr High school elective nation wide, FULLY funded, right after bible study.....

    J
    I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated. However, you will find there are a few high schools that still have trap and target shooting as an after school activity. I know because my brother, the Dean of Students and Burlington Edison High School teaches it.

    One the other point, yes...wtf? Where can you possibly live that warrants no need for a gun what-so-ever? I'm in Mill Creek, the place most think of as the best place to raise a family in pacific northwest short of maybe Bellingham. I have still had people that don't belong in the area wander around my neighborhood at 4 in the morning. Hell, I even had a tweaker delay my wife's ambulance ride because he was being chased by a 'man with a gun'...in friggin' MILL CREEK! Of course the cops never found the 'gunman' since he never existed, but still...even in the safest of communities, anything is possible. Ask the craigslist murderers about that...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    The bible study comment was tongue firmly in cheek...it just sounded funny to me as I typed it......but yeah your right.....you didnt have to go get all 'federalist papers' on me though........geez....


    J

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    I know this man's ex-wife (she has remarried, long ago) and his son. Whether is was stupid, idiotic, moronic, preventable....well, the list goes on and on. The result is the same, a fine young man (the son) woke up Tuesday morning without a father.

    It couldn't have come at a worse time for him (the son) who is trying to raise money to go to Nationals for wrestling (free style).

    Remember, every time one of these things happens, there is always some one left behind that has to keep on keeping on....

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    I get entirely frustrated when people make comments such as to stay out of bad neighborhoods, avoid bad parts of town and everyone knows where they are.

    To be fair, I grew up in the undeveloped part of Clark County near Vancouver. I grew up in a middle to upper middle class white family. I still live in a nice middle class neighborhood.

    BUT,

    When those things are said they are racist, bigoted and elitist. I read into those type of comments that everyone can just move to Bellevue and avoid the huge variety of ethnic neighborhoods that exist. White liberals write those type of narrow, bigoted comments.

    Furthermore, they neglect one critical piece of thinking. If you are a criminal and you want to steal a large screen tv, nice computers, good jewelry, etc., where are you going to break into a home? The inner city or a nice neighborhood?

    The reason poor neighborhoods have crime is drug related, not because nice things are kept there and then stolen.


    Live Free or Die!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546

    Post imported post

    gogodawgs wrote:
    I get entirely frustrated when people make comments such as to stay out of bad neighborhoods, avoid bad parts of town and everyone knows where they are.

    It's a pretty well known psychological response. Blame the victim for being in a bad neighborhood, dressing like a hussy, whatever. Doing so makes the blamer feel like they have more control over their own lives, as if someone else who had something bad happen to them did something wrong to deserve it.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  8. #8
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    It's a shame it happened, Also a shame it was totally preventable.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member Lammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, USA
    Posts
    581

    Post imported post

    1970camaroRS wrote:
    follker wrote:
    SNIP
    I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated.
    SNIP
    Sorry but you have that exactly backwards. It's the freedom from religion crowd that wouldcausethe establishment clauseto swallow the free exercise clause and that is not what the Founders intended. Refusing to allow any form of religious expression, be it bible study or moments of silence or wearing of religious symbols violates free exercise and is itself a form of religious indoctrination insecularism. Permitting free exercise does not equal establishment. I can't put it any better than this:

    "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

    Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.

    The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And it’s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered “blasphemous” to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in one’s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?"
    Source: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...-is-not-enough

    Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand. You see, the same people who want to restrict free exercise when it comes to religion areon a mission to restrict it when it comes to firearms. We can't allow either effort to go unchallenged.
    IAALBIAAFTDPASNIPHCBCALA
    Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out. (John Corapi, The Black Sheep Dog)
    Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read. (Groucho Marx)

  10. #10
    Regular Member USMC1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    190

    Post imported post

    Why do ppl not understand that the BG'sgo to the good neighborhoods to do their dirty deeds, because that is where all the "good" stuff is !
    I am a Sheep Dog, ... Wolves Beware !

  11. #11
    Regular Member SnarlyWino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Spokane, Washington, United States
    Posts
    375

    Post imported post

    +1000 Lammo
    Keep Calm and Carry On,

    Snarly

    Pro Deo, Pro Familia, Pro Patria

  12. #12
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    Lammo wrote:
    1970camaroRS wrote:
    follker wrote:
    SNIP
    I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated.
    SNIP
    Sorry but you have that exactly backwards. It's the freedom from religion crowd that wouldcausethe establishment clauseto swallow the free exercise clause and that is not what the Founders intended. Refusing to allow any form of religious expression, be it bible study or moments of silence or wearing of religious symbols violates free exercise and is itself a form of religious indoctrination insecularism. Permitting free exercise does not equal establishment. I can't put it any better than this:

    "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

    Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.

    The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And it’s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered “blasphemous” to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in one’s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?"
    Source: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...-is-not-enough

    Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand. You see, the same people who want to restrict free exercise when it comes to religion areon a mission to restrict it when it comes to firearms. We can't allow either effort to go unchallenged.
    Thats the way I was taught too. It was not originallyabout afreedom to not be religous, It was about a freedom to choose which religeon you wanted to be. To be able to worship God how you wanted.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mill Creek, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    follker wrote:
    The bible study comment was tongue firmly in cheek...it just sounded funny to me as I typed it......but yeah your right.....you didnt have to go get all 'federalist papers' on me though........geez....


    J
    Sorry, got all fired up for a good debate!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mill Creek, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    amzbrady wrote:
    Lammo wrote:
    1970camaroRS wrote:
    follker wrote:
    SNIP
    I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated.
    SNIP
    Sorry but you have that exactly backwards. It's the freedom from religion crowd that wouldcausethe establishment clauseto swallow the free exercise clause and that is not what the Founders intended. Refusing to allow any form of religious expression, be it bible study or moments of silence or wearing of religious symbols violates free exercise and is itself a form of religious indoctrination insecularism. Permitting free exercise does not equal establishment. I can't put it any better than this:

    "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.

    Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin.

    The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. And it’s not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools. In Indonesia, the Constitutional Court is reviewing a law that criminalizes speech considered “blasphemous” to other faiths. Efforts to trim religion into something that fits neatly in one’s pocket is the work of dictators, not democratic leaders. So why then have our leaders taken a rhetorical scalpel to the concept of religious freedom?"
    Source: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesqua...-is-not-enough

    Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand. You see, the same people who want to restrict free exercise when it comes to religion areon a mission to restrict it when it comes to firearms. We can't allow either effort to go unchallenged.
    Thats the way I was taught too. It was not originallyabout afreedom to not be religous, It was about a freedom to choose which religeon you wanted to be. To be able to worship God how you wanted.
    Don't expect you to agree and not trying to start any sort of holywar but I couldn't let this stand.


    Ah yes, but you see, we're sitting on the same side of the fence, just with different perspectives.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

    The term freedom from religion does not mean you have the right to be secular, it means you have the right to NOT have the state tell you which religion you are supposed to practice, nor require it of you. At the time the state told it's people what, when and how to worship.

    Now the state has no business or power saying one way or the other. As it should be. Does this mean you can have prayer in school? No, it just can't be sanctioned or required of the students. Does it mean we have to remove references to 'God' from money or government buildings? Maybe. As the state should not promote one religion over the other and promoting God, even a generic one, leaves out those who don't believe in God. Should we stop celebrating Christmas? No, as we also celebrate or make allowances to celebrate ALL religous or non-religous holidays.

    ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    People are free to worship outloud, in public/government lands in any form they desire. Roadside memorials are not promoted by the state, they are private, legal and welcomed. I do have to agree 100% that anyone who thinks they can completely erase religion from the public square doesn't understand the difference between the State promoting religion and the people exercising their many rights to speak and worship how they see fit. Also, there isn't an ammendment that says you are free to never see religion in your life. Cause that would kind of clash with the 1st.

  15. #15
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    1970camaroRS wrote:
    This story was on KOMO today. An anti-gun troll is in the comments and gets pounded by some well thought out responses. All he can counter with is, "You are a frightened gun owner!" and, "I live my life better than you so I don't need a gun." What a maroon!
    http://www.komonews.com/news/94133739.html

    Man accidentally killed while moving rifles
    By KOMO Staff

    A 43-year-old man was killed Monday afternoon when he was accidentally shot while moving rifles at his home near Onalaska.



    Story Updated: May 18, 2010 at 11:42 AM PDT


    ONALASKA, Wash. -- A 43-year-old man was killed Monday afternoon when he was accidentally shot while moving rifles.

    Lewis County sheriff Commander Steve Aust said the man was moving several rifles out of a gun safe when a bolt from one of the guns caught the trigger of a .22-caliber rifle and fired the weapon.

    The round hit the man in the abdomen, and a contractor who was working at the victim's house at the time called 911.

    Medics rushed to the house in the 100 block of Hogue Road north of Onalaska, but the man died before he was able to be airlifted to a hospital.

    The victim's name has not been released, but Aust said the man was a second-grade teacher at Onalaska Elementary School.
    A good reminder about safety. Awfully weird accident.

    Guy had too many guns...couldn't handle them all.

    RIP.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Marysville, WA
    Posts
    17

    Post imported post

    Some of those comments are painful to read. So many seem happy a man is dead, even if by accident, just to somehow prove their point that something may be dangerous. Likely the same trolls that are elated when a motorcyclists goes down after seeing an aggressive rider on their commute earlier in the week. That's quite a group there.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sedro, Washington, USA
    Posts
    533

    Post imported post

    1970camaroRS wrote:
    follker wrote:
    I cant suffer a fool long enough to finish. I got as far as him explaining how 'cops have to go where BGs live and how he lives in a nice place so he doesnt need a gun' wtf? just exactly where does he mean?

    I wish all anti-gun nuts where that stupid, if so, competitive shooting would be a Jr High school elective nation wide, FULLY funded, right after bible study.....

    J
    I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion.
    They clearly say that? You might want to question whomever told you that and read it for yourself. I hate these libtard rumors, go troll elsewhere.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    Way off the original topic, but here are some founding fathers thoughts on religion:

    James Madison:
    "It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."
    James Madison, "James Madison on Religious Liberty",

    edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN 0-8975-298-X. pp. 237-238




    "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
    - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785



    John Adams

    "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
    -letter to Thomas Jefferson

    "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." (No source attributed)

    Thomas Jefferson
    .

    "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
    - to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814


    "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
    - to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

    "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
    -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814



    There are a host of others, but the concept that the Founders were Christian is, to some, a stretch. There were several notable Deists (Jefferson and Franklin) who were instrumental in writing the foundation documents of our nation. In fact, if we read the ORIGINAL texts of the Declaration of Independence, there were a lot more issues than slavery that Jefferson had to fix.

    Anyway....back to the original post...
    .

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mill Creek, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    kito109654 wrote:
    1970camaroRS wrote:
    follker wrote:
    I cant suffer a fool long enough to finish. I got as far as him explaining how 'cops have to go where BGs live and how he lives in a nice place so he doesnt need a gun' wtf? just exactly where does he mean?

    I wish all anti-gun nuts where that stupid, if so, competitive shooting would be a Jr High school elective nation wide, FULLY funded, right after bible study.....

    J
    I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion.
    They clearly say that? You might want to question whomever told you that and read it for yourself. I hate these libtard rumors, go troll elsewhere.
    Yes, they say that. As per the above quotes and the Federalist Papers, written by the founding fathers to explain the Constitution...that's where we get the notion that the well regulatedmilitia is indeed the people. I suggest you read it as I have. In fact, I have a well worn copy I can send to you with many underlined passages from my personal reading of it. I am up for open debate, unlike you. I won't run around and call people names because I don't like their opinions or positions on issues. And I sir, am definately not a troll...although I may be shaped like one. (Those that have met me know what I'm saying)

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    Here is a location for an Etext of the Federalist Papers, so you don't have to buy them or have someone shipp you a copy...

    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

    Another fine read is Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, written in 1785, which describes his feelings about a 3 pence assessment, to pay for religious teachers... http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia...mp;r_1785.html



  21. #21
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post



    Behold. The Ranger Safety.
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    90

    Post imported post

    oneeyeross wrote:
    Here is a location for an Etext of the Federalist Papers, so you don't have to buy them or have someone shipp you a copy...

    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

    Another fine read is Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, written in 1785, which describes his feelings about a 3 pence assessment, to pay for religious teachers... http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia...mp;r_1785.html

    Tis strange that I can find no reference to the federalist papers in the Constitution. Perhaps you would be so kind to direct me to them. If you can not do so then please do read the Constitution as it was written not as you would have it. I believe that the establishment clause speaks to the government establishing and becoming the head of a religion much as the King of England had done not the total separation of church and state as some of the time had wanted. Those that wanted the total separation lost the argument as can be seen in the decor of our courts and the fact that our politicians and courts swear on a holy book. The founders were smart enough to realize that the vast majority of the citizenry were of the Christian faith and most had come to the U.S. in order to have the freedom to practice that faith. So it would seem that the government chose to be tolerant of religions other than Christianity rather than ban all religion.

  23. #23
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788

    Post imported post

    gutshot wrote:
    1970camaroRS wrote:
    I respectfully must disagree with bible study as our founding fathers clearly say in the federalist papers that the church is to be kept separate from the state. It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom from religion. And so long as it's a publicly funded school...no religion can be indoctrinated. However, you will find there are a few high schools that still have trap and target shooting as an after school activity. I know because my brother, the Dean of Students and Burlington Edison High School teaches it.
    I must respectfully disagree with you. The founding fathers did not "clearly' say anything of the sort. The first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion.
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


    Read literally, this only prevents Congress (and Congress alone) from establishing a national religion.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote of a "wall of separation between church and state" in a (personal) letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, long after the Constitution was written and ratified. During the early years of the US it was common practice to have nationally proclaimed, christian based, holidays of fasting and thanksgiving. This was particularly true during the Washington and John Adams administrations. Both would qualify as a "founding father" in my book. When Jefferson became President he discontinued the practice. We have had a National Christmas Tree for years. Christmas and Thanksgiving are national holidays. It's only been in fairly recent years that the extreme left have gained enough influence to achieve the removal of the Ten Commandments and banning of prayer from schools. When I was in elementary school we started every day with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S Supreme Court starts each session with a prayer and a proclamation of God save the United States and this honorable court. The concept of separation of church and state is far from "clear" and its future uncertain.
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

    It says both. You can freely practice your religion, and the government will not establish one.



    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    The reason people always bring up the Federalist Papers and other documents written at the time by the people who were at the convention is that the Supreme Court DOES use these documents to try to put themselves in the mind set of the framers of the Constitution.

    The Court has, in the past, and will, I am sure, in the future, try to divine the mindset of the people who write laws. "What did Congress mean?" is something that you'll read a lot when you read court decisions.

    Although the exact phrase "Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the Constitution, the Court has ruled that it can be inferred from the 1st Amendment, and the writings of the original framers of the document. It is the logical endpoint of the establishment phrase. Anytime that a Government allows preferential treatment for one group over another, it is, in effect, establishing that group as the "accepted" class. That was the whole point of Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, that forcing everyone to support teachers of religion violated the establishment part...and I do think Madison had a bit more of an understanding of what the Constitution was meant to say than we do today....

    "The preservation o a free Gofvernment requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people." James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785
    http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia...mp;r_1785.html

    We can argue all day long over whether the left or the right is correct in the establishment and separation parts, but in the long run, we have what we have. For almost 100 years, slavery was the accepted norm in this nation. That didn't make it right. Heck, at one point, Dred Scott was good case law.

    We have moved on from the days when a group of superstitious men could hold the nation's hand and guide them along.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501

    Post imported post

    Going by your logic, the 1st Amendment would only protect newspapers and books, the second only flintlocks, etc. etc... Cultures change over the course of time, but the founding ideals don't. Not forcing religion on people is one of the founding principles of our nation, not just not forcing Catholicism, Baptism, Janism, Deism, etc., etc. It's not forcing religion, period. People have as much right to be agnostic/atheist, Wiccan, or what have you. To force an agnostic to participate, or pay for, a religious event is anathema to the ideal of the 1st Amendment.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •