City sells land in park to protect cross

[buckshot24]

You also have to wonder what the authors of the 14th amendment would think if they found out later courts "interpreted" it to say women have the right to murder their unborn babies.

 

[Vic]

No kidding. Question, do you think the authors of the first amendment thought they were limiting power of all governments within the United States or just what the congress they were setting up could do?

The authors of the Constitution knew that they were limiting only the powers of Congress at that time, while intending that such limitations would eventually apply to all governments within the United States. Their many letters and other writings are well-documented in this regard.

 

[Vic]

You also have to wonder what the authors of the 14th amendment would think if they found out later courts "interpreted" it to say women have the right to murder their unborn babies.

Abortion was legal at that time, so who knows?
Besides the issue of slavery, one of the driving forces behind the 14th amendment was the seizure by Southern states of property owned by Northern abolitionists prior to the war. The states had done so, for purely political reasons, using the argument that they were not bound by the Bill of Rights.

 

[buckshot24]

The authors of the Constitution knew that they were limiting only the powers of Congress at that time, while intending that such limitations would eventually apply to all governments within the United States. Their many letters and other writings are well-documented in this regard.

Such as? Jefferson approves of federal missionary funding to Indians and you think the "wall of separation" means what you think it means?

 

[buckshot24]

Abortion was legal at that time, so who knows?

Being legal and being a right of the federal government aren't the same thing.

 

[buckshot24]

And don't you find it interesting that the same man who wrote about a "wall of separation" prayed at his inaugurations and approved of federal funds for missionaries to Indians?

 

[waggy]

Jesus wept; are you serious?

yes he is.
This is a guy that defended the bible in saying to have sex slaves. His claim was that it says to take the women of the land you conquered as "wives".

not that it matters what you call them. sex slaves or conquered wives.

 

[buckshot24]

yes he is.
This is a guy that defended the bible in saying to have sex slaves. His claim was that it says to take the women of the land you conquered as "wives".

not that it matters what you call them. sex slaves or conquered wives.

Gramps, if you want to criticize the text, use the terms it uses. It makes no mention of "sex slaves".

 

[Vic]

And don't you find it interesting that the same man who wrote about a "wall of separation" prayed at his inaugurations and approved of federal funds for missionaries to Indians?

The use of government funds for missionaries was misguided, but I don't see anything wrong with the President expressing his personal faith, even in an official setting (that would be for the voters to decide).

 

[buckshot24]

The use of government funds for missionaries was misguided, but I don't see anything wrong with the President expressing his personal faith, even in an official setting (that would be for the voters to decide).

He obviously didn't intend the "wall of separation" in the way the atheists have. And if it is just "misguided" and should be left for the voters to decide, why do you have a problem with the sale of this "cross plot"? (totally assuming you do, so I could be wrong) Shouldn't the voters decide?

 

[Vic]

Being legal and being a right of the federal government aren't the same thing.

The federal government does not have any rights nor does it create any rights. The 4th amendment right to be secure in one's own person is inherent. Meaning that the government must act by force in order to take it away from someone. And if the government wishes to take such an action, it must adhere to the due process of law.

 

[Vic]

He obviously didn't intend the "wall of separation" in the way the atheists have. And if it is just "misguided" and should be left for the voters to decide, why do you have a problem with the sale of this "cross plot"? (totally assuming you do, so I could be wrong) Shouldn't the voters decide?

Have you ever read the wall of separation quote from Jefferson in its entire context? I suggest that you do so, in order to stop looking like such an idiot.

 

[buckshot24]

The federal government does not have any rights nor does it create any rights.

I see, before Roe v. Wade people had the right to abortion the decision merely recognized it.

 

[buckshot24]

Have you ever read the wall of separation quote from Jefferson in its entire context? I suggest that you do so, in order to stop looking like such an idiot.

Here it is.

"Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."

What am I missing?

 

[Texashiker]

If someone sues the city, this is an open and shut case. And, that's before you even start to consider that the city likely violated its own zoning ordinances for minimum lot size, etc., without going through the proper process to make the sale legal in that regard in the first place.

So you disagree with a republic form of government?

Elected by the people, for the people. Why so much hate for local government?

 

[Vic]

I see, before Roe v. Wade people had the right to abortion the decision merely recognized it.

Exactly.

One of the things that makes America great IMO is that the Confederates were better treated than any other similar group of traitorous rebels in any other nation in all of human history. Nothing IMO better exemplifies the liberties secured by our Constitution than the fact that traitor states have been allowed to fly their traitor flags over their state capitols 150 years after their rebel armies murdered some 600,000 Americans while fighting for the 'right' to own other human beings like cattle. But given the recent resurgence of neoconfederate ideology, and the rank putrid ugliness of its thought that one is being oppressed by not being allowed to oppress others, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about that.

 

[Bowfinger]

Why do you people lie about what I said? I didn't deny anything.

You reap what you sow. You consistently lie about others' comments.

(And what you said was that you doubted it, which is just a weaselly form of denying it. It gives you a dishonest out when you're cornered on one of your countless errors.)

 

[Vic]

What am I missing?

".. that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.. "

 

[Bowfinger]

Gramps, if you want to criticize the text, use the terms it uses. It makes no mention of "sex slaves".

A rose by any other name ...

Show us where your bible uses the term "homosexual".

 

[shortylickens]

Exactly.

One of the things that makes America great IMO is that the Confederates were better treated than any other similar group of traitorous rebels in any other nation in all of human history. Nothing IMO better exemplifies the liberties secured by our Constitution than the fact that traitor states have been allowed to fly their traitor flags over their state capitols 150 years after their rebel armies murdered some 600,000 Americans while fighting for the 'right' to own other human beings like cattle. But given the recent resurgence of neoconfederate ideology, and the rank putrid ugliness of its thought that one is being oppressed by not being allowed to oppress others, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about that.

The flag most people are flying today was NEVER the flag of the American Confederacy. I wish more people knew that. But whatever.

And its got nothing to do with traitor state or loyal state or any of that. You have the right to express yourself regardless of the circumstances.
You can show a swastika if you want. Yet Germany was never one of our states.
In fact you can show the swastika in any context you like. As a serious support of Nazism. As a joke. As an ironic political statement. As a religious statement. Or to somehow make money from it, like in film or television or maybe just to get people to pay attention to your small privately owned business.
For the same multiple reasons you are also allowed to display the American flag, the Mexican flag, Guatemalan flag, Nicaraguan Flag, OR, desecrate any of those flags for any reason too. Tear them, burn them, mutilate, fly upside down, or with an ironic logo.

Apparently you can also show your titties and lots of really awful body are too, its all freedom of expression. Got nothing to do with your past.

 

[Vic]

A rose by any other name ...

Show us where your bible uses the term "homosexual".

It can also be argued that the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality, but pederasty.
Not that it really matters when conservative Christians ignore everything else in Leviticus.

 

[Bowfinger]

The flag most people are flying today was NEVER the flag of the American Confederacy. I wish more people knew that. But whatever.

And its got nothing to do with traitor state or loyal state or any of that. You have the right to express yourself regardless of the circumstances.
You can show a swastika if you want. Yet Germany was never one of our states.
In fact you can show the swastika in any context you like. As a serious support of Nazism. As a joke. As an ironic political statement. As a religious statement. Or to somehow make money from it, like in film or television or maybe just to get people to pay attention to your small privately owned business.
For the same multiple reasons you are also allowed to display the American flag, the Mexican flag, Guatemalan flag, Nicaraguan Flag, OR, desecrate any of those flags for any reason too. Tear them, burn them, mutilate, fly upside down, or with an ironic logo.

Apparently you can also show your titties and lots of really awful body are too, its all freedom of expression. Got nothing to do with your past.

You're being a bit pedantic on the flag, but it seems to me that was Vic's point. It's very unusual for the people of a conquered state to be granted the same full rights as the victor. Usually, such displays would be aggressively suppressed. At least that's how I understood him.

 

[Vic]

The flag most people are flying today was NEVER the flag of the American Confederacy. I wish more people knew that. But whatever.

And its got nothing to do with traitor state or loyal state or any of that. You have the right to express yourself regardless of the circumstances.
You can show a swastika if you want. Yet Germany was never one of our states.
In fact you can show the swastika in any context you like. As a serious support of Nazism. As a joke. As an ironic political statement. As a religious statement. Or to somehow make money from it, like in film or television or maybe just to get people to pay attention to your small privately owned business.
For the same multiple reasons you are also allowed to display the American flag, the Mexican flag, Guatemalan flag, Nicaraguan Flag, OR, desecrate any of those flags for any reason too. Tear them, burn them, mutilate, fly upside down, or with an ironic logo.

Apparently you can also show your titties and lots of really awful body are too, its all freedom of expression. Got nothing to do with your past.

The Confederacy had 3 official flags, the final 2 of which incorporated the Southern Cross as their canton.

Like I said, it's one of the things that makes America great. Show me another country like it.

 

[Vic]

You're being a bit pedantic on the flag, but it seems to me that was Vic's point. It's very unusual for the people of a conquered state to be granted the same full rights as the victor. Usually, such displays would be aggressively suppressed. At least that's how I understood him.

That's exactly what I meant.

 

[Bowfinger]

It can also be argued that the Bible doesn't actually condemn homosexuality, but pederasty.
Not that it really matters when conservative Christians ignore everything else in Leviticus.

Indeed. At one point in my life, I was a fundamentalist (i.e., evangelical) Christian. The more I studied the Bible, the more I realized my fellow "Christians" were kidding themselves about accepting it literally. They instead cherry-picked the parts they liked, ignored the parts they didn't, and freely invented misinterpretations to support whatever beliefs they already held. It's one of the things that drove me away from those beliefs.

The Christian Bible is a fine story book, with many inspirational tales and some fine guidelines for life, but it isn't the literal word of God. It is rife with contradictions, the Old Testament is often primitive and barbaric, and most of it is lifted from other, earlier religions and folklore. It may have been inspired by God, but it is also tainted by the fallible humans who retold its stories for generations, then eventually recorded and translated them into written form.