I'm 63 and I'm Tired

Cato is right in that those decisions are not in line with the Constitution regardless of what a judge has said

.

But it is the Courts, not Cato, that the Constitution appoints to settle questions of the law and of the Constitution.

And your point is? The fact that Cato disagrees with a particular decision does not mean he wants the government to force his religious views on others.

I for one believe in a strong separation of church and state, particularly in schools and do not want prayer at functions such as graduations or during school sponsored events but I have no problem with a group of students getting together and participating in open prayer in or during school.

I also have the ability to reason and understand and I've read enough about separation of church and state to know the Supreme Court got it wrong. Anyone with half a brain can easily see that the the writing of the 1st Amendment does not provide the foundation for the decision the court arrived at.

You demand that christainity be kept in the closet ...................

I make no such demand. On the contrary, I demand that Christianity and any other religions not based in natural law be allowed to stand on their own feet without the intereference either from or toward government.

........................... but I have no problem with a group of students getting together and participating in open prayer in or during school.

Neither I nor anyone I know has a problem with this. But if it scheduled by, prescribed by or otherwise encouraged by school officials at any level then I do have a problem with it. Too, calling it "voluntary" is often- not always, but often- simply CYA for school officials who get caught promoting prayers and select scripture readings to captive students who would otherwise not give a tinker's damn about such religious exercises.

Otherwise encouraged would make you wrong. Just as a coach has the right to "encourage" kids to participate in football or basketball, a teacher or other school officials have the right to not only be involved but lead groups that involve religion up to and including "encouraging" students to participate.

And none of your answers thus far back up your statement that Cato wishes for the government to enforce his religious beliefs.

I disagree.

Either way, football and basketball are not religion- however passionately WVU and Marshall cheer for their respective teams notwithstanding.

ziggy wrote:I disagree.

Either way, football and basketball are not religion- however passionately WVU and Marshall cheer for their respective teams notwithstanding.

And the free exercise of football or basketball are not guranteed by the first Amendment. You can disagree if you like, you are still wrong.

As for the CYA part, more times then not parents are outraged because their child made a decision that they knew nothing about because they did not care enough to be involved in their childs education.

ziggy wrote:Cato is mostly pissed that he cannot use the government to promote his religion, and that he cannot discriminate without challenge against homosexuals in providing public accomodations to the general public.

And throught all of your flawed and failed arguments, you have yet to prove that Cato desires the governemt promote his religion or that he wishes to discriminate against homosexuals without challenge.

Seems to me you either need to providse something of substance besides your opinion or you owe Cato an apology.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:I do not chose to ignore those contexts- which show, among other things, that the Founders did not agree on what the U.S.A. should be and what its Constitution ought to say. Indeed, before the Constitution was written, some were not even agreed that a Constitutional Republic was the form of government they most favored.

So what other forms were favored and by whom?

No, it is not a missed question. I have not found what I thought I had read on that some time ago. So I concede that statement as an erroneous one. While the Founders did not agree on some details of what the new Constitutional Republic should look like, it appears that they did agree that a Constitutional Republic was the model they wanted for the U.S. of A. Me bad on this one.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Cato is mostly pissed that he cannot use the government to promote his religion, and that he cannot discriminate without challenge against homosexuals in providing public accomodations to the general public.

And throught all of your flawed and failed arguments, you have yet to prove that Cato desires the governemt promote his religion or that he wishes to discriminate against homosexuals without challenge.

Seems to me you either need to providse something of substance besides your opinion or you owe Cato an apology.

Cato's own posts are the substance, the proof, the blood on his hands. If you don't see that, then we disagree on the meaning of Cato's words.

As to an apology, Cato, I am sorry that you are so blinded by your prejudices and your blind religious faith that you would destroy what the Founders created in pursuit of your utopian agenda of judges without agendas, people without natural human flaws, and universal morality.

Ziggy

ziggy wrote:No, it is not a missed question. I have not found what I thought I had read on that some time ago. So I concede that statement as an erroneous one. While the Founders did not agree on some details of what the new Constitutional Republic should look like, it appears that they did agree that a Constitutional Republic was the model they wanted for the U.S. of A. Me bad on this one.

Actually, you were right.

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina proposed a treaty among the 13 colonies with a bicameral legislature made up of a Senate and a House of Delegates. The House would have one member for every 1,000 residents and would select the Senate with both houses electing a President and his cabinet and serve as the last court of appeals.

Virginia proposed what became a large state plan where representation was based on population

The New Jersey plan was meant to fix the Articles of Confederation and continue under that government and became known as a small state plan as it called for equal representation for each state.

Alexander Hamilton actually wanted a Monarchy.

It was Connecticut that proposed a compromise of the VA and NJ plans with Delegate Roger Sherman calling for one house to be based on population while the second had equal representation.

Contrary to what some would say, no one suggested a communist or socialist style government.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:Cato is mostly pissed that he cannot use the government to promote his religion, and that he cannot discriminate without challenge against homosexuals in providing public accomodations to the general public.

And throught all of your flawed and failed arguments, you have yet to prove that Cato desires the governemt promote his religion or that he wishes to discriminate against homosexuals without challenge.

Seems to me you either need to providse something of substance besides your opinion or you owe Cato an apology.

Cato's own posts are the substance, the proof, the blood on his hands. If you don't see that, then we disagree on the meaning of Cato's words.

And on that I'm going to bed so if you choose to copy and paste a handful of Jefferson quotes to get "on a roll" it will be without rebuttal-at least for the time being.

As to an apology, Cato, I am sorry that you are so blinded by your prejudices and your blind religious faith that you would destroy what the Founders created in pursuit of your utopian agenda of judges without agendas, people without natural human flaws, and universal morality.

Ziggy

In all honesty and I'm certainly not trying to be a braggard or boastful, but I belive that other then perhaps Jimmy, I am the only one here that is not "blinded by prejudices" and I certainly don't have a blind religious faith.

There is not one subject that I'm not willing to consider anothers opinion of and given that I've reversed and/or revised my view and/or opinion on many issues over the years including the use of military forces, the middle east, legalization of marijuana and my religious beliefs, you are (once again) wrong.

You read Cato's post and take his insults personal and when combined with your distorted views on christianity and religion, you see what you want to see. But as you often point out, just because you see it that way does not make it so.

And on that, I'm going to bed. If you choose to get "on a roll" by copying and posting Jefferson quotes, it will be without rebuttal...for the time being.

Good night.

Aaron wrote:In all honesty and I'm certainly not trying to be a braggard or boastful, but I belive that other then perhaps Jimmy, I am the only one here that is not "blinded by prejudices" and I certainly don't have a blind religious faith.

I agree with that more than you might think- more than 50 percent, maybe 75-90 percent. You enjoy being the devil's advocate- and though I argue details with you, I do not fault you for that.

There is not one subject that I'm not willing to consider anothers opinion of and given that I've reversed and/or revised my view and/or opinion on many issues over the years including the use of military forces, the middle east, legalization of marijuana and my religious beliefs, you are (once again) wrong.

Again, I mostly agree. So what am I wrong about in this instance- which is not to suggest that I am not often wrong. Indeed, I am often wrong- too wrong for my own comfort, sometimes.

You read Cato's post and take his insults personal and when combined with your distorted views on christianity and religion, you see what you want to see.

Well, I think Cato wants me to take his insults personal. After all, he is "sick and tired" of people like me, or so he says.

But as you often point out, just because you see it that way does not make it so.

I appreciate that you have taken remembrence of that. And I mean it. Like the "real" Ziggy, I do not take life and myself all that seriously. But I like the back and forth- the word games, if you please.

Contrary to what some would say, no one suggested a communist or socialist style government.

True, but somehow I was thinking that some wanted a more purely democratic state. I may have been wrong about that.

For what it's worth, I believe that the Constitutional Republic is the best model of government. However, I believe that it (USA government) has become corrupted- though not in the same ways that Cato suggests that it has. But, lest we have the generational bloodbath that Jefferson suggested might be cleansing, it is inevitable that a Constitutional republic will eventually become corrupted by one influence or another- or by several influences simultaneously.

I am not ready to trash this one yet. But by the time my grandchildren are my age, they might be.

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Would he refuse to rent to an unmarried heterosexual couple?

Can't you read? I have said it more than enough times. I will not rent to a homosexual couple, adulterous couple, or unmarried couple. The latter two being hetrosexual.

Is this a religious issue for you? Do couples married in civil ceremonies meet your criterea? The Loyd and I were married by my friend, Joe, a RI judge. I can read, I just can't remember, btw.

Aaron wrote:And your point is? The fact that Cato disagrees with a particular decision does not mean he wants the government to force his religious views on others.

I for one believe in a strong separation of church and state, particularly in schools and do not want prayer at functions such as graduations or during school sponsored events but I have no problem with a group of students getting together and participating in open prayer in or during school.

I also have the ability to reason and understand and I've read enough about separation of church and state to know the Supreme Court got it wrong. Anyone with half a brain can easily see that the the writing of the 1st Amendment does not provide the foundation for the decision the court arrived at.

What about student lead prayer? At Kate's graduation one of her classmates said a little prayer, complete with "in Jesus's name, amen".

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:In all honesty and I'm certainly not trying to be a braggart or boastful, but I believe that other then perhaps Jimmy, I am the only one here that is not "blinded by prejudices" and I certainly don't have a blind religious faith.

I agree with that more than you might think- more than 50 percent, maybe 75-90 percent. You enjoy being the devil's advocate- and though I argue details with you, I do not fault you for that.

It's the easiest way to get to the bottom of what one thinks...and to question what I think. Believe it or not, when I read another opinion, I use it to question my own views.

ziggy wrote:

There is not one subject that I'm not willing to consider anothers opinion of and given that I've reversed and/or revised my view and/or opinion on many issues over the years including the use of military forces, the middle east, legalization of marijuana and my religious beliefs, you are (once again) wrong.

Again, I mostly agree. So what am I wrong about in this instance- which is not to suggest that I am not often wrong. Indeed, I am often wrong- too wrong for my own comfort, sometimes.

In that Cato wants the Government to force his religious beliefs on others, or that he wishes to discriminate. I think Cato wants to live and let live. And that he really HATES entitlement programs.

ziggy wrote:

You read Cato's post and take his insults personal and when combined with your distorted views on christianity and religion, you see what you want to see.

Well, I think Cato wants me to take his insults personal. After all, he is "sick and tired" of people like me, or so he says.

Perhaps, perhaps not. He is not the most tactful person in the world but at least you know where you stand with him.

ziggy wrote:

But as you often point out, just because you see it that way does not make it so.

I appreciate that you have taken remembrence of that. And I mean it. Like the "real" Ziggy, I do not take life and myself all that seriously. But I like the back and forth- the word games, if you please.

I don't mind the back and forth although the word games can sometimes get tiresome, which lead to things sometimes being said that should not be said. I doubt I'm alone in that respect.

ziggy wrote:

Contrary to what some would say, no one suggested a communist or socialist style government.

True, but somehow I was thinking that some wanted a more purely democratic state. I may have been wrong about that.

For what it's worth, I believe that the Constitutional Republic is the best model of government. However, I believe that it (USA government) has become corrupted- though not in the same ways that Cato suggests that it has. But, lest we have the generational bloodbath that Jefferson suggested might be cleansing, it is inevitable that a Constitutional republic will eventually become corrupted by one influence or another- or by several influences simultaneously.

I am not ready to trash this one yet. But by the time my grandchildren are my age, they might be.

I believe the South Carolina plan called for a more pure democracy in which voters approved many items through a popular vote. If it wasn't that plan, there was discussion of it. I know I've read it somewhere but I'm just not sure where.

And I agree, I'm not ready to trash this one but I do believe we really need to find some leaders that understand states have rights, our founding fathers feared of becoming what our government is becoming and they return it to what was intended 200 years ago.

Arizona is a test case for this. If they are forced to bear the burden of immigration simply because the federal government does not want to lose a voting block can be a catastrophic step in the wrong direction.

Stephanie wrote:

Aaron wrote:And your point is? The fact that Cato disagrees with a particular decision does not mean he wants the government to force his religious views on others.

I for one believe in a strong separation of church and state, particularly in schools and do not want prayer at functions such as graduations or during school sponsored events but I have no problem with a group of students getting together and participating in open prayer in or during school.

I also have the ability to reason and understand and I've read enough about separation of church and state to know the Supreme Court got it wrong. Anyone with half a brain can easily see that the the writing of the 1st Amendment does not provide the foundation for the decision the court arrived at.

What about student lead prayer? At Kate's graduation one of her classmates said a little prayer, complete with "in Jesus's name, amen".

No, I have a problem with this. I came very close to walking out of Poca's graduation this year for that very reason. It is an event that students cannot simply choose to not take part of as leaving the auditorium is not a true option, nor should they have to.

What I would truly love to see in this instance is that other students insist on saying prayers in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions.

Yeah, I wasn't too happy with it either. However, I didn't find it nearly as objectionable as the football game I attended at Man HS where the announcer did it at the beginning of the game.

Stephanie wrote:

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Would he refuse to rent to an unmarried heterosexual couple?

Can't you read? I have said it more than enough times. I will not rent to a homosexual couple, adulterous couple, or unmarried couple. The latter two being hetrosexual.

Is this a religious issue for you? Do couples married in civil ceremonies meet your criterea? The Loyd and I were married by my friend, Joe, a RI judge. I can read, I just can't remember, btw.

I believe that marriage is an institution established by God. I believe it is between a man and woman, only. I believe that marriage is for life, through think and thin, better worse, in sickness, health, until death do you part. As such no matter whether or not the couple is a christain couple or whether they are atheists, when they take the marriage vows, in a church or in front of a Justice of the Peace, a man and woman are married. They are bound to each other just as they have pledged. That being said I, personally, will not in anyway shape or form be involed or do anything that indicates I personally approve of a relationship out side of the bounds I have just described.

I know others believe differently, which they are welsome to do. I have chose to believe this way. It was and remains my choice and I will live my life accordingly. I do not force it on others, neither do I run to the government to enact laws to force my view of marriage on others. Though I believe the way I do, I do not support the government on any level defining marriage. Sofar as I'm concerned the only roles government need play in the marriage issue is to maintain records of marriages and administer the vows if called upon to do so.

I have been accused as alot of things on this board because of the way I believe. TerryRC and Ziggy says that I am forcing my views on others by not renting to them. They point the anti-discrimination LAWS. Ziggy seem to indicate I didn't own my property and that the state had every right to force my to use my property in a manner I didn't agree with.

Ziggy, is correct one one point, I am sick and tired of people forcing their view fo the world on me. I want simply to be left alone and to live in peace. I want to live my life as I have determined. Yes, Ziggy is also right I have resorted to personal insult. I don't don't much care for people like Ziggy or Terry or others, who think they know what is best for me. To me they are egotistic idiots who sing liberty, but their actions are anything but.

You Stephanie, are no better. If you believed in liberty, whether you liked my views or not you would be defending the principle of my liberty to live my life as I see fit and use my property as I determine. Sometimes you seem to but sometimes, instead of defending the liberty we are suppose to have, yet no longer do, you waste your time and mine by attacking the beliefs i live my life by.

You Stephanie, are no better. If you believed in liberty, whether you liked my views or not you would be defending the principle of my liberty to live my life as I see fit and use my property as I determine. Sometimes you seem to but sometimes, instead of defending the liberty we are suppose to have, yet no longer do, you waste your time and mine by attacking the beliefs i live my life by.

I do defend your right to live your life as you wish, and I have done so here because I believe in individual liberty.

I'm encouraging you to treat others with kindness and to respect their rights to live their lives in peace. What sexual activities consenting adults you are not intimately involved with participate in behind closed doors is none of your business. Minding your business and respecting the privacy and liberty of others is not a sign of approval.

Stephanie wrote:

You Stephanie, are no better. If you believed in liberty, whether you liked my views or not you would be defending the principle of my liberty to live my life as I see fit and use my property as I determine. Sometimes you seem to but sometimes, instead of defending the liberty we are suppose to have, yet no longer do, you waste your time and mine by attacking the beliefs i live my life by.

I do defend your right to live your life as you wish, and I have done so here because I believe in individual liberty.

I'm encouraging you to treat others with kindness and to respect their rights to live their lives in peace. What sexual activities consenting adults you are not intimately involved with participate in behind closed doors is none of your business. Minding your business and respecting the privacy and liberty of others is not a sign of approval.

Stepthanie, I don't approve of their behavior. That doesn't mean I'm unkind. It means I do not wish to be in any way a contributor to thier behavior. The couple that leave next door to me were unmarried when they moved in. They didn't marry for several months after the moved in. Was I unkind to them? No. Did I ever snub them? No. I like the both of them very much. I've known them for several years and they are good people. They are just doing an activity to which I do not condone.

Stephanie kindness is not just having the warm fuzzies for someone. It is far deeper and far more than overlooking or ignoring issues that goes against your principles. It is being willing to stand what you believe and being willing to say to another you don't approve of what they do and why.

Where I work we had a person working for us. He was a good person, however, he had some very bad habits. They included drinking and driving. One day as we were driving to our job location he got to complaining about the cost of being arrested for DUI. I told him he wouldn't that expense, if he didn't drink and drive and he would be better off if he would just quit his drinking because of other health reasons. He got mad as hell at me for a couple of hours. He died 6 months or so later with a form of cancer of the mouth and tonsils. He was a good person, who had never had a chinaman's chance. He was a veteran also. He knew where I stood, and never once crossed that boundry. He died my friend. I respected him and he respected me and my views.