Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Political Correctness Getting Out Of Hand
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SeniorGeek" data-source="post: 184792" data-attributes="member: 4823"><p>Responding to a post about a government agency within the U.S. that allows display of one religion's symbols while excluding all others,The issue here appears to be the word "law". This post appears to be saying that the First Amendment applies <u>only</u> to writing laws - as if government is prohibited from putting something in writing, but can <u>do</u> whatever it pleases. This is like saying that the Second Amendment applies only to government troops.</p><p></p><p>Any rules imposed by a government authority and/or enforced on the behalf of a government are laws. A government enacts a budget by passing a law, and any official administrative action is a law.</p><p></p><p>Even if this applied to written/criminal/civil laws only, the Fourteenth Amendment's equal-protection clause expands the meaning.</p><p>The court case is about a government that is denying equal religious expression. Maybe they are afraid of the power of a noodly appendage?</p><p></p><p>If there is a naked statue, it doesn't mean there is a law that everyone there has to get naked, or even believe in public nakedity. It really <u>is</u> a simplistic concept! ...is a website that points out that the ACLU was led by a communist until 1950. (IIRC, the IBT voted out their communist founders in the 1940s. Unless you count Ron Carey, who was supported by at least two openly Socialist organizations.) I got a good laugh out of the ACLU agenda item to teach "<em>Russian history since the communists took over</em>" in place of US History. Russia's history teaches us what is wrong with left-wing totalitarianism, just as Nazi party history teaches us what is wrong with right-wing totalitarianism.</p><p></p><p>Current events in totalitarian-capitalist Russia are bad enough, with hardline right-wingers arranging for assassinations of members of the press.</p><p></p><p>Of course, learning US History teaches us that we have not always done the right thing - but we strive to improve. Once I was able to take my eyes off the soft-porn advertising, I find that this guy's standards would also condemn the IBT: "Does the ACLU’s communist founding mean anything about what the ACLU is today? Well, if you plant a lemon seed would you expect the tree to produce peaches?"</p><p></p><p>Now, I am going to see what other advertisers they have....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SeniorGeek, post: 184792, member: 4823"] Responding to a post about a government agency within the U.S. that allows display of one religion's symbols while excluding all others,The issue here appears to be the word "law". This post appears to be saying that the First Amendment applies [U]only[/U] to writing laws - as if government is prohibited from putting something in writing, but can [U]do[/U] whatever it pleases. This is like saying that the Second Amendment applies only to government troops. Any rules imposed by a government authority and/or enforced on the behalf of a government are laws. A government enacts a budget by passing a law, and any official administrative action is a law. Even if this applied to written/criminal/civil laws only, the Fourteenth Amendment's equal-protection clause expands the meaning. The court case is about a government that is denying equal religious expression. Maybe they are afraid of the power of a noodly appendage? If there is a naked statue, it doesn't mean there is a law that everyone there has to get naked, or even believe in public nakedity. It really [U]is[/U] a simplistic concept! ...is a website that points out that the ACLU was led by a communist until 1950. (IIRC, the IBT voted out their communist founders in the 1940s. Unless you count Ron Carey, who was supported by at least two openly Socialist organizations.) I got a good laugh out of the ACLU agenda item to teach "[I]Russian history since the communists took over[/I]" in place of US History. Russia's history teaches us what is wrong with left-wing totalitarianism, just as Nazi party history teaches us what is wrong with right-wing totalitarianism. Current events in totalitarian-capitalist Russia are bad enough, with hardline right-wingers arranging for assassinations of members of the press. Of course, learning US History teaches us that we have not always done the right thing - but we strive to improve. Once I was able to take my eyes off the soft-porn advertising, I find that this guy's standards would also condemn the IBT: "Does the ACLU’s communist founding mean anything about what the ACLU is today? Well, if you plant a lemon seed would you expect the tree to produce peaches?" Now, I am going to see what other advertisers they have.... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Political Correctness Getting Out Of Hand
Top