|
Replies: 74
| visibility 1
|
110%er [9050]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 13813
Joined: 7/1/02
|
Religion vs. "The State".....
Apr 16, 2014, 12:00 PM
|
|
There's a lot of confusion as to what separation of church and state really means. I know an attorney who's big on constitutional law, and he said it's simply that one religion can't be imposed on everyone or anyone that doesn't want to be involved. The government can't choose one religion over another.
As for the current discussion about state schools and football teams,as long as coaches aren't forcing or intimidating anyone regarding a particular religious direction there should be no problem. It's fine as long as a player wants to be involved, whether they're Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. And the coaches have to be receptive to all religions involved, not just their own.
I don't think DS is forcing anything on any of his players or doing anything improper. He's free to express his religious views - nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [93614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95389
Joined: 12/25/09
|
The lawyer is right.
Apr 16, 2014, 12:04 PM
|
|
You don't have to be a lawyer to read and understand what the founding fathers wrote. It's plain English not legal speak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3326
Joined: 8/23/02
|
But you DO have to be a lawyer to read the BOR and conclude
Apr 16, 2014, 1:21 PM
|
|
that a prohibition on illegal search and seizure means a woman can kill her unborn baby, and that the right to keep and bear arms means you can make it illegal in the city if you want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: But you DO have to be a lawyer to read the BOR and conclude
Apr 16, 2014, 7:21 PM
|
|
You are also forgetting the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Meaning, if the State of New York wants to enact insanely strict firearm laws and enable abortion, then the State of New York can impose those laws upon itself. They don't apply to South Carolina, Connecticut, Colorado, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10900
Joined: 9/17/07
|
Closed-mindedness under the guise of open-mindedness.
Apr 16, 2014, 12:04 PM
|
|
That's what we are dealing with here. People who are very receptive of their own ideology. If God doesn't exist, why worry about those who do or do not believe in Him as it all ends in a pile of decay. Just choose to believe or not PERSONALLY and express/defend your position openly. Don't try and litigate a comfort bubble around yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15682
Joined: 10/10/02
|
Because Atheism has become a religion in and of itself.
Apr 16, 2014, 1:23 PM
|
|
It demands tolerance of it's existence yet grants none of the same to any other religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
Re: Religion vs. "The State".....
Apr 16, 2014, 12:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [61573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39585
Joined: 12/16/01
|
Better Richard Dawkins than Stephen Hawking.***
Apr 16, 2014, 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: Religion vs. "The State".....
Apr 16, 2014, 12:07 PM
|
|
"Separation of Church and State" is located no where in the Consitution. The 1st amendment simply states congress can make no law establishing religion.
This has since morphed (by the supreme court) into any govt entity whether it be federal, state or local. Basically, the supreme court decided on its own what it wanted the first amendment to say instead of an amendment being made to clarify it. This is what is called Judicial Review where justices are legislating from the bench and it's a travesty in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96811]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29206
Joined: 9/14/05
|
^^^SO MUCH THIS***
Apr 16, 2014, 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
that's why we have lawyers and judges....
Apr 16, 2014, 12:10 PM
[ in reply to Re: Religion vs. "The State"..... ] |
|
to tell us what plain English really means. Some people with a lot of letters behind their name need to tell us that it means you can't talk about Jesus or pray to him in public so it must be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
Re: that's why we have lawyers and judges....
Apr 16, 2014, 12:50 PM
|
|
Why would a believer praying to Jesus in public? I'm pretty sure Jesus told us not to do that (Matthew 6:6).
I can ignore what the lawyers and judges say, but I can't really ignore what JC has to say...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96811]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29206
Joined: 9/14/05
|
Way to take the Bible out of context. He wasn't saying NOT
Apr 16, 2014, 1:19 PM
|
|
to pray in public. He was addressing people who were praying (probably very loudly) in order to call attention to how religious they were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
yep....
Apr 16, 2014, 1:52 PM
|
|
when he said that he was speaking to the pharisees and their false piety and hypocrisy. If you are being "religious" to simply make yourself look "good" then your motives are misplaced. That is what "JC" was talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
No, that comes straight from the Sermon on the mount
Apr 16, 2014, 3:34 PM
|
|
It wasn't directed only to Pharisees. But your second statement is true. I think we both agree on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96811]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29206
Joined: 9/14/05
|
He was definitely addressing hypocrisy in the Sermon on the
Apr 16, 2014, 3:54 PM
|
|
Mount...
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [26353]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13702
Joined: 8/18/13
|
Well put
Apr 16, 2014, 12:13 PM
[ in reply to Re: Religion vs. "The State"..... ] |
|
If people knew their history better they would realize where this was stemming from, even going back to the reasons the Pilgrims came to America, to get away from a State established church. Which is what our founding fathers wanted to prevent, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: So who cares what the constitution says!?
Apr 16, 2014, 12:20 PM
|
|
That quote can be attributed to Justice Republican John Roberts as well...Thanks for ObamaCare you neocon....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [26353]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13702
Joined: 8/18/13
|
FIRE JOHN ROBERTS!!***
Apr 16, 2014, 12:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [453]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 865
Joined: 2/9/99
|
Re: Religion vs. "The State".....
Apr 16, 2014, 12:23 PM
[ in reply to Re: Religion vs. "The State"..... ] |
|
The phrase "separation of church and state" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson in a letter referencing the first amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm
That being said, I don't think the football program has any issues unless there is some type of coercion or insinuation that players must take part in religious activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9050]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 13813
Joined: 7/1/02
|
My attorney friend's point is that it's now recognized....
Apr 16, 2014, 12:26 PM
[ in reply to Re: Religion vs. "The State"..... ] |
|
that government can't force or prefer religion over another - whether it's constitutional or court-ruling based is not the question.
I will agree with you that the courts in so many cases have gone from strict interpretation of the constitution to "making" laws based on how they prefer to decide an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 12:29 PM
[ in reply to Re: Religion vs. "The State"..... ] |
|
The fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution doesn't mean that phrase isn't important. It was a phrase coined by one of the framers of the constitution, Thomas Jefferson. And when the Supreme Court - or any other court for that matter - evaluates actions against the content of the first amendment, they will consider the intent behind the language of the first amendment.
This approach to legal analysis has been around since before our nation was founded, and this is how Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Scalia and so many other self proclaimed "strict constructionists" frequently arrive at their decisions on any legal question - by looking closely at the history of why the of the statute or constitution was included, so that they can then analyze how that language should apply to the facts of the case.
So no, your issue isn't with the Supreme Court, your issue should be with Thomas Jefferson.
And Judicial Review is not legislating from the bench, it's a completely different concept. Stick to what you know, which is apparently not the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 2:23 PM
|
|
"The fact that the phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution doesn't mean that phrase isn't important."
Doesn't mean it is either. I agree that it is but you can't say it is until it is said to be in the Constitution.
"And when the Supreme Court - or any other court for that matter - evaluates actions against the content of the first amendment, they will consider the intent behind the language of the first amendment."
And this is unconstitutional. The supreme court was delegated to rule on the constitutionality of laws according to what the constitution specifically says. It does not say that SCOTUS should debate what the framers may have meant.
"This approach to legal analysis has been around since before our nation was founded, and this is how Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Scalia and so many other self proclaimed "strict constructionists" frequently arrive at their decisions on any legal question - by looking closely at the history of why the of the statute or constitution was included, so that they can then analyze how that language should apply to the facts of the case."
Again, this is unconstitutional in itself. It is legislating from the bench. This method would allow The SCOTUS to basically say "The 2nd amendment means that unicorns can carry guns and not citizens", they rule on it and we can do nothing about it. That is NOT what the constitution says. It delegates to them to rule according to what it says not what the founders may have meant, which can be debated to infinity.
"So no, your issue isn't with the Supreme Court, your issue should be with Thomas Jefferson."
Incorrect. One man cannot interpret the constitution and using that interpretation of one man is unconstitutional even though I agree with it. As said above, they are only delegated to rule as it says in the text not meanings.
"And Judicial Review is not legislating from the bench, it's a completely different concept. Stick to what you know, which is apparently not the law. "
It most certainly is. I know constitution law. I've studied it immensely. You need to read the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
^^^ read the wikipedia entry on the constitution ^^^
Apr 16, 2014, 3:06 PM
|
|
But it's cool if you also slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That counts, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
^^^in other words, "I have nothing"^^^^***
Apr 16, 2014, 3:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
I got Marbury v. Madison and McCollough v. Maryland
Apr 16, 2014, 3:49 PM
|
|
and every case handed down since in which the Supremes have granted cert becuase there was a constitutional issue that needed interpretation. What authority can you possibly cite for your proposition? Seriously - I want to know about them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
Also, Article III, which is gives the SCOTUS the very power
Apr 16, 2014, 3:50 PM
|
|
you claim it doesn't have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: Also, Article III, which is gives the SCOTUS the very power
Apr 16, 2014, 3:53 PM
|
|
Let's see you quote that specific delegation. Again, I'll hang up and listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
How 'bout this
Apr 16, 2014, 3:59 PM
|
|
You file suit saying the court doesn't have the authority. I'll file a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, and we'll see who wins. I'll even let you pick jurisdiction.
You know what? I won't even have to show up - your case will be dismissed sua sponte. I've seen it happen. But that's cool - keep arguing the court doesn't have the right to interpret the constiution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: How 'bout this
Apr 16, 2014, 4:04 PM
|
|
Of course it will be dismissed. Still doesn't make it constitutional.
If it were constitutional you would have no problem showing me the exact text that delegates the power and you yet have.
Your argument is like saying "The drug war is constitutional because you will be arrested". THAT DOESN'T MAKES IT CONSTITUTIONAL. There are plenty of laws that have been ruled constitutional that are not constitutional. SCOTUS and the interstate commerce clause are the biggest failures that our framers made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Crickets....***
Apr 16, 2014, 4:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
Then here's what you can do:
Apr 16, 2014, 6:42 PM
[ in reply to Re: How 'bout this ] |
|
Start a campaign to amend the constitution. That is your ONLY remedy. Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: Then here's what you can do:
Apr 16, 2014, 7:48 PM
|
|
Wait. I'm suppose to start a campaigne to amend the constitution to stop our fed govt judicial branch from amending it without an amendment?
But you know you're right. That's probably the only way to stop it and that's sad. But it sounds like you are now agreeing that I am right. That have no power to legally do so. They just do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: I got Marbury v. Madison and McCollough v. Maryland
Apr 16, 2014, 3:52 PM
[ in reply to I got Marbury v. Madison and McCollough v. Maryland ] |
|
Ok now show me in the constitution where it gives SCOTUS the ability to interject meaning or expand on the meaning of the constitution? I'll hang up and listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [70]
TigerPulse: 20%
Posts: 368
Joined: 9/21/12
|
Re: I got Marbury v. Madison and McCollough v. Maryland
Apr 16, 2014, 6:49 PM
|
|
based on your strict interpretation the air force is also unconstitutional. The government can ONLY establish an army and navy according to you... get rid of the air force!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: I got Marbury v. Madison and McCollough v. Maryland
Apr 16, 2014, 7:53 PM
|
|
As a matter of fact the Air Force was part of the army for many years. What you don't take into consideration is that an army can be any force including an Air Force. They didn't need to call them different when they put troops on horseback or train or tank or whatever. An army is an army regardless of how you branch it or weapons you give them. This is an absurd and weak argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [51]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47
Joined: 10/17/08
|
Re: One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 5:22 PM
[ in reply to One small point ] |
|
Nice try, but wrong--Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written. His opinion was expressed in the Federalist Papers.
At the time of the founding of our country, the Anglican Church was the the official religion for most of the states. Jefferson was an outspoken Christian--not a deist---and wanted to avoid the problem of the "state" church , presumptively due to the politicization of the church.
Stick with the legalese cause you don't know history
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 5:29 PM
|
|
I wasn't even going to bring up the fact that Madison was the framer. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt with "one of the framers"
However, there are many writings of Jefferson that show he leaned toward a deists. Of course some show him leaning towards Christianity. Regardless, he wasn't openly Christian as no one actually knows what he was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [51]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47
Joined: 10/17/08
|
Re: One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 5:35 PM
|
|
There is pretty good evidence that he contributed to Bible societies of the time. If that ain't evidence of belief in Christ I m gonna need a little help with logic...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 5:44 PM
|
|
Understood, but many believe he may have converted to deism while at William and Mary. In one quote he specifically says he's a Unitarian which would mean he doesn't believe in the Trinity, only a one-God being. He certainly followed the principles of Jesus' teachings as he states several times in letters, but that doesn't mean he believed that Jesus was the messiah like we do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 7:58 PM
[ in reply to Re: One small point ] |
|
Ever heard of the Jefferson Bible? He went through the Bible and cut out all the stuff he found logically objectionable - miracles, plagues from God, and the like. He was pretty obviously a deist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 8:04 PM
|
|
I never found any evidence that it even exists or was worked on. Read about it though. There certainly are writings of his expressing his beig skeptical of biblical "superstitions" and miracles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19576]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 17247
Joined: 7/25/07
|
Re: One small point
Apr 16, 2014, 5:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: One small point ] |
|
In particular:
"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [658]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 664
Joined: 12/7/11
|
2nd amendmendment has been morphed
Apr 16, 2014, 12:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: Religion vs. "The State"..... ] |
|
No where does it say "Citizens can personally own arms". So be careful you are not picking and choosing constitutional interpretations on your personal bias.
If the staff were also handing out literature for non-believers and other religions it would be fair. The complaint is that it is one religious belief which happens to fairly common in the State of South Carolina.
They have no business handing out religious materials to make better people.
Materials about being a better person in general would be fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96811]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29206
Joined: 9/14/05
|
So can you tell us what "the right of the people to keep and
Apr 16, 2014, 12:41 PM
|
|
bear arms shall not be infringed" means?
TIA in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [658]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 664
Joined: 12/7/11
|
Re: So can you tell us what "the right of the people to keep and
Apr 16, 2014, 12:49 PM
|
|
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What does the militia portion of the single sentence mean then? I am not a lawyer but the primary subject of the sentence is about the militia and the freedom of the state. All I am arguing is that this in not clear and I would love to hear founding father's interpretations of what this means.
If it were personal gun ownership it should have read solely:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96811]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29206
Joined: 9/14/05
|
It's saying the Militia should be REGULATED
Apr 16, 2014, 1:05 PM
|
|
Our right to bear arms helps keep the Militia regulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [313]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/6/06
|
Re: It's saying the Militia should be REGULATED
Apr 16, 2014, 1:45 PM
|
|
You don't regulate a militia by giving militia members guns. They say well-regulated because they are distinguishing a competent militia from a poorly regulated mob of violent citizens. The founding fathers had some notable issues with mob violence under the Articles of Confederation. See Shays' Rebellion, for one example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [96811]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 29206
Joined: 9/14/05
|
You regulate a Militia by giving CITIZENS guns.
Apr 16, 2014, 1:50 PM
|
|
It's been a while since I studied this in school, but pretty sure this was the original intent of this section of the Constitution.
One way to keep the Federal government from becoming a "police state" is to have armed citizens. The founding fathers were trying to get away from the federal government having absolute ruling power -- they actually wanted the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [313]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/6/06
|
Re: You regulate a Militia by giving CITIZENS guns.
Apr 16, 2014, 2:15 PM
|
|
Yeah, not so much. The founding fathers were pretty afraid of the citizens. I've mentioned Shays' rebellion, but there's also things in the constitution like the electoral college and the indirect election of senators which demonstrate their general contempt for pure democracy.
Furthermore, the Constitution was an attempt to correct the relative lack of federal power under the Articles of Confederation.
As to the intent of the 2nd Amendment, my understanding is that this was a compromise to the anti-federalists by way of ensuring them that the federal government would not disarm state militias. The founders likely had no doubt that people had a right to posses weapons to defend themselves, and it was unlikely that anyone thought it necessary to put in the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Sort of
Apr 16, 2014, 7:34 PM
|
|
The people sright to bear arms is listed in the 2nd.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The intent of putting "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" describes more of who the Framers were intending the militia to be, normal people with their weapons who are competent and can organize themselves if the need arises. Similar to the minutemen from that era. "Militia" was a general term used to describe an armed citizen, juts like "Tigers" is a generalization of people who are Clemson fans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3326
Joined: 8/23/02
|
"Well regulated" means trained. It was not about officials
Apr 16, 2014, 1:29 PM
[ in reply to Re: So can you tell us what "the right of the people to keep and ] |
|
from the federal bureau of militias issuing rules.
ANd from whence came the weapons used in a militia? The people themselves.
This is only confusing if you are deliberately trying to obscure the meaning because you don't like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [313]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/6/06
|
Re: "Well regulated" means trained. It was not about officials
Apr 16, 2014, 1:54 PM
|
|
Why is that initial clause there if not to inform our understanding of the rest of the sentence? Even if that initial clause has no meaning, what does it mean by "arms." In the late 1700s people carried some pretty ineffective and large weapons. Most people only had muskets. Those were nearly as tall as the person operating them and took a good bit of time to reload. Some people had pistols, but other than being called "pistols" they were a far cry from the accurate semi-automatic weapons that people have today. I don't want to extend this argument further because there are so slippery and not so slippery slopes to go down (laser weapons anyone?), but I would just argue that reasonable minds can and do disagree about the meaning of words. Always have, always will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: "Well regulated" means trained. It was not about officials
Apr 22, 2014, 3:32 PM
|
|
Weapons evolve as technology advances but that does not mean we should disarm simply do to that fact. With a new age and new technology comes new threats that we must arm ourselves accordingly in order to ensure our safety. A government is still a government and still seeks its own self-interests and WILL exploit the people. Ergo an armed populace is necessary for keeping a government in line.
There will also always be criminals, crazies, and psychos seeking to commit harm as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Does it have to be "force"? I'm not necessarily suggesting
Apr 16, 2014, 12:12 PM
|
|
that he's doing this, just posing the question: Even if he is not forcing or mandating that players conform to his particular religious faith, is it okay for him to promote his faith, encourage players to participate in or follow his faith, or create an environment where a player who does not share his faith may feel like an outsider or like they may not be part of the clique?
To be clear, I'm not suggesting this is what is going on, I am just asking if the "force" threshold must be met, which of course would be illegal, or if simply creating a particular environment which falls short of that threshold could possibly be illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9050]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 13813
Joined: 7/1/02
|
I would think that if his actions would be making.........
Apr 16, 2014, 12:29 PM
|
|
players uncomfortable or feel like they've been excluded or that it's going to hurt them career-wise, etc. then he's stepped over the line.
It can be such a fine line but I have confidence in DS that he knows where to draw the line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Team Captain [462]
TigerPulse: 86%
Posts: 1459
Joined: 7/11/07
|
As a follow up question to yours - how would folks feel if
Apr 16, 2014, 12:34 PM
[ in reply to Does it have to be "force"? I'm not necessarily suggesting ] |
|
DS were a muslim, would you feel the same way? What if he were Hindu? What if he were and athiest, would a Christian player feel that the coach's beliefs were being forced on him?
I don't know the answer, but sometimes it's helpful for me to look at these kinds of issues if I see them from a different perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Right - what if he encouraged players to be atheists?
Apr 16, 2014, 12:37 PM
|
|
What if he held an Islamic ceremony on the practice field, with players in uniform?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4504]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9112
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You can "what" yourself to death. Why not wait to
Apr 16, 2014, 12:46 PM
|
|
see if "what" happens and then worry about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Because certain hypotheticals are relevant to the
Apr 16, 2014, 12:52 PM
|
|
thinking that shapes what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2519]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3326
Joined: 8/23/02
|
You mean what if he beheaded players that failed?
Apr 16, 2014, 1:32 PM
[ in reply to As a follow up question to yours - how would folks feel if ] |
|
I would oppose that.
However, if he beheaded Spurrier for being an enemy of islam, I would sit by quietly like all the libs do when people get beheaded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95389
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That's a good discussion.
Apr 16, 2014, 12:42 PM
[ in reply to Does it have to be "force"? I'm not necessarily suggesting ] |
|
I'll say this. If a person in charge of a secular group such and Clemson's football team is forceful it won't take long for word to get out on campus. As small and close knit as our community is word would spread like wildfire. It could make the weekend news on WYFF if it started on a Monday.
That being said not one soul has complained but that's not what's most important. Dabo is mature enough in the faith to know that getting someone to the altar by coercion is a waste of time and energy. He also knows that pressure is more apt to drive someone away from Christ and not toward Him.
Dabo has matured in The Spirit enough to know that the only thing attracts one to Christ is His love. Fear of hell has never and will never because it can never save a soul. "We love Him because He first loved us..."
I think we can all feel confident that Dabo will has not and will do nothing to cause Clemson problems in this area. If he doesn't beat USuCk this season I can't imagine it not being a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Like I said repeatedly, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that
Apr 16, 2014, 12:49 PM
|
|
Dabo is doing this (though he may be). The question is, is it right and is it legal if he is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95389
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Like I said repeatedly, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that
Apr 16, 2014, 12:53 PM
|
|
Sorry, I thought you had concerns that he was doing it. If he were he would perhaps be wrong for two reasons. The first and most important to me is the spiritual reason I gave. The other which is insignificant to me is the legal reason.
I obey the law and avoid courts unless they demand I show up. After that, what happens in courts concerning religion has no bearing on me in any form or theater.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [313]
TigerPulse: 91%
Posts: 735
Joined: 10/6/06
|
Re: Like I said repeatedly, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that
Apr 16, 2014, 2:21 PM
[ in reply to Like I said repeatedly, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that ] |
|
I'm certainly all for examining the legality of this, but shouldn't we also examine whether it is the right thing to do?
For most people, I expect a lot more than merely following the letter of the law. I'm sure Dabo thinks he's doing the right thing here and generally have no reason to doubt his motives, but we should also ask if these are the kinds of stories we want coming out about our football program. I think that's probably a more important debate to be having.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [354]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 612
Joined: 5/16/01
|
It's an old, tired discussion,..
Apr 16, 2014, 1:00 PM
[ in reply to That's a good discussion. ] |
|
... one that's unfortunately intimidated many a person of influence who happens to be a Christian into staying in his closet with what he most values for fear of what someone with a different set of beliefs might do if he were in the same influential position.
It would be foolish for Dabo to use his position to coerce someone into a set of beliefs that they didn't already share,... foolish and also something I do not see him as doing.
It would also be wrong for him to have a set of beliefs that included absolute answers to life's problems, only to keep those beliefs to himself. This "old, tired discussion", is just one more tool trying to coerce him into just that.
Candles are not meant to be hidden underneath a basket. It should neither be missed that just because it's presnt doesn't force you to look at or embrace the light it gives off,... you're perfectly free to turn away from what it has to offer
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
We are fortunate that it is not so old and tired that it
Apr 16, 2014, 1:17 PM
|
|
prevented you from pointing out how old and tired it is.
My aim is not to keep anyone in the closet or to hide his candle, it was simply a question, the answer to which is important.
I am assuming that your answer is that it is okay for Dabo, as part of his job, to promote his faith and encourage his players to participate. Do you think that is legal? I don't know - I'm asking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93614]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95389
Joined: 12/25/09
|
No, it's not legal for Dabo to force feed any religion.
Apr 16, 2014, 1:21 PM
|
|
You can ask it again and change the names as if you're asking it the first time. It appears until someone says it's legal you won't be satisfied.
So let me be the first to lie to you and say someone believes it should be legal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I'm just trying to get an answer to the question.
Apr 16, 2014, 1:24 PM
|
|
It seemed that I was getting answers to questions other than the one I asked, thus I kept asking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [354]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 612
Joined: 5/16/01
|
Re: We are fortunate that it is not so old and tired that it
Apr 16, 2014, 4:00 PM
[ in reply to We are fortunate that it is not so old and tired that it ] |
|
Do I think it is legal? Well, let's see,...
Is freedom of speech legal in the United States?
Yes,... I do believe so.
Is Dabo is exibiting free speech when he communicates what Christ has done for him and that it's also available to others?
Yes,... I do believe so.
Therefore it logically follows that if freedom of speech is legal and that if Dabo is exibiting freedom of speech, then what Dabo is doing is legal.
(Really don't think it should be that hard of a concept to grasp).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [70]
TigerPulse: 20%
Posts: 368
Joined: 9/21/12
|
Re: We are fortunate that it is not so old and tired that it
Apr 16, 2014, 6:50 PM
|
|
everyone's free speech is limited... Dabo is even moreso when he is acting as an agent of the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58376]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46314
Joined: 4/23/00
|
But there are limits on free speech, and clearly so as it
Apr 16, 2014, 8:24 PM
[ in reply to Re: We are fortunate that it is not so old and tired that it ] |
|
relates to school prayer. Not that this situation is exactlty the same, of course, just illustrating there are limits to what some would consider free speech, particularly as it relates to the practice of religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [354]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 612
Joined: 5/16/01
|
Re: But there are limits on free speech, and clearly so as it
Apr 17, 2014, 10:21 AM
|
|
Limits, yes,.... so where has Dabo exceeded tose limits??? The answer is "nowhere".
The fact of the matter is that there are those (in the PC crowd for example)that wish to intimidate folks and institutions from exercizing freedoms that they actually have. They have been successful in this intimidation to the point that folks just stay away from the boundaries that the PC folks set for them. That's how groups like FFRF are successful.
This is wrong and is a violation (through intimidation)of free speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 74
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
