Supreme Court rules in favor of public legislative prayers

[DinoDoc]

Strongly disagree.

You are of course free to be wrong.

[Felch]

Strongly disagree.

Do you disagree for any specific reason (like based on the text of the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or SCOTUS rulings) or are you just inclined towards disagreeing?

[Ben Kenobi]

no further comment needed

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
2.1 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
2.2 That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
2.5 Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

I teach this in my first class. I'm puzzled why you don't think this is the preamble to the declaration of independence.

[Berzerker]

Informal social pressure, fear, etc. are not things that the Constitution concerns itself with.... which, btw is Felch's point in its entirety.

The Pledge is not informal social pressure, its Rome telling Christians to bow before the gods.

[Berzerker]

I teach this in my first class. I'm puzzled why you don't think this is the preamble to the declaration of independence.

Now that you've quoted it, where does it say we're a Christian nation?

[Felch]

The Pledge is not informal social pressure, its Rome telling Christians to bow before the gods.

Unless students are being fed to lions for refusing to say the Pledge, that analogy makes no sense.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Do you disagree for any specific reason (like based on the text of the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or SCOTUS rulings) or are you just inclined towards disagreeing?

I'm not inclined to write up an elaborate case just to argue with you. I do think it's arguably false to indicate that things like informal coercion where never taken into account by the framers the various amenders, or indeed the SCOTUS justices past and present.

I'm not invested enough in that belief to get into a cage match over it, but I might be interested in discussing.

[Berzerker]

Unless students are being fed to lions for refusing to say the Pledge, that analogy makes no sense.

The punishment for non-compliance aint relevant, only that both Rome and the Feds coerce people into bowing before the state's gods

[Felch]

I'm not inclined to write up an elaborate case just to argue with you. I do think it's arguably false to indicate that things like informal coercion where never taken into account by the framers the various amenders, or indeed the SCOTUS justices past and present.

I'm not invested enough in that belief to get into a cage match over it, but I might be interested in discussing.

Nobody is trying to start a fight, I'm just inviting you to add something substantive to the discussion. I have not read the Federalist Papers in their entirety, nor am I an expert on every SCOTUS decision. Maybe there's something you know that you'd like to tell me about.

The punishment for non-compliance aint relevant, only that both Rome and the Feds coerce people into bowing before the state's gods

The Feds specifically prohibit coercing people into saying the Pledge. So fuck you, and fuck your lies.

[Sava]

I'm a pot-loving conservative.

Exactly how I would describe you.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

I have no particular knowledge to share - I'm widely read and know some media law from my communications degree and know American history reasonably well. I have no particular cites to provide as evidence; just my general understanding of how these sorts of things work.

[Felch]

Truth be told, I can't stand libertarians. I tried to join them back in the day. I interned at CEI, hung out with Campaign for Liberty, did the Libertarian thing in college, but they were all lame as ****. They all wanted to talk about the federal reserve and the gold standard. I just wanted to do drugs and shoot guns. So yeah, that never worked out.

[Felch]

I have no particular knowledge to share - I'm widely read and know some media law from my communications degree and know American history reasonably well. I have no particular cites to provide as evidence; just my general understanding of how these sorts of things work.

Dude, I don't even have a degree. I dropped out of UMBC with less than a year to go, bummed around for a while, and now I'm back at community college working on an Associate's in Cybersecurity (our networking final was connecting two computers through a switch - real rigorous **** ). But, like molly bloom, I know how to bull**** expertise through Google.

[Kidlicious]

Unless students are being fed to lions for refusing to say the Pledge, that analogy makes no sense.

First they came for the little girls. Then they came for the america hating little boys.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Dude, I don't even have a degree. I dropped out of UMBC with less than a year to go, bummed around for a while, and now I'm back at community college working on an Associate's in Cybersecurity (our networking final was connecting two computers through a switch - real rigorous **** ). But, like molly bloom, I know how to bull**** expertise through Google.

Yeah - see, I think, on the level that arguing is a duel of wits -something you and I both are into- googling is cheating.

I know that's stupid of me -why not just cut to the truth, or at least good evidence?- but I like to rely on what was in my head when I walked into the contest.

AA in Liberal Arts and a BS in Broadcasting, BTW.