On When do student prayers cross the First Amendment line?
Much of what you say can also be said about your beliefs in pretend quality of union products. The only thing good that ever came from "union quality" is lemon laws.
Keep bowing to and pretending your union president is good. He's getting rich off of you while you're losing your jobs. You think he really cares about you? Only that your dues keep coming in. Let others pray to and believe their god is good. Yours gives you peace, as theirs gives them peace.
Retired Military said:
"When do student prayers cross the First Amendment line?.Simple, when other students are forced to listen to them."
I'm not absolutely sure what was meant by this...but I offer this...
This is resulting from a Middle School Graduation speech. Moving past even the concept of Middle School Graduation (whatever that is, like buying trophies for the worst players on the last place team--absolutely meaningless devaluation of the real objective.)
Whereby all of the speakers combined probably spoke for, say, 30 minutes. Maybe longer, maybe less. I'm guessing roughly ZERO percent of the students actually listened to the content of these combined speeches. Well with the possible exception of the best friend of the student speaker. Now all of a sudden somebody wants to pray, and everyone is now FORCED to listen or acknowledge?
On When it's all your fault
No it does not make sense. (reference to "couple") Couple is a singular term. As are team, group, trio, family, or any other singular collection of people. Multiple couples would justify use of a plural verb. One couple does not.
If you want to use a plural verb, simply omit the singular collective term or replace it with more specific terms (the "man and his wife are" vs. "the couple is" or "the men and women are" vs. "the group is").
After all, when writing that "the Gazette does not endorse ..." are you referring to the Building or the collection of (decision-making) people who work at the Gazette? Please do not now cave in to your own "style" and start writing "the Gazette do not endorse..." Your "style" is incorrect.
On Should U.S. do away with the penny?
they got rid of it many years ago overseas. Very simple...3-4 cents they round up a nickel on the total. 1-2 cents they round down...isnt this like 3rd grade math?
No wonder youre so resistant to the change to metric. Youre too proud of your own damned stupidity to change...makes you look like the rednecks you so love to criticize.
On Obama weighing executive action on guns
I guess it will make people feel better. They don't enforce the laws already on the books. Have to wait until the crime's already been committed until they make an arrest or else someone's rights have been violated (invasion of privacy, racial profiling, any excuse to turn the tables on those who are supposed to be enforcing the laws we already have.) Isn't it illegal to buy, sell, and make narcotics? That's gone over real well too. Hope everyone feels better because that's the only thing a new law can accomplish, since they can't or won't enforce it.
On Atheist group files lawsuit over church tax status
just wondering where I said "the" establishment without quoting one of your own posts.
One more then I will consider it time to move on. "An" means "an", and "the" means "the". You have said yourself that "an establishment of religion" could just as easily have been written as "the establishment of religion". You are the one doing what you have just claimed that I have done: "presenting it as 'the establishment of a religion.'" (your words). You say that I am presenting "an" as "the establishment of religion". Sir, that is precisely what you have been trying to convince me of, that THE establishment of religion is what was meant by AN establishment of religion. In no way, shape or form is that what I was trying to convey. By not respecting an establishment of religion, (The Catholic Church, Baptist Church, 7th Day Adventist, Islam, etc are all establishments of religion), neither is to be respected above any of the others as "the Church of the USA." The primary purpose for the migration across the pond was to escape the boundary of the Church of England, and the privilege to worship as they chose (free exercise thereof) without fear of retribution for violating law. The two clauses are different. If, however, laws were written as to your definition of this part of the First Amendment, then the free exercise clause would be irrelevant because religion would be banned. I have no issue with anybody who chooses to, or not to, believe in God or practice their beliefs however they choose. If you don't like a display, don't look at it. Nobody's forcing anything on you.
In the end, this article is about whether to tax a church. Would that not then be stirring yet another pot by the federal government now recognizing said church(es) as legitimate business? You sure you want to go there given your atheistic view?
And by the way...I am not trumpeting a pro religion stance...I took an oath many years ago to support and defend the Constitution. You sir, in your statements are clearly one whom I am defending it from. I am certain you believe that what you say and write is your understanding, and yes, I understand about the letter to the Danbury Baptists and other communications. However, the literal wording is the only wording. Your statements are contrary to the literal wording of the Constitution. Therefore I must speak up against that which you (and others with your same sentiment) write. Particularly your previous response is not at all accurate in what you try to define "an establishment" meaning "religion, period".
So, using your wonderful command of the English language, to revoke the license to an establishment to serve alcohol is to ban the service of alcohol, in any bar, period. You must be one of the folks suggesting the need for us to learn Spanish, because clearly even the simplest forms of the English language (articles--a, an, and the) are quite difficult for your comprehension.
Why is it that if you edit your own post it is npt simply an edit but a duplicate of a previous post with changes included?
Page 1 of 26
» More most emailed stories
» More popular discussions
Staff Directory |
Contact Us |
Legal Notices |
Subscriber Services |
Site Help |
Site Map |
Latest News |
Public Record |
Special Sections |
Political Cartoons |
Photo Galleries |
Slide Shows |
Blog List |
Latest Blog Entries
Customer Care |
Newspaper In Education |
Reader Rewards |