TecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1498 times:
You have states in the U.S. passing laws that can be used to keep legally registered voters from voting.
You have laws, like in Arizona, where the state is allowing the Bible to be taught, but ignores other religions at the same time.
Scott Walker got his union-busting program passed in Wisconsin.
But where are the legal challenges to these Constitutionally suspect, obviously partisan pieces of legislation? I would think a good case could be made in court against the voting restrictions, and Arizona's Bible ruling.
Maybe I just haven't heard of the cases, but it seems to me that these issues should at least get a hearing in front of a State or Federal court.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12333 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1447 times:
It may not be necessary to go to court, the US DOJ can and has already challenged Texas' ID laws, redistricting especially if reduces non-white voting districts in some states based on current civil/voting rights laws. Unlike most of the world, voting regulations are not national, but left to the states.
I think we need strong national codified laws for voting beyond citizenship and minimum age (18). They must apply to all states and territories. We need to assure only eligible persons can vote, voter registrations are up to date and accurate (like no long dead voters or ones no longer in the district still on the books). Flexibility as to ID of the person and residency, districts not 'gerrymandered' to protect one party or the other that is in power in a state.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 2, posted (10 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1388 times:
The examples you provided are kind of vague... some sound unconstitutional but I'm sure there is much more to these than just "ignoring other religions."
I'm sure if there is a breach of the constitution, it will be challenged. Many are being dealt with in other ways. The WI incident was dealt with via recall... and to my knowledge, while you may disagree with his "union busting ways," that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, just a difference of opinion. I'd like to add more but I'm not sure what to say without more details
TecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2): The examples you provided are kind of vague... some sound unconstitutional but I'm sure there is much more to these than just "ignoring other religions."
I think it clearly would fall under the First Amendment, which indicates that government will not favor one religion over another. The only way to rectify this, I believe, is allowing a study of ANY religious document, or not allowing any at all in public schools. I think that's the point I'm looking at here.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9822 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1315 times:
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1): districts not 'gerrymandered' to protect one party or the other that is in power in a state.
HA! Let me know how that turns out....
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1): We need to assure only eligible persons can vote
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1): voter registrations are up to date and accurate
Problem with these two is *generally* it is Republican governors who call for purges of voter rolls just before elections and do not give anyone any time to register. Except those who will vote right-wing. Every state should purge the voter rolls. No question. But, to do it in election years and tell people they have only a day or two from when the notice is sent out is unreasonable.
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1): (like no long dead voters or ones no longer in the district still on the books).
How many votes did they cast in the last election?
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter): You have laws, like in Arizona, where the state is allowing the Bible to be taught, but ignores other religions at the same time.
I would think this would be a case to be brought up by ACLU. If private schools want to teach religion, fine. But, public schools using public tax dollars should never teach any religion ever.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 5, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1300 times:
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 3): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
The examples you provided are kind of vague... some sound unconstitutional but I'm sure there is much more to these than just "ignoring other religions."
I think it clearly would fall under the First Amendment, which indicates that government will not favor one religion over another. The only way to rectify this, I believe, is allowing a study of ANY religious document, or not allowing any at all in public schools. I think that's the point I'm looking at here.
I was trying to say the information you left is vague and I have no idea what the details are. Sure, it's not right (and even unconstitutional) if they want to teach only the Bible in public schools, ignoring the Koran and all. But is that the case? Are you talking about a private school? Is it a course on Christian world history (which it would make sense to only include the Bible?) Would they oppose having other religions or hasn't it been added yet? You need to post a link because it can be taken a million ways and people can't really answer "why there aren't any court cases yet..." might be a big outrage or it might have a simple explanation, I don't know without the story
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 7, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1276 times:
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 6): The Arizona law states this is for public schools, not private schools.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19708 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1268 times:
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1): I think we need strong national codified laws for voting beyond citizenship and minimum age (18). They must apply to all states and territories. We need to assure only eligible persons can vote, voter registrations are up to date and accurate (like no long dead voters or ones no longer in the district still on the books). Flexibility as to ID of the person and residency, districts not 'gerrymandered' to protect one party or the other that is in power in a state.
We do need better laws, but it's too late for this election cycle. If they want to get something ready for 2016, more power to them. Trying to change things now just reeks of gaming the system. If the states haven't been able to keep an eye on things properly, then that's their fault, and they'll have to live with the consequences.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 9, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1259 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 4): But, public schools using public tax dollars should never teach any religion ever.
Just curious, I had a world history class that mentioned the Jews, Christianity, and Islam throughout the class. They taught the history of these religions and how it related to the civilizations but did not go into doctrine. Would you be for that? I think it is an essential part of history.
Also some universities that receive state money have courses in various religions and study them academically. Is this wrong?
But I agree, having one religion pushed onto anyone is wrong and shouldn't be publicly funded
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1250 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 9): They taught the history of these religions and how it related to the civilizations but did not go into doctrine. Would you be for that? I think it is an essential part of history.
You can't seperate the two without doing a disservice, especially when you consided who influential the church was in setting political doctine. You can't discuss King Eddies divorce without religion. You can't talk about Irish history without religion, nor a proper discussion of political decisions without also discussing the church.
You have to remember that religion has had a major effect on politics because on the latter is based on the belief system of the leaders and that is formed in large part by ones religious views.
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter): Maybe I just haven't heard of the cases, but it seems to me that these issues should at least get a hearing in front of a State or Federal court.
In many cases these already have just to get them on the ballot so the people can have their say.
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter): But where are the legal challenges to these Constitutionally suspect, obviously partisan pieces of legislation? I would think a good case could be made in court against the voting restrictions, and Arizona's Bible ruling
That's your opinion, I think in the latest controversy in Florida, some 150K illegals are suspected of having voting cards....Isn't that worse?
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4254 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1226 times:
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter): You have laws, like in Arizona, where the state is allowing the Bible to be taught, but ignores other religions at the same time.
A elective course that teaches the influence of The Bible on western civilization.
Basically, it provides, according to the article, immunity from civil liability to the teacher for daring to teach about The Bible from a historical perspective.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 12, posted (10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1197 times:
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 11): A elective course that teaches the influence of The Bible on western civilization.
Wow, see, I knew there had to be more to it than that. It's a history class! That's like calling a women's study class sexist... I doubt this course in question forces kids to pray or anything unconstitutional like that...
from the article "as long as it is for academic purposes and does not involve sectarian ideas or religious devotion"
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2555 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 3): The only way to rectify this, I believe, is allowing a study of ANY religious document, or not allowing any at all in public schools
The only way to rectify it is to keep the government out of the classrooms.
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 3): I think it clearly would fall under the First Amendment, which indicates that government will not favor one religion over another.
Which would be wrong. You do know that the first public school system in Washington DC was taught by Reverend's, Pastor's and Priest's and that they used the bible as the textbook to learn. It was Thomas Jefferson that started it and was the first leader of the DC public system while he was President. Did anyone come forward back then and say that it was un-constitutional?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 7): Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 6):The Arizona law states this is for public schools, not private schools.
States what??? Do you have a link?
I guess not
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 11): I guess this is what the OP is referring to:
A elective course that teaches the influence of The Bible on western civilization.
That is how liberals always argue when they want to change the actual message. Taking a few words or a small part of something out of context to make a point.. Minimalism at it''s best.
TecumsehSherman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1126 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 14):
That is how liberals always argue when they want to change the actual message. Taking a few words or a small part of something out of context to make a point.. Minimalism at it''s best.
Here's what you said at the beginning of this post:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 14): Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 3):
The only way to rectify this, I believe, is allowing a study of ANY religious document, or not allowing any at all in public schools
The only way to rectify it is to keep the government out of the classrooms.
So, which way do you want it? Do you want the government out completely, or in only when it suits your political and/or religious bias? You can't have it both ways.
You say the government shouldn't be involved, then you do a back-door defense of Arizona's government for injecting religion into the classroom.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2555 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (10 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1049 times:
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 15): So, which way do you want it? Do you want the government out completely, or in only when it suits your political and/or religious bias? You can't have it both ways.
I want them out of the schools totally.
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Reply 15): then you do a back-door defense of Arizona's government for injecting religion into the classroom.
There is no back door defense. What is back door is the way that you started the thread with this
Quoting TecumsehSherman (Thread starter): You have laws, like in Arizona, where the state is allowing the Bible to be taught, but ignores other religions at the same time.
With no links or context but only s##t strafing.
If you had been honest and not doing minimalism in order to make a point you would of provided the link that someone else had to which has shown that your thread starter is far from the actual truth. Reducing the actual story to a small talking point which makes your ideological point.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8211 posts, RR: 28 Reply 17, posted (10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 885 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 12): Wow, see, I knew there had to be more to it than that. It's a history class! That's like calling a women's study class sexist... I doubt this course in question forces kids to pray or anything unconstitutional like that...
Quoting windy95 (Reply 14): That is how liberals always argue when they want to change the actual message. Taking a few words or a small part of something out of context to make a point.. Minimalism at it''s best.
Ah, and with that gross generalization you've stooped to TecumsehSherman's level. Oh well.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
