Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Winterborn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:26 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 07, 2023 1:35 pm

There are Muslim chaplains in the US armed forces. Have been since at least 1994. World hasn't ended quite yet.

Exactly. Kalm's question has already been answered by the courts in multiple different jurisdictions.

People do not suddenly turn off their beliefs when going to a job (whether it is a public or private party) and as long as they are going about it in a peaceful non-coercing manner, it doesn't interfere with their duties or carrying out their job functions, voluntary, and are not proselytizing, I have no issues with it.

What a court has decided and what’s right are different issues. I disagree with the court’s interpretation. Especially the current one. I want religion out of government and government out of religion.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:51 am

Winterborn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:26 am
Exactly. Kalm's question has already been answered by the courts in multiple different jurisdictions.

People do not suddenly turn off their beliefs when going to a job (whether it is a public or private party) and as long as they are going about it in a peaceful non-coercing manner, it doesn't interfere with their duties or carrying out their job functions, voluntary, and are not proselytizing, I have no issues with it.

What a court has decided and what’s right are different issues. I disagree with the court’s interpretation. Especially the current one. I want religion out of government and government out of religion.

What will all of the Democrats who worship big government do?

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:51 am

Winterborn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:26 am

Exactly. Kalm's question has already been answered by the courts in multiple different jurisdictions.

People do not suddenly turn off their beliefs when going to a job (whether it is a public or private party) and as long as they are going about it in a peaceful non-coercing manner, it doesn't interfere with their duties or carrying out their job functions, voluntary, and are not proselytizing, I have no issues with it.

What a court has decided and what’s right are different issues. I disagree with the court’s interpretation. Especially the current one. I want religion out of government and government out of religion.

Why do you assume that what you want is also what is right? Isn't that what folks are saying is wrong with politics today - "I'm right, you're wrong, and on top of that, you're evil for being wrong"?

As for your perspective on religion and government, I know you don't like precedent when it contradicts what you want, but you'd be going against 235 years of how we've run this government and respected religion. Not saying we can't do something different (we have fixed wrongs, like slavery for instance), just pointing that out.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:14 am

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:51 am

What a court has decided and what’s right are different issues. I disagree with the court’s interpretation. Especially the current one. I want religion out of government and government out of religion.

Why do you assume that what you want is also what is right? Isn't that what folks are saying is wrong with politics today - "I'm right, you're wrong, and on top of that, you're evil for being wrong"?

As for your perspective on religion and government, I know you don't like precedent when it contradicts what you want, but you'd be going against 235 years of how we've run this government and respected religion. Not saying we can't do something different (we have fixed wrongs, like slavery for instance), just pointing that out.

I feel secure in my values. Are you saying that you DON’T assume what you want is right?

My views on religion have evolved significantly over the last few years in a more accepting way. We as a nation were also intended to evolve. This includes the constitution.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:51 am

Winterborn wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:26 am

Exactly. Kalm's question has already been answered by the courts in multiple different jurisdictions.

People do not suddenly turn off their beliefs when going to a job (whether it is a public or private party) and as long as they are going about it in a peaceful non-coercing manner, it doesn't interfere with their duties or carrying out their job functions, voluntary, and are not proselytizing, I have no issues with it.

What a court has decided and what’s right are different issues. I disagree with the court’s interpretation. Especially the current one. I want religion out of government and government out of religion.

I take from your verbiage that you think we should have no Chaplains/Priests/Priestesses/Gurus/Mystics/Swami of any belief system involved in any capacity in any of our public entities?

Did the police officers do any of the items I mentioned above? The article does not state either way. Do you have evidence that they coerced anybody? Was the prayer event voluntary? Police officers enjoy the same rights the rest of us have with respect to their personal beliefs. Just because they are at a public job, those rights do not go away (which the court is starting to recognizes). There are nuances to holding personal beliefs in those types of positions but you do have the right to hold them.

An example is if heard a police officer listening to a Imam preaching, while being alone in his squad car, and it was loud enough that I could hear it outside his patrol car while on the sidewalk bench reading a book, is that preaching? How about I see officers holding a cookout, where they are serving burgers and bratwurst, and being an avowed vegetarian that practiced animism, I felt psychic or emotional offense allegedly caused by observation of sacrilegious acts to my belief system?

The thing is that the court understands that you cannot divorce the two without limiting peoples rights. Which is why they are trying to court a middle line. See my post above for qualifications. Those apply to Baptists, Satanists, Muslims, etc.

I also find it very curious that members of other religions in that police department were not part of the lawsuit but only outside parties. That hints to me that other members of the police department either didn't have an issue with it or they felt threatened by it enough to not say anything. Until more information is known we will not know for sure if it is a frivolous lawsuit brought by people with too thin of skin or something legitimate.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:00 am

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 7:51 am

What a court has decided and what’s right are different issues. I disagree with the court’s interpretation. Especially the current one. I want religion out of government and government out of religion.

What will all of the Democrats who worship big government do?

Complain and prosecute the "atheists" that do not believe in a big government.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:20 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:14 am

Why do you assume that what you want is also what is right? Isn't that what folks are saying is wrong with politics today - "I'm right, you're wrong, and on top of that, you're evil for being wrong"?

As for your perspective on religion and government, I know you don't like precedent when it contradicts what you want, but you'd be going against 235 years of how we've run this government and respected religion. Not saying we can't do something different (we have fixed wrongs, like slavery for instance), just pointing that out.

I feel secure in my values. Are you saying that you DON’T assume what you want is right?

My views on religion have evolved significantly over the last few years in a more accepting way. We as a nation were also intended to evolve. This includes the constitution.

I like to think that I reflect on what I want and if it's right. By no means perfect, but I also do recognize that I'm fallible. It's one of the advantages of being married, my wife reminds me everyday when I do something wrong.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:20 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:14 am

Why do you assume that what you want is also what is right? Isn't that what folks are saying is wrong with politics today - "I'm right, you're wrong, and on top of that, you're evil for being wrong"?

As for your perspective on religion and government, I know you don't like precedent when it contradicts what you want, but you'd be going against 235 years of how we've run this government and respected religion. Not saying we can't do something different (we have fixed wrongs, like slavery for instance), just pointing that out.

I feel secure in my values. Are you saying that you DON’T assume what you want is right?

My views on religion have evolved significantly over the last few years in a more accepting way. We as a nation were also intended to evolve. This includes the constitution.

Good thing there is a process in place for this.

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:20 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:14 am

Why do you assume that what you want is also what is right? Isn't that what folks are saying is wrong with politics today - "I'm right, you're wrong, and on top of that, you're evil for being wrong"?

As for your perspective on religion and government, I know you don't like precedent when it contradicts what you want, but you'd be going against 235 years of how we've run this government and respected religion. Not saying we can't do something different (we have fixed wrongs, like slavery for instance), just pointing that out.

I feel secure in my values. Are you saying that you DON’T assume what you want is right?

My views on religion have evolved significantly over the last few years in a more accepting way. We as a nation were also intended to evolve. This includes the constitution.

While I am confident in my beliefs, I don't assume that I'm right. I realize that I could be wrong and I'm open to someone changing my mind.

The Constitution has evolved 27 times.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:47 pm

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:20 am

I feel secure in my values. Are you saying that you DON’T assume what you want is right?

My views on religion have evolved significantly over the last few years in a more accepting way. We as a nation were also intended to evolve. This includes the constitution.

While I am confident in my beliefs, I don't assume that I'm right. I realize that I could be wrong and I'm open to someone changing my mind.

The Constitution has evolved 27 times.

Values are not the same as beliefs.

When was the last time the constitution evolved?

kalm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:19 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:47 pm

While I am confident in my beliefs, I don't assume that I'm right. I realize that I could be wrong and I'm open to someone changing my mind.

The Constitution has evolved 27 times.

Values are not the same as beliefs.

When was the last time the constitution evolved?

Values are complicated and aren't necessarily right or wrong. While I'm comfortable with my values I can respect others with differing values but struggle with intolerance (supposed Christians calling LGBTQ+ deviants with mental health issues, supposed liberals who are intolerant of Christians, etc.).

1992.

And if you think it needs to evolve again as Winter posted - "Good thing there is a process in place for this."

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:40 am

kalm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:19 am

Values are not the same as beliefs.

When was the last time the constitution evolved?

Values are complicated and aren't necessarily right or wrong. While I'm comfortable with my values I can respect others with differing values but struggle with intolerance (supposed Christians calling LGBTQ+ deviants with mental health issues, supposed liberals who are intolerant of Christians, etc.).

1992.

And if you think it needs to evolve again as Winter posted - "Good thing there is a process in place for this."

There are individual values, community values, cultural values, etc. Some are shared, sone are not.

Democracy, limited government, liberty, and states rights seem like no-brainer values.

kalm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:40 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 8:40 am

Values are complicated and aren't necessarily right or wrong. While I'm comfortable with my values I can respect others with differing values but struggle with intolerance (supposed Christians calling LGBTQ+ deviants with mental health issues, supposed liberals who are intolerant of Christians, etc.).

1992.

And if you think it needs to evolve again as Winter posted - "Good thing there is a process in place for this."

There are individual values, community values, cultural values, etc. Some are shared, sone are not.

Democracy, limited government, liberty, and states rights seem like no-brainer values.

They are. Which is why I find it odd that so many vote against them.

Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:53 am

kalm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:40 am
There are individual values, community values, cultural values, etc. Some are shared, sone are not.

Democracy, limited government, liberty, and states rights seem like no-brainer values.

They are. Which is why I find it odd that so many vote against them.

Careful Winter. Democracy is bait. kalm's democracy is will of the people, majority rule so a popular vote for POTUS (no Electoral College) and serious changes to the Senate (how can Wyoming have 2 Senators and only 1 Representative). Tyranny of the majority is good.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:27 am

Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:53 am

They are. Which is why I find it odd that so many vote against them.

Careful Winter. Democracy is bait. kalm's democracy is will of the people, majority rule so a popular vote for POTUS (no Electoral College) and serious changes to the Senate (how can Wyoming have 2 Senators and only 1 Representative). Tyranny of the majority is good.

Tyranny exists of the majority and of the minority both. Tyranny is bad regardless, but thanks for speaking for me. How tyrannical of you.

We have a democratic republic which dampens the majority rule part. I’m definitely not for direct democracy. State initiatives are a good example of its pitfalls. Regardless, can we agree that tyranny of the majority and oligarchy are at least similar threats?

Representative numbers should be revisited. I’ve heard persuasive arguments for and against. The moderating effect on the senate is one reason against change.

Our tallest obstacle remains legalized bribery. Fix that and many of these others are neutralized a bit.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:47 pm

kalm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:20 am

I feel secure in my values. Are you saying that you DON’T assume what you want is right?

My views on religion have evolved significantly over the last few years in a more accepting way. We as a nation were also intended to evolve. This includes the constitution.

While I am confident in my beliefs, I don't assume that I'm right. I realize that I could be wrong and I'm open to someone changing my mind.

The Constitution has evolved 27 times.

Depends on how you define ‘evolved’. If you count the Bill of Rights, all ratified same day, 12/15/1791, as 10 different ‘evolutions’, then yes. If not, then 18 times, or 17 times after the Bill of Rights.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:46 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 08, 2023 6:47 pm
While I am confident in my beliefs, I don't assume that I'm right. I realize that I could be wrong and I'm open to someone changing my mind.

The Constitution has evolved 27 times.

Depends on how you define ‘evolved’. If you count the Bill of Rights, all ratified same day, 12/15/1791, as 10 different ‘evolutions’, then yes. If not, then 18 times, or 17 times after the Bill of Rights.

You are correct. It doesn't distract from my point that the Constitution has evolved though.

kalm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:29 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:27 am

Careful Winter. Democracy is bait. kalm's democracy is will of the people, majority rule so a popular vote for POTUS (no Electoral College) and serious changes to the Senate (how can Wyoming have 2 Senators and only 1 Representative). Tyranny of the majority is good.

Tyranny exists of the majority and of the minority both. Tyranny is bad regardless, but thanks for speaking for me. How tyrannical of you.

We have a democratic republic which dampens the majority rule part. I’m definitely not for direct democracy. State initiatives are a good example of its pitfalls. Regardless, can we agree that tyranny of the majority and oligarchy are at least similar threats?

Representative numbers should be revisited. I’ve heard persuasive arguments for and against. The moderating effect on the senate is one reason against change.

Our tallest obstacle remains legalized bribery. Fix that and many of these others are neutralized a bit.

We have a Constitutional Republic..

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:27 am

Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 9:53 am

They are. Which is why I find it odd that so many vote against them.

Careful Winter. Democracy is bait. kalm's democracy is will of the people, majority rule so a popular vote for POTUS (no Electoral College) and serious changes to the Senate (how can Wyoming have 2 Senators and only 1 Representative). Tyranny of the majority is good.

Now I have to re-bait my line.

I am well aware of what Kalm's definition of "Democracy" is and what it will lead to. My prison cell jokes are only a bit tongue in cheek.

kalm wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:29 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:27 am

Careful Winter. Democracy is bait. kalm's democracy is will of the people, majority rule so a popular vote for POTUS (no Electoral College) and serious changes to the Senate (how can Wyoming have 2 Senators and only 1 Representative). Tyranny of the majority is good.

Tyranny exists of the majority and of the minority both. Tyranny is bad regardless, but thanks for speaking for me. How tyrannical of you.

We have a democratic republic which dampens the majority rule part. I’m definitely not for direct democracy. State initiatives are a good example of its pitfalls. Regardless, can we agree that tyranny of the majority and oligarchy are at least similar threats?

Representative numbers should be revisited. I’ve heard persuasive arguments for and against. The moderating effect on the senate is one reason against change.

Our tallest obstacle remains legalized bribery. Fix that and many of these others are neutralized a bit.

I would vote for you to go to Congress and to start the Constitutional amendment. Just know that I have self imposed term limits.

Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:31 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 10:27 am
Careful Winter. Democracy is bait. kalm's democracy is will of the people, majority rule so a popular vote for POTUS (no Electoral College) and serious changes to the Senate (how can Wyoming have 2 Senators and only 1 Representative). Tyranny of the majority is good.

Now I have to re-bait my line.

I am well aware of what Kalm's definition of "Democracy" is and what it will lead to. My prison cell jokes are only a bit tongue in cheek.

Just think about how much fun we'll have between beatings in prison. kalm might even give us an extra half serving of gruel to try and get us to behave.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:44 pm

Winterborn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 12:31 pm

Now I have to re-bait my line.

I am well aware of what Kalm's definition of "Democracy" is and what it will lead to. My prison cell jokes are only a bit tongue in cheek.

Just think about how much fun we'll have between beatings in prison. kalm might even give us an extra half serving of gruel to try and get us to behave.

Or he might take it away because of my singing voice. Then again he may pay me to stop singing. If we ever meet up, I could serenade him and we would find out.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:51 am

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:46 am
Depends on how you define ‘evolved’. If you count the Bill of Rights, all ratified same day, 12/15/1791, as 10 different ‘evolutions’, then yes. If not, then 18 times, or 17 times after the Bill of Rights.

You are correct. It doesn't distract from my point that the Constitution has evolved though.

True. It has evolved because of Amendments, not because of some malarkey about it being a living, breathing document.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 4:45 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 11:51 am

You are correct. It doesn't distract from my point that the Constitution has evolved though.

True. It has evolved because of Amendments, not because of some malarkey about it being a living, breathing document.

We're on the same page. The Constitution should be difficult to change so that it isn't shifting back and forth in kneejerk response to short term societal beliefs.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 5:13 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Mar 09, 2023 4:45 pm
True. It has evolved because of Amendments, not because of some malarkey about it being a living, breathing document.

We're on the same page. The Constitution should be difficult to change so that it isn't shifting back and forth in kneejerk response to short term societal beliefs.

Well maybe hell is indeed freezing over..