• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Idiot Public School Superintendent Upset Because He Can't Display The 10 Cs

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
Separation of Church and State doesnt apply here. The 10 commandments was donated to the school by private citizens in 1926. This doesn't violate the constitution because the school did not use funds to buy it or put it there. That's as far as the constitution covers for this particular issue.
Would it be ok to put the 10 commandments in the Quran up if it's donated?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I think most in the far left are so confused by their own policies that they don't even know what the want or stand for anymore. So much hypocrisy and dishonesty, they can't tell where the lies begin or end anymore.

That's expected when principles are non existant. So we have these paradoxes of it's ok to legalize drugs locally, but someone puts up a 10 commandment plaques all the sudden they are die hard constitutionalist. :rolleyes:

Honestly I see now why they want drugs legalized. It's the only way they can look themselves in the mirror every morning without having to accept the monsters they've become.
You are the one who keeps insisting its an atheist thing (religious people have probably been the strongest advocates of a secular state) and promoting the idea the community should decide (its not unisual for that to end badly for someone, primarily those of a minority group).
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Yes... the one that once supported slavery and corrected itself ? The one that made a decision on false information about feticide? The one that is now will deal with personhood again?

Eliminate political activist Ginsberg and you have a totally different outcome.
If it weren't for political activist Roberts deciding that the ACA was Constitutional, because if the IRS takes your money it is not a penalty it's a legal tax, we wouldn't have ACA.
But, you know what those activist judges are like.
Tom
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
and promoting the idea the community should decide (its not unisual for that to end badly for someone, primarily those of a minority group).

But that is the way it is. The local govt/community decides these things for thenselves.
 

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
The Constitution doesn't cover this issue. So you're wrong about that.

Separation of Church and State doesnt apply here. The 10 commandments was donated to the school by private citizens in 1926. This doesn't violate the constitution because the school did not use funds to buy it or put it there. That's as far as the constitution covers for this particular issue.
Here your advocating the 10 commandments on display.

It's up to that particular local community, not me.
Then, for another religion, you're strangely ambivalent about it.

Well, they obviously made up their mind and subsiquently found it not appropriate. So, following your later responses, you should be ok with it ;)
This is a problem wanting your religion on display from a state regulated school, which separates church from state. The state cannot show favouritism, hence no religion is on display.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
If it weren't for political activist Roberts deciding that the ACA was Constitutional, because if the IRS takes your money it is not a penalty it's a legal tax, we wouldn't have ACA.
But, you know what those activist judges are like.
Tom
EXACTLY! That was another great example of political activism.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
EXACTLY! That was another great example of political activism.

There is established law for fines and penalties as a tax. Although it typically includes a legal violation of some kind which ACA does not have at all.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If it weren't for political activist Roberts deciding that the ACA was Constitutional, because if the IRS takes your money it is not a penalty it's a legal tax, we wouldn't have ACA.

EXACTLY! That was another great example of political activism.
And so you think that over 20 million Americans should be left with no health insurance if the ACA had been repealed? Remember, Trump and the Pubs claimed they would replace it with "something better", and yet they didn't put forth one single proposal beyond repealing the ACA. Nor likely would they have because they couldn't even get close to any agreement within themselves on a replacement.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
And so you think that over 20 million Americans should be left with no health insurance if the ACA had been repealed?
No.
I think that the real Pro-Life option is UHC.
I was appalled when Obama caved in to bipartisanship.
Tom
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
No.
I think that the real Pro-Life option is UHC.
I agree, although I also prefer those that have insurance already to be able to keep theirs.

I was appalled when Obama caved in to bipartisanship.
We knew it was a compromise from the get-go, with the expressed hope that Dems and Pubs could work together to adjust it, especially when it came to cost containment. Well, we know how that worked out with McConnell and the Pubs, who were far more willing to play hardball politics even if it hurts millions of Americans-- and McConnell even admitted it.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
We knew it was a compromise from the get-go, with the expressed hope that Dems and Pubs could work together to adjust it, especially when it came to cost containment. Well, we know how that worked out with McConnell and the Pubs, who were far more willing to play hardball politics even if it hurts millions of Americans-- and McConnell even admitted it.
Just another reason I will not vote for a Republican any time in the foreseeable future.
Republicans see bipartisanship as an opportunity to screw the USA for partisan goals.
Tom
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
But that is the way it is. The local govt/community decides these things for thenselves.
Not entirely. Federal law has decided many things, and that includes that schools cant promote religion. And in this case, the laws given to the Jews that are frequently mistaken for the Commandments, "thou shalt have no gods before me" is a fundamental violation of and inherently incompatible with American ideals and laws. As for the community, minorities often get trampled when the community gets to decide. Again, that is against American values.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
And so you think that over 20 million Americans should be left with no health insurance if the ACA had been repealed? Remember, Trump and the Pubs claimed they would replace it with "something better", and yet they didn't put forth one single proposal beyond repealing the ACA. Nor likely would they have because they couldn't even get close to any agreement within themselves on a replacement.
Its interesting how the public perception of the ACA is shifting from the negative to the positive, and now people realize without they might (and for many its a will rather than might), lose their health insurance. We can still do better, but what we have now is so much better than what we had. And I think people a realizing the Republicans say " repeal amd replace," but after years of not putting forth any proposals, they only mean "repeal." And its looking this issue might be of significant importance in the next election (a war with Iran may not save Trump from a Dem with a serious UHC proposal given the unusual nature of Trumps presidency).
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
And so you think that over 20 million Americans should be left with no health insurance if the ACA had been repealed? Remember, Trump and the Pubs claimed they would replace it with "something better", and yet they didn't put forth one single proposal beyond repealing the ACA. Nor likely would they have because they couldn't even get close to any agreement within themselves on a replacement.
I think that informationiis somewhat lopsided is scope and in content.

1) it doesn't reflect the 5.9 million that lost coverage
2) It doesn't reflect those who lost hundreds of dollars a month because of the price hikes
3) It doesn't address the fact that that the Supreme Court Justice that gave the swing vote did twist the interpretation - which was wrong and is irrelevant as to how many people it affects because it is still wrong
4) "They started to exclude uninsured illegal immigrants from the national tally on total number of uninsured Americans, which before Obamacare, these individuals were counted in that reporting, inflating the numbers."
5) It doesn't reflect the reality that many would have gotten insurance anyway through their job places and indeed millions did.

So IMV, political activism is still political activism that SHOULD NOT be done by judges.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
1) it doesn't reflect the 5.9 million that lost coverage
If they lost coverage, it's not because of the ACA as that did not remove anyone from whatever insurance they had. If employers removed coverage, that's on them.

2) It doesn't reflect those who lost hundreds of dollars a month because of the price hikes
For the 10 years prior to the passing of the ACA, medical inflation was a tad over 9% per year, literally doubling in the previous 11 years. Up until 2016, medical inflation slowed to 5% but then was jacked-up to around 15% in that year, which is pretty suspicious as to why the insurance companies would want to do that in an election year.:rolleyes:

3) It doesn't address the fact that that the Supreme Court Justice that gave the swing vote did twist the interpretation
Since there were four others who agreed with him, and the four who didn't were all Republican appointees, maybe it was the latter element that was playing games.

5) It doesn't reflect the reality that many would have gotten insurance anyway through their job places and indeed millions did.
The actual reverse was taking place as more and more companies were eliminating their insurance coverage or dramatically having much larger co-pays to get reduced rates from the insurance companies, and this is still happening.

So IMV, political activism is still political activism that SHOULD NOT be done by judges.
My experience is that when people make such a claim, it's usually is because it's "their ox that's been gored". :D

Not having insurance is a life & death issue, and to not provide basic insurance for all is simply unethical as far as I'm concerned. We have the highest medical rate (19% of GNP) in the world and yet we don't provide universal coverage as every other industrialized country does. Maybe we should swallow our pride and learn from them what seems to work out the best.

Anyhow, have a most blessed weekend, my friend.
 
Top