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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Too many people werent able to get any or adequate insurance from their employer. Back in Indiana, where I used to live, pre-ACA, Chrysler was like a lottery because that was one of the few jobs that did cone with good insurance. Everybody else was tossed to the malestrom. Now, post-ACA, Indiana expanded its HIP program to make it significantly and considerably easier for people to qualify for.
Thats been a back-and-forth issue since before day 1 of America's sovereignty. Basically, freedom and liberties should be maximized. Sometimes the federal law does this, sometimes it impedes it. In this case, communitarian politics are notorious for being detrimental to the rights and liberties of minorities. They shouldnt be punished for existing, yet they, and other outcasts and non-conformists, often struggle when the community decides whats best. And in this case specifically, its not only promoting the idea Jehovah is the only acceptable god to worship, even though students of other religions will reject that notion, it is totally at odds and against American values, which does include both the freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Especially when in full context we see that execution is the penalty for having other gods.
In general Im not too fond of states rights. In Indiana, that has lead to a stream of politicians who force their agenda on the public (Mitch Daniels did it with DST, which was extremely unpopular with the public), and here in California I arrived just in time to realize people are voting in things they cant possibly be making an jnformed decision on some of these high dollar propositions of significant impact. And it gets abused a lot, such as how the South used it against Northern States to capture runaway slaves, and today in places today like Indiana or Alabama where religious agendas are forced on the public, often to discriminatory and damaging ends (I was taught in school a womans vagina gets used up like scotch tape and nasty like used chewing gum). However, with that said, it sometimes can be used to ends to increase liberties and freedoms (something Indiana did do right by preserving hunting and fishing as rights as well as ensuring funding for related programs), and to necessary ends, such as states that have allowed medical cannabis (I had to get it in there somewhere
), which allow patients more freedom in deciding their own treatment (and it really is so much better when legal options are available, because then dosing becomes significantly easier, rather than being practically impossible where untested and unmeasured strains and products are made). Overall though, I do think communitarian and democratic policies needlessly run too high a risk of having disasterous consequences (Brexit).
No. It is you that does not understand the law regarding the subject at hand. Sorry. This is clear, since you keep repeating the same error.You simply don't understand the law is all.
You misunderstood the question. The question was not about it being up to you whether schools put any and all religious texts out on display, but whether you were ok with it or not. I hope that helps clarify things, since your answer made no sense in the context of the question asked.
Having copies of religious text in a library is not the same as posting materials that promote a particular religion or religious view. The very thing that the Constitutions says that government shall not do.
It is the opinion of the founders, those who have interpreted their founding documents, and most of the American people.
I do understand. You did not answer the question. You deflected. Nobody asked me what I felt. My answer would be relevant to such a question.
My feelings matter. How do you know what community I am a part of and not a part? What is a community? How big or small must it be and what are the boundaries that define it so that some are a part and others are not?That is the answer. My feeling are irrelevant because I am not apart of that community. Just as your feelings don't matter because you are not apart of it.
Is the community the families of the students of the school? The city of New Philadelphia? The state of Ohio? The Midwest? The eastern United States? All of these could be argued to be communities?That is the answer. My feeling are irrelevant because I am not apart of that community. Just as your feelings don't matter because you are not apart of it.
What if a community decides that killing every third person is OK? Since it is the will of the community it is all good?That is the answer. My feeling are irrelevant because I am not apart of that community. Just as your feelings don't matter because you are not apart of it.