I changed some of my Views!!

[storm1977 0]

I know this might sadden many of my fellow conservatives out there, But I have actually changed my view on the Church and State stance.

Over the last few months I have been doing a lot of reading, and have been trying to find the roots of the issues at play. I recently read a Supreme Court Brief from 91 that made me change my thinking on the founding of this nation.

With that being said, there are still some things I am frustrated by which I do not feel violate the Church and State Clause.
1) any state or local Government should be able to put up religious decorations. Why? because that is not state sponsorship of religion. Since our beliefs are legally of our own consciousness then the elected official has the right to represent that belief. The collective elected him/her and therefore their belief system. If the people don't like that officials beliefs, they can elect someone else.
2) Schools should allow any student to express their religious beliefs whether through symbolism or through words. It is the right of the people to do so, and not the right of the School to restrict religious view, it is up to the school not to "Coerce" or "Sponsor" religious views.

So, what has changed for Me?
The pledge... I do not believe the term "Under God" should be in there. Not forcibly in schools anyway. I think this brief was well researched and written, and is worth a read.

Proof to Billvon and Kallend that us conservatives can change our minds . I wonder if you guys could ever do the same.

Chris

Here is a link to the 91 brief;
http://washingtonpost.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-1624/02-1624.mer.ami.mcgraw.pdf

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[SkyDekker 1,465]

nice post.

Unfortunate you had to end it with:

Quote

I wonder if you guys could ever do the same.

[jdhill 0]

Flip Flopper!

[storm1977 0]

Of course I did!!!!

Dekker,, be happy I only put Bill and Kallends name on there!!!

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I know this might sadden many of my fellow conservatives out there, But I have actually changed my view on the Church and State stance.

Over the last few months I have been doing a lot of reading, and have been trying to find the roots of the issues at play. I recently read a Supreme Court Brief from 91 that made me change my thinking on the founding of this nation.

Good on ya! Any opinion based off of an informed educated decision is something I respect, even if it doesn't line up with my personal beliefs.

Quote

1) any state or local Government should be able to put up religious decorations. Why? because that is not state sponsorship of religion. Since our beliefs are legally of our own consciousness then the elected official has the right to represent that belief. The collective elected him/her and therefore their belief system. If the people don't like that officials beliefs, they can elect someone else.

I want to challenge you on this point. The leader will still have the right to express his/her own personal opinions or decorate their own property. However, forcing the local gov't to put up decorations across town that represent his/her religious convictions is wrong. For instance, just about a mile from where I grew up was a huge middle east and eastern population that included quite a few religions (Sikh, Muslim, etc). But this was a large town and it included a large Christian population as well. Would it be right to have Muslim symbols across the entire town or Christian symbols all across town on public property?

Quote

2) Schools should allow any student to express their religious beliefs whether through symbolism or through words. It is the right of the people to do so, and not the right of the School to restrict religious view, it is up to the school not to "Coerce" or "Sponsor" religious views.

Agreed. Students should be allowed free expression and speech just like the rest of the country. I think schools make up rules to prevent anyone from being offended in the end (trying to be proactive to prevent problems but it has worked against them) - and those that get offended tend to be the parents, not the students. Ask almost any teacher what the worst part of their job is and they will usually say "the parents."

I'll try to get around to reading that brief.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[storm1977 0]

Quote

I want to challenge you on this point. The leader will still have the right to express his/her own personal opinions or decorate their own property. However, forcing the local gov't to put up decorations across town that represent his/her religious convictions is wrong. For instance, just about a mile from where I grew up was a huge middle east and eastern population that included quite a few religions (Sikh, Muslim, etc). But this was a large town and it included a large Christian population as well. Would it be right to have Muslim symbols across the entire town or Christian symbols all across town on public property?

I know what you mean, but I am not saying "FORCING" anything, however, if the Governer is Christian and wishes to put up a Chrismas tree on the Lawn of the Governer's Mansion, then so be it. Is it State Property? Yes, but he is entitled to his "Consious Beliefs" as per the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Therefore, he is not "Coersing the public" but instead freely expressing his beliefs at his residence during his time serving office. The same is true for a Jew, Muslim, and Satan worshiper.

Now, I doubt a Satan WOrshiper will be elected, but if so, they too should enjoy the rights of their free and open expression.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Proof to Billvon and Kallend that us conservatives can change our minds . I wonder if you guys could ever do the same.

Sure did. Before around 1977 I was very conservative. It was Ronald Reagan's brand of intrusive conservatism that turned me off.

BTW, I do not consider the Bush administration to be at all conservative. They are pro big government, deficits, and pro intrusion into the peoples' lives.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Quote

Proof to Billvon and Kallend that us conservatives can change our minds . I wonder if you guys could ever do the same.

Sure did. Before around 1977 I was very conservative. It was Ronald Reagan's brand of intrusive conservatism that turned me off.

BTW, I do not consider the Bush administration to be at all conservative. They are pro big government, deficits, and pro intrusion into the peoples' lives.

Anything after 1977... I mean, I wasn'r born until then anyway so I have no real idea wheter or not you are lying to me.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Proof to Billvon and Kallend that us conservatives can change our minds . I wonder if you guys could ever do the same.

Sure did. Before around 1977 I was very conservative. It was Ronald Reagan's brand of intrusive conservatism that turned me off.

BTW, I do not consider the Bush administration to be at all conservative. They are pro big government, deficits, and pro intrusion into the peoples' lives.

Anything after 1977... I mean, I wasn'r born until then anyway so I have no real idea wheter or not you are lying to me.

Well, just wait 'til you've been around a bit longer. I've just seen more of the slippery slope than you have,

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

which court case brief did you read? I'd like to look it up.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

I want to challenge you on this point. The leader will still have the right to express his/her own personal opinions or decorate their own property. However, forcing the local gov't to put up decorations across town that represent his/her religious convictions is wrong. For instance, just about a mile from where I grew up was a huge middle east and eastern population that included quite a few religions (Sikh, Muslim, etc). But this was a large town and it included a large Christian population as well. Would it be right to have Muslim symbols across the entire town or Christian symbols all across town on public property?

I know what you mean, but I am not saying "FORCING" anything, however, if the Governer is Christian and wishes to put up a Chrismas tree on the Lawn of the Governer's Mansion, then so be it. Is it State Property? Yes, but he is entitled to his "Consious Beliefs" as per the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Therefore, he is not "Coersing the public" but instead freely expressing his beliefs at his residence during his time serving office. The same is true for a Jew, Muslim, and Satan worshiper.

Now, I doubt a Satan WOrshiper will be elected, but if so, they too should enjoy the rights of their free and open expression.

Chris

What you fail to recognize is that a public official is still part of the public domain. With that there are bounds in that we don't get to have a bedroom cam, but we also don't have to look at their personal beliefs either.

Look, you are offended by people that propose to eliminate all religious symbolism and I am offended by the thought of anyone that wants my tax dollars to be spent on religious symbolism or the property that it hangs upon. The US Const makes it clear that there will be no religion that is favored or sponsored by the governement, and you are trying to find a crack whee this can be violated.

If you think a Governor is not part of the government/state, then you'll be surprised to know that a cop is the government while on duty. The 4th includes a cop as part of teh government in virtually all of its 4th type decisions where a search/seizure issue is at stake. Sorry, the governor's lawn is the government.

Looks like we will have more bloodshed over that little symbol that supposedly represents love and peace... color me shocked

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Proof to Billvon and Kallend that us conservatives can change our minds . I wonder if you guys could ever do the same.

"Sure did. Before around 1977 I was very conservative. It was Ronald Reagan's brand of intrusive conservatism that turned me off."

AKA Fascism

"BTW, I do not consider the Bush administration to be at all conservative. They are pro big government, deficits, and pro intrusion into the peoples' lives."

I would call them fiscal conservatives..... or Nazis

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Proof to Billvon and Kallend that us conservatives can change our minds . I wonder if you guys could ever do the same.

Well, just wait 'til you've been around a bit longer. I've just seen more of the slippery slope than you have,

Right, most of us were conservatives at one point until we realized the crock of crap that was being fed to us.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[freeryde13 0]

storm thats cool you can find your own voice, congrats. it 's not really about democrats and republicans ....they both suck. it's about us deciding what we want and holding them accountable while we still can.

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance