1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

First Amendment survey finds knowledge lacking

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Roger, Dec 22, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Yeah, those idiots don't realize that the Authors intended to allow people to take off their clothes, pose provocatively, and take money for lewd sex acts under the guise of "freedom of speech." Those morons. And the meaning is so obvious! At least to our brilliant Supreme Court. :lol:
     
  2. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Roger Roger! Good to hear you're still out there tilting at windmills. But after all this time, you still don't get it, do you.

    I'll touch on a couple of your recent replies for brevity.

    On the one hand you still seem to still be enamored with the KJV version of the Bible,
    (a version BTW which was created at the behest of the Church of England, recently formed for the convenience of Henry VIII to divorce and murder his many wives). And yet you place credence in surveys reported in a newspaper founded and funded by Reverend Moon. And the survey itself was apparently commissioned by a foundation with at best dubious credentials and/or motivation.

    Although I'm afraid I wouldn't be surprised if the given results are in the ballpark, nowhere in the article are the key factors of what exactly the questions were, how they were asked, nor who they were asked of. We're all aware of the cliche that "There's truth, there's lies, and then there's damned statistics." And unfortunately this probably reflects their descending order of reliability. Depending on what you ask, how you ask it and whom you ask it of, you can get virtually any result you desire.

    For the sake of argument though, let's assume the statistics are relatively close to reality. My analysis would be twofold. First, a lot of it has to do with the recent American obsession with "safety" and how the paranoia over being "not safe" has been exploited by government and the media. Everything from motorcycle helmets to baby cribs are on the table, and oh yes, tobacco smoke! It's a small miracle we made it through the first two hundred years or so with all that first and second hand cigarette, pipe and cigar pollution in our lungs, let alone the unprotected skulls and guillotine bassinets. The freedoms of religion, press, speech, assembly, etc. have been eclipsed by the rights of safety and security. And it seems whenever anyone feels even slightly threatened or intimidated by someone else's freedom of speech, religion, etc. we like to think the imagined, uncontroversial rights of safety and security take precedence.

    Related but still a second point is this is just how media and politicians like it. We've been told and are generally convinced that speech, religion, press, assembly, etc. rights are inviolable and irrevocable and so we've become complacent. Why should we bother to even remember what they are? It's in the Constitution, right? So John Ashcroft or Congress or multi-national media conglomerates via the FCC can't take away or infringe on those freedoms, right?

    Yeah, sure!:sure:

    I know and understand what my rights are and am willing to put others to sleep explaining it to them.:zzz: It doesn't really matter that each and every one of us know what they are and that they need to be watched over and protected, as long as a few of us do. And with the possible exception of the courts(they only do it when forced), it's not government or media doing the watching and protecting.
     
  3. jwwahly

    jwwahly Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    189
    0
    Dec 21, 2003
    Well Since This Sort Of Went Off Track My Opinion Is That The Only People,group Etc. That Has Any Freedom Is Any Minority Group And I Stress Minority To Mean Any Group Not Color,race,religion Or Anything To Do With Race. For Instance The Pledge Of Allegiance Majority Feel The Word God Should Be In It The Minority Do Not!!! So Who Won That Battle? The Minority Group. So If The Constitution Is For The People By The People Why Do Politics Say The Minority Rule? As Far As Pa. Schools When I Went I Also Had To Know The Const. The Bill Of Rights Etc. I Also Remember Saturday Mornings With The Little Cartoons That Would Educate You Such As Conjunction Junction Whats Your Function. If You Remember This You Should Remember The Rest Of Them . These Type Of Educational Programs Are No Longer Really Available. Thus The Decline In What This Topic Started Out At.
     
  4. jwwahly

    jwwahly Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    189
    0
    Dec 21, 2003
    THEY ALSO WANT TO RAISE GAS PRICES BY 5 TO 8 CENTS A GALLON MORE FOR SUPPOSED HIWAY PROJECTS. :eek2: :eek2: :mad:
     
  5. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I was thinking more along the line of allowing reporters access to news only if they follow the government's guidelines, taking action against people speaking out against the administration, being in favor of freedom of religion as long as its an "approved" religion," little things like that.
     
  6. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Arrrrgh! Not this tired old argument again!:rolleyes:

    OK, try to pay attention now.

    Suppose the majority decided that Congress should make a law mandating that anyone who capitalizes every word on bulletin boards shall be subject to fine and imprisonment. That obviously might put a crimp in the rights of that minority, right? But as irritating, puzzling and inappropriate as the practice may seem to the majority, the Capital Gang would be protected by the rule in the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech. A relief for you and carte blanche to continue your strange habit, yes?

    Majority rule, without rules, is essentially mob rule. And the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the rules. In their wisdom the authors of the Bill of Rights inserted as the first rule in the first Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." And these are in essense the rights we are discussing here.

    Also in their wisdom, they intentionally made these rules NOT subject to the will of the majority except by the tedious process of Constitutional Amendment. And yes, this is exactly to protect the rights of minorities from the whims of the majority. We do not and cannot simply ignore these rules out of convenience, or because most of us would prefer to ignore them, OR in the interests of "Homeland Security". The Establishment Clause(Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ), as it's come to be known, is what's inconvenient for you and the right you would like to ignore right now(and intentionally or not you do so at your own peril). However inconvenient though, I've yet to hear, see or read a cogent, rational argument to show that the insertion of the words "under God" in the pledge can be anything but a "law respecting an establishment of religion" made by Congress. "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" protects individual religious belief(as does the first part really). You may utter the phrase "under God", or any religious mantra of your choice, ad nauseum, wallpaper your den with it, have it printed on your underwear, or tattooed on your forehead. The government cannot and should not be able to stop you. BUT, because of the Establishment Clause, the government is NOT allowed the same options.

    What continually blows my mind is the very people who benefit most from the brilliant notion to divorce religion from government, namely religious people, are the same ones demanding that government endorse and impose religion. Innocuous as it may seem, this IS a step towards government interference and eventual control of religious belief in this country. Not the first and certainly not the last either. Is that what you really want?
     
  7. jwwahly

    jwwahly Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    189
    0
    Dec 21, 2003
    It Was Just An Example At 1130 At Night I Do Not Think To Straight. The Point Is This Whole Thing Can Be Argued To The End Of Time With Always Differing Opinions Which Is What Makes This Country So Great Ie The Freedom Of Speech Etc. These Are The Same Things Other Countries Are So Pissed Off At Us For Because We Can Argue And Have Differing Opinions And Question Our Elected Leaders If We Do Not Like Them Next Election Their Butts Are Gone And On To The Next One. Now Please Understand It Was Just An Example. As For Not Knowing The Const. Our Elected Officials Have Added So Many Laws And Bylaws And Amendements That The Whole Const. Has Been Watered Down To Be Interpreted For Poloticians To Say Our Forfathers Meant To Say This And That And In This Mess The Original Meaning Is Being Lost.....
     
  8. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Its debatable if the original meaning even SHOULD be taken into consideration when applying the constitution to modern problems.

    For instance I'm pretty certain the original founders did indeed intend to protect firearms and allow for citizens to have the right to weaponry. The need for such is obvious when the army at the time was mostly a volunteer force called up during times of trouble and disbanded afterwards. Private citizens in revolutionary times could legally possess the absolute in modern warfare, a canon or warship.

    To intepret the law today based solely on the founding father's opinions would allow me to pack a nuke in my basement... missiles mounted on the roof, machine gun nests in the attic... etc.
     
  9. jwwahly

    jwwahly Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    189
    0
    Dec 21, 2003
    Well At Least You Would Be Ready To Blast The Next ******* That Rams One Of Our Cities With A Plane. But I All Seriousness I Understand What You And Roger Are Saying As Well As What I Am Saying. Some Of The Time You Have To Tiptoe Around Proper Education Of Certain Things Due To What Person Or Group Of People You May Offend Who Think They Are Right And You Should Teach Things Their Way And In This If You Can Read Between My Lines I Think Some Of The Education Medium With Witch We Were Brought Up With Has Been Lost. Thus Enters The Origanal Topic Of Discussion Here. Who Exactaly Do You Blame For The Results. Not Just Teachers But Anyone And Everyone Who Tried To Change The Lessons We All Teach Our Children And Have Succeeded.
     
  10. jwwahly

    jwwahly Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    189
    0
    Dec 21, 2003
    And No English Class Was Not My Best Subject So Im Soory If I Run Sentences Together And Do Not Make Paragraphs. And The Many Other Mistakes I Make In Proper Grammer
     
  11. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Who Exactaly Do You Blame For The Results.

    Well, again I think the questions of the original poll were weak, so this particular survey shouldn't be used as an indicator.

    But if you are asking if education is failing, that too is open to debate. From the link provided, you can see that its not a cut and dry, yes or no. While our education lags in some areas, it succeeds in others, and its not easy to compare students today with students of yesteryear.

    In general, I'd say that education is what parents and students make it to be. Even the worst school in the nation can send a kid on to college and beyond if the student and parents make the most of what is available. The examples of this are numerous. Likewise, even the best teachers can fail when they are fighting reluctant parents, drugs and crime. In my opinion, if schools are failing today, its not the fault of the schools, but rather a general trend in parents today to relinquish responsibility for teaching their own kids.
     
  12. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    How about capitalizing only the first word of the sentence, not every word. And try the spell check that is supplied.

    Now then, those of you who think teachers/schools are doing such a poor job today, what makes you think it was ever done much better. Polls taken of GIs heading off to WW2 found that the majority of them had a sketchy knowledge of the constitution and the amendments they were going off to defend. Things really have not changed much. But that lack of specific knowledge didn't mean they didn't go to protect their country.

    Why should the average student today think these rights are the most important thing? The administration keeps telling us that safety is much more important than freedom. Why shouldn't they believe them?
     
  13. jwwahly

    jwwahly Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    189
    0
    Dec 21, 2003
    I beleive that is what i said.But in not so many words.
     
  14. jwwahly

    jwwahly Legend/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    189
    0
    Dec 21, 2003
    i hope this is better.i am being lazy about spellcheck.My 6 year old is sick with the runs and chest cold.
     
  15. alfbinet

    alfbinet Godfather

    303
    0
    May 18, 2002
    Bogy, you can be a bit caustic at times.
     
  16. alfbinet

    alfbinet Godfather

    303
    0
    May 18, 2002
    ...or blunt.
     
  17. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Sorry. If jwwahly felt I was being caustic, I apologize. He had made a statement about his literary ability and I was trying to be helpful. I found the capitalization very distracting, and jwwahly's last post was much easier to read. Thanks.
     
  18. alfbinet

    alfbinet Godfather

    303
    0
    May 18, 2002
    I wish you were my paster.
     
  19. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Its just a short commute from Cleveland to Omaha. :D
     
  20. alfbinet

    alfbinet Godfather

    303
    0
    May 18, 2002
    Nebraska? I think not a short "commute". Not kidding...you are my type of paster. Far cry from the "Assembly of God" of my youth. They had me until I went off to college.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page