Democrat or Republican?

[~Tropical Punch 19~]

Okay who here is a dumbocrate ( i mean democrate) and who is a republican and why? Or are you liberests like Steven and Elyse or whatever other parties are out there? I ma a republican just like Alex lol! hehe. I am a Republican becasue I thibk othe rpeople shouldn't feel sory for other people and the government shouldn't take money from us to help other people. I think people should work for themselves and not rely on the governemnt unless it is a real serious issue. For example if someone is reallly sick and there family needs support. Well anyway I was just wondering. Sorry if I offened anyone by the dumbocrate thing. It is just because I am very political and like debating things.

There is no need to be offensive by using words that doesn't exist... /Daniel

[GoldenFamilyTies]

Republican here.

[FamilyTiesFan]

First of all, liberal and democrat are basically the same thing, so Elyse and Steven are democrats. You probably mean that they are radicals. I'm like Elyse and Steven and am a Democrat. I'm a Democrat because Republicans never want to raise taxes or anything they always want to lower them. The government usually needs that money for education, or programs like welfare and social security. A lot of times if people are unemployed it is not their fault, there is just a shortage of jobs in this nation so the government should help them. For example, a lot of unemployed people in the Seattle area where I live have college degrees, but have been laid off from failed dot-coms or from Boeing because of the recession. Also, Republicans want to take money away from programs for the environment and education and use it for defense spending. The environment is more important than the economy because if we use up all of the Earth's natural resources, than the economy will suffer tremendously. Not to generalize or anything, but more Republicans than Democrats seem to be pro-life and for organized prayer in school the latter which is a direct violation of the Constitution. That is just my opinion, I am not saying that all Republicans believe in these things, just more of them.

[Ags2000]

I am a Republican. I'm a republican because I believe in lower taxes and less federal government involvement in MY personal business.

Organized Prayer in school is NOT a direct violation of the Constitution. It is protected under the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment reads, and I quote

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

I.E. freedom of religion and freedom of speech right there.


D

[MJFfan]

I'm republican, because dumbocrats are for abortion and alot of other evil stuff.

ALEX RULES!!!!

[FamilyTiesFan]

Originally posted by Ags2000
I am a Republican. I'm a republican because I believe in lower taxes and less federal government involvement in MY personal business.

Organized Prayer in school is NOT a direct violation of the Constitution. It is protected under the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment reads, and I quote


I.E. freedom of religion and freedom of speech right there.


D

"It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion. Everson, 330 U.S. at 15."

Laws permitting organize prayer in school are unconstitutional because they would favor religion such as Christianity over non religion such as atheism. I'm an atheist, so I personally feel very strongly about separating church and state.

[FamilyTiesFan]

Originally posted by MJFfan
I'm republican, because dumbocrats are for abortion and alot of other evil stuff.

ALEX RULES!!!!

Why is abortion evil?

[Ags2000]

You originally said that organized prayer was a driect violation of the constitution. It is not. The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution many times to make their own personal politics and ideas the law.

Just becasue the Supreme Court has ruled on something does not mean that it is right. They once ruled that slavery was legal by upholding the fact that slaves were property. Did that make it right? No it did not.

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.

Originally posted by FamilyTiesFan
Laws permitting organize prayer in school are unconstitutional because they would favor religion such as Christianity over non religion such as atheism. I'm an atheist, so I personally feel very strongly about separating church and state.

By this right, the same thing goes for me. By stopping me from praying, it is putting YOUR religion (athiesm) in front of my religion by allowing you to follow your religion and prohibiting me from praying.


D

[FamilyTiesFan]

Originally posted by Ags2000
You originally said that organized prayer was a driect violation of the constitution. It is not. The Supreme Court has interpreted the constitution many times to make their own personal politics and ideas the law.

Just becasue the Supreme Court has ruled on something does not mean that it is right. They once ruled that slavery was legal by upholding the fact that slaves were property. Did that make it right? No it did not.

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was, of course, in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.




By this right, the same thing goes for me. By stopping me from praying, it is putting YOUR religion (athiesm) in front of my religion by allowing you to follow your religion and prohibiting me from praying.


D

It is true that the Supreme Court has often misinterpreted the Constitution, but not in this case. Stopping you from praying is not putting my religion in front of yours because my beliefs are not a religion, but rather a lack of one. Also, organized prayer in school violates the Establishment clause because it favors the religion that pray in that method. It would be favoring say Christianity over Hinduism or Buddhism. Even if it does not violate the Constitution, that is not the issue at stake here. The issue at stake is that these kinds of laws would be discriminating against atheists. Most people would support organized prayer because as Bush said in China, 95% of Americans believe in God. However, people would never even consider teaching Atheism in schools because of the backlash it would create.

[Ags2000]

Originally posted by FamilyTiesFan
It is true that the Supreme Court has often misinterpreted the Constitution, but not in this case. Stopping you from praying is not putting my religion in front of yours because my beliefs are not a religion, but rather a lack of one. Also, organized prayer in school violates the Establishment clause because it favors the religion that pray in that method.

The Establishment Clause came about from a misunderstanding of Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. It was taken out of context. If the letter were to be read as a whole AND if you would look at the fact that it was written 14 years AFTER the Bill of Rights was ratified, then you would have to agree that to take something written in that letter as word that that was what they were thinking when they wrote the Bill of Rights is wrong.

It would be favoring say Christianity over Hinduism or Buddhism.

How? I have no problem with them praying however they want to. I'm opened minded that way.

Even if it does not violate the Constitution, that is not the issue at stake here.

You are the one that stated:
[quote]more Republicans than Democrats seem to be pro-life and for organized prayer in school the latter which is a direct violation of the Constitution. [quote]
I'm just trying to say that it is NOT a direct violation of the Constitution as you originally claimed it was.

The issue at stake is that these kinds of laws would be discriminating against atheists.

Why just try to put the focus on athiests? Why is it whenever prayer is brought up, the athiests ALWAYS attack the Christians. Y'all never say anything to for example, the Hindu's.

Most people would support organized prayer because as Bush said in China, 95% of Americans believe in God. However, people would never even consider teaching Atheism in schools because of the backlash it would create.

Having prayer in school is NOT teaching Christianity. That has not been brought up at all. All that I am saying is that I want to have the right to pray whenever and wherever I want to. I don't want to be told that because somebody does not believe in what I do that I am not allowed to pray or be in a club that prays.


D

[FamilyTiesFan]

That is beside the point. I agree completely that an individual should be able to exercise their first amendment rights by praying in school or in any other place of their own accord. What I am saying is unconstitutional is a law requiring all students to observe a moment of silence every day. There was such a law in Alabama some time back which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Wallace vs. Jaffrey. It is only this type of prayer in school that I am referring to.

[Ags2000]

Originally posted by FamilyTiesFan
That is beside the point. I agree completely that an individual should be able to exercise their first amendment rights by praying in school or in any other place of their own accord. What I am saying is unconstitutional is a law requiring all students to observe a moment of silence every day. There was such a law in Alabama some time back which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Wallace vs. Jaffrey. It is only this type of prayer in school that I am referring to.

What is wrong with a moment of silence? A moment of silence does not say you have to pray.

The only reason Alabama got in trouble in 1985 is because the Alabama Statute (§ 16-1-20.1) authorized a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools "for meditation or voluntary prayer."

The court however, said that there was a state law already on the books that provided a moment of silence to these appellees irrespective of § 16-1-20.1. in Alabama Code § 16-1-20.

The ONLY reason the Supreme Court ruled against § 16-1-20.1 is because of the words "for meditation or voluntary prayer."

A moment of silence is STILL allowed in school as long as it does not mention mediation or prayer.


D

[hofverberg]

Am I the only one failing to see the connection between this subject and Family Ties...?

[Ags2000]

Originally posted by hofverberg
Am I the only one failing to see the connection between this subject and Family Ties...?

Well, it DID start out about politics.


D

[ftfan]

OK, ive been off this site for awhile, and jsut came back for the good stuff! I am republican, just like Alex P. Keaton!!!!!! I could go on and on, but since this whole thingy is kinda off Family Ties, I should probably keep my mouth shut, LOL! Well, it's good to be back! Oh, nd, hehe, I luv ur dombocrat thingy, not to offend neone. Just funny because that is what I call democrats too, hehe! Again, no offence! BYE BYE!