# Keep defending them ladies



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Just thought I would share part of Sharia law, which is followed as the law of the land in many of the middle eastern countries. I notice a lot of women today defending Muslims and their refugees, this is where these people come from, may your daughters find one and be happy in this life should you support these people!


Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death (only for those who are Muslims & only in a country where Islamic law is completely implemented).
Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death (not denying by non Muslims but criticizing only at a level where it causes mischief).
A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death
A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman,
A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative,
Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

There are also other parts where the husband can beat the wife for insubordination and that the female genatalia be cut per Mohammad. Just thought it might be relevant!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Just thought I would share part of Sharia law, which is followed as the law of the land in many of the middle eastern countries. I notice a lot of women today defending Muslims and their refugees, this is where these people come from, may your daughters find one and be happy in this life should you support these people!
> 
> 
> Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
> ...


Are you saying by accepting Syrian, mostly muslim, refugees that sharia law will be implemented in the US? 

Seriously? :hysterical:


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying by accepting Syrian, mostly muslim, refugees that sharia law will be implemented in the US?
> 
> Seriously? :hysterical:


How did I know you would be the first!!!! Never said it would be implemented here but there are families that do live by it in their communities! If you took the time to see what these people truely live like then you might actually care what you are fighting for to bring to the shores of America. As for me I will remain here in Texas where my governor is trying to make it illegal to accept Syrian refugees!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

I also forgot to mention the most important part of it all. Muslims are supposed to lie to non-Muslims in order to advance Islam. I love the liberals of this country you have deteriorated the moral fiber of America!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> How did I know you would be the first!!!! Never said it would be implemented here but there are families that do live by it in their communities! If you took the time to see what these people truely live like then you might actually care what you are fighting for to bring to the shores of America. As for me I will remain here in Texas where my governor is trying to make it illegal to accept Syrian refugees!


There have muslims living in the US for over half a century. If they follow sharia law here, wouldn't there be more violence? 

There's a question of states refusing refugees is even legal. 

"When push comes to shove, the federal government has both the plenary power and the power of the 1980 Refugee Act to place refugees anywhere in the country," said Kevin Appleby, the director of migration policy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the largest refugee resettlement organization in the country."

From: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/refugee-states-governors-syria/index.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I also forgot to mention the most important part of it all. Muslims are supposed to lie to non-Muslims in order to advance Islam. I love the liberals of this country you have deteriorated the moral fiber of America!


Generalizations suck. Are you saying that all liberals, in the entire country, have caused the deterioration of the moral fiber of America? All liberals? Every single one in all of the US? 

How can your statement be taken seriously?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> There have muslims living in the US for over half a century. If they follow sharia law here, wouldn't there be more violence?
> 
> There's a question of states refusing refugees is even legal.
> 
> ...


You come from a state that strips people of their rights on a daily basis. Your state in an effort to curb gun violence passed legislation and illegally opted out of the three day grace period and failed to put a law enforcement exemption in there. Other states are legalizing what the government spends billions on to fight! If Texas is breaking he law so is everyone else but the real truth is Texas will tell our scammer in chief where to go and probably draw a map! But as far as the violence goes it's already here and been here! It's not going anywhere either! Muslims tend to keep their lives private when it may get them in trouble in their "host" country. Either way you can have Texas' share of refugees in your home town, we have enough hajjis that own gas stations around here!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying by accepting Syrian, mostly muslim, refugees that sharia law will be implemented in the US?
> 
> Seriously? :hysterical:


That's a good question if you leave out accepting Syrians. That juxtaposition leads you astray. We're not there ... yet. The real question is given the progress, when will it happen? America was built on a unique culture that thrived on immigrants and what they contributed. It will not thrive on segregation vs assimilation. 

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/america-sharia-law.html


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Generalizations suck. Are you saying that all liberals, in the entire country, have caused the deterioration of the moral fiber of America? All liberals? Every single one in all of the US?
> 
> How can your statement be taken seriously?


Very simply. We hand things out to those in "need"-get a job
Gay marriage- force it on us and sue the clerks for denying it not because they don't believe in it but because no one had the paperwork that said spouse 1 and spouse 2 instead it said mans name and woman's name! 
Gun control- scammer in chief uses executive order to try and take what I have the right to.
Refugees- we have hungry and homeless vets that he doesn't care to help.
Army maggot who left his post was helped with no expense spared when he should be hung. Marine crosses into Mexico illegally and imprisoned and the White House doesn't lift a finger. 

We can do this all day. At least conservatives just want people to earn what they have and deserve!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> You come from a state that strips people of their rights on a daily basis. Your state in an effort to curb gun violence passed legislation and illegally opted out of the three day grace period and failed to put a law enforcement exemption in there. Other states are legalizing what the government spends billions on to fight! If Texas is breaking he law so is everyone else but the real truth is Texas will tell our scammer in chief where to go and probably draw a map! But as far as the violence goes it's already here and been here! It's not going anywhere either! Muslims tend to keep their lives private when it may get them in trouble in their "host" country. Either way you can have Texas' share of refugees in your home town, we have enough hajjis that own gas stations around here!


Are we discussing sharia law and refugees or are you diverting so you don't have to address my question? 

I'll post it again, "There have muslims living in the US for over half a century. If they follow sharia law here, wouldn't there be more violence?"

I'm not going to argue with you, I'll refer you to the 1980 Refugee Act.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Very simply. We hand things out to those in "need"-get a job
> Gay marriage- force it on us and sue the clerks for denying it not because they don't believe in it but because no one had the paperwork that said spouse 1 and spouse 2 instead it said mans name and woman's name!
> Gun control- scammer in chief uses executive order to try and take what I have the right to.
> Refugees- we have hungry and homeless vets that he doesn't care to help.
> ...


You're arguing all and everything is complete nonsense. The discussion was sharia law and Syrian refugees, remember? 

If all you want to do is rant, have at it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> That's a good question if you leave out accepting Syrians. That juxtaposition leads you astray. We're not there ... yet. The real question is given the progress, when will it happen? America was built on a unique culture that thrived on immigrants and what they contributed. It will not thrive on segregation vs assimilation.
> 
> http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/america-sharia-law.html


Are you saying that the millions of muslims that have lived in the US for over 50 years are living under sharia law and have not assimilated?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're arguing all and everything is complete nonsense. The discussion was sharia law and Syrian refugees, remember?
> 
> If all you want to do is rant, have at it.


You brought Syrians into it not me. Refugees come from many countries. Yes, groups and families/tribes practice sharia law in America, you won't really hear about it because most of it will land them in jail due to American law! Much like the Somalians that have brought their sorry backsides here they keep their violence in their communities generally to avoid the law! 

I was using your state as a guideline for liberalism! 

Can you send me some blinders that you wear I reckon it may help me see things in your light!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Ms. Pixie I reckon you are much like everyone else that will not see or hear anyone else's opinion unless it is your own or similar. I am probably the same and it probably has to do with your upbringing and where you live. I have seen these places and how they live and yes they do practice sharia law in America in their communities.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Never said it would be implemented here but there are families that do live by it in their communities!


 So what? As long as the break no local, state, or federal law, they can do as they please within thier own community. Just like the Amish, just like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews. 
And by the way, US law still trumps any 'religious' laws people voluntarily live under.


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Haven't you heard of the honor killings here?

*Honor killing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...*


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> You brought Syrians into it not me. Refugees come from many countries. Yes, groups and families/tribes practice sharia law in America, you won't really hear about it because most of it will land them in jail due to American law! Much like the Somalians that have brought their sorry backsides here they keep their violence in their communities generally to avoid the law!
> 
> I was using your state as a guideline for liberalism!
> 
> Can you send me some blinders that you wear I reckon it may help me see things in your light!


Whatever you're using as a blinder is much heavier weight than anything I have... 

Ok. There's something wrong with jailing muslims that break American law? Isn't that what is supposed to happen? They can't be jailed for not breaking the law, can they?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Well hopefully the Muslim women who come here are able to exercise their freedom and if it means breaking away from Sharia than maybe American women will stand up with them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ms. Pixie I reckon you are much like everyone else that will not see or hear anyone else's opinion unless it is your own or similar. I am probably the same and it probably has to do with your upbringing and where you live. I have seen these places and how they live and yes they do practice sharia law in America in their communities.


Right back at ya. 

As greg273 said, so what?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Refugees- we have hungry and homeless vets that he doesn't care to help


Look to republicans in Congress for that culpability.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> Haven't you heard of the honor killings here?
> 
> *Honor killing in the United States - Wikipedia, the free ...*


Sorry. I'm missing your point? Aren't the perpetrators of honor killings (and other crimes) punished for their crimes?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> Look to republicans in Congress for that culpability.


I blame them both, the games politicians play. Trying to divert attention from their dirty deeds.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

greg273 said:


> So what? As long as the break no local, state, or federal law, they can do as they please within thier own community. Just like the Amish, just like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
> And by the way, US law still trumps any 'religious' laws people voluntarily live under.


Read sharia law again, cutting a hand off would be breaking a law, beating your wife would be spousal abuse. Good effort but it is breaking US law to live by sharia law. Seriously good effort.




Irish Pixie said:


> Whatever you're using as a blinder is much heavier weight than anything I have...
> 
> Ok. There's something wrong with jailing muslims that break American law? Isn't that what is supposed to happen? They can't be jailed for not breaking the law, can they?


Ms. Pixie, I expect nothing less than perfection from you. Maybe you should run with Hilary. I must have my morals so far out of line I will try to be more like you. Maybe I can help these people so how. Better yet I will help those that are truely in need, US Veterans. There are plenty without home and food, help them they actually did something for this country, refugees are a cost burden! But somehow I will try to remove my conservative blinders and see the world through your eyes and be a better person. Take care and God bless.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that the millions of muslims that have lived in the US for over 50 years are living under sharia law and have not assimilated?


Yes. 

Not all, but it does happen.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/honor-killings-in-america/391760/



> These things do happen. Two teenage sisters are shot, point blank, in the back of their fatherâs taxi, apparently for the shame they brought the family by having boyfriends. A young woman is run down and left to die in a parking lot by her father for refusing a forced marriage. A woman lives in fear that every time she goes to work, her family may decide to cut her young daughterâs clitoris or sew up her labia to ensure her virginity before marriage.
> But what most Americans just donât get is that such horrors happen here in the United States of Americaâand not just in faraway countries like Afghanistan or Somalia.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Read sharia law again, cutting a hand off would be breaking a law, beating your wife would be spousal abuse. Good effort but it is breaking US law to live by sharia law. Seriously good effort.
> 
> 
> Ms. Pixie, I expect nothing less than perfection from you. Maybe you should run with Hilary. I must have my morals so far out of line I will try to be more like you. Maybe I can help these people so how. Better yet I will help those that are truely in need, US Veterans. There are plenty without home and food, help them they actually did something for this country, refugees are a cost burden! But somehow I will try to remove my conservative blinders and see the world through your eyes and be a better person. Take care and God bless.


I loathe Hillary. I also don't believe in god so your blessing is a waste of time. 

I'm confused by your first statement. Are you saying that all wife beaters are living under sharia law? Or people that torture (cutting off people's parts) are living under sharia law?

Can you explain, please?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Read sharia law again, cutting a hand off would be breaking a law, beating your wife would be spousal abuse. Good effort but it is breaking US law to live by sharia law. Seriously good effort.
> 
> .


 
All of those things would be considered crimes. So, to repeat what I said earlier, as long as they DO NOT BREAK ANY LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS, they are free to practice their religion in any manner they choose. Just like the Amish, just like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, just like any number of fundamentalist Christian communities.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

greg273 said:


> All of those things would be considered crimes. So, to repeat what I said earlier, as long as they DO NOT BREAK ANY LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS, they are free to practice their religion in any manner they choose. Just like the Amish, just like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, just like any number of fundamentalist Christian communities.


And I am free to dislike their actions also.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I loathe Hillary. I also don't believe in god so your blessing is a waste of time.
> 
> I'm confused by your first statement. Are you saying that all wife beaters are living under sharia law? Or people that torture (cutting off people's parts) are living under sharia law?
> 
> Can you explain, please?


Ms. Pixie, I reckon you are attempting to draw a conclusion here. No I am NOT saying that all wife beaters follow sharia law and that torturers live by sharia law. I simply said that that is what sharia law IS and how it IS carried out and it IS here in America, and that it IS breaking the law to live by sharia law in America. Common sense is no longer a common virtue. no blessing is a waste! Have a lovely day and God bless!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ms. Pixie, I reckon you are attempting to draw a conclusion here. No I am NOT saying that all wife beaters follow sharia law and that torturers live by sharia law. I simply said that that is what sharia law IS and how it IS carried out and it IS here in America, and that it IS breaking the law to live by sharia law in America. Common sense is no longer a common virtue. no blessing is a waste! Have a lovely day and God bless!


Are you baiting me by blessing after I told you I don't believe in god? That's not nice. 

What were you attempting to say? Muslim, christian, amish, jewish, etc... if anyone breaks US law, and is caught, they are punished, correct?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you baiting me by blessing after I told you I don't believe in god? That's not nice.
> 
> What were you attempting to say? Muslim, christian, amish, jewish, etc... if anyone breaks US law, and is caught, they are punished, correct?


Ms. Pixie, you, me and Jesus all know many crimes go unpunished, many that our government commits. 

All peace and love aside, if you do not believe in God, why defend a religion?

No baiting just a blessing that's all. If you do not like it take care will work I reckon!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

greg273 said:


> All of those things would be considered crimes. So, to repeat what I said earlier, as long as they DO NOT BREAK ANY LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAWS, they are free to practice their religion in any manner they choose. Just like the Amish, just like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, just like any number of fundamentalist Christian communities.


Agreed. To repeat what I said and what sharia law states is that it is acceptable for those things per their religion l, that is part of their faith and it would make it a crime to live by it to the full extent.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that the millions of muslims that have lived in the US for over 50 years are living under sharia law and have not assimilated?


It's a question for research.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Darren said:


> It's a question for research.


My pockets ain't that deep!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ms. Pixie, you, me and Jesus all know many crimes go unpunished, many that our government commits.
> 
> All peace and love aside, if you do not believe in God, why defend a religion?
> 
> No baiting just a blessing that's all. If you do not like it take care will work I reckon!


I'm not defending a religion, I'm pointing out hypocrites. 

You see, people that truly believe in their faith don't use it to annoy or as a weapon to hurt other people. So it makes me wonder what you lack in your faith that motivates you to use it to annoy me? Why don't you figure it out yourself instead of baiting me?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not defending a religion, I'm pointing out hypocrites.
> 
> You see, people that truly believe in their faith don't use it to annoy or as a weapon to hurt other people. So it makes me wonder what you lack in your faith that motivates you to use it to annoy me? Why don't you figure it out yourself instead of baiting me?


Ms. Pixie, I am by no means trying to bait you or even attempting to push my religion on you. I do not lack in my faith, could it be stronger , maybe, but I know where I stand. I could be a real prick head and ask why I cannot express my wish to say God bless as that is my right. You have chosen to say you do not believe. I reckon you maybe trying to push your beliefs to others. But I am not feeling hostile at this moment. Have a lovely day Ms. Pixie.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Just put of curiosity, I am a hypocrite how???


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying that the millions of muslims that have lived in the US for over 50 years are living under sharia law and have not assimilated?


It is a fact that Muslims do not assimilate well into western societies. They tend to overwhelmingly gather in conclaves where they can come closer to practicing their practices. If you doubt it, check with countries that have a lot of them. The heads of the Belgium government were on tv a couple days ago saying how hard they have tried to bring Muslims into the mainstream but they won't accept it. Today Belgium is on lockdown do to immediate terror threats. All the western countries that have large populations of Muslims have the same problem. Read international news. Why aren't you petitioning your governnor to welcome those immigrants Texas doesn't want and why must Texas bear the brunt of Latino immigrants? Do you hate Latinos?


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry. I'm missing your point? Aren't the perpetrators of honor killings (and other crimes) punished for their crimes?


 Yes, but, they are still living by sharia law, or is that escaping you?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

poppy said:


> It is a fact that Muslims do not assimilate well into western societies. They tend to overwhelmingly gather in conclaves where they can come closer to practicing their practices. If you doubt it, check with countries that have a lot of them. The heads of the Belgium government were on tv a couple days ago saying how hard they have tried to bring Muslims into the mainstream but they won't accept it. Today Belgium is on lockdown do to immediate terror threats. All the western countries that have large populations of Muslims have the same problem. Read international news. Why aren't you petitioning your governnor to welcome those immigrants Texas doesn't want and why must Texas bear the brunt of Latino immigrants? Do you hate Latinos?


I only wish the Mexicans would do it legally but they really just want to work at the end of the day. The actually bad ones come from beyond Mexico, generally.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

scooter said:


> Yes, but, they are still living by sharia law, or is that escaping you?


Not escaping me, I'm failing to see the problem. Do you want _your_ religious beliefs (if any) curtailed by the government? 

US law is the most important in the US, yes? Muslims can only follow sharia law to the point where it doesn't break US law.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ms. Pixie, I am by no means trying to bait you or even attempting to push my religion on you. I do not lack in my faith, could it be stronger , maybe, but I know where I stand. I could be a real prick head and ask why I cannot express my wish to say God bless as that is my right. You have chosen to say you do not believe. I reckon you maybe trying to push your beliefs to others. But I am not feeling hostile at this moment. Have a lovely day Ms. Pixie.


You pushed your religion on me when I told you I didn't believe in god. Instead of backing off with the god rhetoric, you continued to push your religion on me, why? What do you lack that you feel that your belief was more important than my non belief? 

People that put their religion, whatever that might be, above another person's belief, or non belief, are hypocrites in my opinion. One belief is not any better than another. In fact, christian, and muslim are basically the same religion- one god, one book. Both descend, along with judaism, from the prophet Abraham.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Not escaping me, I'm failing to see the problem. Do you want _your_ religious beliefs (if any) curtailed by the government?
> 
> US law is the most important in the US, yes? Muslims can only follow sharia law to the point where it doesn't break US law.


Ms. Pixie, that's where you fail to understand. They do not care about the US laws, they follow their law intelligently as to not catch the eye of law enforcement. Many communities follow it to the letter.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

It also depends on which form of Sharia followed, their are 4. The more hard line they are the more detrimental to women.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> You pushed your religion on me when I told you I didn't believe in god. Instead of backing off with the god rhetoric, you continued to push your religion on me, why? What do you lack that you feel that your belief was more important than my non belief?
> 
> People that put their religion, whatever that might be, above another person's belief, or non belief, are hypocrites in my opinion. One belief is not any better than another. In fact, christian, and muslim are basically the same religion- one god, one book. Both descend, along with judaism, from the prophet Abraham.


Ms. Pixie, you just called yourself a hypocrite. Next point, any non-believe does not say they don't believe in God, they say "a" God.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

What I am trying to say is take a good long hard look in the mirror before you call someone a hypocrite. Saying you do not believe in God is acknowledging him and Satan. Saying you do not believe in a God would be more believable. You more Han likely don't believe because of something that happened. Have a great day.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ms. Pixie, that's where you fail to understand. They do not care about the US laws, they follow their law intelligently as to not catch the eye of law enforcement. Many communities follow it to the letter.


I don't know how to explain it so that you'll understand. Everyone has the right to practice the tenets of their religion up to the point where it violates the law, correct?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> What I am trying to say is take a good long hard look in the mirror before you call someone a hypocrite. Saying you do not believe in God is acknowledging him and Satan. Saying you do not believe in a God would be more believable. You more Han likely don't believe because of something that happened. Have a great day.


There you go again. I don't believe in god, satan, hell, demons, sin, heaven, all the religious hogwash. Do you understand now? 

Now you're telling me what I believe, and why? That's just a bit presumptuous, isn't it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Ms. Pixie, you just called yourself a hypocrite. Next point, any non-believe does not say they don't believe in God, they say "a" God.


Again, trying to tell me what I believe? I don't believe in god. Period. Atheist. Do you understand what that means?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, trying to tell me what I believe? I don't believe in god. Period. Atheist. Do you understand what that means?


I know exactly what it means. I don't care what you choose to believe in but before you call someone a hypocrite YOU, Ms. Pixie, need to take a good hard look in the mirror. You are the poster child of hypocrite. I protected the 1st amendment I know what you are entitled to and I don't care what you believe, again! 

To answer your question in words "I" understand, to practice sharia law you do not pick and choose you do or don't. No part of it can be practiced inside of the US law. Do you understand this. Cutting a theirs hand off warranted or not is illegal, beating your wife for insubordination warranted or not is illegal. Killing a Muslim for leaving is a crime, killing someone for denouncing their religion or God would be a crime. So basically if we followed sharia law here in America with you not believing you cold be punished by death. If you understand now I would be surprised. You are protected by the first amendment to say and do as you please more or less. You have that right. So take that into consideration when you question the beliefs of something you do not believe any facet of.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

greg273 said:


> So what? *As long as the break no local, state, or federal law, they can do as they please within thier own community.* Just like the Amish, just like the Ultra-Orthodox Jews.
> And by the way, US law still trumps any 'religious' laws people voluntarily live under.


I'm sorry, but isn't cutting off someone's limb or executing them for being the wrong faith against the law anymore?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> You come from a state that strips people of their rights on a daily basis. Your state in an effort to curb gun violence passed legislation and illegally opted out of the three day grace period and failed to put a law enforcement exemption in there. Other states are legalizing what the government spends billions on to fight! If Texas is breaking he law so is everyone else but the real truth is Texas will tell our scammer in chief where to go and probably draw a map! But as far as the violence goes it's already here and been here! It's not going anywhere either! Muslims tend to keep their lives private when it may get them in trouble in their "host" country. Either way you can have Texas' share of refugees in your home town, we have enough hajjis that own gas stations around here!


i think most states including Texas have had a long history of denying rights to their citizens. It just depends upon whose rights are deemed unacceptable at the moment. It almost sounds like you are in favor of denying the rights of some to seek refuge in our great land because of their religion. It also sounds like you would deny many citizens their God given right to be on friendly terms with any plants they so choose, possibly based upon your own religious beliefs? As to the destruction of moral values, perhaps we should go back to hanging witches? And those native Americans! Perhaps we should go back and finish the genocide we practiced during our "moral" hayday, and of course I am sure the return of slavery would be a refreshing boon to our "moral integrity". :drum:

In short we can protect everyone's basic God given rights or no ones is safe.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I know exactly what it means. I don't care what you choose to believe in but before you call someone a hypocrite YOU, Ms. Pixie, need to take a good hard look in the mirror. You are the poster child of hypocrite. I protected the 1st amendment I know what you are entitled to and I don't care what you believe, again!
> 
> To answer your question in words "I" understand, to practice sharia law you do not pick and choose you do or don't. No part of it can be practiced inside of the US law. Do you understand this. Cutting a theirs hand off warranted or not is illegal, beating your wife for insubordination warranted or not is illegal. Killing a Muslim for leaving is a crime, killing someone for denouncing their religion or God would be a crime. So basically if we followed sharia law here in America with you not believing you cold be punished by death. If you understand now I would be surprised. You are protected by the first amendment to say and do as you please more or less. You have that right. So take that into consideration when you question the beliefs of something you do not believe any facet of.


Wasn't religious freedom a huge issue in the forming of this country? Doesn't everyone have the right to practice their religion up to the point where it violates US law? Why is whatever religion you are more important than muslims, orthodox jews, or amish? They all have tenets of their religion that they follow. You have no right to interfere simply because you don't believe in what they do. Up to the point that it breaks US law, anyone can follow the tenet of their religion. 

If you feel that it's OK to mess with someone else's religious beliefs but yours are inviolate, we're back to the hypocrite thing.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i think most states including Texas have had a long history of denying rights to their citizens. It just depends upon whose rights are deemed unacceptable at the moment. It almost sounds like you are in favor of denying the rights of some to seek refuge in our great land because of their religion. It also sounds like you would deny many citizens their God given right to be on friendly terms with any plants they so choose, possibly based upon your own religious beliefs? As to the destruction of moral values, perhaps we should go back to hanging witches? And those native Americans! Perhaps we should go back and finish the genocide we practiced during our "moral" hayday, and of course I am sure the return of slavery would be a refreshing boon to our "moral integrity". :drum:
> 
> In short we can protect everyone's basic God given rights or no ones is safe.


Refugees are a burden to society. They cost money they don't replenish in any way shape or form. They get their meals and a roof for free. Why would I want a bunch of stoned idiots driving around. At least when your drunk and get stopped they usually smell it. Smoke dope I could care less do it away from me and where you can't hurt me or mine. Slavery is pretty much back paying migrant workers 3 an hour. The only difference is now those whose blame us for enslaving their ancestors live off my tax dollars so they can kiss my backside too. Where does it say it is a right to seek refuge in the US? it doesn't! Once again good effort. It just shows that my earlier comment about liberals is true!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

YH, since when are you liberal? You been holding out on us?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wasn't religious freedom a huge issue in the forming of this country? Doesn't everyone have the right to practice their religion up to the point where it violates US law? Why is whatever religion you are more important than muslims, orthodox jews, or amish? They all have tenets of their religion that they follow. You have no right to interfere simply because you don't believe in what they do. Up to the point that it breaks US law, anyone can follow the tenet of their religion.
> 
> If you feel that it's OK to mess with someone else's religious beliefs but yours are inviolate, we're back to the hypocrite thing.


I'm Catholic.....crusades.....I think I know about how my faith is and the hypocrisy that surrounds all religions. 

Do you read what you want to read? Sharia law is violent! With the exception of praying 5 times a day it is all illegal to practice fully here. What are you not understanding. Also to correct Christians and Muslims, there are actually many versions of the bible. Unlike the Muslims. 

I do not believe in a man marrying an infant girl and consummating the marriage when she is 9
I do not believe in clipping a girls genatalia so she cannot enjoy sex
I do not believe in killing those who leave their faith
I do not believe in killing someone for marrying outside their religion.

I guess you do. I guess all that is ok by you. Now we can see what kind of person you are . I hope(pray would offend you) that this lifestyle lands at your doorstep!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

To think I have friends that gave their lives so you could run your mouth and despise everything you yourself are.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I'm Catholic.....crusades.....I think I know about how my faith is and the hypocrisy that surrounds all religions.
> 
> Do you read what you want to read? Sharia law is violent! With the exception of praying 5 times a day it is all illegal to practice fully here. What are you not understanding. Also to correct Christians and Muslims, there are actually many versions of the bible. Unlike the Muslims.
> 
> ...


Sharia law blah blah blah. There are some nasty bits to catholicism too. Should the government be able to regulate it? 

BTW, do you use birth control? If so, you're violating canon law. I imagine there are muslims that violate sharia law too.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Nope. Nope. Nope.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I only wish the Mexicans would do it legally but they really just want to work at the end of the day. The actually bad ones come from beyond Mexico, generally.


THIS.

It drives me bonkers that we as a society can't seem to get past calling illegal immigrants that gain entry from our southern borders "Mexicans" out of laziness from trying to simplify their description.

Good grief! They come from soooo many places, and yes, more and more they seem to be arriving via the south from places other than the many nations of North and South America, too.

It's as backwards to me, as it would be if the EU, referred to the immigrants flooding into the EU via Greece, Greeks. (They must all be Greek right cause they came to us through Greece?!?!)

It, if they called huge lots of them, Italian, cause they entered through Italy!

Maybe when Merkel has been overrun and she decides to just issue all the immigrants there German visas so they can easily move throughout the EU, we can call all if those people Germans. That's were they entered from right? So, clearly that must be the most important identifier for them. They're German!

Ok. My rant is over.

PS. Wasn't really a rant directed at anyone in the thread. The post just caught my attention, cause I encounter "the Mexicans" description, so often in the media and real life, and it's kind of a pet peeve.

Figured I'd and my post to the thread cause, it was making me laugh imagining the same practice if us naming immigrants "Mexicans" being used with so many Muslims and others flooding into the EU currently.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> YH, since when are you liberal? You been holding out on us?


I dunno! I have always considered myself to stand a bit to the right of Attila the Hun. :shrug: in a fair way though.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sharia law blah blah blah. There are some nasty bits to catholicism too. Should the government be able to regulate it?
> 
> BTW, do you use birth control? If so, you're violating canon law. I imagine there are muslims that violate sharia law too.


Ms. Pixie, as a matter of fact, no I do not use contraception. Contraception would be the correct term, as birth control is commonly referred to women for use, but that ok, we are learning here. 

Do you google things just to argue? Are do you actually research religion? Which nasty bits of Catholicism would you be referring to? Please enlighten me Dr. Pixie with 409 theology degrees, please tell me more.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

[No message]


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Refugees are a burden to society. They cost money they don't replenish in any way shape or form. They get their meals and a roof for free. Why would I want a bunch of stoned idiots driving around. At least when your drunk and get stopped they usually smell it. Smoke dope I could care less do it away from me and where you can't hurt me or mine. Slavery is pretty much back paying migrant workers 3 an hour. The only difference is now those whose blame us for enslaving their ancestors live off my tax dollars so they can kiss my backside too. Where does it say it is a right to seek refuge in the US? it doesn't! Once again good effort. It just shows that my earlier comment about liberals is true!


"Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me" or something like that keeps running around in my brain as being a part of our nations history. They, refugees, have long been known to provide a cheap source of labor, a necessary ingredient if capitalists expect to exploit the poor. Or at bare minimum it gives entrepreneurs a back to stand on as we claw our way to success!
If you don't want to have to drive around with stoned idiots I recommend passing laws to prohibit driving while stoned. I agree what a feller does at home is his own business. Fer what it's worth, I don't smoke pot either. Tried it for a while in my younger days but it always made me sorta swimmy headed. In regards to smelling drunk drivers I have driven several hundreds of thousands of miles at various levels of intoxication, including driving down the highway with booze dripping through my feeding tube while I was unable to swallow! (Cancer treatments, long story) I apparently must be smell proof as I've never been written up on a dui. Neither was my dearly departed daddy in his over seventy years of driving! 
You are aware that a lot of God fearing white folks make their living off of your tax dollars too right? And a lot of those whose ancestors were slaves are hard working decent citizens?
Last time I glanced though my copy of the U.S. Constitution the federal government was indeed authorized to set up rules and regulations regarding immigration.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> "Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me" or something like that keeps running around in my brain as being a part of our nations history. They, refugees, have long been known to provide a cheap source of labor, a necessary ingredient if capitalists expect to exploit the poor. Or at bare minimum it gives entrepreneurs a back to stand on as we claw our way to success!
> If you don't want to have to drive around with stoned idiots I recommend passing laws to prohibit driving while stoned. I agree what a feller does at home is his own business. Fer what it's worth, I don't smoke pot either. Tried it for a while in my younger days but it always made me sorta swimmy headed.
> You are aware that a lot of God fearing white folks make their living off of your tax dollars too right? And a lot of those whose ancestors were slaves are hard working decent citizens?
> Last time I glanced though my copy of the U.S. Constitution the federal government was indeed authorized to set up rules and regulations regarding immigration.


History, yes. Part of the constitution, no. Yes I know there are all races that are free riders but break the numbers down. And yes I know there are hard working minorities. I know and understand all these things and I feel the same about all, but break it down and you will be surprised.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

Just as a side note....when a tree falls in a forest with no witness...who knows about who cut it down? Closed societies are just that closed. A man kills his wife and she is never reported missing therefore there is never an investigation yada yada


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> There are also other parts where the husband can beat the wife for insubordination and that the female genatalia be cut per Mohammad. Just thought it might be relevant!


The second part is actually not true, that is a central African practice and has nothing to do with Islam. African Christian nations do it too. Christians can beat their wives too and so can Jews. You will find most of the stuff on your lists in all of the Abrahamic religions. 

It would be enormously helpful if you guys would do your research somewhere other than "wehateIslam.com".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> History, yes. Part of the constitution, no. Yes I know there are all races that are free riders but break the numbers down. And yes I know there are hard working minorities. I know and understand all these things and I feel the same about all, but break it down and you will be surprised.


So you know, and still hold your opinion? Perhaps you could help me out here, I am curious about something and really don't want to reread the whole book to find the answer, especially if it's not in there, went through that once with "cleanliness is next to godliness" only to find its not really part of the holy writings! Might you know if "none are so blind as those who refuse to see" is scriptural or not?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> The second part is actually not true, that is a central African practice and has nothing to do with Islam. African Christian nations do it too. Christians can beat their wives too and so can Jews. You will find most of the stuff on your lists in all of the Abrahamic religions.
> 
> It would be enormously helpful if you guys would do your research somewhere other than "wehateIslam.com".


I guess you have been in the Middle East and can attest to it then? I have been there and we as in the group of Marines I was with witnessed those things. So by all means correct me.

Let me be clear here. Christians and Jews do not have violent laws, one more time for the ignorant liberals, Christians and Jews do not have violent LAWS. The Muslims have VIOLENT LAWS. 

Truth be told I trust Muslims as much as I trust the government and liberals! There's a warm fuzzy place in my heart for all of them. 

I know anyone can do hear things no matter creed or race but their religion does not make it Law , Muslim does! 

Get it, got it, doubt it l, but y'all will eventually overpower America and screw it he rest of he way into the ground.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Common sense is no longer a common virtue.


Reading your posts has convinced me you're right about that part


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you baiting me by blessing after I told you I don't believe in god? That's not nice.
> 
> What were you attempting to say? Muslim, christian, amish, jewish, etc... if anyone breaks US law, and is caught, they are punished, correct?


 As a fellow nonbeliever I don't now why you would be bothered by some offering you a blessing from something you don't believe. Most that offer this are doing it to be nice. 

Jim


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I guess you have been in the Middle East and can attest to it then? I have been there and we as in the group of Marines I was with witnessed those things. So by all means correct me.
> 
> Let me be clear here. Christians and Jews do not have violent laws, one more time for the ignorant liberals, Christians and Jews do not have violent LAWS. The Muslims have VIOLENT LAWS.
> 
> ...


Christian nations have had laws like that on their books derived from the bible. Some of them in Africa still do. Israel had laws like that at one time too. You would do well to study the history of all 3 religions they are all offshoots from the same tree. Mohamed didn't pull his stuff out of thin air you know.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

no really said:


> Well hopefully the Muslim women who come here are able to exercise their freedom and if it means breaking away from Sharia than maybe American women will stand up with them.


This has been a struggle in Germany. Sibel Kekilli, one of the stars of _Game of Thrones_, is a Turkish German, or German Turk, or whatever. She supports a European organization called Terre Des Femmes which is basically set up to fight domestic violence against women. I was really surprised, but, it's worth pointing out what she has said in regards to that. 



> "I have experienced for myself that both physical and psychological abuse are regarded as normal in a Muslim family. Sadly, violence belongs to the culture of Islam"


So, all I really know about that is what I've read. I had to take into consideration that it was almost 10 years ago and she was 26. The event where she said this was run by a Turkish newspaper in Berlin. When she said it, the Turkish Consul General got up and walked out. She's still vocal about the treatment of women today.

In my opinion, it isn't like Europe hasn't had some serious cultural differences with its Islamic population already. I don't feel like this stuff just popped up out of nowhere the way some media outlets in America seem to think. Europe has been dealing with this culture clash since the 1950s.


----------



## MoBookworm1957 (Aug 24, 2015)

Amen, brother!


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I guess you have been in the Middle East and can attest to it then? I have been there and we as in the group of Marines I was with witnessed those things. So by all means correct me.
> 
> Let me be clear here. Christians and Jews do not have violent laws, one more time for the ignorant liberals, Christians and Jews do not have violent LAWS. The Muslims have VIOLENT LAWS.
> 
> ...


Exodus 21 KJV "*17*And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

Jim


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Reading your posts has convinced me you're right about that part


Means a lot coming from you l, I am hurt!




Jim Bunton said:


> Exodus 21 KJV "*17*And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
> 
> Jim


Where has that been carried out in the Catholic faith? Where is that in the catechism?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I don't know too much about the beliefs of the Catholic Church, but it's my understanding there was a fair amount of "church sponsered" violence during the Spanish Inquisition era.... Do you happen to recall which church was running that show?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

The crusades were the Catholics, I know this. That's not my point, my point is that sharia law is violent. The Christian Faith's are not violent, their members may be but it is not sponsored by the religion, this is what I am trying to explain but none of you hear this. People of all backgrounds are violent, yes I know I AGREE WITH YOU! Islam as a religion and its bylaws and such are violent.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't know too much about the beliefs of the Catholic Church, but it's my understanding there was a fair amount of "church sponsered" violence during the Spanish Inquisition era.... Do you happen to recall which church was running that show?


There is 30 years of catholic violence via "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland as well.

Chronicles the violence of the catholic church from 1096-1945: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/R-Reformation_Rome_crusade_slaughter


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> The crusades were the Catholics, I know this. That's not my point, my point is that sharia law is violent. The Christian Faith's are not violent, their members may be but it is not sponsored by the religion, this is what I am trying to explain but none of you hear this. People of all backgrounds are violent, yes I know I AGREE WITH YOU! Islam as a religion and its bylaws and such are violent.



wow you're new and so glad you are here. because need more :catfight:.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

The Islamic laws are taken right out of the Old Testament.... And if you will note they are only harsh when one violates them.... Just like the laws handed down by the Vatican as well as Protestant believers in our own country. Follow the law, no punishment, break the law.... Shame on you!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mrsgcpete said:


> wow you're new and so glad you are here. because need more :catfight:.


Ok, who stole the like button!?!?
It was there again and now gone again.... :shrug:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Just as a point of order. The Crusades may have been "Catholic," but back then there was The Church.......and that's it. Orthodoxy was for the Russians and the Empire, and somewhat for the Nordics. Coptic Christianity was for Africans and Easterners. There was no Church of England. There were no Lutherans. There was no such thing as "protestant." 

Oh and by the way. If you're not going to make the distinction between Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, Kharijite, Ahmadiyya, Aqidah, or any other branch of Islam........why should anyone distinguish between Christian sects?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't know too much about the beliefs of the Catholic Church, but it's my understanding there was a fair amount of "church sponsered" violence during the Spanish Inquisition era.... Do you happen to recall which church was running that show?


Don't know how to copy a link to this YouTube video. But, it offers a less discussed reflection of this topic, also mentioning Ferdinand and Isabella's reigns.

It's about 45 minutes and was worth watching IMO.

It's called "why we are afraid, a 1400 year secret, by Dr Bill Warner". You can find the link to the YouTube video if you search that title/phrase.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mrsgcpete said:


> wow you're new and so glad you are here. because need more :catfight:.


Boy 3 years and 500 posts, you contribute a bunch!


----------



## mrsgcpete (Sep 16, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Boy 3 years and 500 posts, you contribute a bunch!



yes thank you, i spent many years posting under my husband's name and signing my posts, i also had another name and lost the pass word, and then decided to get a handle of my own, because it made sense when i was doing the quilts swaps (because i dont just come here to troll around in GC) so in total i have probably been around about 10 years. :kiss:


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mrsgcpete said:


> yes thank you, i spent many years posting under my husband's name and signing my posts, i also had another name and lost the pass word, and then decided to get a handle of my own, because it made sense when i was doing the quilts swaps (because i dont just come here to troll around in GC) so in total i have probably been around about 10 years. :kiss:


Outstanding, I didn't ask all that nor do I really care honestly. I ain't trolling as y'all call it. I actually came here to interact with people on critters and other things but there seems to be more of conservative bashing here than anything. I do appreciate your warm welcome though!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> The crusades were the Catholics, I know this. That's not my point, my point is that sharia law is violent. The Christian Faith's are not violent, their members may be but it is not sponsored by the religion, this is what I am trying to explain but none of you hear this. People of all backgrounds are violent, yes I know I AGREE WITH YOU! Islam as a religion and its bylaws and such are violent.



Trust me we know what you are trying to explain. It's been beat to death by others here long before you and thoroughly debunked by us. Islam in and of itself is not inherently violent. It can be exploited for violence just like every other religion in the world. Or it can be a force for good. Just depends on who is using it for what purpose.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Outstanding, I didn't ask all that nor do I really care honestly. I ain't trolling as y'all call it. I actually came here to interact with people on critters and other things but there seems to be more of conservative bashing here than anything. I do appreciate your warm welcome though!



You might not make 500 posts


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Outstanding, I didn't ask all that nor do I really care honestly. I ain't trolling as y'all call it. I actually came here to interact with people on critters and other things but there seems to be more of conservative bashing here than anything. I do appreciate your warm welcome though!


Can I give you a word of advice? Spend time in the other sections and get to know people as homesteaders. Ask about animals and stuff. Stay out of here until you really know people. Because all we see is someone who showed up 2 months ago and leapt in here bashing the snot out of everyone. Which kind of screams troll.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Trust me we know what you are trying to explain. It's been beat to death by others here long before you and thoroughly debunked by us. Islam in and of itself is not inherently violent. It can be exploited for violence just like every other religion in the world. Or it can be a force for good. Just depends on who is using it for what purpose.


Yeah if you say so!


oneraddad said:


> You might not make 500 posts


That'll be fine too I guess!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Boy 3 years and 500 posts, you contribute a bunch!


It's not the number of posts that count, it's the content. I would ask you how many scriptures in the bible are Jesus's actual quotes. He had little to say, but when he spoke wise people listened!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's not the number of posts that count, it's the content. I would ask you how many scriptures in the bible are Jesus's actual quotes. He had little to say, but when he spoke wise people listened!


It's amazing how far off topic this has gone. I see why this is a liberal forum, y'all attack and get clicky. I posted about sharia law and Ms. Pixie jumps in about Syrians, like she is doing something by defending them. But it's cool, y'all take care and God bless.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gibbsgirl said:


> Don't know how to copy a link to this YouTube video. But, it offers a less discussed reflection of this topic, also mentioning Ferdinand and Isabella's reigns.
> 
> It's about 45 minutes and was worth watching IMO.
> 
> It's called "why we are afraid, a 1400 year secret, by Dr Bill Warner". You can find the link to the YouTube video if you search that title/phrase.


Thanks, I will look it up.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> It's amazing how far off topic this has gone. I see why this is a liberal forum, y'all attack and get clicky. I posted about sharia law and Ms. Pixie jumps in about Syrians, like she is doing something by defending them. But it's cool, y'all take care and God bless.


Most threads do go off topic. This board is probably 80% conservative. A bunch of them got upset though and went off and started a board just for Conservatives to be able to say whatever they like without us mean liberals sharing facts and truths and hurting them with reality.  They will be back once they get bored.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> It's amazing how far off topic this has gone. I see why this is a liberal forum, y'all attack and get clicky. I posted about sharia law and Ms. Pixie jumps in about Syrians, like she is doing something by defending them. But it's cool, y'all take care and God bless.


General chat and politics are both prone to thread drift and after posting here for the last ten years or so I have noticed a shift to the left in the past few months since a large number of our more conservative posters left. There are still a few of us diehard conservatives here and while I can't speak for others I personally would like to see more posters (right, left or in between) bring some new thoughts to the board.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> General chat and politics are both prone to thread drift and after posting here for the last ten years or so I have noticed a shift to the left in the past few months since a large number of our more conservative posters left. There are still a few of us diehard conservatives here and while I can't speak for others I personally would like to see more posters (right, left or in between) bring some new thoughts to the board.


Won't happen with current membership attacking any and all of they don't agree 100% with their beliefs.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Won't happen with current membership attacking any and all of they don't agree 100% with their beliefs.


I haven't seen anyone hurl anymore at you than you have dished out.  I would think being a Marine you could take a little more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Outstanding, I didn't ask all that nor do I really care honestly.
> 
> *I ain't trolling as y'all call it*.
> 
> I actually came here to interact with people on critters and other things but there seems to be more of conservative bashing here than anything. I do appreciate your warm welcome though!


You sure had me fooled


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Won't happen with current membership attacking any and all of they don't agree 100% with their beliefs.


That's pretty much how it's always been here... One person tosses out some topic and everyone dives right in to see if said opinion passes muster. Some will present facts, figures and other evidence to support their beliefs and the "other" side will jump in with ad hom attacks, personal attacks and trickery in an effort to get the thread closed by the mods so no one gets a chance to see their nonsense. Next week some other conservative will start a new thread, with facts, figures and evidence about the same basic topic and the games start all over! It can be hard at first but you soon learn to bring your best game forward and wear your flameproof undies! Surprisingly even I have learned some things thanks to the debate style here in GC.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> I would think being a Marine you could take a little more.


Can we get a "semper fi" ?? Or at least a "hoooo raw". :grin:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The Islamic laws are taken right out of the Old Testament.... And if you will note they are only harsh when one violates them.... Just like the laws handed down by the Vatican as well as Protestant believers in our own country. Follow the law, no punishment, break the law.... Shame on you!


*
Not true !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you saying by accepting Syrian, mostly muslim, refugees that sharia law will be implemented in the US?
> 
> Seriously? :hysterical:


When Muslim population reaches about 2% they start to push their ways onto the rest of the population.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Most threads do go off topic. This board is probably 80% conservative. *A bunch of them got upset though and went off and started a board just for Conservatives to be able to say whatever they like without us mean liberals sharing facts and truths and hurting them with reality.*  They will be back once they get bored.


No, I'd say it has more to do w/ debate style and (collective) your definition of truth & reality.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> *
> Not true !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> *


So, what have I missed? The part about sharia law coming out of the Old Testament or the part about many of our western laws being based on the same Old Testament laws?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> When Muslim population reaches about 2% *they start to push their ways* onto the rest of the population.


All religions do that


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Can we get a "semper fi" ?? Or at least a "hoooo raw". :grin:


Difference being a Marine is I don't have to or need to take it I wasn't a member of a county club on a cushy base!


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All religions do that


They do? Catholics ain't doing that here in Texas. Good try. Looks like you like the attacking!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Difference being a Marine is I don't have to or need to take it I wasn't a member of a county club on a cushy base!


And I thank you for your service! My only hope is that our elected officials keep whatever promises they made to you on my behalf. It is my understanding this does not always happen and it should. When they fail to do so they are essentially breaking my word and that doesn't sit well with me. :flame:


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Last thought for y'all. So with all yalls liberal idealology and defending of these people, when it does hit the fan y'all will be out there with open arms, right? 

You can fight until you get what you want and when you finally get it and don't like it you will do nothing more but blame someone else for the mess they have supposedly created. Pass the buck, it's in your nature.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You sure had me fooled


FYI- I started the thread, why would I troll my own!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> They do? Catholics ain't doing that here in Texas. Good try. Looks like you like the attacking!


So religion has nothing to do with the new restrictive abortions laws?




> FYI- I started the thread, why would I troll my own!


Yes, why would you, although the title itself indicates it's really not about just discussing Muslims, so let's not pretend. 

It's also based on observations of other posts, not just on this one thread.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Last thought for y'all. So with all yalls liberal idealology and defending of these people, when it does hit the fan y'all will be out there with open arms, right?
> 
> You can fight until you get what you want and when you finally get it and don't like it you will do nothing more but blame someone else for the mess they have supposedly created. Pass the buck, it's in your nature.


This conservative will keep right on defending everyone's constitutionally guaranteed basic God given rights no matter what their religious background may be. I will at the same time be more than willing to furnish the rope required to hang anyone who deliberately murders one of my fellow countrymen..... Regardless of their religious background.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I made it back safely after watching the best team in the land vanquish the Viqueens once again. I stopped across the road and helped wrap the deer the neighbor kid got opening morning. He grew up riding the bus with my dd and you may have run across him in sands overseas. Multiple Middle East combat tours under his belt. He'll be stopping in to see the Muslim neighbor and drop off some venison before he heads back to duty. He said about 250,000 combat troops providing protection for an equal number of teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, and other aid workers for about 20 years might break the chain and change the paradigm in the ME. He isn't optomistic about our current policy of whack a mole.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So religion has nothing to do with the new restrictive abortions laws?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are all knowing l, please allow me to bow down to you!



mmoetc said:


> I made it back safely after watching the best team in the land vanquish the Viqueens once again. I stopped across the road and helped wrap the deer the neighbor kid got opening morning. He grew up riding the bus with my dd and you may have run across him in sands overseas. Multiple Middle East combat tours under his belt. He'll be stopping in to see the Muslim neighbor and drop off some venison before he heads back to duty. He said about 250,000 combat troops providing protection for an equal number of teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, and other aid workers for about 20 years might break the chain and change the paradigm in the ME. He isn't optomistic about our current policy of whack a mole.


Too bad! 20 years ain't going to change anything. Been at it since before Jesus! Must be army!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> You are all knowing l, please allow me to bow down to you!
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad! 20 years ain't going to change anything. Been at it since before Jesus! Must be army!


No, but he's capable of reading and understanding history.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> No, but he's capable of reading and understanding history.


Is he can read and understand history he should know then that there is no hope there!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Is he can read and understand history he should know then that there is no hope there!
> 
> If there's no hope why bother? If there's no hope why keep sacrificing our best and bravest and our treasure? There's no hope in continuing bad policy and making the same mistakes over and over. There's always hope that new ideas and different approaches will succeed where old ideas have continually failed. Extremism can never be eliminated. It can be marginalized by giving people better choices and hope for better things.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Look to republicans in Congress for that culpability.


I believe under this Idiotincharge the VA system has gotten far worse. FAR. & if you remember, he promised the VA system would be one of the 1st priorities.
Hah.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Texaspredatorhu said:
> 
> 
> > Is he can read and understand history he should know then that there is no hope there!
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know how to explain it so that you'll understand. Everyone has the right to practice the tenets of their religion up to the point where it violates the law, correct?


Nope. 
Can't pray if someone doesn't want you to.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> As a fellow nonbeliever I don't now why you would be bothered by some offering you a blessing from something you don't believe. Most that offer this are doing it to be nice.
> 
> Jim


Post of the day award.
Some just like to force their beliefs, IMHO.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Nope.
> Can't pray if someone doesn't want you to.


Why not? What law prohibits prayer? Even kids and teachers can pray in schools.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wiscto said:


> This has been a struggle in Germany. Sibel Kekilli, one of the stars of _Game of Thrones_, is a Turkish German, or German Turk, or whatever. She supports a European organization called Terre Des Femmes which is basically set up to fight domestic violence against women. I was really surprised, but, it's worth pointing out what she has said in regards to that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And we've been dealing w/the theocratic political moverment-Islam-since Jefferson...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> And we've been dealing w/the theocratic political moverment-Islam-since Jefferson...


Who was, according to some, a Muslim himself.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> And we've been dealing w/the theocratic political moverment-Islam-since Jefferson...


You keep repeating that. You do know that is true of ISIS as a group but not the religion in it's entirety.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Nope.
> Can't pray if someone doesn't want you to.


If you're referring to me, you can pray to me, for me, whatever all you'd like, but if you're doing it to mock or harass me you will hear about it. I have no problem with sincere prayer, I may even thank you.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Why not? What law prohibits prayer? Even kids and teachers can pray in schools.


I'm speaking of here.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm speaking of here.


When used as weapon, you are correct.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm speaking of here.


There are rules here about proselytizing. Many private workplaces have similar rules. As many a conservative has stated loudly and clearly- if you don't like the boss's rules you're free to walk away. Now, none of the rules here say you can't pray for whatever you wish. What you do while sitting at your keyboard is up to you. You can even post those prayers and face whatever sanctions may come. Sometimes belief comes with sacrifice. If only the suicide bombers were as weak willed.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

painterswife said:


> When used as weapon, you are correct.



As a weapon ? That's pushing it a bit


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Why not? What law prohibits prayer? Even kids and teachers can pray in schools.


The current laws have forced school districts to suspend or fire teachers and/coaches for praying. Here is a story of a coach that prays after every game. The students say he has never asked them nor demanded that participate. They chose to voluntarily. The coach would walk away from others and some players would follow. The coach has been suspended. Other students not on the team complained. So yes, laws prevent voluntary prayer.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/3...on-leave-for-praying-attends-game-prays-with/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Nope.
> *Can't pray *if someone doesn't want you to.


How can anyone possibly stop you?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> I believe under this Idiotincharge the VA system has gotten far worse. FAR. & if you remember, he promised the VA system would be one of the 1st priorities.
> Hah.


No, it has got far better. Still a long, long way to go, but it's leaps and bounds better than it was 10 years ago.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> The current laws have forced school districts to suspend or fire teachers and/coaches for praying. Here is a story of a coach that prays after every game. The students say he has never asked them nor demanded that participate. They chose to voluntarily. The coach would walk away from others and some players would follow. The coach has been suspended. Other students not on the team complained. So yes, laws prevent voluntary prayer.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/3...on-leave-for-praying-attends-game-prays-with/


I actually applaud the coach for standing up for his beliefs. I think his actions are wrong and the district is correct, though. You still haven't shown me the law broken. Coercion comes in many subtle forms. Those in power, and this coach is, should be totally removed from having any semblance of having their religous beliefs forced upon those under their purview. One player's opinion supporting the coach doesn't away me. I'm aware there might be another bowing his head because he feels the pressure not to displease the coach. All that being said the answer is simple. The coach can pray. He just can't lead the kids in prayer. If they wish to pray, they may, but the choice and organization must be theirs alone.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

The economy is better now, but I liked my VA better 8 years ago than the one I will visit tomorrow. It's not bad, but every time the Fed's try and fix something it gets worse.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> I actually applaud the coach for standing up for his beliefs. I think his actions are wrong and the district is correct, though. You still haven't shown me the law broken. Coercion comes in many subtle forms. Those in power, and this coach is, should be totally removed from having any semblance of having their religous beliefs forced upon those under their purview. One player's opinion supporting the coach doesn't away me. I'm aware there might be another bowing his head because he feels the pressure not to displease the coach. All that being said the answer is simple. The coach can pray. He just can't lead the kids in prayer. If they wish to pray, they may, but the choice and organization must be theirs alone.


I see that point of view. If his religion was Muslim would others feel the same way about what they see as his rights.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

oneraddad said:


> The economy is better now, but I liked my VA better 8 years ago than the one I will visit tomorrow. It's not bad, but every time the Fed's try and fix something it gets worse.


May I ask what changes you don't like?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I actually applaud the coach for standing up for his beliefs. I think his actions are wrong and the district is correct, though. You still haven't shown me the law broken. Coercion comes in many subtle forms. Those in power, and this coach is, should be totally removed from having any semblance of having their religous beliefs forced upon those under their purview. One player's opinion supporting the coach doesn't away me. I'm aware there might be another bowing his head because he feels the pressure not to displease the coach. All that being said the answer is simple. The coach can pray. He just can't lead the kids in prayer. If they wish to pray, they may, but the choice and organization must be theirs alone.


That's a fine hair you are trying to split. 

The school district says his voluntary praying somehow infridges on the Constitutonal rights of students. Therefore, he has to be breaking the law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You are *all knowing* l, please allow me to bow down to you!


I don't claim to know it all, but I do know what I see.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> I see that point of view. If his religion was Muslim would others feel the same way about what they see as his rights.


Excellent post. If the coach was praying to allah rather than god, there would be apoplectic fits.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I see that point of view. If his religion was Muslim would others feel the same way about what they see as his rights.


I don't know. How would others feel?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> That's a fine hair you are trying to split.
> 
> The school district says his voluntary praying somehow infridges on the Constitutonal rights of students. Therefore, he has to be breaking the law.


But is it truly voluntary? He acts as a representative of the district in his role as coach. As such he is a part of the government and is restricted in his actions by the constitution. Acting contrary to those restrictions by leading the prayers does, in my opinion, violate those constitutional restrictions on government establishment of religion. But that doesn't mean he has broken a law. I asked which law prohibits him ftom praying. I'll extend it to which law prohibits him ftom leading prayers? Please cite the statute, what legislative body passed it, and the penalties for violation of said law.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> But is it truly voluntary? He acts as a representative of the district in his role as coach. As such he is a part of the government and is restricted in his actions by the constitution. Acting contrary to those restrictions by leading the prayers does, in my opinion, violate those constitutional restrictions on government establishment of religion. But that doesn't mean he has broken a law. I asked which law prohibits him ftom praying. I'll extend it to which law prohibits him ftom leading prayers? Please cite the statute, what legislative body passed it, and the penalties for violation of said law.


Then we will have to agree to disagree. We both gave our opinions. They differ.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Then we will have to agree to disagree. We both gave our opinions. They differ.


No, I stated that no law exists that prevents prayer. A simple statement of fact. You tried to prove one does exist. Another statement of fact. Such statements are either provable or not, unlike an opinion. Either the law exists or it doesn't. We can't both be right.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> May I ask what changes you don't like?



The worst one is they hired a bunch of Doctors to help with the back log and these doctors are assigned cases daily. So every time you go in you get a new doctor or doctor in training. You never get to form a bond with your doctor where there becomes a trust between you two.

I really hate they don't recognize my medical marijuana card and when I called in to get something for a cold the other day, they reminded me I can't receive narcotics. I had told them my pain was only a 2-3 and thought I was just a little congested but I didn't want it to get worse. I didn't ask for narcotics I just asked for help, they know I picked pot over Vicodin's so it's not drugs I wanted. They just hate pot ! And I don't like pills because they just make me feel weirder than I already am. 

I don't drink, smoke or do any drugs besides what the VA gives me plus coffee and pot. For them to talk to me like I'm a drug addict because I smoke pot kinda ------ me off. It's just a plant, and I like to grow things


EDIT: Oops, I'm sorry for using a banned word. they make me mad


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't claim to know it all, but I do know what I see.


Now that's something we can agree on! What you see and what I see can be 2 completely different things looking at the same thing. It's all good, your smarter and better than me and I'm good with that. Thanks for the humbling. Take care my fellow American.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> No, I stated that no law exists that prevents prayer. A simple statement of fact. You tried to prove one does exist. Another statement of fact. Such statements are either provable or not, unlike an opinion. Either the law exists or it doesn't. We can't both be right.


I am certainly no lawyer. That is a fact.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ............, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ......."

Sorry, I am on my phone and can't type the whole paragraph.

If I violate your right as guaranteed by the Constitution, then I broke the law since the Constitution and Laws made are all the "Law of the Land".

The school system suspended the coach for violating the Constituional rights of students. Then they believe he broke the law. 

Sorry, I don't have a statue to quote.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

oneraddad said:


> The worst one is they hired a bunch of Doctors to help with the back log and these doctors are assigned cases daily. So every time you go in you get a new doctor or doctor in training. You never get to form a bond with your doctor where there becomes a trust between you two.
> 
> I really hate they don't recognize my medical marijuana card and when I called in to get something for a cold the other day, they reminded me I can't receive narcotics. I had told them my pain was only a 2-3 and thought I was just a little congested but I didn't want it to get worse. I didn't ask for narcotics I just asked for help, they know I picked pot over Vicodin's so it's not drugs I wanted. They just hate pot ! And I don't like pills because they just make me feel weirder than I already am.
> 
> ...


Inconsistency of providers is a problem and hopefully one that will improve, at least they are hiring more doctors and wait times are improving, though not good enough yet.

As for MMJ, that situation is certainly better than it was 10 years ago too. It's going to take time and advocacy but my hope it that the VA becomes more and more accepting of it as a viable alternative for veterans. I know it's helped my husband and many of my friends tremendously. 

Thank goodness having a card and using it cannot cause the VA to pull benefits for veterans in legal states.

You can thank liberals for fighting for the legalization of MMJ in the states where it's passed


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Double post....


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Let me also add.... In my opinion I receive better medical care then all my friends and family and I'm extremely thankful for what I receive. The Fed's have been fixing people for hundreds of years and know what works. They can't be bought out by pharmaceutical company's and only prescribe tried and true drugs, not stuff you see on TV. Everything is under one roof so Everybody looks at the same files. They're not worried about being sued so they don't have to prove what you don't have, they just fix you. I really like the care I receive, I just liked it better 3-8 years ago.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Tiempo said:


> Inconsistency of providers is a problem and hopefully one that will improve, at least they are hiring more doctors and wait times are improving, though not good enough yet.
> 
> As for MMJ, that situation is certainly better than it was 10 years ago too. It's going to take time and advocacy but my hope it that the VA becomes more and more accepting of it as a viable alternative for veterans. I know it's helped my husband and many of my friends tremendously.
> 
> ...



It's not better, unless I wanna go stand in line it takes 2-3 months to get in.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I wish our VA accepted CHAMPVA (some do, some don't), I would definitely use them over our local doctors.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

oneraddad said:


> It's not better, unless I wanna go stand in line it takes 2-3 months to get in.


That's too bad, ours is pretty fast. Private can have some really long wait times too though.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I am certainly no lawyer. That is a fact.
> 
> "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ............, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ......."
> 
> ...


The Constitution is the framework upon which our laws are based. It has no power by itself on individuals. It regulates what government can do to individuals and what laws governments can pass and enforce. Constitutionality and legality are two distinctly different things. They're not interchangable. I'm patient. Take all the time you need finding the statute.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How can anyone possibly stop you?


Nah, you just get deleted if someone is angry about you praying for them.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You keep repeating that. You do know that is true of ISIS as a group but not the religion in it's entirety.


Really? It was ISIS at the shores of Tripoli back in the 18th century?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Nah, you just get deleted if someone is angry about you praying for them.


It was Chuck that incorporated the 'no proselytizing' rule and the policy to delete prayers for people who specifically asked that others not pray for them. 

Given the amount of time you've been a member, I would have thought you would also recall that a few ended up banned back then because of it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? It was ISIS at the shores of Tripoli back in the 18th century?


Your posts are so entertaining.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> No, it has got far better. Still a long, long way to go, but it's leaps and bounds better than it was 10 years ago.


Its awful & not too long ago, under this admin, there were vets dying b/4 they could get app'ts. Nothing has been done to significantly help.
But of course the VILE one has stated it was really blown out of proportion...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I actually applaud the coach for standing up for his beliefs. I think his actions are wrong and the district is correct, though. You still haven't shown me the law broken. Coercion comes in many subtle forms. Those in power, and this coach is, should be totally removed from having any semblance of having their religous beliefs forced upon those under their purview. One player's opinion supporting the coach doesn't away me. I'm aware there might be another bowing his head because he feels the pressure not to displease the coach. All that being said the answer is simple. The coach can pray. He just can't lead the kids in prayer. If they wish to pray, they may, but the choice and organization must be theirs alone.


I guess you'll have to show me the law that says the coach cannot lead a prayer.
The Constitution says we have the right to free exercise of religion.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Excellent post. If the coach was praying to allah rather than god, there would be apoplectic fits.


Some schools set up prayer rooms for muslim students, in the school building. That's ok?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

oneraddad said:


> It's not better, unless I wanna go stand in line it takes 2-3 months to get in.


Been there done that have even taken off work made the 200 mile trip only to be told it would be another week, this is after I called to make sure the appointment was good. This has happened a couple of times. See the same doc not hardly. Lost my lab tests had to have them redone.. 

But hey, it is better than a lot of folks I talk to.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> The Constitution is the framework upon which our laws are based. It has no power by itself on individuals. It regulates what government can do to individuals and what laws governments can pass and enforce. Constitutionality and legality are two distinctly different things. They're not interchangable. I'm patient. Take all the time you need finding the statute.


So the Constitution doesn't make it illegal for me to own slaves? It didn't at one time ban me from possession or making intoxicating liquors? 

And is a huge word. Maybe you should read Article 6 again. It says that the Constitution AND laws AND treaties SHALL BE the supreme law of the land. It mentions no framework, just that all are parts of the supreme Law of the Land.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Your posts are so entertaining.


I'm glad you think so but I asked you a question. You think its just ISIS now? We've been fighting Islam for centuries.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm glad you think so but I asked you a question. You think its just ISIS now? We've been fighting Islam for centuries.


You are not going to use that history thing are you? When others post of the things Christians have done in the name of religion you tell us that is not now. So what is it can we use history as example or just you?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> So the Constitution doesn't make it illegal for me to own slaves? It didn't at one time ban me from possession or making intoxicating liquors?
> 
> And is a huge word. Maybe you should read Article 6 again. It says that the Constitution AND laws AND treaties SHALL BE the supreme law of the land. It mentions no framework, just that all are parts of the supreme Law of the Land.


No, it doesn't. The amendments in question outline the government's role in regulating such things. The amendments close with a final clause authorizing the legislature to pass such laws as they see appropriate to carry out and fulfill those guidelines. The constitution has no power of law over you. The laws based on it and compliant with it do. You really should read all the words contained therein.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I don't know. How would others feel?


I wouldn't care what faith the coach was.

I would only have an issue if the coach required others to partake, and/or if the prayer content was drifting into things unrelated to the people and the team.

Coaches are supposed to mentor athletes. That means physical and mental. And, if a coach uses prayer personally as part of his plan of action to do his best, I don't think that's bad.

Pray for the win, pray for health concerns that are weighing on them, pray for focus and balance between athletics and academics, pray for safety and teamwork, etc. Great in my book.

Pray for politics, pray for people to convert, pray for bad luck for opponents or other unsportsmanlike things. Sorry, I don't think that is acceptable regardless of faith.

Last week at wrestling, the Catholic school had a priest join the meet. He prayed for everyone before we began. Then a kid broke his arm, badly. Priest was gone then.

Very tense, elementary kids upset, stressed, waiting for ambulance. Kid did not have parents there, just coaches and bus driver. A few coaches collected all the kids near the mat and led them all in prayer. It was fine. And, was clearly a blessing to all the kids who didn't k ow what they could do or should do. 

To me that was great mentoring coaches who saw that simply taking a knee and waiting for 20 minutes was not cutting it for helping their athletes get through what was going on 

But, it was a situation that I imagine some feel was handled in a highly inappropriate way. I think it was handled very well personally.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I guess you'll have to show me the law that says the coach cannot lead a prayer.
> The Constitution says we have the right to free exercise of religion.


Why? I don't contend he broke any law and neither does the school district. He was disciplined for not following a school procedure.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wr said:


> It was Chuck that incorporated the 'no proselytizing' rule and the policy to delete prayers for people who specifically asked that others not pray for them.
> 
> Given the amount of time you've been a member, I would have thought you would also recall that a few ended up banned back then because of it.


I was referring to a couple of rants by someone near & dear who calls the Bible 'fairly tales' as well as denying there was a Christ. They apparently have an adverse reaction to someone saying: "I'll pray for you'. As if this prevents my praying for them-daily.

I don't believe it falls under the term: proselytizing.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Johnny Dolittle said:


> *
> Not true !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> *


I am afraid it is you might want to crack open your Bible and take a wander through the Law. Deuteronomy and Leviticus are a good place to start.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Difference being a Marine is I don't have to or need to take it I wasn't a member of a county club on a cushy base!


LOL! Well you know the smart people get the best accommodations.  It's funny because we have this argument all the time around here. We were AF and the boys went into the Army because they just wanted to get over there and fight.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> LOL! Well you know the smart people get the best accommodations.  It's funny because we have this argument all the time around here. We were AF and the boys went into the Army because they just wanted to get over there and fight.


Yeah I'm just an ignorant old jarhead!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Last thought for y'all. So with all yalls liberal idealology and defending of these people, when it does hit the fan y'all will be out there with open arms, right?
> 
> You can fight until you get what you want and when you finally get it and don't like it you will do nothing more but blame someone else for the mess they have supposedly created. Pass the buck, it's in your nature.


Thing is I don't think it will end the way you do. You assume Muslims will come here and want Sharia law and they will become terrorists and all that. I don't. I think they will come here, settle into this life and become upstanding American citizens. Historically speaking that is what has happened so far. Every immigrant population that comes here suffers at first and then they assimilate and settle in. Muslims have been coming to this country for as long as we have been a country. 

The key here to the harsh and bad behavior is where they are coming from. Which is why I keep pointing out that you find the same harsh and bad behavior in Christians in those same regions. Any country that has a lot of poverty and ignorance and superstition will have the same hallmarks as Daesh and Boko Haram. Just look at the Lord's Resistance Army in central Africa. They claim they are led by the Holy Spirit. Their tactics are almost carbon copies of ISIS and all the Muslim ones.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Thing is I don't think it will end the way you do. You assume Muslims will come here and want Sharia law and they will become terrorists and all that. I don't. I think they will come here, settle into this life and become upstanding American citizens. Historically speaking that is what has happened so far. Every immigrant population that comes here suffers at first and then they assimilate and settle in. Muslims have been coming to this country for as long as we have been a country.
> 
> The key here to the harsh and bad behavior is where they are coming from. Which is why I keep pointing out that you find the same harsh and bad behavior in Christians in those same regions. Any country that has a lot of poverty and ignorance and superstition will have the same hallmarks as Daesh and Boko Haram. Just look at the Lord's Resistance Army in central Africa. They claim they are led by the Holy Spirit. Their tactics are almost carbon copies of ISIS and all the Muslim ones.


Read previous statement.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Yeah I'm just an ignorant old jarhead!


You are a very touchy one.  I didn't say you were ignorant, I was trying to lighten things up a bit. If you want to hang out here you have to have a sense of humor. Otherwise you will go insane or injure yourself beating your head on your desk.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Read previous statement.


Which one?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Which one?


I'm just an old ignorant jarhead!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Some schools set up prayer rooms for muslim students, in the school building. That's ok?


Sure. Giving access isn't forcing compliance. As long as no teacher is leading the prayers during school activities I don't care what kid prays where.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Some schools set up prayer rooms for muslim students, in the school building. That's ok?


I don't see how that is any different than slotting off a room for kids to use for a bible study club after school or something like that. So long as students are leading the prayer then they should be allowed their freedom to worship as they see fit.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm glad you think so but I asked you a question. You think its just ISIS now? We've been fighting Islam for centuries.


Another one of those unquestioned memes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Ottomana

So not really true that "We've been fighting Islam for centuries." They've managed to maintain peace among their sects for periods longer than we've been a nation.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Another one of those unquestioned memes:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
> 
> ...


Also, worth reading about IMO, is the idea that Islam was a contributing factor to Europe's dark ages.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

gibbsgirl said:


> Also, worth reading about IMO, is the idea that Islam was a contributing factor to Europe's dark ages.


The so called dark ages of Europe began with the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and the takeover of Western Europe by numerous and less sophisticated peoples. The Eastern Roman Empire, "Byzantium" according to creative modern scholars (they just considered themselves Roma), went on strong for a long time, and their sciences advanced on pace with the East. The Arab conquests certainly weakened Constantinople, but Spain become the most advanced region of Europe west of Greece under "Islamic" rule. 

One can try to extrude reality and try to make a burger out of nothing but grease, but it's pretty complicated. An easy argument make would be that, had the Western Roman Empire not collapsed, Western Europe would have been on par with Constantinople, and they would have survived the Arab onslaught without losing huge regions like Spain and Sicily. But that wasn't the case. And why not? Because the "dark ages" were already in motion? 

Also. The dark ages are somewhat exaggerated. There were architectural and other advances in Western Europe. They just lagged behind a bit, probably because they were tiny little kingdoms with less resources, and probably because The Church wasn't as interested in scientific advances as the Caliphates and the Empire.

But to be fair, during a good portion of the Islamic Golden Age, there was in fact a lot of fighting in Spain. The Reconquista, as it eventually became known as, lasted for 700 years.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> Also, worth reading about IMO, is the idea that Islam was a contributing factor to Europe's dark ages.


"Idea" is right. If only I could find credible information for this assertion. Instead, I find sites like this one:

Jihad Watch - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch

If you can cite me to something that doesn't have an agenda, I'd be happy to take a look at it. In fact, with the Google search terms, "Islam Dark Ages," the *only* links that appear are from far-right blogs and propaganda sites.

Here's a link to the Encyclopedia about the Middle Ages: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Middle_Ages.aspx

And another, an overview from Wiki: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Middle_Ages.aspx

In the Wiki link, the only reference to Muslims occurs when explaining the use of the term, 'dark ages' -- which in fact refers to the inability of historians to learn much about them due to a paucity of information -- and nothing else.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> You are a very touchy one.  I didn't say you were ignorant, I was trying to lighten things up a bit. If you want to hang out here you have to have a sense of humor. Otherwise you will go insane or injure yourself beating your head on your desk.


Not really touchy, because the same could be said about anyone here who is passionate about something. Just figured I'd quit wasting my time arguing my point because no one cares and that's the beauty of it all!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Not really touchy, because the same could be said about anyone here who is passionate about something. Just figured I'd quit wasting my time arguing my point because no one cares and that's the beauty of it all!


I understand your concerns and anytime a country accepts immigrants or refugees, it's a bit of a crapshoot as to what they will contribute to a country but I also remember hearing much the same arguments in 2010 when Calgary elected Naheed Nenshi as mayor. 

To date, he's worked very hard at balancing budgets, making sure that he's an outstanding spokesman for Calgary and Alberta on an federal and international level and to date, not even a hint of Sharia law although he is a bit hard nosed about fiscal accountability.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> No, it doesn't. The amendments in question outline the government's role in regulating such things. The amendments close with a final clause authorizing the legislature to pass such laws as they see appropriate to carry out and fulfill those guidelines. The constitution has no power of law over you. The laws based on it and compliant with it do. You really should read all the words contained therein.


What?

Let's stick to the 13 amendment for a minute. It states- 

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, SHALL exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

This clearly states that I cannot own slaves. 

Section 2. Congress SHALL have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Clearly, Section 2 declares that Congress SHALL pass legislation to ENFORCE the law in Section 1 that declares slavery illegal in the US and its territories. By declaring slavery illegal, the Constitution does have lawful jurisdiction over my ability to own slaves. The Congress can only pass laws to punish me if I break the 13th amendment and try to own slaves.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

gibbsgirl said:


> Also, worth reading about IMO, is the idea that Islam was a contributing factor to Europe's dark ages.


From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

_"The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature.[3][12] Petrarch regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity."
_
Basically, the term 'dark' was used in a relative sense, compared to the periods before and after a time when little was written and recorded re: the advancements and philosophies of that time. But that was only in some areas of Europe.

Most modern historians avoid even using the term nowadays because there were, in fact, many accomplishments which occurred in Europe between the Late Antiquity and the early stirrings of the Italian Renaissance.

The Tatars, however, repeatedly invaded _eastern_ Europe, and up into the Ukraine, among other parts of Asia during the centuries before and during Europe's Middle Ages. First, as a part of Genghis Khan's armies, and later they became known to Eastern Europeans as the Tatars or Tartars. 

But, it's important to note that although the Tatars eventually converted to Islam, they didn't get converted until about the 14th century. And, from around the beginning of the 1900's, the period referred to as the Dark Ages has been applied to the early part of the Middle Ages; between the 5th and 10h centuries. Also, the 14th century is recognized as the beginning of the Italian Renaissance Period. 

So, no Dark Ages being caused by Muslim invaders. IMO, the 'dark' period in Europe has more to do with the void left when the influence of the Roman Empire began to decline, and they pulled out of their western provinces before their eventual demise.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

I didn't say I thought Islam caused the dark ages.. I said it was interesting to consider the idea Islam's culture was a factor. And, I agree that dark ages is a poor, though common, term.

I just threw it out there for others to consider.

Muslims and the middle East are a part of larger Mediterranean community. And like many other cultures, their culture has been a player at the table, for lack of a better word, for centuries.

I figured some might respond to my post as though I'd stuck a battle flag on the field. I wasn't. But, I put it up anyway, in case it jarred anyone's interest to broaden their own exploration of the subject. 

Imo, all writings online or not gave a bent. Some more so than others. Sometimes it's interesting to have someone toss out a less commonly discussed or taught idea.

Heck, I'm not convinced, Jefferson was a Muslim. But, I read that mentioned today. I'll probably Google that idea and see where that leads later.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> I didn't say I thought Islam caused the dark ages.. I said it was interesting to consider the idea Islam's culture was a factor. And, I agree that dark ages is a poor, though common, term.
> 
> I just threw it out there for others to consider.
> 
> ...


Posting that kind of unfactual statement just gives Muslim haters another feather in their bow of mistruths. They don't bother to actually research the truth.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Posting that kind of unfactual statement just gives Muslim haters another feather in their bow of mistruths. They don't bother to actually research the truth.


What unfactual statement? I do believe Muslim were part of European history centuries ago. The question of hiw much or cause and effect question in different places at different times is interesting.

In some places they conquered, in some places they were defeated. As that played out, it changed those cultures and communities back and forth. Some things were awful, some were good. And, there are interesting arguments historians have made for the good and bad of both.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gibbsgirl said:


> What unfactual statement? I do believe Muslim were part of European history centuries ago. The question of hiw much or cause and effect question in different places at different times is interesting.
> 
> In some places they conquered, in some places they were defeated. As that played out, it changed those cultures and communities back and forth. Some things were awful, some were good. And, there are interesting arguments historians have made for the good and bad of both.


I think it is more that your original statement implied more than you meant. I thought you meant Islam caused the Dark Ages. Now I know that wasn't what you were aiming for but people could take the original and just run with it without bothering to look into it deeper.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I think it is more that your original statement implied more than you meant. I thought you meant Islam caused the Dark Ages. Now I know that wasn't what you were aiming for but people could take the original and just run with it without bothering to look into it deeper.


It isn't easy sometimes to have people read a post and not have them presume your taking ng a side rather than just trying to chat and mention something interesting that is related to a conversation.

I've been dabbling in reading more about Islam being a factor in what happened in the dark ages centuries. Partly because Islam's historical impact in the world is obviously a hot topic of late. But, partly also cause I've been slowly tryng to fill in some genealogy from Spain, and I really like art history anyway, so I really enjoy some of the reinventing that was done in the Iberian peninsula during the past because of the back and forth with the Muslims vs Catholics.

So, I've been coming across more things to read that are delving further into her e significant Islam's impact really was.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Eta. By reinventing, I'm referring to a lot of architecture that was repurposed by subsequent people of historical not from opposing religions or cultures.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

wr said:


> I understand your concerns and anytime a country accepts immigrants or refugees, it's a bit of a crapshoot as to what they will contribute to a country but I also remember hearing much the same arguments in 2010 when Calgary elected Naheed Nenshi as mayor.
> 
> To date, he's worked very hard at balancing budgets, making sure that he's an outstanding spokesman for Calgary and Alberta on an federal and international level and to date, not even a hint of Sharia law although he is a bit hard nosed about fiscal accountability.


I have never said that ALL Muslims are bad, evil or terrorists. The ones I have seen been around and lived with were! On top of that why do we need to accept more people to take care of when there is already too many who can't/don't take care of themselves here. If we took some of the money we will spend on illegals and refugees and put it to the elderly medical costs or to help veterans maybe just maybe we could dig out back sides out of this whole.

Here is a comparison for you, is it profiling that 70% of the crimes in certain areas are committed by African Americans when the population of that area is 76% African American, no that would be the laws of probability. When you let all these Muslims in as refugees there is bound and determined to bad ones in the bunch. Vetted or not people slip through the cracks all the time. 9/11 attackers lived here(allegedly), even trained here!


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

gibbsgirl, I understood the contextual meaning of the word "idea" in your post.

(Also, worth reading about IMO, is the _*idea*_ that Islam was a contributing factor to Europe's dark ages.)

The info I posted was mostly for FYI purposes _because _you said the topic was worth delving into. It is for me too, cuz I'm kind of a nerd about that thar histry n stuff. :gaptooth:


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I have never said that ALL Muslims are bad, evil or terrorists. The ones I have seen been around and lived with were! On top of that why do we need to accept more people to take care of when there is already too many who can't/don't take care of themselves here. If we took some of the money we will spend on illegals and refugees and put it to the elderly medical costs or to help veterans maybe just maybe we could dig out back sides out of this whole.
> 
> Here is a comparison for you, is it profiling that 70% of the crimes in certain areas are committed by African Americans when the population of that area is 76% African American, no that would be the laws of probability. When you let all these Muslims in as refugees there is bound and determined to bad ones in the bunch. Vetted or not people slip through the cracks all the time. 9/11 attackers lived here(allegedly), even trained here!


I understand your concerns but you're trying to use a narrow definition to express resentment for a broad problem. 

You initially focused on the concept that Muslim immigrants could or would lead to Sharia law enforced in the US and objected when the thread had drifted, now your focused on home grown terrorists and other social programs. 

Do I want the best care possible for vets? You bet I do and that includes both our countries because I have family that actively serving Marines and well as retired as well as those who have served with the Canadian Armed Forces and our veteran's food bank is one of those things I support even when money's tight. 

Do I think our elders deserve the best care possible? You bet and I focus my personal efforts in that area as well. 

Do you feel that by refusing refugees, there will suddenly funds allocated for those two areas?


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Fwiw, I agree with the concept that we should stop foreign aid including accepting immigrants/refugees, whom we do not have an obligation to, until such time as our actual obligations are met, including to our vets, other citizens, even infrastructure crises like highways, and crumbling utility systems.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

gibbsgirl said:


> Fwiw, I agree with the concept that we should stop foreign aid including accepting immigrants/refugees, whom we do not have an obligation to, until such time as our actual obligations are met, including to our vets, other citizens, even infrastructure crises like highways, and crumbling utility systems.


Yeah. Does anyone remember the phrase "shovel ready jobs"?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2014/04/7-things-didnt-know-about-us-foreign-assistance/


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> I'm just an old ignorant jarhead!


I had no idea you were old.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Raeven said:


> http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2014/04/7-things-didnt-know-about-us-foreign-assistance/


What is the actual cost?

Here is one estimate I've found. 
The United States is notorious for having its fingers in many pies. One of the ways Uncle Sam tries to coerce other states to get in line with his preferred policies is by doling out foreign aid -- lots of it.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) states that its function is to provide "economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States." While the effectiveness of foreign aid remains up for debate, the United States recently has continued to pump around $50 billion in aid to other countries each year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/us-foreign-aid-by-country_n_1837824.html


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I don't doubt your reference, *no really*. My figures are from 2014. The Huffpo article is from 2012. But put it in perspective... 50 billion is less than *3 months* of what we spent on the Iraq war *alone*. In a total economy of roughly 20 trillion per year, it's nothing.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Raeven said:


> I don't doubt your reference, *no really*. My figures are from 2014. The Huffpo article is from 2012. But put it in perspective... 50 billion is less than *3 months* of what we spent on the Iraq war *alone*. In a total economy of roughly 20 trillion per year, it's nothing.


If we were taking better care of our own I might agree, if our nation wasn't so far in debt I might agree and as to what we spent in Iraq irrelevant. Taxpayers supported a lot of stupidly sold to the Iraq's by special interests.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

no really said:


> Taxpayers supported a lot of stupidly sold to the Iraq's by special interests.


Which should be an indication of why Obama has been elected as president..... Twice!! Americans overall ain't too bright.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

no really said:


> If we were taking better care of our own I might agree, if our nation wasn't so far in debt I might agree and as to what we spent in Iraq irrelevant. Taxpayers supported a lot of stupidly sold to the Iraq's by special interests.


It's not that I'm unsympathetic and I would never minimize the importance of your point of view, but I think of it more as investment in our future. A move to defuse anti-American sentiment in the world, which unfortunately continues to grow. Frankly, to a lot of the world we look like delicate pet kitties, scared of everything. So many in the world live with far more risk than most Americans can even conceive of.

My view is that by taking a deep breath, overcoming our fears and showing more compassion, we may foster an environment that contributes to the prevention of out soldiers having to go back and fight a strengthened ISIL. Again.

I believe strongly that winning the battle of hearts and minds is a significant factor in deterring terrorism over the long haul. Not the easy choice, but the most effective one.

So in this, our values differ and we are unlikely to reach a consensus.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which should be an indication of why Obama has been elected as president..... Twice!! Americans overall ain't too bright.


Funny; I feel exactly the same about anyone who voted for GWB. Twice.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which should be an indication of why Obama has been elected as president..... Twice!! Americans overall ain't too bright.


I know, they voted that Bush guy in twice also. The first time I thought it was just a mistake, the second time I knew I was surrounded by dummies.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

oneraddad said:


> I know, they voted that Bush guy in twice also. The first time I thought it was just a mistake, the second time I knew I was surrounded by dummies.


The second time, I nearly moved to New Zealand.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

The American boz... Erm public haven't really elected a leader since Truman, although Ike showed some good qualities.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Raeven said:


> It's not that I'm unsympathetic and I would never minimize the importance of your point of view, but I think of it more as investment in our future. A move to defuse anti-American sentiment in the world, which unfortunately continues to grow. Frankly, to a lot of the world we look like delicate pet kitties, scared of everything. So many in the world live with far more risk than most Americans can even conceive of.
> 
> My view is that by taking a deep breath, overcoming our fears and showing more compassion, we may foster an environment that contributes to the prevention of out soldiers having to go back and fight a strengthened ISIL. Again.
> 
> ...


I disagree also, buying feelings for loyalty doesn't work IMO in friendship, family, marriage, politics, or international relations. It's more like volunteering for blackmail or extortion. When the money stops or doesn't increase, the payee accepts any better offer because the relationship was built on a false foundation.

I also question whether we needed to fight Isis and many others we gave sent our military against in recent decades.

I admit though, that the reasons may have seemed more convincing had we decided many times to finish our "wars". I'm not a fan of sending a dog into a fight and not taking it off the chain, so to speak. Imo if we chose our military's missions a bit more carefully and let the world see that once green lighted, our military was given permission to finish an enemy to the point that there was none left, we might have fewer problems cropping up.

Might be an impractical idea in some ways. But, I would probably have less bitter feelings about military and civilian casualties if it were that way.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The American boz... Erm public haven't really elected a leader since Truman, although Ike showed some good qualities.


Clint? Is that you?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> What?
> 
> Let's stick to the 13 amendment for a minute. It states-
> 
> ...


What it says is slavery shall not exist. Another broken promise by the government since it still exists in many forms and places in this country. Leaving that aside what are the penalties outlined if you own a slave? What is a slave as defined by this clause. A lot of unanswered questions.

That brings us to clause two. It doesn't say the the legislature must rule on these issues just that it shall have the power to. It also doesn't say that the legislature must act in any specific way in how it handles the act of owning slaves. Before owning slaves became a criminal act laws defining slavery and any penalties for owning them had to be written, passed and signed into law. The government could have chosen not to criminalize the act of owning slaves and still been in compliance with the amendment.

Simply, the constitution makes the institution of slavery unconstitutional. It doesn't make holding slaves illegal. The laws based on the constitution make the act of holding slaves as defined by those laws in accordance with the constitutional proscription against slavery illegal. They act in concert but not interchangeably. The constitution only states that slavery shall not exist. The burden for making that happen falls to the government. The burden of the laws regarding slavery that the government enacted to bring this about falls on the individual.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

gibbsgirl said:


> I disagree also, buying feelings for loyalty doesn't work IMO in friendship, family, marriage, politics, or international relations. It's more like volunteering for blackmail or extortion. When the money stops or doesn't increase, the payee accepts any better offer because the relationship was built on a false foundation.
> 
> I also question whether we needed to fight Isis and many others we gave sent our military against in recent decades.
> 
> ...



Another thing about this aid, it does not trickle down very well. 

We give it to countries whose governments use in ways it is not intended.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> I think it is more that your original statement implied more than you meant. I thought you meant Islam caused the Dark Ages. Now I know that wasn't what you were aiming for but people could take the original and just run with it without bothering to look into it deeper.


Funny how people perceive things differently.

I perceived just as she wrote it, the idea that Islam was a _contributing_ factor. How everybody took that to mean 'cause' is beyond me. :shrug:


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

Raeven said:


> I don't doubt your reference, *no really*. My figures are from 2014. The Huffpo article is from 2012. But put it in perspective... 50 billion is less than *3 months* of what we spent on the Iraq war *alone*. In a total economy of roughly 20 trillion per year, it's nothing.


50 billion also splits into 5million, 10 thousand times. That's a healthy shot in the arm for real projects which could go towards rebuilding a transportation infrastructure that's badly crumbling nationwide. 

Mmm...Could be I'm paranoid, but I have to wonder if that 'Other' slice in the chart might not also also include $$'s that go to foreign aid; but covertly? And, that the .7 is simply what's reported.

Understand, I'm not advocating for isolationism. That would be incredibly counterproductive in today's world. And, I'm most definitely _not_ in favor of a nativist agenda. I just feel that we've overstayed our welcome trying to act like the world's Mother Teresa with one hand, while dealing in backroom foreign policy with the other. That just makes us look like a player, which erodes foreign confidence in us no matter how much money we throw in the hole. It's time to remodel the house and start to rebuild our rep.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

no really said:


> Another thing about this aid, it does not trickle down very well.
> 
> We give it to countries whose governments use in ways it is not intended.


Post of the day award.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

no really said:


> Another thing about this aid, it does not trickle down very well.
> 
> We give it to countries whose governments use in ways it is not intended.


To be fair, the link below the graph Raeven posted does go into this; although not in depth. It's number 6 in the article. Of course whether one trusts that the safe guards in place are actually working or not is another thing altogether. But, if you believe what they wrote, you'd have to ask yourself, just who is it who is actually interfering with the intended aid.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

no really said:


> Another thing about this aid, it does not trickle down very well.
> 
> We give it to countries whose governments use in ways it is not intended.


Yes, and IMO, any financial and/or relationship counselor who's worth their salt, advises that when a party receiving your financial support uses it in a destructive way or an unagreed upon way, you stop the flow of money or credit. Afterall all, you can only control yourself, not others, so your only option is what action you choose to take.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> What it says is slavery shall not exist. Another broken promise by the government since it still exists in many forms and places in this country. Leaving that aside what are the penalties outlined if you own a slave? What is a slave as defined by this clause. A lot of unanswered questions.
> 
> That brings us to clause two. It doesn't say the the legislature must rule on these issues just that it shall have the power to. It also doesn't say that the legislature must act in any specific way in how it handles the act of owning slaves. Before owning slaves became a criminal act laws defining slavery and any penalties for owning them had to be written, passed and signed into law. The government could have chosen not to criminalize the act of owning slaves and still been in compliance with the amendment.
> 
> Simply, the constitution makes the institution of slavery unconstitutional. It doesn't make holding slaves illegal. The laws based on the constitution make the act of holding slaves as defined by those laws in accordance with the constitutional proscription against slavery illegal. They act in concert but not interchangeably. The constitution only states that slavery shall not exist. The burden for making that happen falls to the government. The burden of the laws regarding slavery that the government enacted to bring this about falls on the individual.


The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. US v. Stanley;.... 10/15/1883. In the 8-1 decision authored by Joseph P. Bradley, the Court acknowledged that the 13th amendment does apply to private actors, but only to the extent that it prohibits people from owning slaves, not exhibiting discriminatory behavior.

The 13th amendment does apply to individuals (private actors). No other legislation was required to make it illegal to own a slave (a person). Yet it does not provide for the punishment. On that we agree, that section 2 requires more legislation to enforce.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. US v. Stanley;.... 10/15/1883. In the 8-1 decision authored by Joseph P. Bradley, the Court acknowledged that the 13th amendment does apply to private actors, but only to the extent that it prohibits people from owning slaves, not exhibiting discriminatory behavior.
> 
> The 13th amendment does apply to individuals (private actors). No other legislation was required to make it illegal to own a slave (a person). Yet it does not provide for the punishment. On that we agree, that section 2 requires more legislation to enforce.


Thank you for teaching me something new. I'll concede the point with a caveat. The court holding is that private slaveholding is unconstitutional and prohibited. It doesn't say its illegal. For something to be illegal a law must be broken. If no law exists prohibiting it the act cannot be illegal or prosecuted. Again, the difference between unconstitutional and illegal is an important one.

I'm still waiting on the law that prohibits the coach from praying.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Thank you for teaching me something new. I'll concede the point with a caveat. The court holding is that private slaveholding is unconstitutional and prohibited. It doesn't say its illegal. For something to be illegal a law must be broken. If no law exists prohibiting it the act cannot be illegal or prosecuted. Again, the difference between unconstitutional and illegal is an important one.
> 
> I'm still waiting on the law that prohibits the coach from praying.


Phew! Glad I got something partly right!

Your caveat, I think, shows our point of disagreement and why we seem to disagree on this topic. But I really don't think we are that far apart. I actually believe regional teachings and terminology might be to blame. I was taught that the Constitution is law. If you infringe on the rights of another, you were breaking the law. Granted, there are no criminal penalties imposed but your actions were illegal. 

BTW- I am using the definition of illegal being "contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law."

So to infringe on the students Constitution rights as declared by the school system to me makes the coaches actions illegal based on their claim. But for that to be true, I have to consider the Constitution as law.

So, I will acknowledge that I cannot provide a statute to support my claim.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Phew! Glad I got something partly right!
> 
> Your caveat, I think, shows our point of disagreement and why we seem to disagree on this topic. But I really don't think we are that far apart. I actually believe regional teachings and terminology might be to blame. I was taught that the Constitution is law. If you infringe on the rights of another, you were breaking the law. Granted, there are no criminal penalties imposed but your actions were illegal.
> 
> ...


No need to apologize for considering the constitution as law. The authors of said document stated it is not only law but the highest law of our nation. Something about state laws and constitutions not withstanding.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Phew! Glad I got something partly right!
> 
> Your caveat, I think, shows our point of disagreement and why we seem to disagree on this topic. But I really don't think we are that far apart. I actually believe regional teachings and terminology might be to blame. I was taught that the Constitution is law. If you infringe on the rights of another, you were breaking the law. Granted, there are no criminal penalties imposed but your actions were illegal.
> 
> ...


I'd say it is the difference between big L law- the constitution as a system of law and little l law- the actual statutes that make up the law. The distinction is important to me. Sorry if I came across as snarky in any of my earlier posts. I've actually enjoyed a discussion of the topic , not each other.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Sorry if I came across as snarky in any of my earlier posts. I've actually enjoyed a discussion of the topic , not each other.


Glad you found enjoyment despite your obvious distain for my involvement, I guess.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Thank you for teaching me something new. I'll concede the point with a caveat. The court holding is that private slaveholding is unconstitutional and prohibited. It doesn't say its illegal. For something to be illegal a law must be broken. If no law exists prohibiting it the act cannot be illegal or prosecuted. Again, the difference between unconstitutional and illegal is an important one.
> 
> I'm still waiting on the law that prohibits the coach from praying.


These should be sufficient.
The first is the fact of the letter from the Superintendent sent to the coach to stop the practice.
The second is the legal authority for him to do so, specifically WA state statutes RCW Title 28A.
Essentially, the school board/superintendent can pass their policies and/or directives, not necessarily with prior notice and consent of the public, and enforce them under the authority of the state of Washington per statutes quoted.


http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...ws-to-pray-after-game-despite-district-order/

http://www.bremertonschools.org/cms/lib/WA01001541/Centricity/Domain/121/1000.pdf


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> These should be sufficient.
> The first is the fact of the letter from the Superintendent sent to the coach to stop the practice.
> The second is the legal authority for him to do so, specifically WA state statutes RCW Title 28A.
> Essentially, the school board/superintendent can pass their policies and/or directives, not necessarily with prior notice and consent of the public, and enforce them under the authority of the state of Washington per statutes quoted.
> ...


An article referencing the school's policy? No law cited.

The paperwork stating that the district exists according to state statutes? Once again, no law cited that the coach cannot pray.

The coach has done nothing illegal. He has broken no law. He has a right to pray, even on school grounds at school activities. Show me the law that says otherwise. What he cannot do in his position as coach is to lead the students in Christian or other prayer thus using his position to promote one religion at the exclusion of others. It's essentially the same reason the clerk in Kentucky was not charged or jailed for breaking a law. None existed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> An article referencing the school's policy? No law cited.
> 
> The paperwork stating that the district exists according to state statutes? Once again, no law cited that the coach cannot pray.
> 
> The coach has done nothing illegal. He has broken no law. He has a right to pray, even on school grounds at school activities. Show me the law that says otherwise. What he cannot do in his position as coach is to lead the students in Christian or other prayer thus using his position to promote one religion at the exclusion of others. It's essentially the same reason the clerk in Kentucky was not charged or jailed for breaking a law. None existed.


I guess you're not going to bother to read the Washington state statute I cited (RCW Title 28A.) that confirms this is now part of the law, until it is contested in court, that is.
Reminds me of others on here that refuse to see when it is presented on a silver platter.
Probably why people give up and say, Go Google yourself, lol.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I guess you're not going to bother to read the Washington state statute I cited (RCW Title 28A.) that confirms this is now part of the law, until it is contested in court, that is.
> Reminds me of others on here that refuse to see when it is presented on a silver platter.
> Probably why people give up and say, Go Google yourself, lol.


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A

Here's the entirety of the statute. I'll admit I didn't read it all. Your link brought up a two page document referencing this broader statute but I saw no mention there, or in my skimming of any of the headers in the statute, of any restriction on prayer in school. Perhaps you could point me to the language that specifically addresses this issue and prohibits the coach from engaging in prayer. I'm will ing to be enlightened and admit I'm wrong if that is the case.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I guess you're not going to bother to read the Washington state statute I cited (RCW Title 28A.) that confirms this is now part of the law, until it is contested in court, that is.
> Reminds me of others on here that refuse to see when it is presented on a silver platter.
> Probably why people give up and say, Go Google yourself, lol.


Speaking of not seeing things. Did you notice in the Seattle Times article yoy posted that the coach recognized his pre game prayers to a captive audience in the locker room were innappropriate and no longer coducts them? It seems he understands the underlying concept of coerced religion by a government official but disagrees on where the line about coercion should be drawn.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Speaking of not seeing things. Did you notice in the Seattle Times article yoy posted that the coach recognized his pre game prayers to a captive audience in the locker room were innappropriate and no longer coducts them? It seems he understands the underlying concept of coerced religion by a government official but disagrees on where the line about coercion should be drawn.


Yes I did.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Law enforcement and the govt IMO have created a martial law environment where govt agents whether they be a school, epa, etc seem to be able to enact their own policies at will and have people arrested, fined, evicted, fired, etc with the full force if our justice system against them. And frequently the people in charge are simply hired by hr, with some of the hire ups being appointed and a few elected.

But, by and large, imo it all seems to fly in the face of the system of government that was enacted for us originally. It reminds me more of the colonial system of governors appointed by the king to oversee the population as they saw fit.

Which leaves many things as a David and Goliath fight, where individuals only recourse is to try and prove they are not guilty, and the government and their agents free to string arm anyone of their choosing without any real consequences to themselves.

This coaches plight fits my description above IMO.

My thoughts anyway.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A
> 
> Here's the entirety of the statute. I'll admit I didn't read it all. Your link brought up a two page document referencing this broader statute but I saw no mention there, or in my skimming of any of the headers in the statute, of any restriction on prayer in school. Perhaps you could point me to the language that specifically addresses this issue and prohibits the coach from engaging in prayer. I'm will ing to be enlightened and admit I'm wrong if that is the case.



You will not find a specific statute that reads "No prayer in public schools".
The Title 28 section gives the legal authority to the school board/superintendent to make policies that carry the weight of enforceable laws.
If a school superintendent tells a coach he can't pray, the statute gives him the authority to make it illegal for that coach to do so.

Then there is the Washington state constitution, gives two articles that are used in this legal battle and the previous mentioned section also includes the opinions of the atty general as basis for the laws as well.


https://aclu-wa.org/library_files/Guide for Public School Students.pdf

Article IX, section 4:


SECTION 4 SECTARIAN CONTROL OR INFLUENCE PROHIBITED. 
All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence.

Article I section 11:

Text of Section 11:
Religious Freedom.

Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony.[1]


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> You will not find a specific statute that reads "No prayer in public schools".
> The Title 28 section gives the legal authority to the school board/superintendent to make policies that carry the weight of enforceable laws.
> If a school superintendent tells a coach he can't pray, the statute gives him the authority to make it illegal for that coach to do so.
> 
> ...


So, simply, there is no law prohibiting the coach from praying. It is not illegal for the coach to pray. The coach wont go to jail if he prays. The coach won't have to pay any civil penalty or fine if he prays. The coach himself acknowledges that closed door prayers with the entire team are inappropriate because they do appear to exert that sectarian control or influence the state constitution prohibits. The school district extends that ban to after game prayers led by the coach because they fear that also violates the state and federal constitutions. A decision well within their statutory powers. Yet, if he wished, the coach could walk to the center of the field by himself and pray for as long as he wished. As could any of the students. What's the issue?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> So, simply, there is no law prohibiting the coach from praying. It is not illegal for the coach to pray. The coach wont go to jail if he prays. The coach won't have to pay any civil penalty or fine if he prays.


Sorry, I disagree, per the statutes and constitutional articles I quoted.



mmoetc said:


> The coach himself acknowledges that closed door prayers with the entire team are inappropriate because they do appear to exert that sectarian control or influence the state constitution prohibits.
> 
> * The school district extends that ban to after game prayers led by the coach because they fear that also violates the state and federal constitutions. A decision well within their statutory powers.*
> 
> ...


Defying the authorities will most certainly land you in jail or court.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Sorry, I disagree, per the statutes and constitutional articles I quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> Defying the authorities will most certainly land you in jail or court.


The school has not said the coach cannot pray. They have said he cannot lead students in prayer while he's acting as the coach of the students on the school's behalf. They've not threatened him with jail or fine or court action. They have no power to do so for the simple act of praying. They do have the power to get him to comply with school policy. A policy which equally protects him. The same constitution that prevents him from using his position to promote his religion protects him from a superintendent or principal who would require him to sit through the prayer of another religous tradition prior to or after every staff meeting.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I don't think so.........

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/26/p...school-district-for-refusing-to-let-him-pray/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/us/washington-football-coach-joe-kennedy-prays/


This is the letter from the school to the coach. Read it and you will see he was told not to step on the field and pray as long as he is an employee of the school.

http://www.bremertonschools.org/cms...ads/Bremerton Public Statement - 10.28.15.pdf


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't think so.........
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/26/p...school-district-for-refusing-to-let-him-pray/


Think what you want. It's the coach taking the district to court, not the other way around. And you still haven't shown me where the district says he can't pray.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> Think what you want. It's the coach taking the district to court, not the other way around. And you still haven't shown me where the district says he can't pray.


It took me a few minutes, go read my last link.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> It took me a few minutes, go read my last link.


I did. It was short on detail and long on bias. According to other accounts the district only asked that he not lead after game prayers for the students. If the school did indeed try to shut down any and all manifestations of his religous beliefs I'll likely change my view. But I'll wait for the actual suit to be filed including the actual details of what the district did and did not prohibit the coach from doing before further comment.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I did. It was short on detail and long on bias. According to other accounts the district only asked that he not lead after game prayers for the students. If the school did indeed try to shut down any and all manifestations of his religous beliefs I'll likely change my view. But I'll wait for the actual suit to be filed including the actual details of what the district did and did not prohibit the coach from doing before further comment.


You don't have to wait.
I posted the letter from the Bremerton school district, it was very detailed.

http://www.bremertonschools.org/cms...ads/Bremerton Public Statement - 10.28.15.pdf




Bremerton School District Statement and Q&A 
Regarding Assistant Football Coach Joe Kennedy 



Why can&#8217;t Kennedy lead students in voluntary prayer? Nobody is forced to participate, are 
they? 

There is indeed no evidence that students have been directly coerced to pray with Kennedy. But 
that isn&#8217;t the standard. Over fifteen years ago, the United States Supreme Court said as much. In 
Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), the Court held that a school district&#8217;s 
practice of simply allowing its facilities to be used for religious expression during a district- 
sponsored football game violated the First Amendment&#8217;s Establishment Clause because of the 
reasonable perception by students and attendees of district endorsement of religion. That 
decision makes clear that students can pray on their own; but it is a constitutional violation of 
students&#8217; rights for a District employee, acting as such, to initiate prayers with students. It is 
equally clear that District employees may not participate in even student-initiated prayer. Doe v. 
Duncanville Indep. Sch. Dist., 70 F.3d 402 (1995). While attending games may be voluntary for 
most students, students required to be present by virtue of their participation in football or 
cheerleading will necessarily suffer a degree of coercion to participate in religious activity when 
their coaches lead or endorse it. 

Notably, we believe Mr. Kennedy understands this. On September 17, 2015, the District notified 
him that he was prohibited from repeating his prior practices of leading players in a pre-game 
prayer in the locker room or leading players in a post-game prayer immediately following games. 

Why does Kennedy have to hide in order to pray? 

He doesn&#8217;t have to &#8220;hide.&#8221; However, the District cannot allow an employee, while still on duty, 
to engage in religious conduct or display that a reasonable observer, aware of the context, would 
perceive as District endorsement of religion. This &#8220;endorsement&#8221; standard was identified by the 
Supreme Court in Santa Fe, and the federal courts have expanded upon it in the fifteen years 
since that decision. For example, in 2008, a federal appeals court held that a football coach 
known to have previously led students in prayer must not be allowed even to kneel or bow his 
head while students prayed, as this would constitute District endorsement of religion in violation 
of the Constitution. Borden v. Sch. Dist. of the Township of East Brunswick, 523 F.3d 153. And 
in 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a public employer&#8217;s interests in avoiding 
such Establishment Clause violations &#8220;outweigh the resulting limitations on [an employee&#8217;s] free 
exercise of his religion at work.&#8221; Berry v. Dep&#8217;t of Social Services, 447 F.3d 642. 

If the District allowed Kennedy to engage in a public religious display in the midst of the 
performance of his duties, the result would be the same as in East Brunswick: The District would 
be subject to liability for violating the rights of its students if it allows this practice to continue. 
The District cannot put scarce funds needed for the District&#8217;s basic educational mandate (which 
our State Supreme Court has already determined to be constitutionally inadequate) at such risk. 
Therefore, Kennedy&#8217;s free exercise rights must be exercised only in a way that will not result in 
such a violation. The accommodations offered by the District are reasonable and would allow 
such exercise by Mr. Kennedy, while avoiding violating the rights of others.


Isn&#8217;t Kennedy off duty after the game ends, and free to do what he wants? 

No. All paid coaches in District athletic programs are required to remain with the program, 
performing duties as assigned, following athletic contests. These events clearly do not end upon 
the blowing of the final whistle. At that point, players engage in post-game traditions, such as the 
singing of the BHS fight song and exchanging congratulatory and uplifting words with the 
opposing team&#8217;s players. They then return to the locker room to change out of their uniforms, 
and are then released to their parents or are authorized to leave. During that time, those students 
remain in the care of the District, and the District&#8217;s employees have a legal obligation to 
maintain supervision of the players until they have left the event. We believe that all of the 
District&#8217;s coaches understand this, and that players&#8217; parents reasonably expect it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> You don't have to wait.
> I posted the letter from the Bremerton school district, it was very detailed.
> 
> http://www.bremertonschools.org/cms...ads/Bremerton Public Statement - 10.28.15.pdf
> ...


And every mention of prayer refers to him leading the students in prayer or participating in their prayer. That's quite different than saying the school district prohibited him from any manifestation of his religion. I understand the schools concerns and the court ruling it's based on. Once again, the districts policies and the cases it relies on protect the coach as much as the students.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> An article referencing the school's policy? No law cited.
> 
> The paperwork stating that the district exists according to state statutes? Once again, no law cited that the coach cannot pray.
> 
> ...





mmoetc said:


> http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A
> 
> Here's the entirety of the statute. I'll admit I didn't read it all. Your link brought up a two page document referencing this broader statute but I saw no mention there, or in my skimming of any of the headers in the statute, of any restriction on prayer in school.
> 
> ...





mmoetc said:


> So, simply, there is no law prohibiting the coach from praying. It is not illegal for the coach to pray. The coach wont go to jail if he prays. The coach won't have to pay any civil penalty or fine if he prays. The coach himself acknowledges that closed door prayers with the entire team are inappropriate because they do appear to exert that sectarian control or influence the state constitution prohibits. The school district extends that ban to after game prayers led by the coach because they fear that also violates the state and federal constitutions. A decision well within their statutory powers.
> 
> 
> * Yet, if he wished, the coach could walk to the center of the field by himself and pray for as long as he wished. As could any of the students. What's the issue?*





mmoetc said:


> And every mention of prayer refers to him leading the students in prayer or participating in their prayer.
> 
> 
> *That's quite different than saying the school district prohibited him from any manifestation of his religion. *
> ...




Yes, your last post was indeed quite different from the others. I refuted those.
I guess the word that was missing was, he isn't allowed to pray *openly* on school grounds.:bored:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, your last post was indeed quite different from the others. I refuted those.
> I guess the word that was missing was, he isn't allowed to pray *openly* on school grounds.:bored:


The school's letter says nothing about him not praying, by himself, openly on school grounds. What it says is that according to their policy based on legal precedent he cannot lead prayers for or participate or even appear to participate or give tacit approval of students praying. It in no way removes all manifestation of his religous expression as claimed.

Now, I will admit I was wrong when I stated that he would be allowed to stand and pray to his hearts content at midfield after a game. But there is nothing in the letter that says he cannot pray at different times even on school grounds as long as students arent involved. There are limitations put on his expression but it doesn't seem as if there is a complete ban. He is not banned from praying in the school.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> The school's letter says nothing about him not praying, by himself, openly on school grounds.
> 
> 
> What it says is that according to their policy based on legal precedent he cannot lead prayers for or participate or even appear to participate or give tacit approval of students praying. It in no way removes all manifestation of his religous expression as claimed.
> ...




Sorry, they will not allow him to pray openly if there is any chance a student will see him do it. He can be on school grounds, but hidden from their sight.
They referenced two specific cases to support that reasoning.


*He doesn&#8217;t have to &#8220;hide.&#8221; However, the District cannot allow an employee, while still on duty, 
to engage in religious conduct or display that a reasonable observer, aware of the context, would 
perceive as District endorsement of religion. This &#8220;endorsement&#8221; standard was identified by the 
Supreme Court in Santa Fe, and the federal courts have expanded upon it in the fifteen years 
since that decision. For example, in 2008, a federal appeals court held that a football coach 
known to have previously led students in prayer must not be allowed even to kneel or bow his 
head while students prayed, as this would constitute District endorsement of religion in violation 
of the Constitution. Borden v. Sch. Dist. of the Township of East Brunswick, 523 F.3d 153. And 
in 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a public employer&#8217;s interests in avoiding 
such Establishment Clause violations &#8220;outweigh the resulting limitations on [an employee&#8217;s] free 
exercise of his religion at work.&#8221; Berry v. Dep&#8217;t of Social Services, 447 F.3d 642. 
*





From the same letter.......



To the District&#8217;s knowledge, Mr. Kennedy has complied with those directives not to intentionally 
involve students in his on-duty religious activities. *However, he has continued a practice of 
engaging in a public religious display immediately following games, while he is still on duty. *

Why has the District prohibited Mr. Kennedy from praying on his own? 

It hasn&#8217;t. The District respects Mr. Kennedy&#8217;s own constitutional right to free exercise of 
religion, and understands that it has a duty to reasonably accommodate that exercise under Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act. *To that end, the District has repeatedly offered to accommodate 
Kennedy&#8217;s religious exercise by providing him with a private location to use for prayer that does 
not interfere with his performance of his duties. Examples are private locations within the school 
building or athletic facility, or even in the Memorial Stadium press box.* The District has also 
encouraged Kennedy to offer his own suggestions for ways in which his desire to engage in 
*private prayer can be accommodated without subjecting the District to liability for violating the 
Establishment Clause. *


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> The school's letter says nothing about him not praying, by himself, openly on school grounds. What it says is that according to their policy based on legal precedent he cannot lead prayers for or participate or even appear to participate or give tacit approval of students praying. It in no way removes all manifestation of his religous expression as claimed.
> 
> Now, I will admit I was wrong when I stated that he would be allowed to stand and pray to his hearts content at midfield after a game. But there is nothing in the letter that says he cannot pray at different times even on school grounds as long as students arent involved. There are limitations put on his expression but it doesn't seem as if there is a complete ban. He is not banned from praying in the school.


I've already said I disagree with the no praying, leading prayer idea.

But, regarding what you said here. That reads to me like logic that would lead to students being punished for "fraternizing" for lack of a better word with a person who was praying.

By that logic, I would have been in trouble for leading prayer in college. I had a class known as the suicide class in college. We had difficult exams every other Friday. Before the test I would offer to pray with anyone around me interested because I believe prayer helps, and praying together is good.

I don't even know if the people who joined me were my sane faith. But, before every test we held hands, and I prayed aloud for everyone's focus and efforts and stress, etc to be where it needed to be and praised God for being with us and our teacher and classmates as th class continued. It wasn't a huge spectacke. But, we didn't do anything to hide it from anyone.

By your logic, IMO, I and any student who joined me would be violating such a policy or law.

My thoughts anyway.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

gibbsgirl said:


> I've already said I disagree with the no praying, leading prayer idea.
> 
> But, regarding what you said here. That reads to me like logic that would lead to students being punished for "fraternizing" for lack of a better word with a person who was praying.
> 
> ...


Not quite. The courts will allow students far more leeway than public employees, like teachers.
The case cited is long and detailed, but essentially says the gov't can infringe on the 1st amendment rights of citizens that they employ while they are at work on public property.
http://openjurist.org/447/f3d/642/berry-v-department-of-social-services


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> Not quite. The courts will allow students far more leeway than public employees, like teachers.
> The case cited is long and detailed, but essentially says the gov't can infringe on the 1st amendment rights of citizens that they employ while they are at work on public property.
> http://openjurist.org/447/f3d/642/berry-v-department-of-social-services


I was responding to the "as long as students aren't involved" part of that post.

Mostly, because this stuff always seems to end up following the give an inch, take a mile path IMO, instead of the schools following the path of managing staff and students by getting out of every detail if everyone's doings unless the students and staff are failing to meet success goals. I tend to feel the business of schools has become micromanaging everyone's thoughts and actions, under the guise of managing success, even though the results of that seem to be continually slipping standards and success.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Oh, I agree with you, the slope is a slippery one, that's the problem.

The Establishment clause in the 1st amendment has gone from a congressional law being passed, as it is written, to as small an act as having a bible in plain view on your desk at work, if you happen to be a public employee.
If it weren't true, it would be hilarious to think something so simple could be twisted that far out of shape.
Instead of being a right to be held sacred, it's been turned into a weapon to punish those who wish to exercise it.


----------



## JohnP (Sep 1, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> Most threads do go off topic. This board is probably 80% conservative. A bunch of them got upset though and went off and started a board just for Conservatives to be able to say whatever they like without us mean liberals sharing facts and truths and hurting them with reality.  They will be back once they get bored.


*Please tell me where this other "board" is.* I don't think I can stand it here much longer. Ever since the new ownership things have changed with the forum/site in general as well as the conversation. 
It's a major pita just to log in because the page jumps around so much from all the ads and there's that stupid black box telling me to log in while the page is still jumping around. :hair
The conversations remind me of my kids bickering. 
This whole "post of the day/week/month/decade/ever thing is something new as well and reminds me of the new education where everyone gives high fives and gets a gold star. 
*So Please, tell me where this other "board" is.

*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This whole "*post of the day*/week/month/decade/ever thing is *something new* as well and reminds me of the new education where everyone gives high fives and gets a gold star.


Actually that started long before you arrived

Here's one from 2009, about a year and a half before you joined:

01/24/*09*, 12:47 PM Post # 15
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...958-what-would-you-do-long-vent-rant-etc.html

(Ask the woman you just complained about concerning the "other board" since she's a moderator there")


----------



## JohnP (Sep 1, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually that started long before you arrived
> I don't remember it being almost every other post
> Here's one from 2009, about a year and a half before you joined:
> 
> ...


I wasn't complaining about her. I was complaining about the site in general. I was asking about _her_ another board as in another site. If it's just another sub-forum here well that wouldn't be different would it?
Thanks for your input


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't remember it being almost every other post


It wasn't then, and really isn't now :shrug:



> *I wasn't complaining about her*.
> 
> I was complaining about the site in general. I was asking about her another board as in another site. If it's just another sub-forum here well that wouldn't be different would it?
> Thanks for your input


It's her invention

As for the other forum, I suspect it wouldn't be substantially different from this one since the vast majority there are also here.

As long as you agree with them, you'll get along fine.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JohnP said:


> *Please tell me where this other "board" is.* I don't think I can stand it here much longer. Ever since the new ownership things have changed with the forum/site in general as well as the conversation.
> It's a major pita just to log in because the page jumps around so much from all the ads and there's that stupid black box telling me to log in while the page is still jumping around. :hair
> The conversations remind me of my kids bickering.
> This whole "post of the day/week/month/decade/ever thing is something new as well and reminds me of the new education where everyone gives high fives and gets a gold star.
> ...


Sending you a pm. I suppose the advantage to the other board is that they are 100% conservative so no arguing. Just one big happy circle......


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Is Sharia Law Derived from the Old Testament?



> FOR TOUCHING MT SINAI
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And so on and so forth...


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

JohnP said:


> *Please tell me where this other "board" is.* I don't think I can stand it here much longer. Ever since the new ownership things have changed with the forum/site in general as well as the conversation.
> It's a major pita just to log in because the page jumps around so much from all the ads and there's that stupid black box telling me to log in while the page is still jumping around. :hair
> The conversations remind me of my kids bickering.
> This whole "post of the day/week/month/decade/ever thing is something new as well and reminds me of the new education where everyone gives high fives and gets a gold star.
> ...


In a way, it's quite entertaining.You just have to accept that you're wasting your time here, and that you'd be much better off pursuing more useful activities, such as having root canals. Many other forums are similar, actually. I've been a member of several other forums, and unless they're slow and sleepy, they almost always degenerate.

ETA: You may enjoy your experience here better with a few browser plugins. 
https://adblockplus.org
Download the above to stop most pop ups and in-text ads on most websites. Very useful.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Oh, I agree with you, the slope is a slippery one, that's the problem.
> 
> The Establishment clause in the 1st amendment has gone from a congressional law being passed, as it is written, to as small an act as having a bible in plain view on your desk at work, if you happen to be a public employee.
> If it weren't true, it would be hilarious to think something so simple could be twisted that far out of shape.
> Instead of being a right to be held sacred, it's been turned into a weapon to punish those who wish to exercise it.


The intent of the laws is not to punish those who exercise their religion but to protect others who would use their religion, especially in their role as government agents, to punish others. It also offers that protection to you. 

If we go back to my original question, not the one you added to to make your point, you havent provided one law that prohibits prayer in school. In fact, per your own posts, the school did as it is required to by law and attempted to find ways to allow the coach to pray. That would be the opposite of a prohibition.

The slippery slope argument is an interesting one. Sometimes it's valid, sometimes not. For it to be valid and defensible that postion on the top of the hill must be the optimum position for all. In this case the concern shouldn't be for those who long held the position at the top of the slope and had the ability to use their religous beliefs and the test of whether others prayed with them to influence the behavior of those who might not agree with those beliefs. It doesn't seem a bad thing to slide down that slope to a position where others aren't having religion and beliefs kicked down upon them, nor do they have the ability to kick their religous beliefs down the slope onto others. Government should be neutral in religous matters. Government employees should reflect that neutrality in their actions on behalf of the government.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> The intent of the laws is not to punish those who exercise their religion but to protect others who would use their religion, especially in their role as government agents, to punish others. It also offers that protection to you.


Agreed.



mmoetc said:


> If we go back to my original question, not the one you added to to make your point, you havent provided one law that prohibits prayer in school. In fact, per your own posts, the school did as it is required to by law and attempted to find ways to allow the coach to pray. That would be the opposite of a prohibition.


It's a fact that I can't find a law that prohibits prayer in school.......by students.
But as you've said, there is indeed one that prohibits prayer by school employees, anywhere they can be seen by others.
I don't consider the school's "accommodations" to be an exception to that fact.
A difference of opinion, you could say.




mmoetc said:


> The slippery slope argument is an interesting one. Sometimes it's valid, sometimes not. For it to be valid and defensible that postion on the top of the hill must be the optimum position for all. In this case the concern shouldn't be for those who long held the position at the top of the slope and had the ability to use their religous beliefs and the test of whether others prayed with them to influence the behavior of those who might not agree with those beliefs. It doesn't seem a bad thing to slide down that slope to a position where others aren't having religion and beliefs kicked down upon them, nor do they have the ability to kick their religous beliefs down the slope onto others. Government should be neutral in religous matters. Government employees should reflect that neutrality in their actions on behalf of the government.


I guess it's true that some would use a prayer as a means to hurt someone who didn't participate, but that hasn't been my observations.
That isn't a circle of people I would gather with either.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

Fwiw, I don't buy the whole argument that prayer should be carved out and seen as some kind of special problematic nepotism.

Schools, business, and any other social environment is filled to the brim with nepotism. And, there's no swift movement I've ever seen to ban it.

Students and adults all fit in for better or worse with others, whether it's shared faiths, favorite sports teams, common friends/enemies, social media connections, etc, etc, etc.

All people confirm as it suits them, or are ostracized sometimes. It's how folks make and find there wY in the world. And, if we are going to carve out and remove the adults from schools from being able to be identified if they choose as part of a faith, we are cheating all our students.

They will need all the help they can get to practice how to work together and tolerate each others differences. That's a skill the schools are working to avoid teaching. And, religious differences are such a touchy area for some, that they are especially important.

My thoughts anyway.


----------

