On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:55:39 +0000, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote: >> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> File in the casus belli department: >>> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of >>> Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany. > OMG, I actually overlooked that - probably my brain having an emergency > shut down to prevent explosion from exposure to such an inanity.
France didn't deserve the city anyhow: California makes better wine. The question is, how the hell was it moved?
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
<w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >On Nov 4, 9:24 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: >> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >> > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries >> > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to >> > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the >> > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
>> > seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen >> > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values >> > don't seem to mean much.
>> Not really. >> Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights. >> (which are not particularly European)
>i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a >european idea.
Well, that is certainly arguable. One might say, though, that it is a concept of Western Civilization, but it certainly seems to be johnny-come-lately. Until at least the Rennaisance there were no human rights, and for centuries afterward those rights were the right of the aristocracy and royalty, not the Third Estate.
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 06:47:54 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allseei...@usa.com> wrote: >There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of >Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.
Strasbourg, GERMANY? Way to shoot yorueself in teh foot before you even get started.
>The complaint was in >Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside >entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has >lived for a couple thousands of years.
The complainant lives in Italy. Here in the US eople born in ohter coutnries are also allowed to bring suit in American courts.
>Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same >ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
The US courts have already made public schools give up religious regalia.
>Which is no >problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you >are atheist.
Oh, yeah. You're the one who considers Jews and Muslims to b atheists, aren't you.
>But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes >within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history? >What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a "One >World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all atheist >will bow their knee or suffer the consequences?
Whew. You really know how to create a BIG slippery slope, doncha?
[drivel deleted]
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
On Nov 4, 5:16 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt > > make up its own laws. > Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another > country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you > always get so easily distracted from the point?
Burkhard is a deceitful lier an atheist, he twists and turns everything one says, holding himself deliberatly obtuse. You should see how is trying to confuse the simple concept of saying the same thing twice. He delights in deceit , guile is in his mouth .....
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: > On Nov 4, 9:24 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: > > > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > > > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > > > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the > > > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
> > > seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen > > > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values > > > don't seem to mean much.
> > Not really. > > Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights. > > (which are not particularly European)
> i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a > european idea.
It spread to some less civilized parts of the world though.
> > > that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes > > > is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
> > National laws conflicting with the human rights standard > > have to be revised,
> i don't know what this means. the vatican seems to think 'human > rights' means being religious.
Just what it says. The European court doesn't rule on individual cases. It may rule that some national law is in conflict with the European Convention of Human Rights.
It's up to that country to revise it's law(s) in any way they see fit to make them conform,
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:16:00 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
<allseei...@usa.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 9:02 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, D.C. >> rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living in Colorado >> from Nevada which has implication in every state/
>Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of >responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the >common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct >foreign policy.
That's simply not true. That was the de facto purview of the Articles of Confederation, which caused so much trouble for the thirteen nation-states that they called for the revision of the Articles.
The preamble to the US Constitution says:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
So the responsibility is:
"Form a more perfect union" compared to the Articles of Confederation;
"Establish justice", which is neither foreign policy nor the common defense;
"Insure domestic tranquility", ditto
"Provide for the common defense", so you get one right
"Promote the general welfare", which I think you would have to admit covers a lot more than foreign affairs or the common defense;
"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", ditto.
You really ought to learn more about the constitution before you pop off. I'm currently reading Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle at Philadelphia", which covers a lot of the sentiments and arguments expressed by the Founding Fathers regarding the nature of a good government (the "Miracle" is that they finally agreed on the proposed revision of the Articles). You might also try reading The Federalist, which rebuts many of the arguments being made against the adoption of the US Constitution.
>So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that >Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and >dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not >suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by >the will of the people in that state.
You really don't know much about the Constitution, do you?
Article IV, Sect 1, states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
In other words legal acts in one state must be respected in all the others. Even if a state forbids gay marriage, that state is constitutionally bound to recognize a gay marriage made in a state that does allow it. Obviusly, this does not sit well in some states and this is currently undergoing a lot of legal wrangling and rationalization, bringing back the very old concept of state nullification from before the Civil War.
>> > Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same >> > ability to tell you in America how to live as well.
>> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
>Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
Who is "thay" [sic]?
>> Which is no
>> > problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since you >> > are atheist.
>> > But what will happen when the winds of change bring new attitudes >> > within populations as we have seen happen all throughout history?
>> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt >> make up its own laws.
>Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another >country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you >always get so easily distracted from the point?
Do you understand that the United States of America is a federation of countries (at least the first thirteen were)?
The delegates to the Constitution Convention in 1787 meant their own colony, now state, when they talked of, say, returning to their country. Do you know what the word "state" means?
Now the EU is trying the same sort of thing, and the treaty signed by all the countries of the EU provides for the common EU court system. In other words, those nations accepted the jurisdiciton of the EU courts and EU law (save for some of the original signers who opted out of some parts of the treaty).
-- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
On Nov 4, 1:23 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 04:53:24 -0800 (PST), wf3h
> >seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen > >'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values > >don't seem to mean much.
> You need to talk to more EU "nationals"; national identity and > culture are still strong in most EU countries. That fact is one > of the major impediments to many suggested EU 'constitutioan" > fixes.
been there about a dozen times; and you're right, nationalism is very strong in many countries. it's a reason why multiple votes have been needed in, say, ireland, to agree to a constitution, etc. but it's ALSO true that the existence of the EU itself means something....and that seems to be sacrificing some measure of national sovereignty in the same way that individual american states sacrifice their sovereignty in the name of the US. (at least that's what adenauer thought; the analogy to the US states is his, not mine.)
> I have to admit, though, that the younger generation seems to be > converging on a common set of cultural values whatever their > particular country. Unfortunately, that common set of cultural > values seems to be American.
jesus, tell me it ain't true...especially the part about religion...
as much as i love my country, it has some SERIOUS problems...
On Nov 4, 1:41 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 5:16 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt > > > make up its own laws. > > Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another > > country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you > > always get so easily distracted from the point?
> Burkhard is a deceitful lier an atheist, he twists and turns > everything one says, holding himself deliberatly obtuse. You should > see how is trying to confuse the simple concept of saying the same > thing twice. He delights in deceit , guile is in his mouth .....
says the lying, deceitful religious fanatic 'backspace'...etc etc.
wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> writes: > On Nov 4, 1:23 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote: > [...] but it's ALSO true that the existence of the EU itself means > something....and that seems to be sacrificing some measure of national > sovereignty in the same way that individual american states sacrifice > their sovereignty in the name of the US. (at least that's what > adenauer thought; the analogy to the US states is his, not mine.)
True, though someone might use the term "sharing" rather than "sacrificing" which gives the notions a quite different feel. (I'm not convinced that either is obviously more correct.)
backspace wrote: > On Nov 4, 5:16 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: >>> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt >>> make up its own laws.
>> Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another >> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you >> always get so easily distracted from the point?
> Burkhard is a deceitful lier an atheist,
Quite on the contrary, I'm the only true theist on this news group.
he twists and turns
> everything one says,
says the person who has made a hobby of "rephrasing" statements made by others until they are totally garbled
holding himself deliberatly obtuse. You should
> see how is trying to confuse the simple concept of saying the same > thing twice.
He delights in deceit , guile is in his mouth .....
J. J. Lodder wrote: > wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 9:24 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: >>> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >>>> On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries >>>>> values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to >>>>> Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the >>>>> highway! This is nothing about rights. >>>> seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen >>>> 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values >>>> don't seem to mean much. >>> Not really. >>> Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights. >>> (which are not particularly European) >> i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a >> european idea.
> It spread to some less civilized parts of the world though.
>>>> that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes >>>> is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made. >>> National laws conflicting with the human rights standard >>> have to be revised, >> i don't know what this means. the vatican seems to think 'human >> rights' means being religious.
> Just what it says. > The European court doesn't rule on individual cases. > It may rule that some national law is in conflict > with the European Convention of Human Rights.
I'm not sure what you mean with this. The ECHR does not give advisory opinions. All cases that it hears must first have exhausted the national court system, that alone ensures that the cases it hears are individual cases, with the pursuer complaining against he violation of his rights by a signatory state. See Art 34 and 35 of the convention. True, there is also a procedure for "abstract" control, when one member state alleges that the laws of anther state are incompatible with the ECHR (Art 33), but this procedure is hardly ever used. The court can also award damages against he party whose rights were violated (Art 41)
Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:04:15 -0800 (PST), wf3h > <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 9:24 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: > >> wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: > >> > On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > >> > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > >> > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the > >> > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
> >> > seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen > >> > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values > >> > don't seem to mean much.
> >> Not really. > >> Europeans have agreed to a certain minimum standard for human rights. > >> (which are not particularly European)
> >i disagree. the modern concept of 'human rights' is very much a > >european idea.
> Well, that is certainly arguable. One might say, though, that it > is a concept of Western Civilization, but it certainly seems to > be johnny-come-lately. Until at least the Rennaisance there were > no human rights, and for centuries afterward those rights were > the right of the aristocracy and royalty, not the Third Estate.
Not really. It all started in the Netherlands (the first bourgeois republic in moderen times, 1572) where they invented things like freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. (all more or less, for people who didn't make to much of a nuisance of themselves) The French Enlightenment followed, and the Americans took their cues from both,
On 4 Nov., 02:36, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
snip
> What it actually is, is a Roman torture and execution device.
> I cannot think of a more bizarre symbol for a religion of peace.
During this dispute some Italians claimed the cross as a part of their national culture and identity. Were they referring to their Roman heritage or their Christian tradition? Just wondering : ) regards ed
> All-Seeing-I wrote: > > On Nov 4, 9:02 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> All-Seeing-I wrote: > >>> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm===== "Italy > >>>> school crucifixes 'barred' The European Court of Human Rights > >>>> has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy. > >>>> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate > >>>> their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's > >>>> right to freedom of religion. The case was brought by an > >>>> Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a > >>>> secular education. But the ruling has sparked anger in the > >>>> largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move > >>>> "shameful". The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory > >>>> display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by > >>>> the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to > >>>> educate their children in conformity with their convictions." > >>>> ... ... ===== Italy now/tomorrow, EU next? Finland's media says > >>>> that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved in Italy and > >>>> has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as violation > >>>> of hers childrens rights... > >>> Intresting. Thanks for posting it. There is a bigger picture to > >>> be considered here. The European Court of Human Rights is located > >>> in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in Italy made by someone > >>> that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside entities telling > >>> the population of Italy to change the way it has lived for a > >>> couple thousands of years. > >> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, > >> D.C. rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living > >> in Colorado from Nevada which has implication in every state/
> > Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of > > responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the > > common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct > > foreign policy.
> > So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that > > Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and > > dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not > > suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by > > the will of the people in that state.
> So the southern states should have the right to hold slaves, or a state > shoudl have the right to torture suspects? How about the right to > prohibit all religion? Read the 14th Amendment
Why do you want to inject ancient history into this? It does not matter if you are christian, or jew, or atheist. This should be a concern to all of us.
> and why stop at states? How is this different from the Texas Supreme > Court in Austin telling people in San Antonio what to do? Laws are > always about telling people what to do, that is pretty much their point.
> >>> Now, there are some in America want to give that court the same > >>> ability to tell you in America how to live as well. > >> You already have such a court, it is called SCOTUS
> > Yep. But thay want to put that court under the The European Court
> So the US is in Europe now, or signatory to the European convention of > Human rights? Nonsensical fantasy with no basis in reality.
> >> Which is no
> >>> problem right now because most of you agree with the ruling since > >>> you are atheist. But what will happen when the winds of change > >>> bring new attitudes within populations as we have seen happen all > >>> throughout history? > >> The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does > >> nt make up its own laws.
> > Someone makes up the laws.
> The point stands. The few (in another> country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you > > always get so easily distracted from the point?
> The point is that these states signed up voluntarily to a law, they now > abide by it. Nobody was forced to do anything. The Italians had as much > as a say as the Germans etc.
If you were a doctor, you would treat the sympton while over looking tha cure.
> >>> What will you say when the winds of change bring something like a > >>> "One World" religion and it will be ruled by the court that all > >>> atheist will bow their knee or suffer the consequences? Truly I > >>> say to you, A ruling such as this is bad for everyone. It offers > >>> no personal freedoms although it may seem on the surface that it > >>> does. In fact we may be witnessing the begining stages of a world > >>> wide dictatorship where the few will dictate to the many how > >>> they will live; which by the way has even been prophisied about > >>> in the bible. It would be better for the Atheists in Italy to > >>> have more tollerance (as hard as that will be in an all Catholic > >>> Country i realize) then to allow a hand full of people in another > >>> country to dictate how millions will think and live. The same > >>> attitudes are even here in America. The cross is just a piece of > >>> metal in a specific shape. It is the repersentation of the cross > >>> to the individual that is meaningful. So If you are truly atheist > >>> then the cross means nothing to you. Your perception of the cross > >>> it that of just another piece of jewlery. It would not have an > >>> ability to "offend" you. In fact, anything of a religious nature > >>> would not have the ability to offend you if you had a true > >>> atheist outlook. So this means there is something else going on > >>> with this issue other then just wanting to remove a cross, or > >>> remove a nativity scean from public view. And certainly this > >>> court's ruling is bad for all of humanity. Including the > >>> atheists. -- Seeing it all The All Seeing I- Hide quoted text - > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
On Nov 4, 12:41 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 5:16 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > The court applies the European convention of Human rights, it does nt > > > make up its own laws. > > Someone makes up the laws. The point stands. The few (in another > > country) are telling the many how to live in another country. Do you > > always get so easily distracted from the point?
> Burkhard is a deceitful lier an atheist, he twists and turns > everything one says, holding himself deliberatly obtuse. You should > see how is trying to confuse the simple concept of saying the same > thing twice. He delights in deceit , guile is in his mouth .....
> >> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, D.C. > >> rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living in Colorado > >> from Nevada which has implication in every state/
> >Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of > >responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the > >common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct > >foreign policy.
> That's simply not true. That was the de facto purview of the > Articles of Confederation, which caused so much trouble for the > thirteen nation-states that they called for the revision of the > Articles.
> The preamble to the US Constitution says:
> "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more > perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, > provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and > secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, > do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States > of America."
> So the responsibility is:
> "Form a more perfect union" compared to the Articles of > Confederation;
> "Establish justice", which is neither foreign policy nor the > common defense;
> "Insure domestic tranquility", ditto
> "Provide for the common defense", so you get one right
> "Promote the general welfare", which I think you would have to > admit covers a lot more than foreign affairs or the common > defense;
> "Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity", > ditto.
> You really ought to learn more about the constitution before you > pop off. I'm currently reading Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle > at Philadelphia", which covers a lot of the sentiments and > arguments expressed by the Founding Fathers regarding the nature > of a good government (the "Miracle" is that they finally agreed > on the proposed revision of the Articles). You might also try > reading The Federalist, which rebuts many of the arguments being > made against the adoption of the US Constitution.
> >So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that > >Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and > >dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not > >suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by > >the will of the people in that state.
> You really don't know much about the Constitution, do you?
THAT would be you.
The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to "we the people." The preamble (which you quoted from) in no way shows what powers are allocated to the fed from the states.
But more to the point, you quoted /WHY they wrote the Constitution/. I gave you HOW they should guarantee what is in the preamble of the constitution; which is 1) Provide for the common defense and 2) Conduct foreign affairs for the original states. Thereby allowing each state to guarantee the rights of each of it's citizens as outlined in the preamble.
Why do you think each state has it's own constitution fool? If the fed was to govern the states we would not need a Governor in each state. If the Fed 's mandate was to govern the states with it's constitution then the states would not need individual constitutions. Would they?
If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to do they would not offer 'bribe money' to the state's to comply with it's laws and pet projects. If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to do the FBI would not be mandated to notify and get permission from the sheriff of any jurisdiction it conducts an investigation in.
You did not show WHAT the responsibility of the Federal Government was IN THE BEGINNING. I did.
"It is a primary obligation of the federal government to provide for the common defense, and to be vigilant regarding potential threats, prospective capabilities, and perceived intentions of potential enemies." The federal government's roll was never suppose to dictate who or who could not get married. It was never suppose to dictate what could or could not be under scientific research. It was never designed to make decisions in people's personal lives.
The Fed today far over reaches it's original authority, which was my point. Partly out of necessity, partly out of ego as time went by..
> On Nov 4, 1:01 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
> > You really ought to learn more about the constitution before you > > pop off. I'm currently reading Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle > > at Philadelphia", which covers a lot of the sentiments and > > arguments expressed by the Founding Fathers regarding the nature > > of a good government (the "Miracle" is that they finally agreed > > on the proposed revision of the Articles). You might also try > > reading The Federalist, which rebuts many of the arguments being > > made against the adoption of the US Constitution.
> > You really don't know much about the Constitution, do you?
> THAT would be you.
> The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United > States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are > reserved to the States respectively, or to "we the people." The > preamble (which you quoted from) in no way shows what powers are > allocated to the fed from the states.
> But more to the point, you quoted /WHY they wrote the Constitution/. I > gave you HOW they should guarantee what is in the preamble of the > constitution; which is 1) Provide for the common defense and 2) > Conduct foreign affairs for the original states. Thereby allowing each > state to guarantee the rights of each of it's citizens as outlined in > the preamble.
those are not the ONLY responsibilities of the federal govt, of course...
> If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to do they would > not offer 'bribe money' to the state's to comply with it's laws and > pet projects. If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to > do the FBI would not be mandated to notify and get permission from the > sheriff of any jurisdiction it conducts an investigation in.
actually the fed. govt DOES have the right to tell the states what to do. example: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 gives the federal govt the right to regulate interstate commerce.
in addition, the 14th amendment, provides for 'incorporation'...the fact that federal laws on civil rights (eg the 1st amendment) applies not only to the federal govt, but to the states
which is one reason you religious fanatics can't form state churches...much to your dismay
On Nov 4, 9:47 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Intresting. Thanks for posting it.
> There is a bigger picture to be considered here. The European Court of > Human Rights is located in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in > Italy made by someone that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside > entities telling the population of Italy to change the way it has > lived for a couple thousands of years.
The All Seeing I gets it wrong again! The issue before the courts was that the mother doesn't want the school telling her child how to live or what to believe.
On Nov 3, 6:07 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:18 am, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > > values and culture?
> Values such as bigotry and hypocrisy?
> > Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > > Italians,
> Italians are still free to keep crucifixes in their religious schools, > churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it > in a public school.
You want to change an entire country's tradition that has been held by many people and their generations for thousands of years? Why? Because of a hand full of people, (that are not even from that country), claim their eyes may bleed if they see a cross anywhere in public?
If these freaks were truly atheist then the cross would mean nothing to them. It would not offend them as this woman has claimed. The cross would be a meaningless piece of jewlery because the cross only has a meaning to those that believe in Jesus' is the messiah.
Now the funny part is all of this is foretold to happen in the bible. We will see a one world government followed by a one world religion led by an anti-Christ.(which simply means "against Christ").
The only way something like that can happen is if it can be enforced. A one world court, backed up by a one world currency, which will prevent you from buying or selling if you do not take the mark, would be enough to enforce the decisions of such a court. What will you atheist pukes do then?
What will you do when you are forced to wear a religious symbol by a court? The bible calls this symbol the mark of the beast. What will you do when you can neither buy nor sell anything without joining this one world religion?
If you get upset and run to the courts now because you merely see a cross in public, who will you run to when it is the courts forcing you to worship a God? And that is what this anti-christ will call himself.
You will run to the Christians who will be smart enough to resist this kind of dominance. Thats who. Because Christians know what is going to take place. Christians will be persecuted in every corner of the Earth just like we are beginning to see happen today. Christians know that this one world government is coming. Christians realize that this will lead to a one world currency where you will not be able to buy food or sell your products without being a part of this anti-Christ government and religion. They will resist it. Even die doing so.
So like the previous poster said: "This is nothing about rights". This is about a spiritual Chess game that is being fought on earth with humans as pawns in the game.
Which means the Atheists are just pawns. But Christians knew THAT already too.
On Nov 4, 6:53 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 6:18 pm, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries > > values and culture? Its not a secret that this means A LOT to > > Italians, so if this bitch doesnt like it, its their way or the > > highway! This is nothing about rights.
> seems to me italians, french, british, germans, etc. have chosen > 'european' values as central to their identities. 'national' values > don't seem to mean much.
> that, in and of itself, is a 'european' value so removing crucifixes > is totally consistent with the decision europeans have made.
No. The problem is most EU's want to remain seperate countries with their own identies and values. This has been forced upon many people.
And this is coming to your local theater in America real soon!
> On Nov 5, 4:55 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 1:01 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > You really ought to learn more about the constitution before you > > > pop off. I'm currently reading Catherine Drinker Bowen's "Miracle > > > at Philadelphia", which covers a lot of the sentiments and > > > arguments expressed by the Founding Fathers regarding the nature > > > of a good government (the "Miracle" is that they finally agreed > > > on the proposed revision of the Articles). You might also try > > > reading The Federalist, which rebuts many of the arguments being > > > made against the adoption of the US Constitution.
> > > You really don't know much about the Constitution, do you?
> > THAT would be you.
> > The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United > > States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are > > reserved to the States respectively, or to "we the people." The > > preamble (which you quoted from) in no way shows what powers are > > allocated to the fed from the states.
> > But more to the point, you quoted /WHY they wrote the Constitution/. I > > gave you HOW they should guarantee what is in the preamble of the > > constitution; which is 1) Provide for the common defense and 2) > > Conduct foreign affairs for the original states. Thereby allowing each > > state to guarantee the rights of each of it's citizens as outlined in > > the preamble.
> those are not the ONLY responsibilities of the federal govt, of > course...
> > If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to do they would > > not offer 'bribe money' to the state's to comply with it's laws and > > pet projects. If the fed actually had the power to tell states what to > > do the FBI would not be mandated to notify and get permission from the > > sheriff of any jurisdiction it conducts an investigation in.
> actually the fed. govt DOES have the right to tell the states what to > do. example: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 gives the federal govt the > right to regulate interstate commerce.
> in addition, the 14th amendment, provides for 'incorporation'...the > fact that federal laws on civil rights (eg the 1st amendment) applies > not only to the federal govt, but to the states
> which is one reason you religious fanatics can't form state > churches...much to your dismay- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I guess you missed the word "ORIGINAL"
amendments were not part of the original constitution.
> On Nov 4, 9:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > All-Seeing-I wrote: > > > On Nov 4, 9:02 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > >> All-Seeing-I wrote: > > >>> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm====="Italy > > >>>> school crucifixes 'barred' The European Court of Human Rights > > >>>> has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy. > > >>>> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate > > >>>> their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's > > >>>> right to freedom of religion. The case was brought by an > > >>>> Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a > > >>>> secular education. But the ruling has sparked anger in the > > >>>> largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move > > >>>> "shameful". The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory > > >>>> display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by > > >>>> the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to > > >>>> educate their children in conformity with their convictions." > > >>>> ... ... ===== Italy now/tomorrow, EU next? Finland's media says > > >>>> that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved in Italy and > > >>>> has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as violation > > >>>> of hers childrens rights... > > >>> Intresting. Thanks for posting it. There is a bigger picture to > > >>> be considered here. The European Court of Human Rights is located > > >>> in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in Italy made by someone > > >>> that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside entities telling > > >>> the population of Italy to change the way it has lived for a > > >>> couple thousands of years. > > >> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, > > >> D.C. rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living > > >> in Colorado from Nevada which has implication in every state/
> > > Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of > > > responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the > > > common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct > > > foreign policy.
> > > So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that > > > Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and > > > dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not > > > suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by > > > the will of the people in that state.
> > So the southern states should have the right to hold slaves, or a state > > shoudl have the right to torture suspects? How about the right to > > prohibit all religion? Read the 14th Amendment
> Why do you want to inject ancient history into this? It does not > matter if you are christian, or jew, or atheist. This should be a > concern to all of us.
Because that is what you position leads to - there would be _no_ way to prevent local majorities from attacking local minorities in the nam eof "community norms".
> On Nov 5, 1:18 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 9:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > All-Seeing-I wrote: > > > > On Nov 4, 9:02 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >> All-Seeing-I wrote: > > > >>> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm====="Italy > > > >>>> school crucifixes 'barred' The European Court of Human Rights > > > >>>> has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy. > > > >>>> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate > > > >>>> their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's > > > >>>> right to freedom of religion. The case was brought by an > > > >>>> Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a > > > >>>> secular education. But the ruling has sparked anger in the > > > >>>> largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move > > > >>>> "shameful". The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory > > > >>>> display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by > > > >>>> the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to > > > >>>> educate their children in conformity with their convictions." > > > >>>> ... ... ===== Italy now/tomorrow, EU next? Finland's media says > > > >>>> that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved in Italy and > > > >>>> has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as violation > > > >>>> of hers childrens rights... > > > >>> Intresting. Thanks for posting it. There is a bigger picture to > > > >>> be considered here. The European Court of Human Rights is located > > > >>> in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in Italy made by someone > > > >>> that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside entities telling > > > >>> the population of Italy to change the way it has lived for a > > > >>> couple thousands of years. > > > >> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, > > > >> D.C. rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living > > > >> in Colorado from Nevada which has implication in every state/
> > > > Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of > > > > responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the > > > > common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct > > > > foreign policy.
> > > > So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that > > > > Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and > > > > dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not > > > > suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by > > > > the will of the people in that state.
> > > So the southern states should have the right to hold slaves, or a state > > > shoudl have the right to torture suspects? How about the right to > > > prohibit all religion? Read the 14th Amendment
> > Why do you want to inject ancient history into this? It does not > > matter if you are christian, or jew, or atheist. This should be a > > concern to all of us.
> Because that is what you position leads to - there would be _no_ way > to prevent local majorities from attacking local minorities in the nam > eof "community norms.
You do not see where this could lead, do you? The consequences could be much graver then local majorities from attacking local minorities, which are already afforded an element of protection.
It would be the reverse. There would be a minority of leaders that could tell the majority of the population how to live, how to think, what to believe.
> On Nov 5, 8:53 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 1:18 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 9:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > All-Seeing-I wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 9:02 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > >> All-Seeing-I wrote: > > > > >>> On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, Kari Tikkanen <ktikk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340411.stm====="Italy > > > > >>>> school crucifixes 'barred' The European Court of Human Rights > > > > >>>> has ruled against the use of crucifixes in classrooms in Italy. > > > > >>>> It said the practice violated the right of parents to educate > > > > >>>> their children as they saw fit, and ran counter to the child's > > > > >>>> right to freedom of religion. The case was brought by an > > > > >>>> Italian mother, Soile Lautsi, who wants to give her children a > > > > >>>> secular education. But the ruling has sparked anger in the > > > > >>>> largely Catholic country, with one politician calling the move > > > > >>>> "shameful". The Strasbourg court found that: "The compulsory > > > > >>>> display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by > > > > >>>> the public authorities... restricted the right of parents to > > > > >>>> educate their children in conformity with their convictions." > > > > >>>> ... ... ===== Italy now/tomorrow, EU next? Finland's media says > > > > >>>> that Soile Lautsi was born in Finland, then moved in Italy and > > > > >>>> has 8 years fighted against crusifixes in schools as violation > > > > >>>> of hers childrens rights... > > > > >>> Intresting. Thanks for posting it. There is a bigger picture to > > > > >>> be considered here. The European Court of Human Rights is located > > > > >>> in Strasbourg, Germany.The complaint was in Italy made by someone > > > > >>> that was born in Finland. So we have 2 outside entities telling > > > > >>> the population of Italy to change the way it has lived for a > > > > >>> couple thousands of years. > > > > >> You mean like when the US Supreme court, located in Washington, > > > > >> D.C. rules on a case brought by someone born in Nevada but living > > > > >> in Colorado from Nevada which has implication in every state/
> > > > > Actually... Yes. The federal government's original scope of > > > > > responsibility was originally only two things. 1) Provide for the > > > > > common defense of the states that united together and 2) Conduct > > > > > foreign policy.
> > > > > So if Boston wants to allow Gay Marriage that does not mean that > > > > > Kentucky has to do the same. But the Federal courts step in and > > > > > dictate how each state will allow it's people to live. It was not > > > > > suppose to be that way. Each state should have the right to live by > > > > > the will of the people in that state.
> > > > So the southern states should have the right to hold slaves, or a state > > > > shoudl have the right to torture suspects? How about the right to > > > > prohibit all religion? Read the 14th Amendment
> > > Why do you want to inject ancient history into this? It does not > > > matter if you are christian, or jew, or atheist. This should be a > > > concern to all of us.
> > Because that is what you position leads to - there would be _no_ way > > to prevent local majorities from attacking local minorities in the nam > > eof "community norms.
> You do not see where this could lead, do you? The consequences could > be much graver then local majorities from attacking local minorities, > which are already afforded an element of protection.
The element you want to abolish, no?
> It would be the reverse. There would be a minority of leaders that > could tell the majority of the population how to live, how to think, > what to believe.
That is your unsubstantiated claim. The purpose of the Bill of Rights, or the ECHR, is to defend the individual against oppressive majorities and the state. Of course, that will result on occasions in conflict with how this majority wants to run things, it is designed to do just that. Do what you want, but do it privately and amongst consenting people, do not use the state to enforce your views on others, which is who according to the court happened in Italy. Would I have brought the action myself? No, I'm not bothered by a mere symbol. But I don't have the right to tell others where their sensitivities have to be, it is for individuals to decide that.
>On Nov 3, 6:07 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote: >> On Nov 4, 12:18 am, Rebdominator <dontspam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This is utter fucking insanity! Is EU here to break down countries >> > values and culture?
>> Values such as bigotry and hypocrisy?
>> > Its not a secret that this means A LOT to >> > Italians,
>> Italians are still free to keep crucifixes in their religious schools, >> churches, homes and on their person. There is no reason to display it >> in a public school.
>You want to change an entire country's tradition that has been held by >many people and their generations for thousands of years? Why?
Because this is not the dark ages.
>Because >of a hand full of people, (that are not even from that country), claim >their eyes may bleed if they see a cross anywhere in public?
Would you object to a golden calf? How about a swastika?
>If these freaks were truly atheist then the cross would mean nothing >to them. It would not offend them as this woman has claimed. The cross >would be a meaningless piece of jewlery because the cross only has a >meaning to those that believe in Jesus' is the messiah.
The cross has been, throughout its history, a sign of hatred and terror.
[snip more harpic nutspeak.]
-- Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will always remember just how bright you made them feel.
|
