Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Posted: 2/22/2006 8:30:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 8:31:48 AM EST by Da_Bunny]
HOUSE BILL 3293

State of Washington 59th Legislature 2006 Regular Session
By Representatives Roach, Chase, Takko, Shabro, Rodne, Simpson,
Serben, Nixon, Williams, Morrell, Sells, Haler, Campbell and Ahern

Read first time 02/02/2006. Referred to Committee on Criminal
Justice & Corrections.

AN ACT Relating to disorderly conduct; amending RCW 9A.84.030; and
prescribing penalties.


BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 9A.84.030 and 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.84.030 are
each amended to read as follows:

(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if ((he)) the person:
(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk
of assault;


((or))

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of
persons without lawful authority;


((or))

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without
lawful authority;


or

(d)(i) Engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop, within five hundred feet of:

(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;

(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;

(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this p. 1 HB 3293 subsection
(1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place;

or

(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being
conducted; and

(ii) The activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:32:10 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:33:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By OdT:
Fuck



Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:40:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:


(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if ((he)) the person:
(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk
of assault;


((or))

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of
persons without lawful authority;


((or))

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without
lawful authority;
.



Define Lawful authority !

Define "risk of assault"
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:50:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 8:51:10 AM EST by Da_Bunny]

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:


(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if ((he)) the person:
(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk
of assault;


((or))

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of
persons without lawful authority;


((or))

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without
lawful authority;
.



Define Lawful authority!

Define "risk of assault"



Define abusive language!

Exactly my point. More rules to be used at the discresion of the men with the badges and guns.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:01:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 9:05:15 AM EST by R-32]

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Define Lawful authority !

Define "risk of assault"




Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Define abusive language!





No need for you to trouble yourself with learning a definition, Just call me if you think there is an issue that needs resolved, and I will decide the best action for you.


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:02:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 9:02:53 AM EST by 1GUNRUNNER]
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:05:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By R-32:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Define abusive language!





No need for you to trouble yourself with learning a definition, Just call me if you think there is an issue that needs resolved, and I will decide the best action for you.



Well, I have 103 liberal puke, fuckstick, shit-for-brains neighbors....
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:06:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:
Just the other day I driving by the mortuary and out of the corner of my eye caught two yutes involved in some tumultuous conduct; I thought to myself there outta be a law! Then I called CavVet and he calmed me all down.



Good luck trying to cite the Zombies.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:07:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 9:07:52 AM EST by R-32]

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Well, I have 103 liberal puke, fuckstick, shit-for-brains neighbors....



That sounds like something I will have to have a Deputy check out, What is Your address sir?..
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:10:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By R-32:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Well, I have 103 liberal puke, fuckstick, shit-for-brains neighbors....



That sounds like something I will have to have a Deputy check out, What is Your address sir?..




Ummmmmmm, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, WA
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:14:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 9:58:33 AM EST by R-32]

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By R-32:

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Well, I have 103 liberal puke, fuckstick, shit-for-brains neighbors....



That sounds like something I will have to have a Deputy check out, What is Your address sir?..




Ummmmmmm, 3000 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, WA



Sir, do you think we are still in the 70's?...Im showing your address as < Your address being left out for your own safety>...Sir, do you take medications?...and have you been using them as your doctor has prescribed?..



I think it would be fun to be in the room with the commitee that has to hear this, and ask...

" Who's Dumbass,polesmokeing,Dillweed idea was it to bring forward this piece of shit?...Come on! tell me!...I dare ya!"
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:15:08 AM EST
Fuckity fuck, fuck.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:25:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gibby:
Fuckity fuck, fuck.



You are under arrest, comply comply comply, obey obey obey, worship the beast, lick the boot of the badged bandit.



Remember the free speech zones during the selections ?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:30:00 AM EST
Small, fenced off "Freedom of Speech Zones" Who doesn't understand the implications of this? That means that everywhere else is NOT free.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:42:04 AM EST
WTF? Wow, nothing like a completely vague piece of feel good legislation.

"Sir, you'll have to come with me. You just said dammit in front of those people. Your being abusive."
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:47:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Small, fenced off "Freedom of Speech Zones" Who doesn't understand the implications of this? That means that everywhere else is NOT free.



You forgot a FF quote.


Now quit trying to make people understand, It can do nothing more than upset people, and put all of them in risk of breaking the law.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:54:47 AM EST



(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;

(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;

(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this p. 1 HB 3293 subsection
(1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place;

or

(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being
conducted; and

(ii) The activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.



Personally I am glad about this part at least. Being an active duty Marine at Ft. Lewis we do color guard ceremonies at funerals for Marines. I have not seen any protests in WA, but I dont know how I would handle myself if someone was out there screaming and making a mockery of the funeral as a protest against the war.

-BJohnson
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:01:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By R-32:
You forgot a FF quote.


Now quit trying to make people understand, It can do nothing more than upset people, and put all of them in risk of breaking the law.



Death to King George




George III (George William Frederick) (4 June 1738 – 29 January 1820) was King of Great Britain, and King of Ireland from 25 October 1760 until 1 January 1801, and thereafter King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until his death.
Later in his reign George III suffered from recurrent and eventually permanent mental illness. It is thought now that he suffered from mental and nervous disorders as a consequence of the blood disease porphyria, which has struck several British monarchs.






George Washington

If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:02:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By BJohnson383:


(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;

(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;

(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this p. 1 HB 3293 subsection
(1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking place;

or

(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being
conducted; and

(ii) The activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.



Personally I am glad about this part at least. Being an active duty Marine at Ft. Lewis we do color guard ceremonies at funerals for Marines. I have not seen any protests in WA, but I dont know how I would handle myself if someone was out there screaming and making a mockery of the funeral as a protest against the war.

-BJohnson



I understand what you are saying B, But you cant pick and choose what part of the freedom of speech you like and dont like. You have to take the bad with the good.

There are always going to be evil people, that do evil things. In the end they will get theirs.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:11:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By BJohnson383:
Personally I am glad about this part at least. Being an active duty Marine at Ft. Lewis we do color guard ceremonies at funerals for Marines. I have not seen any protests in WA, but I dont know how I would handle myself if someone was out there screaming and making a mockery of the funeral as a protest against the war.

-BJohnson



As distasteful as it is, speech is either free or it is not !

Once you start deciding what can be said and what can not be said then you have abolished free speech !

No need to pass laws, for it is stupid laws that protect stupid people, use to be if some shit-head disrupted a funeral it would get a beating and there would be no sympathy for the fool, the cops might applaud but that would all that would come of it, now you will do several years in prison for beating down someone who desparately needs it.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:19:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

now you will do several years in prison for beating down someone who desparately needs it.



I would also just like to add, that as long as people allow this kinda lawmaking to keep going on, it will always just reward the police to punish those that are willing to put the "beatdown" on the idiots that would do such a thing.

How does that saying go?..

What should be common, is not so common any longer.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:22:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By BJohnson383:
Personally I am glad about this part at least. Being an active duty Marine at Ft. Lewis we do color guard ceremonies at funerals for Marines. I have not seen any protests in WA, but I dont know how I would handle myself if someone was out there screaming and making a mockery of the funeral as a protest against the war.

-BJohnson



As distasteful as it is, speech is either free or it is not !

Once you start deciding what can be said and what can not be said then you have abolished free speech !

No need to pass laws, for it is stupid laws that protect stupid people, use to be if some shit-head disrupted a funeral it would get a beating and there would be no sympathy for the fool, the cops might applaud but that would all that would come of it, now you will do several years in prison for beating down someone who desparately needs it.


Exactly. the law should have a standard response time for how long til the law arrives after the beating of asshats begins..
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:42:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 10:43:36 AM EST by R-32]

Originally Posted By sixgunsblazing:

Exactly. the law should have a standard response time for how long til the law arrives after the beating of asshats begins..



You dont need a law for that.

A good Telemarketer would have no prob.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:52:20 AM EST
We used to police our own, with far better results than what we are seeing today. Your neighbors kept you in line. Police were only called when common law failed. There was no pressure to put anybody in jail when an ass-kicking would get the job done. If somebody pulled a weapon, the witnesses would disarm them.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:34:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 11:37:03 AM EST by Unicorn]
Some of that law already existed. I remember seeing that a couple years ago. I know the abusive language caught my attention when I was looking up the definition of assault once.

I think the only new part is the distruptive behavior near funerals.

Found it. This is the way it currently reads,


(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if he:

(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault; or

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority; or

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:35:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 11:37:55 AM EST by R-32]

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
We used to police our own, with far better results than what we are seeing today. Your neighbors kept you in line. Police were only called when common law failed. There was no pressure to put anybody in jail when an ass-kicking would get the job done.



Most people now a days dont even know their neighbors name, More then that, if we tried to go back to that, the attitude of most (I would be 100% sure about this crowd in here) is Mind your own F-ing business.

Im still old enough to remmember that my mom gave everyother mom on the block the ok to spank my azz when I got out of line, and it was a mutual thing between all the moms. What that also did, was allow any kid to go anywhere in the neighborhood and all the moms knew it was ok, because all the neighbors would be watching out for eachother's children.

Do you think I would let my kids ride their bikes alone 300 feet from my house nowadays letalone all the way into town 4 miles away.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:49:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By R-32:
Most people now a days dont even know their neighbors name, More then that, if we tried to go back to that, the attitude of most (I would be 100% sure about this crowd in here) is Mind your own F-ing business.


Do you think I would let my kids ride their bikes alone 300 feet from my house nowadays letalone all the way into town 4 miles away.



I have been organizing and talking to my neighbors, and so far the natives are anxious to form common law townships and look out for one another, but these are not rural country roads, they are highways with high traffic flows.

Traffic has gotten so bad that I do not drive if I do not feel 100%, it is just too dangerous to walk or ride a bike on the road anymore.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:19:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 1:21:43 PM EST by Phil_in_Seattle]
AKA the anti Fred Phelps law.

Fred Phelps=POS


ETA there are probably a dozen states with similar laws in the making.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:22:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
AKA the anti Fred Phelps law.

Fred Phelps=POS




Yeah, thanks Fred, for your contribution. But I still wish we could have just kicked his ass everytime he stuck his head up.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:33:13 PM EST
It looks tome like the existing RCW has been on the books in it's current state since 1975.


RCW 9A.84.030
Disorderly conduct.


(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if he:

(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault; or

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority; or

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority.

(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.




HB 3293 proposes one minor change and a major change of the addition of protection for funerals, burials, viewings, funeral processions, and memorial services.

I've coded the text of the bill to reflect the changes being made, as it's shown in it's current form. Unfortunetley copying and pasting of text loses the strike outs and underscores that are sometimes crucial to understanding what changes are being proposed.


HOUSE BILL 3293
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 59th Legislature 2006 Regular Session
By Representatives Roach, Chase, Takko, Shabro, Rodne, Simpson,
Serben, Nixon, Williams, Morrell, Sells, Haler, Campbell and Ahern
Read first time 02/02/2006. Referred to Committee on Criminal
Justice & Corrections.

AN ACT Relating to disorderly conduct; amending RCW 9A.84.030; and
prescribing penalties.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 9A.84.030 and 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 s 9A.84.030 are
each amended to read as follows:
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if ((he)) the person:

(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk
of assault; ((or))

(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of
persons without lawful authority; ((or))

(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without
lawful authority; or

(d)(i) Engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes
unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop,
within five hundred feet of:
(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;
(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;
(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this
subsection (1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking
place; or
(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being
conducted; and
(ii) The activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing,
funeral procession, or memorial service.


(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 1:36:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
AKA the anti Fred Phelps law.

Fred Phelps=POS




Yeah, thanks Fred, for your contribution. But I still wish we could have just kicked his ass everytime he stuck his head up.



+1 billion!

Bikers Counter Protest Fred Phelps at Funerals
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:54:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By R-32:
Im still old enough to remmember that my mom gave the weird guy on the block the ok to spank my azz



Fixed it for ya.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 2:58:45 PM EST
As far as I see it my first ammenment rights havent been encroached here, Im sure STRAT will disagree.

What they did is keep someone from catching a murder case for beating the shit out of one of these asshats picketing funerals.

I cant believe with the number of libtards we have out here they havent started doing it in this area yet. If they do, I think I will have a new activity to attend to.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:57:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:
What they did is keep someone from catching a murder case for beating the shit out of one of these asshats picketing funerals.



This doesn't look anything like a "Fighting Words" affirmative defense to me, no siree.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:01:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 10:04:00 PM EST by Matt45]

Originally Posted By CavVet:
As far as I see it my first ammenment rights havent been encroached here, Im sure STRAT will disagree.

<SNIP>



+1

I've always been taught that laws since the mid-sixties were written for the lowest common denominator, ergo, there's always some ACLU/Libtard fuckstick asshat that needs it in writing.

It stands to reason that the model being used here is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.



Then again, sometimes it just comes down to the JBT who wants to get his beatdown on and how that particular JBT defines the law.
I tend to gravitate towrads situations where I get to be the JBT, so it's all good.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:22:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:
As far as I see it my first ammenment rights havent been encroached here, Im sure STRAT will disagree.
Not me the supreme law of the land




Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:37:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

Originally Posted By CavVet:
As far as I see it my first ammenment rights havent been encroached here, Im sure STRAT will disagree.
Not me the supreme law of the land




Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have.



So you disagree that "we", as country and civilized nation need to write the laws carefully constructed around the framework of the constitution? Or that in many cases a precedent must be set forward for asshats, et al all of the above???

I'll even let you know where I'm heading with this in advance-What I'm getting from this (your) response is more anarchist that then just simply espousing and asserting your rights.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:44:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:

Originally Posted By R-32:
Im still old enough to remmember that my mom gave the weird guy on the block the ok to spank my azz



Fixed it for ya.



If your mama and daddy would have spanked your azz a little more, you would have turned out normal like the rest of us..
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:02:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Matt45:
So you disagree that "we", as country and civilized nation need to write the laws carefully constructed around the framework of the constitution? Or that in many cases a precedent must be set forward for asshats, et al all of the above???

I'll even let you know where I'm heading with this in advance-What I'm getting from this (your) response is more anarchist that then just simply espousing and asserting your rights.



Laws are morality [MALUM IN SE], morality being the difference between right and wrong, how ever by what standard is right and wrong measured ? Right for whom ? wrong for whom ?

There is only one Supreme Legislator in the Universe the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Isrealites were given just ten laws they expanded them in to 652 and beyond, the point is laws cause crime.


Romans 5-
20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing.




Romans 7-
8 Now Sin, getting an incentive through the law, produces in me all manner of coveting. For apart from law Sin is dead.



The whole of the law is contained in one word love

America was founded upon christian common law, Lex Non Scripta = unwritten law because it is written on our hearts not black letter statutes enacted by legislatures and executed by unjust judges.


2Cor 3-
6 Who also makes us competent dispensers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter is killing, yet the spirit is vivifying.





Link Posted: 2/23/2006 1:10:14 PM EST
(This is not written with any animosity towards anyone here. Really.)


Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
There is only one Supreme Legislator in the Universe the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.



Well, it seems that even those that are on Their side are free to screw up.

Religion was not meant to be the basis of law for a modern society, but for those that accept those laws as their own. "Give unto Ceaser that which is his" has been interpreted so many different ways by so many different people from so many differrent bible versions that no person can say they know exactly what it means.

Your religious choice, your rules, your desired results, if you really have God on your side. Leave the rest of us out of it.

The greatest power that God, in his infinite wisdom, gave man, was choice. I don't begrudge folks their religious choice in any way, until it is being pushed upon me. Religious freedom means freedom not to be religious, and freedom of speech means I am free to speak out about how I view religion, but I usually choose to be discreet. Religious arguments can't be won by anyone, because the discussion involves something intangible. You have faith that something exists, I have faith it does not. No one is wrong, no one is right, because how can you we even prove our faith, or lack thereof? Can't.

I say to those that wish the laws I must live by are religious laws:


And if anything I believe makes you want to tell me I'm going to hell, than I want to know who gave you that power to judge me in that way? You're God? The Bible? Heh, I've got more versions of those being pitched to me in a week than we could all handle. What if they are all wrong? Who gets to pick and choose? The Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there is limited space in heaven, based on a passaage in the bible. When will their quota be filled? In Salt Lake City, there are good Mormans, and better Mormons. What kind of Christianity is that? Why does a man get to decide what kind of Christian I am? Why do Christian Scientists not have ministers or preachers, just an admisitration, and thier own newspaper? Why should Luther be right, or King Henry be wrong?

I think that's about enough of that. Thanks for listening.

PS: Here come the quotes, I can feel it!
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 1:22:58 PM EST

* “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]




Don't have time for a detailed reply just now, will return later with more.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:03:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 2:05:56 PM EST by YOPD]

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

* “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” [May 1765 Speech to the House of Burgesses]




I will not allow someone's religious beliefs to be the law I must abide by, to oppress me. The first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", means exactly that, no matter what the intentions of the writers or scholars or what they said or believed before 1791, including the Declaration of Independence, which did not form our government or structure of law. Christianity, or any other relgion, belongs in your heart, not in our laws or government, which is clearly outlawed. All your quotes about religion being the foundation only come to the point of the Natural Law and God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Take your religion to your heart, and leave me out of it.



Don't have time for a detailed reply just now, will return later with more.



More quotes. Yay.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:17:48 PM EST
So what happens when I fart in public? Iz that assault to the public or myself

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:20:48 PM EST
I'd just like to point out, in case someone missed it, that House Bill 3293 is clearly a reaction to the antics of Pastor Fred Phelps.

In other words it's been brought to you by someone acting in the name of a religion.





Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:24:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By YOPD:
I will not allow someone's religious beliefs to be the law I must abide by, to oppress me. .



Nor will I allow theocratic dogma to oppress the people.


I have sworn upon the alter of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson



However this thread is about freedom of speech and you can not expect to be free if you are ignorant, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson
therefore it is necessary to discuss the foundations of the laws and how they are used, for no quotes from the holy scriptres are necessary to prove the evils of bad law wrongly enforced, plenty of historical examples as well as contemporary examples.



Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:32:24 PM EST

...we may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

--Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:40:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:

...we may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

--Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814.




In context that quote is correct but remember there is a difference between American common law and British common law, religion and british common law had already been a system of tyranny against the American people for years that lead to the war for independence, many state churches had the divine right of kings dogma as a system of opporession, two blood brothers and preachers found themselves on opposite sides of the revolution.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:42:52 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:50:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Erex:
So what happens when I fart in public? Iz that assault to the public or myself




What does happen when you fart in public? Do people die? Do vultures circle the odor of carrion?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:52:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 2:52:59 PM EST by Da_Bunny]

"We don't need no steenking badges."


If you're going to go around quoting people, keep it relevant.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 7
Top Top