Death Penalty

[Belsnickel]

I don't think I will take advice on religious liberties from a man whose organization uses tactics against Muslims they rail against when used against Christians and that supports laws that implement the death penalty for the LGBT community.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 12:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't think I will take advice on religious liberties from a man whose organization uses tactics against Muslims they rail against when used against Christians and that supports laws that implement the death penalty for the LGBT community.

I hate these types of ambiguous posts; don't you? I think you have said so much in the past.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-04-2015, 11:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Once again with the assumptions. What makes you think I'm a small government person? I am a Federal Employee.

I don't want a half penny of my tax dollars paying for a great many things, but my rights are not being infringed because they are.

As to your opinion or facts question: I do know the difference. This is just one of the many cases from the article:

In your OPINION whose right did that elementary student infringe upon?

So there's no one who works for the federal government but supports limited government intervention? Are you a big government conservative, then? And would you like to answer the question: is In God We Trust stickers for cars a good use of tax dollars or not?

Actually, in some cases, that may not be true; there's reasons we have courts in this country, and that's one of them.

I'll admit to not seeing that example. Sounds like the teacher was misinformed and made a mistake which did in fact unnecessarily infringe upon the student. Glad to see the error was rapidly corrected.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 12:35 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: So there's no one who works for the federal government but supports limited government intervention? Are you a big government conservative, then? And would you like to answer the question: is In God We Trust stickers for cars a good use of tax dollars or not?

Actually, in some cases, that may not be true; there's reasons we have courts in this country, and that's one of them.

I'll admit to not seeing that example. Sounds like the teacher was misinformed and made a mistake which did in fact unnecessarily infringe upon the student. Glad to see the error was rapidly corrected.

This has gone so far beyond the OP that I will stop. Folks can read our exchange and form their own opinions.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-05-2015, 12:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This has gone so far beyond the OP that I will stop. Folks can read our exchange and form their own opinions.

I agree that you totally derailed the thread with your ludicrous comment that there were "so many" who "bang their chests" to fight "religious freedoms" which you've supported with one single example of one single individual. It was steering.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 12:46 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: I agree that you totally derailed the thread with your ludicrous comment that there were "so many" who "bang their chests" to fight "religious freedoms" which you've supported with one single example of one single individual. It was steering.

bfine32 Wrote:This has gone so far beyond the OP that I will stop. Folks can read our exchange and form their own opinions.

[fredtoast]

The criminal justice system is way too flawed to justify a death penalty.

funny thin is that many people whgo are in favor of keeing the death penalty are also the ones who want "smaller government", or complain that the government is corrupt, or complain that the government is not competent to do almost anything properly.

[Blutarsky]

(09-05-2015, 01:13 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The criminal justice system is way too flawed to justify a death penalty.

funny thin is that many people whgo are in favor of keeing the death penalty are also the ones who want "smaller government", or complain that the government is corrupt, or complain that the government is not competent to do almost anything properly.

I too am against the death penalty, but only because the system is flawed, not because we shouldn't be killing criminals that deserve to die.

Playing the "government is too big" card to bolster you argument is a cheap shot.
The cry for a  smaller government simply means folks want the government to do what government is supposed to do...provide a military, civil rights, etc...not to be into shit like the health care business.

[BmorePat87]

(09-04-2015, 10:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and I've never gotten over the irony of so many people banging their chests about being a scientific nation- about how bad capital punishment and religious freedoms are - but are quick to support killing an innocent living being 

My opinion of Capital Punishment and abortion are the same; both should be reserved for extreme cases

Who says religious freedom is bad?

[BmorePat87]

(09-04-2015, 11:28 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: No, I know about that one. You said we had already had a discussion about assumptions, and I was asking which assumption I made at that previous time.

Using your context clues, you could have deduced that "us" would be whoever reads these posts.

That article exclusively cites examples in which the only religious freedom threatened is the "freedom" to infringe on the rights of others. It would appear my assumption in this case was totally accurate. I won't feign surprise.

I stopped reading that article when it claimed multiple times that emergency contraceptives induce abortions. I didn't expect much from Heritage to begin with.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 09:09 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Who says religious freedom is bad?

Assuming you just chimed in without reading the rest of the thread

(09-05-2015, 09:13 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I stopped reading that article when it claimed multiple times that emergency contraceptives induce abortions. I didn't expect much from Heritage to begin with.

Probably should just stick to Mother Jones and The Huffington Post

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2015, 09:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Assuming you just chimed in without reading the rest of the thread

Probably should just stick to Mother Jones and The Huffington Post

I read every post in this thread. Your only evidence for your claim was that people are against the government promoting religion, which would suggest these people actually do respect religious freedom as they do not want the government to promote one over another. So, again, who is railing against religious freedoms?

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 09:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I read every post in this thread. Your only evidence for your claim was that people are against the government promoting religion, which would suggest these people actually do respect religious freedom as they do not want the government to promote one over another. So, again, who is railing against religious freedoms?

• A New York middle school indefinitely suspended a student for wearing rosary beads for religious reasons in violation of a dress code. The student sued, and after the court issued an injunction, the case was settled, with the school clearing the student’s record and paying nearly $25,000 in damages, fees, and costs.
• A public school in Hawaii invited parents to include messages to their children in the yearbook but refused to include one parent’s encouraging Bible quote. The principal ultimately agreed to include the Bible quote in the yearbook.
• The principal of a public school in Indiana withheld permission for a student to pass out religious flyers to other students that contained an e-mail address and website where students could submit prayer requests, although other students had been allowed to pass out flyers with secular content. The superintendent ultimately granted approval for the student to pass out the religious flyers.
• A student at a public middle school in New York delivered notes with encouraging Bible verses to a few other students, but the principal told her that, due to complaints from parents, she could not pass out personalized religious notes in the future. After the ACLJ intervened, the student’s mother received a letter from the superintendent informing her that her daughter’s First Amendment rights would be respected in the future.
• A student was told that he could not use the Bible as a historical reference for a writing project on Roman history, although he was eventually permitted to do so.
• A student at a public elementary school wrote a short poem in her journal that included the line, “Love is the earth that God made.” Her teacher crossed out that line and said that discussion of God was not allowed in class. After the student’s father shared a letter from the ACLJ with the teacher, she explained that she had believed that any discussion of religion in a public school classroom was prohibited.
• A high school student wanted to drop a music class that required him to sing songs that conflicted with his faith. The principal told the student that he would not allow him to drop the class because he wanted the student to learn “tolerance.” The principal ultimately allowed him to drop the class.
• The principal of a public school in New York City caused an uproar by refusing to allow kindergarten students to perform “God Bless the USA” at their graduation ceremony. The students had been rehearsing the song for several months, but the principal pulled the song shortly before the event due to a concern about “offending other cultures.”

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 12:41 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This has gone so far beyond the OP that I will stop. Folks can read our exchange and form their own opinions.

My apologies. I over estimated the audience.

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2015, 09:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote:

• A New York middle school indefinitely suspended a student for wearing rosary beads for religious reasons in violation of a dress code. The student sued, and after the court issued an injunction, the case was settled, with the school clearing the student’s record and paying nearly $25,000 in damages, fees, and costs.
  

Their dress code prohibits gang symbols. The district had issues with gangs using rosaries. It was a bad policy and rightfully overturned, but the school wasn't discriminating against the student because of his religion.

• Quote:A public school in Hawaii invited parents to include messages to their children in the yearbook but refused to include one parent’s encouraging Bible quote. The principal ultimately agreed to include the Bible quote in the yearbook.

  
  
  

A government school was worried about whether or not they could include a religious message in something they publish but decided to risk it and include it? Sounds like no one's religious freedoms were infringed upon, though the school did set itself up for some trouble if anyone had an issue with a bible verse. 

Quote:The principal of a public school in Indiana withheld permission for a student to pass out religious flyers to other students that contained an e-mail address and website where students could submit prayer requests, although other students had been allowed to pass out flyers with secular content. The superintendent ultimately granted approval for the student to pass out the religious flyers.

• A principal was worried about whether or not they could permit a student to promote religion in school and deferred the issue to their superior who decided that it was ok because the school wasn't promoting it? Sounds like no one had freedoms infringed upon.
  
  
  

  Quote:A student at a public middle school in New York delivered notes with encouraging Bible verses to a few other students, but the principal told her that, due to complaints from parents, she could not pass out personalized religious notes in the future. After the ACLJ intervened, the student’s mother received a letter from the superintendent informing her that her daughter’s First Amendment rights would be respected in the future.

• A principal was worried about whether or not they could permit a student to promote religion in school and had parents complain that it was going on? Sounds like the principal made a decision based on the concerns of the parents who felt religion was being forced on their kids through the school. I agree with the superintendent that it was ok because it reflects the action of the student and not the school. 
  
  
  

  Quote:A student was told that he could not use the Bible as a historical reference for a writing project on Roman history, although he was eventually permitted to do so.

• This has nothing to do with religion. The Bible is a pretty poor historical reference. I disagree with this decision. 
  
  
  

  Quote:A student at a public elementary school wrote a short poem in her journal that included the line, “Love is the earth that God made.” Her teacher crossed out that line and said that discussion of God was not allowed in class. After the student’s father shared a letter from the ACLJ with the teacher, she explained that she had believed that any discussion of religion in a public school classroom was prohibited.

• The teacher was worried about what content could be included in class. Sounds like it was all fixed and she now knows that this won't get her in trouble if she permits students to write freely on religion.
  
  
  

  Quote:A high school student wanted to drop a music class that required him to sing songs that conflicted with his faith. The principal told the student that he would not allow him to drop the class because he wanted the student to learn “tolerance.” The principal ultimately allowed him to drop the class.

• He was allowed to drop the class. The principal reversed the decision. The kid then explained why he felt the class conflicted with his beliefs and the principal then allowed him to drop the class. Sounds like the principal respected his religion once he understood that it was really a religious decision.
  
  
  
  
  

  Quote:The principal of a public school in New York City caused an uproar by refusing to allow kindergarten students to perform “God Bless the USA” at their graduation ceremony.[43] The students had been rehearsing the song for several months, but the principal pulled the song shortly before the event due to a concern about “offending other cultures.”

  
  
  

So the principal decided to not promote religion, thus respecting all religions equally?






The problem with most of these is that they involve schools trying to enact policies that ensure that the school is not promoting one religion over another. In cases where it was determined that the policy actually violated a student's rights and that the school did not have to worry about being seen as promoting religion, the correct decision was made. 

I'm going to assume here, but I imagine people would have HUGE issues if these bible verses were replaced with the Quran. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-05-2015, 09:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I've been called out again for making up stuff without anything of substance to back it up. I guess I better just insult people.

FIFY

[BmorePat87]

If you want, I'll explain to you how colleges removing religious holidays from their calendar and prohibiting mandatory fees from being used for religious activities actually respects religious freedom. I'm feeling generous.

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 09:50 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm going to assume here, but I imagine people would have HUGE issues if these bible verses were replaced with the Quran. 

So you are admitting there are people that are against religious freedoms? I wonder why you had to ask me who.

As to the rest, the cases were cited and folks can read. The fact that you attempt to justify the actions of those that attempted to restrict religious freedoms just amplifies my assertion.

But just to show there are no hard feelings, let me be the first to wish you and yours an early Merry Xmas

Also to help you in your quest of finding folks that try to restrict Religious Freedoms: The name of the man that wrote the article is Jay Sekulow,  you may want to read about some of the cases he has argued and won, in which, people's Religious Freedoms were violated. Hopefully that will provide you with enough substance, so that you no longer have to go around ignorant of the fact that folks try to restrict Religious Freedoms everyday.

But enough about Religious Freedoms in a Capitol Punishment thread. You are the second person to get hung up on those words in a post that was in response to someone that brought up issues not germane to this thread. At least the first one admitted that these were indeed cases of folks trying to restrict religious freedoms; I doubt I'll get the same concession from the second.

[GMDino]

(09-05-2015, 09:29 AM)bfine32 Wrote:

• A New York middle school indefinitely suspended a student for wearing rosary beads for religious reasons in violation of a dress code. The student sued, and after the court issued an injunction, the case was settled, with the school clearing the student’s record and paying nearly $25,000 in damages, fees, and costs.
• A public school in Hawaii invited parents to include messages to their children in the yearbook but refused to include one parent’s encouraging Bible quote. The principal ultimately agreed to include the Bible quote in the yearbook.
• The principal of a public school in Indiana withheld permission for a student to pass out religious flyers to other students that contained an e-mail address and website where students could submit prayer requests, although other students had been allowed to pass out flyers with secular content. The superintendent ultimately granted approval for the student to pass out the religious flyers.
• A student at a public middle school in New York delivered notes with encouraging Bible verses to a few other students, but the principal told her that, due to complaints from parents, she could not pass out personalized religious notes in the future. After the ACLJ intervened, the student’s mother received a letter from the superintendent informing her that her daughter’s First Amendment rights would be respected in the future.
• A student was told that he could not use the Bible as a historical reference for a writing project on Roman history, although he was eventually permitted to do so.
• A student at a public elementary school wrote a short poem in her journal that included the line, “Love is the earth that God made.” Her teacher crossed out that line and said that discussion of God was not allowed in class. After the student’s father shared a letter from the ACLJ with the teacher, she explained that she had believed that any discussion of religion in a public school classroom was prohibited.
• A high school student wanted to drop a music class that required him to sing songs that conflicted with his faith. The principal told the student that he would not allow him to drop the class because he wanted the student to learn “tolerance.” The principal ultimately allowed him to drop the class.
• The principal of a public school in New York City caused an uproar by refusing to allow kindergarten students to perform “God Bless the USA” at their graduation ceremony. The students had been rehearsing the song for several months, but the principal pulled the song shortly before the event due to a concern about “offending other cultures.”

None of these...not one...infringes on a person's right to freedom of religion.  

Back on topic.  I have wavered over the years on the death penalty.  Like many I feel if there is ANY room for doubt in our system we should not killing our own if there is a chance they are innocent.  But like Larry I can see it in extreme cases.

I do remember reading in many places that the cost of putting someone to death is actually higher than keeping them in prison for life too.  

[*bfine32*]

(09-05-2015, 10:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: I do remember reading in many places that the cost of putting someone to death is actually higher than keeping them in prison for life too.  

It's not the cost of putting them to death; it's the cost of housing and defending them until the sentence is carried out.