No, Actually, It's that the Economy is Falling Apart

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unemployment, underemployment, poor investment in education (resulting in poorer general standards of education) are perennial problems in inner-city areas. There's also a generational aspect to consider.

Move to where the jobs are. No more factories in inner cities.

Poor investment in education. Go to a local library which is free. Use the school libraries which are free. Walmart sells notepads for 10 cents and pens for another 10 cents. Covered under food coupons. Various places have free internet, especially the libraries. Scholarships allow poor students to attend college for free. Student loans allow the others to do so as well. Elementary school, middle school and high school is free in America. Heck, it is not even free in Australia.

I think if it were that easy we wouldn't have the problems that we do.

[HAL 9000 96]

Slave trade timelines

http://www.nlj.org.jm/docs/slave_trade_chronology.htm

http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/timeline/...lave.trade.html

Thanks.

1794, 1806, 1807, 1834.

Yet the Slave Trade continued under other means. Of course, the trade transition to internal trading as the US expanded Westward.

Here's the actual Congressional wording for the ban.

Um hum. You are once again confusing the cause/effect historical issue with the reality that has been created to cause that same attitude you bold above.

The chance of opportunity may be there hypothetically, but this country has leaps and bounds to make in order for the access to the opportunity to be tangible.

Sure, a negative attitude doesn't help. Look at what happens when you blow yourself up.

Just the other week when I was driving in NW DC and I got a clear picture of why some are the way they are. Seem to have a lot of time to hang out and chill on the streets at early hours of the morning. Also around 4 drive by shootings that weekend. Including an 8 month old baby killed.

Tends to happen when you don't have access to adequate employment. Blame the illegals or something at least. Although short-sided, its quantifiable.

[alienlovechild 75]

"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."

Close but no cigar. There is no "separation" phrase in the Constitution. It came about much later in U.S. law.

"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Close enough.

Not really. The Constitution was meant to prevent a state sponsored church from arising like the Church of England but the Founders were also worried about religious persecution. It only been in the last 60 years that people have freaked out about the role of religion in America.

[Heracles 417]

Which is why there is a constitutional Separation of Church and State.

Where is the "separation" phrase in the Constitution? Give us poor uneducated types the quote and the link, please.

"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."

Link.

And how does this equate to a literal and complete separation of church and state, as is the status quo in America.

I can underline the pertinent part for you. There, done.

I'll highlight the key words for you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Once again how does dictate that no county, for example, is allowed to celebrate a religious event and or display a religious symbol for their residents.

Second of all. Even if this was the case, which it clearly is not, are all of the other nations out there wrong in celebrating diversity, values and the various beliefs of their citizens and residents.

[HAL 9000 96]

Unemployment, underemployment, poor investment in education (resulting in poorer general standards of education) are perennial problems in inner-city areas. There's also a generational aspect to consider.

Move to where the jobs are. No more factories in inner cities.

Poor investment in education. Go to a local library which is free. Use the school libraries which are free. Walmart sells notepads for 10 cents and pens for another 10 cents. Covered under food coupons. Various places have free internet, especially the libraries. Scholarships allow poor students to attend college for free. Student loans allow the others to do so as well. Elementary school, middle school and high school is free in America. Heck, it is not even free in Australia.

This is good.

I think that instead of driving through NW DC you could perhaps contribute to ameliorating the situation then by educating 'these' folks. All this equal access should be equally accessible right?

[HAL 9000 96]

"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."

Close but no cigar. There is no "separation" phrase in the Constitution. It came about much later in U.S. law.

"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Close enough.

Not really. The Constitution was meant to prevent a state sponsored church from arising like the Church of England but the Founders were also worried about religious persecution. It only been in the last 60 years that people have freaked out about the role of religion in America.

YES!

Precisely because you have religious-toned politicians that think they can impose their religiously-endowed beliefs upon others that do not share them. These politicians do not govern by decree although some think they do. They legislate.

Which is quite literally, quite contrary to what the constitution of the land states. And perhaps why you have groups of people asking for the legal protections in the first place.

[Heracles 417]

This is good.

I think that instead of driving through NW DC you could perhaps contribute to ameliorating the situation then by educating 'these' folks. All this equal access should be equally accessible right?

Hey, I would go teach these kids for free if I thought I could help them and they would listen.

If Oprah cannot get these kids let alone their parents to change, what chance do I have.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Which is why there is a constitutional Separation of Church and State.

Where is the "separation" phrase in the Constitution? Give us poor uneducated types the quote and the link, please.

"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."

Link.

And how does this equate to a literal and complete separation of church and state, as is the status quo in America.

I can underline the pertinent part for you. There, done.

I'll highlight the key words for you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Once again how does dictate that no county, for example, is allowed to celebrate a religious event and or display a religious symbol for their residents.

Second of all. Even if this was the case, which it clearly is not, are all of the other nations out there wrong in celebrating diversity, values and the various beliefs of their citizens and residents.

I don't think any country goes out of its way to celebrate diversity in the way you suggest. In Britain we celebrate Xmas and Easter - but there's no national celebration of the others.

[HAL 9000 96]

Which is why there is a constitutional Separation of Church and State.

Where is the "separation" phrase in the Constitution? Give us poor uneducated types the quote and the link, please.

"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."

Link.

And how does this equate to a literal and complete separation of church and state, as is the status quo in America.

I can underline the pertinent part for you. There, done.

I'll highlight the key words for you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Once again how does dictate that no county, for example, is allowed to celebrate a religious event and or display a religious symbol for their residents.

Second of all. Even if this was the case, which it clearly is not, are all of the other nations out there wrong in celebrating diversity, values and the various beliefs of their citizens and residents.

Once again another apples to oranges argument. So that part of the logic will be ignored.

The constitution is what it is and it says what it says. By limiting the establishment and prohibiting the celebration in free exercise thereof in civil society, we avoid imposition. Which is what some people wish to ignore- the imposition of beliefs in the present day- not 60 years ago and not 200 years ago.

This is good.

I think that instead of driving through NW DC you could perhaps contribute to ameliorating the situation then by educating 'these' folks. All this equal access should be equally accessible right?

Hey, I would go teach these kids for free if I thought I could help them and they would listen.

If Oprah cannot get these kids let alone their parents to change, what chance do I have.

I believe in you BY. You can do it.

[Heracles 417]

I don't think any country goes out of its way to celebrate diversity in the way you suggest. In Britain we celebrate Xmas and Easter - but there's no national celebration of the others.

That is because the majority of people who are religious are Christians. I highly doubt they suppress other beliefs. If a particular area had a high portion of Buddhists, for example, I am sure the council is more likely to celebrate along with them. Rather than be sued by some ACLU equivalent and forced to tear anything religious down. I have been to a range of Asian countries which celebrate X-mas and Easter. That is what diversity, unity, acceptance and equality is all about.

Various beliefs, cultures, attitudes are not as accepted in America as they are abroad. What I find funny is that the same demographic of people who are first to jump on the gay / race bandwagon or also the first to ridicule and condemn someone from a small town and label them a redneck (which is racist) for being from the south. Which is actually quite hypocritical.

I don't know what sort of diversity they teach in these so-called highly educated stereotypical liberal areas but it is not certainly the same diversity practiced by those who live in other OECD nations. We use the term redneck and bogan as a joke back in Aus. We certainly do not think we are better than others because they are different and do not live or believe as we do. One of many reasons Australia has one of the highest standards of living in the OECD.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Boo - I'm starting to think that you're spamming for the Australian tourist board. These OECD comments are starting to sound like a campaign slogan

The truth is - there is a palpable separation of Church and state in the UK. Sure we celebrate Xmas and Easter - but the government is largely divorced from religion. This has a lot to do with the Reformation - the goal of which was to curb the influence of the Catholic church.

I'm not really sure I understand what the problem is if government buildings and schools can't put up Xmas trees - it might be political correctness, but at the same time its a bit petty being bent of shape about it. After all - noone is telling you which holidays to celebrate and how.

[HAL 9000 96]

People get bent out of shape over a small minority of things and yet end up defending policy based on imposing the will of others unto all.

Not cool however you shape it. Makes you wonder if these folks are really thinking what it is they're 'supporting.'

[Heracles 417]

People get bent out of shape over a small minority of things and yet end up defending policy based on imposing the will of others unto all.

Not cool however you shape it. Makes you wonder if these folks are really thinking what it is they're 'supporting.'

Does the same logic apply to issues such as gay rights, amnesty for illegals, atheists pushing their beliefs onto others etc?

[HAL 9000 96]

People get bent out of shape over a small minority of things and yet end up defending policy based on imposing the will of others unto all.

Not cool however you shape it. Makes you wonder if these folks are really thinking what it is they're 'supporting.'

Does the same logic apply to issues such as gay rights, amnesty for illegals, atheists pushing their beliefs onto others etc?

Are they in power? No. They are not. Again- who is imposing? Is some gay dude trying to hook up with you by force? Is amnesty something that is being supported? Is someone trying to force you to stop believing in God?

Nope. But there are plenty of douchebags that are most definitely interested in limiting gays from having the same rights in their relationships as you and your SO do. That is called imposition.

Now as for confusing a slippery slope argument in with this one... slip slip slip...

[IAMX 3,055]

80% of Americans are religious yet the government is not permitted to celebrate with them. That is ridiculous by any standard and is certainly not the case in most other OECD nations.

They sure are! Christmas is a RELIGIOUS holiday which is recognized federally, amongst a slew of religious holidays.

America has become a country where the majority are silenced for the needs, and views, of the few.

Actually, as this Constitutional Republic and Representative Democracy would have it, majority rule is protected by minority rights. If you don't like this, you can take your own advice and leave.

Multicultural education is just reverse racism masquerading as education.

Baaaaaahahahahaha. I just could not help but laugh. I'd say your sentence is masquerading as racism. Multicultural education as reverse racism, hahahaha. Yes, because as you well know, understanding other cultures and races is reverse racism, since we should only teach about white things. Agreed!

Poverty alone explains little. Most of East Asia was dirt poor but education and business orientation changed things for the better. The reality is Africans (like everyone else) are largely responsible for their own lot and blaming racism for everything achieves nothing.

Yeah, it sure was their own fault white people dragged their ### to another country and enslaved them. Their inability to die or defend themselves properly before coming here must mean it was their fault.

Where is the "separation" phrase in the Constitution? Give us poor uneducated types the quote and the link, please.

Link? No, you need an all-out education. Try the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Also, it was with clear intent, as outlined by Jefferson, that secularism is what the first amendment had in mind for religion, and freedom of expression in religious terms, but not state sanctioned.

Edited September 8, 2008 by SRVT