I know for a fact that you are being videodromed. :rolleyes:
The government is guided by the media. The media is guided by the public. Make your conclusions.
I must say I dissagree with this. If the media was guided by the public then I highly doubt there would be this many reality telivision shows.
I would say that the government is guided by both the public and, more so, the media, and that the public is, in large part, guided by the media.
I know that the entire public is not, we are examples of that Equinox, however I do feel that a vast majority is guided in one way or another via the media.
I really don't get your point here. I said that if a law is unconstitutional, it can still be passed if there is no opposition against it, and the example you brought up in your first post proves that, what are you arguing against?
It's an example of government corruption...?
Ahh, ok, I missunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that the Constitution didn't mean anything. Kinda upset me when people don't have respect for the Constitution, and yea.
I have trouble adding "realtively nice place" + "it was bad where I lived".
Realively nice refering to econimically, it was bad refering to tolerance.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Having a mansion doesn't mean you have the mansion in a wealthy area.
The word "even" was there for a reason.
Quote from "Equinox" »
It doesn't matter where you live. What matters is your ignorance in the question of which places are bad and which are good. You lived in one spot which you don't even consider South, and you say "down there it must be worse". I think that's the most ignorant statement I have heard on this forum besides cuss exchanges... Pretty offensive, too, I live in the South, and I have lived in your North, and I lived in Ohio, and I gotta say, South was the best place I have ever been to!
1) I said I don't consider it North or South, I consider it inbetween. IE niether.
2) I've lived in Tennessee, and from what I've seen for the few months I lived down there, it is worse. I understand there are areas that are nice, and there are areas in the north that are worse, but I am speaking in general.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Constitutionality of anything is defined by Congress, the Supreme Court, and the media/mass. Not by the constituality. The older the times, the more acceptant are the mass/media of religion, the easier and safer it is for policy institutions to impose an unconstitutional law.
So basically what your saying is that the Constitution is jack shit? Usually here I would say "My appologies" then go on and say why I dissagree, but I cant appologise for dissagreeing with this.
Quote from "Equinox" »
If we have a law protecting a drug company from lawsuits inside the bill for the establishment of Homeland Security, which was passed, what, in 2001, there is little I can say.
The first post does not specify the year of the law, the condition of the law, who passed it, why they passed it, and so on. I hate when people do that, make a post like "OK, is this right?" and don't explain anything...
In fact, STILL nobody explained anything. After I asked the question. It's all because of your jokes, Siaynoq... are you ever serious?
South of the old? Old South? How old is "old"?
My appologies. My friend told me about it, but didn't give me any dates. I'll ask about it next time I talk to her.
Quote from "Equinox" »
To Linkx
If you lived in a slum poor neirbourhood that ended up being a South slum poor neirborhood it doesn't mean that ALL South is like that. Poor areas are poor areas, they are always bad, whether it's Cali, Alabama, Minnesota, or Maine... Look at my location, I think it's a lot better than everyone's belowed New Jersey or NY (yes, I did live there).
Actually I've lived in relativelly nice places. We even had a mansion ten or so roads down. I also said that I live inbetween the north and south. *Coughs.*
Back on topic, even if this was 40 or 50 or even 80 or 90 years ago, the Constitution is the Constitution, and it still would have been unconstitutional.
I think it has less to do with religion and more to do with those practices being a scam.
I could say the same about Christian practices. Or Jewish practices.
Could people just think for a moment, how would y'all feel if it was a practice that your religion believes in that was made illegal except as a "game" in a different religion's building, please?
Lmao. South of the old? Pfft, today's south, while not as bad, is still pretty bad. Shoot I live inbetween the North and South and it was bad where I lived. I can only imagine how bad it is down in the deep south.
Maybe I am just reading it wrong, but the way I see the law is that it's prohibiting profiting from it, which is a good thing in some cases, but also its prohibiting private religous use, which seems to me as unconstitutional...
You need to interpret it sentence by sentence. That's how Con law lawyers like to pick this stuff apart.
For the counties that are mentioned, it says that those specific practices are to be prohibited no matter what. You can make a Free Exercise argument here that a government is violating your right to practice your religion.
In the counties that it is allowed in as long as it is an amateur practice in a school or church setting, obviously anyone can claim to be merely an amateur and they could also easily link whatever they were doing to either their church or school.
For example, I've been caught doing some palm reading in my home. My defense? I am practicing palm reading because I would like to try it as a novelty act at my school fair. Or maybe I am a Christian and I need to learn about palm reading so that I may give a lesson at my church about how palm reading is bad.
Umm... Either your not following me or I'm not following you... The way I see it, it's saying it's only to be done for fun as a game... Could you explain a bit more clearly what your trying to say?...
Which does sound slightly ridiculous I have to agree. The reason though I think is probably precisely because they don't want people to do this in their homes on their own. If it is in a church and/or school, they can keep track of it. At home, it becomes hard to track. And manage.
What? At home its a religous activity. In a Church or school its a game. They were banning a religous activity. I mean I can understand if its something that has no religous connections, but that isn't the case here.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
But this is the ambiguity of law that you need to consider. It says what it will not prohibit. But it also doesn't say what it will not allow. And because the law never stated it would not allow your sister to use Tarot cards insider her house, so could she easily make the case that it is well within her right to use Tarot cards in her house. This lack of foresight in the law (intentional or otherwise) would also overlap with privacy rights within the constitution. So if someone were to go as far as raiding your sister's home while she was using her Tarot cards just to arrest her for using the careds, it would be pretty easy to argue that her Constitutional rights had been violated and the federal court would step in and overturn any jurisdiction that the state law felt it had over your sister. But I actually don't believe it would need to go that far. I think even in a state supreme court the law could be picked apart to show that it does not say it will not allow her to use the Tarot cards in the privacy of her own home.
It shall be unlawful for any person to practice the arts of phrenology, palmistry, clairvoyance, fortune-telling and other crafts of a similar kind in the counties named herein. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
This section shall not prohibit the amateur practice of phrenology, palmistry, fortune-telling or clairvoyance in connection with school or church socials, provided such socials are held in school or church buildings.
It DOES say that it's unlawful to practice it anywhere but socials in a school or church building though.
Which does sound slightly ridiculous I have to agree. The reason though I think is probably precisely because they don't want people to do this in their homes on their own. If it is in a church and/or school, they can keep track of it. At home, it becomes hard to track. And manage.
What? At home its a religous activity. In a Church or school its a game. They were banning a religous activity. I mean I can understand if its something that has no religous connections, but that isn't the case here.
I don't think that's what it means. With possibly the use of a church setting which is also private, the law makes no other mention for or against these practices in a private setting. Effectively, since it does not prohibit private use, I would interpret that as meaning a person is free to exercise these practices in private.
This section shall not prohibit the amateur practice of phrenology, palmistry, fortune-telling or clairvoyance in connection with school or church socials, provided such socials are held in school or church buildings.
It clearly states it is only to be in socials that are held in School or Church buildings. That means that if, say, my sister was to move to North Carolina (My sister does Terot cards, not me. Lol...) and to practice such things inside her house, she would be put in jail.
Reqium: Indeed. It saddens me too that people still try to do these things.
Siaynoq: I undestand that they were trying to keep people safe from people using these things as profit. But it also means it would be illegal for personal use as well. If they passed a law about Islam or Judaism or Christianity not even being permitted in your own house, I am sure that opinions wouldn't be the same here.
And a quick question, what if Mass was only permitted in Jewish Synagogues?
Shere Khaan: If that was true, don't you think that it should of been worded as such? The way its worded, its only to be used as a game. Wouldn't you be upset if, say, Mass or Lent was only to be used as a game? No religious attachment what-so-ever?
It is scary that maybe next the government will tell us waht to believe.
It is rather scary isn't it? The fact that the government today is unraveling the very fabric of what this nation was founded upon. I'm glad our founding fathers arn't alive to see this day...
I was online and I found this law for North Carolina.
It shall be unlawful for any person to practice the arts of phrenology, palmistry, clairvoyance, fortune-telling and other crafts of a similar kind in the counties named herein. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
This section shall not prohibit the amateur practice of phrenology, palmistry, fortune-telling or clairvoyance in connection with school or church socials, provided such socials are held in school or church buildings.
Provided that the provisions of this section apply only to the Counties of Alexander, Ashe, Avery, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Camden, Carteret, Caswell, Chatham, Chowan, Clay, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Davidson, Davie, Duplin, Durham, Franklin, Gates, Graham, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Hertford, Hoke, Iredell, Johnston, Lee, Lenoir, Madison, Martin, McDowell, Mecklenburg, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Polk, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland, Surry, Transylvania, Union, Vance, Wake and Warren. (Penalty for conviction is a fine of up to $500, up to six months in prison, or both.)
It has sense been taken off the books and is no longer a law. But still, the very fact that it was a law, isn't it scary? The very fact that there are some state governments trying to put religion into law?
What are your thoughts and views on this? Do you think its right? Do you think its wrong? Do you think the Government has any right what-so-ever to outlaw any religion or any practice?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I must say I dissagree with this. If the media was guided by the public then I highly doubt there would be this many reality telivision shows.
I would say that the government is guided by both the public and, more so, the media, and that the public is, in large part, guided by the media.
I know that the entire public is not, we are examples of that Equinox, however I do feel that a vast majority is guided in one way or another via the media.
Ahh, ok, I missunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying that the Constitution didn't mean anything. Kinda upset me when people don't have respect for the Constitution, and yea.
Realively nice refering to econimically, it was bad refering to tolerance.
The word "even" was there for a reason.
1) I said I don't consider it North or South, I consider it inbetween. IE niether.
2) I've lived in Tennessee, and from what I've seen for the few months I lived down there, it is worse. I understand there are areas that are nice, and there are areas in the north that are worse, but I am speaking in general.
So basically what your saying is that the Constitution is jack shit? Usually here I would say "My appologies" then go on and say why I dissagree, but I cant appologise for dissagreeing with this.
And what does this have to do with anything?
My appologies. My friend told me about it, but didn't give me any dates. I'll ask about it next time I talk to her.
Actually I've lived in relativelly nice places. We even had a mansion ten or so roads down. I also said that I live inbetween the north and south. *Coughs.*
Back on topic, even if this was 40 or 50 or even 80 or 90 years ago, the Constitution is the Constitution, and it still would have been unconstitutional.
I could say the same about Christian practices. Or Jewish practices.
Could people just think for a moment, how would y'all feel if it was a practice that your religion believes in that was made illegal except as a "game" in a different religion's building, please?
Indeed. Indeed. The racism isn't as big of a problem with those who can read anymore. Key words are "who can read", hehehe
Umm... Either your not following me or I'm not following you... The way I see it, it's saying it's only to be done for fun as a game... Could you explain a bit more clearly what your trying to say?...
What? At home its a religous activity. In a Church or school its a game. They were banning a religous activity. I mean I can understand if its something that has no religous connections, but that isn't the case here.
It DOES say that it's unlawful to practice it anywhere but socials in a school or church building though.
What? At home its a religous activity. In a Church or school its a game. They were banning a religous activity. I mean I can understand if its something that has no religous connections, but that isn't the case here.
It clearly states it is only to be in socials that are held in School or Church buildings. That means that if, say, my sister was to move to North Carolina (My sister does Terot cards, not me. Lol...) and to practice such things inside her house, she would be put in jail.
Siaynoq: I undestand that they were trying to keep people safe from people using these things as profit. But it also means it would be illegal for personal use as well. If they passed a law about Islam or Judaism or Christianity not even being permitted in your own house, I am sure that opinions wouldn't be the same here.
And a quick question, what if Mass was only permitted in Jewish Synagogues?
Shere Khaan: If that was true, don't you think that it should of been worded as such? The way its worded, its only to be used as a game. Wouldn't you be upset if, say, Mass or Lent was only to be used as a game? No religious attachment what-so-ever?
It is rather scary isn't it? The fact that the government today is unraveling the very fabric of what this nation was founded upon. I'm glad our founding fathers arn't alive to see this day...
By the way, the Treaty of Tripoli:
Yea...
It has sense been taken off the books and is no longer a law. But still, the very fact that it was a law, isn't it scary? The very fact that there are some state governments trying to put religion into law?
What are your thoughts and views on this? Do you think its right? Do you think its wrong? Do you think the Government has any right what-so-ever to outlaw any religion or any practice?