That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.
That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.
By protecting Jimmy's right to religious freedom?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.By protecting Jimmy's right to religious freedom?
Jimmy doesn't have that right. Rights don't really start to kick in until the teen years.
Jimmy doesn't have that right. Rights don't really start to kick in until the teen years.That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.By protecting Jimmy's right to religious freedom?
They don't?
|
Jimmy doesn't have that right. Rights don't really start to kick in until the teen years.That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.By protecting Jimmy's right to religious freedom?They don't?
Children have the right to an education, food, shelter, clothing, and safety.
Bill of rights and all of that don't kick in until you are legally an adult
Jimmy doesn't have that right. Rights don't really start to kick in until the teen years.That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.By protecting Jimmy's right to religious freedom?They don't?
Children have the right to an education, food, shelter, clothing, and safety.
Bill of rights and all of that don't kick in until you are legally an adult
This, pretty much. The Bill of Rights only applies to actual citizens of the United States; legally, citizenship doesn't start until 18.
Children have the right to an education, food, shelter, clothing, and safety.Bill of rights and all of that don't kick in until you are legally an adult
Even those are questionable. For example, in the United States, children do not have the right to an education -- while their parents have the right to send them to a public school, and public schools have to meet a certain minimum standard, parents also have the right not to send them to a public school and to "home school" them instead. The exact nature of home schooling varies from state to state and district to district. I believe, for example, there are no content requirements in Idaho whatsoever. I can legally say "I'm home schooling my child" and teach them literally nothing.
This thread has started to derail even more quickly than usual. Yellowdingo "indoctrination" is in the eye of the beholder. I really don't think it's a good idea to decide by political processes what is and isn't permissible to be taught to children.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has started to derail even more quickly than usual.
Usually these threads derail themselves at the opening post. How does one do that more quickly than usual?
It's a fair cop.
I would sign this if I was an american citizen.
Pushing children into religion is a criminal act IMO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only 99,998 to go...good luck with that.
If only we could have a petition to stop stupid petitions, then the circle of stupidity would be complete.
-MD
Don't feel bad, if the Bill of Rights was put up to petition, it wouldn't get the signatures either.
Only 99,998 to go...good luck with that.
He got a second signature? Goodness, that's almost a new high score for him!
/looks at yellowdingo's thread-creating history
Oh, okay. I think I understand it better now.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an atheist: That is a truly terrible idea.
Only 99,998 to go...good luck with that.He got a second signature? Goodness, that's almost a new high score for him!
link says 99,999 to go and only 1 signature...
either someone removed a sig or it was a misread by someone earlier
Fortunately, it is just trolling and nothing to be worried about. :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This, pretty much. The Bill of Rights only applies to actual citizens of the United States; legally, citizenship doesn't start until 18.
Not to derail the thread further ... but that isn't true at all. Being 18 years old or older may come into play if you are a non-citizen trying to become a citizen, but it is entirely possible (and quite common) to be an American citizen from birth.
For example, both my parents are citizens and I was born in New York state. I was a US citizen from pretty much the moment the doctor slapped my butt and signed the birth certificate. And I'll continue to be a citizen until I actively choose not to be and take steps to stop being one.
And the Bill of Rights most definitely applies to children under the age of 18. It just applies awkwardly at times because there are more laws to consider besides the Constitution itself. Courts recognize the authority of families and parents over their children (to an extent, most of the time), and of the need for schools and such to make rules to keep a building full of puberty-driven teenagers from running wild.
So the state can't force a 6 year old to attend a specific church, but if mom and dad want to the kid doesn't really have a choice as far as the state is concerned ... unless the parents disagree and the court has to step in and adjudicate, or unless there is some clear harm to the child, or blah blah blah mountains of court cases.
But no, citizenship starts whenever it starts for that specific individual. Ranging in age from "minutes" to "decades" of life.
EDIT: In case there are any questions, here's the relevant website for US Citizenship and Immigration Services. You are automatically a citizen at birth if you meet the listed criteria. After birth you need to apply to become a citizen, either by pointing out that you should have been one at birth or through the naturalization process. Naturalization is a whole issue unto itself, but I'm pretty sure the only age barrier there is the general barrier to people under 18 making decisions for themselves without an adult. For which there are multiple workarounds.
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This, pretty much. The Bill of Rights only applies to actual citizens of the United States; legally, citizenship doesn't start until 18.Not to derail the thread further ... but that isn't true at all. Being 18 years old or older may come into play if you are a non-citizen trying to become a citizen, but it is entirely possible (and quite common) to be an American citizen from birth.
It's also not true at all that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens.
If only we could have a petition to stop stupid petitions, then the circle of stupidity would be complete.
-MD
This is a petition I'd sign.
XD|
|
It's also not true at all that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens.
Yep. Illegal immigrants are entitled to the same protections as legal immigrants (although socially they may be afraid to claim those protections).
Not that this hasn't been a super contentious issue at various points in our history (WW2, 9/11, etc).
That violates the First Amendment in multiple ways.By protecting Jimmy's right to religious freedom?
By violating Jimmy's parents the right to free exercise of their religion, their right to free speech, and their right to assemble.
This petition is only proof that trolling is protected free speech.
It is insulting gimmicky BS like this that gives atheists a bad name. The only way to defeat a troll is to ignore it or hit it with a flaming weapon.
<swings +2 flaming sword in hopes the petition goes away>
-MD
This, pretty much. The Bill of Rights only applies to actual citizens of the United States; legally, citizenship doesn't start until 18.Not to derail the thread further ... but that isn't true at all. Being 18 years old or older may come into play if you are a non-citizen trying to become a citizen, but it is entirely possible (and quite common) to be an American citizen from birth.
For example, both my parents are citizens and I was born in New York state. I was a US citizen from pretty much the moment the doctor slapped my butt and signed the birth certificate. And I'll continue to be a citizen until I actively choose not to be and take steps to stop being one.
And the Bill of Rights most definitely applies to children under the age of 18. It just applies awkwardly at times because there are more laws to consider besides the Constitution itself. Courts recognize the authority of families and parents over their children (to an extent, most of the time), and of the need for schools and such to make rules to keep a building full of puberty-driven teenagers from running wild.
So the state can't force a 6 year old to attend a specific church, but if mom and dad want to the kid doesn't really have a choice as far as the state is concerned ... unless the parents disagree and the court has to step in and adjudicate, or unless there is some clear harm to the child, or blah blah blah mountains of court cases.
But no, citizenship starts whenever it starts for that specific individual. Ranging in age from "minutes" to "decades" of life.
EDIT: In case there are any questions, here's the relevant website for US Citizenship and Immigration Services. You are automatically a citizen at birth if you meet the listed criteria. After birth you need to apply to become a citizen, either by pointing out that you should have been one at birth or through the naturalization process. Naturalization is a whole issue unto itself, but I'm pretty sure the only age barrier there is the...
The Supreme Court doesn't agree with this stance, entirely. For one thing, up until the In re Gault case (1967), children were not actually viewed as having any rights at all; before that, they were property.
Also, the rights of schools to restrict a student's free speech and even search them have been upheld by Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969), New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) (this is the one that paved the way for drug testing of all student athletes), and Board of Education v. Earls (2002) (this is the one that paved the way for drug testing for all extra-curricular activities).
Additionally, one of the rights of citizenship, as according to numerous Amendments (established in Amendment 14, expanded in 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26), is the right to vote. Amendment 26 fixes the age of that right at 18. Given that the amendment is about protecting the rights of citizens, the fact that people who are 17 years of age do not have the full rights of citizenship establishes that they are not yet citizens.
That's why the U.S. has had so much internal fighting over voting; it is the mark of citizenship according to the Constitution, and one cannot argue they are a full citizen unless they have the right to vote. The age was lowered from the original 21 because people started questioning why it was okay for 18-year-olds to die for their nation but not okay for them to have a voice in who sends them to die.
Also, there are some people in Guantanamo Bay who would absolutely love it if people would argue that the Bill of Rights applies to them.
Also, there are some people in Guantanamo Bay who would absolutely love it if people would argue that the Bill of Rights applies to them.
I've been arguing that for years...for all the good it has done anyone. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
/looks at yellowdingo's thread-creating history
Oh, okay. I think I understand it better now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's every Paizonian's god-given right to discover that YD is insane. And cuddly.
Vive le Dingo!
Additionally, one of the rights of citizenship, as according to numerous Amendments (established in Amendment 14, expanded in 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26), is the right to vote. Amendment 26 fixes the age of that right at 18. Given that the amendment is about protecting the rights of citizens, the fact that people who are 17 years of age do not have the full rights of citizenship establishes that they are not yet citizens.
Nope. The right to vote is not exclusively tied to citizenship status. In many states, felons can't vote, for example.... but they are still citizens.
Additionally, one of the rights of citizenship, as according to numerous Amendments (established in Amendment 14, expanded in 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26), is the right to vote. Amendment 26 fixes the age of that right at 18. Given that the amendment is about protecting the rights of citizens, the fact that people who are 17 years of age do not have the full rights of citizenship establishes that they are not yet citizens.Nope. The right to vote is not exclusively tied to citizenship status. In many states, felons can't vote, for example.... but they are still citizens.
Amendment 14 covers why it is that felons lacking the right to vote is not evidence of what you said.
What you cite is a Constitutionally-established exception to the normal rules. Like how it was the first President wasn't actually a natural-born citizen; he was President under a Constitutionally-established exception of the normal rules.
Edit: The hilarious bit? This petition is, according to the Supreme Court, constitutionally illegal. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) confirmed the rights of parents to direct the religious education of their children. There are several others since then that only reinforce it.
|
|
A bunch of examples of what I said in my original post
Specifically:
And the Bill of Rights most definitely applies to children under the age of 18. It just applies awkwardly at times because there are more laws to consider besides the Constitution itself. Courts recognize the authority of families and parents over their children (to an extent, most of the time), and of the need for schools and such to make rules to keep a building full of puberty-driven teenagers from running wild.
The courts do recognize a difference between a "child" and an "adult". Which is different from the difference between a "citizen" and a "non-citizen".
If 7 year old Jimmy was born in Texas to two citizen parents, then little Jimmy has been an American citizen since birth. He's also a child. Two separate things. There are other, non-government, authorities involved in his life. Such as his parents and (for the most part) schools. Freedom of Assembly doesn't stop your parents from grounding you.
So is 7 year old Jimmy a citizen, covered by Constitutional protections? Absolutely. But is it always a clear and straight line how those protections play out in practice? Not necessarily, because there are other considerations. Namely, the fact that he's a child and is dependent on his adult parents, or the fact that he is a minor in the custody of a school full of adult teachers.
Also, you should probably take the time to read some of those cases you cited. Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District is a pretty famous example of the court upholding 1st Amendment rights for students, specifically that they don't "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. upheld that the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches DOES apply to students. In that particular case the search was reasonable.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier agreed that schools can censor what gets published in a school newspaper ... providing the school has a good reason and people reading the newspaper could reasonably believe the school was endorsing what was being published. It covers school newspapers, not independent newspapers run by students or non-students. Which, btw, isn't much different than an adult journalist writing a story that the newspaper editor doesn't choose to publish. If a newspaper editor at the New York Times doesn't want to run a story about teen pregnancy, that editor isn't violating the journalist's Freedom of Speech. Probably.
Likewise, Vernonia School District v. Acton (and Board of Education v. Earls) both agreed that the 4th Amendment covers students. They just also agreed that the searches in question were reasonable. Some adult jobs require random drug testing and that doesn't inherently violate the 4th Amendment either.
As for Guantanamo Bay, there have been people arguing that the prisoners held there should have more rights pretty much since the place first opened. And many of those arguments have been successful to one degree or another. Hasn't stopped the whole thing from being a giant cluster#*$&. Gitmo, and the fact that our laws have changed over time, just shows that the people making and enforcing them are ... people. And we sometimes suck.
|
|
Nope. The right to vote is not exclusively tied to citizenship status. In many states, felons can't vote, for example.... but they are still citizens.Amendment 14 covers why it is that felons lacking the right to vote is not evidence of what you said.
Nope, Orfamay is correct. There's no blanket prohibition on felons voting. Kentucky and Virginia are the only two states with lifetime prohibitions on felons voting, but a felon could just relocate to a different state if they wanted to start voting again. Most states prohibit felons from voting while in prison, but that doesn't mean they're stopped from voting when they get out.
The 14th Amendment establishes (according to the Supreme Court) that a state CAN disenfranchise a felon. But there are tons of exceptions and hoops to that, and it is a state by state thing.
...and none of those felons stop being citizens, even if they can't vote.
A bunch of examples of what I said in my original postSpecifically:
And the Bill of Rights most definitely applies to children under the age of 18. It just applies awkwardly at times because there are more laws to consider besides the Constitution itself. Courts recognize the authority of families and parents over their children (to an extent, most of the time), and of the need for schools and such to make rules to keep a building full of puberty-driven teenagers from running wild.The courts do recognize a difference between a "child" and an "adult". Which is different from the difference between a "citizen" and a "non-citizen".
If 7 year old Jimmy was born in Texas to two citizen parents, then little Jimmy has been an American citizen since birth. He's also a child. Two separate things. There are other, non-government, authorities involved in his life. Such as his parents and (for the most part) schools. Freedom of Assembly doesn't stop your parents from grounding you.
So is 7 year old Jimmy a citizen, covered by Constitutional protections? Absolutely. But is it always a clear and straight line how those protections play out in practice? Not necessarily, because there are other considerations. Namely, the fact that he's a child and is dependent on his adult parents, or the fact that he is a minor in the custody of a school full of adult teachers.
Also, you should probably take the time to read some of those cases you cited. Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District is a pretty famous example of the court upholding 1st Amendment rights for students, specifically that they don't "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. upheld that the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches DOES apply to students. In that particular case the search was reasonable.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier agreed that schools can censor what...
I actually have read them. Tinker vs. Des Moines upheld that speech can only be censored by a school if it is disruptive to the learning environment. Considering some schools are banning hair styles using that as justification, it's pretty hard to say the students came out ahead.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. is also one of the founding decisions that led to the modern usage of metal detectors and bag searches in schools. The decision upheld that a school providing a safe environment can override privacy... which is why so many students today are having their belongings searched.
And with Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the problem with your New York Times example is that, in this case, it's not the editor saying no. The editor is another student; it's someone outside of the paper's organization stepping in. So it would be more like the U.S. government stepping in and telling the New York times they can't run a story on teen pregnancy.
Yeah, Guantanamo Bay is a fine example of how people suck. But it's also an example of how far certain rights have retreated. The fact they can remove citizenship from civilians so easily now is the most troubling aspect of it.
Nope. The right to vote is not exclusively tied to citizenship status. In many states, felons can't vote, for example.... but they are still citizens.Amendment 14 covers why it is that felons lacking the right to vote is not evidence of what you said.Nope, Orfamay is correct. There's no blanket prohibition on felons voting. Kentucky and Virginia are the only two states with lifetime prohibitions on felons voting, but a felon could just relocate to a different state if they wanted to start voting again. Most states prohibit felons from voting while in prison, but that doesn't mean they're stopped from voting when they get out.
The 14th Amendment establishes (according to the Supreme Court) that a state CAN disenfranchise a felon. But there are tons of exceptions and hoops to that, and it is a state by state thing.
...and none of those felons stop being citizens, even if they can't vote.
Actually, Orfamay is wrong. He's claiming that the right to vote is not exclusively connected to citizenship because some felons can't vote. The 14th Amendment itself explicitly states that voting may not be denied to citizens; that alone makes voting exclusive to citizenship and the primary sign of it. The fact states can exclude felons is listed within the amendment as an exception to the rather long list of protections it grants.
Unless you have an example of someone who is not a citizen of the United States legally voting in an American election, Orfamay cannot be proven to be correct. So that particular amendment pretty much ties citizenship and voting together, as it guarantees it as a right unless you meet the exception.
In fact, some American schools even educate that you do not become a full citizen until the age of 18, showing that the perception of voting = citizenship has even seeped into the education system.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/looks at yellowdingo's thread-creating history
Oh, okay. I think I understand it better now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's every Paizonian's god-given right to discover that YD is insane. And cuddly.
Vive le Dingo!
Yet the USA opposes the indoctrination of children as child soldiers. There is a thin line between insane and cuddly. Isnt that right Mr fibble?
Of course if this petition fails it will be necesary to petition for a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing freedom from religion.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately for you, you're so far away from the line, on the insane side, that you couldn't even see it with the Hubble Telescope.
|
|
Nope. The right to vote is not exclusively tied to citizenship status. In many states, felons can't vote, for example.... but they are still citizens.Amendment 14 covers why it is that felons lacking the right to vote is not evidence of what you said.Nope, Orfamay is correct. There's no blanket prohibition on felons voting. Kentucky and Virginia are the only two states with lifetime prohibitions on felons voting, but a felon could just relocate to a different state if they wanted to start voting again. Most states prohibit felons from voting while in prison, but that doesn't mean they're stopped from voting when they get out.
The 14th Amendment establishes (according to the Supreme Court) that a state CAN disenfranchise a felon. But there are tons of exceptions and hoops to that, and it is a state by state thing.
...and none of those felons stop being citizens, even if they can't vote.
Actually, Orfamay is wrong. He's claiming that the right to vote is not exclusively connected to citizenship because some felons can't vote. The 14th Amendment itself explicitly states that only citizens may vote; that alone makes voting exclusive to citizenship and the primary sign of it. The fact states can exclude felons is listed within the amendment as an exception to the rather long list of protections it grants.
Unless you have an example of someone who is not a citizen of the United States legally voting in an American election, Orfamay cannot be proven to be correct.
Orfamay is right, but you're misreading him. Only citizens can vote, but not all citizens can vote. Felons are an example. Children are another.
The constitution specifically gives an age at which citizens can vote. It does not say that's the age at which someone becomes a citizen. Because they already are.Nothing in the constitution limits most of the bill of Rights to adults or to citizens. Generally...
So guantanamo is us occupied Cuba?
Orfamay is right, but you're misreading him. Only citizens can vote, but not all citizens can vote. Felons are an example. Children are another.
The constitution specifically gives an age at which citizens can vote. It does not say that's the age at which someone becomes a citizen. Because they already are.
Nothing in the constitution limits most of the bill of Rights to adults or to citizens. Generally they are phrased as "Congress shall make no law ..."The usual legal excuse for Guantanamo is not "They're not citizens", but "Guantanamo isn't technically US soil, so rights don't apply". It's a lousy excuse and hasn't really held up, but it's still better than claiming that only citizens (and only adult citizens in your case) have any right to due process or other legal protections.
Here's the problem: The Supreme Court itself doesn't appear to agree on that. Whether or not the Constitution lacks limits does not matter if they interpret it to have limits.
Which they have, repeatedly, on a level that is not matched by the limitations placed upon adults. And, sometimes, they've even given some very interesting interpretations.
For example, in Overton v. Bazzetta (2003), the Supreme Court actually upheld that restricting or even banning a child from visiting a parent in jail is legal, regardless on the feelings or age of the child in the issue (as long as they're not an adult, they need a legal guardian with them). Also, in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), the Supreme Court actually held that, while a child has freedom of speech, they do not have the same freedom of speech rights as an adult. It is actually the first of a series of rulings in which adults are held as having a greater freedom of speech than children are.
I will say the American citizen who got a stay at Guantanamo was not happy about it. He has to renounce his citizenship to leave.
Orfamay is right, but you're misreading him. Only citizens can vote, but not all citizens can vote. Felons are an example. Children are another.
The constitution specifically gives an age at which citizens can vote. It does not say that's the age at which someone becomes a citizen. Because they already are.
Nothing in the constitution limits most of the bill of Rights to adults or to citizens. Generally they are phrased as "Congress shall make no law ..."The usual legal excuse for Guantanamo is not "They're not citizens", but "Guantanamo isn't technically US soil, so rights don't apply". It's a lousy excuse and hasn't really held up, but it's still better than claiming that only citizens (and only adult citizens in your case) have any right to due process or other legal protections.
Here's the problem: The Supreme Court itself doesn't appear to agree on that. Whether or not the Constitution lacks limits does not matter if they interpret it to have limits.
Which they have, repeatedly, on a level that is not matched by the limitations placed upon adults. And, sometimes, they've even given some very interesting interpretations.
For example, in Overton v. Bazzetta (2003), the Supreme Court actually upheld that restricting or even banning a child from visiting a parent in jail is legal, regardless on the feelings or age of the child in the issue (as long as they're not an adult, they need a legal guardian with them). Also, in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), the Supreme Court actually held that, while a child has freedom of speech, they do not have the same freedom of speech rights as an adult. It is actually the first of a series of rulings in which adults are held as having a greater freedom of speech than children are.
I will say the American citizen who got a stay at Guantanamo was not happy about it. He has to renounce his citizenship to leave.
Which obviously means they still consider him a citizen despite keeping him locked up there.
Does the US limit the rights of minor citizens? Yes, certainly so. In some cases appropriately so. In others not.
Does that mean that minors aren't citizens? Certainly not. Or that non-citizens have no rights? Also no.
If your interpretation, that "he Bill of Rights only applies to actual citizens of the United States; legally, citizenship doesn't start until 18", was held, then there would be no need for all the hedging in those opinions. They'd simply say "They have no rights, restrict them however you want."The Bill of Rights has often applied more in theory than in actual practice any way, both historically and today. Those limitations don't make people non-citizens or automatically revoke all rights when one is limited.
Actually, they no longer have him. The last they saw of him, he was on his way to Saudi Arabia.
Now, on arguing that minors are citizens... well, quick question for you. Do minors have the right to decide what religious education they will receive? This relates to freedom of religion.
According to the Supreme Court, they do not; that is the right of the parents. Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Farrington v. Tokushige, Prince v. Massachusetts, Griswold v. Connecticut, Wisconsin v. Yoder (this is the first one to mention religion explicitly, but mentions it in connection with the others), and so on all establish it is the right of the parent to control the education of the child... even the religious education. The last case I found on it with ease was Troxel v. Granville, which was in 2000. For an adult, this would be an automatic violation of their right to freedom of religion; for a child, it's protected practice.
And I'm going to stop digging into Supreme Court cases; the group is beginning to irritate. Some of the logic they use to defend their decisions amounts to "Well, we said so before, so it must be true."
I am not arguing that noncitizens lack rights; I am saying that they are not protected by the full weight of the Bill of Rights. Just like children are not protected by the full weight of it. And part of the full set of protections for actual citizens, except for criminals, is the right to vote.
Edit: And I've been arguing too much on here again. I'm setting myself a limit of two more posts on this topic. I need to get out and contribute more, not argue a lot.
/looks at yellowdingo's thread-creating history
Oh, okay. I think I understand it better now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's every Paizonian's god-given right to discover that YD is insane. And cuddly.
Vive le Dingo!
Yet the USA opposes the indoctrination of children as child soldiers. There is a thin line between insane and cuddly. Isnt that right Mr fibble?
Of course if this petition fails it will be necesary to petition for a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing freedom from religion.
That's already guaranteed by the First Amendment. People are free to worship or not.
|
|
That's already guaranteed by the First Amendment. People are free to worship or not./looks at yellowdingo's thread-creating history
Oh, okay. I think I understand it better now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's every Paizonian's god-given right to discover that YD is insane. And cuddly.
Vive le Dingo!
Yet the USA opposes the indoctrination of children as child soldiers. There is a thin line between insane and cuddly. Isnt that right Mr fibble?
Of course if this petition fails it will be necesary to petition for a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing freedom from religion.
Dont see it myself. Ambiguity is never in the favour of the victim. Need actual law that slaps you for religious indoctrination of children, not one that says we dont care if you do or dont.
Dont see it myself. Ambiguity is never in the favour of the victim. Need actual law that slaps you for religious indoctrination of children, not one that says we dont care if you do or dont.That's already guaranteed by the First Amendment. People are free to worship or not./looks at yellowdingo's thread-creating history
Oh, okay. I think I understand it better now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It's every Paizonian's god-given right to discover that YD is insane. And cuddly.
Vive le Dingo!
Yet the USA opposes the indoctrination of children as child soldiers. There is a thin line between insane and cuddly. Isnt that right Mr fibble?
Of course if this petition fails it will be necesary to petition for a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing freedom from religion.
Of course not teaching children about religion would fall under your law also.