Freedom Ride

The modern democratic state is always attributed to Western Europe and its history by books, professors, history, government, etc…I understand that the founding fathers of America come from Western Europe, so that is why. But, was there any other state, tribe, or nation that had a democratic system (rule by the people) in any other place without Western European influence?

There’s a lot of guff spoken about this idea of democracy.

Our modern representative, inclusive democracies owe nothing to Ancient Greece but the name. After the fall of the Roman Empire, and the rise of the Feudal system, limited governments emerged and they developed by the 19th century into the modern sort of democracy.

As for republics, well the Maya had a type of government in the Post-Classic period called a multepal, a sort of republic.

Act to access court records?

No, the FOIA only applies to information directly under the control of the federal government.

The state courts are controlled by the state governments. Most states, however, have laws that are very similar to the Freedom of Information Act, applying to records controlled by the state government.

Our freedoms are listed in the First, Second, Sixth and Eighth Amendments.

Equal rights are covered in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments.

Do you angree? What can you say about it? reflect.

We’re are always shackled to something, even if we have to go so broad as to say we shackled to our mortality. There’s always someone or something we have to answer.

But that doesn’t mean the person cannot believe he’s free, depending on what he decides to acknowledge as a concern. If he has control on those things in life that he is concerned about, then in his mind he is free, regardless of what may really rule him or his life.

So yes, freedom is definitely a state of mind, regardless of whether it is correct or not.

The right to decide how our money is allocated seems to me the basis of a so called democracy. An entire branch of the Government is destined to deal with "money issues". It would be a lot simpler and definately more democaratic if when we file our income tax return, WE DECIDE WHERE that money (earned by us) should go. Why it is not done this way?

Great question! It makes ya think. Though we like to think of America as the "Home of the free", its not. I think there is more evidence that Santa Claus exists. However, the thought of everyone designating where their tax payments go would really bring about some radical changes. For one, the "rich" do not pay the same amount of taxes (per total earnings) as the middle class, or poor. If this occurred, totally different issues would take the forefront. Basically, paying your taxes would give you power instead of stress. Imagine totally designating your taxes to education, aids research, or a run down park in your community? Imagine the feelings of ownership, pride, and happiness the average citizen would feel. We would all feel like we could actually make a difference. Wow, it would be like living in a democracy.

Atheist city Counselor being called for removal because of NC State Constitution

Article 6
Sec. 8. Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

This is clearly unconstitutional and violation of freedom of religion

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1110ap_us_godless_politician.html

Freedom and religion do not mix. One will destroy the other.

Sadly, in America, religion is winning.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—

…but what does it matter what the state constitutions say on free speech, freedom of religion, etc.? Doesn’t the U.S. Constituion supercede the state constitutions anyway?

The states can offer more protection than the US constitution…it cannot offer less. So as long as the state in question does not attempt to weaken your rights they will hold stronger than US but if a state were to attempt to remove a right that the US constitution protects, the US constitution rules

All I really want here is your opinions, there is no wrong or right answer, only ones with little or no thought:

Here are a few questions for you to ponder:

1. if a Muslim exchange student wishes to pray to Mecca should he be allowed in a public school?

2. if a Protestant child wants to pray to Jesus Christ should he be forbidden?

3. is it fair to discipline a school child who aligns himself with Anton LaVey’s concept of Satanism and freely speaks of it on school grounds?

4. should teachers refrain from uttering words like Buddhism in their teachings of ancient Asia?

think about those for a second first individually then collectively
then answer before you read the next and final paragraph…

ok if you answered no, yes, yes, yes then you probably are 100% for segregation of church and state; if you answered yes, no, no, no then you probably are 100% against it. now if you answered differently from these 2 combinations you obviously have bias! just think!

Why should it matter if a student is muslim or christian? You don’t seem to understand that the first amendment means freedom of religion, not freedom to practice only christian religion.

As the supreme court has determined NUMEROUS times, any student can be allowed to initiate their own prayers at school. This does not violate the concept of the establishment clause of the First Amendment (that the state shall not establish a religion). The problem arises when the school or state initiates the religious activity.

As a result,

1. Yes the student should be allowed to do his/her prayer, it is his/her right to practice his/her religion

2. No, this child should not be forbidden from praying to Jesus

3. A child should not be disciplined for speaking about Anton Lavey any more than a Child speaking about any other religion. There would only be a problem if someone is trying to incite violence.

4. No teachers should not refrain from mentioning Buddhism in a class on ancient asia. The fact is that isn’t establishing religion, it is discussing the religion in the context of the history of the area. Just like you can’t discuss the middle ages without understanding the impact that christianity had. Otherwise students aren’t being taught the correct history of the world.

Also, it is not SEGREGATION of church and state, it is SEPARATION of church and state. The purpose is to not have the government establishing a religion and trying to make its citizens practice that one religion. A student initiating a prayer at school, regardless of religion has nothing to do with what the state wants and the Supereme Court has stated this time and time again. As a result, your final paragraph shows your lack of understanding of the First Amendment’s Establishment clause as you seem to misunderstand what separation of church and state is. It is unconstitutional for a TEACHER to initiate prayer. It is perfectly alright for a student to do so.

The city I live in recently banned any new billboards from being built so now a billboard company (Lamar) is suing the city and they say it’s going against freedom of speech. Is banning billboards going against the first amendment?

No, because they only took down the billboards because it was causing driving accidents because peoples eyes were not on the road while looking at the boards.