HeatherSecombe

An art and opinion blog

FBI Ordered Police Department to Conceal Stingray Use

but it for your safety right?

10 Conspiracy Theories That Came True

Maybe we should not all laugh at the Conspiracy theorists that have proven themselves truthful.

Live: National Guard Descends on Ferguson

USArmy and lethal force against unarmed people

A PDF has surfaced of which on page 30 of the 132 page PDF document it has a table displaying that there is an intention to use lethal force against UNARMED civilians. Yes there is table that shows that non-leathal force can be applied, but that is besides the point. This should be disturbing to anyone inside or outside the country as it shows an example of how that in a country that is supposed to represent hope and freedom or once did, has now degraded to the point that police are becoming militarized which is sign historically of an in coming tyranny worse than the current situation. This also sets up an example for other governments how might or will begin to follow in these actions against their own people.

Just a crude quick sketch

Amid the crazy festivities, let's take a moment to remember what today is all about.

ladyhistory:

The men of the 2nd Continental Congress outright defied their king by adopting and later signing the Declaration of Independence because they believed that subjects to a government ought to have rights and freedoms under that government.

They believed that when people are…

22 hurt in mass stabbing at US school

So the question begs should we ban knifes now? The point of matter of why I am posting this is to say that you cannot stop the insane. The same goes for China (more) or the UK. (more). It does not matter where you ban the guns the insane with always find new and creative ways to kill or harm in multiply numbers. I leave you with this thought, prohibition often lead to new and creative ways of getting around the prohibited item which was often more dangerous or worse than item that was banned. Would you really prefer killers coming up with new ways to kill in mass like the China stabbings where you are defenseless against it and the police can do nothing. I understand this sounds like a false Dichotomy in a way but, to me I would rather protect my self than whimper in a corner and hand to hand self defense classes will only protect you to a point.

ladyhistory:

GATHER ROUND PEOPLE WE’RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT
First, the concept of the separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution at all; it was a idea that was forged and supported by Thomas Jefferson to describe his views of religion’s place in politics. What this concept says is that there is an invisible wall between religion (church) and government (state)—we don’t know how high the wall is or how thick it is, just that it exists. Basically, government and religion can INTERACT but they cannot CONTROL each other. Religion cannot control government (that would be a theocracy) and government cannot control religion (a violation of the 1st amendment). Imagine a person on each side of a brick wall. They can talk with each other and shake hands over the top of the wall, but the wall keeps them from attacking or dominating each other.
What we DO find in the Constitution is something called the Establishment Clause, which is the very first part of the first amendment that says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” The Establishment Clause means this: the government cannot create a religion OR pass laws that do so. The Supreme Court has further ruled to say that this also means that the government cannot encourage one religion over another, which would still be essentially starting/establishing a religion of some kind. That’s where you get your school prayer cases, religious public display cases, etc.
SO to answer your question: NO, the government cannot make laws just about Christianity or any other religion in particular because that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause—it would basically be like the government saying “Hey, we like this religion so much we’re gonna officially recognize it and encourage it by making laws about it because it’s better than other religions.”
On an aside, that would also violate the Free Exercise Clause, the next part of the First Amendment that says Congress can’t make laws “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…which means Congress can’t make laws that get in the way of how you practice your religion or not practice a religion (however, it’s not freedom of religion if your practice breaks the law, offends public morals, or puts others in danger).
tl;dr; THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE LAWS CREATING A RELIGION, ENCOURAGING A RELIGION, OR GETTING IN THE WAY OF SOMEONE’S EXERCISE/NONEXERCISE OF RELIGION

ladyhistory:

GATHER ROUND PEOPLE WE’RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT

First, the concept of the separation of church and state is not mentioned in the Constitution at all; it was a idea that was forged and supported by Thomas Jefferson to describe his views of religion’s place in politics. What this concept says is that there is an invisible wall between religion (church) and government (state)—we don’t know how high the wall is or how thick it is, just that it exists. Basically, government and religion can INTERACT but they cannot CONTROL each other. Religion cannot control government (that would be a theocracy) and government cannot control religion (a violation of the 1st amendment). Imagine a person on each side of a brick wall. They can talk with each other and shake hands over the top of the wall, but the wall keeps them from attacking or dominating each other.

What we DO find in the Constitution is something called the Establishment Clause, which is the very first part of the first amendment that says: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…” The Establishment Clause means this: the government cannot create a religion OR pass laws that do so. The Supreme Court has further ruled to say that this also means that the government cannot encourage one religion over another, which would still be essentially starting/establishing a religion of some kind. That’s where you get your school prayer cases, religious public display cases, etc.

SO to answer your question: NO, the government cannot make laws just about Christianity or any other religion in particular because that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause—it would basically be like the government saying “Hey, we like this religion so much we’re gonna officially recognize it and encourage it by making laws about it because it’s better than other religions.”

On an aside, that would also violate the Free Exercise Clause, the next part of the First Amendment that says Congress can’t make laws “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…which means Congress can’t make laws that get in the way of how you practice your religion or not practice a religion (however, it’s not freedom of religion if your practice breaks the law, offends public morals, or puts others in danger).

tl;dr; THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE LAWS CREATING A RELIGION, ENCOURAGING A RELIGION, OR GETTING IN THE WAY OF SOMEONE’S EXERCISE/NONEXERCISE OF RELIGION

frostbiterainbowsnowcone said: So, about the whole church v. state argument going on here, I remember my own government teacher from last year. He showed us several clips of the tv show Newsroom and I was wondering, how are some states just sliding by with blatantly religious oriented laws? I was Texan by birth and had we stayed there instead of moving to NY, it would be 100% okay to expel my gay brother from school, refuse to give him resources, etc, etc, when doing such things would be a blatant display of prejudice.

ladyhistory:

I am also a Texan and live in the South :)

How are some states sliding by with doing unconstitutional things? How does the federal government slide by with doing unconstitutional things?

I’m going to say this a little passionately…

BECAUSE AMERICANS AS A WHOLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR GOVERNMENT OR WHAT IT DOES. THEY ARE TOTALLY FINE WITH NOT VOTING OR PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE DOING OR WHAT POLICIES ARE BEING PASSED. THE PEOPLE LET THE GOVERNMENT DO ITS OWN THING AND THEY SURE AS HECK DON’T GET INVOLVED WITH CALLING POLITICIANS OUT ON DOING THINGS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION.

James Madison said in Federalist #51: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government…

IT IS THE PEOPLE’S JOB TO KEEP THEIR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE— PEOPLE ELECT A GOVERNMENT TO RULE OVER THEM SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ALSO ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE.

BUT WE KEEP ELECTING THE SAME ABUSIVE OFFICIALS AND WE CONTINUE THE SAME IGNORANCE OF WHAT IS GOING ON OUR STATES AND IN D.C. AND THEN WONDER WHY SO MANY THINGS ARE GOING AWRY. 

WHEN PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP THEIR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE (I.E. VOTING, CONTACTING THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, PROTESTING, ETC.), THE GOVERNMENT CAN AND WILL ABUSE ITS RESPONSIBILITIES.

Barack Obama to send more troops to Iraq as crisis escalates - Telegraph

Facebook conducted secret psychology experiment on users' emotions - Telegraph

This is why I have few friends on and rarely get on, facebook, we need to be aware of emotional manipulation, even if you have to cold, even if you have to be cynical  look into the subject deeper than the base level of tears and whimpering. We have forgotten to ask questions and in this we listen more to emotion than reason.

Why is Facebook Manipulating Your Emotions?

LiveLeak.com - DUI Suspects Face Forced Blood Draws

This looks like a scene out of movies. I mean really I dont watch many movies, but from what I can remember in seeing ultra violet (yes I know, terrible movie) or aeon flux. This seems eerily familiar strapped down, no way out, harsh methods and no real consent or choice. Just the illusion of choice.

Pentagon preparing for mass civil breakdown

I wonder why.

Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World

This is extremely good point made, by someone in Switzerland about the right to keep and bare arms.