The Bill of NON-rights

[unreal.freak]

Firtst let me say this is a copy and paste stright from a email i recieved. I found it intersting as my ideals align with most of what is stated in this. Do you agree with it? Dont agree? Its open for discussion. "Let it all hang out" so to speak.

NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION


{This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...}



"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights."



ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.



ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.



ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.



ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes . (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)



ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.



ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.



ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.



ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)



ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.



ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly....)



ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

 

[Davemcc]

I was criticized here once for offering up Article II in an argument. I think it makes perfect sense.

I'm pretty much OK with all of this, even Article XI. But I still don't find it necessary to have kids pray in school or display a cross in courts. Examples why - 1) Islam is a Judeo-Christian based faith that worships the same God of the Old Testament. Islam has strict guidelines for when and how Muslims pray. Telling a Muslim child to pray at a desk in a classroom that is not facing the proper direction is an offense. To single that child out for not praying while others pray in a classroom is a form of discrimination. 2) The Star of David is another perfectly valid symbol related to the worship of the same God of the Old Testament. To ask a Jewish person to submit to the justice of a court that displays the cross is a symbol that the Jewish belief is inherently inferior. Besides, displaying a cross in court really only reflects the Judges bias and preference for one religion over another and hardly inspires confidence in the impartiality of the bench. That's just a couple of examples off the top of my head. Feel free to mention God in as many public places as you want, but avoid references or symbols to a specific religion. The founders did not intend the nation to be Catholic, Baptist or anything else. They were Deists in the most inclusive interpretation of that word and so should the government that they built.

 

[haraldo]

I think it's actually quite good, except XI, don't think that much of God and he never did anything for me anyways.

Other countries follow X more strictly, for instance you won't get permanent residency in Australia without proving your English skills in a formal test, so why should that be different in the US....

 

[MidnightSensi]

XII: You do not have the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body (see drug prohibition ... trillions of dollars going bye bye) ... some states are starting to catch on, but its taking too long.

XIII: You do not have the right to tell people who they can marry (see prop 8).

XIV: Churches do not have the right to be tax exempt if they are going to send the money on advancing their political platforms.

 

[unreal.freak]

I was criticized here once for offering up Article II in an argument. I think it makes perfect sense.

I'm pretty much OK with all of this, even Article XI. But I still don't find it necessary to have kids pray in school or display a cross in courts. Examples why - 1) Islam is a Judeo-Christian based faith that worships the same God of the Old Testament. Islam has strict guidelines for when and how Muslims pray. Telling a Muslim child to pray at a desk in a classroom that is not facing the proper direction is an offense. To single that child out for not praying while others pray in a classroom is a form of discrimination. 2) The Star of David is another perfectly valid symbol related to the worship of the same God of the Old Testament. To ask a Jewish person to submit to the justice of a court that displays the cross is a symbol that the Jewish belief is inherently inferior. Besides, displaying a cross in court really only reflects the Judges bias and preference for one religion over another and hardly inspires confidence in the impartiality of the bench. That's just a couple of examples off the top of my head. Feel free to mention God in as many public places as you want, but avoid references or symbols to a specific religion. The founders did not intend the nation to be Catholic, Baptist or anything else. They were Deists in the most inclusive interpretation of that word and so should the government that they built.

I don't know how it is where you went to school, but here the people who didnt want to participate in the school pledge and prayer, were excused to the library before hand. Mostly Jehovah's witness children. None of them seemed to feel singled out or prejusticed against.

Thanks for your response



Peace,
Tommy

 

[unreal.freak]

XIII: You do not have the right to tell people who they can marry (see prop 8).

Apparently in Fl and Cal we think we do


Peace,
Tommy

 

[Davemcc]

Apparently in Fl and Cal we think we do


Peace,
Tommy

Might makes right...to hell with the constitution.

 

[haraldo]

XV: If you, tomorrow, can be proud of what you do today, then you always do the right thing.

Although..... this is off-topic, but still related.....

 

[Adam]

XV: If you, tomorrow, can be proud of what you do today, then you always do the right thing.

That applies on an individual level, sure, but not on a societal level. Some people are just jacked up. As one example, Charles Manson.

 

[haraldo]

That applies on an individual level, sure, but not on a societal level. Some people are just jacked up. As one example, Charles Manson.

woooow, I need to rethink this, well... at least the statement is valid for "normal" people
And if you think about this whenever you have more than one choice, you will always know what's right, probably

 

[unreal.freak]

Might makes right...to hell with the constitution.

I didnt know the constitution stated that 2 homosexuals could be considered married. I guess we could stretch it to say whatever we wanted as long as everyone agreed to it. Apperently the majority in FL and Cal dont agree with it.

Peace,
Tommy

 

[MidnightSensi]

I didnt know the constitution stated that 2 homosexuals could be considered married. I guess we could stretch it to say whatever we wanted as long as everyone agreed to it. Apperently the majority in FL and Cal dont agree with it.

Peace,
Tommy

Well, our declaration of independence says something like "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I'm pretty sure that was the whole idea of America in the first place.

 

[pzaur]

I didnt know the constitution stated that 2 homosexuals could be considered married. I guess we could stretch it to say whatever we wanted as long as everyone agreed to it. Apperently the majority in FL and Cal dont agree with it.

Peace,
Tommy

I don't think the constitution states that two heterosexuals could be considered married, either.

Mixing politics and religion is a very dark street to head down. I think I'd be proven correct to say that history has proven that when they do hold court together rights erode and conflict increases in that state and areas around that state. Just look at major events like the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, or, currently, the Middle East.

Nothing against religion(s). There just needs to be a clear separation between the government and religion. This idea is what the U.S. was built upon. Religion is a belief system, not a judicial or government system.

Not looking to start a war, just playing a little advocate.

Don't forget to add Arizona to the list of states with "Marriage Amendments"...

-pat

 

[unreal.freak]

Well, our declaration of independence says something like "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

From some of your posts i had come to the conclusion that the word creator in your statement would have made the whole thing unbelievable to you. I guess you pick and choose what part of religious beliefs you actually believe?


Tommy

Edit: the DoI also has the word God in it..... be careful if you believe in this Document, you may be involuntarily admitting you believe in God

 

[unreal.freak]

I don't think the constitution states that two heterosexuals could be considered married, either.

Mixing politics and religion is a very dark street to head down. I think I'd be proven correct to say that history has proven that when they do hold court together rights erode and conflict increases in that state and areas around that state. Just look at major events like the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, or, currently, the Middle East.

Nothing against religion(s). There just needs to be a clear separation between the government and religion. This idea is what the U.S. was built upon. Religion is a belief system, not a judicial or government system.

Not looking to start a war, just playing a little advocate.

Don't forget to add Arizona to the list of states with "Marriage Amendments"...

-pat

No matter who tries to deny it, this country was founded by religious Men. Its a part of our History and Heritage. I'm proud of it. I would never persecute anyone for their beliefs, but i believe we should be able to continue our heritage without fear of offending anyone.

I try to spread my faith with anyone who is willing to listen, anytime i have ever tried to witness to anyone who said they werent interested, ive let them alone and bid them a good day. 98% of all the Christians i come into contact with, you would be friends with, regardless of their faith. They are all nice moral people who love everyone regardless of thier status, religion, poitical beliefs, looks, riches or lack of. Thats what Christianity is about...Love.

Peace,
Tommy

 

[MidnightSensi]

From some of your posts i had come to the conclusion that the word creator in your statement would have made the whole thing unbelievable to you. I guess you pick and choose what part of religious beliefs you actually believe?


Tommy

Edit: the DoI also has the word God in it..... be careful if you believe in this Document, you may be involuntarily admitting you believe in God

No, I'm not religious. That's just what it says, it was written by Thomas Jefferson.

Also, in the past lots of scientists put "god" into their explanations because they feared prosecution for their science if they didn't because they were disproving things that were in the bible. Newton, Copernicus, Kepler...

I don't think Jefferson was pressured to including that (although its possible), but we have established a separation between church and state in America regardless of references to god.

 

[unreal.freak]

No, I'm not religious. That's just what it says, it was written by Thomas Jefferson.

Also, in the past lots of scientists put "god" into their explanations because they feared prosecution for their science if they didn't because they were disproving things that were in the bible. Newton, Copernicus, Kepler...

I don't think Jefferson was pressured to including that (although its possible), but we have established a separation between church and state in America regardless of references to god.

I seriously dont think TJ was pressured into including God into it either. The seperation we know in todays time, is alot different than what it was originally. I just read alot of the Wiki page and it appears to me that TJ's version is quite different than we we have altered it to. Either way im glad that the Gov cant dictate when, where, how, who, i can worship.

Thanks for your responses

Peace,
Tommy

 

[Davemcc]

Either way im glad that the Gov cant dictate when, where, how, who, i can worship.

I guess the point is also the the gov't should not be able to dictate when, where, how, who you can love...or marry.

 

[jamie2112]

I guess the point is also the the gov't should not be able to dictate when, where, how, who you can love...or marry.

Oh Snap.......

 

[Adam]

I guess the point is also the the gov't should not be able to dictate when, where, how, who you can love...or marry.

Religiously marry...I agree. I think the issue is legal marriage, which entails certain legal rights/benefits that are sponsored by the government.