Don't know if this story is true, but would like to think so.

Dan

ACHOOOOOOOOO!

They walked in tandem, each of the ninety-three students filing into the already crowded auditorium. With rich maroon gowns flowing and the traditional caps, they looked almost as grown up as they felt. Dads swallowed hard behind broad
smiles, and moms freely brushed away tears.

This class would not pray during the commencements ----- not by choice but because of a recent court ruling prohibiting it. The principal and several students were careful to stay within the guidelines allowed by the ruling. They gave inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned divine guidance and no one asked for blessings on the graduates or their families.

The speeches were nice, but they were routine.......until the final speech received a standing ovation.

A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone He stood still and silent for just a moment, and then, it happened. All 92 students, every single one of
them, suddenly SNEEZED!!!!

The student on stage simply looked at the audience and said, "GOD BLESS YOU, each and every one of you!" And he walked off stage...

The audience exploded into applause. The graduating class found a unique way to handle what their elders could not.

Interesting.

Too bad some of those graduates did not willfully disobey the foolish "rules" and exercise some good ole American free speech rights, which not even congress has the right to meddle with.

Interesting.

Too bad some of those graduates did not willfully disobey the foolish "rules" and exercise some good ole American free speech rights, which not even congress has the right to meddle with.

Civil disobedience is a dangerous two way sword, particularly for teen age youth. I’d respectfully suggest they made their point and their finesse handled the situation better than frontal confrontation.

Dan

We are talking about the 1st Amendment and we are talking about speaking for God. In the first case, government has no right to abridge, thus it becomes the duty of good citizens to disobey. In the second case we are to obey God rather than man and we speak for him regardless of the law of the land.

If Americans give in to such illegal laws, then you can kiss your constitutional rights goodbye.

We are talking about the 1st Amendment and we are talking about speaking for God. In the first case, government has no right to abridge, thus it becomes the duty of good citizens to disobey. In the second case we are to obey God rather than man and we speak for him regardless of the law of the land.

If Americans give in to such illegal laws, then you can kiss your constitutional rights goodbye.

I’m not a constitutional scholar so I’ll just have to let the legal system, which includes our Supreme Court determine the legality before I make such conclusions. It seems to have worked rather well for a number of years.

Civil disobedience and anarchy are counter productive routes that many other countries have demonstrated to their disadvantage, so I’m afraid, my friend, we’ll just have to disagree on our approaches. I’ll stick with voting for the correct candidates, who in turn will make the proper laws and appoint the proper judges.

Dan

Dan brings up a very valid point... it is much easier getting the 'right' politicians elected, and then judges appointed, etc., .... than trying to correct the problems a generation down the road.

It is unfortunate how many people don't realize that.

Gentlemen, you surprise me, especially being Americans. Your country was founded on revolt against government to the point of taking up arms and killing those in authority over you. Civil disobedience produced the greatest nation in history.

What has changed?

If SCOTUS next year decides it's not legal for anyone to say anything which against Sodomy will you willingly comply?

Gentlemen, you surprise me, especially being Americans. Your country was founded on revolt against government to the point of taking up arms and killing those in authority over you. Civil disobedience produced the greatest nation in history.

What has changed?

If SCOTUS next year decides it's not legal for anyone to say anything which against Sodomy will you willingly comply?

Sir, me thinks what we have here is a matter of semantics? I would not say our country was founded on revolt; rather it was founded by revolt. And the revolt was not against government, but rather the lack of government (representation). The “founding” of our nation was on the democratic form of government, the basis of which is voting, not civil disobedience. And I would also suggest adherence to that democratic form of government is what produced the greatest nation in history. I propose our country will be better served by diligent working within the system that has been so successful and not the tearing of the fabric that gives us the order and security so many Americans have and continue to die for. I watched the 60's civil disobedience as a yound man in his twenties, and as an old man of sixty-six, don't know if our country will ever completely recover from the effects.

What has changed? On the subject of freedom, I don’t think anything has changed. We still fight the good fight for the founding of democratic nations that give the freedoms so eloquently addressed in our founding fathers papers. I spent some interesting and exciting time in Beirut, Lebanon getting shot at by people of another religion, so have some first hand experience with the effects of revolt.

As for sodomy, I don’t know enough about it, so can’t address that issue.

Dan

I'm sorry DOC, but it appears you are the one using semantics. Not "on," but "by?" C'mon.

At that time the legitimate government was England. At that time, while having a Monarch, England also had a democratic parliament such as exists today. The difference was that there were no American's as a part of it. In 1776 the King did not have absolute power, but was limited by parliament, just as the Queen is today.

To say you had no government is simply not correct and is a big stretch.

Canada chose no revolt as did the Americans, so what was the difference? The Americans wanted independence to choose their own course and the Canadians felt that outright rebellion to the legitimate authority was wrong and had no such desire.

I'm sorry DOC, but it appears you are the one using semantics. Not "on," but "by?" C'mon.

At that time the legitimate government was England. At that time, while having a Monarch, England also had a democratic parliament such as exists today. The difference was that there were no American's as a part of it. In 1776 the King did not have absolute power, but was limited by parliament, just as the Queen is today.

To say you had no government is simply not correct and is a big stretch.

Canada chose no revolt as did the Americans, so what was the difference? The Americans wanted independence to choose their own course and the Canadians felt that outright rebellion to the legitimate authority was wrong and had no such desire.

TPM, wasn't accusing you of semantics misuse. But when all is said and done, I'll stick with there being a significant diffference in the meaning of "founded on revolt" versus "founded by revolt"and continue to say my country was founded on democracy. And no, my last name isn't Clinton :) And it's my understanding that my forefathers (and they were here at that time) said government without representation will not be recognized as a legal government, thus the exiting governemnt you reference was not recognized...thus, my comment, "no government". I certainly understand a form of government existed. But neither of those points are at the heart of our disagreement. I remain much less enamored with civil disobedience and revolt than I interpret your comments to suggest you are. In any case, appreciate your forebearance and certainnly your interest and involvement in these serious issues.

Thanks again,

Dan (DOK)

I'm simply saying that there is a time and place for resistance. I am not advocating violence, I'm advocating doing the ritht thing. Thus, if the government tells me that I cannot speak against Sodomy, I disobey. If the government tells me I cannot share the gospel or try to convert others, I disobey.

Christians are to obey God and not man. We obey man's laws right up to the point where they violate God's and then we must disobey, just as did the Apostles. Christians have no justification to remain silent concerning the gospel, regardless of the laws of man.

Whom do we fear?

I'm simply saying that there is a time and place for resistance. I am not advocating violence, I'm advocating doing the ritht thing. Thus, if the government tells me that I cannot speak against Sodomy, I disobey. If the government tells me I cannot share the gospel or try to convert others, I disobey.

Christians are to obey God and not man. We obey man's laws right up to the point where they violate God's and then we must disobey, just as did the Apostles. Christians have no justification to remain silent concerning the gospel, regardless of the laws of man.

Whom do we fear?

Having read the "Bible Verses Illegal In Canada" I now better understand "where you're coming from". Hopefully calm and wise minds and hearts will prevent a clash that appears to be coming.

Dan

Calm and wise minds are becoming scarce in Canada, let me assure you. The majority of those in power are h e l l bent on eliminating the bible, Christians and anyone who is not pro-Sodomite from public view.

It will soon be illegal in Canada to make any negative comment about any sexual orientation in any setting. Pastors will be forbidden to preach. Even former Sodomites, who no longer are, may be prosecuted if they tell their story. People will eventually end up in jail for mere words. These are scary times and the book 1984 was truly prophetic, for it's on our doorsteps. One wonders how in just one generation we could forget the indoctrination, the mind control of the Nazis and communists. We will end up no better, in terms of human freedom.

We will not be silent and we will not comply with those who tell us how to think and are themselves depraved.

If memory serves correctly, the Valdictorian marched to the podium, got out papers that appeared to be a speech, took a moment and then sneezed. The graduates as one all rose to their feet and shouted "God bless you." The Valdictorian placed his speech back in his pocket and left the stage. Maybe this is another incident. It has been a few years ago.

We are in a constant battle in the arena of ideas. When we think we have won and the majority is voting our way, it is no time to sit back and think we are done and all is finally well. We must continue to put forth our beliefs, ideas and the reasoning for them. It takes time. Look how long the libs have been pushing their agenda. Remember to that the libs, in order to win, must appear to be someone they are not, while conservatiives win by being conservative. ( I am assuming most here are conservative and Christian.)

God is first, or should be, in our lives. Jesus said to render unto Ceaser what is Ceasers. The 1st amendment is one of our God given rights. Open rebellion is a dangerous undertaking and not recommended unless things get as bad as it was for the colonists. We can still vote and we still have a judicial system albeit in need of a good cleaning.

Am I rambling here? It's getting late. Good night and God bless

( I am assuming most here are conservative and Christian.)


Don't assume anything mate. I'm a conservative evangelical christian, but thereafter I'm a fully-paid-up liberal :cool:

Great thread guys!!!

Bill

Bless their hearts--A Class with Class:)

My question in all this is where were the parents?What action did they take? We certainly shouldn't depend on our children to defend our rights. The supreme court says that anyone can burn the flag if they so chose. However if they do it in my presence they better be ready to defend themselves for I will not tolerate it. My father suffered terribly for that flag and I will not forget it. I took an oath to support and defend the constitution and obey the LAWFULL orders of the president. I don't need the supreme court to interpret the constitution for me, I can read as well as they can. By the way do you know when an unconstitutional law is no longer in force? The answer is it is never in force. Any one who is convicted of breaking such a law has the right to sue the government for just compensation. The last thing I would like to say is this " The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

My question in all this is where were the parents?What action did they take? We certainly shouldn't depend on our children to defend our rights. The supreme court says that anyone can burn the flag if they so chose. However if they do it in my presence they better be ready to defend themselves for I will not tolerate it. My father suffered terribly for that flag and I will not forget it. I took an oath to support and defend the constitution and obey the LAWFULL orders of the president. I don't need the supreme court to interpret the constitution for me, I can read as well as they can. By the way do you know when an unconstitutional law is no longer in force? The answer is it is never in force. Any one who is convicted of breaking such a law has the right to sue the government for just compensation. The last thing I would like to say is this " The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

For you to win such lawsuit, you would have to get the court to agree with you on your interpetation that the law is unconstitutional. This is not likely in todays world ruled by so many liberals. I believe that many, if not most of the thousands of gun laws in our country are unconstitutional, but the court IS the law, and until they change their interpetations, we are screwed. Remember, when our founding fathers wrote that constitution, white men legally owned negro slaves. Over time, things change. Some for the good, and some not.

I was speaking of laws that have been ruled by the courts as unconstitutional.To win in court the only people you need to convince are the jury. No matter what the court may think the jury has the right to judge the law. Any jury that believes the law is wrong or circumstances don't warrant a conviction has the RIGHT to find that person not guilty, contrary to the instructions given to some juries. The jury is our last defense against an unjust government, the government can pass laws and arrest people but cannot convict that is the jury's duty. If the jury refuses to convict than the law is nullified.

I was speaking of laws that have been ruled by the courts as unconstitutional.To win in court the only people you need to convince are the jury. No matter what the court may think the jury has the right to judge the law. Any jury that believes the law is wrong or circumstances don't warrant a conviction has the RIGHT to find that person not guilty, contrary to the instructions given to some juries. The jury is our last defense against an unjust government, the government can pass laws and arrest people but cannot convict that is the jury's duty. If the jury refuses to convict than the law is nullified.

I'm a little confused. You say, "I was speaking of laws that have been ruled by the courts as unconstitutional." I would assume a law that the courts have ruled as unconstitutional is not a law and can not be inforced....regardless of rather or not a jury is involved.

You also say, "the government can pass laws and arrest people but cannot convict that is the jury's duty. If the jury refuses to convict than the law is nullified." I'd appreciate a little more evidence for that conclusion...specific cases, etc.. That would imply that if a jury refused to convict for bigamy, or carrying a concealed gun, or even murder, etc., then those laws are nullified. I'm skeptical.

Dan

If the congress passes a law and you are arrested and convicted of breaking that law, and then the law is challenged and found to be unconstitutional, your arrest is unlawfull even though the law APPEARED to be enforceable. That is why so many times the courts stop a law from being implemented until reviewed by a higher court. The government is liable for damages for all persons prosecuted under that law.