Justices rule for student in ‘cursing cheerleader’ case

[Drummie123]

Five conservative justices voted with the three liberals in this decision.

I know it's a chore, but please start reading the thread in reverse, start at the latest post and work backwards toward the OP.

That way you will better understand how far the idea has come in such a short span of time.

The SCOTUS only adjudicated the legality of the case.

And the legality of the girl's actions only help justify to many, the decay of our morality.

The SCOTUS decision only keeps us on the same course headed for the abyss at 100mph.

Something needs to change.

That is where the thread is now.

Choosing the moral principles we all can agree on that might make ALL of our lives more pleasant and safe and won't destroy us all and rob us all of any or all of our freedoms.

[Phantasmal]

If the religious law has stood the test of time, it should be submitted to the larger group to be taken under consideration by the populace for adoption.

Try to disassociate yourself from the religion and just think of the principle that you could commit to and embrace and live by, which you would like everyone to also live by.

That should be the criterion.

What religious law has stood the test? Not mixing fabrics? Not eating shell fish? Not working on the Sabbath? Not having strange Gods? Not using the Lords name in vain?
please elaborate which religious law has stood the test of time that benefits society and makes us more moral. There are really very few, as I said, lying, not stealing and not killing are the most beneficial. Honoring your parent is a good personal habit, unless your parents abuse you.

[Drummie123]

If you're this upset over this teenager's one Snapchat comment, you must have been hysterical over trump's thousands and thousands of malicious, vulgar tweets.

I will ask you one more time to please start reading the thread from the latest to the oldest.

If you post again without becoming familiar with the current ideas being discussed, I will place you on ignore for a long time.

I feel you may be able to add something constructive to the discussion and I encourage you to do so, but the two posts you have made are the same old game that I want no part of here, maybe in a different thread, but not this one.

[Drummie123]

What religious law has stood the test? Not mixing fabrics? Not eating shell fish? Not working on the Sabbath? Not having strange Gods? Not using the Lords name in vain?
please elaborate which religious law has stood the test of time that benefits society and makes us more moral. There are really very few, as I said, lying, not stealing and not killing are the most beneficial. Honoring your parent is a good personal habit, unless your parents abuse you.

You persist in finding fault in the religion instead of looking for principles you can commit to living by and which you'd like others to live by.

Is it that hard to do?

I can agree to not murdering anyone. I'd like everyone to agree to not murdering their fellow man.

See how easy it can be?

[Phantasmal]

You persist in finding fault in the religion instead of looking for principles you can commit to living by and which you'd like others to live by.

Is it that hard to do?

No, I have found principles I live by, it’s not hard for me at all. None of my principles are based upon religious laws.

You made a statement about religious laws that have stood the test of time and I was inquiring of you which laws. I sited a few religious laws that are of no real value.

Im sorry if you don’t understand how debate or a discussion works.

[AProudLefty]

"Choosing the moral principles we all can agree on that might make ALL of our lives more pleasant and safe and won't destroy us all and rob us all of any or all of our freedoms."

Who will agree?

[AProudLefty]

I can agree to not murdering anyone. I'd like everyone to agree to not murdering their fellow man.

See how easy it can be?

That's a straw man.

[Drummie123]

"Choosing the moral principles we all can agree on that might make ALL of our lives more pleasant and safe and won't destroy us all and rob us all of any or all of our freedoms."

Who will agree?

Do you agree?

[Drummie123]

Grow up.

You've never seen a terminal cancer patient who looks and acts normal and then, weeks later, when the symptoms are obvious you might say, "oh, that person is dying."

But the truth is that their demise was already certain before you recognized the signs.

The USA has already collapsed and may not be able to get up.

You are just blind to it.

[Bill]

So now Trumpian Christianity is the answer.

Place your hand on the playboy book, the national inquirer or that book written by the holy ghost writer & swear allegiance to the T...

[AProudLefty]

Do you agree?

I agree on the moral principles.

[Bill]

And THAT is where the erosion of support for Christianity in our society is allowing our society to slide toward the abyss.

And right before we fall into the chasm of doom, some will be thinking, "what will save us, but more freedom of speech!" when too much or undeserved free speech is what accelerated or prompted the slide.

What does that mean?? Undeserved??

[Bill]

You are seeing the extreme and not what would be a comfortable middle ground such as existed in America in the early 1960's for example.

The Donna Reed Show
S01:E01 - Weekend Trip
·
25 min
TV-PG
Comedy
Donna and Alex try to arrange a family weekend.

https://tubitv.com/tv-shows/502879/s...rip?start=true

I'm sure you do know that during that time, a time of jim crow, US sponsored wars & coup d'états etc etc life was not all that great for all Americans & others

[Bill]

Like Trump?

[Bill]

That cartoon helps illustrate the problem of an influx of foreigners who don't share our values.

We make allowances for them and then the exceptions we make for them become expected to apply to everyone.

In a homogenous society, everyone more or less agrees to the same set of ethics and morality.

When was this country or North America a homogenous society??