All I tried to do was show to the original poster that Christians get discriminated against, and that some people either ignore the first amendment or they interpret it so that it changes meaning. It happens to just about everyone, not just non-Christians, etc. In the case of the clueless school officials, they are following some political correctness law that they agree with at the public school that some liberals follow in that they find the bible offensive because it is not politically correct in their opinion, and is "garbage" instead as the girl was written up for reading "garbage" that violates the first amendment, and it had the vice principle's name on it. But he claimed he wasn't there, so either someone rubber stamped his name on the paper that wrote the girl up, or someone forged his name, or he was there but got an alibi from a friend or co-worker that he wasn't there at school to avoid being sued. I am not sure which, but the case wouldn't even make it to trial if there wasn't a paper that the girl was written up on. I thought the article explained that paper, and it is standard procedure to write such an offense on a permanent record in public schools anyway.
All 9/11 terrorists used real IDs and Saudi Arabian passports to get on flights. One of them was even pulled over for speeding before he got to the airport and he gave the cop a real driver's license.
All of them passed background checks during 1994 when they entered the USA via Diplomatic Visas issued to Saudi Arabia by the Clinton Administration.
Supposedly they broke no laws, until September 11, 2001. So how exactly are we supposed to catch terrorists who have real IDs, real passports and don't break any laws until the day they commit an act of terrorism?
The only way I can figure is to trace the money from the terrorist network and see what accounts they are wired into. Al Qeada supposedly pays terrorists $2000 to $3000 a month as part of a salary and even includes holidays and sick days. So we look at the bank accounts used to pay the 9/11 hijackers and follow the money and see who else those accounts are paying. That should be enough evidence to get a court order to search their house for plans.
Another way is to use International law to get those bank accounts frozen because they fund terrorism. Then sue the holders of those accounts because they paid people to commit crimes.
Should work a lot better than just checking IDs at an airport. But then what do I know?
I see, so if Christians are discriminated against, it does not count because Christians held the White House and they deserve to be discriminated against?
If you cannot find anything beyond the initial filing, the case must be false and thrown out. Also if several eye witnesses placed the Vice Principle at the school, but he claims he wasn't there, the case should be thrown out as well. Even if the child was written up and the lawyer showed the papers in court for having a bible as an offense. Then the money for the civil suit ran out and the case had to be dropped.
Also you are trying to say that while you disagree with the school officials, you also say that the first amendment doesn't apply to them, and that they were following some political correctness law instead. Isn't that what I had originally said? The school officials see the politically correct law as having rewritten the US constitution because they claimed reading a bible at school violates the US constitution and the first amendment. They swore in court, that they were just upholding the first amendment.
People usually don't own guns, until something bad happens to them or their family and friends.
For example, a criminal killing someone's parents just so the criminal can get money to get stoned, would cause that child to grow up and own a gun so he won't be murdered for drug money when he is grown up.
Most of the school shooters are children or teenagers that have been bullied, harassed, raped, tortured, beaten up, or called names by others. 9 times out of ten the people who did that to him or her are Modern Liberals. Yet most children who were bullied that way, do not go on shooting rampages. Many grow up with mental illnesses or are unable to function and try to hold jobs, but get discriminated against and 9 times out of 10 they are discriminated against by Modern Liberals.
I myself do not use violence to solve problems. I used to be a Modern Liberal, but I was the one that didn't bully or harass others. I was often the victim of such things. I worked as a federal contractor for the Clinton administration, and I worked for a law firm that supports and helps the Democratic party of America. Until I learned the truth about what they had planned in 1999 for the 21st century. I learned about a new holocaust and a lot of the scams they are trying to pull off using hoaxes and taking control of the media and news groups and Internet blogs and forums. I had proof but I was poisoned and got too sick to work, and fired for being disabled, and my files were kept and I wasn't given access to them when I was escorted out of the building. I had documents that would have proved such things. But they were stolen. My life and my friends and family's life were threatened as well if I told.
It is easy to fight with a gun, but I fight with words. I fight peacefully, and even if what I say is unpopular and the majority don't agree with it, at one time in US history the majority believed in slavery and it was popular as well, and those who spoke out against slavery were unpopular and in the minority. These are the same sort of times.
I fight for freedom, I fight for liberty, I fight to prevent the next holocaust in the name of global warming. There is no need for guns if we can innovate new technology to use renewable energy like hydrogen, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.
How about we get rid of the hate first? Try to solve problems by peaceful means first? Work as a team even if we are all different.
United States instead of Divided States or Polarized States?
I'm just tired of seeing my friends and family killed off one by one by Modern Liberals. They've tried to kill me countless times or force me to commit suicide. Just because I am different in some way.
Dr. Spock used to talk out against spankings, but later reversed his opinion. That is why liberals usually see spankings as the same as giving a child a broken nose. Which is why we parents use time-outs as a new form of spanking. But then liberals claim that time-outs are child abuse as well now.
Bullying and discrimination is never justified, and just because someone else does it doesn't mean it gives the right to anyone to do the same thing to others.
It wasn't you jabbing at me anyway, I just posted a factual comment, and then later provided a citation, you are one of the few that gave me a fair deal. When I talked about discrimination and bullying towards me, it was others who did that in another part of this thread, because my comment was "unpopular" to them and obviously someone in the same group as me must have bullied or discriminated against them in the past, so they saw me as a token stereotype and bullied and discriminated against me and accused me of making up stuff. But I never bullied or discriminated against those who bullied and discriminated against me in other parts of this thread.
Part of my disability makes it hard for me to communicate sometimes, and I get bullied against for that. I think I forgot to give a citation, due to my lack of communication due to my disability and the fact that it is late at night here and I need to sleep but cannot. Having a stoke can do that, and I get discriminated against in real life for being unable to smile and looking like I might have a heart attack. I cannot get life insurance, nor can I get a job either due to my disability. Even with the Americans with Disability Act, neither the ACLU nor any other civil rights group wants to help me out. So I was forced on disability. Now that I am on disability I get discriminated against for that and people on the Internet tell me to kill myself, etc.
Believe me, even if you did a jab at me, it is not as bad as the jabs I have taken in real life or other parts of the Internet. I agree, both sides have the problem and have issues to work out. Equal rights are for everyone, not just select groups, the way civil rights are written majorities and minorities are equally protected under civil law. Nobody should get a free pass, and nobody should bully or discriminate one group because a member of that group bullied or discriminated against them in the past. We need to break that cycle if there is any hope for the future.
I merely responded to a comment on bullying that said the first amendment allows religious people to bully non-religious people, and I replied with a current event about Christian children not being allowed to read bibles in public schools to show that religious people get bullied and discriminated against as well. Some like you asked for citations, which I was glad to give, but others attacked me and claimed it does not happen and that I was making it all up, which in itself is a form of bullying.
I really don't like seeing anyone discriminated against or bullied, I've been discriminated against my entire life and bullied my entire life, just for being different in some way. Be that I am a geek or nerd, or a Christian, or disabled, or poor, or white, or a moderate, or based on my choice of computer or OS, or just because I am Orion Blastar and the very name makes people hate me because they don't like the way it sounds or that they spell Blastar as Blaster and call me an idiot for spelling it Blastar (Which is Galanglic for Mighty Warrior and I get discriminated against for having a Foreign name).
If you know me personally, you'll know that I don't make these things up.
These types of things happen, but the main news sources and TV shows bury the story because Christians are a majority and the public does not want to read or hear about Christians or Mormons or even Jewish people discriminated against in public schools. Also note that the ACLU does not defend these religious Children either, and sometimes they have to drop the law suit because they cannot afford it to keep it going.
I've tried to cite them in Wikipedia or Digg or Reddit, but they get reverted or buried, because a majority think that the religious children deserve to be discriminated against like their teachers do. Yes I try to find neutral sources on them that are verified and reliable.
I believe in equality and everyone should have the rights and freedom to choose their own religion and have free speech no matter what religion or lack thereof. But I find that some people do not, and sometimes those people are in a position of authority that they abuse towards those they do not like.
"Yes, he gave his child a time out in the corner for 15 minutes, and all the child did was destroy his CD collection with a hammer. That child suffered serious emotional and psychological distress and had his creative urges silenced and he should be allowed to smash anything he wants with a hammer and not be punished for that. That child could be the next Andy Warhol. Take the child away and put the father in jail for 4 years on charges of child abuse."
Time-outs are like spanking without the violence or physical hurt. That is what I was talking about, and you mentioned was child beatings.
I think that parents should use Love and Logic and give time-outs and empathy. You over reacted like the Liberal in the story and claimed it was the same as child beatings. Do I look and sound like Maddox to you?
I didn't become a cop, because I felt I was a computer geek and chose a career in computer science instead of criminology.
I'm just lucky I didn't turn into Batman, which would be impossible as when my parents were killed by a criminal in an alley they weren't rich enough to leave me billions in inheritance as well as a British Butler to raise me, and allow me to master many martial arts and gadget makings. Instead I turned into Orion Blastar, Space Pirate Ninja from 4096AD who is poor and on disability currently.
So time-outs in the corner are child beating by your opinion? Is that why your parents never disciplined you and you turned into an illresponsible adult that thinks that giving a child a time-out in the corner is the same thing as a child beating?
Kind of funny, because it can be interpreted one way or the other, and I think it proves the loopholes that exist in our constitution that allow just about anything or outlaw just about anything as well. That rewritten phrase can support Modern Liberals or Neocons in their way of thinking because of the disambiguation in it.
It was written to show that Christianity is outlawed, and a Modern Liberal would interpret it that way, but a Neocon would interpret it so that only Christianity is allowed. It is too ironic to be funny, but the irony gave me cancer, and the only way to cure it is to laugh.
Hhmmmm, maybe I should have become a cop instead of a computer geek? I'd make a great cop due to the high number of times I was bullied for being a computer geek or nerd? I've also been cyberbullied over the Internet like a million times. Kuro5hin for example, found new creative ways to tell me to kill myself.
No thanks, I already killed myself over the Internet twice.
Heaven didn't want me, Hell was too afraid I'd take over, so they sent me to Disney Land instead. I woke up on the Small World ride, and exited the park and went back home three days later.
If they like you and you are a member of a group of people that they like, they let you off with a warning. If you are not, like a right-winger, moderate, libertarian, white person, conservative, Christian, Mormon, older adult, person with a disability, or some other group they hate you will be arrested without a trial, put into a reeducation camp, and processed, until they pass an euthanasia law and then they will be happy to assist you into suicide even if you don't want to die. After that, they will start rounding up those groups of people to kill off 1/3rd of the planet to fight global warming, because we aren't real human beings or even rational to them.
Actually most people tend to ignore the first amendment.
It was intended to protect people for the expression of religion and freedom of speech, but Modern Liberals have limited it due to political correctness laws and interpreting the separation of church and state to not just be limited to a church, but the expression of any religion that they hate so they have a right to censor it and remove it from the public and sue people over it. So much that it made Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave so much that he became an insomniac and asked to be moved to a free country where they allow the freedom of expression and religion without taking it away from selected groups.
For example a public school student cannot read a bible at recess, but they can read a Koran or a book on Secular Humanism. They cannot wear a cross or a chastity ring, but they can wear a star of David or a crescent or pentagram, or even a scarf or burka or anything they want as long as it isn't from a certain religion that is outlawed.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That is what it originally said, but now it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of an undesired religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof from an undesired religion; or abridging the freedom of speech of people they don't like, or of the press unless it is not a liberal press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless they don't want them to, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances as long as they are a left-winger, atheist, agnostic, or from a desired religion and not some religious nut like a Christian or Mormon, who aren't real human beings or rational anyway."
Sorry but Modern Liberals have outlawed responsibility and just tell parents to let their children do whatever they want, never spank them or correct them, or else be accused of child abuse and have social services take the child away.
"Yes, he gave his child a time out in the corner for 15 minutes, and all the child did was destroy his CD collection with a hammer. That child suffered serious emotional and psychological distress and had his creative urges silenced and he should be allowed to smash anything he wants with a hammer and not be punished for that. That child could be the next Andy Warhol. Take the child away and put the father in jail for 4 years on charges of child abuse."
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps we misunderstand each other.
All I tried to do was show to the original poster that Christians get discriminated against, and that some people either ignore the first amendment or they interpret it so that it changes meaning. It happens to just about everyone, not just non-Christians, etc. In the case of the clueless school officials, they are following some political correctness law that they agree with at the public school that some liberals follow in that they find the bible offensive because it is not politically correct in their opinion, and is "garbage" instead as the girl was written up for reading "garbage" that violates the first amendment, and it had the vice principle's name on it. But he claimed he wasn't there, so either someone rubber stamped his name on the paper that wrote the girl up, or someone forged his name, or he was there but got an alibi from a friend or co-worker that he wasn't there at school to avoid being sued. I am not sure which, but the case wouldn't even make it to trial if there wasn't a paper that the girl was written up on. I thought the article explained that paper, and it is standard procedure to write such an offense on a permanent record in public schools anyway.
All 9/11 terrorists used real IDs and Saudi Arabian passports to get on flights. One of them was even pulled over for speeding before he got to the airport and he gave the cop a real driver's license.
All of them passed background checks during 1994 when they entered the USA via Diplomatic Visas issued to Saudi Arabia by the Clinton Administration.
Supposedly they broke no laws, until September 11, 2001. So how exactly are we supposed to catch terrorists who have real IDs, real passports and don't break any laws until the day they commit an act of terrorism?
The only way I can figure is to trace the money from the terrorist network and see what accounts they are wired into. Al Qeada supposedly pays terrorists $2000 to $3000 a month as part of a salary and even includes holidays and sick days. So we look at the bank accounts used to pay the 9/11 hijackers and follow the money and see who else those accounts are paying. That should be enough evidence to get a court order to search their house for plans.
Another way is to use International law to get those bank accounts frozen because they fund terrorism. Then sue the holders of those accounts because they paid people to commit crimes.
Should work a lot better than just checking IDs at an airport. But then what do I know?
I see, so if Christians are discriminated against, it does not count because Christians held the White House and they deserve to be discriminated against?
If you cannot find anything beyond the initial filing, the case must be false and thrown out. Also if several eye witnesses placed the Vice Principle at the school, but he claims he wasn't there, the case should be thrown out as well. Even if the child was written up and the lawyer showed the papers in court for having a bible as an offense. Then the money for the civil suit ran out and the case had to be dropped.
Also you are trying to say that while you disagree with the school officials, you also say that the first amendment doesn't apply to them, and that they were following some political correctness law instead. Isn't that what I had originally said? The school officials see the politically correct law as having rewritten the US constitution because they claimed reading a bible at school violates the US constitution and the first amendment. They swore in court, that they were just upholding the first amendment.
People usually don't own guns, until something bad happens to them or their family and friends.
For example, a criminal killing someone's parents just so the criminal can get money to get stoned, would cause that child to grow up and own a gun so he won't be murdered for drug money when he is grown up.
Most of the school shooters are children or teenagers that have been bullied, harassed, raped, tortured, beaten up, or called names by others. 9 times out of ten the people who did that to him or her are Modern Liberals. Yet most children who were bullied that way, do not go on shooting rampages. Many grow up with mental illnesses or are unable to function and try to hold jobs, but get discriminated against and 9 times out of 10 they are discriminated against by Modern Liberals.
I myself do not use violence to solve problems. I used to be a Modern Liberal, but I was the one that didn't bully or harass others. I was often the victim of such things. I worked as a federal contractor for the Clinton administration, and I worked for a law firm that supports and helps the Democratic party of America. Until I learned the truth about what they had planned in 1999 for the 21st century. I learned about a new holocaust and a lot of the scams they are trying to pull off using hoaxes and taking control of the media and news groups and Internet blogs and forums. I had proof but I was poisoned and got too sick to work, and fired for being disabled, and my files were kept and I wasn't given access to them when I was escorted out of the building. I had documents that would have proved such things. But they were stolen. My life and my friends and family's life were threatened as well if I told.
It is easy to fight with a gun, but I fight with words. I fight peacefully, and even if what I say is unpopular and the majority don't agree with it, at one time in US history the majority believed in slavery and it was popular as well, and those who spoke out against slavery were unpopular and in the minority. These are the same sort of times.
I fight for freedom, I fight for liberty, I fight to prevent the next holocaust in the name of global warming. There is no need for guns if we can innovate new technology to use renewable energy like hydrogen, wind, solar, geothermal, etc.
How about we get rid of the hate first? Try to solve problems by peaceful means first? Work as a team even if we are all different.
United States instead of Divided States or Polarized States?
I'm just tired of seeing my friends and family killed off one by one by Modern Liberals. They've tried to kill me countless times or force me to commit suicide. Just because I am different in some way.
Oh oh, fart!
Jeopardy is on in 11 minutes.
Kmart, Kmart, I only get underwear from Kmart, This is Hanes briefs, size 32.
You threw your briefs on the highway!
Dr. Spock used to talk out against spankings, but later reversed his opinion. That is why liberals usually see spankings as the same as giving a child a broken nose. Which is why we parents use time-outs as a new form of spanking. But then liberals claim that time-outs are child abuse as well now.
Then you will like Love and Logic because it is not violent and does not physically harm the child.
Which is why time-outs are a new form of spanking. They are non-violent and not harmful to the child.
Of course some Liberals claim that even time-outs are child abuse.
So some of us parents use Love and Logic and use time-outs and empathy and other things that do not harm the child.
It is really painful, I don't want to talk about it any more.
Bullying and discrimination is never justified, and just because someone else does it doesn't mean it gives the right to anyone to do the same thing to others.
It wasn't you jabbing at me anyway, I just posted a factual comment, and then later provided a citation, you are one of the few that gave me a fair deal. When I talked about discrimination and bullying towards me, it was others who did that in another part of this thread, because my comment was "unpopular" to them and obviously someone in the same group as me must have bullied or discriminated against them in the past, so they saw me as a token stereotype and bullied and discriminated against me and accused me of making up stuff. But I never bullied or discriminated against those who bullied and discriminated against me in other parts of this thread.
Part of my disability makes it hard for me to communicate sometimes, and I get bullied against for that. I think I forgot to give a citation, due to my lack of communication due to my disability and the fact that it is late at night here and I need to sleep but cannot. Having a stoke can do that, and I get discriminated against in real life for being unable to smile and looking like I might have a heart attack. I cannot get life insurance, nor can I get a job either due to my disability. Even with the Americans with Disability Act, neither the ACLU nor any other civil rights group wants to help me out. So I was forced on disability. Now that I am on disability I get discriminated against for that and people on the Internet tell me to kill myself, etc.
Believe me, even if you did a jab at me, it is not as bad as the jabs I have taken in real life or other parts of the Internet. I agree, both sides have the problem and have issues to work out. Equal rights are for everyone, not just select groups, the way civil rights are written majorities and minorities are equally protected under civil law. Nobody should get a free pass, and nobody should bully or discriminate one group because a member of that group bullied or discriminated against them in the past. We need to break that cycle if there is any hope for the future.
I never claimed bigotry doesn't go both ways.
I merely responded to a comment on bullying that said the first amendment allows religious people to bully non-religious people, and I replied with a current event about Christian children not being allowed to read bibles in public schools to show that religious people get bullied and discriminated against as well. Some like you asked for citations, which I was glad to give, but others attacked me and claimed it does not happen and that I was making it all up, which in itself is a form of bullying.
I really don't like seeing anyone discriminated against or bullied, I've been discriminated against my entire life and bullied my entire life, just for being different in some way. Be that I am a geek or nerd, or a Christian, or disabled, or poor, or white, or a moderate, or based on my choice of computer or OS, or just because I am Orion Blastar and the very name makes people hate me because they don't like the way it sounds or that they spell Blastar as Blaster and call me an idiot for spelling it Blastar (Which is Galanglic for Mighty Warrior and I get discriminated against for having a Foreign name).
Read my comment here to see the links that you ignored.
Girl told she cannot read bible at school
Houston we have a problem, students want to read bibles at recess
How about that crow you just ate? Was it tasty?
If you know me personally, you'll know that I don't make these things up.
These types of things happen, but the main news sources and TV shows bury the story because Christians are a majority and the public does not want to read or hear about Christians or Mormons or even Jewish people discriminated against in public schools. Also note that the ACLU does not defend these religious Children either, and sometimes they have to drop the law suit because they cannot afford it to keep it going.
I've tried to cite them in Wikipedia or Digg or Reddit, but they get reverted or buried, because a majority think that the religious children deserve to be discriminated against like their teachers do. Yes I try to find neutral sources on them that are verified and reliable.
I believe in equality and everyone should have the rights and freedom to choose their own religion and have free speech no matter what religion or lack thereof. But I find that some people do not, and sometimes those people are in a position of authority that they abuse towards those they do not like.
Maybe because I mentioned them in this quote
"Yes, he gave his child a time out in the corner for 15 minutes, and all the child did was destroy his CD collection with a hammer. That child suffered serious emotional and psychological distress and had his creative urges silenced and he should be allowed to smash anything he wants with a hammer and not be punished for that. That child could be the next Andy Warhol. Take the child away and put the father in jail for 4 years on charges of child abuse."
Time-outs are like spanking without the violence or physical hurt. That is what I was talking about, and you mentioned was child beatings.
I think that parents should use Love and Logic and give time-outs and empathy. You over reacted like the Liberal in the story and claimed it was the same as child beatings. Do I look and sound like Maddox to you?
It can happen in Texas as it already happened
Google is your friend:
Girl told she cannot read bible at school
Houston we have a problem, students want to read bibles at recess
Don't expect the main stream media to print these stories or lawsuits. Digg and Reddit reject them as well.
I didn't become a cop, because I felt I was a computer geek and chose a career in computer science instead of criminology.
I'm just lucky I didn't turn into Batman, which would be impossible as when my parents were killed by a criminal in an alley they weren't rich enough to leave me billions in inheritance as well as a British Butler to raise me, and allow me to master many martial arts and gadget makings. Instead I turned into Orion Blastar, Space Pirate Ninja from 4096AD who is poor and on disability currently.
So time-outs in the corner are child beating by your opinion? Is that why your parents never disciplined you and you turned into an illresponsible adult that thinks that giving a child a time-out in the corner is the same thing as a child beating?
Kind of funny, because it can be interpreted one way or the other, and I think it proves the loopholes that exist in our constitution that allow just about anything or outlaw just about anything as well. That rewritten phrase can support Modern Liberals or Neocons in their way of thinking because of the disambiguation in it.
It was written to show that Christianity is outlawed, and a Modern Liberal would interpret it that way, but a Neocon would interpret it so that only Christianity is allowed. It is too ironic to be funny, but the irony gave me cancer, and the only way to cure it is to laugh.
Hhmmmm, maybe I should have become a cop instead of a computer geek? I'd make a great cop due to the high number of times I was bullied for being a computer geek or nerd? I've also been cyberbullied over the Internet like a million times. Kuro5hin for example, found new creative ways to tell me to kill myself.
No thanks, I already killed myself over the Internet twice.
Heaven didn't want me, Hell was too afraid I'd take over, so they sent me to Disney Land instead. I woke up on the Small World ride, and exited the park and went back home three days later.
If they like you and you are a member of a group of people that they like, they let you off with a warning. If you are not, like a right-winger, moderate, libertarian, white person, conservative, Christian, Mormon, older adult, person with a disability, or some other group they hate you will be arrested without a trial, put into a reeducation camp, and processed, until they pass an euthanasia law and then they will be happy to assist you into suicide even if you don't want to die. After that, they will start rounding up those groups of people to kill off 1/3rd of the planet to fight global warming, because we aren't real human beings or even rational to them.
Actually most people tend to ignore the first amendment.
It was intended to protect people for the expression of religion and freedom of speech, but Modern Liberals have limited it due to political correctness laws and interpreting the separation of church and state to not just be limited to a church, but the expression of any religion that they hate so they have a right to censor it and remove it from the public and sue people over it. So much that it made Thomas Jefferson roll over in his grave so much that he became an insomniac and asked to be moved to a free country where they allow the freedom of expression and religion without taking it away from selected groups.
For example a public school student cannot read a bible at recess, but they can read a Koran or a book on Secular Humanism. They cannot wear a cross or a chastity ring, but they can wear a star of David or a crescent or pentagram, or even a scarf or burka or anything they want as long as it isn't from a certain religion that is outlawed.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That is what it originally said, but now it says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of an undesired religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof from an undesired religion; or abridging the freedom of speech of people they don't like, or of the press unless it is not a liberal press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless they don't want them to, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances as long as they are a left-winger, atheist, agnostic, or from a desired religion and not some religious nut like a Christian or Mormon, who aren't real human beings or rational anyway."
Sorry but Modern Liberals have outlawed responsibility and just tell parents to let their children do whatever they want, never spank them or correct them, or else be accused of child abuse and have social services take the child away.
"Yes, he gave his child a time out in the corner for 15 minutes, and all the child did was destroy his CD collection with a hammer. That child suffered serious emotional and psychological distress and had his creative urges silenced and he should be allowed to smash anything he wants with a hammer and not be punished for that. That child could be the next Andy Warhol. Take the child away and put the father in jail for 4 years on charges of child abuse."