Guard dad
-
Content Count
19,047 -
Joined
-
Days Won
401
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Guard dad
-
-
For the people of the forum, you might wish to know more about the group Mystery represents, Americans United. Below is a link, I recommend that everyone do some deep reading into it and see what actions they have been taking. I also recommend that you take note of their politics. I post this with no opinion so you can read and draw your own conclusions.
-
And Mystery, while I'm waiting on you to answer my other question, I have another for you.
Why did you and the AU feel it necessary to take this out of the hands of the people who actually pay the taxes, and put it in your hands, possibly the hands of the courts, and (worst of all) the hands of the media? Is that not circumventing these very laws you are so sworn to protect?
Let's take the nativity and religion out of this altogether. Let's say the mayor took the $2000 and bought gift cards for several of his friends to thank them for voting for him. (I am not making that accusation about the mayor and am sure no such thing has happened) That would also be against the law. Now let's say the mayor does not agree with that and feels his friends and supporters deserve to be rewarded at your expense. Would you feel the same way?Backpedaling from the religious issue?
To answer your question; yes, but I would let the people who pay those taxes handle it instead of causing a media feeding frenzy WHICH WILL LIKELY COST THE CITY MANY TIMES WHAT THE NATIVITY SCENE DID.
-
If you knew me at all you would know that I do.
Since you've now thrust yourself into the spotlight, perhaps you should give us examples of your other crusades so we can see for ourselves.
-
Because it is against the law. I believe with all of my heart that we have to hold elected officials to the highest of standards when it comes to upholding the law. When they are allowed to skirt the laws then we become a society without law.
And I agree with your root message, but do you put forth the same effort every time an elected official skirts the law? Or only when it has something to do with religion?
-
Both
Thank you for your honest answer. I have more questions...
In your opposition to the spending of the money, do you raise an equally big ruckus over other government spending that could be considered excessive? If not, please tell this forum why that is. If so, I'd be interested in hearing the details of what spending measures you've opposed and what action you took.
As to your opposition to the display because they are religious items; are you also opposed to the military purchasing Bibles and employing chaplains? Are you opposed to churches having tax exempt status? Are you opposed to my tithes being tax deductible? All these things reduce tax revenues so they are of far greater consequence than the $2000 spent. So are you opposed to them too? If so, why? If not, please explain to this forum what the difference is between these items and the money spent on the nativity scene.
-
You are so wrong. It has nothing to do with the display itself . No one wants it removed. The complaint is that it was bought with tax money and that is wrong.
Because they are religious symbols or because you think it's a poor use of taxpayer dollars?
-
Twice when my daughter was little. As a baby learning to walk she ran into a table and busted her mouth. In elementary school she ran into a wall and busted her head open.
Luckily she's got my hard head.
-
this is about protecting your rights to worship as you choose.
How so?
-
Not really. We're actually not that far apart in our beliefs. I am still Baptist, but I like to think of myself as a reformed Baptist. I have seen (and regretfully been a part of) the Baptist church damaging people. This is why I have a problem with everyone thinking anything is okay as long as some pastor says it is being done "in God's name". I think government and church both have to be limited in their authority. There is really very little difference in the two.
I see the court as the body of government that can put an individual on equal ground with corporations and county, state and federal governments. When I see a legal document that says Joe Blow vs. The United States of America, I don't think of it as Joe Blow being overwhelmed; I see it as the USA being put on a level playing field with an individual.
As for the ACLU, while they can be irritating at times, I think they are a necessary evil. Everything needs checks and balances. Yes, even religion.
ETA: The courts and the ACLU are both tools in which the people use to hold governments responsible.
I agree that the courts and the ACLU are a tool for us to use, but they are often used far too quickly. The Dallas residents are the ones who should decide this, I doubt they'll ever get a chance to because the lawyers will come running and suits will be filed. And then even more of the taxpayers money will be spent.
I agree that many churches have done damage and some of their people have used religion to further their personal agendas. I attend a Baptist church but I don't support many of the things they do. My spiritual allegiance is to Jesus Christ, not any church in particular. The Bible even warns of false teachings by telling us that they must pass the muster of the scripture, unfortunately too many people accept mans word as gospel and believe things that are not of the Bible. That is my problem with Mystery's post about the ugly side of Christianity; it's not Christianity that's ugly, it's just a few of the people involved.
-
I see a slippery slope if we allow any government entity to collect taxes and use the funds to purchase whatever religious materials they see fit. How would you like to have to kneel and pray to Alla every time you went to the courthouse to conduct business?
I see all decorations as a waste of tax payers money. It's nice to see but it is just not a necessary function of government. But, as of today, the decorations are not illegal.
Holding the government responsible for the use of our tax dollars are the responsibility of the people, not the court or the ACLU.
No one is forced to kneel and pray to the nativity scene or anything else in this country, that is one of the wonderful things about it. However, it's nice to know that Christian and Muslim alike have the freedom to kneel and pray on the courthose steps if they so desire.
I bet you've itchin to get some of me all through this discussion, haven't you? 
-
Well, technically the Catholic Christians and the Pagans both have "claim" to Santa Claus in various forms. So, if it wanted to be pushed, it could already.
Slippery slope??? I see that on both sides of the argument.
Truthfully, I've said it before, I have NO PROBLEM with any of the secular decorations. Like on the light poles in Hiram. I like them. City Hall looks fantastic! As does all of the old towne Hiram area.
Also, I do not have issues in general with nativity scenes at all. I've seen some gorgeous ones through the years!
It's this overall situation, how it was handled, how it could have been handled differently, the issues it brings up about our country - politics - religion, it's about the divisions shown, and it's about the truly nastiness that comes about because of all of it.
It's been a long time since I've had as heavy of a Heart as I have tonight. I'm aching from packing like a mad woman getting ready for a major, exciting move for my family. Yet, I'm Heart-sick.... weary. And I'm angry too.
Yeah I can see where it was handled rather clumsily, there are ways to get things done without stepping on so many toes. Perhaps if nothing else, the mayor will get a lesson in "strateeegery" out of this.
Sorry you're felling down, hope something comes along to brighten your day.
-
No, actually putting a nativity scene in front of the largest church in the town you are mayor of would. The difference is
WELFARE IS LEGAL!
(This) is not!
Why is it so hard for everyone to remember that this is about breaking a law?
It sure doesn't appear that the mayor has done himself any favors by doing this.
And just to be clear, I'm not defending what the mayor did; only my belief that if the constitution was properly interpreted he would have the right to if the people supported him.
Frankly, I'm on the East side of Hiram so I rarely go to Dallas and haven't even seen the display.
I wonder.....if I start a church that worships Santa Claus, will Hiram be breaking the law because of that likeness of him dropping presents from the pole on Oak Street?
Does anyone see a slippery slope here?
-
I am blessed
God loves me
My wife loves me
I have a wonderful daughter who loves me
I have friends who love me
Nothing else really matters.
OK, I like the big screen and surround sound too.
-
A whole heck of a lot more money is spent on people who wont get off their arse and go to work. I'd rather pay for a nativity.
Yeah me too, but throwing money at these people who won't get off their butts buys the politicians more votes.
-
Guard dad:
I hope you didn't miss the part where I volunteered to contribute $200 to the Downtown Merchants Association if they mount an effort to buy the nativity scene. If they owned it and it is on private land, there would be no issue whatsoever with it being there under the Constitution. The issue is solely a matter of public vs. private ownership of the nativity scene. Private folks have full protection of the first amendment and can take sides, proclaim the miracle of Christ and celebrate his birth with glee. Government is specifically prohibited from doing that with tax dollars. Its a good rule and I'm all for it.
pubby
I did see that and I commend you for it. I see it that you are trying to find a solution to the issue instead of making it an even larger one which is what I wish everyone would do. Unfortunately, things like this become a feeding frenzy for those who stand to either profit from it or get attention by it.
However I still disagree that it's against the law for government to use tax dollars for anything religious. If it was the government couldn't purchase Bibles, the military couldn't pay chaplains, the mint couldn't produce legal tender that reads In God we Trust, government scholarships couldn't be paid to religious colleges; it just has to be done in a manner that doesn't establish a certain religion. By thinking this is illegal, we are actually limiting religious expression. Why should it be legal for the City of Dallas to spend money on a Harry Potter display (just to pull an example out of thin air), but not on one that depicts a Biblical event? See the double standard here? The 1st amendment was never intended to tell state and local governments that their citizens can't spend their tax dollars on whatever they want.
I think all women should be HAWT and should be required to play golf naked. I should make a Moose Course and have rules like that.I may take up golf again for that.
With my wifes permission of course.....
-
GuardDad,
According to many of the bible thumping evangelists, quite a few who are those leading the current Lynch Mob, Catholics are not Christians.
My children got hit with this often by some of their peers at school who would gang up on one of them, push them into the lockers, and yell at them how they were going to hell because "Catholics are not Christians".
On your legal questions, you are welcome to your opinion of some of the court rulings, but the bottom line is unless an attorney can find a whole new approach to fight it, the courts WILL rule the Christian Nativity Scene purchased by a government entity is unconstituional. And in the process, the city of Dallas will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars trying to defend themselves in a lawsuit they cannot win.
Does not matter if there is, or is not a law on the books specifically stating separation of church and state, the previous rulings are so numerous they don't have a Christmas snowball's chance in hell.
Yeah I have an in-law that thinks Catholics aren't saved Christians. For the record, I am an evangelical Baptist and I that attitude is crazy. Thought we have some doctrinal differences with Catholics, we agree on the things that are really important (Christ crucified) and I have no doubt that they can be Christian. As with all of us, only the individual and God himself know.
There have been some bad decisions by the courts. I don't recall offhand if any of them were in Georgia, but it will be interesting to see what happens if this does progress to that level. I think eventually the issue will end up in the SCOTUS and hopefully this perversion of the 1st amendment will end. As it is, the rulings you speak of are doing exactly what the part of the reasoning behind the 1st amendment was supposed to prevent, government limiting the free exercise of religion. I wish people would realize that the dangers of the court ruling this type of thing unconstitutional are much greater than the alternative.
The way this should be handled is by the people, if the residents of the City of Dallas have a problem with it they should hold the mayor responsible. Pubby posted one thing that I totally agree with, the only ones who win by taking this to court are the lawyers. Perhaps we should question the motives of those who make such an issue of nativity displays before we are so quick to jump on the bandwagon.
-
reduced intake of carbs not cut them out are you crazy I love my pasta, and fruit, too.. I just don't eat as much, as well as cut down on the amount of food I eat, as well as calories. I don't believe in the atkins diet.. I do have two southbeach diet cookbooks and do cook the 2nd and 3rd stage foods.. I do have a few 1st stage I really like too...
I cook from scratch this allows me to control fats, sodium as well as carbs.
I do try to do as much as I can during the day to burn off calories. I need to dedicate myself to the bowflex and ablounge as I cannot get up early enough to go walking without the kids and to wait when they go to bed is not good then I am up for several hours later.. Plus I take a b-12 supplement and a multivitamin for women
Sounds like a good plan. Cooking for yourself will help a bunch, most of the pre-packaged food and restaurant food we eat is loaded with fat, salt, and who knows what else that's not so good for us in high quantities.
Good luck to ya
-
not and pass inspection - entire house has to be complete.
I just completed a charity job much like what CC is working on with Miss Jesse. The homeowner pulled the permit and they take on the responsiblity for the work. The work just has to be completed up to code and pass inspection.
Yes, Ms. Jesse could possibly pull her own permit. Whether or not the county would cooperate with that given the circumstances, I don't know. She would actually have to go down there, fill out the paperwork, possibly submit a plan for review, and pay the fee. You're correct that all work must still be done to code.
-
Just so we are clear - you do not have to be licensed electrician to pull a permit, install an electrical system up to code, and have the system pass required inspections. The permit will be in the $30 range.
I do agree that this job will probably entail more than replacing a panel.
It is really sad to know that people live under these conditions everyday. Please support CC in his attempt to help this woman.
You DO have to be a licensed electrician unless you're doing the work in your own home. The only exception would be a licensed HVAC contractor who is allowed to install the electrical to go to the heating and air-conditioning system.
Check with the county to confirm this.
-
Goo enough folks, but may I recommend that you at least verify the electricians license and require a certificate of workers comp and general liability insurance. You can verify his license at the link below.
-
OR Mine!
That is why we met a LICENSED ELECTRICIAN as the original post states.
I have had only 1 person call me with concerns.
I make the same offer to you. Instead of typing you are more than welcome to call or stop by
and we will go over to MS Jessie's House.
A clarification; my state license does permit electrical work when associated to what I do and because of that I am required to be knowledgeable of the code. The existing house wiring is almost certainly NOT grounded, if not the panel should not be replaced unless the wiring is upgraded too and that can't be done for $1000 unless the electrician is donating his labor. If he is, I applaud the man for his generosity.
I made my original post in trying to be helpful by sharing my knowledge of this, and I am surprised by the tone of your response when my intent was honorable. I wish you well in your mission and thank you for your desire to help a person in need.
-
I am confident that every penny of everybody's money will be spent on Miss Jessie in whatever way is possible to keep her safe and warm.
I'm not doubting that, I just got the impression that no one realized how big of an undertaking this will be. This is one of those things where you can't safely just change the panel, most everything associated with it will also have to be upgraded.
-
Folks,
O'sfan makes a valid point. The pictures show that her current service is an old ungrounded fuse panel. An upgrade would require that most or all of the wring in her house would need to be replaced as well as the "drop" from the meter to the house. This would would be a significant undertaking and would require an inspection by the county before the power company would restore service.
There's only one way to do electrical, safely and to code.
I think it's wonderful that you all want to help, but in this case you need to be aware of what will be required. To change the panel, wiring, service; you're probably looking at $2000-$4000. That is only a guess since I have no idea of the size of her home, but something to give you an idea.
In case you wondered, I am a licensed contractor. Electrical is not my primary field, but I am required to know it for my field.
-
Guard dad,
I suggest you brush up on your constitutional law. The FACT that there are numerous legal precedents already in place, ruled on by judges over the past 125 years, all defending the separation of Church and State will be the issue at hand if this were to go to a Federal Courtroom. And the city would loose.
The mayor has chosed to decorate land the city is in the process of trying to purchase with a nativity scene purchased with tax payer dollars which just happens to be across the street from the Church he attends.
Why isn't the city doing other displays adjacent to the other Churches located in Dallas ? How about something across the street from the Methodist Church ?, or maybe in front of the Catholic Church [WHOOPS! they couldn't do that......too many of their bible toting constituents don't consider the Catholics to be Christian] ?
The issue at hand here is it is wrong, and against the law, for a government entity such as the city to decide to do a Christian theme decoration such as this. For right now it is a Christmas nativity scene.....will it be a bible park with a crucifix next summer ?
The fact so many of our politicians are choosing to grandstand politically for future votes, by using tax payer dollars to purchase religous icons while wearing their religion on their sleeve is wrong. Spending government dollars on religous displays is against the law. Period.
And are you ready to spend more government dollars trying to defend this decision at some point in time in a courtroom ? And I say "trying" to defend the decision because the legal precedent is already in place to rule against the city.
I think the nativity scene is great. I like to see nativity scenes this time of the year and much prefer them to the secular decorations we have all over the commercial places. But the religous symbols need to be done privately, by Churches or citizens with private funds.
This is NOT about taking Christ out of Christmas, it is about taking the government out of the religous endorsement business.
You advise me to brush up on my law but you don't offer anything to prove me wrong. Yes, I am aware that there have been several bad lower court decisions due to misinterpretations of the law. That does not make it right nor does it insure that those decisions won't be overturned.
The city spending a few bucks on a nativity scene does not constitute making a law that establishes a respect for a particular religion.
Besides, the city's actions do not directly conflict with any part of the US Constitution and therefor falls under the "states rights" clause of Amendment 10
Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
BTW, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the US Constitution. Yes, I know that the term was used in the personal journals of some of the framers because of the oppression they went through in England, but the words did not make it to the final draft of the constitution nor were they added to the amendments. Something else that was in the framer's journals was the belief that black people were only 2/3rds of a human, thankfully that was killed off before they finalized the constitution too.
Also BTW, Methodists and Catholics are also Christian so the nativity scene would apply to them. Just thought I should clear that up.
Thank You Mayor Austin!
in Internet Cafe
Posted
I stand corrected. Still, the people have the right to see what Mystery and the AU stand for.