As you know, the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Womens’ Health Organization reversed the infamous Roe v. Wade and triggered widespread protests and some murder threats. By contrast, there were no major protests when the nine Supreme Court Justices unanimously decided Shurtleff v. City of Boston for Shurtleff. However important the Dobbs verdict is to anyone, Shurtleff restored the right of every American to practice and express their religious beliefs, as is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The downstream fallout from this is huge as was outlined by the Liberty Counsel and stated in PJMedia. Government shall not discriminate against religious viewpoints whether expressed in speech, symbols, displays, or performances. Public schools must permit after school religious student clubs the same access they allow similar secular clubs. Churches can rent public schools for worship services. Since the “Lemon Test” is dead and the Establishment Clause must be interpreted according to its historical intent, all the cases that relied on the Lemon test are no longer good law, including cases that struck down prayer, Ten Commandments, Nativity displays or other religious symbols, religious performances, religious speech and expression, rental of public school facilities for church services when other secular use is permitted, student aid programs, and much more.
It’s a shame that recognized individual rights have to CONSTANTLY be defended by the SCOTUS against people apparently dead set on destroying their own liberty. People need to read the constitution daily apparently because they seem to have no idea what it says. We are our own worst enemy. It’s too bad we have not yet been invaded and dominated by superior alien beings since we are so obviously incapable of behaving ourselves.
I know Hal Shurtleff personally. He used to come up here to Maine at least once a month, or more often, for several years; still does sometimes, but not as often. Our nephew attended his Constitution Camp a couple of years in a row.
Yep. A shooting board I frequent had this post by a member when discussing such issues. “Originally Posted by alucard0822 Big difference between "will use violence to impose my political beliefs on others" and "will use violence to defend myself from those imposing their political beliefs on me". The former is the main ingredient of genocide, the latter is the only thing that has ever prevented it.”
People are spoiled to the point that they would trade our freedoms for their convenience: -"If you've done nothing wrong, then why do you care if they...." -"Why worry so much about your privacy when they can easily find out anything they want..." I cannot tell you how many times I have been on the receiving end of those exact comments, said in a snarky dismissive tone as though I refuse to give up my horse and buggy for an internal combustion engine (soon to become ICE for Electric.) And sometimes it's those of our generation saying them. One reason they want us crammed together into cities is that is where individuals must get absorbed into The Collective for everyone's "harmony." Densely population areas are where freedom is slaughtered for security. Individualism is most under attack in densely populated cities (if it still exists there in the first place) by "tolerant" people. Propaganda's thumb on the scale has made being part of The Collective the only acceptable state of being. And most people shall always have that inclination to be part of a tribe, while the rest of us are men without islands. Freedom has been passed down as generational wealth rather than a living thing that will die if not properly cared for. Anyone who thinks for themselves is not a leader...we are an uncomfortable reminder to those who have lost the will or the skills to do likewise (if they ever had those skills in the first place.) Free people are becoming a frightening offense to the masses. We are "the problem." Regarding being invaded and dominated by superior alien beings...I think we already have been, minus the "superior" part.
People in cities are entirely dependent on the system for survival. For those who live outside the cities, some states and other political entities have enacted laws and regulations banning or discouraging collecting rainwater, wood heating and cooking stoves, and even growing crops, saving seeds, and so on. In some areas, water wells have to be registered and metered, and so on and so on, all intended to discourage self-sufficiency and to keep tabs on those who seek it.