Quincy churches rally against Tilted Kilt pub - Resurrected

[Mael Coluim]

1.Today, 02:13 AM #101

Joe I
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts
Join Date
14th March 12
Location
Leland, NC U.S.A
Posts
317
I want to say, that I posted this thead because 1. kilts are mentioned in a news article, 2. I thought that it would interest the people here. Not to start any controversy. I do think that in a normal conversation, ppl will mention other things. I have been to sites where I have been cussed at, cut down for no reason other than ppl know that fingers cannot go though the web to throttle a person for their rudeness. X markers are not rude! Even when they dissagree they/we are polite.
Thank you.
Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. From the note books of Lazurus Long aka: Woodrow Wilson Smith

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.Today, 04:04 AM #102

robthehiker
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts
Join Date
15th October 07
Location
Oakville, Ontario
Posts
824
I don't see any trolling here. The thread evolved, touched other topics, and generally remained interesting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.Today, 04:49 AM #103

McClef
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts

Join Date
25th August 06
Location
South Wales UK
Posts
9,504
Originally Posted by Joe I
ppl will mention other things.
Yes they will and if it is only in passing that is normally fine. When we end up with pages of stuff on these other things then the original intent of the thread can be lost.

If the other things are proving a popular topic of discussion then surely it is better for a new thread that specifically covers them rather than taking over and artificially extending the natural lifespan of the original thread.

This does not happen very often but it gives us poor Mods a lot of work when it does.
Reverend Earl Trefor the Sublunary of Kesslington under Ox, Venerable Lord Trefor the Unhyphenated of Much Bottom, Sir Trefor the Corpulent of Leighton in the Bucket, Viscount Mcclef the Portable of Kirkby Overblow.

Cymru, Yr Alban, Iwerddon, Cernyw, Ynys Manau a Lydaw am byth! Yng Nghiltiau Ynghyd!
(Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall, Isle of Man and Brittany forever - united in the Kilts!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.Today, 04:58 AM #104

Deirachel
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts
Join Date
1st August 09
Location
Augusta, GA, USA
Posts
201
To go back to the original topic.


Originally Posted by Tobus
But, that's the beauty of the concept of States' Rights. Contrary to popular belief, the so-called "separation of church and state" only applies to our federal government. States (and their political subdivisions) were intended to have this autonomy. It is very rarely supported in the courts, but still...
Point of order:

Article VI, Paragraph 2


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Explained: If it's in the Constitution, it binds the States.

This is part of the ORIGINAL Constitution, and can't be stated to not be the intent of the Framers. Amendment I creates the Separation principle. It bound the states to the same principle as soon as it was ratified in 1791. States Rights only covers anything not covered by the Constitution, the US Code, and Ratified Treaties the US is party to per this Article.

Because of this, if the Tilted Kilt corporation does appeal to the courts, the most likely will win. I would suggest the city council to look into the results of the case involving the city of Augusta, GA and Xmart (an adult store). It cost my city/county a lot of money fighting a store on similar grounds to this city's fight with Tilted Kilt, with legal fees, court costs, and penalties the city had to pay. It would be easier to approve the business and let the local populace decide if the business stays open. If it doesn't make money, it will close.
Last edited by Deirachel; Today at 05:05 AM.
Death before Dishonor -- Nothing before Coffee

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.Today, 05:01 AM #105

Tobus
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts
Join Date
27th October 09
Location
Texas Hill Country
Posts
2,933
Yes they will and if it is only in passing that is normally fine. When we end up with pages of stuff on these other things then the original intent of the thread can be lost.
That's true, but so what? I could understand a desire to keep the original intent of the thread if it's in one of the kilt-specific forums and it's about a particular facet of kilt-wearing. Those threads are important for finding information later and helping others out, and I would agree that they should be kept on-topic for that reason.

But a random conversation in General Discussion? So what if it goes off topic? General Discussion forums are usually for general chit-chat. We are all adults here, and conversations will naturally flow. If it's not a topic that needs to be preserved for posterity and future use, the conversation remains civil, and the person who originated the thread doesn't care, why would we need someone directing the course of our conversation? That can be a bit insulting.
Last edited by Tobus; Today at 05:06 AM.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.Today, 05:28 AM #106

Father Bill
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts
Join Date
7th February 11
Location
The Highlands of Southwestern Ontario, Canada
Posts
2,410
Gee! It seems that this thread has been largely hi-jacked by a discussion of thread hi-jacking! Interesting, that! ;)
Rev'd Father Bill White
Priest, lover of God and people, theologian, student, teacher, philosopher, dreamer, humourist, encourager of hearts and souls and a firm believer in the value of dignity, decency, and duty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.Today, 05:34 AM #107
Frank McGrath
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts
Join Date
31st December 05
Posts
1,714
Wow!!!!!The whole thread is a colossal waste of time and energy. Aren't there more important things to discuss?
Still, out, standing in my field.
Never do anything that you would not want to explain to the paramedics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.Today, 05:42 AM #108

Thomas H
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts
Join Date
1st August 11
Location
Villa Rica Georgia
Posts
639
Originally Posted by Frank McGrath
Wow!!!!!The whole thread is a colossal waste of time and energy. Aren't there more important things to discuss?
+!
Mean what you say and say what you mean

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9.Today, 05:43 AM #109

McClef
◦ View Profile
◦ View Forum Posts

Join Date
25th August 06
Location
South Wales UK
Posts
9,504
Certainly the last thing we poor Mods want to do is direct a course of conversation. We expect the Rules to do most of that.

But we are on the receiving end of the Rule #12 complaints that flow in and have to deal with each complaint.

That's why this thread has undergone what it has and continues to do.

Miscellaneous is not the same as a "General Discussion" - it still carries specific threads whose titles would end up as nonsensical over time if they became a free for all.

[Thomas H]

This is so Sad , Resurrected ? This is one that should stay dead ::dead::

Before some one get's mad - I mean really after all the trouble , Why ?

[Tobus]

Yesterday, before the thread vanished, I had replied to the legal issues. I'm not at all interested in resurrecting the debate on the Tilted Kilt issue, but did want to re-address the historical perspective and legal precedent for the sake of closure, in reply to the following from Deirachel:

Point of order:

Article VI, Paragraph 2


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Explained: If it's in the Constitution, it binds the States.

This is part of the ORIGINAL Constitution, and can't be stated to not be the intent of the Framers. Amendment I creates the Separation principle. It bound the states to the same principle as soon as it was ratified in 1791. States Rights only covers anything not covered by the Constitution, the US Code, and Ratified Treaties the US is party to per this Article.

That is indeed part of the original Constitution, but you are applying an interpretation to it that did not exist until the 1940s. In fact, one of the early Supreme Court rulings that addressed this was Barron v. Baltimore (1833). The ruling specifically stated that States are not held to the limitations of the Bill of Rights unless the wording of the BoR was specific to the States. If you look closely, the 1st Amendment specifically refers to "Congress" not having the power to establish religion. It says nothing of the States. And the Barron v. Baltimore ruling established the legal precedent that, in fact, the States would have had the power to do exactly that. Unless the BoR was worded to limit States, its restrictions only applied to the federal government. It was not until Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that the so-called "separation clause" of the 1st Amendment (or any other limitation in the Bill of Rights) was applied to the States.

In other words, it wasn't until almost 160 years after the ratification of the Constitution that the States were limited in the same manner as the federal government.

If we delve further into the intent of the Founding Fathers, it is clear in the debates during the writing of the 1st Amendment that they only intended it to apply the federal government, and wanted the States to be free to choose for themselves. Jefferson, in his second inaugural address, acknowledged this. There is a pretty good synopsis of the entire issue here, describing the history and legal points of the 1st Amendment in early America.

In summary, I stand by my previous comment that the concept of States' Rights was originally intended to allow local authorities to determine policy based on religion. It is only through a couple of centuries worth of re- and mis-interpretation that this has changed.

*Note: this post is intended to be in keeping with Rule #5, as it has been kept strictly to the historical/factual/legal side, as per the following: "Posts which quote historical facts or historical events are acceptable. Discussions of the rightness or wrongness of, espousing one over another, perceptions of, or personal belief in, a religion or political system are not acceptable."

[Pipersson]

Wow! Praise the resurrection!

[Mael Coluim]

This is so Sad , Resurrected ? This is one that should stay dead ::dead::

Before some one get's mad - I mean really after all the trouble , Why ?

Why?

Because we the moderators follow our Philosophy and Rules in deciding to remove threads/posts from the public part of the Forum. When threads/posts are taken off the Forum by the moderators they are sent to Archives where only the moderators have access to them.

The moderators don’t evaluate the worthiness of any thread/post. Yes, at times because we are human we may complain and moan in what gets posted. But, we evaluate reported threads/posts to our Philosophy and Rules, only. That evaluation determines our action.

I thought I was safe in deleting my post placed in the wrong thread. It was only there for 10 seconds.

Lesson learned and not to be repeated.

Mael, XMTS Moderator

[Thomas H]

Why?

Because we the moderators follow our Philosophy and Rules in deciding to remove threads/posts from the public part of the Forum. When threads/posts are taken off the Forum by the moderators they are sent to Archives where only the moderators have access to them.

The moderators don’t evaluate the worthiness of any thread/post. Yes, at times because we are human we may complain and moan in what gets posted. But, we evaluate reported threads/posts to our Philosophy and Rules, only. That evaluation determines our action.

I thought I was safe in deleting my post placed in the wrong thread. It was only there for 10 seconds.

Lesson learned and not to be repeated.

Mael, XMTS Moderator

Ohh , I was under the inpression I could say that ? Oh wait maybe I should of said , I am so glad that this post is back , cant wait to make fun of religion again , woo hoo yea , Lets talk about them pretty girls in very short (skirts ) not kilts and then we can talk about what ever esle right . as long as I dont say any thing about why I do not like the tilted Kilt.
and how it down grades Scottish ways of dress .
But I would not say such things , because people may post a rebuttal.
All in all there has to be two sides of a conversion to make it a good thread .
If I must then must be the one that the thought of religion being made fun of is upsetting .

[Woodsheal]

Wow! Praise the resurrection!

IT'S ALIVE...!!!!

[CDNSushi]

MOD hat OFF.

Complaining about this thread is a bit like a vegetarian walking into a butcher shop and complaining that all they sell is MEAT. You already know what's in here. You already know what to expect, so what on earth would you gain by insisting on continually coming here to get cheezed off? Seems pretty masochistic to me. No one is compelled to participate in any given thread. Don't like it? There's the door. Plenty of other threads to choose from.

The mods restored the deleted thread to the best of their abilities for no other reason but because we would extend the same privilege to ANY other active thread on the forum, and it would be a disservice to the OP and those who contributed, to simply let it disappear when there is a way to recover it, albeit an imperfect one.

This thread will eventually lose interest and die off. Like thousands of others before it. In the mean time. Move along, nothing to see here -- unless you really DO wish to participate.

Ohh , I was under the inpression I could say that ? Oh wait maybe I should of said , I am so glad that this post is back , cant wait to make fun of religion again , woo hoo yea , Lets talk about them pretty girls in very short (skirts ) not kilts and then we can talk about what ever esle right . as long as I dont say any thing about why I do not like the tilted Kilt.
and how it down grades Scottish ways of dress .
But I would not say such things , because people may post a rebuttal.
All in all there has to be two sides of a conversion to make it a good thread .
If I must then must be the one that the thought of religion being made fun of is upsetting .

[O'Callaghan]

Please read the 14th Amendment.

Yesterday, before the thread vanished, I had replied to the legal issues. I'm not at all interested in resurrecting the debate on the Tilted Kilt issue, but did want to re-address the historical perspective and legal precedent for the sake of closure, in reply to the following from Deirachel:


That is indeed part of the original Constitution, but you are applying an interpretation to it that did not exist until the 1940s. In fact, one of the early Supreme Court rulings that addressed this was Barron v. Baltimore (1833). The ruling specifically stated that States are not held to the limitations of the Bill of Rights unless the wording of the BoR was specific to the States. If you look closely, the 1st Amendment specifically refers to "Congress" not having the power to establish religion. It says nothing of the States. And the Barron v. Baltimore ruling established the legal precedent that, in fact, the States would have had the power to do exactly that. Unless the BoR was worded to limit States, its restrictions only applied to the federal government. It was not until Everson v. Board of Education (1947) that the so-called "separation clause" of the 1st Amendment (or any other limitation in the Bill of Rights) was applied to the States.

In other words, it wasn't until almost 160 years after the ratification of the Constitution that the States were limited in the same manner as the federal government.

If we delve further into the intent of the Founding Fathers, it is clear in the debates during the writing of the 1st Amendment that they only intended it to apply the federal government, and wanted the States to be free to choose for themselves. Jefferson, in his second inaugural address, acknowledged this. There is a pretty good synopsis of the entire issue here, describing the history and legal points of the 1st Amendment in early America.

In summary, I stand by my previous comment that the concept of States' Rights was originally intended to allow local authorities to determine policy based on religion. It is only through a couple of centuries worth of re- and mis-interpretation that this has changed.

*Note: this post is intended to be in keeping with Rule #5, as it has been kept strictly to the historical/factual/legal side, as per the following: "Posts which quote historical facts or historical events are acceptable. Discussions of the rightness or wrongness of, espousing one over another, perceptions of, or personal belief in, a religion or political system are not acceptable."

[David Thorpe]

In summary, I stand by my previous comment that the concept of States' Rights was originally intended to allow local authorities to determine policy based on religion. It is only through a couple of centuries worth of re- and mis-interpretation that this has changed.

I would submit that it has been the upholding of individuals' rights granted by the First Amendment and enforced by SCOTUS which have been a deciding factor in the limitation of States' rights to establish policies regarding religion. State policies cannot violate federal constitutional law.