Exactly. Separation of church and state is one of the most important things for a government to work and be a good one.
So what, I don't care if they persecute, I mean I would want to get out of there fast but what can they do to me? Purgatory is something made up by Catholics which is totally false.
I'd like to ask that you please respect all religions' beliefs, even if you don't personally agree with them.
The Constitution does not say that you can't be scanned by an X-ray.
Well of course not, there was no such thing but we have the freedom of privacy.
1973- U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.” “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”
1986 - U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
The Constitution does not say that you can't be scanned by an X-ray.
Well of course not, there was no such thing but we have the freedom of privacy.
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. Now, I suppose you could say that the goverment should have to issue warrants, however, this might be a case where technology has moved to a point unforseen at the time. Morals never change, technology does.
However, a key point is that most Airports are private businesses. And Private people, are allowed to ask you to not carry certain items into their house, or store, or airport, or airplanes. Or ask you to submit to a search so they can make sure you don't have any such items before they do business with you.
Now, sometiems Airports take it to far, or are just bad at it, but I don't think the idea is wrong.
Well of course not, there was no such thing but we have the freedom of privacy.
1973- U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.” “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”
1986 - U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
You hit the nail on the head with pretty much every freedom debate. "Other people have a right to be free from... Therefore you are not free to..."
I mean, legally that's all very well and good, but what's to stop a Nazi-like government passing laws and mobilising the army without Royal Assent anyway? For such a government to rise, they would have to have massive support from the people of the nation, who would probably not care if the (unelected, unchosen) monarch was overridden.
They'd have to have the full support of the army to mobilize it like that. It's not within their power to do that. They don't just need assent to do it; they cannot do it. The Monarch is the only person who has the authority to mobilize. It would be against the laws of Britain for the government to give that order.
That being said, it is true that with the support required for them to take power, they could well persuade a large portion of the army to mobilize illegally.
Yes, but since when do evil dictatorships ever care about what's legal? Sometimes governments just depose monarchs.
But that is on the scale of full-revolution evil takes control. A Monarch could help halt abuses of power on a smaller scale.
If they wanted to, which is really I suppose the main question.
The other countries only picked it up after we did; in the case of Europe and Japan, our reconstruction programs instituted free speech in some countries for the first time.
Most of the world has free speech ya know.
Here, let me bold the part you didn't see.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
Exactly. Separation of church and state is one of the most important things for a government to work and be a good one.
So what, I don't care if they persecute, I mean I would want to get out of there fast but what can they do to me? Purgatory is something made up by Catholics which is totally false.
If you don't care about what other countries can do to you because your soul is saved, why are you even having this debate on airport infringements on personal space? It's clear that in the end everything that happens to you on this Earth is inconsequential and therefore no amount of suppression should be a problem for you.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
The Constitution does not say that you can't be scanned by an X-ray.
Well of course not, there was no such thing but we have the freedom of privacy.
As was touched upon in a post before me, and was extensively covered in Mill's Utilitarianism, everyone should have the right to do what they want with the exception of those actions which infringe on the rights of others to do what they want. This is why you must submit to screenings at airports. Such screenings are voluntary, by the way. If you don't want to submit to screenings, just don't fly. There are plenty of other systems that work like this: metal detectors are present in all federal buildings in the United States as a means to detect bombs. If you don't want to submit to the scan, you just don't walk through the metal detector. If the government never told you that the screenings were taking place and you passed through unaware, I could see your point, but it's made very clear to you that the screenings will happen and if you have a problem with them there's one easy solution.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
Before social security, the elderly poor lived under the care of their family and/or the church. It worked pretty well. Republicans clearly don't want "only rich people to live," so maybe there's reasoning in there that you haven't seen.
It might've worked in most cases but not all, I know the Republicans want Smaller Government but that's not always true, they want a large Military. They want no Restrictions which would mean we would have some huge tycoons who destroy small business and we would be far worse, Thankfully they haven't been able to get rid of the Great Society. But the Democrats aren't any better, they have a lot of Garbage also, both are flawed.
Small government refers to less intrusion on the affairs of the people. The military isn't a government program that tells the populace how to live their lives through regulation.
Republicans don't want "no restrictions." That doesn't even make sense from an economic standpoint. Please, please do some research into each side before you make claims about them. This is not the first time you've stated something that is simply, objectively false. I don't care whether you support the left, the right, or neither, so long as you actually know what you're talking about.
You've changed your tune, I see. As soon as I start supporting Republicans, America is a "Great Society" that they thankfully haven't yet destroyed. Yet, when I was comparing America to the Soviet Union, America was "aggressive" and "just as evil." Which is it?
While we're on this subject, however, let's think about what you've said. You've managed to state objective untruths and use these objective, uninformed opinions to influence your political ideology, and you've independently come to the conclusion that you support neither of the largest parties. Congratulations. You've done what would have been (or still is) impossible in
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bahrain
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Byelorussia (Belarus)
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
People's Republic of the Congo
Croatia
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Germany
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Italy
Ivory Coast
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan (which is still ripe with ethnic conflict)
Laos
Latvia
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldova (today, high civil unrest)
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Niger
North Korea
North Vietnam
North Yemen
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Persia
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea (yeah, they were authoritarian in the past)
South Sudan
South Yemen
South Vietnam
Soviet Union (some successor states have been included to emphasize the size of the USSR; successor states that were not one-party are in bold)
Spain
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan (today, largely a violent anarchy)
Tanzania
Tanganyika
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Arab Republic
Upper Volta
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zanzibar
Today there are 196 countries. Some of these historically overlap and some are divisions are the same country, but the total tends to be around 175-200. 139 of them did or do not even allow you to voice an opposite opinion from the government's, and that doesn't even count countries where "free speech" is allowed but only one party can legally be in power. All of these countries existed in the 20th/21st century and thus I have not included monarchies or governments from previous centuries.
I implore you not to squander your freedom of speech by complaining that you have none. Use it to bring these countries to light and enact change upon them so that their people may have a voice in their governments.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
I think it's quite okay to make sure no one's smuggling anything illegal. I see that as a necessary precaution.
Israel has the best plan, they do their homework and make sure everyone has their right documents, here you go through humiliating procedures that don't stop anyone.
I can't comment on Israel since I don't know how it works, but I'll take your word for it that it's more efficient than the TSA.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
If you've been to a Airport your constitutional rights are gone without cause.
The Constitution does not say that you can't be scanned by an X-ray.
Lol, I'm just imagining the Founding Fathers sitting in the Convention and Benjamin Franklin says, "Y'know, we should probably make sure to say no one can be scanned with an X-Ray."
Just remember that two "c"s together is bad, but an "i" and a "c" is not as bad. I don't know how you'll remember that, though, you'll have to come up with something yourself.
![[y]](http://storage.proboards.com/6672327/images/WYWPH2VRo26pOFDid7QZ.png)
