Ohio pioneers new pre-crime database(and Patriot Act shit)

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2006-09-02 02:27pm

Stas Bush wrote:
DW wrote:There are numerous states where you can be imprisoned for possessing or selling a vibrator.
What the... is this real? Can anyone tell me which states these are?

Dubya's Home State, for one. Linky Here. I forgot about this story until you brought it up.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-09-02 02:28pm

Stas Bush wrote: What the... is this real? Can anyone tell me which states these are?

It's real, Darth Wong has referenced it several times and numerous articles have been posted about it in N&P.

Linky

I've snipped most of the article because it's long but the relevant part to your question can be found below.

Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders who want to play bury the bone are not alone: There are similar laws on the books in Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kansas, Colorado, and Alabama. Since the majority of people who use dildos, vibrators, and other insertable sex toys are women, making them contraband is another institutionalized form of controlling female sexuality. There's also an insidious double standard at play: A much higher percentage of men than women can masturbate to orgasm with their own hands.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-02 03:04pm

It's real

Thanks, Cpl Kendall. I guess I had my big surprise for today. ... Un-fucking-believable. Are we in the XXI century or where?

I learned that it's not just dildos that are illegal, but all things "obscene," which Texas law defines as dildos, artificial vaginas, or any device "designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs."

"Obscene"? You can't even have a little pleasure for yourself? I'd believe they would like to make masturbation illegal, then, because it's primary purpose is to.. well, stimulate human genital organs.

I know this is not funny, but it's sad.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-09-02 03:39pm

Stas Bush wrote: Thanks, Cpl Kendall. I guess I had my big surprise for today. ... Un-fucking-believable. Are we in the XXI century or where?

I don't think it's a coincidence that the states listed are among the most religious in the Union.

"Obscene"? You can't even have a little pleasure for yourself? I'd believe they would like to make masturbation illegal, then, because it's primary purpose is to.. well, stimulate human genital organs.

I know this is not funny, but it's sad.

Like Darth Wongs sigs says: Repulican family values start in your bedroom.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-02 03:55pm

Repulican family values start in your bedroom.

Actually, googling around "republican", "law" and "christian" brought me more than I bargained for.

I just wanted to read Wiki-damn-pedia, and stumbled upon what it wrote:In some U.S. jurisdictions legal restrictions exist which require a religious test as a qualification for holding public office, for instance in Texas an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." (i.e. God) [7] thus atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, most Satanists, some Unitarian Universalists and New Age followers, who do not believe in a supreme being would be excluded from public office if the test were enforced.

1. The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." [8]
2. North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...." [9]
3. South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." [10]
4. Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." [11]

How very, very nice. Essentialy, then, Texas is not far from a real theocracy, since all politicians must acknowledge the existence of God, and NC evenmoreso, since it obliges to believe in God Almighty...

And this is called "Bill of Rights"?

Indeed, a fitting name.

Some of the State-only regulations are impressive in their sheer theocratic madness.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-09-02 04:04pm

Stas Bush wrote:*snip*

Normally Wikipedia isn't the greatest source but in this case their right. Several states require you to take an oath to a "supreme being" which we all know is the Christian god disguised. Frankly I'm suprised it doesn't violate the US Constitution which I thought the States were suposed to be subordinate to. But one of the states recently abolished it, there was a thread in N&P about in under loyalty oath I believe.

I long for the day when the US has more religious minorities in politics, so they have to strike down these BS laws. Frankly I find the idea of a US state with a Muslim Govenor or a Buddhist one highly attractive and I wonder what kind of disgusting legal and political wrangling the Americans would go through to prevent it.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-02 04:09pm

Frankly I'm suprised it doesn't violate the US Constitution which I thought the States were suposed to be subordinate to.

Me either, I still remember how they struck down the 10 Commandments, so I wonder how this obvious bullshit slips past...

TimothyC · Post by **TimothyC** » 2006-09-02 04:14pm

Mario1470 wrote:
The Original Nex wrote:*Hopes Ohioans vote these Religious Fascists out of office in November*
But knows they probably won't

You can bet your ass I'll be at the polls.

I'm sure as heck not voting for Blackwell (I don't know anyone who is). My state senator isn't up this year, and my state rep doesn't have anyone running against her IIRC (a former school teacher that has something like an 85% aproval rating), so it's a situation where I can only vote to remove one person - and trust me I am.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-09-02 04:18pm

Stas Bush wrote: Me either, I still remember how they struck down the 10 Commandments, so I wonder how this obvious bullshit slips past...

Well I think someone needs to challenge it and that takes both money and time. So if it's in a state where it's full of religious shitheads and no athiests or agnostics are running for government it may not get challenged but I would think the ACLU would be all over it. Even then there's usually some lone guy like that fellow that tried to get the Pledge of Allegiance removed from school because his daughters an athiest and it has "under God" in it.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-02 04:23pm

Even then there's usually some lone guy like that fellow that tried to get the Pledge of Allegiance removed from school because his daughters an athiest and it has "under God" in it.

Did he succeed or not?

I'd believe that the only viable argument towards preserving "under God" is that this is the historical form of the pledge and it's not to be given much attention...

However, religious minorities _do_ get pissed of by that, even more than the atheists.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2006-09-02 04:31pm

Stas Bush wrote: Did he succeed or not? I'd believe that the only viable argument towards preserving "under God" is that this is the historical form of the pledge and it's not to be given much attention...

However, religious minorities _do_ get pissed of by that, even more than the atheists.

No he failed. Actually the "under God" replaced "one nation, indivisable" in the 50's during the McCarthy probes from what I've been told, something about making America true to her Christian roots or somesuch nonsense. I'm sure someone with more education in American history can clue us in. But I know that "one nation, under God" is not the original version.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2006-09-02 08:29pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Stas Bush wrote: Did he succeed or not? I'd believe that the only viable argument towards preserving "under God" is that this is the historical form of the pledge and it's not to be given much attention...

However, religious minorities _do_ get pissed of by that, even more than the atheists.
No he failed. Actually the "under God" replaced "one nation, indivisable" in the 50's during the McCarthy probes from what I've been told, something about making America true to her Christian roots or somesuch nonsense. I'm sure someone with more education in American history can clue us in. But I know that "one nation, under God" is not the original version.

The Pledge has actually been modified several times from the original version.

Specifically, the "under God" was added in 1954, and is undeniably religious in nature, as it was lobbied for by the Knights of Columbus, and when Eisenhower signed the bill, he fucking stated that "[f]rom this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty".

Francis Bellamy, who wrote the original pledge, was a minister and yet he didn't see it necessary to have any mention of God in it. Odd, that.

The original:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Infidel7 · Post by **Infidel7** » 2006-09-03 12:28am

As an Ohioan I can confirm that this is fairly suprising. We are not that conservative a state in all. Mostly the rural fuckwits that vote for this stuff. People who live a hundred miles from the nearest city and STILL are afraid terrorists will 'get' them. Do they think their stinky ass farm is a target for terrorism?

I for one am voting straight ticket democrat this fall, as are man people around Columbus that I know. *crosses fingers*

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2006-09-03 01:38am

Infidel7 wrote:As an Ohioan I can confirm that this is fairly suprising. We are not that conservative a state in all. Mostly the rural fuckwits that vote for this stuff. People who live a hundred miles from the nearest city and STILL are afraid terrorists will 'get' them. Do they think their stinky ass farm is a target for terrorism?

I for one am voting straight ticket democrat this fall, as are man people around Columbus that I know. *crosses fingers*

Whut?

Sorry, Ohio is solidly red. I predict a win for Blackwell, because Ohioan voters want to continue the tradition of getting fucked in the ass by their republican overlords. Where I used to live, near Wright Patt, Bush/Cheney stickers could be found on the butt-end of nearly every automobile.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2006-09-03 02:29am

Stas Bush wrote:
Frankly I'm suprised it doesn't violate the US Constitution which I thought the States were suposed to be subordinate to.
Me either, I still remember how they struck down the 10 Commandments, so I wonder how this obvious bullshit slips past...

It is unconstitutional. Violates the religious test clause of the Constitution. If Texas enforced the law and this saw court, the law would get struck down in a second. This is a case where the Constitution clearly forbids something in no uncertain terms.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-09-03 03:14am

Personally, I'm more disturbed by the fact an irreligious person is unelectable because no one will vote for him; not because there's an archaic, unenforcable statute on the books in Texastan.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-09-03 03:37am

how about state that stil celebrates the killing of 4 unarmed college sudents like it was a good thing, and those acivist FBI agents were just red sympasizers, or the bit about the same state whose DA's still declare that SaM Sheppard was the guilty party.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-03 04:28am

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This is a good Pledge. Why the fuck modify it at all, especially in a secular XX century? Looks "too secular"? Does this have something to do with the "Christian Civilization" bullshit that was spewed out innumerous times by British and U.S. leaders?

So, shortly, the change to the Pledge was bullshit done in the XX century. Then, frankly, there's no reason to keep the "One Nation Under God" bullshit in the pledge anymore, especially as it gives G.W.B. additional causes to slander atheists.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-03 04:29am

Stas Bush wrote:
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
This is a good Pledge. Why the fuck modify it at all, especially in a secular XX century? Looks "too secular"? Does this have something to do with the "Christian Civilization" bullshit that was spewed out innumerous times by British and U.S. leaders?

So, shortly, the change to the Pledge was bullshit done in the XX century. Then, frankly, there's no reason to keep the "One Nation Under God" bullshit in the pledge anymore, especially as it gives G.W.B. additional causes to slander atheists.

Why the fuck do we need a pledge in the first place? And more than that, if you do have a pledge, why not the Constitution instead of a piece of cloth with a dye pattern on it?

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-09-03 04:38am

And more than that, if you do have a pledge, why not the Constitution instead of a piece of cloth with a dye pattern on it?

Usually, in my coumtry, the Flag Pledge is and was reserved for the military, ordinary people are not obliged to take any sort of flag pledge to be citizens whatsoever.

In the military, however, I believe it's common to make pledges with flags.

I don't know why the inherently military Flag Pledge was projected onto the general american public so as to everyone should pledge allegiance... was it like this from the beginning of the U.S., or no?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-09-03 04:14pm

Stas Bush wrote:
And more than that, if you do have a pledge, why not the Constitution instead of a piece of cloth with a dye pattern on it?
Usually, in my coumtry, the Flag Pledge is and was reserved for the military, ordinary people are not obliged to take any sort of flag pledge to be citizens whatsoever.

In the military, however, I believe it's common to make pledges with flags.

I don't know why the inherently military Flag Pledge was projected onto the general american public so as to everyone should pledge allegiance... was it like this from the beginning of the U.S., or no?

Not at all. In fact treating the flag as some sort of sacred object is something that came about around the turn of the 20th century if I recall correctly.
As for the pledge itself, it's largely meaningless and mostly it's school children that recite it regularly.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-09-03 04:40pm

That is quite unbelieveable... I'm outright shocked. The only thing that came to mind reading that was "police state".

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2006-09-03 04:47pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:I don't think it's a coincidence that the states listed are among the most religious in the Union.

"Take your 12" vibrating cock and move to Callerfornie, you filthy tramp!"

Cecelia5578 · Post by **Cecelia5578** » 2006-09-03 04:51pm

Hamel wrote:
Infidel7 wrote:As an Ohioan I can confirm that this is fairly suprising. We are not that conservative a state in all. Mostly the rural fuckwits that vote for this stuff. People who live a hundred miles from the nearest city and STILL are afraid terrorists will 'get' them. Do they think their stinky ass farm is a target for terrorism?

I for one am voting straight ticket democrat this fall, as are man people around Columbus that I know. *crosses fingers*
Whut?

Sorry, Ohio is solidly red. I predict a win for Blackwell, because Ohioan voters want to continue the tradition of getting fucked in the ass by their republican overlords. Where I used to live, near Wright Patt, Bush/Cheney stickers could be found on the butt-end of nearly every automobile.

That's par for the course around many military bases.

Rocker5150 · Post by **Rocker5150** » 2006-09-03 09:14pm

Ok I just looked up the Texas Constitution, and my mind is thoroughly boggled:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/ ... 00400.html

Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Wha??? They specifically say there is no religious test....as long as you believe in a 'kin supernatural power?! I really am speechless. That is the kind of crap that someone has to sue over instead of 'In God We Trust' on the money. This is so beyond illegal....

-Kevin

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ohio pioneers new pre-crime database(and Patriot Act shit)

Re: Ohio pioneers new pre-crime database(and Patriot Act shi