Group items tagged

Doesn't sound like too many people objected, but I defiantly would.

I think that's pretty cool, I also think it's something they should keep doing because its not like you have to do it. You can just sit their and close your eyes.

It is your choice whether you pray at graduation or not. If you believe you should, then pray. If not, then don't do it.

What if some one holds beliefs different from yours? If someone wanted a prayer in Hindi or Arabic, would you allow that too? What if some one followed the occult, could they then conduct a pagan ritual in front of the graduating class? Equal voice or no voice. A prayer that makes no reference to no one single religion, god, or culture is the only acceptable one.

i agree with seamus. they do have the right and if they are not for it then you don't have to to do it.

I think it should be your choice and if you want to you can and if you dont then you dont have to

I want there to be a prayer that revolves around the teachings of the Satanic Bible, and any one who objects can choose not to participate while those who want to, can assist in singing the praises of the Church of Satan and our Lord Satan. It's only fair that we do both, right? That's what everyone else has been saying.

I like how there is an incentive for athletes to win medals, but i don't think that it is right because these athletes are already competing against the best athletes in the world and if they medal in their event they are one of the best in the world. And in my mind that is all that i need as an athlete is to be known as one of the best in the world at what i do.

I really do personally believe this women should be jailed for murder, but legally, it would be difficult to get a conviction. Due to our legal system, we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (about 90% chance) that she killed her baby. She gave a second story, so one of the two stories must be true. 50/50 chance, good luck actually proving it. All she has to say is, "I said that to hurt him, and I gave the baby away," and she would probably just be convicted for kidnap. Either way it is a tough case, I think I may have to follow it.

I agree with Payton she should be jailed for murder. I believe that she did kill her son, she wouldn't have told him that she killed him if it wasn't true unless she's crazy, which she probably is. None of that would have happened if she would've just gave the father custody, but instead she left for Texas with her son.

I also think that she should be put in jail. If you're gonna say you killed him, it's usually not something you're lying about, and if she just gave the baby away, someone would have seen the stories and said "Oh I have this child" or something like that, but no. Nobody said anything so it goes to show that it all comes back to her.

I agree the mother should be jailed. They even have proof that the mother killed thee baby by sending a text to her husband saying that she killed the baby and dumped the body in a dumpster somewhere in Texas.

Almost three years later, his disappearance is still a mystery. And a trial that gets underway this week may finally provide some answers to what happened.

I agree with the both of you. No sane, rational person would say anything about killing their own child, whether or not it's true. I believe that she is guilty and should be jailed and have to go under a serious psychiatric assessment. I feel so bad for the father, this must have been such a traumatic experience.

I too believe she should be jailed for murder of her child. She is not rational nor sane for making these allegations if they're untrue. Libby is right saying she needs to undergo some serious psychiatric assessments. I don't understand how a mother could do that to her own young child and blame it on the father. Just a very messed up thing to do or even imply on doing.

I think having a cross at the museum is acceptable. The meaning of a cross varies from person to person. Yes many victims might not have been Christians but people affected from 9/11 should also have the right to display any religious symbol here as well.

it is a nation under god so they shouldnt have a problem with the cross "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, (one Nation under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

If it's okay to put up a cross then it should be okay to put up any symbol of any religion. As long as they do that then I think it's okay.

I agree with you Jazmine and Dennis, this is a nation under God. We live in a free country that was started by Christians and to this day, they should be honored. With the honor of those who died in 9/11, should be remembered with a cross and it should not be taken down because of those who don't believe in God. Even if someone doesn't believe, it doesn't mean the ones who do have to cater to them by taking the cross down. If it doesn't effect you, don't worry about it, because those who it does effect, want it there and they should be respected as well

i agree people have the right to believe in whatever they want so if that means putting up a cross at ground zero then that's fine. It also says in the pledge that we are a nation under god, and i believe that there many more christian people in the United States than Atheists so i believe that it was the right thing to do.

I"m Atheist and I don't see the reason why there shouldn't be a cross put up. It's a sign of 9/11 not a sign promoting God. It's not like people are going there to worship God they are going there to remember those who died in 9/11.

The article points out that there are other publicly funded museums have religious art work in them because religious artwork has both cultural and artistic value. However, in my opinion using the argument that we are a country under god is a subjective and highly personal belief. If there is an atheist that lives in Happyland, Connecticut and they don't believe in god how can they, in their view, live in a nation under god. The First Amendment is to prevent the government from establishing and/or favoring one religion over another or religion altogether over no religion at all. I don't feel that the cross alone violates this part of the First Amendment if placed in a museum because I don't see it as the government promoting or favoring a religion that uses a cross as their religious symbol. The way I see it the government is allowing an artifact from a disaster the affected the entire population and has become a cultural and possibly artistic representation of the 9/11 attacks in to the museum. In my view it would be different if they added something about Christianity or religion to the display along with the cross, but if they were to just put an information card that says, "The 'World Trade Center Cross' was discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center," or something similar then it wouldn't cross the line.

I really like that fact that the cross was found in the rubble. Its not like some artist decided to make it from the rubble. I'm sure if there was a different symbol of any religion found it would have been put on display just like the cross was.

thats crazy. who wouldnt buckle there kid up? and why was she trying to run over someone?

The mom eeds to go to jail cause she is a retard for trying to do sucha stupid thing to a mna trying to kill him and had her baby in risk of dieing.

Not only did she miss the man she was trying to hit, she injured her own child in the meantime... some people just should not have a driver's license..

I agree with this. If the prices for college keep raising then nobody can afford to go to college. All the higher paying jobs require more schooling, but if you don't have a good job then you can't pay for college. It's a deadly cycle. I also think the government is always looking for more money and raising interest rates. That fact doesn't bother me as much as the fact that the money is being spent on public art, landscapes, and totally unnecessary costs. I think that if the money was given back to 'tuition-payers' then maybe people wouldn't care so much.

We don't need more gun control the original laws are fine.

Enough with Gun control we don't need it.

It's an American right for citizens to have guns.

I'm not sure how I feel. We should be allowed rto have a gun, liscences are pretty smart

gun control won't help anyone honestly. i don't see why he's trying to ban guns so hard. criminals are just gonna stop shooting people because of gun control? A+ thinking.

gun control is not gonna keep illegal guns of the streets.

teachers need guns to protect them selfs and students from any dangrous people.

Its a terrifying to think about what may run through some people's heads.

what has our society came to? what would a person have to do to deserve that? no one does. it's sad.

Re: Spencer. I'm not sure having teachers carrying guns would make students FEEL safer, nor am I convinced that having teachers with guns would actually reduce school violence. I do believe that having a on site police officer or dedicated security person is a good idea.

It's sad that there are still countries that give men power over their wives. Legally, a woman should be able to go where she wants without her husband's approval. There are rights for husbands but none for the wives which is unfair.

This woman is obviously very successful to be the captain of the travelling team that will be participating in the Asian Cup and for her husband to withhold her passport is hindering her success. It's very shocking and saddening to see this kind of misogyny still present within this world today.

I think that this is completely wrong. I believe that a woman should have free rights to do things she wants to do and go where she wants to go. This is a big thing for her and for her husband to withhold her passport is in no way okay.

That woman should have the right to join her team. She seems very successful. I don't think men should have control over the women and have no rights of their own.

RE: Eric, Creighton Prep is a private high school so none of the students are 21. This is a really interesting case of your right to privacy. If this were a public high school like ours, I believe the courts would not allow this type of drug/alcohol testing without a suspicion for ALL students. (4th Amendment rights?)

It is not invading our 4th amendment rights because most jobs require drug tests so why cant *Private* School do the same.

I think that this is a good idea if students don't take it they should be kicked out of the school.

I feel sorry about what happened to her but I don't think it is the sates fault that she was attacked. They weren't the ones that had the chimp as a pet her friend did.

I think that our country shouldn't use torture to get information because it is inhumane. We should find different methods to get information from terrorists.

Our country shouldn't use torture to get information because it is inhumane

Torture is never okay to use for any reason. There is other ways to get information from people....

This changes my view on cats a bit. As much as I like cats, I didn't think they would defend for someone like that. It's pretty cool.

I saw the video on the news the other day and I thought It was cool that the cat had saved the kid form getting hurt even more, the dog attacking the little kid out of nowhere wasn't really cool though. Its a crazy story.

This is pretty crazy considering cats are usually scared of dogs. I'm just curious as to why that dog would just randomly attack a little boy. The owners need to do something about that.

This is crazy! I didn't even know that the dog got the little boy! I didn't think cats even did that. But, thank gosh it was not as bad as it couldnt have been. If that cat wasnt there then who knows what could of happened to that little boy.

I heard that the dog is going to be put down because of this. But I am kind of wondering if the boy did things to the dog before, like throw rocks at it or other things. But that cat was pretty loyal and brave for saving that boy, and probably pretty fearsome too. That dog just ran like it just heard a gun!

it was so cool how the cat saved the kid but i think the owner should get in to truble.

Exactly why cats are better than dogs! Imagine if the cat wasn't there, the kid possibly could have died!

I don't think the people of Berkeley, Missouri had a right to protest against the shooting of teenager, Antonio Martin. In the video the teen was armed and aiming at the police officer so the officer did what he had be trained to do. Like the mayor of Berkeley says, "Some people die because the policeman initiated. Some people die because they initiated it. And at this point, our review indicates that the police did not initiate this".

The boy that was killed had a weapon on him, and the video does show him raise his hand at the end, but there's no reason they should start a riot, he was in the wrong.

The rioting over this is ridiculous, before making such actions and accusing the wrong person is very naive and immature I think. These people did not know the truth, they just assumed because of what happened in Ferguson. Ultimatly the officer was defending himself, the boy pulled the gun on him first. This was purely an act of self defense, there is no reason for rioting.

It is always a tragedy when a young person dies especially when it happens like this. I understand that people are mad and have the right to have freedom of speech, but they weren't there and they also have to look at the evidence. A handgun was recovered from the scene. The cop did what was needed and probably feels bad enough that this happened he doesn't need more people to tell him he was wrong. People need to look and listen before they go and riot.

It's unfortunate that this shooting happened so close to Ferguson, if it hadn't I don't think there would have been such a big riot. But I don't see the police officer being at fault since there was a gun. I agree with the article when it says there are no winners going out of this

The one child left alive is going to have a hard time adjusting to knowing that they were the only one left out of the ones that died.

One of kid will have a hard time to get to know what happend to the ones that died

This is just disgusting, I think anyone who can intentionally hurt an innocent child is despicable. Having a child of my own makes this story even more heart breaking.

I believe that the government is correct because they have already paid for the land, therefore it's theirs. Even though it was more than likely an accident I think that the sentencing should be brought down.