Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, let's take a look. I quoted this:Nope,
C'mon. It's still on the board. No point in denying it.If that claim is true then their silent majority should muffle their extremist loudmouth minority.
You do know the difference between a society and a government correct? The military is a direct representation of the US government, not the society that elects that government. A Godless society? No, thank you. A Godless government? I believe it's one of the most important parts of the Constitution. "Separation of Church and State."It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.
They were also using muzzle-loading single-shot muskets. While they hit with devastating power, I doubt one could mow down a group of people in one minute.Most of the people of our new country were farmers and tradesmen who hunted and knew sensible and safe conduct with firearms which were working tools they used regularly. The founders never anticipated this kind of thing:
Well, you think the meaning of "establishment of religion" is identical to the meaning of "establishment of a religion", the problem is obvious.Nope, he agrees.
I was thinking that it would explain some of your posts, but didn't want to mention that possibility. How old are you? It is true dementia can appear at any age, of course.Is it possible that age related dementia has set in?
As a club, maybe. Which they could be, if need be.They were also using muzzle-loading single-shot muskets. While they hit with devastating power, I doubt one could mow down a group of people in one minute.
If that claim is true then their silent majority should muffle their extremist loudmouth minority.
Do you hate them? If so then speak for yourself. I do not hate them. Exactly who is trying to take away their legal rights?
No, I understand the concepts. Perhaps you don't understand the logic of determining the truth value of such statements. Let me know and I'll help you out.
Where did I say that?But you do wish the first clause of the First Amendment would go away.
I don't think it's a good idea at all for the First Ammendment to go away. You are barking up the wrong tree here.But you do wish the first clause of the First Amendment would go away.
Here's a few reasons that would be a very bad idea:
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
...
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy.8 The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
James Madison Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
There are nations where there is no freedom from religion. You might want to check them out and see which of them are better off than America.
Might be a revelation.
I even think.rhe government could endorse one religion and still not establish it. I'm not exactly sure how they would.do it. I suppose the President could come out with a proclamation that says he proclaims that Islam is the true religion. But as long as there was not establishment as the religion of the state and no one was actually required to be Islamic in order to gain all the freedoms of religion and everyone was still free to practice any religion they wished there wouldn't be a problem. Would there? Have we been so conditioned to believe that the government cannot say anything at all about any religion? Is that really what the Constitution said?Nope. Another logical error. The government can endorse all religions and not establish one religion.
Funny that Madison didn't use the word endorse here. He didn't say government couldn't endorse religion. He proclaimed very clearly that it couldn't establish religion. Any religion. And he was clear in Constitution that it couldn't establish one by law. He even mentioned Congress specifically because Congress is the law making branch of government. The Executive Branch cannot make law. Or they are not supposed to be able to.If government does it, it does. Your attempt to find a loophole in our religious freedoms could easily backfire; if government can endorse a religion, it can just as easily condemn a religion.
Not according to James Madison.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
ibid
And he largely wrote the Constitution. And helped write the Virginia Statutes, on which the Bill of Rights was based.
Not since the Bill of Rights....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Notice that it doesn't say "a religion"; it says "religion." So government can't endorse any religion whatever. The founders were intelligent and far-seeing. They knew someone would try that dodge, and wrote it specifically to counter such a move.
"In God We Trust." That's about it IMO.Have we been so conditioned to believe that the government cannot say anything at all about any religion?
What you see as ideology, I see as personal freedom. The government has not outlawed speech in that regard except as it relates to harassment. The government has never outlawed bigotry, you just can't hire and fire based on your bigotry.It has endorsed the ideology that their people must proclaim that transgender people are the opposite sex by the words they use. That's an endorsement and a restriction on freedom of speech.
In practice, a person's political policy usually dictates what laws they wish to enact.Is there a difference between law and policy?
I have heard that it also took 17 steps, done correctly and in the right order to load and fire. If even one was done significantly wrong, you were more apt to blow your own head off than injure anyone or anything else. So stupid gun owners were a self-correcting problem.They were also using muzzle-loading single-shot muskets. While they hit with devastating power, I doubt one could mow down a group of people in one minute.
Sometimes I think we are in a 1944 film in the role of Ingrid Bergman.And on reflection, it seems to me that a Poe is a better explanation. You were very useful to this discussion until you started recycling debunked claims, lost your focus, and got abusive.
A good troll never lets his intended victims get him so angry he can't think straight.
It's kinda that way today...I have heard that it also took 17 steps, done correctly and in the right order to load and fire. If even one was done significantly wrong, you were more apt to blow your own head off than injure anyone or anything else. So stupid gun owners were a self-correcting problem.
In fact, I don't see it in any founder documents from that time, other than financial records.Funny that Madison didn't use the word endorse here.
And that was because it was ruled as a "de minimus" violation. Courts have held that people are so used to seeing it on currency that it no longer has any meaning for most people."In God We Trust." That's about it IMO.
The 14th Amendment made it clear that every governmental agency had to respect our religious rights. Even if they could only do policy, not law.And he was clear in Constitution that it couldn't establish one by law. He even mentioned Congress specifically because Congress is the law making branch of government. The Executive Branch cannot make law. Or they are not supposed to be able to.
You just want the very first part of it to go away.I don't think it's a good idea at all for the First Ammendment to go away. You are barking up the wrong tree here.
Can you quote the statute? I mean, it's not established if it's not a law, right?I mean is essence it has done that with LGBT issues. It has endorsed the ideology that their people must proclaim that transgender people are the opposite sex by the words they use.
The far right has a very easy time inventing opinions for other people. It's their salient ability. If anyone disagrees with them and doesn't wish to accept or give in to their demands, he must assume that they are haters.The progressive has a very difficult time with separating hate from disagreement. If I disagree with you and don't wish to accept or give in to your demands I must be a hater.
Well at least you recognize it's just an opinion.In God We Trust." That's about it IMO.
Personal freedom to have any ideology you want. As long as it doesn't contradict trans ideology. Then you don't have a right to it. Only trans ideology matters. It's endorsed only the rrans ideology.What you see as ideology, I see as personal freedom. The government has not outlawed speech in that regard except as it relates to harassment. The government has never outlawed bigotry, you just can't hire and fire based on your bigotry.
Well as long as you recognize that Congress has to actually pass a law. Policy is not law. And in this case the government has endorsed the trans ideology. And the left is perfectly happy with that. And they have also endorsed limiting people's freedom of speech and the left is okay with that. So apparently the left dies understand the difference between law and policy. Except where religion is concerned.In practice, a person's political policy usually dictates what laws they wish to enact.
Words are important. You seem to be struggling with that. Establish is not the same thing as endorse. Law does not mean the same thing as endorse.Are we down to playing word games, now?
Correct,The 14th Amendment made it clear that every governmental agency had to respect our religious rights. Even if they could only do policy, not law.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?