Another Example of Intolerable Extremists

[o_mlly]

No, you're wrong about that.

No, you're wrong about that.

If it prohibited government from establishing a religion and from prohibiting a religion from being practiced, then it could establish religion generally or prohibit religious practice generally.

You've got a logic problem. Your consequent does not follow from your conditional. Perhaps, you confuse the definite article the with the indefinite article a.

If it prohibited government from establishing a religion and from prohibiting a religion from being practiced, then it could NOT establish religion generally or prohibit religious practice generally. ​

​

Like I wrote, not one iota.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No typographical error. You get the point. Religions as special interest groups ought not use the government to promote their "special interests". So should all other special interest groups, eg., LGBTQUVWXYZ..

I used "error" as a euphemism for bigotry/condescention. I won't make that mistake again. I'm removing the safeties from my torpedoes.

The law is coded in words. All the words make a difference, ask any lawyer, eg., "It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is".

Lawyers like to play semantic games to win cases. This is well known.

Deflection. Do those notes not read, "United States of America" on their face? The Fed Reserve Act made those notes our legal tender.

Apparently you do too...

Deflection.

...to avoid addressing my actual points.

 

[MForbes]

D---ing with faint praise huh?

It was a compliment.

 

[The Barbarian]

Tell it to the LGBTQABCDEFG+ community.

The vast majority of them just want you to leave them alone and want to have the same rights as anyone else. The few who try to interfere in your life the way bigots want to interfere in theirs, should be treated the same way we treat the people who hate them and try to take away their rights.

Nah. The first amendment is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

The First Amendment provides for freedom from religion and freedom of religion.

Endorsing religion is not synonymous with establishing a religion.

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.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[The Barbarian]

If it prohibited government from establishing a religion and from prohibiting a religion from being practiced, then it could establish religion generally or prohibit religious practice generally.

You've got a logic problem.

One of us seems to have a logic problem.

Your consequent does not follow from your conditional.

Perhaps you don't know what "consequent" and "conditional" mean in logic. What do you think they mean?

 

[rjs330]

Only as their personal opinion on the matter, certainly not codified into a law or Act, (in their official capacity).

I certainly agree with that.

 

[rjs330]

Nope. That's the Law of the Land.

You certainly don't seem to know what the law of the Land is, even though you quoted it.

Could you rephrase that in English?

Lol, I really should do a better job of reviewing my replies before posting them. You said endorsing a religion removes our freedom of religion. I said that's incorrect. As long as no laws are passed to prohibit the free exercise thereof we haven't lost our freedom of religion.

You can read it a hundred times; it won't change.

Yeah it doesn't change. You should read it again because you are saying things that are not true.

you want to revoke our freedom from religion, you'll have to do that.

The Constitution does not provide for freedom from religion. It provides for prohibiting the passing of laws to establish a religion. If you want freedom from religion you are going to need to change the Constitution.

No, that's wrong. The First Amendment bans any establishment of religion. And if you want to limit it to laws, then (for example) a government could have a "policy" of not allowing Christian churches. Or they could just send the police to shut down Christian churches. You want to open that door? This is exactly why the courts have looked to the intent of the founders and accordingly stopped any government interference in religion, either to establish it or to suppress it.

In order to do that they would have to pass laws. Otherwise you are also violating other parts of the constitution. Policy is not law. If you want to shut down churches based in policy you are certainly violating other parts of the constitution, not just the 1st Ammendment.

 

[rjs330]

Yep. So, in your interpretation, they can prohibit free exercise of religion, so long as they don't pass a law to do it. The door swings both ways. Maybe you should give it a little more thought, um?

How do you prohibit free exercise without a law? Do you think murder could be prohibited without a law? We are going to grab a murderer put him in jail without a law?

 

[The Barbarian]

How do you prohibit free exercise without a law?

The way the school district in Pike Co. Alabama did. They declared the Cross of David to be a "gang symbol" and banned it from the school.

Do you think murder could be prohibited without a law?

It was in early Anglo-Saxon times.

We are going to grab a murderer put him in jail without a law?

It was called the "hue and cry." They ran the culprit down and lynched him. Or he could pay weregild to the family if they were so inclined.

 

[The Barbarian]

In order to do that they would have to pass laws.

The Pike Co. school district did it. Not only did they ban the Star of David, teachers forced Jewish students to bow their heads during Christian prayers. No law. Just policy.

If you want to shut down churches based in policy you are certainly violating other parts of the constitution, not just the 1st Ammendment.

Show us that. Absent the freedoms of the First Amendment the state could easily do it. It happened in colonial America.

William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson, two Quakers who came from England in 1656 to escape religious persecution, are executed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for their religious beliefs. The two had violated a law passed by the Massachusetts General Court the year before, banning Quakers from the colony under penalty of death.

Quakers executed for religious beliefs | October 27, 1659 | HISTORY

William Robinson and Marmaduke Stevenson, two Quakers who came from England in 1656 to escape religious persecution, are executed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony for their religious beliefs. The two had violated a law passed by the Massachusetts General Court the year before, banning Quakers...

www.history.com

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[rjs330]

The way the school district in Pike Co. Alabama did. They declared the Cross of David to be a "gang symbol" and banned it from the school.

That wasn't Congress. I don't believe the Constitution mentions school districts. And it seems like according to your interpretation of the constitution the school is fulfilling its duty to set you free from religion.

was in early Anglo-Saxon times.

We don't live in early Anglo-Saxon times.

was called the "hue and cry." They ran the culprit down and lynched him. Or he could pay weregild to the family if they were so inclined.

Again we don't live in those days. I'm sure there are a lot of things they did in those days that you would disagree with.

 

[rjs330]

Be careful what you wish for.

I didn't declare a wish for anything. It seems that you are rhe one with the wish list of freedom from religion.

I just wanted to point out you were incorrect about your interpretation of the 1st Ammendment and religion.

 

[o_mlly]

The vast majority of them just want you to leave them alone and want to have the same rights as anyone else. The few who try to interfere in your life the way bigots want to interfere in theirs, should be treated the same way we treat the people who hate them and try to take away their rights.

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?

Perhaps you don't know what "consequent" and "conditional" mean in logic. What do you think they mean?

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't declare a wish for anything.

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.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Nope. Another logical error. The government can endorse all religions and not establish one religion.

 

[The Barbarian]

The vast majority of them just want you to leave them alone and want to have the same rights as anyone else. The few who try to interfere in your life the way bigots want to interfere in theirs, should be treated the same way we treat the people who hate them and try to take away their rights.

If that claim is true then their silent majority should muffle their extremist loudmouth minority.

You think we should muffle you and those who agree with you? It's that "equality under the law" thing. You, like them, have a perfect right to despise anyone; you can even believe that they should have their freedoms taken away, as they are free to think about you. You can even say so.

So long as you (and they) merely talk and don't act on it, the Constitution protects you (and them). Step beyond that, and you (and they) are in trouble.

Just that simple.

 

[o_mlly]

I used "error" as a euphemism for bigotry/condescention. I won't make that mistake again. I'm removing the safeties from my torpedoes.

"Your honor, the witness is being non-responsive."

Lawyers like to play semantic games to win cases. This is well known.

"Your honor, the witness is being non-responsive."

Apparently you do too...

"Your honor, the witness is being non-responsive."

...to avoid addressing my actual points.

"Your honor, the witness is being non-responsive."

 

[o_mlly]

You think we should muffle you and those who agree with you?

Strawman.

It's that "equality under the law" thing. You, like them, have a perfect right to despise anyone ...;

I do not have such a right. And, if you are a Christian, neither do you.

you can even believe that they should have their freedoms taken away, as they are free to think about you. You can even say so.

Strawman.

So long as you (and they) merely talk and don't act on it ...

Apparently, you or yours have not been just innocently shopping on main street whilst the LGBTQ+ pride parades were on. In case you have not, there are plenty of obscene and disgusting images on the web.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

Nope. Another logical error.

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.

The government can endorse all religions and not establish one religion.

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

The way the school district in Pike Co. Alabama did. They declared the Cross of David to be a "gang symbol" and banned it from the school.

That wasn't Congress.

Doesn't matter. Amendment XIV requires all government to comply with the Bill of Rights. That was specifically intended to frustrate local tyrants. And it works.

I don't believe the Constitution mentions school districts. And it seems like according to your interpretation of the constitution the school is fulfilling its duty to set you free from religion.

Since the school district both prevented free exercise of religion, and established another religion, they violated both freedom to be free of religion, and freedom to exercise one's religion.

Which is why the district lost the case.

You certainly don't seem to know what the law of the Land is, even though you quoted it.

The Supreme Court shares my opinion. At least they did the last time they looked at it. But there's a reason the public no longer respects and trusts the court lately. Maybe you'll get your wish.

Perhaps you don't know what "consequent" and "conditional" mean in logic. What do you think they mean?

No, I understand the concepts.

But you can't tell us what you think they mean?

That's sufficient for us to know.