Another Example of Intolerable Extremists

[The Barbarian]

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?

Strawman.

You just suggested just that for others. C'mon.

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.

I do not have such a right.

Freedom of speech. That's in the First Amendment, too. Read it.

And, if you are a Christian, neither do you.

God gives His people the freedom to sin. We come to Him freely, or not at all.

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.

And they forced to you take part? Or did they force you to stay and watch? Or do they get permits for a parade, and your organizations are not allowed? Or are you merely angry that they have the same rights you do?

there are plenty of obscene and disgusting images on the web.

Public obscenity is still a crime in most places. Why not just get some pictures and turn them in? Of course, what they are doing must fit the legal definition of obscenity. Is that the problem? Even that could be fixed by changing the law, so long as the change is not prohibited by the Constitution.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

I was in Toronto a few days ago and it happened to coincide with the gay Mardi gras. As our hotel was literally on the route we saw quite a lot of it. It was nowhere near as entertaining as the Sydney one which is more akin to what you'd see in Rio, but it was perfectly safe and nothing obscene. Plenty of booze was available and cannabis is legal here, but there were just lots of people having lots of fun. Feel free to find any images that might be the exception that proves the rule.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

It was in early Anglo-Saxon times.

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

But as you now see, such a thing is perfectly possible.

I'm sure there are a lot of things they did in those days that you would disagree with.

There are a lot of things that are feasible that I think are wrong. But we're dealing with your misconceptions about laws.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Madison apparently agrees with me.

Notice that it doesn't say "a religion"; it says "religion."

? The First Amendment doesn't have to insert the indefinite article "a" as doing so does not add nor subtract from its meaning. We've already gone over this. Do you have an argument opposing my claim? If so post it.

So government can't endorse any religion whatever.

?

 

[o_mlly]

You think we should muffle you and those who agree with you?
You just suggested just that for others. C'mon.

To avoid the strawman fallacy, use the quotation facility to cite my comment. Good luck.

 

[The Barbarian]

Madison apparently agrees with me.

Not according to his writing. As you see, he condemns exactly what you advocate.

The First Amendment doesn't have to insert the indefinite article "a" as doing so does not add nor subtract from its meaning.

So your argument is that "establishment of religion" has exactly the same meaning as "establishment of a religion?" Is is possible that English is not your first language?

The former would be establishment of religion generally without specifying a particular one, and the latter would be establishment of a specific religion but not religion generally.

This doesn't seem to me to be that difficult to understand.

 

[The Barbarian]

You think we should muffle you and those who agree with you?
You just suggested just that for others.

To avoid the strawman fallacy, use the quotation facility to cite my comment.

I did precisely that in #122. I quoted you:

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

C'mon.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

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

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

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

That's so odd. You don't respond to my points and somehow I'm the "non-responsive" one? Give me a break.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Being a Christian does not take away any rights.

 

[o_mlly]

Not according to his writing. As you see, he condemns exactly what you advocate.

Nope, he agrees.

So your argument is that "establishment of religion" has exactly the same meaning as "establishment of a religion?" Is is possible that English is not your first language?

Yes, that the argument. Is it possible that age related dementia has set in?

The former would be establishment of religion generally without specifying a particular one, and the latter would be establishment of a specific religion but not religion generally.

Think it through. Apparently, ignorance of the difference between an indefinite article and a definite article handicaps your thinking.

 

[o_mlly]

I did precisely that in #122. I quoted you:

Nope, your attempt at paraphrasing post #114 is a strawman.

 

[o_mlly]

That's so odd. You don't respond to my points and somehow I'm the "non-responsive" one? Give me a break.

First, give me a rational argument; I cannot argue with how you feel.

 

[o_mlly]

Being a Christian does not take away any rights.

Says the atheist who cannot be bothered studying Christian theology. Where's my dustbin?

 

[BCP1928]

Says the atheist who cannot be bothered studying Christian theology. Where's my dustbin?

Still it's an interesting concept. Can you enumerate any of those rights for the non theologist?

 

[o_mlly]

Still it's an interesting concept. Can you enumerate any of those rights for the non theologist?

That is not the OP in this thread. The thread is already losing its focus.

 

[o_mlly]

... and nothing obscene.

Give us your definition of obscene.

 

[Pommer]

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.

If only they had taken such time and care with the next Amendment!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Says the atheist who cannot be bothered studying Christian theology. Where's my dustbin?

The subject of the thread is (broadly) the rights of individuals under the Constitution, theology is irrelevant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First, give me a rational argument; I cannot argue with how you feel.

It's not about how I feel. It is about the nature of religious freedom. The arguments are pretty standard, have we've made them already, and they would be recognizable to any student who'd past Constitutional Law. We have given you multiple explicit demonstrations and examples including text from the author of the first amendment and you some how manage to invert the arguments plainly made.

 

[The Barbarian]

If only they had taken such time and care with the next Amendment!

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: