Another Example of Intolerable Extremists

[The Barbarian]

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

Nope,

Well, let's take a look. I quoted this:

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

C'mon. It's still on the board. No point in denying it.

 

[rturner76]

It seems that putting Biblical scripture dog tags on their service animals offends MRFF's intention for a godless society.

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."

Do you believe that Church and State should be separate?

 

[rturner76]

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:

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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

Nope, he agrees.

Well, you think the meaning of "establishment of religion" is identical to the meaning of "establishment of a religion", the problem is obvious.

The most obvious answer seems to be you having a difficulty with the English language.

Is it possible that age related dementia has set in?

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.

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

As a club, maybe. Which they could be, if need be.

 

[rjs330]

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.

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.

I seriously doubt they see themselves in that light. Do they hate me? They disagree with me all the time and certainly wouldn't want to give in to any demands I might make regarding something religious or even political. Does that mean they hate me or have a phobia regarding my faith? A Christophobia perhaps?

 

[rjs330]

But you do wish the first clause of the First Amendment would go away.

Where did I say that?

 

[rjs330]

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 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.

 

[rjs330]

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

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?

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. That's an endorsement and a restriction on freedom of speech. And the left is fine with that. That's part of the 1st Ammendment as well.

Is there a difference between law and policy? Can the government by policy restrict someone's speech? Can a government by policy endorse an ideology as being the correct one? It seems.they have already.

 

[rjs330]

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.

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.

 

[rturner76]

Have we been so conditioned to believe that the government cannot say anything at all about any religion?

"In God We Trust." That's about it IMO.

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.

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.

Is there a difference between law and policy?

In practice, a person's political policy usually dictates what laws they wish to enact.

 

[keith99]

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.

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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Sometimes I think we are in a 1944 film in the role of Ingrid Bergman.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

It's kinda that way today...

Most gun deaths in America are accidents and/or self-inflicted.

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[The Barbarian]

Funny that Madison didn't use the word endorse here.

In fact, I don't see it in any founder documents from that time, other than financial records.

Are we down to playing word games, now?

"In God We Trust." That's about it IMO.

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

You just want the very first part of it to go away.

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.

Can you quote the statute? I mean, it's not established if it's not a law, right?

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

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.

 

[rjs330]

In God We Trust." That's about it IMO.

Well at least you recognize it's just an opinion.

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.

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.

In practice, a person's political policy usually dictates what laws they wish to enact.

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.

 

[rjs330]

Are we down to playing word games, now?

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.

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.

Correct,

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You notice once again that laws are mentioned? Due process of law or Equal protection of laws. It's interesting that laws keep coming up.