Another Example of Intolerable Extremists

[BCP1928]

So what your saying basically is that Religion should be left out of the equation ?

What about the women who lost her job through the wearing of a crucifix round her neck ?

Or A school assistant who was sacked and had her Christian beliefs compared to Neo-Nazism for opposing transgender ideology.

In 2019, I lost my job as a school chaplain at Trent College, a private school in Derbyshire, and was secretly reported to Prevent, the UK’s counter-extremism programme, by the school’s headmaster.

A CHRISTIAN nursery worker, Sarah Mbuyi, who was sacked after ... that she had been discriminated against because of her Christian beliefs

I can pull up these articles if necessary.

There's to much WOKE in the world today.



Try reading the article again.

Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s largest religious liberty law firms, threatened to file a federal lawsuit unless NASA apologizes and stops censoring the name ‘Jesus’.

Yes, and in some countries Christians are actually being persecuted.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Obvious to whom? Only to those who cannot grasp the simple meaning of those articles of speech. The problem remains yours.

A good troll never lets his intended victims get him so angry he can't think straight.

So, are you self-identify as a "bad troll"? Your posts in this thread evidence thinking that is quite muddled.

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.

Strawman fallacies, posting your opinions as if they were facts, denying the obvious, arguing about the trivial ... it seems I'm debating a ten-year-old. Is there a "Benjamin Buttons" event going on at your home?

Do you have anything at all serious to post in this thread?

 

[BCP1928]

Just try forcing the Chinese to accept it.

I don't think it would be too hard---it apparently has only one tenet, that you shouldn't be allowed to bully trans people.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

True. Church's that wish to be recognized as charitable organizations to protect their donor's contributions as tax-exempt require the completion of IRS form 501(c)(3) to obtain such a government endorsement.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Classic strawman fallacy. One of many.

 

[Bradskii]

Give us your definition of obscene.

It's relative to the person giving the description. But I saw nothing that you could reasonably define as obscene. A few naked breasts and some political slogans that you'd baulk at. But absolutely nothing that would come close to give you any justification for using the term.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

What is a "Cross of David"?

You might consider taking your own advice, "Being able to form a cogent argument, supported by evidence, impresses me."

 

[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?

That makes no sense as a rebuttal.

 

[o_mlly]

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

That's sufficient for us to know.

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.

More nonsense. I will not respond to your further posts as I do not wish to abuse the elderly.

 

[The Barbarian]

More nonsense. I will not respond to your further posts as I do not wish to abuse the elderly.

Don't get mad. Get smart. And you can contribute here again soon.

 

[The Barbarian]

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?

That makes no sense as a rebuttal.

It did to Madison. And he actually knew what he was talking about.

 

[o_mlly]

It's relative to the person giving the description. But I saw nothing that you could reasonably define as obscene.

So, give us your definition of "obscene". I'll let you know if that definition is reasonable.

 

[Bradskii]

So, give us your definition of "obscene". I'll let you know if that definition is reasonable.

Something that is morally repugnant to me. Your mileage may vary.

 

[o_mlly]

Something that is morally repugnant to me. Your mileage may vary.

Probably. However, no sense in continuing if you will not give us your objective definition of "obscene".

 

[BCP1928]

Probably. However, no sense in continuing if you will not give us your objective definition of "obscene".

There is no objective definition.

 

[The Barbarian]

Obvious to whom? Only to those who cannot grasp the simple meaning of those articles of speech. The problem remains yours.

So, are you self-identify as a "bad troll"? Your posts in this thread evidence thinking that is quite muddled.

Strawman fallacies, posting your opinions as if they were facts, denying the obvious, arguing about the trivial ... it seems I'm debating a ten-year-old. Is there a "Benjamin Buttons" event going on at your home?

Do you have anything at all serious to post in this thread?

"Anger is weapon only in the hand of your opponent."

Calm yourself and learn from this.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no objective definition.

If so then a Christian arguing with an atheist/hedonist on what is obscene goes nowhere.

 

[MForbes]

"Anger is weapon only in the hand of your opponent."

Calm yourself and learn from this.

He can't and won't. He's a candidate for being ignored on account of wanton narcissism and ignorance.

 

[BCP1928]

If so then a Christian arguing with an atheist/hedonist on what is obscene goes nowhere.

Do you really think that Christianity offers us an objective definition of "obscene?" What is it?

 

[o_mlly]

Do you really think that Christianity offers us an objective definition of "obscene?" What is it?

You first.