Religion and the Establishment Clause

[Quantum Windbag]

It's both if you're denying that Thomas Torquemada (for instance) was an extremist who neither killed or tortured thousands who failed to meet his notions of what a Christian is.

How is acknowledging that Torquemada was responsible for a few thousand deaths change the fact that Lenin was responsible for millions? I think my statement still stands, Lenin is responsible for more deaths than any religious person in all of history. Unless, that is, you still insist on denying historical facts.

It would be totally awesome of you to claim his position is mainstream.

Define mainstream.

There is no logical inconsistency between these two things. None. I agree that you certainly have a right to build your shrine, you simply cannot argue that I have no right to be offended by it. Only a bigot would demand otherwise.

Feel free to be offended.

I forgot to type the word not. You do not have the right not to be offended.

You have just claimed that the fundamental principle upon which being offended is based (the freedom to discern good from evil according to your own conscience) is not a right at all, but some kind of privilege that I (and presumably anyone else offended by your religious expression) am claiming.

Even if you factor in the fact that I dropped a word when I typed my post, I did not come close to saying anything like that. Do you have some sort of pathological need to stuff words into other people's mouths, or do you just think it makes you look intelligent?

This is where you're simply denying (for me) at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

In fact, your claim that you have the right to deny me freedom from your religion, by the power of your political franchise, is repugnant to any rational notion of freedom of religion.

Your supposed solution to this is to deny everyone the right to have any religion?

You have more in common with Lenin that I thought.

I also have the right to be offended by your religion, and you have no right to infringe upon my right by "[voting] for everyone having the right to a religion, and [me] not having a right to be free from it." It is simply illegitimate for you to use the power of government to force your religion upon me or deny me my right to be offended by your religion.

Again, where did I say anything about imposing me religion on you? Why do you keep going back to a position I do not have?

I understand the right to be free from the government trying to impose a religion on me perfectly.

Yet you keep trying to twist my words around to make it seem like I am arguing that I have the right to force you to go to my church.

This never happened.

It just did.

This never happened either.

Of course it never happened.

For those who demand the validity of faith as a measure of what constitutes "proof," your use of the term "prove" is meaningless. Your denials of reality cannot prove me wrong, and they certainly do not prove you right.

See?

You just did not try to argue that I am saying something I am not saying.

 

[LOki]

Even if you factor in the fact that I dropped a word when I typed my post, I did not come close to saying anything like that.

It is the necessary premise of the assertion that no one has the right to be offended.

So while I can accept that you misspoke, you have to accept that I accurately understood what you did say.

Do you have some sort of pathological need to stuff words into other people's mouths, or do you just think it makes you look intelligent?

This never happened. You're the one who misspoke, I didn't put those words in your mouth.

You have a pathological need to make false accusations to cover your lack of intellectual integrity.

Your supposed solution to this is to deny everyone the right to have any religion?

You have more in common with Lenin that I thought.

Again, you're simply making the denial for me of at least half of the equation--an attempt to assert a strawman that you're more comfortable refuting. You're projecting upon my point a denial of the "freedom of expression" clause; you're projecting upon my point the misunderstandings that the superstitious have regarding the rights of people and the powers of government; you're projecting upon my point the presumption of righteously held privileges validated by strength of faith, and strength of faith alone.

In fact, your claim that you have the right to deny me freedom from your religion, by the power of your political franchise, is repugnant to any rational notion of freedom of religion.

Again, where did I say anything about imposing me religion on you? Why do you keep going back to a position I do not have?

Again, It's not my fault (as you appear to insist) that you misspoke. It just occurs to me that forcing your religion upon me (or another) is the sole instance where your assertion, that being offended by your religion, is not a right.

Yet you keep trying to twist my words around to make it seem like I am arguing that I have the right to force you to go to my church.

I didn't twist your words, you misspoke.

It just did.

Seriously, get a fucking clue.

This never happened either.

Of course it never happened.

You finally come correct. Congratulations!

For those who demand the validity of faith as a measure of what constitutes "proof," your use of the term "prove" is meaningless. Your denials of reality cannot prove me wrong, and they certainly do not prove you right.

See?

You just did not try to argue that I am saying something I am not saying.

Since I did not argue that you are saying something you are not saying, I see that you're still failing to level up on intellectual integrity.