frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 47,487
- 10,519
- 2,030
Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.
"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"
Do you see how silly this is?
If you mean the new religion, the gubmint yes the supporters want to use the Nuremberg Defense.
A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.
its not a defense and they hung all those nazis who tried to use it.
I assume you are referring to the davis case and her exercising her right not to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God.
.
What? "the supporters", so, I say something, then you go off on one about Nuremburg, then you start saying "the supporters" say this. But you were talking to ME.
Talk about just twisting everything so it looks like someone is saying something you think you can attack.
I don't care if this is a legal ploy or not. It's not what I was talking about.
I said:
"Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.
"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"
Do you see how silly this is?"
Do you want to reply to my post now? Instead of what you think someone else said?
Or you could contact your attorney and have them translate the meaning of my response. Otherwise without knowing what you dont understand I dont know what to simply, if this can even be simplified more than I already have.
I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand WHY you're saying it.
I say "I like fish" and you respond with "Oh, I don't know why she'd even think of marrying him".
You see how silly that is?
why dont you put that in perspective and apply to the above quotes instead of using some completely detached example and I will see what I can do.
Let's try this.
The law is the law. The law is the law in cases that happen every day. It's also the law in cases that may not happen.
Sacrificial killings, sun dances, many other such things that are religious in nature but have been banned because they go against the principles of Human Rights.
On the other hand you're coming on here telling me that Christians refusing to obey the equality of the law, the right to marry and going against the principles of smaller govt staying the ef out of people's lives is okay and shouldn't be a problem when the government prohibits these.
I stand by using sacrificial killings because they're RELIGIOUS and the govt cannot carry them out, nor can a government official.
I do, however, understand that when an argument gets a little too tricky for you to handle you resort to "why don't you talk about something else".