Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[Quantum Windbag]

Here are the goal posts for you once again QW.

They haven't moved a millimeter.

...celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities.

Now go ahead and acknowledge that this statement is completely false or prove to everyone watching that you are a disengenuous partisan hack.

The choice is yours.

I choose honesty.

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

You moved the goal posts, and I refused to play along.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no. i have a problem with your mistaking an op-ed FOR news.

i had an op-ed published in the new york post where i got to chastise pat buchanan. it was great fun.

but it wasn't news.

Since I was talking about how people might erroneously jump to a wrong conclusion I see nothing wrong with quoting an op ed, editorial, or even a work of fiction. If I had been trying to make a factual point there you might actually have a point, as it is you just look as foolish as manifold as he continuously moves the goal posts in order to make me look stupid. Unfortunately for him, I am still making my same point, and unfortunately for you, you did not even bother to understand the point I was making.

In other words, you are being foolish.

the goal posts haven't moved an inch.

as for looking stupid, like hamburger helper, you're doing just fine all by yourself.

See my previous post.

 

[del]

Since I was talking about how people might erroneously jump to a wrong conclusion I see nothing wrong with quoting an op ed, editorial, or even a work of fiction. If I had been trying to make a factual point there you might actually have a point, as it is you just look as foolish as manifold as he continuously moves the goal posts in order to make me look stupid. Unfortunately for him, I am still making my same point, and unfortunately for you, you did not even bother to understand the point I was making.

In other words, you are being foolish.

the goal posts haven't moved an inch.

as for looking stupid, like hamburger helper, you're doing just fine all by yourself.

See my previous post.

to what purpose?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the goal posts haven't moved an inch.

as for looking stupid, like hamburger helper, you're doing just fine all by yourself.

See my previous post.

to what purpose?

So you can explain to me how me saying that I do not believe something is true means that I am arguing that it is.

 

[Sheldon]

Ugh god. Hamburger Helper. I like that glove dude with the red nose. But their shit literally tastes like shit. Too many drunk munchies session where that ended up coming out the wrong way into the toilet or trash can. I can taste the double cheeseburger mix just thinking of this.

 

[uscitizen]

Here are the goal posts for you once again QW.

They haven't moved a millimeter.

...celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities.

Now go ahead and acknowledge that this statement is completely false or prove to everyone watching that you are a disengenuous partisan hack.

The choice is yours.

As long as they are private and not on public property, no public money,etc and do not violate noise, etc types of ordinances I do not believe religious christmas stuff is illegal anywhere in the USA.

 

[del]

See my previous post.

to what purpose?

So you can explain to me how me saying that I do not believe something is true means that I am arguing that it is.

i have no idea what you're babbling about. you keep whining that the goal posts are being moved when they are clearly stationary. it amuses me.

EOF

 

[manifold]

Here are the goal posts for you once again QW.

They haven't moved a millimeter.

...celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities.

Now go ahead and acknowledge that this statement is completely false or prove to everyone watching that you are a disengenuous partisan hack.

The choice is yours.

As long as they are private and not on public property, no public money,etc and do not violate noise, etc types of ordinances I do not believe religious christmas stuff is illegal anywhere in the USA.

Of course it's not illegal. Not only is it not illegal in "most communities" as QW say's is a "reasonable" position, it's not illegal ANYWHERE in the United States. To make it so would be blatant textbook infringement on the free exercise of religion and therefore a violation of the 1st Amendment. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain who has ever read the Bill of Rights. I often start threads like this to ferret out partisan hacks. I like to know who is here toting a partisan agenda and who is here looking for objective and itellectually honest discussion.

It appears that the latest in a long line of posters to betray disingenuous partisan motives is Quantum Windbag. I'm actually a bit surprised. Although I haven't had a lot of interaction with him, I though he was among the few honest posters here. Clearly I was mistaken.

But at least watching him paint himself into a corner with his backpedalling, tapdancing routine has been entertaining.

 

[George Costanza]

It does not mean that same person will be free from ever having to view other praciting the religion of their choice.

I agree with you that freedom FROM religion does not mean this.

But what I'm seeking is what it DOES mean, not what it doesn't mean.

Can you read? Your question was answered early on in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-a-well-reasoned-definition.html#post3367186

Or, perhaps you just choose to ignore the truth so you can continue with your divisive rhetoric?

 

[George Costanza]

I often start threads like this to ferret out partisan hacks.

Oh boy - where to start with this one?

 

[manifold]

I often start threads like this to ferret out partisan hacks.

Oh boy - where to start with this one?

No worries sally, you already betrayed your partisan hackery ages ago.

 

[manifold]

It does not mean that same person will be free from ever having to view other praciting the religion of their choice.

I agree with you that freedom FROM religion does not mean this.

But what I'm seeking is what it DOES mean, not what it doesn't mean.

Can you read? Your question was answered early on in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-a-well-reasoned-definition.html#post3367186

Or, perhaps you just choose to ignore the truth so you can continue with your divisive rhetoric?

I liked dillo's answer. But it's not the only point of view and unlike you, I prefer to remain objective and open minded.

 

[Synthaholic]

It does not mean that same person will be free from ever having to view other praciting the religion of their choice.

I agree with you that freedom FROM religion does not mean this.

But what I'm seeking is what it DOES mean, not what it doesn't mean.

Can you read? Your question was answered early on in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-a-well-reasoned-definition.html#post3367186

Or, perhaps you just choose to ignore the truth so you can continue with your divisive rhetoric?

I gave him one in post #90, but he's not interested. It's just a troll thread.

On edit: I've prolly jumped to a conclusion, and I apologize. I will wait til Manifold gets a chance to reply to that post.

 

[manifold]

I gave him one in post #90, but he's not interested. It's just a troll thread.

I actually found that very interesting. I even meant to rep you for it but forgot as I launched into my own research on the story to see what happened since (it was from 2003).

Turns out Moore was removed from the bench and is now a two-time gubernatorial loser. Guess he didn't have as much support from the people as he thought.

Anyway, I had already moved on from the OP question and was looking for an example of when that argument is actually a valid rebuttal. So far nobody has provided one.

 

[manifold]

I gave him one in post #90, but he's not interested. It's just a troll thread.

I actually found that very interesting. I even meant to rep you for it but forgot as I launched into my own research on the story to see what happened since (it was from 2003).

Turns out Moore was removed from the bench and is now a two-time gubernatorial loser. Guess he didn't have as much support from the people as he thought.

Anyway, I had already moved on from the OP question and was looking for an example of when that argument is actually a valid rebuttal. So far nobody has provided one.

Also, your post illustrated an example of the esatblishment clause being used to keep religion out of government. It didn't really have much to do with the claim peddled by those that say 'we don't have freedom FROM relgion' as a rebuttal to a ficticious strawman argument that exists solely in their mind. But don't take my word for it, scroll back and check out my exchange with Quantum Windbag. Guy actually insists that some communities have outlawed religious Christmas displays altogether.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance would be strongly regulated, if not banned.

 

[manifold]

If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance would be strongly regulated, if not banned.

What do you mean by 'public expression'?

Are you talking about a nativity scene on public property or a WWJD bumper sticker on some guys car?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here are the goal posts for you once again QW.

They haven't moved a millimeter.



Now go ahead and acknowledge that this statement is completely false or prove to everyone watching that you are a disengenuous partisan hack.

The choice is yours.

As long as they are private and not on public property, no public money,etc and do not violate noise, etc types of ordinances I do not believe religious christmas stuff is illegal anywhere in the USA.

Of course it's not illegal. Not only is it not illegal in "most communities" as QW say's is a "reasonable" position, it's not illegal ANYWHERE in the United States. To make it so would be blatant textbook infringement on the free exercise of religion and therefore a violation of the 1st Amendment. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain who has ever read the Bill of Rights. I often start threads like this to ferret out partisan hacks. I like to know who is here toting a partisan agenda and who is here looking for objective and itellectually honest discussion.

It appears that the latest in a long line of posters to betray disingenuous partisan motives is Quantum Windbag. I'm actually a bit surprised. Although I haven't had a lot of interaction with him, I though he was among the few honest posters here. Clearly I was mistaken.

But at least watching him paint himself into a corner with his backpedalling, tapdancing routine has been entertaining.

Again, I did not say it is a reasonable position. I said, and still say, that, depending on where you live, it is reasonable to believe that it is true. Since then you have been demanding that I prove that it is true, and point out which states have made it totally illegal.

That is not my position, and never has been, but it seems you are actually incapable of having a reasoned discussion, which is what you asked for. If you really want to have a resoanble discussion you have to admit that some people do believe that, and examine the evidence of why they do.

If, however, you prefer to paint the world as black and white, you have moved the goal posts, despite your insistence that you have not. You have certainly succeeded in exposing someone's partisan hackiness, take a look in the mirror and you will see it clearly written on your face.

 

[manifold]

As long as they are private and not on public property, no public money,etc and do not violate noise, etc types of ordinances I do not believe religious christmas stuff is illegal anywhere in the USA.

Of course it's not illegal. Not only is it not illegal in "most communities" as QW say's is a "reasonable" position, it's not illegal ANYWHERE in the United States. To make it so would be blatant textbook infringement on the free exercise of religion and therefore a violation of the 1st Amendment. This is obvious to anyone with half a brain who has ever read the Bill of Rights. I often start threads like this to ferret out partisan hacks. I like to know who is here toting a partisan agenda and who is here looking for objective and itellectually honest discussion.

It appears that the latest in a long line of posters to betray disingenuous partisan motives is Quantum Windbag. I'm actually a bit surprised. Although I haven't had a lot of interaction with him, I though he was among the few honest posters here. Clearly I was mistaken.

But at least watching him paint himself into a corner with his backpedalling, tapdancing routine has been entertaining.

Again, I did not say it is a reasonable position. I said, and still say, that, depending on where you live, it is reasonable to believe that it is true. Since then you have been demanding that I prove that it is true, and point out which states have made it totally illegal.

That is not my position, and never has been, but it seems you are actually incapable of having a reasoned discussion, which is what you asked for. If you really want to have a resoanble discussion you have to admit that some people do believe that, and examine the evidence of why they do.

If, however, you prefer to paint the world as black and white, you have moved the goal posts, despite your insistence that you have not.

Dude, you couldn't even acknowlede the obvioius falseness of the statement and you call me unreasonable?

It is absolutely not reasonable to believe it's true no matter where you live since it's not illegal ANYWHERE in the United States (and since we're talking about the 1st Amendment, that's all that applies).

All I was asking for was a simple acknowledgment of it's abject falseness as a starting point. From there I'm more than willing to delve into the nuances of the subject, that actually pertain to the establishment clause and not that stupid misused talking point. But since you couldn't muster the intellectual honesty to pass the non-partisan challenge, I have no reason to assume you could muster it at all.

True story

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you had the right to be free from any sort of religious pressure - freedom from religion - then public expression of religious significance would be strongly regulated, if not banned.

What do you mean by 'public expression'?

An expression open for and intended that everyone should see, that is not limited to a 'private' setting - an outdoor Christmas tree as compared to one indoors, for example.