Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[manifold]

M14,

Your chronology is out of order, but I suspect you already know that. You're just being a lying pussy again.

:shrug:

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14,
Your chronology is out of order, but I suspect you already know that. You're just being a lying pussy again.

Your cowardice was expected. Thank you for not disappointng me.

 

[jillian]

Manifold, can I say the Lords prayer in any public building? Can a teacher open a class with a passage from the bible? Before the radicalization of our society by communist agitators in the 1960's, I used to be able to do all of those things. Now, instead, my grandchildren must pass through metal detectors to get into school. Even then their safety can't be assured. Crime is rampant. The very fabric of our society has been seriously eroded. Have you looked around lately. The silent majority isn't silent any longer. We're going to take our country back.

why should you be able to open a taxpayer funded class with a bible passage? whose bible? mine? yours? perhaps a passage from the koran? i'm sure you would be just as tolerant of two of those three as you want to force others to be of your brand of religious indoctrination. (yeah, sure. )

you can say any prayer you want... quietly and without disturbing me.

if you can't do without religious indoctrination for 6 hours, you should probably be in a parochial school, not in public school trying to proselytize to my son.

that's why there's a first amendment... to keep government from allowing you to turn this country into a theocracy.

and no, you couldn't do those things. in fact, the words "under G-d" weren't put into the pledge until the commie hunters decided to insert it during the 50's.

i'll refer you to the First Amendment once again and thank you to keep your religion away from me, while enjoying your freedom to practice it to your widdle heart's content, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

 

[yota5]

Manifold, what does any of that have to do with the question that you asked me. This smells of liberal rope-a-dope to me; make a stupid statement to deflect attention away from liberal stupidity.

 

[manifold]

Manifold, what does any of that have to do with the question that you asked me. This smells of liberal rope-a-dope to me; make a stupid statement to deflect attention away from liberal stupidity.

It's called a follow up question skippy.

Don't feel too indequate if you're not up to the task, nobody else is either.

 

[Iowa10000]

tax.com: Really Bad Reporting in Wisconsin: Who 'Contributes' to Public Workers' Pensions?

 

[yota5]

Jillian, the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to keep the government from meddling in our freedom of religion. It doesn't care whether you're a christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, et-al. It seems as though atheist, and Muslims are the most vocal in this argument. Muslims want to murder all non believers, and atheists don't want any religion observed. The communists, and fascists, attacked religion during the Second World War. Just like the same political groups are attacking religion, and our other freedoms in this country today. I guess that some things will never change. By the way they didn't succeed.

 

[yota5]

Typical response from a liberal with nothing to say. How about this. Liberals are stuck on stupid, and they are united in support of America's enemies. )

 

[manifold]

Just like the same political groups are attacking religion, and our other freedoms in this country today

Sorry Chumley, but removing religion from government =/= attacking freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Dude, you are trying very hard to make rdean look intelligent, and doing a remarkably good job.

True story.

Here is what I said.

I guess that depends on what state you live in.

Why is religious display deemed OK in one state but not another? | PennLive.com

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a person living in one state to think the policy he experiences extends to every state. You certainly seem to believe that your experience is universal. I have no idea what state code1211 is from, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that statement. Personally, I do not, but I do know that there are people that want to make it true. You need to admit that yourself, or you are just as foolish as you think I am.

Please tell me how you get from me trying to acknowledge that code1211 has an erroneous opinion, and trying to show why he might have that opinion if he does not acknowledge the world is bigger than his experience, to my absolute refusal to say his opinion is wrong.

In some communities private displays are being shuttered simply because a lawsuit is filed, and no one can afford to fight it. In other communities, the courts have ruled that those displays violate the separation of church and state because public funds are being spent on them. In other communities the church has taken an even narrower view and barred private displays on public property, even though the Supreme court has, on occasion, ruled those displays constitutional because they use no public funds, and they have a long tradition in the community. The actual law here is so murky that no one, except, apparently you, understands exactly what is, and is not, illegal.

So genius, can you tell me why some displays on public property are legal, but others, which meet all the criteria of the first, are not? If not, I suggest you do not sneer at a person who is so confused that they think all such displays are illegal.

 

[manifold]

It's not a matter of opinion fucktard.

It's a fact that it's not illegal anywhere in the United States.

Once again, you fail.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I've only ever heard people argue against displays on public property. I've never once heard even the most left wing, anti-Christian atheist suggest that you can't put Christmas decorations on your house.

I have, maybe you are not as knowledgeable about this as you think you are.

Battle Over Private Nativity Scene : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Guess what, if the deed restrictions and home owners agreements say what they claim, they will win.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

Is there anyone here with the courage and brains to try to answer this?

So far nothing but blatant deflection and chronic wussitis.

How about this one.

http://www2.wsls.com/news/2011/feb/25/aclu-virginia-defends-floyd-co-high-school-christi-ar-867856/

The ACLU seems to agree that people do not have the right to be free from religion, even at school.

 

[manifold]

A private association's rules don't qualify as 'illegal.'

Once again, you fail

 

[Quantum Windbag]

M14,

I've argued no such thing. So not only are you a pussy, you're a lying pussy.

I repeat my challenge, and await your weak attempt at deflection.

What argument have you ever heard for which 'you don't have freedom FROM relgion' is actually a legitimate rebuttal and not simply an attempt at deflection and obfuscation?

The only time I've ever heard people use that talking point is in defense of relgious displays on 'public property', in which case it's a weak attempt at deflection since arguments against public property displays are based, right or wrong, on the establishment clause and not the free exercise thereof clause.

You want another one? Not a problem. Jehovah's Witnesses have the religious right to knock on your door, and the Supreme Court has always ruled that you do not have the right to pass laws to be free from them knocking on your door.

You loose.

freedomforum.org: Why Jehovah's Witnesses' victory is a win for all of us

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A private association's rules don't qualify as 'illegal.'

Once again, you fail

Are you trying to say that contracts and deed retricitions are not legally binding? That is going to be harsh news to lawyers, and overturn generations of precedents and laws.

 

[manifold]

Keep flailing skippy, I'm sure I'm not the only one amused by your steaming pile of fail.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I've read most of the thread I think.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from allowing any religion or religious group to receive special consideration or favor from the federal government and disallows granting power to any religious group. It also disallows the government from interfering with the religious thought, faith, and practice of any person or religious group EXCEPT when such practice violates basic laws of the land. Sacrificing virgins for any purpose, for instance, would violate the basic laws of the land and the feds could absolutely interfere with a religious ceremony regardless of how much the doctrine of the group required that sacrifice.

Where the First Amendment applies to Mani specifically is that Mani can practice, believe, state his beliefs re religion anywhere he chooses without interference from government EXCEPT when that practice or speech violates the unalienable rights of another. And he can choose to be free of any religious influence on his own property if he chooses that meaning he can order the Jehovah Witnesses to leave and not put up any Christmas lights if he doesn't want to.

It does NOT mean that he never has to hear a Christmas Carol or see a religious symbol or be exposed to another's religious thoughts in the public sector.

 

[manifold]

Okay I've read most of the thread I think.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from allowing any religion or religious group to receive special consideration or favor from the federal government and disallows granting power to any religious group. It also disallows the government from interfering with the religious thought, faith, and practice of any person or religious group EXCEPT when such practice violates basic laws of the land. Sacrificing virgins for any purpose, for instance, would violate the basic laws of the land and the feds could absolutely interfere with a religious ceremony regardless of how much the doctrine of the group required that sacrifice.

Where the First Amendment applies to Mani specifically is that Mani can practice, believe, state his beliefs re religion anywhere he chooses without interference from government EXCEPT when that practice or speech violates the unalienable rights of another. And he can choose to be free of any religious influence on his own property if he chooses that meaning he can order the Jehovah Witnesses to leave and not put up any Christmas lights if he doesn't want to.

It does NOT mean that he never has to hear a Christmas Carol or see a religious symbol or be exposed to another's religious thoughts in the public sector.

I agree. But since I've never heard anyone argue that it DOES mean you never have to hear a Christmas carol or see a relgious symbol I really don't understand the value in trying to make that some huge point in the debate. It's nothing more than a statement of what should be obvious.

 

[Care4all]

what does 'freedom FROM' religion mean to those who wrongly use that term, instead of what is actually in the bill of rights?