There Is No Constitutional Right to Satanism

[Monk-Eye]

" Help Ping *

* Clarifying Sight *

Monk-Eye
If I have no right to be free from religion, which religion do you approve of as our state religion?

A state religion is equivalent with its constitution and laws .

The state religion of us republic is non sectarian , while not prohibiting the free exercise of other religions .

US 1st Amendment clause against respecting establishment of religion requires that public contracts for products or services maintain non sectarian standards , while not prohibiting non sectarian products or services from being provided by sectarians , so that the free expression of religion clause is satisfied .

Through private vouchers , legislatures are provisioning taxpayer funds for religious instruction , indoctrination and proselytizing , to captive audiences of children and adolescents , which includes consequences for segregation and sectarian supremacy , and that is sedition against US 1st Amendment .

The US republic is founded on independence of the individual and equitable doctrine , through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , within valid constraints for safety and security , whether an individual is a citizen , or corporation , or a collective of individuals as a greater individual , such as a us state , or us federate , or a civil litigant .

A US republic founded on independence of the individual and equitable doctrine relies upon principles of non violence and individualism .

The principle of non violence defines violence as illegitimate aggression , where self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

The principles of individualism define violence as illegitimate aggression that deprives an individual or self ownership or self determination , where self ownership includes free roam , free association and progeny , and where self ownership entitles an individual to private property and willful intents through social civil contracts - made valid through informed consent .

There is not a difference between edicts and tenets of creed and a religion , and there is not an exception in US 1st amendment for a religion with edicts or tenets of creed to implement violence .

* Perpetuating Slang Will Not Mitigate Risk *

A not incorrect syntax of yearn phrase would be " If there is not a normative value of law for an individual to be free from religion ... " - Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction .

 

[PeterPilot]

Monk-Eye

Pure sophistry sir, and not in the least persuasive.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sure it is.

If a Muslim tries to fly a plane into a building, they'll be arrested for it. They can't claim it's their "1st Amendment right" to fly planes into buildings.

You're so confused. No one is claiming that an act of terror is protected . If a Christian tried to bomb a gay night club the'll also be arrested, .......but Christianity would still be protected by the constitution. Is it remotely possible that you fail to see the folly in your statement ?

Do you have any more nonsensical logical fallacies to share.?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

" Help Ping *

* Clarifying Sight *

A state religion is equivalent with its constitution and laws .

The state religion of us republic is non sectarian , while not prohibiting the free exercise of other religions .

US 1st Amendment clause against respecting establishment of religion requires that public contracts for products or services maintain non sectarian standards , while not prohibiting non sectarian products or services from being provided by sectarians , so that the free expression of religion clause is satisfied .

Through private vouchers , legislatures are provisioning taxpayer funds for religious instruction , indoctrination and proselytizing , to captive audiences of children and adolescents , which includes consequences for segregation and sectarian supremacy , and that is sedition against US 1st Amendment .

The US republic is founded on independence of the individual and equitable doctrine , through equal protection of negative liberties among individuals , within valid constraints for safety and security , whether an individual is a citizen , or corporation , or a collective of individuals as a greater individual , such as a us state , or us federate , or a civil litigant .

A US republic founded on independence of the individual and equitable doctrine relies upon principles of non violence and individualism .

The principle of non violence defines violence as illegitimate aggression , where self defense against violence is legitimate aggression .

The principles of individualism define violence as illegitimate aggression that deprives an individual or self ownership or self determination , where self ownership includes free roam , free association and progeny , and where self ownership entitles an individual to private property and willful intents through social civil contracts - made valid through informed consent .

There is not a difference between edicts and tenets of creed and a religion , and there is not an exception in US 1st amendment for a religion with edicts or tenets of creed to implement violence .

* Perpetuating Slang Will Not Mitigate Risk *

A not incorrect syntax of yearn phrase would be " If there is not a normative value of law for an individual to be free from religion ... " - Applying THe Term Rights As A Descriptor For Articles Of Constitution Is Slang And A Profound Error In Diction .

Inane incoherent codswallop , What the **** are you blathering about?

 

[0311]

There is No Constitutional Right to Satanism

Conservatives have been so shaped by libertarian arguments that they wonder whether Satanism is protected by the Constitution.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Despite people arguing that Satanism is protected by the 1st Amendment. One can actually argue that there is no Constitutional right to Satanism:

There is very little case law on the specific issue of whether Satanism is a protected religion, and what we do have is a bit jumbled. An illustTHerative case from the mid-1990s from the federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, while not binding precedent, is an excellent summary of how confused American constitutional law has become regarding religion.

******* WRONG! Freedom of Religion is a Constitutionally Protected Right. You do not have to like that religion, but you do NOT have the right to say it cannot be practiced. ME....I ******* hate all ******* religions. ALL religions should be banned because is a con.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is No Constitutional Right to Satanism

Conservatives have been so shaped by libertarian arguments that they wonder whether Satanism is protected by the Constitution.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Despite people arguing that Satanism is protected by the 1st Amendment. One can actually argue that there is no Constitutional right to Satanism:

There is very little case law on the specific issue of whether Satanism is a protected religion, and what we do have is a bit jumbled. An illustrative case from the mid-1990s from the federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, while not binding precedent, is an excellent summary of how confused American constitutional law has become regarding religion.

No you can't "actually argue" that Satanism is not protected. Posting an opinion piece from a conservative publication does not change that,

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Literacy Matters "

* Doctrine Directives Or Not *

You're so confused. No one is claiming that an act of terror is protected . If a Christian tried to bomb a gay night club the'll also be arrested, .......but Christianity would still be protected by the constitution. Is it remotely possible that you fail to see the folly in your statement ?
Do you have any more nonsensical logical fallacies to share.?

Is there a directive in the christian doctrine to commit violence to establish its religious polity , as is in the fictional ishmaelism doctrine , and does it exist in the doctrine of satanism ?

* Too Dull To Notice Sedition Of US 1st Amendment *

Inane incoherent codswallop , What the **** are you blathering about?

In https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf , scotus ruled that US taxpayers could pay for religious education , indoctrination and proselytizing .

The foundations of non violence principles , equitable doctrine and limits of legitimate state interest for safety and security were emphasized .

 

[Hafar1014]

There is No Constitutional Right to Satanism

Conservatives have been so shaped by libertarian arguments that they wonder whether Satanism is protected by the Constitution.

www.theamericanconservative.com

Despite people arguing that Satanism is protected by the 1st Amendment. One can actually argue that there is no Constitutional right to Satanism:

There is very little case law on the specific issue of whether Satanism is a protected religion, and what we do have is a bit jumbled. An illustrative case from the mid-1990s from the federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, while not binding precedent, is an excellent summary of how confused American constitutional law has become regarding religion.

Yes there is you can believe in anything you want. Genesis defines Lucifer as the bearer of light. Actually enlightenment

 

[MarathonMike]

Freedom of Religion protects the rights of A CITIZEN to practice whatever religion THAT CITIZEN prefers. The Constitution has no verbiage that I am aware of that declares what is or is not a valid religion. If I am wrong, show me the words from the Constitution.

 

[PeterPilot]

Freedom of Religion protects the rights of A CITIZEN to practice whatever religion THAT CITIZEN prefers. The Constitution has no verbiage that I am aware of that declares what is or is not a valid religion. If I am wrong, show me the words from the Constitution.

Yes, and that means that A CITIZEN is free to reject religion if he so desires.

 

[MarathonMike]

Yes, and that means that A CITIZEN is free to reject religion if he so desires.

Of course.

 

[Jarlaxle]

" Literacy Matters "

* Doctrine Directives Or Not *

Is there a directive in the christian doctrine to commit violence to establish its religious polity , as is in the fictional ishmaelism doctrine , and does it exist in the doctrine of satanism ?

Horseshit. You don't even understand what you rail against.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Short On Literacy And On An Ability To Elaborate "

* Noting A Poster Whom Referred To Its Own Comments As Horse Shit *

Horseshit. You don't even understand what you rail against.

This moniker agrees with you prefacing yearn statement with " horseshit " , as it most certainly is " horseshit " , so much so that this moniker is not able to make any sense of it .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Dumb Mantras Of Sectarian Trolls "

* US 1st Amendment Includes Two Clauses And Not Just One *

Freedom of Religion protects the rights of A CITIZEN to practice whatever religion THAT CITIZEN prefers. The Constitution has no verbiage that I am aware of that declares what is or is not a valid religion. If I am wrong, show me the words from the Constitution.

The non respecting an establishment of religion means that tax payers to do not fund religious instruction , or indoctrination , or proselytizing , to captive audiences of children or adolescents , irrespective of whether the funds are first provided to private citizens through school vouchers .

 

[Jarlaxle]

" Short On Literacy And On An Ability To Elaborate "

* Noting A Poster Whom Referred To Its Own Comments As Horse Shit *

This moniker agrees with you prefacing yearn statement with " horseshit " , as it most certainly is " horseshit " , so much so that this moniker is not able to make any sense of it .

That's gibberish. Do you even understand the crap you post?

 

[MarathonMike]

" Dumb Mantras Of Sectarian Trolls "

* US 1st Amendment Includes Two Clauses And Not Just One *

The non respecting an establishment of religion means that tax payers to do not fund religious instruction , or indoctrination , or proselytizing , to captive audiences of children or adolescents , irrespective of whether the funds are first provided to private citizens through school vouchers .

What a pile of gibberish. Sentences are your friend.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Ewes Playing Foolish Partisan Hackery Or Actually Dumb "

* Patriots For Versus Traitors Against Us Constitution And Republic *

" Dumb Mantras Of Sectarian Trolls "

* US 1st Amendment Includes Two Clauses And Not Just One *

Freedom of Religion protects the rights of A CITIZEN to practice whatever religion THAT CITIZEN prefers. The Constitution has no verbiage that I am aware of that declares what is or is not a valid religion. If I am wrong, show me the words from the Constitution.

The non respecting an establishment of religion means that tax payers to do not fund religious instruction , or indoctrination , or proselytizing , to captive audiences of children or adolescents , irrespective of whether the funds are first provided to private citizens through school vouchers .

What a pile of gibberish. Sentences are your friend.

Yearn original premise was levied by scRotus in Carson versus Makin to usurp 1st amendment of us constitution , through a treasonist notion that dispensation of tax payer money directly to private citizens via private vouchers , which are then transferred to sectarian schools for sectarian education , does not violate us 1st amendment clause for not respecting an establishment of religion .

Clearly , private vouchers for non sectarian education , irrespective of whether proprietors , owners or instructors are sectarian , satisfies both clauses of us 1st amendment , that includes government not respecting an establishment of religion and free expression of religion .

* Join In Where Competent To Due Sew *

. Are Us States Prohibited From Complying With Us 1st Amendment By Us 10th Amendment ? .

. Are Us States Prohibited From Complying With Us 1st Amendment By Us 10th Amendment ? .

. Are Us States Prohibited From Complying With Us 1st Amendment By Us 10th Amendment ? .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Affecting Perspectives And Intuition Of Learning Algorithms "

* Ask An Artificial Intelligence Engine *

That's gibberish. Do you even understand the crap you post?

In x there is button to explain a tweet and assessments of tweets from this moniker return an expected coherent explanation .

* Survey Of Political Philosophy *

. https://www.usmessageboard.com/thre...osophy-which-political-party-is-which.797120/ .


* Persisting In Spite Of No Cooperation *

. Lead , Follow But Preferably Get Out Of The Way ! .

 

[MarathonMike]

" Ewes Playing Foolish Partisan Hackery Or Actually Dumb "

* Patriots For Versus Traitors Against Us Constitution And Republic *

Yearn original premise was levied by scRotus in Carson versus Makin to usurp 1st amendment of us constitution , through a treasonist notion that dispensation of tax payer money directly to private citizens via private vouchers , which are then transferred to sectarian schools for sectarian education , does not violate us 1st amendment clause for not respecting an establishment of religion .

Clearly , private vouchers for non sectarian education , irrespective of whether proprietors , owners or instructors are sectarian , satisfies both clauses of us 1st amendment , that includes government not respecting an establishment of religion and free expression of religion .

* Join In Where Competent To Due Sew *

. Are Us States Prohibited From Complying With Us 1st Amendment By Us 10th Amendment ? .

. Are Us States Prohibited From Complying With Us 1st Amendment By Us 10th Amendment ? .

. Are Us States Prohibited From Complying With Us 1st Amendment By Us 10th Amendment ? .

Read the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause and please stop writing these bizarre pseudo-English replies.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Disingenuous Buffoonery For Bifurcated Minds "

* Myopia Leading To Stupidity *

Read the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause and please stop writing these bizarre pseudo-English replies.

There are two clauses in us 1st amendment and both of them must be satisfied concurrently , not just one of them .

A state contracts for non sectarian products or services , irrespective of whether a sectarian religious observer provides the non sectarian products or services .

Us states do not contract for sectarian instruction , or indoctrination , or proselytizing , especially to captive audiences of children and adolescents , irrespective of whether tax payer funding occurs directly through government or indirectly through private voucher to individual citizens .

Us taxpayers do not fund segregation for sectarian supremacy .