RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer!

RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 10:59:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas BTW, convicts have an inferior legal status still even though they are not inferior as persons. Same thing. Exactly

joether -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 11:14:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: You would be wrong. By the "government" starting the meeting with a prayer signifies that the government supports religion. For you to ignore this most sailent point gives lie to your position. It is not illegal to support religion. It is illegal to mandate one by law. Read the amendment again because you are twisting it to support your personal belief and even perhaps fear. Please don't call me a liar simply because I read the law as it is written. Besides, you hurt my wittle feelings. Actually, the government can....NEVER....support a religion without violating the 1st amendment. The founding fathers did not create this nation for Christian ideals, but because they did not agree nor like the Kind's view on Christianity. So supporting individuals whom wish to give a prayer from their religion, at a government function (i.e. a public forum involving the local/state/federal government), would be in effect, government supporting that religion. Perhaps there are those of other faiths and philosophies that came to the function to discuss the topic and....NOT....wish to sit through a few hours of religious bullshit! If your going to allow one person to give a 30 second prayer that is of a religious nature, you have to give....ALL....faiths and philosophies the same access. Otherwise, government I favoring one religion/philosophy over others.

joether -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 11:34:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Dred Scott In 1846, the Supremes recognized that Dred Scott, a black slave, was indeed a slave and therefore had an inferior status. This is true, is it not? So, they were right. This decision was nullified when there were no more slaves in the U.S. So, suggesting the Supremes are wrong some or all of the time based on the Dred Scott decision is unsupported. So you agree with the notion that Corporations are people, to be given all the same rights and privileges of US Citizens, WITHOUT, the restrictions and penalties for being a US Citizen. That is the direction the current ''conservative" justices are taking the country on some recent decisions. You must also be in agreement with Scalia that torture is not torture....UNLESS...the torturer believes the torture is ACTUALLY being tortured. Otherwise its just 'enhanced interrogation techniques'..... Do you actually believe the US Supreme Court is perfect in its decision making? That they are incapable of 'fucking up' on decisions? As that seems to be your view. That the US Supreme Court is just as 'correct' and 'perfect' as the Holy Bible (I'll leave how 'correct' and 'perfect' the Holy Bible is for another thread...).

Hillwilliam -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 1:51:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Only if they allow just one religion, and one denomination at that, If both Father Michael and Reverend Sims get turns it is not a violation, and as I recall they even included a rabbi so claims that they violate the first amendment are grossly inaccurate. You need to check what the writers said about the 1st. In spite of what artie tries to claim, in 50 odd years in the part of the country we both live in, I have never seen anyone else allowed to pray publicly except a protestant Christian.

Hillwilliam -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 1:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Please don't call me a liar simply because I read the law as it is written. He doesn't have to. There are lots of other reasons for that Besides, you hurt my wittle feelings. Goodness knows that's easy enough based on your whining to the mods

Hillwilliam -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 1:59:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: The courts have subsequently ruled that is not so. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Source? So why were you whining about certain communities wanting to establish "Sharia Law" when you were here before?

Musicmystery -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 2:19:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Dred Scott In 1946, the Supremes recognized that Dred Scott, a black slave, was indeed a slave and therefore had an inferior status. This is true, is it not? So, they were right. This decision was nullified when there were no more slaves in the U.S. So, suggesting the Supremes are wrong some or all of the time based on the Dred Scott decision is unsupported. The decision was not Blacks are inferior but that slaves have a legal status inferior to free men. Dred Scott was one of the worst rulings in the history of the court. Not because it failed to recognize slaves (not blacks but slaves, leftists always fail to see the difference) but because they didn't stop there and in effect put an end to free states as long as slaves were bought in a slave state. All of the alleged proof of this prior to the War make this same oversight they equate slaves with blacks. Huh? How is it "leftists always fail to see the difference" and, apparently, all non-leftists don't? And that point made, there's still the reality that the vast majority of slaves were black (indentured servants is a different distinction, since apparently this is hair-splitting day).

mnottertail -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 2:22:08 PM)
And 1946 was pretty late in the game unless you are confusing Dredd Scott with Harry Truman and the Supreme Court with an executive order integrating the military. I dunno. I just don't know.

BamaD -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 4:16:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Only if they allow just one religion, and one denomination at that, If both Father Michael and Reverend Sims get turns it is not a violation, and as I recall they even included a rabbi so claims that they violate the first amendment are grossly inaccurate. You need to check what the writers said about the 1st. In spite of what artie tries to claim, in 50 odd years in the part of the country we both live in, I have never seen anyone else allowed to pray publicly except a protestant Christian. Were they all Baptists, or Methodists, or Church of Christ? If they were not all from the same denomination then it is still not a violation. Still I believe that early on at least once it was a rabbi. That would kill any hint of violation.

Arturas -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 5:33:45 PM)
quote: Actually, the government can....NEVER....support a religion without violating the 1st amendment. The founding fathers did not create this nation for Christian ideals, but because they did not agree nor like the Kind's view on Christianity. Saying this over and over does not make it any more factual. Allowing anyone to pray and even inviting them to pray does not establish a religion. The law says "establish", not "support" or not "allow to pray at meetings". So, lets see what the meaning of establish is... start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent So allowing prayer in any government session, including the oath of the President, does not establish a religion. That's all the 1st Amendment prohibits, establishing a religion. You can pretend it says more but it does not. So, making your own 1st Amendment up is an interesting exercise but I like to use the real one.

Arturas -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 5:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Dred Scott In 1846, the Supremes recognized that Dred Scott, a black slave, was indeed a slave and therefore had an inferior status. This is true, is it not? So, they were right. This decision was nullified when there were no more slaves in the U.S. So, suggesting the Supremes are wrong some or all of the time based on the Dred Scott decision is unsupported. So you agree with the notion that Corporations are people, to be given all the same rights and privileges of US Citizens, WITHOUT, the restrictions and penalties for being a US Citizen. That is the direction the current ''conservative" justices are taking the country on some recent decisions. You must also be in agreement with Scalia that torture is not torture....UNLESS...the torturer believes the torture is ACTUALLY being tortured. Otherwise its just 'enhanced interrogation techniques'..... Do you actually believe the US Supreme Court is perfect in its decision making? That they are incapable of 'fucking up' on decisions? As that seems to be your view. That the US Supreme Court is just as 'correct' and 'perfect' as the Holy Bible (I'll leave how 'correct' and 'perfect' the Holy Bible is for another thread...). The question is not if the Supremes are perfect but instead do they sit in judgment. The other questions are repetitive and off subject and so I need not have an opinion on them, but I thank you for having an interest in what I think about them.

Arturas -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 5:50:04 PM)
quote: as the Holy Bible (I'll leave how 'correct' and 'perfect' the Holy Bible is for another thread...). I do not think every translation is perfect or correct. The various translations are made by man and so are not perfect. Do they need to be perfect? I think not. But since when do we not use something because it is not perfect yet? Everything we use and everything we are is imperfect.

BamaD -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 5:51:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: Actually, the government can....NEVER....support a religion without violating the 1st amendment. The founding fathers did not create this nation for Christian ideals, but because they did not agree nor like the Kind's view on Christianity. Saying this over and over does not make it any more factual. Allowing anyone to pray and even inviting them to pray does not establish a religion. The law says "establish", not "support" or not "allow to pray at meetings". So, lets see what the meaning of establish is... start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent So allowing prayer in any government session, including the oath of the President, does not establish a religion. That's all the 1st Amendment prohibits, establishing a religion. You can pretend it says more but it does not. So, making your own 1st Amendment up is an interesting exercise but I like to use the real one. He has previously intimated that the much of the Bill of Rights and by extension the Constitution is obsolete.

Arturas -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 5:53:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Dred Scott In 1946, the Supremes recognized that Dred Scott, a black slave, was indeed a slave and therefore had an inferior status. This is true, is it not? So, they were right. This decision was nullified when there were no more slaves in the U.S. So, suggesting the Supremes are wrong some or all of the time based on the Dred Scott decision is unsupported. The decision was not Blacks are inferior but that slaves have a legal status inferior to free men. Dred Scott was one of the worst rulings in the history of the court. Not because it failed to recognize slaves (not blacks but slaves, leftists always fail to see the difference) but because they didn't stop there and in effect put an end to free states as long as slaves were bought in a slave state. All of the alleged proof of this prior to the War make this same oversight they equate slaves with blacks. Huh? How is it "leftists always fail to see the difference" and, apparently, all non-leftists don't? And that point made, there's still the reality that the vast majority of slaves were black (indentured servants is a different distinction, since apparently this is hair-splitting day). I don't think we are splitting hairs. This ruling applied to all slaves, not just blacks, so suggesting the Supremes ruled Blacks are inferior with Dred Scott in 1846 is unsupported by fact and logic.

thompsonx -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 6:00:45 PM)
ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: You would be wrong. By the "government" starting the meeting with a prayer signifies that the government supports religion. For you to ignore this most sailent point gives lie to your position. It is not illegal to support religion. It is illegal to mandate one by law. Read the amendment again because you are twisting it to support your personal belief and even perhaps fear. The first ammendment prohibits the support of religion. The only thing I fear is mortars. Please don't call me a liar simply because I read the law as it is written. Perhaps a class in remedial english might help I said your position was a lie. Besides, you hurt my wittle feelings. That sounds like a personal problem perhaps you should talk to the chaplin.

Arturas -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 6:14:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: Actually, the government can....NEVER....support a religion without violating the 1st amendment. The founding fathers did not create this nation for Christian ideals, but because they did not agree nor like the Kind's view on Christianity. Saying this over and over does not make it any more factual. Allowing anyone to pray and even inviting them to pray does not establish a religion. The law says "establish", not "support" or not "allow to pray at meetings". So, lets see what the meaning of establish is... start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent So allowing prayer in any government session, including the oath of the President, does not establish a religion. That's all the 1st Amendment prohibits, establishing a religion. You can pretend it says more but it does not. So, making your own 1st Amendment up is an interesting exercise but I like to use the real one. He has previously intimated that the much of the Bill of Rights and by extension the Constitution is obsolete. Then I will not waste time with him. Thanks. The responses from him might lead one to think we have a bot here, only a poor one at that.

thompsonx -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 6:21:19 PM)
ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: Me: in whatever form he appears to all Americans, is an integral part of this Country's founding, You: That is an unmitigated plate of turds. Please show some validation for that moronic ignorant unsubstantiated opinion? Glad you asked. The Pilgrims, The Mayflower Compact recognizes God. http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/mayflower_compact_text.htm Roflmfao A religious contract among religous people. It has nothing to do with the founding of the u.s. The American Founding Fathers, The Declaration of Independence recognizes God. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Roflmfao The document is quite clear about the power of the people to seperate from g/b. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address recognizes God. http://www.gettysburg.com/bog/address.htm How can a document written nearly a hundred years after the founding of my country be an "integral part of this Country's founding,"?

thompsonx -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 6:26:30 PM)
ORIGINAL: Arturas In 1846, the Supremes recognized that Dred Scott, a black slave, was indeed a slave and therefore had an inferior status. This is true, is it not? Nope So, they were right. Nope This decision was nullified when there were no more slaves in the U.S. Nope So, suggesting the Supremes are wrong some or all of the time based on the Dred Scott decision is unsupported. nope

thompsonx -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 6:35:48 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Dred Scott was one of the worst rulings in the history of the court. Not because it failed to recognize slaves (not blacks but slaves, leftists always fail to see the difference) Bigots always try to play this silly fucking game. Who besides blacks were slaves in the u.s.? This is something morons always fail to see. If only blacks are slaves then black and slave is synomymous and a black who is not a slave has to have seperate registration defining a different class of black. But then you knew all of that and just hoped that no one else would. You do realize that some states (virginia) a free black man became a slave simply by putting his feet on the ground. but because they didn't stop there and in effect put an end to free states as long as slaves were bought in a slave state. Perhaps you know what you were trying to say here but no one else does. All of the alleged proof of this prior to the War make this same oversight they equate slaves with blacks. Who else besides blacks were slaves?

BamaD -> RE: You can now violate someone else's religion with prayer! (7/21/2014 8:07:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: Actually, the government can....NEVER....support a religion without violating the 1st amendment. The founding fathers did not create this nation for Christian ideals, but because they did not agree nor like the Kind's view on Christianity. Saying this over and over does not make it any more factual. Allowing anyone to pray and even inviting them to pray does not establish a religion. The law says "establish", not "support" or not "allow to pray at meetings". So, lets see what the meaning of establish is... start or set up something: to start or set up something that is intended to continue or be permanent So allowing prayer in any government session, including the oath of the President, does not establish a religion. That's all the 1st Amendment prohibits, establishing a religion. You can pretend it says more but it does not. So, making your own 1st Amendment up is an interesting exercise but I like to use the real one. He has previously intimated that the much of the Bill of Rights and by extension the Constitution is obsolete. Then I will not waste time with him. Thanks. The responses from him might lead one to think we have a bot here, only a poor one at that. No he is a decent human being, just misguided.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 11 [12]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.140625