crazyml
Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Thats actually an excellent way to live and let live.
Where the problem arises is that the monarchal powers merely transferred from a living body to a piece of paper from the UK to here.
The piece of paper you're referring to is your constitution I suppose?
If it is, then you need to bone up on your history, a lot of thought went into that "piece of paper"
quote:
Hence its illegal to grow or buy weed, there will never be a cure for cancer, and you can have any religion you want as long as you get permission from the 'state' overlord.
As a matter of actual fact you're wrong on both counts.
In quite a few places in the US it isn't illegal to grow or buy weed.
There is nothing preventing any one from "having" any religion they choose. Where you go the notion that people had to get "permission from the state overlord" I've no idea, but you're - as a matter of actual fact - simply wrong in this assertion.
quote:
The problem is the mob overlord has the power of religion in our present day scheme of things who worships the supreme [false] god 'Money'.
The courts and gubblemint impose their religious overlay on top of your religion.
In kink terms, its topping from the bottom.
The whole purpose of the constitutional limitations on the state passing laws in regard to religion is to limit the right of the state to impose their religious overlay.
That doesn't limit the right of the state to make killing someone against the law - It limits the right of the state to establish that limitation on religious grounds.
quote:
A somewhat extreme example took place when I was a child and old enough to understand the constitution. A couple from the ME came over and their daughter was hooking around which is a sin punishable by death according to their religion. That said they stoned the girl to death. I expect that is why ML brought stoning up in the first place. Anyway the commercial business court of the US,
(remember the US is a commercial venture of the king and all contracts were written with that backdrop and the only jurisdiction they have is through their money god of 'commerce')
You recall, I presume, that there was a war of independence in the USA, after which a new constitution was created?
quote:
So the US commercial secular court sentenced the parents to life imprisonment for 'possibly' doing a perfectly acceptable act under their religious law.
The problem arises that is not how this country was built. The constitution does not say "We the people reserve the right to exercise our religion 'subject' to the government" as the government overlords have imposed upon us.
You're confused about the constitution I think. No-one has claimed that the constitution says that. But the implication on what you say is that the constitution grants people completely free reign to do whatever they like in the name of their religious belief. It does not.
quote:
When they set up the US government they simply declared what powers they have and went forward without any input from the people, just like the king did. [Corruption aside] They did a great job taking care of the business side and never set up accommodations for adequate adjudication of religious matters of the people. Much the same as a 2 digit IQ money hungry janitor getting a big gun and setting up shop with himself as the CEO. Who gets to pick those supreme court justices? Not you or I thats for damn sure. The overlords do.
What do you mean by Overlords... do you mean the democratically elected representatives of the people?
quote:
There was absolutely nothing wrong with and in fact virtually everything right with the original british court system [in theory] that had several specialized courts one being the ecclesiastical courts for religious determinations.
The problem with the brit system is that [through government corruption] they used those ecclesiastic courts to enforce the state chosen religion on the people, the courts in and of themselves were the rightful way to handle cases like the ME couple. [In the US we eliminated the extra cost and directly impose the state religion, why spend the extra money for the same result.....its good business sense]
The ME couple had they been in the ME would have been judged by a court of their peers, meaning people who have the same religion and in accord with the laws of their religion, not some bastardized commercial secular temporal court of the king on steroids that we have here.
You don't understand your country's constitution or its legal system, evidently.
quote:
When a right is reserved that means its off the table for review, most importantly by the party the reservation operates in contradistinction against. Think of it like a 'no go zone', or stay off the grass.
That said here is the rub. The courts are set up by the government who by and through its own laws is both a party and judge to any cause arising. That is a clear conflict in interest. Same identical problem they had in britland. The alleged fairness is nothing more than an illusion that most people fail to see the cancer from within the body because the bodies outward appearance looks fine.
You don't understand your country's legal system. The court system is separated from the legislature.
quote:
Now that the Christains have a big ouee they might wake the fuck up and realize that the laws they set violate the religious rights of gays, since the tables are now turned upon them by the laws of the new church of the US and the long arm of the state with its sticky fingers.
The US is called the melting pot because immigrants give up their right to 'exercise' their religion to the destruction of their culture to enter into our borg society as proven by the ME case, the wedding cake, and a long list of other state enforced religious violations against the people it pretends to protect.
So... if a person believes that on religious grounds they should stone their daughter for hooking around, you maintain that that is perfectly acceptable?
This "borg" society you refer to - Would that be the one that has decided it's wrong to murder people?
quote:
The proper solution in the klien wedding cake case would have been to allow both of them to exercise their religion without trespassing on the other.
And that was the solution that the law mandated. The law is that the denial of a service on the grounds of sexuality is a trespass on the rights of gay people. No one has argued here that the Kliens shouldn't be allowed to be homophobic bigots, simply that they don't have the right to trespass on the rights of others.
quote:
In other words, a wedding cake does not rise to the level of imminent danger or crisis necessity, therefore the kliens having exercised their religion should have been respected by the gays who merely needed to go down the block to a gay friendly community baker and they would have made the cake for them.
Woah... now you're introducing "imminent danger or crisis necessity". Woosers... you sure know how to come over as confused!
It's not complicated. There is a law... it doesn't allow businesses to discriminate when they offer services, the law has passed through a democratic process. If you don't like the law, you can repeal it. In the meantime... it's the law.
The law was broken. The question is whether someone holding a religious belief that differs from the democratically made law can simply elect to ignore the law. You appear to be in favour of this idea, although, I strongly suspect that you haven't quite thought it all through.
quote:
Hence both parties get what they want problem solved. That is not the way the 'bottoming from the top states' and their courts of my way or the hiway animosity set up to cause hate and discontent between the people for the advancement of the judicial business cabal for their own commercial gain operates however, so while they make lots of money, we the people who hold them in blind high esteem suffer one person or group at a time the loss of our freedoms. Religious freedom allows the various cultures to survive within a society contrary to the US of Borg system we have today.
"both parties" don't get what they want. The party that has been discriminated has been denied access to a service.
As for the "judicial business cabal" stuff, that's just nonsense babble.
Setting aside your really bizarre reading of history, the constitution, and your nation's legal system, you deserve kudos for at least being honest enough to state that religion should trump any laws.
At a minimum that's a position.
It's not one I agree with, but it's a position.
_____________________________
Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.
|
RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religio... - 
or just some? 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread