RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (Full Version)

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



Message

dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 7:54:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


To my thinking, the Free Exercise clause does not and cannot place religion above secular law because doing so is blocked by the Establishment clause. To enshrine in law the right of a Christian county clerk to refuse to faithfully discharge her duties if the petitioners are gay, or the right of a Muslim truck driver to refuse work assignments if the cargo contains alcohol, constitutes a recognition in law of these religious tenets and thereby an enforceable establishment of religion which imposes upon all who do not share those beliefs a compulsion to respect them under penalty of law.

K.


Well said, K. Thanks!



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 8:02:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


To my thinking, the Free Exercise clause does not and cannot place religion above secular law because doing so is blocked by the Establishment clause. To enshrine in law the right of a Christian county clerk to refuse to faithfully discharge her duties if the petitioners are gay, or the right of a Muslim truck driver to refuse work assignments if the cargo contains alcohol, constitutes a recognition in law of these religious tenets and thereby an enforceable establishment of religion which imposes upon all who do not share those beliefs a compulsion to respect them under penalty of law.

K.



Well said, K. Thanks!



Nice attempt at ducking the issues, K has been rebutted in detail, try this responding to this one, (with rebuttal):


"the Free Exercise clause does not and cannot place religion above secular law"

But it did. Twice.

Your first problem:

First it denied the gays religious right to marriage since its conception,

Second when it denied the kliens religious right to refuse to accommodate the commission of a crime against their God.

In each case the gubblemint chose one religion while denying the other.

Both parties have been damaged by the government and its operatives and left without remedy.



Your second problem:

The right to exercise religion is enshrined in the SUPREME law of the land.

The right to exercise religion is contract law which is secular law.



Your third problem:

You need to explain how laws created UNDER the constitution which you are incorrectly contrasting as secular law, stand above the SUPREME law they are created UNDER? Pay particular attention to the words supreme and under

I assume you see the gross contradiction in your premise here?


Next it would not violate the establishment clause only if:

1) the states got out of the marriage licensing business.
2) the states gave both parties equal remedy in the law.

When there is unequal remedy either to the gays or to the christains or atheists whatever religion is irrelevant the state establishes a religion by denying remedy to one party at any given time.


For Davis:
The laws of the county are created UNDER THE SUPREME LAW not above it.

First: Davis obligation to protect the laws of her God predates her oath to the state.
Second: Davis's rights is enshrined in the SUPREME LAW
Third: Protecting Davis's right to exercise her religion upholds her rights, nothing more.
Forth: Davis her oath does not require her to rescind her religious obligations.
Fifth: There is no evidence Davis rescinded her religion or her obligation to her religion or her God.

the state enacted unconstitutional law, it is the states obligation to correct its error to protect the rights of the people who created the supreme law.


There fore you need to show that the supreme law is SUBJECT to the administrative law created UNDER it. Again a gross contradiction in terms.



Lastly honoring everyones religion does not establish a religion. That is absurd on its face. It does the exact opposite and fulfills the requirements of the exercise clause.


You need to explain how honoring everyones religion of every faith or belief system without denying either party remedy 'ESTABLISHES' a religion?



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 8:20:04 AM)

For those who are not familiar with the meaning of law UNDER versus SUPREME law, it is about which will prevail when one does not conform with the other.

In kinkster terms

1) SUPREME LAW is the law of the MASTER
2) Legislated/Administrative law is the law of the SLAVE.

The law of the slave must conform to the law of the master.

That is why we do not hear people saying it [UN]administrative, or its [UN]legislated, because those laws are laws of the slave.

That is why we hear people say its [UN]constitutional because that is the LAW OF THE MASTER which over rules the law of the slave.

The right to exercise religion is the supreme law therefore it is the law of the Master..

When a person invokes their right to exercise their religion they are invoking their right to exercise the law of the Master.



crazyml -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 8:28:49 AM)

I'm afraid your confusion stems from your improper interpretation of the meaning of "exercise".

The ultimate body responsible for interpreting the constitution is the US Supreme Court. Which said in 1878

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Now that's settled you can go back to your "prepping" or whatever it is that madwags like you do in your free time.





Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 8:36:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

I'm afraid your confusion stems from your improper interpretation of the meaning of "exercise".

The ultimate body responsible for interpreting the constitution is the US Supreme Court. Which said in 1878

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Now that's settled you can go back to your "prepping" or whatever it is that madwags like you do in your free time.






Settled?

Not even close.

You fail to see the contradiction in terms.

The right to exercise is the right to act.

Its top shelf orwellian doublethink to claim a person has the right to act then claim a person does not have the right to act in the same sentence.

That is what that usurping power grab statement you posted has done.

Try again. Try to find something legitimate that is NOT intended and designed to pull the wool over the eyes of the uneducated masses.







dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 8:45:48 AM)

quote:

try this responding to this one

Thanks but no thanks. Battling zealots is a waste of time.



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 9:25:53 AM)


Settled?


Yes it is settled since god has never been elected to any public office in my country. Your concept of "supreme law"=the law of god does not work in my country. Why? Nobody elected your imaginary friend to any public office.



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 9:34:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Settled?


Yes it is settled since god has never been elected to any public office in my country. Your concept of "supreme law"=the law of god does not work in my country. Why? Nobody elected your imaginary friend to any public office.



yep another dumb ass completely incorrect strawman restatement of my position from none other than who else, but the forum dumbass.



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 11:10:33 AM)

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Settled?


Yes it is settled since god has never been elected to any public office in my country. Your concept of "supreme law"=the law of god does not work in my country. Why? Nobody elected your imaginary friend to any public office.
[/quote]


yep another dumb ass completely incorrect strawman restatement of my position from none other than who else, but the forum dumbass.

Still waiting for you to show us when your imaginary friend was elected to any position in the u.s. govt.
Since it was your position that making the year 1983 "the year of the bible" constitutes god being elected to some position of authority it would seem that the title forum dumbass belongs to you.



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 4:14:31 PM)

felch boy you are going to wait a long time since none of the trash you post is in the definition I use. Face it your are to fucking stupid to distinguish your argument from mine. dumbass.



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 4:27:07 PM)

Perhaps you are just too inarticulate to verbalize your opinions clearly enough to be understood by any but cretins. So far all anyone has been able to decipher from the fatuous drivel you post is that you think your imaginary friend somehow makes the rules for the u.s.



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 5:04:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

try this responding to this one

Thanks but no thanks. Battling zealots is a waste of time.


I am the one who posted references who are highly respected philosophers in their field who explain my position, it seems you better fit the term zealot.

One thing is clear, that you cant even come up with any 'reasoned' on topic argument against mine,

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Religion/RELIGIONthesocialsystemjfrank1_1.jpg[/image]

There is no mention of any God what so ever in the definition I put forth, but you have my respect because despite that at least you refrain from making shit up and pretending is applies to the argument like felch boy.

As you can see there is nothing zealot about my position, in fact the above is the handy review so you dont even have to read volumes of philosophy to deduct the conclusion as I did years ago. The answers are given to you straight up.

However you will find that zealots and the incredulous are incapable of accepting anything but their programmed preconditioning.







thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 6:17:31 PM)


ORIGINAL: Real0ne

You fail to see the contradiction in terms.

The right to exercise is the right to act.


According to the scotus ruling cited you do not have the right to exercise you have the right to belief














Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 6:18:52 PM)


You seem to believe that in order to be legitimate, an opposing argument must accept the definition of religion that you have presented. But the definition you've offered is worthless. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether or not any of us stops to think about it, or could coherently articulate it, we all develop a philosophy of life based on our own unique experiences, and order our actions accordingly. Thus by your definition, everything we do is a "religious" act, and therefore our behavior (no matter what it might be) is protected from civil sanction by the Free Exercise clause.

K.









thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 6:26:11 PM)

1) SUPREME LAW is the law of the MASTER
2) Legislated/Administrative law is the law of the SLAVE.

Then who exactly is the master?



hot4bondage -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 7:36:42 PM)

Ron Paul.[:)]



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 8:22:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

Ron Paul.[:)]



I'd be laughing with you except that is another post from felch boy that is solely intended to disrupt and ruin a thread for anyone who is interested in this topic and would like to hear serious beneficial responses.

What felch boy is doing is called quote mining which is used to change the intended meaning of a post and run it off topic on some bullshit tangent. As I said in an attempt to ruin any constructive debate for everyone else here.

The whole post with its meaning in tact:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

For those who are not familiar with the meaning of law UNDER versus SUPREME law, it is about which will prevail when one does not conform with the other.

In kinkster terms

1) SUPREME LAW is the law of the MASTER
2) Legislated/Administrative law is the law of the SLAVE.

The law of the slave must conform to the law of the master.

That is why we do not hear people saying it [UN]administrative, or its [UN]legislated, because those laws are laws of the slave.

That is why we hear people say its [UN]constitutional because that is the LAW OF THE MASTER which over rules the law of the slave.

The right to exercise religion is the supreme law therefore it is the law of the Master..

When a person invokes their right to exercise their religion they are invoking their right to exercise the law of the Master.






Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 8:30:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


You seem to believe that in order to be legitimate, an opposing argument must accept the definition of religion that you have presented. But the definition you've offered is worthless. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether or not any of us stops to think about it, or could coherently articulate it, we all develop a philosophy of life based on our own unique experiences, and order our actions accordingly. Thus by your definition, everything we do is a "religious" act, and therefore our behavior (no matter what it might be) is protected from civil sanction by the Free Exercise clause.

K.





In order for an argument to be legitimate it must be on point and rebut the definition I posted not accept it.

Thats right and when you put moral aspects of your personal philosophy of life into action it is your religion.

In the narrow sense a religious act is based on a moral, in the broader sense a religious act is a matter of conscience in support of your best interest.

So your conclusion that it is anything and everything according to the definition I posited is not the case.







Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/6/2015 9:30:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

You seem to believe that in order to be legitimate, an opposing argument must accept the definition of religion that you have presented. But the definition you've offered is worthless. The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether or not any of us stops to think about it, or could coherently articulate it, we all develop a philosophy of life based on our own unique experiences, and order our actions accordingly. Thus by your definition, everything we do is a "religious" act, and therefore our behavior (no matter what it might be) is protected from civil sanction by the Free Exercise clause.

In order for an argument to be legitimate it must be on point and rebut the definition I posted not accept it.

Fine. Done. Rebutted as worthless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Thats right and when you put moral aspects of your personal philosophy of life into action it is your religion.

Yeah, no. The definition you posted doesn't say squat about morality.

K.



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (11/7/2015 2:38:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Interesting response, which supports the notion that any religious belief, howsoever sourced, should override any law.

I think he's trying to argue that freedom of religion means freedom of conscience, therefore every moral choice must be considered to be religious. I could be mistaken, and I don't buy it, but subject to correction I think that's his position.

K.



yes morals are central to religion.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.152344E-02