|
crazyml -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/9/2016 5:29:51 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
"babbling and drooling"? adhomens
"This "atheist based legislation" is imaginary."
and naked assertions
"in your little theocracy"
and ill gotten mischaracterizations the best you can offer us for an argument?
Care to explain why you think its imaginary?
and why you would label it my theocracy when I said or implied nothing of the sort?
The atheists already have a special little theocracy going through gubblemint.
"religious belief does not trump the law"
Really? where does the supreme court give the authority to the gubblemint to violate the constitution? really?
"I am assuming that laws that make dicrimination illegal will be at the top of the list"
Yeh they are really obvious since the gubblemint enforces atheist religious theories while trampling God based religions.
It's not an adhominem if its an observation of fact. You can't use "ad hominem" to sidestep the fact that you're a drooling halfwit.
When I asserted that the "atheist legislation" you refer to is imaginary, it was because the legislation you have so far referred to is in no way "atheist". You have not proved that it is, you have simply asserted the same babbling nonsense over and over. I asked you to provide examples of "atheist legislation" if you could. You have not done so. Because.... it's imaginary, isn't it!
You plainly want a theocracy, you want gods law (however that's interpreted) to trump the laws that are created through the democratic process. That, by the way, is pretty much what "theocracy" is. Drool on that.
You assert that the atheists have a special little theocracy going though government, and yet can provide no evidence for this assertion at all. More drool?
Oh dear, you really don't know that the supreme court has been actively protecting the people of the USA against theocracy since the 19th century? If you weren't a drooling halfwit, you might have checked this out before you began to make your specious arguments.
Start with Reynolds v. United States (1879). But there's quite a lot more. Get a grown up to show you <finger quotes>The Google</finger quotes>
Right, so you're unwilling to answer the question about which laws are "atheist laws", but you admit that you believe that anti discrimination laws are wrong. Well, that's a beginning. But I think that only a fuckwad would make that case. But let's have a bun fight over the right to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds. I'm quite sure there'll be people out there who can claim a sincere religious justification for that.
Let's face it there are religious justifications for...
Slavery (shall we repeal emancipation?)
Stoning of gay people (shall we provide a special "religious conviction" defense to murder?)
Please provide some examples of these atheist laws, so that we can explain them to you. If you can't provide examples then your whole argument is specious.
Oh and... I'm still just aching to hear how you feel about non-christian religions and their right to ignore laws. Are there any religions or Christian denominations that you would exclude from your "there's no need to obey a law if it contradicts your religion" campaign?
WOW so many red herrings and strawmen, think its remotely possible for you to actually stay on topic?
Err... nope. Here's the thing about making claims about "strawmen" - you need to identify them and explain why they're straw men.
Since the topic is "atheist laws", I'm very nicely on topic, thanks. In what way are you confused?
quote:
One thing at a time. you provided the atheist legislation for me [8|]
So, when I asked you to provide a list of these "atheist laws" you're alleging, you avoid the question. And still you avoid it.
What conclusion can be drawn when someone makes an assertion about the existence of atheist laws, yet refuses to identify them?
quote:
Yes the gubblemint established itself as the 'Supreme' Religion within the territories known as the united states through its priests and sleight of hand corporate courts spreading the cancer of cognitive dissonance through out the land in violation of the very constitution it was chartered to protect. Like today they spend too much time following the animals around in the marijuana patch which plays in well against the general ignorance and lack of critical thinking of its citizenry. (Especially in the jury box.)
You make this very grand assertion, with no attempt to substantiate it. This is what I mean when I refer to your "drooling".
You see... here's how <finger quotes>adults</finger quotes> debate... you make an assertion then you substantiate it. Broad and grand assertions with no basis are .... well... drooling.
quote:
From what I have seen of your posts you neither have the capacity nor ability and certainly without a doubt do not have the background to argue these matters, however I will throw you a couple bones for shits and giggles just to see what you can do with it.
Ah! A wonderful opportunity to school you a little. You like to throw the "ad hominem" defence, but you don't appear to understand what it actually means.
When I point out that you're a drooling fool... I don't use the fact that you're a drooling fool to attempt to discredit your argument. You'll see how I simply make the comment before dealing with your nonsense.
Here, however, you are attempting to pull off the adhominem fallacy. And failing pitifully so to do, as we are about to see.
quote:
The court used this as the basis for their OPINION:
“Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”
The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States [jefferson describes the distinction between ethics and religion, the court illegitimately assigns the 'meaning' of ethics to the word 'religion', ethics having no associated 'action' religion includes an associated action]
As usual the gubblemint using their well known SOP of 'conspiracy of silence' slanted jeffersons statement by quote mining to give the people ONLY the side that exhonorates the TRADITIONAL KINGS bench to insure the take over of all US law through the BAR agency. To wit:
The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom: "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ~Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson set the legal test to be used, injury or damage. which the court totally IGNORED!
Where it is well understood in legal circles that the gubblmint has zero authority to overule religion:
Oh gosh... this has me perplexed. Are you now stating that the government has the right to overrule people where their acts are injurious to others?
This does rather change your argument.
You see... I believe passionately in the right of people to think and believe what they choose. I believe passionately that where someone's actions don't affect another persons, they should have absolute freedom. But, and lets use anti discrimination laws as an example, these laws are not made with "religion" in mind, they are made in order to prevent injury to people as a result of discrimination.
If you agree with Jefferson when he says
""The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
Then we have a fundamental agreement in principle. So... Is Jefferson's statement one that you agree with?
quote:
Georgetown University;
John Leland: "The Right of Conscience Inalienable" on Religion as a Matter Between God and Individuals
January 1, 1791
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/quotes/john-leland-the-right-of-conscience-inalienable-on-religion-as-a-matter-between-god-and-individuals
Finally, religion is a matter between God and individuals, religious opinions of men not being the objects of civil government nor any ways under its control.
[…]To say that “religion cannot stand without a state establishment” is not only contrary to fact (as has been proved already) but is a contradiction in phrase. Religion must have stood a time before any law could have been made about it; and if it did stand almost three hundred years without law it can still stand without it.
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Religion/RvUS.jpg[/image]
All it took was one quick swipe of the pen from the false gods, the corporate priests, that simple, thats all it took for the monarchial British thugs to wipe out the glorious revolution 'without ever firing a shot' PRECISELY as was predicted.
The corporate thugs through their usual MO investigate ONLY as far as was necessary to put into effect THEIR RELIGIOUS OPINION and rewrite the constitution to begin removing all remnants of power from the people and convert all power to the gubblemint overlords despite the fact they have no jurisdiction what so ever to do so.
You're imagining things. They didn't modify the text, they didn't wipe it out. They addressed the issue of freedom of religious belief and thought vs the freedom to injure other people.
quote:
Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
The act now commonly called the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom began simply as Bill No. 82, "A Bill For establishing religious freedom."
The impetus for Bill No. 82 was the Virginia General Assembly’s appointment of a Committee of Revisors to review the existing laws.1 The five-man committee was appointed in October 1776; primary responsibility was assumed by the three lawyers on the committee, Thomas Jefferson, George Wythe, and Edmund Pendleton. In 1779, after Jefferson was elected governor of Virginia, the committee’s catalog of 126 bills was presented to the General Assembly.2
Guided through the legislative process by James Madison, Bill No. 82 was finally adopted in 1785.3
The original manuscript in Jefferson's hand no longer exists. The text of the act as adopted is as follows:
Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone; that the IMPIOUS PRESUMPTION of legislators and rulers, CIVIL as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to IMPOSE them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous falacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.4
- Nancy Verell, 9/30/14
This is a wonderful piece of legislation, that I thoroughly agree with.
This sentence is important:
"that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges"
I agree with it, 100%. And, I would like you to show an example of someone who has been ill treated as a result of the opinions they hold, rather than the actions they perform.
For example. It is totally OK for a public official to hold an opinion that gay marriage is wrong. It is not ok for the same public official to refuse to register a gay marriage, however. Because, in the spirit of Jefferson, that would then be causing injury to others.
I would never require a public official to "renounce this or that religious opinion" but I would certainly require them to obey the law.
quote:
The corporate congress with support of the corporate supreme court create their religious opinion contrary to the Mormon Religion and IMPOSE their religion on the Mormons:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mormonism and polygamy
The Family of Joseph F. Smith
A Mormon polygamist family in 1888.
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.[1]
The act targeted the Mormon practice of plural marriage and the property dominance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the Utah Territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and Lincoln chose not to enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862, was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.[2]
[REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.
98 U.S. 145 (, 25 L.Ed. 244)
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the [contrary religious] opinion of the court.]
Enforcement of these acts start in July of 1887.
Pre-Revolution law:
[The opinion of the King-ding-a-ling]
The Bigamy Act 1603 (1 Jac 1 c 11) was an Act of the Parliament of the Kingdom of England. It created the offence of bigamy as a capital felony. Bigamy had not previously been a temporal offence (that is to say, within the jurisdiction of the common law courts as opposed to the ecclesiastical courts).[1]
Further provision was made by the 35 Geo 3 c 67.
Section 1
“ ... if any persons or persons within his Majesties Dominions of England and Wales, being married, or which hereafter shall marry, do at any time after the end of the session of this present Parliament, marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive ... then every such offence shall be felony ...
Which should be is crystal clear that the King of England said fuck your religious rights you gonna do what king ding-a-ling the false god of england tells you to do through his civil courts or be destroyed!
Which of course takes us through to today [8|]
First, you're referring to an act of Parliament, not a Royal Proclamation, the distinction is important.
Second, there's no assertion in the act that the King is a God, indeed, there was no king of England in January 1603. Now this is a pretty basic fucking error, if you don't mind my pointing it out.
Queen Elizabeth was a deeply religious person, a protestant. And her commitment to protestantism is evidenced by the fact that she burned a fair few people at the stake for being catholic.
The bigamy law was a religious law. So... now you're getting all squirrelly about religious laws that limit the right of people with differing religious views to do their thing. This is confusing... I thought you were upset about these alleged (but not actually substantiated) "Atheist" laws.
The whole point of the establishment clause was to guarantee religious freedom, to avoid the very theistic oppression that had taken place in England in the 16th century.
quote:
So ML, (or anyone else who wishes to go toe to toe) that said:
Did congress make a law banning and overuling a religious practice of the bonafide recognized Mormon Church Yes____ No____
Did the US Supreme Court uphold anti bigamy regulations created by congress Yes____ No____
We shall start with those 2 questions which require a simple yes or no since we are dealing with established facts.
Yay!
We are so making progress here.
You've produced an actual example!
Wonderful.
Oh... no.... wait? This doesn't look much like an "Atheist" law.... it looks rather like a Christian law... Oh blimey. I feel a little sorry now... the only example of an "Atheist" law that tramples unnecessarily on the freedom of people to have differing religious views is actually not "Atheist" at all. It's "Christian".
The laws against bigamy are deeply seated in Christian doctrine, although they do predate Christianity, and may well have a utility argument in their favour.
I agree with you that I cannot see a direct "injury" to others by allowing polygamy, and can't help wondering if this legislation and the SC's subsequent judgement stems directly from a desire to attack the Mormon faith. Historically, it does rather seem that way - but I don't know what the actual arguments against bigamy were. If the arguments were exclusively "bigamy is wrong cuz the bible says so" then, fuck yeah - this is a way wrong law.
So... I'm not sure where that leaves your argument. Certainly the one concrete example you've provided bears no resemblance whatsoever to an "Atheist" law.
Perhaps you should try again, and we can demolish your next fallacy?
|
|
|
|
