|
Real0ne -> RE: Freedom From Atheism! (2/15/2016 7:05:08 PM)
|
For those who are bored with the over simplified explanations that I have to post to try and get through to cml just skip to: Professor Jonathan Turley GWU law school and skip the rest.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
I've enjoyed ridiculing you
more like you have a rickety 3 step comedy act that no one can find anything funny.
[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/shit-storm.gif[/image]
Either way you appear to be getting more delusional with every passing second.
In order to ridicule someone you need to at least counter their arguments with FACTS and arguments that demonstrate the ridiculously obvious [like I have and continue to do to you] not your consistently being ridiculously wrong producing a frivolous mountain of coulda shoulda woulda useless 'suspicions' that no reasonably critical thinker is going to take seriously only to be forced time and time again to back peddle with egg on your face.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
I made the point that bigamy has been a religious law for centuries
Now, there may be utility reasons for the law, and if those were compelling it could be argued as a secular law.
you might wish and pray you are correct but you arent, again.
Bigamy is NOT a sin aka religious law, but a state instituted crime!
CRIME is state instituted by the democratic dicktator judges who decide polygamy will be punished if you violate THEIR SECULAR STATIST (ATHEIST) RELIGION!
Secularism in the least is NON-theist, where it can be both neutral as intended for government or run against the bleeding edge of religious in some circumstances.
Secularism in the most is PURE ATHEIST when it becomes 'ANTI' [against some other religion], now a religion unto itself when it crosses the line to FORCE OTHER RELIGIONS to follow ITS ATHEIST RELIGION and there is the line to become a religion vs non-religion.
One is without religion the other sets itself up as a religion and it goes without saying becomes a deity when secular state morals become law and force them upon We the People through the legal system at gun point. Seems your ridiculing needs a hell of a lotta work.
That said:
Bigamy is NOT a religious law, and its IMPOSSIBLE for a secular state crime to be a religious law, UNLESS THE STATE HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS A RELIGION by DESTROYING SOMEONES RELIGION REPLACING IT WITH THEIR OWN!!!!!
Use your head FFS, that is precisely what they did to the mormons!.
If thats not bad enough, worse history shows that contrary your foaming at the mouth most religions PRACTICED poly!!
The state has long since put itself in a position of treason or minimum of traitor to the constitution
To wit:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jonathan Turley,
Professor of Public Interest Law at
George Washington University Law School.
Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy
Religion defines the issue
The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an "alternative lifestyle" is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.
However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as "almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people."
In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be "a blot on our civilization" and compared it to human sacrifice and "a return to barbarism."
Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is "contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World."
Contrary to the court's statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the "poly" to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.
Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world's cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.
Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief.
quote:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof;
Bigamy is crime and as I said before that the atheist secular state converted the religious practice known as polygamy into a crime in direct violation of the constitution.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
You don't get to decide what is in violation of the constitution - the ultimate arbiter of that is the SC.
Thats right this is not a democracy its a state DICKheadtatorship fashioned after your shitty king ding a ling monarchy and WE THE PEOPLE have no direct say in the laws we are forced to live under. That is controlled by the overlords and their dicktator judges when the atheists converted our government to a defacto godernmint when they APPOINTED THEMSELVES as the only authority to dicktate how I and everyone must live and that we are limited to 'exercise' ONLY the state religion like any other dicktator throughout history who forced its citizens to comply to the states religious agenda and as far as you are concerned this is a democracy since the supreme godernmint's court took a vote! At least the court has the benefit of democracy because the people surely do not.
Hail to the queen!
quote:
In the wake of the Republic's [Roman Empire] collapse, state religion had adapted to support the new regime of the emperors....... Public vows formerly made for the security of the republic now were directed at the well being of the emperor. So-called "emperor worship" expanded on a grand scale the traditional Roman veneration of the ancestral dead and of the Genius, the divine tutelary of every individual. Imperial cult became one of the major ways in which Rome advertised its presence in the provinces and cultivated shared cultural identity and loyalty throughout the Empire. Rejection of the state religion was tantamount to treason.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
I strongly suspect that the bigamy law had a religious motivation, but as I have explained - it may have a secular basis as well.
But this is nothing about atheist laws now is it... perhaps you could answer my question about Jefferson and his view that
"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
Do you disagree or not?
So you attempt to ridicule someone when at the same time admit you dont stand a snowballs chance in hell of producing a counter argument?
Do you see how foolish you sound trying to pedal the crime of bigamy as a religion UNLESS you in fact are agreeing with me that it is an ATHEIST STATE RELIGION since bigamy criminalizes and destroys the religious practice of polygamy runs anti to all faith based religions......anti-Christ, anti-God, anti-G-D and finally anti-Deity-based religion?
I asked you to tell us what you thought Jefferson was talking about to which you respond with:
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
It's very clear that you don't understand what Jefferson was saying.
I am certain that I won't be able to explain it to you. I don't know if you have an adult close by, or a carer perhaps?
Maybe they will be able to explain.
In the meantime, I've enjoyed ridiculing you enough - it's starting to feel... well... you know... a little too easy?
Not only did I post what it means in earlier posts, I posted it originally NOT you, after specifically googing precisely that saying to counter your frivolous rhetoric.
If you think that laying your weenie on a chopping block and handing me a knife daring me to chop it off is ridiculing me as I slice and dice it every time you post thats pretty warped but its all on you.
Unlike terrified you, I on the other hand have the balls to tell you exactly what it means because I do understand what Jefferson said in the context he said it.
In summary the government has no authority over the exercise of religion unless and until it becomes 'materially' injurious to another in which case its now a civil matter in which case it can now be sued out in a civil court. However the court of scrotumus maximus decided to grant the government new powers raising it to the level of godernmint where it has been operating ever since.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
Not fact at all. This is your opinion, and that opinion is not really supported by any of your arguments.
Since your memory is short please refer to Turley from GWU above as my reference.
Then your comedy act gets evem more ridiculous when you agreed that congress passed a law banning polygamy and courtus de' scrotus held it up:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne l
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.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
yes and yes.
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml
The fact is that the US Govt passed a law against bigamy, and it was upheld by the SC. It is by no means a fact that I should be forced to acknowledge that congress or the courts violated the constitution.
Only to deny they violated the constitution
Again refer to Turley GWU and the plethora of supporting evidence to the contrary
More on the history of bigamy
In 303, the Emperors Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius issued a series of edicts rescinding the legal rights of Christians and demanding that they comply with traditional Roman religious practices.
History of anti-bigamy laws
Before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, Diocletian and Maximilian passed strict anti-polygamy laws in 285 AD that mandated monogamy as the only form of legal marital relationship, as had traditionally been the case in classical Greece and Rome.
Diocletian..... His reign is also noted for the last great persecution of the Christians.
Persecution of Christians
The end of the reign was darkened by the last major persecution of the Christians. ............. At any rate, some or all of these factors led Diocletian to publish the four edicts of 303–304, promising all the while that he would not spill blood. His vow went unheeded, however, and the persecutions spread through the empire with an extreme violence that did not succeed in annihilating Christianity but caused the faith of the martyrs to blaze forth instead.
Diocletian’s fiscal solutions are still debated; they constitute a very difficult problem. Two new taxes were instituted, the jugum and the capitatio, the former being the tax on a unit of cultivable land, the latter, a tax on individuals. Taxes were levied on a proportional basis, the amount of the contribution being determined by the productivity and type of cultivation. [all of which king ding a ling adopted]
The priesthoods of public religion were held by members of the elite classes. There was no principle analogous to "separation of church and state" in ancient Rome. During the Roman Republic (509–27 BC), the same men who were elected public officials might also serve as augurs and pontiffs.
Religion depended on knowledge and the correct practice of prayer, ritual, and sacrifice, not on faith or dogma,
As the Romans [US and British] extended their dominance throughout the Mediterranean world, their policy in general was to absorb the deities and cults of other peoples rather than try to eradicate them,[4] since they believed that preserving tradition promoted social stability.
the roman state of course had no separation of religion and state.
I realize you tried your damnedest to straddle the fence despite this is an argument where in many instances there is no fence to straddle and suffice to say your plan worked to your own demise.
You produced no standing argument to in contradistinction to mine.
Having crayola'd this to a level that a grade schooler can understand it if you still do not get it there is not a whole lot I can do to reduce much more simplified than this short of posting every definition to what a violation is etc and I am already at the point where people who actually can wrap their minds around these realities have to be getting bored when I have to take it to such a rudimentary level of explanation.
|
|
|
|
