toldailytopic: Will you eat at Chick-fil-A knowing they support traditional marriage?

[noguru]

The simple fact that you should have caught onto by now is that you cannot have this secular government of yours without limiting the democratic rights of the people. You simply can't. And never mind your vague, dangerously undefined concept of what is and isn't secular or how in the world you'd ever enforce such a thing.

This is accurate. Because in a society with free speech and the free exchange of ideas, there will always be conflicting and/or competing ideas and agendas. This is exactly why even before the founding fathers of the US some enlightened people recognized the value of "social contract theory" as the minimum requirement for the guide to criminal law.

We have a clause in the constitution right now that prevents (or should) our government from respecting any particular establishment of religion over any other. That is all that is required.

Yes, although some from your particular theological camp would like to supplant that clause with a new one of their own making.

What you propose is tyranny. Pure and simple.

When does the prevention of tyranny become tyranny itself?

 

[MaryContrary]

Yes, although some from your particular theological camp would like to supplant that clause with a new one of their own making.

Around here, on this forum?

Who?

 

[noguru]

Around here, on this forum?

Who?

Lighthouse, ACW, for starters. There are others I have come across but I do not remember right now. Some more sophisticated proponents have couched their agenda with some flowery words, but their ultimate goal is to bring about a theocracy. I have even seen A4T express the desire to scrap all legislation related to constitutional rights (going back to a vague point in time, because when I asked if she thought we should also scrap the constitution, she did not answer) and start from scratch.

 

[MaryContrary]

Lighthouse, ACW, for starters. There are others I have come across but I do not remember right now. Some more sophisticated proponents have couched their agenda with some flowery words, but their ultimate goal is to bring about a theocracy. I have even seen A4T express the desire to scrap all legislation related to constitutional rights (going back to a vague point in time, because when I asked if she thought we should also scrap the constitution, she did not answer) and start from scratch.

And these folks want to eliminate the establishment clause? To be clear.

 

[noguru]

And these folks want to eliminate the establishment clause? To be clear.

What do you think they mean, Mary?

They may want to leave it there as a type of lip service or not, but in essence promoting any legislation that moves away from the minimum of the "social contract theory" towards instituting legislation based on a specific theological camp (even if the wording of the legislation leaves out the original source) is the same as supplanting that sound secular mindset as the mediator between conflicting and/or competing theologies/ideologies. I mean you can leave that establishment clause in there, create all the legislation that is ideologically aligned with a specific theology, and you still have a virtual theocracy. You just admitted that yourself.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...create all the legislation that is ideologically aligned with a specific theology, and you still have a virtual theocracy. You just admitted that yourself.

What Ralphie fails to admit is that secularist's have their own 'theology' and through their immoral laws want to create their own 'theocracy'.

We can see right through your homosexualist lies.

 

[noguru]

What Ralphie fails to admit is that secularist's have their own 'theology' and through their immoral laws want to create their own 'theocracy'.

We can see right through your homosexualist lies.

Please do not be a presumptuous fool by speaking inaccurately for me.

My name is not Ralphie. And I hold to the "establishment clause". I see it as the only way to protect weak honest people from weak deceitful people like you.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Please do not be a presumptuous fool by speaking inaccurately for me.

My name is not Ralphie. And I hold to the "establishment clause". I see it as the only way to protect weak honest people from weak deceitful people like you.

"Ralphie" is a word that I created for a Libertarian that goes by the username of "Wizard of Oz". Because I want to 'hurl' everytime I see that name because it reminds me of homosexual pedophile Michael Jackson in the movie "The Wiz", for the good of my own digestive system, I gave you the name "Ralphie".

As far as the "Establishment Clause" goes Ralphie: it was legislated by men who DETESTED homosexuality, in fact, one of them wanted homosexuals castrated. So don't go trying to say that sexual deviants have some kind of 'right' to free speech or religion under the First Amendment.

 

[noguru]

"Ralphie" is word that I created for a Libertarian that goes by the username of "Wizard of Oz". Because I want to 'hurl' everytime I see that name because it reminds me of homosexual pedophile Michael Jackson in the movie "The Wiz", for the good of my own digestive system, I gave you the name "Ralphie".

I don't care why you use it. You are being a presumptuous fool by using that for me. I detest Michael Jackson's pedophilia. So for you to use it to describe me is offensive, you cowardly deceitful faggot.

As far as the "Establishment Clause" goes Ralphie: it was legislated by men who DETESTED homosexuality, in fact, one of the wanted them castrated. So don't go trying to say that sexual deviants have some kind of 'right' to free speech or religion under the First Amendment.

You are just as clueless to the reality of history as you are to the current reality surrounding you. Your reaction to your own confusion is to lash out at things you can't even begin to understand, and the people who do take the time to understand.

 

[WizardofOz]

What is Ralphie supposed to mean?

What is Ralphie supposed to mean?

"Ralphie" is a word that I created for a Libertarian that goes by the username of "Wizard of Oz". Because I want to 'hurl' everytime I see that name because it reminds me of homosexual pedophile Michael Jackson in the movie "The Wiz", for the good of my own digestive system, I gave you the name "Ralphie".

:rotfl:

So....I am supposedly "Ralphie", noguru is supposedly "Ralphie", and Silent Hunter is supposedly "Ralphie" because you saw a Michael Jackson movie? :kookoo:

Heck, I'm not even a Libertarian

Have you ever heard of the movie The Wizard of Oz? Is it strange to you in any way that hearing "The Wizard of Oz" reminds you of pedophilia and not Kansas or Toto?

I'm sorry that happened to you. Seek help..

 

[noguru]

:rotfl:

So....I am supposedly "Ralphie", noguru is supposedly "Ralphie", and Silent Hunter is supposedly "Ralphie" because you saw a Michael Jackson movie? :kookoo:

Have you ever heard of the movie The Wizard of Oz? Is it strange to you in any way that hearing "The Wizard of Oz" reminds you of pedophilia and not Kansas or Toto?

I'm sorry that happened to you. Seek help.

That's because his mind is fixated on faggots and pedophiles. I think he is probably jealous of their experiences.

 

[MaryContrary]

What do you think they mean, Mary?

What does that matter? I'm challenging your assertion that LH, ACW and A4T want to eliminate or replace the establishment clause of the constitution.

They may want to leave it there as a type of lip service or not, but in essence promoting any legislation that moves away from the minimum of the "social contract theory" towards instituting legislation based on a specific theological camp (even if the wording of the legislation leaves out the original source) is the same as supplanting that sound secular mindset as the mediator between conflicting and/or competing theologies/ideologies. I mean you can leave that establishment clause in there, create all the legislation that is ideologically aligned with a specific theology, and you still have a virtual theocracy. You just admitted that yourself.

Please do not be a presumptuous fool by speaking inaccurately for me.

:think:

I think you should just admit you were wrong. This is will quickly become not only a lie but a hypocritical one if you keep defending it.

 

[noguru]

What does that matter? I'm challenging your assertion that LH, ACW and A4T want to eliminate or replace the establishment clause of the constitution.

Are you saying there is only one way to supplant the "establishment clause" in the constitution?

You don't think that one can give lip service to an idea, but can also seek legislation which would bypass that "establishment clause"?

Why do you think state/local legislation sometimes ends up in front of the federal supreme court for this exact reason?

:think:

I think you should just admit you were wrong.

:think:

I don't think I am wrong. I am trying to understand why you think I am wrong. Can you explain that?

This is will quickly become not only a lie but a hypocritical one if you keep defending it.

If you think I am inaccurate I would like to hear your reasoning behind that? I am open to hearing your reasonable response to this.

 

[MaryContrary]

Are you saying there is only one way to supplant the "establishment clause" in the constitution?

You don't think that one can give lip service to an idea, but can also seek legislation which would bypass that "establishment clause"?

Why do you think state/local legislation sometimes ends up in front of the federal supreme court for this exact reason?

Oh, so that's what you meant when you said LH, ACW and A4T wanted to "supplant that clause with a new one of their own making".

Of course. lain:

I don't think I am wrong. I am trying to understand why you think I am wrong. Can you explain that?

If you think I am inaccurate I would like to hear your reasoning behind that? I am open to hearing your reasonable response to this.

See above. You're waffling, backpedaling response is typically indicative of someone who knows they're wrong and wants to hide that fact by muddling things up.

That and my being unaware of any of them ever saying they had a problem with the establishment clause and your failure to point to anything they said that indicated that. I think you said something off-the-cuff that was unfair and untrue. And when challenged on it you jump through hoops not to have to admit that, rather than...well, just admit that.

Now, if you want to argue that what LH, ACW, A4T...and me and quite a few others...want from the law could potentially threaten or come into conflict with the establishment clause, that'd be an interesting discussion. And that's obviously what you're trying to backpedal towards. You should have admitted you were wrong, spoken unfairly and untruthfully without intending to mischaracterize anyone...and then brought up this point for discussion. I think that would have been better than slandering people associated with me just because I referenced the establishment clause.

 

[noguru]

Oh, so that's what you meant when you said LH, ACW and A4T wanted to "supplant that clause with a new one of their own making".

I was speaking in general terms because I was including several different people with various strategies. I think I covered the possible ambiguities by mentioning how A4T wants to repeal all legislation back to a certain point, but did not answer when I asked "Would you also want to replace the constituion?" So as it turns out it is your theological camp that can also add to such ambiguities.

My point being that in practice there is no distinguishable difference where the rubber meets the road in society.

See above. You're waffling, backpedaling response is typically indicative of someone who knows they're wrong and wants to hide that fact by muddling things up.

I have no problem with waffling at times. I do not see it as a weakness. Obviously with this situation, as with most, there are some ambiguities that need to be ironed out. So I am looking into your views on this. Is that alright with you?

That and my being unaware of any of them ever saying they had a problem with the establishment clause and your failure to point to anything they said that indicated that. I think you said something off-the-cuff that was unfair and untrue. And when challenged on it you jump through hoops not to have to admit that, rather than...well, just admit that.

I assure you that I make very few comments from the "off the cuff" basis that you might assume. I do not always have all the information necessary at my fingertips however, so a comment may be inaccurate in certain details but it is generally not inaccurate in regard to the main idea of the intentions I have witnessed.

Now, if you want to argue that what LH, ACW, A4T...and me and quite a few others...want from the law could potentially threaten or come into conflict with the establishment clause, that'd be an interesting discussion. And that's obviously what you're trying to backpedal towards. You should have admitted you were wrong, spoken unfairly and untruthfully without intending to mischaracterize anyone...and then brought up this point for discussion. I think that would have been better than slandering people associated with me just because I referenced the establishment clause.

OK for the sake of argument and brevity, I was wrong. Can you tell me how "coming in conflict" is any different that "supplanting that clause" in regard to its actual application in society?

 

[MaryContrary]

OK, I was wrong. Can you tell me how "coming in conflict" is any different that "supplanting that clause" in regard to its actual application in society?

No, because you haven't made the case that anything in particular that we want from the law would come into conflict with the establishment clause. Once you do that then you can try to make the case this amounts to supplanting it.

I don't think anything we want does either of those things. Why would I make your argument for you when I think it's false? :idunno:

 

[noguru]

No, because you haven't made the case that anything in particular that we want from the law would come into conflict with the establishment clause. Once you do that then you can try to make the case this amounts to supplanting it.

I don't think anything we want does either of those things. Why would I make your argument for you when I think it's false? :idunno:

:think:

Well being that this is all admittedly hypothetical, then I will wait for the next move from you or your sociopolitical comrades. Because in my view as it stands the constitution has been relatively well protected by the federal supreme court.

And I guess you and your theological camp are currently satisfied with the way this has all played out up till now. :rapture:

 

[Angel4Truth]

Lighthouse, ACW, for starters. There are others I have come across but I do not remember right now. Some more sophisticated proponents have couched their agenda with some flowery words, but their ultimate goal is to bring about a theocracy. I have even seen A4T express the desire to scrap all legislation related to constitutional rights (going back to a vague point in time, because when I asked if she thought we should also scrap the constitution, she did not answer) and start from scratch.

No, you have never ever seen me get anywhere close to thinking or saying we should scrap the constitution, i have said and think we should scrap the current government set up and get BACK to the constitution, the current system fails to follow it.

 

[noguru]

No, you have never ever seen me get anywhere close to thinking or saying we should scrap the constitution, i have said and think we should scrap the current government set up and get BACK to the constitution, the current system fails to follow it.

OK well I thought your comments were rather vague at the time. That is why I asked you the question in that thread. But if you remember you did not answer, hence the continued ambiguity. I am glad you clarified, and also to know that you and I are on the same page here.

I do think the constitution is a solid valuable basis for our nation. And I do think that the current political system we use to elect government representatives has become very corrupt.

Though I do not agree that the supreme court fails to uphold the constitution on most issues. I do think the majority of problem is with the representative members of our government, not the appointed members of the supreme court. Supreme court judges have proven themselves with their prior careers, which is often a lot more than can be said in regard to elected officials.

 

[Angel4Truth]

OK well I thought your comments were rather vague at the time. That is why I asked you the question in that thread. But if you remember you did not answer, hence the continued ambiguity. I am glad you clarified, and also to know that you and I are on the same page here.

I do think the constitution is a solid valuable basis for our nation. And I do think that the current political system we use to elect government officials has become very corrupt.

The way i recall is that i stopped responding when you kept insisting i was saying things i didnt, like you did in this thread. I had already made what i believe perfectly clear, even though you insist i had not.