- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So atheists are rude for putting up their sign. How many lawsuits and how many news stories have we heard in the last 100 years about putting religious symbols on public property and yet year after year xians continually thumb their noses at those of us who pay taxes and do not believe in their religion? Who is rude?
Spot on, that is exactly right.The one's bringing the lawsuits are the one's who are rude. No symbol affected you in any way. No symbol established a national religion or gave and existing religion municipal power, so no symbol ever violated the 1st amendment.
And no, acknowledgment does not violate the 1st amendment, only establishment does. No again, the presence of a symbol does not establish a single thing. Acknowledgment is merely a cultural vestige and nothing more.
Why do we have to have a law for everything?
We do have hate crimes. Gotta watch what you're doing in other words. If the stuff gets too vicious it could be considered hate.
And no, acknowledgment does not violate the 1st amendment, only establishment does. No again, the presence of a symbol does not establish a single thing. Acknowledgment is merely a cultural vestige and nothing more.
No, really, the atheists are out of line with what they are saying about religion directly there. They should get their own building or somewhere away from the manger and say what they like there, but not right beside the nativity. That's sort of inciteful to my way of thinking, and we need to watch inciteful.
It's not what is said, it is how it is said.In other words, you don't like people saying bad things about Christianity. Boo hoo.
Time, place, manner. If someone says the wrong thing at a gay pride parade and a riot ensues, it may not be exactly legal to say it. Same principle, different example.I don't like what some conservatives say about gays yet it isn't illegal for them to say it.
Stop doing it.Get over it.
If the religion wants to be represented in a respectful manner, so be it.It does when said people refuse to put any other religious symbols on government property. So shall we have something from ALL religions?
Only if those within the community request it.#1. Include all religions and put symbols from every religion on government property or.
That would be a violation of the first, as it would suppress religious expression.#2. Don't put any religious symbols up thus not supporting one over another?
Nope, the second WOULD be a violation of the first.Anything other then those 2 would be a violation of the 1st.
Time, place, manner. If someone says the wrong thing at a gay pride parade and a riot ensues, it may not be exactly legal to say it. Same principle, different example.
Stop doing it.
Great but it does not mention Christ as another poster suggests the word Christmas as proof of a mass for Christ.
No, really, the atheists are out of line with what they are saying about religion directly there. They should get their own building or somewhere away from the manger and say what they like there, but not right beside the nativity. That's sort of inciteful to my way of thinking, and we need to watch inciteful.
Get over it, it's not illegal. Christianity sucks and is a fairy tale, now are you going to arrest me?
If a riot or even fight ensues then it is the responsibility of those who put forth the insult, therefore not protected speech. It is a fairly simple concept.Can you show us where the riot is over this?
Ok, so let me try your tact. Athiests are arrogant uninformed bigots, get over it. Calling Christianity a fairy tale pretty much makes the point that some athiests are bigots, prove that Christianity is a fairy tale by using scientific law, go 'head, try it, otherwise, get over it.Get over it, it's not illegal. Christianity sucks and is a fairy tale, now are you going to arrest me?
If a riot or even fight ensues then it is the responsibility of those who put forth the insult, therefore not protected speech. It is a fairly simple concept.
Ok, so let me try your tact. Athiests are arrogant uninformed bigots, get over it. Calling Christianity a fairy tale pretty much makes the point that some athiests are bigots, prove that Christianity is a fairy tale by using scientific law, go 'head, try it, otherwise, get over it.
Nice try, but fighting words are ALSO illegal, as I mentioned. Inciting a riot could be a charge if a riot breaks out because of the sign. Educate yourself before you declare a fail.:spin:There are fights that ensure over football between a couple of people, last I checked that isn't inciting a riot,
Fights are different than riots. You fail.
I didn't say the sign was illegal, I said it was in bad taste and "potentially" illegal if it incites a riot of induces a fight. Once again, simple concept, do try to keep up.The difference is I believe it is your right to say what you want and to express it legally just as these atheists did.
Fine, but don't declare the right absolute, since the methods could induce destructive behaviors.I don't aprove of their methods, but I approve of their right to do so.
And again, you do not understand enough of the right to declare such, which is in itself, a fail.Again, you fail.
Okay, I mean I only studied Law and Ethics and politics as part of my broadcasting degree, but whatever you say professor.:roll:Try again when you have a clue about freedom of speech and what it means.
Nice try, but fighting words are ALSO illegal, as I mentioned.
I didn't say the sign was illegal, I said it was in bad taste and "potentially" illegal if it incites a riot of induces a fight. Once again, simple concept, do try to keep up.
Fine, but don't declare the right absolute, since the methods could induce destructive behaviors.
Okay, I mean I only studied Law and Ethics and politics as part of my broadcasting degree, but whatever you say professor.:roll:
1942 Chaplinksi v. New Hampshire SCOTUS, Incitement Doctrine(currently practiced by the court)-Actual incitement likely to produce immediate lawless conduct(Brandenburg v. Ohio). Do your own homework, I aced that test.Prove the laws that says this, because there are soo many fights that occur during sports seasons that are not considered riots. You fail.
Do you understand the difference between illegal and potentially illegal?Try to keep up they aren't illegal. Deal with it.
Fine, when a christian mob gets tired of things like this and riots, you get to deal with it, and the group that put the sign up gets to deal with the charges, but you aren't even trying to debate honestly, and it shows.Actually they don't and you will have to show me where such a "sign" from an atheist has incited a riot which is illegal. Until you do so, deal with it.
Last time I checked a 90/100 is a pretty damn good grade.Then you must have received a failing grade to say the nonsense you have. Try a real college.
Nailed it. I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I too presented the "fighting words docitrine". You are correct. Believing that there are zero limitations to the First Amendment is a fallacy.1942 Chaplinksi v. New Hampshire SCOTUS, Incitement Doctrine(currently practiced by the court)-Actual incitement likely to produce immediate lawless conduct(Brandenburg v. Ohio). Do your own homework, I aced that test.
You Da Man! I forgot which two got me, but it was a terrific class.Nailed it. I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I too presented the "fighting words docitrine". You are correct. Believing that there are zero limitations to the First Amendment is a fallacy.
By the way, I'll give you a 100. :mrgreen:
You Da Man! I forgot which two got me, but it was a terrific class.
I'm sure thenextera will be able to disprove all this. You just wait.
Why won't Christmas die?
Bulletproof tinsel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?