- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Wouldn't you be if someone directly attacked you?Yet it is the Christians who are up in arms... :2wave:
Wouldn't you be if someone directly attacked you?Yet it is the Christians who are up in arms... :2wave:
Wouldn't you be if someone directly attacked you?
It's not okay to attack ANYONE's beliefs. What point are you missing here?So it's ok for Christians to attack gay's beliefs but not ok for atheists to attack Christian beliefs?
Wouldn't you be if someone directly attacked you?
Wouldn't you be if someone directly attacked you?
It's not okay to attack ANYONE's beliefs.
What point are you missing here?
Except for the fact that they are the one's under attack, you need to have something better if you're gonna try to re-use my words.I dunno, "is [their] core belief so shaky that someone else's representation of their [own] beliefs makes [them] uncomfortable?"
Except for the fact that they are the one's under attack, you need to have something better if you're gonna try to re-use my words.
Except for the fact that they are the one's under attack, you need to have something better if you're gonna try to re-use my words.
Sharing their beliefs is one thing, the sign in in the exact same area the manger was in first is an attack, completely different.Right. So are their beliefs so shaky that certain atheists sharing their beliefs is enough to send them on the offensive?
Sharing their beliefs is one thing, the sign in in the exact same area the manger was in first is an attack, completely different.
You are generalizing, most christian faiths do not hinder practices or uses of modern medicine, also, Atheism doesn't exactly have solid scientific law going for it either, it is theoretical speculation like any other belief.If a belief is the rationale behind prohibiting a kind of research that could save billions and prevent alot of suffering, and the belief is itself without any scientific validity, you had better believe it is more than moral to point out the logical fallacies of that belief.
Then you don't understand the first amendment and it's limitations. The story isn't about disagreement, otherwise we'd be in agreement here, it is about a direct attack on a christian symbol during a christian holiday, (Time/Place/Manner) again, fighting words and incitement to riot are not protected, if a fight or riot breaks out then we are talking about potentially illegal expression.No, because I understand that I live in a free country, I want people to express their disagreements.
It is not okay to do it in the fashion that was exhibited this week, not legally, ethically, morally, or even from a manners perspective. There is NO defense for directly attacking people.Why isn't it? If you believe some that is wrong about history, for example Holocaust deniers, why is it wrong to criticize that belief?
Political speech is protected on a much grander scale than what this story is about.What about one's political beliefs? We do that ALL THE TIME.
Then you don't understand the premise, logic, or conclusions. Did you even do the homework I assigned to TheNextRa about these issues or are you just bloviating about the first amendment and what you think it protects?The part with the premises, logic and conclusions. I don't see any of it.... just a naive assertion.
Okay, here is what you are uneducated about. Time:holidays, Place: directly in front of a religious symbol, Manner: condescending, arrogant, superiorist, smug. That amounts to an attack on someone else's belief, TPM is a legal guage that the Supreme Court has been using for more than half a century. This was an attack by all stretches of the imagination and could be defined as such using various cases, such as Chaplinski v New Hampshire. The Time, Place, and Manner were directly coorelated to the religion that the Atheists disagreed with and there were NO prior attacks to them, if you don't get it that means you can't see past your own agenda.You keep acting as if the "attack" (keep using the word, it makes the sign sound so much worse than it is) was unwarranted...
You are generalizing, most christian faiths do not hinder practices or uses of modern medicine, also, Atheism doesn't exactly have solid scientific law going for it either, it is theoretical speculation like any other belief.
Then you don't understand the first amendment and it's limitations. The story isn't about disagreement, otherwise we'd be in agreement here, it is about a direct attack on a christian symbol during a christian holiday, (Time/Place/Manner) again, fighting words and incitement to riot are not protected, if a fight or riot breaks out then we are talking about potentially illegal expression.
It is not okay to do it in the fashion that was exhibited this week, not legally, ethically, morally, or even from a manners perspective. There is NO defense for directly attacking people.
Political speech is protected on a much grander scale than what this story is about.
Then you don't understand the premise, logic, or conclusions.
Did you even do the homework I assigned to TheNextRa about these issues or are you just bloviating about the first amendment and what you think it protects?
Okay, here is what you are uneducated about. Time:holidays, Place: directly in front of a religious symbol, Manner: condescending, arrogant, superiorist, smug. That amounts to an attack on someone else's belief
TPM is a legal guage that the Supreme Court has been using for more than half a century. This was an attack by all stretches of the imagination and could be defined as such using various cases, such as Chaplinski v New Hampshire. The Time, Place, and Manner were directly coorelated to the religion that the Atheists disagreed with and there were NO prior attacks to them, if you don't get it that means you can't see past your own agenda.
The opposition is to abortion, there is no mainstream Christian opposition to adult stem cell research. So yes, you are generalizing.Generalizing? :lol: I was speaking about stem cell research specifically, to which the opposition is almost ENTIRELY Christian.
This was in regards to the Anglican church of England, it simply means that the government shall not be the church.How don't I? How am I wrong? "Congress shall make NO LAW" is quite clear and absolute, there is no limitation on that. NO LAW
Time, Place, Manner, it's your job to understand the concept, not mine to keep explaining it to you.How is a sentence on a piece of paper a direct attack at ANYONE? You cant seem to understand the difference between calling a person's idea stupid, and calling the person themselves stupid.
How do you figure an attack on one's beliefs is not an attack on the person?The board attacked Christianity, not Christians.
Do your own homework, I already had to do all the first amendment study I care for. Hint, look at SCOTUS cases between 1910-1970 and maybe you'll get a better grasp.Political speech is protected? What the heck are you talking about?
you are blind to some very simple concepts of the rights and limitations to the first amendment and are trying to see rights for a side that has none and defend behavior that cannot be.How foolish it is to mistake not seeing something available in order to understand it with not understanding it.
No, I'd say sorry you can't find your copy of Moby Dick,If I said "I can't find my copy of Moby Dick" would you then say "Because you don't understand it?
I'm using the straightforward logic of the evolution of the first amendment, you aren't following it because you either don't know it or you are trying to make an argument conform to your line of thinking.If you expect me to know your logic without giving it, then I cannot oblige.
No, it isn't, the information is out there for you, I have stated factual cases for you to find, again, I don't have to understand this stuff to explain it, I already do.Homework? :lol: sorry slim, the burden of proof is on you to support your assertions, not for me to do your work for you. I'll not do your homework because you're either too lazy or too stupid to post your argument (its logic and premises.)
Anglican church principle, as stated above, sorry that someone taught you the wrong interpretation of the right, BTW, read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings before you make the above claim.If you think congress shall make laws respecting establishments of religion, you're simply illiterate and do not understand the word "NO."
What have the Chrisitians of that community done specifically to warrant the attack? How are the beliefs any more illogical than the athiest theories? What scientific laws do you people on the "enlightened" side have that disprove any other religious theories? Until you bring something real and complete to the table, this particular Atheist behavior just looks immature, selfish, and rude.And just where did I say anything that contradicts this? I know it was an attack, that was never the issue, my position is that the attacks were not unwarranted, nor is it wrong to criticize illogical beliefs.
You obviously don't understand the amendment, because most of your statements are exactly the opposite of what it entails, therefore you either have an agenda or have a lot of work to do.What agenda? Defending the 1st Amendment? Secularism? :roll: Nevermind, you're not interested in a debate you just want to insult people.
Don't have to, it already exists and is in fact law.Either post your logic that explains why it is wrong to criticize illogical beliefs, no matter the TP or M, cite the post # where you already have, or stop wasting my time.
Founding fathers writings, Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, Supreme Court rulings from the late 1800's to the mid-1900's, take your pick.All you do is say that I don't understand things, but never explain how it is that I am wrong. What part of "congress shall make NO law" have I misunderstood? What exceptions to this are allowed? According to whom?
The opposition is to abortion, there is no mainstream Christian opposition to adult stem cell research. So yes, you are generalizing.
Lachean said:How don't I? How am I wrong? "Congress shall make NO LAW" is quite clear and absolute, there is no limitation on that. NO LAW
This was in regards to the Anglican church of England, it simply means that the government shall not be the church.
Time, Place, Manner, it's your job to understand the concept, not mine to keep explaining it to you.
How do you figure an attack on one's beliefs is not an attack on the person?
Do your own homework, I already had to do all the first amendment study I care for. Hint, look at SCOTUS cases between 1910-1970 and maybe you'll get a better grasp.
you are blind to some very simple concepts of the rights and limitations to the first amendment and are trying to see rights for a side that has none and defend behavior that cannot be.
No, I'd say sorry you can't find your copy of Moby Dick,
No, it isn't, the information is out there for you, I have stated factual cases for you to find, again, I don't have to understand this stuff to explain it, I already do.
I'm using the straightforward logic of the evolution of the first amendment, you aren't following it because you either don't know it or you are trying to make an argument conform to your line of thinking.
Anglican church principle, as stated above, sorry that someone taught you the wrong interpretation of the right, BTW, read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings before you make the above claim.
You obviously don't understand the amendment, because most of your statements are exactly the opposite of what it entails, therefore you either have an agenda or have a lot of work to do.
Don't have to, it already exists and is in fact law.
Founding fathers writings, Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, Supreme Court rulings from the late 1800's to the mid-1900's, take your pick.
What have the Chrisitians of that community done specifically to warrant the attack? How are the beliefs any more illogical than the athiest theories? What scientific laws do you people on the "enlightened" side have that disprove any other religious theories? Until you bring something real and complete to the table, this particular Atheist behavior just looks immature, selfish, and rude.
Depends on the attorney's view and agenda, but the founding writings mean your laughing out of ignorance, but please, keep it up, I am quite amused at your utter lack of first amendment understanding.:rofl AHAHAHHAHAAH, Please, PLEASE call the 1st Amendment foundation, or a Constitutional law Attourney and tell them that. Please record it for me!
Then you obviously don't understand the concept.I understand the concept, what you don't understand is how irrelevant it is to this discussion, but I guess since you know so little you feel you have to repeat what little you do.
Uh, yeah, it is, you are calling everyone who holds the belief stupid by default. Interpersonal communicationally challenged much?Because attacking A belief is not attacking anyone in particular. If I were to say that Zeus was a myth, I would not be attacking anyone (and don't be so foolish as to think no one still believes in Zeus)
So why do you keep holding on to your incorrect assumptions on the first amendment? Also, you are assigning rational value to a theoretically based belief, and one that is trying to force it's beliefs and practices upon others, including the elimination of alternate beliefs to itself(I am talking about Athiesm). You bring up this evidence thing, what scientific LAW does your side have that invalidates other beliefs, and WHICH pieces of evidence were presented in the holiday "there is no god" sign? Yeah, thought so......A belief is fixed, people are rational (mostly.) Which means that they are capable of changing their minds when faced with new evidence.
Except that scientific LAW has PROVEN that the earth is round, your side is preaching THEORY. Nice try though. Bring something concrete or bring yourself to the exit.My point is that, if this sign were up in the bronze ages, and stated that flat-earth theory is a silly superstition that is holding back scientific progress regarding the heliocentrism, it would be no different.
Except for the fact that you've got nothing which accomplishes this and it comes across as being a smug asshole.If some people are under a misconception or believe a falsehood, there is NOTHING wrong with pointing that out.
Not to you, it's out there, go ahead and read.Really, in what post did you cite any case to me?
And when did congress establish the Christian religion in the U.S.? Once again, do your homework.Yet you have not address how "congress shall make no law" = "congress shall make laws"
Then you obviously missed something.I've read the Federalist Papers, the Letters to the Delegates, and the letters to the Danbury Baptists explaining the meaning of the wall of seperation.
Obviously not since Jefferson wasn't against public religious expression.Because I can easily quote your which support mine, Thomas Jefferson was quite clear. As if "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" wasn't clear enough.
Uh, yeah, it is, you are calling everyone who holds the belief stupid by default. Interpersonal communicationally challenged much?
So why do you keep holding on to your incorrect assumptions on the first amendment?
Also, you are assigning rational value to a theoretically based belief, and one that is trying to force it's beliefs and practices upon others, including the elimination of alternate beliefs to itself(I am talking about Athiesm). You bring up this evidence thing, what scientific LAW does your side have that invalidates other beliefs, and WHICH pieces of evidence were presented in the holiday "there is no god" sign? Yeah, thought so......
Except that scientific LAW has PROVEN that the earth is round, your side is preaching THEORY. Nice try though. Bring something concrete or bring yourself to the exit.
Except for the fact that you've got nothing which accomplishes this and it comes across as being a smug asshole.
Not to you, it's out there, go ahead and read.
And when did congress establish the Christian religion in the U.S.? Once again, do your homework.
Sharing their beliefs is one thing, the sign in in the exact same area the manger was in first is an attack, completely different.
It's purely in the eye of the beholder. Some view the nativity scene as an "attack" on their intelligence. So where are we now?
Right back at "you don't have to believe in it if you don't want to do so but there's no need to make a blatant attack at those who do."
Okay, so the attitude that "we're right because of theory A, B, & C" isn't an attitude of superiority in intelligence? Dogmatism exists on your side as well, and it is the Athiest dogma that seeks to make others feel stupid for daring to believe otherwise.Again you are mistaken, dogmatism is not a matter of intelligence. It is possible to be smart enough to assemble a nuclear bomb, and still expect 72 virgins in the after life.
Because I don't need to, anyone can read them for themselves. Oh, and BTW, "I do not regard them as incorrect" does not make it correct.Because I do not regard them as incorrect, nor did the founding fathers, and you haven't quoted anything from the founders to the contrary.
Theory means it's unproven chief, and no amount of "support" means it is a fact.Again you demonstrate your lack of scientific education. You use the word theory as if in the scientific sense it didn't mean a well supported fact.
Scientific Laws ARE proven as fact, the earth is round and orbits the sun, that is provable, and is fact, so it is a scientific law. Do you need to see the photos?The fact that the earth is round and orbits the sun is a theory, not a law. Laws do not address such things, and no amount of support can make a theory into a law.
A theory is an educated guess, I guess you didn't do all that well in science did you.Theory does NOT mean "a guess" in the scientific sense, but thanks again for proving to me that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
You're insulted huh? good, because you've come out with a smug attitude the whole time, I have given you every hint you've needed to find the correct information, but hey, go ahead, shoot the messenger.At least I can back up my claims, how do you think insulting people, and never citing your sources makes you look?
I don't need to cite what you can find, I even gave you the case, Sheesh!Why are you even on a debate forum if you're too lazy to cite your sources? What a waste of time you were... At least you were a good laugh.
Those would be the one's NOT protected by the first, and none exist, so what are you talking about?:rofl ahahahhahahah!
Did you really just suggest that the only religious institutions the 1st Amendment applies to are the ones that congress established? HAAHAHAHAHAHHA.
None exist, but you are the one claiming that government buildings have to eliminate religious symbols under the establishment clause.Please, name me one of these religions that congress has established, please!
How do you figure?Thanks for proving my point, that LaMidrighter's argument was laughable.
.
Because I don't need to, anyone can read them for themselves. Oh, and BTW, "I do not regard them as incorrect" does not make it correct.
Theory means it's unproven chief, and no amount of "support" means it is a fact.
A theory is an educated guess, I guess you didn't do all that well in science did you.
I don't need to cite what you can find, I even gave you the case, Sheesh!
How do you figure?