You have NO right to exercise your religion

[Paschendale]

For the most part, the free exercise clause should protect any private expressions of religion. The establishment clause obviously prevents legal enforcement of anyone's religious mores, or the government endorsing any specific religious principles. But free exercise should be balanced against the rights of others. Prohibiting the circumcision of children, for example, would be a perfectly legitimate infringement of free exercise. Preventing discrimination is another. But preventing someone from drinking alcohol or smoking peyote during a religious ceremony really oughtn't to be.

 

[Master PO]

however this is not about franchise rights, its about YOUR religion not someone elses and the ability to exercise it.

Americans have individual rights, and they consist of many many rights, when it comes to matters of faith I can pray,. preach the gospels if I choose as long people have the ability to walk away and or not constrained by an obligation they must comply with.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Link or other reference? Can't exactly respond to a specific situation without details on it.

sry it was too long ago, just remember it. you shouldnt need details because you can use what would happen today to conclude what happened then. the parents stoned the child to death, as their religious duty and obligation, in america, no link is necessary to figure it out. Some may remember if they are old enough.

 

[KokomoJojo]

No - I think the biggest problem you have is just not making sense.

What is your point?

You have NO right to exercise your religion

only give it lip service or join some collusive franchise religion.

 

[Master PO]

You have NO right to exercise your religion

only give it lip service or join some collusive franchise religion.

I have rights you have not even thought about.

rights we exercise everyday of our lives, we take for granted.

I have the ability to preach the gospels to whomever shall wish to listen, and in the public square, and to those who do not wish to listen they are free to exercise their right of travel, meaning to move one.

 

[KokomoJojo]

For the most part, the free exercise clause should protect any private expressions of religion. The establishment clause obviously prevents legal enforcement of anyone's religious mores, or the government endorsing any specific religious principles. But free exercise should be balanced against the rights of others. Prohibiting the circumcision of children, for example, would be a perfectly legitimate infringement of free exercise. Preventing discrimination is another. But preventing someone from drinking alcohol or smoking peyote during a religious ceremony really oughtn't to be.

Private meaning not government?

If the government "believes" that machine guns on the street are not good therefore unacceptable in society, they have now created a religion that is enforced and must be followed, secular, but a religion nonetheless.

Totally agreed, and we do not need an extortionist meddling interloping government in the middle of our stare decis law. Only need court cases to bring a complaint IF it happens to an individual, hence individual v individual not individual v mob.

They have no 'legitimate' authority to prevent any private man or woman from ingesting whatever the hell they want to ingest.

The country was not intended to have a mob v individual culture based on state secularism meted out by a central interloping power.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I have rights you have not even thought about.

rights we exercise everyday of our lives, we take for granted.

I have the ability to preach the gospels to whomever shall wish to listen, and in the public square, and to those who do not wish to listen they are free to exercise their right of travel, meaning to move one.

no you dont.

read some of these class 1 city charters sometime and see if you can find any they missed.

you know the states or to the people blah blah

people means or is synonymous with community and individual is a sole corp person in american law by the way

russia recognizes man and woman as separate from the state but they can wipe their butts with their constitution as well in practice.

judges love to play with words like people since it can mean many things, but not a man or a woman since government only recognizes 'persons'.

yeh but thats 'exercising' speech not religion. The substantial meaning of religion is the composite of your 'beliefs' that you use to govern your actions, as determined by you or by agreement. if by someone/thing else prevents you from doing so by a greater force your right to 'exercise' (act upon your beliefs) has been violated creating an actionable cause. (trespass) However we are still in the feudal system in america and thou shalt not argue with the sovereign. (especially when fees, penalties, forfeitures and fines are so lucrative.)


as an aside, I would like to hear what right you think you can claim that has not already been claimed by the sovereign? In the feudal system or any of its mirrors, in other words reinvented labels not withstanding, if the sovereign claims a right its not yours, its theirs to dole out to (or take away from) whom they please.

 

[Master PO]

no you dont.

read some of these class 1 city charters sometime and see if you can find any they missed.

you know the states or to the people blah blah

people means or is synonymous with community and individual is a sole corp person in american law by the way

russia recognizes man and woman as separate from the state but they can wipe their butts with their constitution as well in practice.

judges love to play with words like people since it can mean many things, but not a man or a woman since government only recognizes 'persons'.

yeh but thats 'exercising' speech not religion. The substantial meaning of religion is the composite of your 'beliefs' that you use to govern your actions, as determined by you or by agreement. if by someone/thing else prevents you from doing so by a greater force your right to 'exercise' (act upon your beliefs) has been violated creating a cause of action. However we are still in the feudal system and thou shalt not argue with the sovereign.

I don't read city charters, I read the founders....be it the constitution, federalist, papers or personal letters.

governments are created to secure rights, not dictate what they are.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Americans have individual rights, and they consist of many many rights, when it comes to matters of faith I can pray,. preach the gospels if I choose as long people have the ability to walk away and or not constrained by an obligation they must comply with.

Faith is only one element of religion.

However if what you are saying is your right to exercise your religion ends with praying. On that note I agree.

Americans do not have individual rights. Do you have a personal ernst constitutional agreement with the state or are your rights in a pool with everyone elses?

unless of course your name happens to be "State of _____" then you comply to their religion.

 

[AlbqOwl]

In my opinion, the Founders intended the restriction on interference with religion stated in the 1st Amendment to apply to the federal government only. At the time the Constitution was signed and ratified, a number of small theocracies existed among the various colonies--those who chose to live in those colonies were required to adhere to the religious dictates in those colonies or suffer severe consequences.

Unless people have the right to be rigidly and militantly religious or rigidly and militantly Atheist or anti-church or anti-religion or whatever - or any stage in between those two extremes - there is no freedom. The only restriction is that the federal government cannot interfere nor can one community/state impose their rules and requirements on another.

Of course since then SCOTUS has corrupted that concept to the detriment of our unalienable rights and the intent of the First Amendment.

It is also noted that the Founders trusted a free people to make mistakes and get things wrong, but to eventually choose the best way to run a society and a country. And every one of those little theocracies had pretty much voluntarily dissolved itself by the close of the 18th Century. And no new ones were ever developed.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I don't read city charters, I read the founders....be it the constitution, federalist, papers or personal letters.

governments are created to secure rights, not dictate what they are.

government does not start at the federal level and go down it starts at the community level and goes up. for instance if your city determines all lawns will be 4" and contain one petunia you damn well better comply or they fine you and if you refuse to pay their extortion demand they will ultimately take your property away from you.

good luck with using the macro solution as a substitute for the micro issue, the federal courts would sanction you for filing frivolous complaints.

 

[Master PO]

Faith is only one element of religion.

However if what you are saying is your right to exercise your religion ends with praying. On that note I agree.

Americans do not have individual rights. Do you have a personal ernst constitutional agreement with the state or are your rights in a pool with everyone elses?

unless of course your name happens to be "State of _____" then you comply to their religion.

natural rights are individual , they are not collective,[ the founders are against collectivism /federalist #63] natural are from a higher authority... god or nature, take your choice.

civil rights, /privileges...... are created by governments, and are to be dispensed equally among the population, but can be denied to a person, if the state can show not giving it to you, is in the interest of the state.

the constitution does not grant any rights to the people, rights are only recognized by the constitution, by their listing, or the USSC recognizes a rights, when it is brought before the court because of a conflict in the exercise thereof.

since the civil war, all states obey the bill of rights,[ which are restrictions on government], before the war every state with it declaration of rights, with freedom of religion and its free exercise.

 

[KokomoJojo]

In my opinion, the Founders intended the restriction on interference with religion stated in the 1st Amendment to apply to the federal government only. At the time the Constitution was signed and ratified, a number of small theocracies existed among the various colonies--those who chose to live in those colonies were required to adhere to the religious dictates in those colonies or suffer severe consequences.

Unless people have the right to be rigidly and militantly religious or rigidly and militantly Atheist or anti-church or anti-religion or whatever - or any stage in between those two extremes - there is no freedom. The only restriction is that the federal government cannot interfere nor can one community/state impose their rules and requirements on another.

Of course since then SCOTUS has corrupted that concept to the detriment of our unalienable rights and the intent of the First Amendment.

It is also noted that the Founders trusted a free people to make mistakes and get things wrong, but to eventually choose the best way to run a society and a country. And every one of those little theocracies had pretty much voluntarily dissolved itself by the close of the 18th Century. And no new ones were ever developed.

feudalism is a franchise (free people) arrangement.

thats marshal theory, however it carried the presumption that the constitution went through its proper channels, meaning that the people were able hold referendums in their hands and vote within their states then their states to carry that conclusion forward. that did not happen. the states voted instead.

there is nothing wrong with that, however they are mixing the public commercial origins with private religion, hence the move to secularism and ultimate illusion of state being non religious.

If you have beliefs that you act upon you have a religion, which includes every thinking man and woman on the planet despite their particular flavor of religion.

freedom does not mean free from government it means franchised to government if you want to use the definitions at the time of creation. I posted clips from the dictionaries of the time.

there are only 2 basic choices, slave to xyz or franchise slave to state

Its important to keep definitions straight, as an example, exterminate in 1933 meant to move someone/thing outside your boundaries, today it means genocide. It should be obvious the importance of understand how words were used in their appropriate time frame.

 

[Master PO]

government does not start at the federal level and go down it starts at the community level and goes up. for instance if your city determines all lawns will be 4" and contain one petunia you damn well better comply or they fine you and if you refuse to pay their extortion demand they will ultimately take your property away from you.

good luck with using the macro solution as a substitute for the micro issue, the federal courts would sanction you for filing frivolous complaints.

citizens were to be governed by the local government and then the state, with the federal government [congress] having no authority over the personal life's of the citizen.

as to you last PART, that is not true, only when your property because a threat to the public heath and safety does government have authority over your property, or by contract.

any law which would impose dictation, is illegal, however I do know it does happen.

as far as courts case, the federal government has authority to hear any case between a citizen and government be it local, state or federal ,this can be found by reading the constitution.

 

[AlbqOwl]

feudalism is a franchise (free people) arrangement.

thats marshal theory, however it carried the presumption that the constitution went through its proper channels, meaning that the people were able hold referendums in their hands and vote within their states then their states to carry that conclusion forward. that did not happen. the states voted instead.

there is nothing wrong with that, however they are mixing the public commercial origins with private religion, hence the move to secularism and ultimate illusion of state being non religious.

If you have beliefs that you act upon you have a religion, which includes every thinking man and woman on the planet despite their particular flavor of religion.

freedom does not mean free from government it means franchised to government if you want to use the definitions at the time of creation. I posted clips from the dictionaries of the time.

there are only 2 basic choices, slave to xyz or franchise slave to state

Its important to keep definitions straight, as an example, exterminate in 1933 meant to move someone/thing outside your boundaries, today it means genocide. It should be obvious the importance of understand how words were used in their appropriate time frame.

I'm sorry Koko, but you lost me with most of your response.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I'm sorry Koko, but you lost me with most of your response.

yeh, unfortunately the only time I have ever been able to really take the gloves off on these topics is with legislative staff attorneys, and unfortunately they dont have either the time or inclination to really sift through it. I always presume I will run across someone out here who can really hammer on this stuff.

 

[KokomoJojo]

citizens were to be governed by the local government and then the state, with the federal government [congress] having no authority over the personal life's of the citizen.

as to you last PART, that is not true, only when your property because a threat to the public heath and safety does government have authority over your property, or by contract.

any law which would impose dictation, is illegal, however I do know it does happen.

as far as courts case, the federal government has authority to hear any case between a citizen and government be it local, state or federal ,this can be found by reading the constitution.

citizens were to be governed by the local government and then the state, with the federal government [congress] having no authority over the personal life's of the citizen.

in accordance with their consent, however today, the retard crowd interprets that as you are here therefore you consent.

as to you last PART, that is not true, only when your property because a threat to the public heath and safety does government have authority over your property, or by contract.
hmm they just took a guys house away not too long ago because he insisted on painting it pink.

any law which would impose dictation, is illegal, however I do know it does happen.

all the time, in fact most laws are fine/penalize you first ask questions later. guilty till proven innocent.
as far as courts case, the federal government has authority to hear any case between a citizen and government be it local, state or federal ,this can be found by reading the constitution.
only if it rises to the level of a federal question, otherwise they will simply kick it back...parking ticket comes to mind

 

[Thoreau72]

I have rights you have not even thought about.

rights we exercise everyday of our lives, we take for granted.

I have the ability to preach the gospels to whomever shall wish to listen, and in the public square, and to those who do not wish to listen they are free to exercise their right of travel, meaning to move one.

You're right about that public square thing, but only rude bastards force passers-by to listen to their superstitious nonsense.

Courteous religionists keep their faith in the church house where it belongs.

 

[Master PO]

You're right about that public square thing, but only rude bastards force passers-by to listen to their superstitious nonsense.

Courteous religionists keep their faith in the church house where it belongs.

your not being forced, because you have the ability of movement, to walk on.

I don't know where this idea comes from of religion is only supposed to be behind church doors., this is false,

the bible tells us to preach the gospels, however it does say that if a person does not want to listen, then you are to "shake the dust from your sandals and move on".

it never tells a Christians, to apply force to another person.

 

[Master PO]

citizens were to be governed by the local government and then the state, with the federal government [congress] having no authority over the personal life's of the citizen.

in accordance with their consent, however today, the retard crowd interprets that as you are here therefore you consent.

as to you last PART, that is not true, only when your property because a threat to the public heath and safety does government have authority over your property, or by contract.
hmm they just took a guys house away not too long ago because he insisted on painting it pink.

any law which would impose dictation, is illegal, however I do know it does happen.

all the time, in fact most laws are fine/penalize you first ask questions later. guilty till proven innocent.
as far as courts case, the federal government has authority to hear any case between a citizen and government be it local, state or federal ,this can be found by reading the constitution.
only if it rises to the level of a federal question, otherwise they will simply kick it back...parking ticket comes to mind

just because people want something does not mean ist legal, a constitution defines what is legal,... there is no authority in the constitution, for the congress to pass laws on the backs of the people.

people are supposed to be governed, at the state and local level, -federalist 45

pink?..did he sign a contract of some sort, when he bought the house?

today governments pass laws on the people forcing them to do things, ...however there is no reason for the law, because there is no victim, which can result.

no a federal court, would not hear a parking ticket,...... however they can hear of a local or state government abusing power over parking tickets.

 

[haymarket]

just because people want something does not mean ist legal, a constitution defines what is legal,... there is no authority in the constitution, for the congress to pass laws on the backs of the people.

Can you cite even one official SC precedent over the last 220 plus years which supports this claim?

 

[Master PO]

Can you cite even one official SC precedent over the last 220 plus years which supports this claim?

here is my point!

if the people, the majority wanted you Haymarket dead, do they have authority to put you to death, ...no.

 

[haymarket]

here is my point!

if the people, the majority wanted you Haymarket dead, do they have authority to put you to death, ...no.

So the answer to my question is obviously NO - you have not a single US Supreme Court precedent you can point to which supports your views about the powers of the federal government.

Thank you for clarifying that.

So the real question then becomes, if in over 220 years not one SC decision sees things your way - why in the world should any person reading your pontifications give them any credibility at all since they obviously have no basis at all in reality?

 

[Master PO]

So the answer to my question is obviously NO - you have not a single US Supreme Court precedent you can point to which supports your views.

Thank you.

sorry you don't get to determine outcome, I stated everything the people want to do.............. they don't get to do.

 

[haymarket]

sorry you don't get to determine outcome, I stated everything the people want to do.............. they don't get to do.

What does that gibberish even mean?