We knew it was comming....

Dixie said:
There is nothing there about discriminating against a religion. Sorry! It says we can't prohibit the free exercise... we can't establish... doesn't say we can't discriminate. In fact, we routinely discriminate against religion all the time. Mormon polygamists can't practice their religious belief in multiple wives, we discriminate against their religious belief. There are other religions which involve animal sacrifice, we don't allow them to practice that... many other similar examples. So to claim that we can't or don't discriminate against religion, is false. The Constitution simply doesn't say what you claim it does, and you've illustrated what an abject moron you are.
Click to expand...
There is actually a supreme court case on point in re animal sacrifice. It deals with Santaria and the sacrifice of animals in that religion. If you make me post the cite, and I do, then you have to stop posting on this thread completely.

EDIT: My bet is, you will ignore this post entirely.
 
Socrtease said:
There is actually a supreme court case on point in re animal sacrifice. It deals with Santaria and the sacrifice of animals in that religion. If you make me post the cite, and I do, then you have to stop posting on this thread completely.
Click to expand...

*sigh* No, I don't have to do what you tell me, Sochead. And I don't have to agree to how you have distorted what my point was. So, let's stop acting like we're in 5th grade, please?

Show me where the constitution says we can't discriminate against religious beliefs, or shut the fuck up, and admit that I made that point. Or don't... I don't fucking care!
 
Dixie said:
*sigh* No, I don't have to do what you tell me, Sochead. And I don't have to agree to how you have distorted what my point was. So, let's stop acting like we're in 5th grade, please?

Show me where the constitution says we can't discriminate against religious beliefs, or shut the fuck up, and admit that I made that point. Or don't... I don't fucking care!
Click to expand...

I knew you would blow hard and then show how stupid you are on this issue. ANY restriction on free exersize is unconstitutional. You in all you "abject ignorance" said that governments are allowed to prohibit animal sacrifice. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc,. et al. v. City of Hialeah the Court ruled that laws aimed specifically at curtailing animal sacrifice in the City of Hialeah were unconstitutional. Not only did the liberals on the court agree but so did Scalia, Rhenquist, and Thomas. You were wrong and in that wrong post you derided someone on their "abject ignorance". You are a fool and ignorant. I have proven you wrong. So go back to bumfuck Alabama and don't try to argue Constitutional law with me. The cite for the case is 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Go read it and learn something about first amendment law. Either that or shut the fuck up and don't jump out in public and show us ALL how fucking ignorant you really are.
 
Socrtease said:
I knew you would blow hard and then show how stupid you are on this issue. ANY restriction on free exersize is unconstitutional. You in all you "abject ignorance" said that governments are allowed to prohibit animal sacrifice. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc,. et al. v. City of Hialeah the Court ruled that laws aimed specifically at curtailing animal sacrifice in the City of Hialeah were unconstitutional. Not only did the liberals on the court agree but so did Scalia, Rhenquist, and Thomas. You were wrong and in that wrong post you derided someone on their "abject ignorance". You are a fool and ignorant. I have proven you wrong. So go back to bumfuck Alabama and don't try to argue Constitutional law with me. The cite for the case is 508 U.S. 520 (1993). Go read it and learn something about first amendment law. Either that or shut the fuck up and don't jump out in public and show us ALL how fucking ignorant you really are.
Click to expand...

But the point which went flying comfortably over your pinhead, was not related to animal sacrifice, or the 'legality' of it. I gave that as an example of how we routinely discriminate against religious practices, it's done all the time. You found some point of technicality regarding one of my examples, but it doesn't negate the point I made, so you have failed to do anything other than demonstrate what a myopic egotistical ass you can be. Congrats, you did a fantastic job of that, pat yourself on the back for it!
 
Jarod said:
Well, thats what I said, its illegal to kill dogs in that way, for everyone. BTW just because you say something is a religion does not mean it is. See the Limon test.
Click to expand...


(BTW just because you say something is a religion does not mean it is.)

Then you're now saying we certainly CAN DISCRIMINATE even to the point of defining what religion is a VALID RELIGION ?.....
Is Scientology a valid religion? How about the white separatist group, Creativity Movement, (formerly known as World Church Of The Creator)...is that a valid religion ?
How about The Church of All Worlds is a neo-pagan religion founded in 1962 by Oberon Zell-Ravenheart and his wife Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart.

Who makes the call? Who is the judge? Who discriminates ?

Did your Law Degree include at least a 5 minute explanation of the US Constitution?
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Nope, I don't support it. I think it's insane to even consider building a Trophy Mosque at the site of a radical Islamic conquest. If there is anything I can do to discourage the building of it, I will do that, because I know there will be innocent people harmed as a result of this. You, on the other hand, have chosen to take another path, to ENCOURAGE the building, and claiming some supposed "moral high ground" on an issue of religious freedom. ...You're idiots!

I do NOT support this... YOU support this! Let's make that perfectly clear! What I have stated is, I believe they have the right to do it... not that I support their doing it. There is no legal/constitutional way to prevent it, and I understand that, therefore, we can't prevent them from building it. But we don't have to "LIKE" it, and we don't have to sit down and shut up about it, because the self-righteous liberals suddenly discovered a right to religious freedom. We can certainly speak out against it, detest the idea of it, and deplore the distorted propaganda being pumped out to defend it... and still believe they have the right to build it. And we can still point out the utter hypocrisies off the left with this... I bet if this were a Catholic Convent being built across from an abortion clinic, where Nuns planned to 'pray for the souls' of the unborn babies being aborted, you same nitwits would have your panties in a wad about it, and condemn any politician who supported their "right" to do that!
Click to expand...
Why should the people of New York and this community in Manhattan give a rats ass about what some redneck wing nut in Alabama thinks about what they do in their community. It's none of your fucking business. If the people of Manhattan want to build a mosque there what fucking business is it of yours?

Dixie, I dare you, I double dog dare you to go to Manhattan and talk your redneck right wing nuttery about Islam and Iraq and see how fast you get your ass kicked by the locals who still pissed off about how southern conservatives co-opted the war against the people who attacked their city and killed their people so they could go have their little wing nut adventure in Iraq and let Bin Ladin slip away. Go ahead, do it, go talk that shit to the people who actually suffered those attacks. Let see who long they 'll listen to you before they kick your ass and send you back to Alabama.
 
bravo said:
(BTW just because you say something is a religion does not mean it is.)

Then you're now saying we certainly CAN DISCRIMINATE even to the point of defining what religion is a VALID RELIGION ?.....
Is Scientology a valid religion? How about the white separatist group, Creativity Movement, (formerly known as World Church Of The Creator)...is that a valid religion ?
How about The Church of All Worlds is a neo-pagan religion founded in 1962 by Oberon Zell-Ravenheart and his wife Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart.

Who makes the call? Who is the judge? Who discriminates ?

Did your Law Degree include at least a 5 minute explanation of the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

Look into this and educate yourself on what Scolars called Supreme Court Justices have written. Limon test.
 
Jarod said:
Look into this and educate yourself on what Scolars called Supreme Court Justices have written. Limon test.
Click to expand...
You obviously mean the "LEMON TEST", not Limon, Counselor....
The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion.
As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
So whats your point? Whats pertinent in the Lemon Test that is germane to what we're talking about..?

You said it yourself..."just because you say something is a religion does not mean it is"

and that means the government is discriminating, that is, determining, what constitutes a VALID religion....

discriminating:
1. differentiating; analytical.

2. noting differences or distinctions with nicety; discerning; perspicacious: a discriminating interpreter of events.


Common Sense 101
 
bravo said:
You obviously mean the "LEMON TEST", not Limon, Counselor....
The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion.
As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
So whats your point? Whats pertinent in the Lemon Test that is germane to what we're talking about..?

You said it yourself..."just because you say something is a religion does not mean it is"

and that means the government is discriminating, that is, determining, what constitutes a VALID religion....

discriminating:
1. differentiating; analytical.

2. noting differences or distinctions with nicety; discerning; perspicacious: a discriminating interpreter of events.


Common Sense 101
Click to expand...

Ugh, so If I call selling french fries a religen you belive the first Amendment should protect me?

To discriminate against a religen you must first be define religen.... ugh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top