- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- It's that time again!
It's that time again!Follow
Someone doesn't know what common law is.
Jophiel wrote:
I wasn't actually arguing to make Christmas not a holiday. I was saying that NOT making it a holiday probably has a stronger legal argument than allowing its religious aspects in a government setting with the excuse being "Well, it's a federal holiday".
I know what you mean, but if we had "Klan's Day" as a federal holiday, until the Federal government removes it as a federal holiday, "it's a federal holiday" will always be a valid argument
gbaji wrote:
But somewhere along the line the 1st amendment got re-interpreted to assume that nothing which is funded by any amount of government dollars may have religious stuff involved. We can debate that interpretation if you want, but you have to at least agree that we didn't always interpret it that way.
Pretending that the law has always been applied that way is absurd. It quite obviously has not. So it's circular to defend that change by simply saying that's what the law says. The words in the 1st amendment haven't changed Joph. The interpretation of them have. It's a total cop out to just say "well, that's the law!" and leave it at that.
Pretending that the law has always been applied that way is absurd. It quite obviously has not. So it's circular to defend that change by simply saying that's what the law says. The words in the 1st amendment haven't changed Joph. The interpretation of them have. It's a total cop out to just say "well, that's the law!" and leave it at that.
The definition of Freedom of Religion was changed because it came to include more than one religion, more than just the majority religion, which is why it is interpreted differently. We could go back to the Puritan view, if you want. We could also go back to slavery.
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
TirithRR wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that many people like celebrating the secular aspects of federal holidays? I haven't looked it up, but I'd be willing to say that a very large portion of Christmas holiday celebrations have very little to do with any organized religion.
DEVIL WORSHIPERS!
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
There is a zero percent chance that I'm going to read that wall of text.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Oh, he says that the judges aren't qualified to do the jobs they're appointed to do, but he is.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
What we need is a nice big Ramadan display in a public park with lots of Islamic iconography. I bet it would go over like gangbusters given how much we value cultural displays and new ideas.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I just saw this, thought it was pretty interesting.
The link wrote:
In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
I rate the Arkansas law that bans atheists from testifying as outdated and outrageous as most Sharia law.
Ditto barring non-Christians/atheists from public office
Ditto barring non-Christians/atheists from public office
Gotta love the Dark Ages. The only difference between us and the south-eastern parts of the world is that we eventually stopped giving a **** - we just forgot to delete all the stupid crap from official documents before the acute lack of giving a **** occurred.
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But somewhere along the line the 1st amendment got re-interpreted to assume that nothing which is funded by any amount of government dollars may have religious stuff involved. We can debate that interpretation if you want, but you have to at least agree that we didn't always interpret it that way.
Pretending that the law has always been applied that way is absurd. It quite obviously has not. So it's circular to defend that change by simply saying that's what the law says. The words in the 1st amendment haven't changed Joph. The interpretation of them have. It's a total cop out to just say "well, that's the law!" and leave it at that.
Pretending that the law has always been applied that way is absurd. It quite obviously has not. So it's circular to defend that change by simply saying that's what the law says. The words in the 1st amendment haven't changed Joph. The interpretation of them have. It's a total cop out to just say "well, that's the law!" and leave it at that.
The definition of Freedom of Religion was changed because it came to include more than one religion, more than just the majority religion, which is why it is interpreted differently.
I don't believe that's correct (cause religious protections have existed for more than one religion since the beginning of this nation), but even if we assumed it was, that comment doesn't at all address the point I was making. No amount of shifting from a belief that the only religion that should be protected is Christianity to a belief that all religions should be protected requires that one bar any religious symbols on public property. You're assuming a binary "for/against" position with regard to Religion and suggesting that if we accept some limits on religion on the public square that we must therefore accept complete barring of religion in the public square. There is a point in between.
Quote:
We could go back to the Puritan view, if you want. We could also go back to slavery.
And we could go back to human sacrifice! OMG!!! So we should reject any and all rules or ideas that are "old" because some old rules and ideas were bad. Hell. Let's chuck that whole "thou shalt not kill" thing while we're at it.
Jophiel wrote:
What we need is a nice big Ramadan display in a public park with lots of Islamic iconography. I bet it would go over like gangbusters given how much we value cultural displays and new ideas.
If it were allowed while Nativity scenes in the same park were banned during Christmas, there should be an uproar. Because it's not about my religion versus someone else's, but that our government would be doing exactly what the 1st amendment says not to do: Playing favorites based on religion.
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I just saw this, thought it was pretty interesting.
The link wrote:
In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.
That law that's been on the books since 1874 and hasn't even been attempted to be enforced in 80 years? Get back to me when they remove the law that requires you to have someone walk behind your car with a red lantern when you drive at night. Then we can talk. This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I just saw this, thought it was pretty interesting.
The link wrote:
In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.
That law that's been on the books since 1874 and hasn't even been attempted to be enforced in 80 years? Get back to me when they remove the law that requires you to have someone walk behind your car with a red lantern when you drive at night. Then we can talk. This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.
Yeah, kinda this.
Just to throw it out there, sometimes these kinds of things just get left alone because they're a pain in the butt to change. For example any changes to our state constitution requires approval by voters, and they mean any change.
On last November's ballot there was a referendum to "update the language in the constitution" which, among other things replaced many 'he' or 'his' references in the constitution with gender neutral terms. Given the extra time and effort needed to get the change approved by voters this is one of those things that just languished for years even in a 'blue' state.
Edited, Dec 11th 2012 3:14pm by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Quote:
Yeah, kinda this.
Just to throw it out there, sometimes these kinds of things just get left alone because they're a pain in the butt to change. For example any changes to our state constitution requires approval by voters, and they mean any change.
On last November's ballot there was a referendum to "update the language in the constitution" which, among other things replaced many 'he' or 'his' references in the constitution with gender neutral terms. Given the extra time and effort needed to get the change approved by voters this is one of those things that just languished for years even in a 'blue' state.
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.
Almalieque wrote:
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.
Assuming "rum & cokes" still legally count as payment, I don't see the distinction.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I don't need to see no womerns pushing goddamn babies out their stinkholes without a trace of the father around. If I wanted to see that ****, I'd go to Planned Parenthood. Keep that flarn out of my parks and courthouse lawns.
Almalieque wrote:
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.
That's actually an urban legend.
ETA: However, I heard the same thing when I went to college, and I believed it at the time, too. It DOES sound suspiciously like something Tennessee would do.
Edited, Dec 11th 2012 11:38pm by Belkira
gbaji wrote:
This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.
I didn't claim that it did. If you re-read my post, I said that I found it interesting.
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.
That's actually an urban legend.
ETA: However, I heard the same thing when I went to college, and I believed it at the time, too. It DOES sound suspiciously like something Tennessee would do.
Edited, Dec 11th 2012 11:38pm by Belkira
Sorority's can have their charters revoked for any number of reasons, from not having enough pledges (not making enough money) or various disciplinary reasons, so if there really was an absence of sororities while you were in school, it's possible that they all had just lost their national recognition, which kills local chapters.
Guenny wrote:
Sorority's can have their charters revoked for any number of reasons, from not having enough pledges (not making enough money) or various disciplinary reasons, so if there really was an absence of sororities while you were in school, it's possible that they all had just lost their national recognition, which kills local chapters.
Oh, we had plenty of Sororities at school. The urban legend is about the physical houses where sorority members can live.
Sororities thrive in Tennessee.
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.
I like this because it would mean convents are considered brothels and are illegal [in the mythical state where this law exists].
War against Catholics!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ew, my aunt is in a convent.
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
Mazra wrote:
Ew, my aunt is in a convent.
Technically, she's Swedish, because the convent is located in Sweden.
But, no, we're neither atheists nor asatruar. Some priest guy from the south wandered up here and decided to make us "civilized" by splashing water in our faces and ordering us to not pillage and plunder.
Edited, Dec 12th 2012 8:34pm by Mazra
But, no, we're neither atheists nor asatruar. Some priest guy from the south wandered up here and decided to make us "civilized" by splashing water in our faces and ordering us to not pillage and plunder.
Edited, Dec 12th 2012 8:34pm by Mazra
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
Aww, what a buzzkill
Recent Visitors: 235
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (235)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- It's that time again!
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC