Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You conceited little pup . No I'm jot going for you just because Shirina delivered all our Christmas presents in one go. But she had you bang to rights. The 'I don't do that - so your argument is a strawman" which it wouldn't be even if it valid. And as I recall, the only reason for the long response is because your post was an overlong filibuster. So, if the hope that nobody will refute you because it's too much trouble for so little result is frustrated by someone refuting every false and dishonest point - why then, you play the 'I sure rattled your bars' ("I annoyed you, therefore, you must secretly know I'm right") card. Shirina was right - shameless dishonesty is far too often the stock in trade of the Christian apologist. It certainly is yours.
Well....T suppose there wan't much he could say to that but roll his eyes . Let's see what he makes of my latest...Shirina sets the stardard...we do our best....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
They are, yes. And one instance of that was Dr. Nabeel Qureshi being wrongly arrested and having his rights violated. That would be an example of a violation of rights.
But deciding to limit commerce? That's certainly within the rights of the local community.
I don't think they should, either. And frankly, I agree -- I also believe that if Christians wish to simply not buy it, it's their choice. But if a community wishes to do that, they have the right to do so.
The question though, is whether or not a law is invalid simply because it might agree with the wishes of religious people? I see no issue with coincidence.
Agreed. And I am not suggesting that any pastor or imam has the authority to decide law. It's up to the elected officials in the particular city or community.
Mordant replied very fully, but I thought I'd mention the idea that Shirina picked up and I noticed quite clearly. The idea that the Constitution applies only to Federal government. And if states want to pass a law about banning gay marriage, teaching Creationism in the science class and allowing a Christian - run business to refuse service to anyone they think violates some sacred cow doctrine of their local megachurch, they can. I'm sure I saw you argue that States have the right to ignore Federal law if it suits them.
I must admit it was a neat ploy to argue that, if a Muslim Enclave wanted to impose Sharya law in some town they had got a vote majority and governmental control of, and wanted all shops to close for Friday prayers, (Muslim or not), all women to wear coalsacks with a gauze net over the one eyehole they were permitted otherwise the Minxes would force the decent Muslim men to bonk them in the street..the shameless huzzies (muslim or not) and oblige all the kids to be educated according to Muslim ideology (Muslim or not), then you would be fine with that, because State law overrides Federal laws about separation of church and state, and that covers, Mosques, synagogues, Viharas, and Payas alike, and the dominant religion in a town or state can do whatever they like, because federal law doesn't apply to them.
Well, that is amazingly open minded of you, Baptists fundy, because I have to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are not being crafty and only saying so because YOU don't live in Dearborn, and that you would acquiesce with Good grace if there was a Muslim voting majority where you live that you daughter would be obliged to join the harem of the Muslim who grabbed her in the street and bonked her., because the seductress had forgotten to put the gauze over her eyehole.
And you would never dream of voting for Trump in the hopes that he would ensure that there are no Dearbornes where YOU live, so that you could count on the only religious fundamentalist law being imposed by your state or town would be good ol' Baptist Fundie law.
Well, you beat me for liberality of thought old rodent, because I for sure wouldn't go along with it, because even if everyone in a whole state was Muslim or indeed atheist, and only one person was of a different religious view, that person would be able to open or close their shop whenever they wish, but could NOT refuse services to anyone because of race, religion or sexual preferences. Nor would they be prevented from celebrating any religious festival they liked, even putting on a party , lights and music (within local nuisance bye -laws) so long as the lanterns along the wall or the floating candles on the pond wasn't on land representing government - town, State or Nation. And you could send you kids along to school confident that some Imam, Swami or Rabbi wouldn't be wished on them to indoctrinate them about Allah, Vishnu or Buddha. No, they would be taught no particular religion, leaving them a tabula rasa for you to indoctrinate with your chosen religion when they get home.
That's the way it would work for me, Federal, constitution -based legislation trumping State legislation every time., even if that wouldn't suit you if you lived in Dearborn
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-13-2017 at 01:31 PM..
Mordant replied very fully, but I thought I'd mention the idea that Shirina pickled up and I noticed quite clearly. The idea that the Constitution applies only to Federal government. And if states want to pass a law about banning gay marriage, teaching Creationism in the science class and allowing a Christian run business to refuse service to anyone they think violates some sacred cow doctrine of their local megachurch, they can. I'm sure I saw you argue that States have the right to ignore Federal law if it suits them.
Not quite that way. I did say that the Constitution limits the Federal government, but it does allow for states to regulate things like religion as they wish.
As for gay marriage, if a state issues a marriage license, they can do it as they wish. My state should not have to recognize what another state does in regards to redefining marriage.
As for education? The Constitution doesn't define a federal department of education to define standards. If Texas wants to teach Creationism, they have that right. If California wants to teach some crazy things, they can do so. And we have the right to not live in those states.
Quote:
I must admit it was a neat ploy to argue that, if a Muslim Enclave wanted to impose Sharya law in some town they had got a vote majority and governmental control of, and wanted all shops to close for Friday prayers, (Muslim or not), all women to wear coalsacks with a gauze net over the one eyehole they were permitted otherwise the Minxes would force the decent Muslim men to bonk them in the street..the shameless huzzies (muslim or not) and oblige all the kids to be educated according to Muslim ideology (Muslim or not), then you would be fine with that, because State law overrides Federal laws about separation of church and state, and that covers, Mosques, synagogues, Viharas, and Payas alike, and the dominant religion in a towenn or state can do whatever they like, because federal law doesn't apply to them.
Well, that is amazingly open minded of you, Baptists fundy, because I have to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you are not being crafty and only saying so because YOU don't live in Dearborn, and that you would acquiesce with Good grace if there was a Muslim voting majority where you live that you daughter would be aoliged to join the harem of the Muslim who grabberd her in the street and bonked her.
And you would never dream of voting for Trump in the hopes that he would ensure that there are no Dearbornes where YOU llive, and that you could count on the only religious fundamentalist law being imposed by your state or town would be good ol' Baptist Fundie law.
Well, you beat me for liberality of thought old rodent, because I for sure wouldn't go along with it, because even if everyone is a whole state was Muslim or indeed atheist, and only one person was of a different religious view, that person would be able to open or close their shop whenever they wish, but could refuse services to anyone because of race, religion or sexual preferences. Nor would they be prevented from celebrating any religious festival they liked, even putting on a party , lights and music (with local nuisance bye -laws) so long as the lanterns along the wall or the floating candles on the pond wasn't on land representing government - town, date or Nation. And you send you kids along to school confident that some Imam, Swami or Rabbi wouldn't be wished on them to indoctrinate them about Allah, Vishnu or Buddha, leaving them a tabula rasa for you to indioctrinate with your chosen religion when they get home.
That's the way it would work for me, Federal, constitution -based legislation trumping State legislation every time., even if that wouldn't suit you if you lived in Dearborn
Now you're taking that farther than I suggested. I never suggested they could impose Sharia Law, nor that they could mandate dress codes, etc.
But if a city wishes to limit commerce during certain hours? It's been done before. Nothing wrong with that. If you don't like living there, leave.
I'm in Illinois. Recently there was a tv ad run where the neighboring states' governors thanked the Speaker of the House in our state for his liberal policies. He's been in office for something like 30 years and the tax policy here has caused businesses to leave to go to Wisconsin, Indiana, and Missouri. Our state is suffering as a result. People can and do leave a state if they don't like it.
Not quite that way. I did say that the Constitution limits the Federal government, but it does allow for states to regulate things like religion as they wish.
Well, the Constitution still has the Full Faith and Credit clause:
Quote:
Article IV, Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
As for gay marriage, if a state issues a marriage license, they can do it as they wish. My state should not have to recognize what another state does in regards to redefining marriage.
Again, the Full Faith and Credit clause requires that states recognize any marriage that was legally solemnized in any other state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
As for education? The Constitution doesn't define a federal department of education to define standards. If Texas wants to teach Creationism, they have that right. If California wants to teach some crazy things, they can do so. And we have the right to not live in those states.
Actually, Texas doesn't have that right according to the Supremacy Clause:
Quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Any attempt by a state to enact laws that enforce the teaching of creationism in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause.
No, BF, that's just your overblown ego talking -- a massive irony considering how many times you've made some personal attack regarding how "highly" I think of myself.
In truth, you need to knock off the personal attacks. That IS against the rules, after all.
It says quite a bit about your character (or lack of it) that you can't ever address my actual points and instead resort to full-on personal attacks. That's why you suck at this .... and suck hard.
You're a playground bully in a professional boxer's ring.
Yet what I find the funniest is that you just HAD to respond. Haha! Yep. You just didn't have the self-discipline and moral integrity to do what you said you were going to do -- and just not respond to me anymore.
Tee hee! You just can't help yourself, can you.
I wonder, then, who's nerve was truly hit.
Because I never said I was going to stop responding to you. In fact, I plan on responding whenever I feel like it -- because I'm sure you'll post a lot of silly arguments in the future and, hopefully, I'll be right there to demonstrate how silly they are.
And you won't be able to help yourself. You'll keep responding -- and not for the purposes of debate and discussion but to simply hurl personal ad-hominem attacks against me because you apparently can't do much else.
Anyhow, if it takes you believing you've hit a nerve to make you feel better about yourself, I won't ruin your delusion any further. By all means, have fun in your foray through the Land of Make-Believe.
Say hello to the trolley for me. Oh, and tell Henrietta "Meow!" I loved her as a kid.
Not quite that way. I did say that the Constitution limits the Federal government, but it does allow for states to regulate things like religion as they wish.
Nope. Wrong. We've been through this once already.
The states cannot regulate "things like religion" as they wish because that falls under the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
And the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment applies to each and every state due to the Supremacy Clause.
Which means that case law such as the Lemon Test would apply to any city or state thinking of passing some kind of law or restriction based on religion.
Now, granting permissions are usually much easier because they offer choices that can be refused by anyone who doesn't like the law. But religious restrictions are *much* harder to justify because that is merely a form of theocratic fascism whereby residents of a city or state will have someone else's religion imposed upon them -- and that violates their freedom to practice *their* religion.
Not that I expect you would care overmuch if a non-Christian had his/her rights violated. Just as long as your religion gets what it wants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
As for gay marriage, if a state issues a marriage license, they can do it as they wish. My state should not have to recognize what another state does in regards to redefining marriage.
Really. Okay, why stop there? Let's allow states to refuse college degrees earned in other states. Let's allow states to refuse to accept drivers' licenses from other states. Where does *that* end, exactly?
What would really be the point of having a unified nation? Might as well just abolish the federal government and have every state its own little country -- so that within 50 to 100 years states will be fighting each other in open wars. It took Europe 1500 years of constant fighting to figure out how two dozen small nations can co-exist within a limited space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
As for education? The Constitution doesn't define a federal department of education to define standards. If Texas wants to teach Creationism, they have that right. If California wants to teach some crazy things, they can do so. And we have the right to not live in those states.
Yes, yes, the Constitution is a very convenient document to adhere to when it suits you -- but damn inconvenient when it doesn't, thus it is ignored (i.e. you've been ignoring the Supremacy Clause since this argument began, trying to find every little loophole or set of circumstances that will allow your religion to gain primacy over everyone, especially those that don't believe as you do.
The Constitution doesn't define the existence of an Air Force, either, nor does it give Congress permission to fund one. It only grants permission to fund an army and a navy. I guess we'll just have to crate up all of our planes and send them to someone else.
No, Texas does not have the right to teach Creationism -- especially not in a science class.
Not that it matters. Allowing each individual district to set its own standards is one of the reasons why our education system is a failure. In addition, allowing school board seats to be filled by general election so that unqualified non-educators can set the curriculum is another unmitigated disaster for our system. It's the equivalent of having housewives and auto mechanics running the AMA or bartenders and pet groomers running the American Bar Association. No other professional organization allows unqualified people to make the rules for its professional members -- but we allow that to happen with teaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Now you're taking that farther than I suggested. I never suggested they could impose Sharia Law, nor that they could mandate dress codes, etc.
Why couldn't they adopt Shari'a Law and enforce dress codes? You have repeatedly said that cities and states can "regulate things like religion as they wish." (Your words.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
But if a city wishes to limit commerce during certain hours? It's been done before. Nothing wrong with that. If you don't like living there, leave.
Because if it is done for religious reasons, it violates the civil rights of others -- something you obviously either cannot grasp or simply refuse to.
And this, "if you don't like it, leave" mentality is what I've come to expect from the typical theocratic fascist. I've told you before, not everyone *can* leave. Not everyone has the money to just pack up and move somewhere else. Obviously you haven't moved very often or you wouldn't be saying it so flippantly as if moving is just so cheap and easy -- not to mention emotionally stressful given that you're going to lose all of your friends, your support network, etc. by moving and having to start over.
Here's a better idea. Why not just avoid violating a person's civil rights by imposing religious laws onto people -- especially upon those of differing religions or even differing views of the same religion? Yeah, let's do that instead and maintain what America was supposed to be about in the first place.
It's as if SOME people slept through history class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
I'm in Illinois. Recently there was a tv ad run where the neighboring states' governors thanked the Speaker of the House in our state for his liberal policies. He's been in office for something like 30 years and the tax policy here has caused businesses to leave to go to Wisconsin, Indiana, and Missouri. Our state is suffering as a result. People can and do leave a state if they don't like it.
So what. For every business or person who did leave the state, there was almost certainly 100 people or businesses that couldn't -- and the reasons for it are rather diverse.
Now, maybe you'd like to live in a country where you're forced to play Musical States every couple of years when some religious zealot gets into office and begins imposing his or her religious laws onto everyone -- but SOME people would like to put down roots. SOME people own land that's been in their family for generations. SOME people actually GIVE A DAMN about their homes and don't want to be forced out of them thanks to religious nutters who continue to get dangerously close to real power.
Yeah, what if Moore became the governor of Alabama and decided that, hey, since I can regulate religion in my state any way I wish, I'll pass a law stating all openly gay people will be arrested and thrown in jail. I'll pass a law stating that the First Amendment now only applies to Christians .... etc. etc.
Just wait until the human rights violations begin -- and America begins to lose its trading partners or, worse still, more progressive nations (which means everyone else but the Middle East, China, and Russia) start hitting us with sanctions. Since we manufacture virtually nothing anymore, we would be at the world's mercy. You think it won't happen ... but it will. I guarantee it will. Should we ever adopt YOUR crazy way of doing things.
Do some googling. There have been Christian evangelists arrested at Muslim festivals. I have no problem with them holding a muslim festival, or them passing any laws favorable to Muslims, IF no other rights are violated. How about.....maybe if they decided to limit food sales during daylight hours during Ramadan? No idea if they'd actually do that...but it's merely a thought. IF the city of Dearborn decides to do that, that's their business. I would not consider that a violation of my rights if they chose to do that.
They were arrested for being STUPID and INSULTING festival participant. The courts ruled they were allowed to be there, but BULLHORNS and SIGNS were a wee bit BIGOTED..
I need not google for your opinions..I AM HERE and see what is happening in DEARBORN and telling you that you have heard just LIES and do not know the truth because you rely on google and not the truth.
I just want to hear from you what Dearborn is doing to support Muslim theology..
PLEASE tell me what you KNOW and not what you have googled..
Earlier this year, I wrote a excruciatingly detailed feature article describing how Wretched TV had deceptively edited footage of some Christian street preachers at the Arabfest in Dearborn, Michigan, in order to portray the Muslims in attendance as violent, bloodthirsty foreigners. I pointed out that the “Christian” preachers were led by Ruban Israel, a notorious street preacher (who was and is not supported by or connected to Wretched TV) who went to the festival specifically to agitate and incite the Muslims. If you look at unedited footage of the event, it’s clear that the “Christians” were inciting Muslims to hate, which, of course, never justifies violence, but it does explain why it happens.
Last edited by zthatzmanz28; 12-14-2017 at 08:12 AM..
Not quite that way. I did say that the Constitution limits the Federal government, but it does allow for states to regulate things like religion as they wish.
As for gay marriage, if a state issues a marriage license, they can do it as they wish. My state should not have to recognize what another state does in regards to redefining marriage.
As for education? The Constitution doesn't define a federal department of education to define standards. If Texas wants to teach Creationism, they have that right. If California wants to teach some crazy things, they can do so. And we have the right to not live in those states.
Now you're taking that farther than I suggested. I never suggested they could impose Sharia Law, nor that they could mandate dress codes, etc.
But if a city wishes to limit commerce during certain hours? It's been done before. Nothing wrong with that. If you don't like living there, leave.
I'm in Illinois. Recently there was a tv ad run where the neighboring states' governors thanked the Speaker of the House in our state for his liberal policies. He's been in office for something like 30 years and the tax policy here has caused businesses to leave to go to Wisconsin, Indiana, and Missouri. Our state is suffering as a result. People can and do leave a state if they don't like it.
Well, that's where you are wrong, see? If you have the right to determine some things in a town, why not anything? You may be suggesting closing the shops on Friday by town or state law - if they so determine - and not that Sharya law would be imposed, but once the Muslim dominated council had passed one Islamic law, why would they listen to your statute of limitations? What would they care about how far you intended it to go? Can't they do what they damn' well please?
No. Because of Federal law which pays special attention to the rights of all - not just some. This means you, too - even when someone governs the town and state that isn't a Baptist Fundy, and says that if you don't like their city or state laws, you can go live somewhere else.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-14-2017 at 08:49 AM..
Well, that's where you are wrong, see? If you have the right to determine some things in a town, why not anything? You may be suggesting closing the shops on Friday by town or state law - if they so determine - and not that Sharya law would be imposed, but once the Muslim dominated council had passed one Islamic law, why would they listen to your statute of limitations? What would they care about how far you intended it to go? Can't they do what they damn' well please?
No. Because of Federal law which pays special attention to the rights of all - not just some. This means you, too - even when someone governs the town and state that isn't a Baptist Fundy, and says that if you don't like their city or state laws, you can go live somewhere else.
For instance, if the Muslim-dominated council outlawed Christianity, that is a violation of the 1st Amendment. That would be wrong.
But a community deciding to limit liquor sales before noon on Sunday is certainly not wrong. Nor would it even be wrong to suggest that one can't open a restaurant for a time during Ramadan. THat is up to that community.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. No I'm jot going for you just because Shirina delivered all our Christmas presents in one go. But she had you bang to rights. The 'I don't do that - so your argument is a strawman" which it wouldn't be even if it valid. And as I recall, the only reason for the long response is because your post was an overlong filibuster. So, if the hope that nobody will refute you because it's too much trouble for so little result is frustrated by someone refuting every false and dishonest point - why then, you play the 'I sure rattled your bars' ("I annoyed you, therefore, you must secretly know I'm right") card. Shirina was right - shameless dishonesty is far too often the stock in trade of the Christian apologist. It certainly is yours.
. Let's see what he makes of my latest...Shirina sets the stardard...we do our best....
(muslim or not) and oblige all the kids to be educated according to Muslim ideology (Muslim or not), then you would be fine with that, because State law overrides Federal laws about separation of church and state, and that covers, Mosques, synagogues, Viharas, and Payas alike, and the dominant religion in a town or state can do whatever they like, because federal law doesn't apply to them.
