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.
For starters, the incorrect idea that our Constitution requires a separation of church and state.
Can you cite a case where they ask for the defendant to change their opinion on the meaning of the 1st amendment? I thought the FFRF were just asking them to stop breaking the law, not submit to brainwashing. The defendants are free to believe whatever they want as long as they stop whatever illegal activity they were guilty of.
jeffbase40, when your attackers are bankrupt for logical arguments, you always know that when they resort to attacking you. It is such a pity but very telling at the same time.
In fact "hypocrisy" (if you had read and understood the post) was the QED of the argument, because simply talking of logical conclusions cuts no ice with the theist. "Hypocrisy" might strike a note.
The point being that leaping on the "hypocrisy" charge provides Jeff with the perfect excuse to play the persecution card, though to be fair, he did address the argument (sorta).
There is less excuse for you, old mate, in jumping on the 'personal attack' soap box (in hopes to gain allies, perhaps, but, as is not unusual, you are providing us with ammunition. We are getting to be aware and so can use the theist 'personal attack' gambit to show that this is a symptom of inability to field a decent argument.
In order to make the point clear and to show you wrong and rather unprincipled, yet again, the 'Hypocrisy' charge was the lock of the argument - not a personal. But Jeff's response - and even more so, yours - to that WAS a 'personal'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I'm sure if this happened in a Muslim community in the United States the FFRF would have been silent.
So they might. And you might be able to level charges of partiality or even hypocrisy at them. But that would be rather shortsighted. Even opportunist. Because in fact Islam is not a problem in the US. Christianity is.
On the other hand, if the FFRF Did tale a case against muslims on such a basis, how much praise would we expect to hear from you or Jeff?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-15-2016 at 06:51 AM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,944,335 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I'm sure if this happened in a Muslim community in the United States the FFRF would have been silent.
Moving the goal posts, are we?
First you claim the FFRF would not go after illegal Muslim activity when it came to the 1st Amendment. I proved you wrong.
So now you throw up a hypothetical, which you have no way of backing. That is the 'honest' christian way, and we have come to expect you not living the teachings you profess to follow. Telling the truth.
I'm sure if this happened in a Muslim community in the United States the FFRF would have been silent.
do you mean a community with a large portion of Muslims? Why would they remain silent if a judge refused to do his job in a Muslim community?
Are you also assuming that the judge is Muslim? What about a Muslim judge in a mostly Christian community or a Christian judge in a mostly Muslim community?
And what kind of country does the religion of a judge matter for them to do their job? The only judge I have gone before in the last three decades has been small claims court and to tell you the truth I have no idea what religion if any that judge was. Or my tenants we took to court, nor anyone else in the courthouse. How is this even an issue?
KRS Statute 402.50... he can as he advised an alternative in an adjoining county.
402.050 Who may solemnize marriage -- Persons present.(1) Marriage shall be solemnized only bya) Ministers of the gospel or priests of any denomination in regular communionwith any religious society;(b) Justices and judges of the Court of Justice, retired justices and judges of theCourt of Justice except those removed for cause or convicted of a felony,county judges/executive, and such justices of the peace and fiscal courtcommissioners as the Governor or the county judge/executive authorizes; or(c) A religious society that has no officiating minister or priest and whose usageis to solemnize marriage at the usual place of worship and by consent given inthe presence of the society, if either party belongs to the society.(2) At least two (2) persons, in addition to the parties and the person solemnizing themarriage, shall be present at every marriage.Effective: July 15, 1996History: Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 205, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1996. -- Amended1992 Ky. Acts ch. 50, sec. 1, effective July 14, 1992. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch.384, sec. 516, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Actsch. 14, sec. 401, effective January 2, 1978. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 102, sec.1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky.Stat. secs. 2103, 2107.
full wedding statues here.. the article in the OP overstated their knowledge of KY Law.
And the Kim Davis exemption is 402.101 ... notice the exemption that she doesn't have to sign the certificate. She won that part.
Actually, I don't even disagree with some of the contentions in any of these cases. Just hate when people use articles from crappy sources when State and Federal Laws are very easy to find.
For starters, the incorrect idea that our Constitution requires a separation of church and state.
The separation of Church and State is built into the 1st Amendment.
While not implicitly stated, the courts have consistently ruled in favor of such a separation since any favoritism or perceived favoritism toward any singular religion would be a violation of the Establishment Clause in terms of how that clause is interpreted (through the decades, mind you) by the SCOTUS.
It was decided very early on to avoid religious entanglements by staying out of religious affairs.
HOWEVER, "staying out of religious affairs" does not, nor did it ever, mean that religion is allowed to do whatever it wants without government interference.
However, the same inane devotion to some old superstitious fairy tales is held by a judge in Trigg County. He refused to preform a secular marriage as required by law, saying that, "I include God in my ceremonies, and I won't do one without him."
The FFRF were advised, and have started proceedings.
Christians and ONLY Christians obviously. Funny you never hear about them going after Muslims breaching that wall of separation of church and state. Like this case where the school had to police themselves:
They don't want to end up like those people at Charlie Hebdo, or France in general, relative to the backlash for "disrespecting" their Religion.
The FFRF is lucky the Christians don't roll that way anymore.
My prediction is...it's gonna end up like that, though. The hornets will leave you alone...until you keep poking at the nest.
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.
a) Ministers of the gospel or priests of any denomination in regular communionwith any religious society;(b) Justices and judges of the Court of Justice, retired justices and judges of theCourt of Justice except those removed for cause or convicted of a felony,county judges/executive, and such justices of the peace and fiscal courtcommissioners as the Governor or the county judge/executive authorizes; or(c) A religious society that has no officiating minister or priest and whose usageis to solemnize marriage at the usual place of worship and by consent given inthe presence of the society, if either party belongs to the society.(2) At least two (2) persons, in addition to the parties and the person solemnizing themarriage, shall be present at every marriage.Effective: July 15, 1996History: Amended 1996 Ky. Acts ch. 205, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1996. -- Amended1992 Ky. Acts ch. 50, sec. 1, effective July 14, 1992. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch.384, sec. 516, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Actsch. 14, sec. 401, effective January 2, 1978. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 102, sec.1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky.Stat. secs. 2103, 2107.
