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 mean the Atheist groups going to all the time, expense, and trouble to file lawsuits about every Religious word and symbol in public places which the US constitution forbids?
If you are OK with Christians breaking the law, enjoy the slippery slope to a possible theocracy.
He apparently doesn't believe in the American legal system.
The last thing you should be doing is telling us our constitution.
Grab statement is really on referring to fundy-think-type atheist. reasonable atheist and reasonable theist can get along just fine. a list of ten commandments on an old building is fine. On new buildings is a point of that can be addressed. or a high school student student tanking a god.
"where does it stop", is not a valid argument for in stopping every situation.
Its intent was democracy without being vulgar. That applies to atheist and theist. its only a slippery slope to people with intention that are not in the interest of everybody. say, people from somewhere else trying to force a type of system that is not in the best interest of another group of people?
also, grabs statement is really only referring to how religion motivates people. religion even motivates anti-religious.
thats his point, and he is correct.
Everybody is free to discuss the American Constitution and legal and justice systems. Even fundamentalists and crackpots.
You mean the Atheist groups going to all the time, expense, and trouble to file lawsuits about every Religious word and symbol in public places which the US constitution forbids?
If you are OK with Christians breaking the law, enjoy the slippery slope to a possible theocracy.
It is obvious to me what the Constitution forbids as respects religion.
You cannot establish a religion...and you cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Antireligionist cons notwithstanding.
It would not read like it does if they thought that using religious words and symbols was "establishing" a religion.
The way one typically exercises their religion is to use particular words and symbols. So, how could people in government freely exercise their religion, if that is also establishing a religion?
It is obvious to me what the Constitution forbids as respects religion.
You cannot establish a religion...and you cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Antireligionist cons notwithstanding.
It would not read like it does if they thought that using religious words and symbols was "establishing" a religion.
The way one typically exercises their religion is to use particular words and symbols. So, how could people in government freely exercise their religion, if that is also establishing a religion?
We have courts to decide that. We don't need to rely on just one person's opinion.
We have courts to decide that. We don't need to rely on just one person's opinion.
You mean the courts that sanctioned slavery (Dred Scott vs. Sanford), oppressed women (many cases), and lots of other biased & prejudiced crap?
I predict you will see a relook at the "Establishment Clause"...and don't be surprised how it turns out with more Originalist Justices on the SCOTUS. Then you can whine and cry some more.
You mean the courts that sanctioned slavery (Dred Scott vs. Sanford), oppressed women (many cases), and lots of other biased & prejudiced crap?
I predict you will see a relook at the "Establishment Clause"...and don't be surprised how it turns out with more Originalist Justices on the SCOTUS. Then you can whine and cry some more.
I would trust our judicial system more than I would trust you.
You mean the courts that sanctioned slavery (Dred Scott vs. Sanford), oppressed women (many cases), and lots of other biased & prejudiced crap? I predict you will see a relook at the "Establishment Clause"...and don't be surprised how it turns out with more Originalist Justices on the SCOTUS. Then you can whine and cry some more.
I would trust our judicial system more than I would trust you.
again, personal opinion doesnt do anything but show that you need to minimize his claim through personal mocking instead of discussing its factual base.
again, personal opinion doesnt do anything but show that you need to minimize his claim through personal mocking instead of discussing its factual base.
how about some evidence please?
1. You can't present evidence about a subjective concept such as trust.
2. It wasn't mocking. He said, "It's obvious to me...", and I replied that I would trust our judicial system more than I would trust a single individual...in this case, him.
I would trust our judicial system more than I would trust you.
I believe you would trust a proven biased and prejudiced (some of the worse bias and prejudice ever seen) system...over me, who is not.
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.
