Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 25th, 2011, 06:59 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
But just so that I am at least more fully informed as to the position of the atheist in such things as Constitutional interpretation, Shrekk, I hope that you will give me your Atheists interpretation of the following passage of the Constitution from Article VII, which states:



"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."



1. In the atheist's understanding of this passage, who is the 'Lord" (note in capital letters) to Whom Article VII refers?
That's the way dates were given back then. It has no legal relevance regarding a recognition of religion whatsoever.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
2. According to Article VII, what would be the year in which the United States of America became independent?
What's the relevance and your point? I'm not your google poodle.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
And for the bonus round, just for kicks,

3. According to the Constitution, what rights as a United States citizen do you possess and from where did they originate? Please give me the Article and passage you reference.
In the US the people are the sovereign, and thus the rights we enjoy originate from the people.

By the way, I think you're confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, and probably meant to refer to the Declaration in your phoney question. FYI, the Declaration merely refers to a "creator", which in the minds of many of the founders who were Deists doesn't correspond to your imaginary friend, nor does it acknowledge or endorse any particular cult or imaginary friend. It also has no legal weight under US law, and was simply a symbolic reference in the context of freedom from the sovereign of a theocratic empire.



Let's put it this way - the founders had the opportunity to write your imaginary friend into the constitution, and they deliberately chose not to. In fact, they specifically followed the Rhode Island model of a secular state, and the Virginia model of religious freedom. What's amazing is that they accomplished this in a context where most of the states were theocracies - including Virginia.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:02 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
No he isn't. He merely seeks the righteous achievement of full equality for all citizens, and no favoritism when it comes to religion when it is mixed with public institutions. That isn't any of the things that you are claiming.


So do I. However, skrekk is self-defeating with his superior, imaginary friend pointing-out attitude. He's proud of his mockery, according to him, and convinced it's a good thing to mock people, according to him. I'm not claiming anything. I'm relating what he has said on-forum.



He has favoritism. He favors his secularity, and wants the government to enforce it.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:06 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319596420' post='363957

But just so that I am at least more fully informed as to the position of the atheist in such things as Constitutional interpretation, Shrekk, I hope that you will give me your Atheists interpretation of the following passage of the Constitution from Article VII, which states:



"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."



1. In the atheist's understanding of this passage, who is the 'Lord" (note in capital letters) to Whom Article VII refers?
That's the way dates were given back then. It has no legal relevance regarding a recognition of religion whatsoever.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
2. According to Article VII, what would be the year in which the United States of America became independent?
What's the relevance and your point? I'm not your google poodle.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
And for the bonus round, just for kicks,

3. According to the Constitution, what rights as a United States citizen do you possess and from where did they originate? Please give me the Article and passage you reference.
In the US the people are the sovereign, and thus the rights we enjoy originate from the people.

By the way, I think you're confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, and probably meant to refer to the Declaration in your phoney question. FYI, the Declaration merely refers to a "creator", which in the minds of many of the founders who were Deists doesn't correspond to your imaginary friend, nor does it acknowledge or endorse any particular cult or imaginary friend. It also has no legal weight under US law, and was simply a symbolic reference in the context of freedom from a theocratic empire.



Let's put it this way - the founders had the opportunity to write your imaginary friend into the constitution, and they deliberately chose not to. In fact, they specifically followed the Rhode Island model of a secular state, and the Virginia model of religious freedom.


Add "rude" to mocking....



And, "creator" refers to a creator.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:11 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
And, "creator" refers to a creator.
My creator was my parents. For Jefferson and other Deists it was the impersonal "nature's god".
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:15 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1319593714' post='363950

No he isn't. He merely seeks the righteous achievement of full equality for all citizens, and no favoritism when it comes to religion when it is mixed with public institutions. That isn't any of the things that you are claiming.
So do I. However, skrekk is self-defeating with his superior, imaginary friend pointing-out attitude. He's proud of his mockery, according to him, and convinced it's a good thing to mock people, according to him. I'm not claiming anything. I'm relating what he has said on-forum.
I think I'm only rude and mocking of those who think that their sharia laws should be enforced by the government, or who think their cults should be endorsed by the government.



You don't generally see me mocking Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Quakers, Episcopalians, Unitarians or UCC members, do you?



Why do you think the people of faith who comprise Americans United so strongly disagree with you, IT?





Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
He has favoritism. He favors his secularity, and wants the government to enforce it.
We've had this discussion before - if the government were endorsing my position, the public school principal would be telling the football fans that there are no gods, and that their imaginary friends don't really exist. But that's not at all what I'm asking for - I'm asking that our constitution be respected and that government take no position on religion. The best way it can do that is to be silent on the issue.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:23 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319598364' post='363960

And, "creator" refers to a creator.
My creator was my parents. For Jefferson and other Deists it was the impersonal "nature's god".


Good.



Btw, I'm still waiting for you to list the tenets of my faith.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:24 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319598145' post='363959

[quote name='waitingtables' timestamp='1319593714' post='363950']

No he isn't. He merely seeks the righteous achievement of full equality for all citizens, and no favoritism when it comes to religion when it is mixed with public institutions. That isn't any of the things that you are claiming.
So do I. However, skrekk is self-defeating with his superior, imaginary friend pointing-out attitude. He's proud of his mockery, according to him, and convinced it's a good thing to mock people, according to him. I'm not claiming anything. I'm relating what he has said on-forum.
I think I'm only rude and mocking of those who think that their sharia laws should be enforced by the government, or who think their cults should be endorsed by the government.



You don't generally see me mocking Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Quakers, Episcopalians, Unitarians or UCC members, do you?



Why do you think the people of faith who comprise Americans United so strongly disagree with you, IT?





Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
He has favoritism. He favors his secularity, and wants the government to enforce it.
We've had this discussion before - if the government were endorsing my position, the public school principal would be telling the football fans that there are no gods, and that their imaginary friends don't really exist. But that's not at all what I'm asking for - I'm asking that our constitution be respected and that government take no position on religion. The best way it can do that is to be silent on the issue.

[/quote]



My, what a compromising fellow you are. You're content to erase all reference to a spiritual belief, rather than evangelize your atheism. I'll give ya a one-up on the evangelicals for that.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:28 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319598705' post='363961

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319598364' post='363960']

And, "creator" refers to a creator.
My creator was my parents. For Jefferson and other Deists it was the impersonal "nature's god".
Good.



Btw, I'm still waiting for you to list the tenets of my faith.

[/quote]

I don't care what the particulars of your faith are, only that you want our common secular government to endorse them.



By the way it's not just me, Americans United, and millions of Americans and people of faith who think you're flat wrong on this, IT, but the supreme court also thinks you're wrong.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:41 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319599381' post='363964

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319598705' post='363961']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319598364' post='363960']

And, "creator" refers to a creator.
My creator was my parents. For Jefferson and other Deists it was the impersonal "nature's god".
Good.



Btw, I'm still waiting for you to list the tenets of my faith.

[/quote]

I don't care what the particulars of your faith are, only that you want our common secular government to endorse them.



By the way it's not just me, Americans United, and millions of Americans and people of faith who think you're flat wrong on this, IT, but the supreme court also thinks you're wrong.

[/quote]



Funny, you claimed to know a few posts back, and replied according to what you claimed to know.



I'm never impressed by how many or who thinks this or that.
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 25th, 2011, 07:47 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Funny, you claimed to know a few posts back, and replied according to what you claimed to know.
Actually this is what I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Your faith wouldn't get mocked if you didn't stuff it down everyone's throats, and didn't use the hand of the state to do that.
I don't care about the content of your faith, only that you want the state to endorse it. In my quote I was also speaking of the royal "You" - Christofascists who do want the state to enforce their religion. I don't think you're one of those folks like Gary, but I do think you're advocating behavior which violates religious freedom and the establishment clause.





Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
I'm never impressed by how many or who thinks this or that.
You should care that SCOTUS has come to disagree with you, and that other people of faith disagree with you.
skrekk is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa

Tags
law, libya, sharia, strict



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Libya Embassy Security Zack Current Events 44 October 28th, 2012 09:19 AM
Top Revelations from Libya Hearing Jimmyb Current Events 21 October 12th, 2012 09:57 AM
$25 MILLION in aid on its way to Libya Dude111 Americas 2 April 22nd, 2011 02:08 PM
One more reason to Despise Sharia... tadpole256 Religion 5 August 6th, 2010 04:59 PM
Canada struggles with Islam's Sharia law Steven M Religion 3 September 8th, 2005 08:11 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.