Political Forums  

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


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 26th, 2011, 07:52 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Hank- Sorry Shrekk, The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing about the Constitution is therefore not Supreme Law. It is therefore Supreme Law that the Constitution was proposed for ratification on the "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." That date stamp carries every bit of the same authority as does any article, any stipulation, and dotted 'I,' any punctuation mark, any intention, any meaning or any relevance of the Constitution to our lives as Americans.
Hank, you might want to inform SCOTUS of your ingenious theory of law. So far they've been operating under the mistaken assumption that meaningless symbolism and linguistic conventions do not undermine the clear meaning of the establishment clause or the state legislative context which motivated it. Perhaps when you challenge Lemon v Kurtzman you could raise that issue. Good luck with your quixotic effort - it seems odd that no lawyer has been successful to date using your brilliant "logic."



By the way, you sound a lot like another theocrat who used to be on this site and was known as LesGovt.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 08:08 AM   #62
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Obviously shriek has a right to freedom of religion or to choose to reject any and all religion.



The irony is his complete disrespect for anyone who chooses to have religious convictions or dares to disagree with him



Meanwhile he demands respect for people who choose an alternative lifestyle such as homosexuality and cannot stand anyone who disasgrees with him.



Like many atheists he stubbornly rejects the obvious influence of religious conviction on the nation's founders, and offers no plausible alternative explanation for the creation of the Heavens and the Earth and everything in it.



I suspect shriek was raised in a strictly religious home and his attitude reflects a juvenile and covert determination to rebel against authority
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 09:09 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 54,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319635443' post='363997

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319612984' post='363985']

[quote name='imaginethat' timestamp='1319605593' post='363982']

The idea that one person's "opinion" overrides the faith, or tolerance, of 5,999 people is an example of increased tolerance??? THAT is a faith-based determination. To see that as a victory, is to see a victory of one faith over another when seen objectively.



I'm finished with the likes of either of you. You push on me. I don't push on you. You're both adversaries of Liberty. You both have your own versions of sharia law.
Thankfully, SCOTUS is finished with the likes of you too, since their role is to protect the civil rights of a minority of one from the tyranny of a majority of 5,999.
That's "promote" the civil rights of a minority of one....

[/quote]

No, it's "protect", since the rights of the majority to freely worship are not hindered.

[/quote]



No, it's "promote," because anyone not wanting to join in a public prayer is free not to, however, that's not good enough for atheists. They want to rule with their lack of any spiritual belief, and impose that upon the majority.



You're pretty keen on disallowing the tyranny of the majority, but rather comfy with allowing the tyranny of a minority.



As such, atheists are every bit as culpable as evangelicals in wanting to use the government to promote their explanation of the meaning of the universe and the life on Earth ... which basically is: There is no meaning to the universe and life on Earth. It's all a random event.



And that opinion cannot be confirmed by science. Ergo, it's a position based on faith. Typically, universe/life explanations based on the scientifically unprovable are called religions. Though atheists really balk at calling their scientifically unsubstantiated belief that everything is a random event a religion, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 09:30 AM   #64
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319633532' post='363989

Hank- Sorry Shrekk, The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing about the Constitution is therefore not Supreme Law. It is therefore Supreme Law that the Constitution was proposed for ratification on the "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." That date stamp carries every bit of the same authority as does any article, any stipulation, and dotted 'I,' any punctuation mark, any intention, any meaning or any relevance of the Constitution to our lives as Americans.
Hank, you might want to inform SCOTUS of your ingenious theory of law. So far they've been operating under the mistaken assumption that meaningless symbolism and linguistic conventions do not undermine the clear meaning of the establishment clause or the state legislative context which motivated it. Perhaps when you challenge Lemon v Kurtzman you could raise that issue.



By the way, you sound a lot like another theocrat who used to be on this site and was known as LesGovt.




Thank you, Shrekk, for confirming my suspicions that you have no facts to support your opinions. You have only other opinions on which to support your opinions. That is a convenient way to operate. That is because anytime you feel the need to support your opinion, you never have to go to Google, as you say you do not. You never have to research anything. You never have to demonstrate that anything you assert is true. You never have to demonstrate a genuine pursuit of truth and justice. No, you just find someone else who agrees with you and cite agreement with their opinion. How convenient is that!



Now what makes me think that this same body of authority you cite here, SCOTUS, may have violated the absolute trust you placed with it it when it rendered its opinion regarding the 1986 case of Bowers v Hardwick, which still stands as the court's authoritative precedent? In that case, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that your precious 14th Amendment does not prevent the criminalization of homosexual conduct between consenting adults. So according to your hallowed source of authority here, the only source of authority you have offered in any of this discussion, it's OK for the states to criminalize sodomy between consenting adults. Well how about that, Shrekk? I bet you never cite THAT case in any of these discussions, now do you??? Yet that case imparts the same authority of the United States Supreme Court, every bit as much as the case you have cited. So which is it, Shrekk, is SCOTUS your authority, or is it not. You can't have it both ways.



And how about the decision this same source of authority rendered in the 2000 presidential election, Shrekk?? I'm sure you supported that one too, and cite it even to this day.



Face it Shrekk, you have offered nothing of substance whatsoever in this entire discussion. Your source of authority in any of this is your own personal preference of the truth, and I expect that you use the same source of authority in any of the discussions you undertake. So I hope to remember this the next time that I am tempted to take anything that you have to say seriously.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 10:00 AM   #65
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319644339' post='364030

[quote name='Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319633532' post='363989']

Hank- Sorry Shrekk, The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing about the Constitution is therefore not Supreme Law. It is therefore Supreme Law that the Constitution was proposed for ratification on the "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." That date stamp carries every bit of the same authority as does any article, any stipulation, and dotted 'I,' any punctuation mark, any intention, any meaning or any relevance of the Constitution to our lives as Americans.
Hank, you might want to inform SCOTUS of your ingenious theory of law. So far they've been operating under the mistaken assumption that meaningless symbolism and linguistic conventions do not undermine the clear meaning of the establishment clause or the state legislative context which motivated it. Perhaps when you challenge Lemon v Kurtzman you could raise that issue.



By the way, you sound a lot like another theocrat who used to be on this site and was known as LesGovt.




Thank you, Shrekk, for confirming my suspicions that you have no facts to support your opinions. You have only other opinions on which to support your opinions. That is a convenient way to operate. That is because anytime you feel the need to support your opinion, you never have to go to Google, as you say you do not. You never have to research anything. You never have to demonstrate that anything you assert is true. You never have to demonstrate a genuine pursuit of truth and justice. No, you just find someone else who agrees with you and cite agreement with their opinion. How convenient is that!



Now what makes me think that this same body of authority you cite here, SCOTUS, may have violated the absolute trust you placed with it it when it rendered its opinion regarding the 1986 case of Bowers v Hardwick, which still stands as the court's authoritative precedent? In that case, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that your precious 14th Amendment does not prevent the criminalization of homosexual conduct between consenting adults. So according to your hallowed source of authority here, the only source of authority you have offered in any of this discussion, it's OK for the states to criminalize sodomy between consenting adults. Well how about that, Shrekk? I bet you never cite THAT case in any of these discussions, now do you??? Yet that case imparts the same authority of the United States Supreme Court, every bit as much as the case you have cited. So which is it, Shrekk, is SCOTUS your authority, or is it not. You can't have it both ways.



And how about the decision this same source of authority rendered in the 2000 presidential election, Shrekk?? I'm sure you supported that one too, and cite it even to this day.



Face it Shrekk, you have offered nothing of substance whatsoever in this entire discussion. Your source of authority in any of this is your own personal preference of the truth, and I expect that you use the same source of authority in any of the discussions you undertake. So I hope to remember this the next time that I am tempted to take anything that you have to say seriously.

[/quote]





Welcome to the Forum
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 10:02 AM   #66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Thank you, Shrekk, for confirming my suspicions that you have no facts to support your opinions. You have only other opinions on which to support your opinions. That is a convenient way to operate. That is because anytime you feel the need to support your opinion, you never have to go to Google, as you say you do not. You never have to research anything. You never have to demonstrate that anything you assert is true. You never have to demonstrate a genuine pursuit of truth and justice. No, you just find someone else who agrees with you and cite agreement with their opinion. How convenient is that!
The only "facts" that I have to support my opinions are that our courts and constitution disagree with you. If you tried to argue before a court that "Anno Domini" or "In the year of our lord" implied religious intent and was controlling, you'd get laughed out of court.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Now what makes me think that this same body of authority you cite here, SCOTUS, may have violated the absolute trust you placed with it it when it rendered its opinion regarding the 1986 case of Bowers v Hardwick, which still stands as the court's authoritative precedent? In that case, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that your precious 14th Amendment does not prevent the criminalization of homosexual conduct between consenting adults. So according to your hallowed source of authority here, the only source of authority you have offered in any of this discussion, it's OK for the states to criminalize sodomy between consenting adults. Well how about that, Shrekk? I bet you never cite THAT case in any of these discussions, now do you??? Yet that case imparts the same authority of the United States Supreme Court, every bit as much as the case you have cited. So which is it, Shrekk, is SCOTUS your authority, or is it not. You can't have it both ways.
You mean the case where SCOTUS subsequently ruled that "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today"? If your point is that the court doesn't always get things right, I agree. At least in that one case they recognized their grievous error and admitted fault by explicitly reversing Bowers - I'm not sure the court has ever done that before. By the way, the court used to think it was OK for people to own other humans and has never ruled otherwise.



You keep on harping on about "authority" as if there is an absolute authority of any kind. Certainly your imaginary friend isn't one, nor are the voices you think you hear in your head. In America the people are the final authority as expressed through the constitution they wrote and adopted, and through its interpretation by the courts. If the people don't like where the courts are going - as in Citizens United - they are free to change the constitution. But your imaginary friend has nothing to do with it.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 10:08 AM   #67
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
You keep on harping on about "authority" as if there is an absolute authority of any kind. Certainly your imaginary friend isn't one, nor are the voices you think you hear in your head. In America the people are the final authority as expressed through the constitution they wrote and adopted, and through its interpretation by the courts. If the people don't like where the courts are going - as in Citizens United - they are free to change the constitution. But your imaginary friend has nothing to do with it.


The Founding Fathers thought otherwise:



Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.



—Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights




We The People - including shriek - are only the final authority because of the rights with which they have been endowed by God
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 10:10 AM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
No, it's "promote," because anyone not wanting to join in a public prayer is free not to, however, that's not good enough for atheists. They want to rule with their lack of any spiritual belief, and impose that upon the majority.



You're pretty keen on disallowing the tyranny of the majority, but rather comfy with allowing the tyranny of a minority.
How is upholding the constitution "allowing the tyranny of a minority"? Those 5,999 people are still free to pray, just as the one person is free not to pray. The only difference is that the state is no longer permitted to violate the establishment clause, and the civil right of the individual to be free from religious interference by the state is no longer infringed. The civil rights of the majority are not harmed at all.



In fact your argument would gut the bill of rights, since assertions of those rights are often contrary to the desire of the majority - which is exactly why we have those rights. Those rights are individual rights, not the rights of the mob.



I'm just happy that SCOTUS agrees with me and not you on this issue, IT, as do all the organizations which support religious freedom.



If you need a megaphone, a large crowd and state endorsement for your prayer to be effective, your imaginary friend is rather hard of hearing.
skrekk is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 10:50 AM   #69
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319650240' post='364048

Thank you, Shrekk, for confirming my suspicions that you have no facts to support your opinions. You have only other opinions on which to support your opinions. That is a convenient way to operate. That is because anytime you feel the need to support your opinion, you never have to go to Google, as you say you do not. You never have to research anything. You never have to demonstrate that anything you assert is true. You never have to demonstrate a genuine pursuit of truth and justice. No, you just find someone else who agrees with you and cite agreement with their opinion. How convenient is that!
The only "facts" that I have to support my opinions are that our courts and constitution disagree with you. If you tried to argue before a court that "Anno Domini" or "In the year of our lord" implied religious intent and was controlling, you'd get laughed out of court.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Now what makes me think that this same body of authority you cite here, SCOTUS, may have violated the absolute trust you placed with it it when it rendered its opinion regarding the 1986 case of Bowers v Hardwick, which still stands as the court's authoritative precedent? In that case, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that your precious 14th Amendment does not prevent the criminalization of homosexual conduct between consenting adults. So according to your hallowed source of authority here, the only source of authority you have offered in any of this discussion, it's OK for the states to criminalize sodomy between consenting adults. Well how about that, Shrekk? I bet you never cite THAT case in any of these discussions, now do you??? Yet that case imparts the same authority of the United States Supreme Court, every bit as much as the case you have cited. So which is it, Shrekk, is SCOTUS your authority, or is it not. You can't have it both ways.
You mean the case where SCOTUS subsequently ruled that "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today"? If your point is that the court doesn't always get things right, I agree. At least in that one case they recognized their grievous error and admitted fault - I'm not sure the court has ever done that before. By the way, the court used to think it was OK for people to own other humans and has never ruled otherwise.



You keep on harping on about "authority" as if there is an absolute authority of any kind. Certainly your imaginary friend isn't one, nor are the voices you think you hear in your head. In America the people are the final authority as expressed through the constitution they wrote and adopted, and through its interpretation by the courts. If the people don't like where the courts are going - as in Citizens United - they are free to change the constitution. But your imaginary friend has nothing to do with it.




Shrekk, seriously, can you not read? Is someone reading to you what I am writing and only telling you certain things? Has someone read the Declaration of Independence to you and left out the part where your rights come from? Why is it that you deny the truth? Now I can understand denying the truth of God, if you do not believe in God. Fine. That is completely up to you. But to deny the plain truth that in plain English America is established on the authority of God, whether or not God exists, is to deny the plain truth in black and white right before you. Acknowledge that, Shrekk. Now to your point, let's assume their is no God. Well, the way that America's founding document is written, then there is no America. That is because America is founded with the authority of God. If God does not exist, America does not exist. That's the way it is written. And it needs to be that way, Shrekk. That is because ONLY if your rights come from God are they unalienable. ONLY if they come from GOD. SO this ought to be very important to you as you go about defending your rights. This is a GOOD thing for you, Shrekk! Otherwise, our government has no higher authority to keep it from invading your house.



You ask why I speak so much of authority. That is why, Shrekk. Because your rights come from God, and then from you to the government, you are a higher authority than the government. But that is the case ONLY because those rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness first came to you AND ARE UNALIENBLE by virtue of an endowment from God. The government must respect that BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE AGREEMENT FORMING AMERICA IS WRITTEN. It is a brilliant document.



Do you have a mortgage? How about a second mortgage? Well some people have both. Well the first mortgage holder has higher authority than the second. So if you don't pay, then the first mortgage holder gets to foreclose. And because the first mortgage holder is the higher authority on the use of the funds from foreclosure, that mortgage holder is protected against any claim on those funds from the second mortgage holder. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE AGREEMENT IS WRITTEN! In the same sort of relationship, you are the higher authority on the use of your life than is the government. You are the primary mortgage holder on your life. The government is in second position. But that is only because that right to your life was given to you by God, the Supreme Judge of the World, the Creator of all things, the divine Provider. Why? BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THAT THE AGREEMENT IS WRITTEN. This system of government is the only thing that stands between you and a government that has the right to take everything that you have and place you in prison for no good reason, or even kill you. You don't think that could happen??? Think again, Shrekk. In the history of the world, what I just described is the norm, not the exception. That God is the source of authority for the United States of America is the only thing that protects you against the government. You ought to revel in that. To deny it is to deny every right you have. That is why I write so much about authority. Without it, and without the respect for it, you have nothing that is your own.



-Hank
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 10:57 AM   #70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
That God is the source of authority for the United States of America is the only thing that protects you against the government.
Hmmm......it seems your imaginary friend didn't protect blacks from legal slavery or legal rape, or the other ravages of institutionalized racism. Or is it perhaps that your imaginary friend actually endorses those things in your bible? Strange that your "final authority" wouldn't have prevented such an abomination.



Perhaps you can ask your imaginary friend to do something about that horrible Citizens United decision, rather than leaving the people to deal with that problem.



Interesting too that the author of the document containing a reference to a "creator" - which you mistakenly think has legal weight - didn't believe in the divinity of your Jesus or a god which interacted in the affairs of men. Apparently Jefferson didn't have the same imaginary friend you do.
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.