lewmonst 0 #76 November 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteAnd I said, "Can you imagine our world withOUT religion...?" So much less conflict, less war, less arguing, less fear, less hypocrisy, less angst, less guilt, less insecurity, less psychoses, less elitism... Beyond COEXIST. Just Exist. i just don't believe that. humans will always find something to fight about. Yes... Notice I did not say purged of, only less of. Sadly, many humans have a need for conflict and will find/create it somewhere.http://www.exitshot.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #77 November 24, 2008 Also consider that many so-called religious conflicts are actually about something else, usually greed for power, land, or other resources. And that something else would still be there even if you took religion away. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #78 November 24, 2008 I 100% agree that the city should not have had it removed. QuoteThe US Constitution doesn't allow for that. It specifically prohibits the government from interfering in matters such as this. But how can you cry about the 1st in this case, yet support stepping all over the second?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #79 November 24, 2008 QuoteBut how can you cry about the 1st in this case, yet support stepping all over the second? Who said I was stepping all over the 2nd? When was that a part of this discussion. Ron, you're really not making any sense.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #80 November 24, 2008 Quote When was that a part of this discussion. Ron, you're really not making any sense. THIS discussion? None. But you have a history you know."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #81 November 24, 2008 QuoteQuote When was that a part of this discussion. Ron, you're really not making any sense. THIS discussion? None. But you have a history you know. Ron, try staying on topic and you'll see that not every discussion in the world has to devolve into a 2nd Amendment pissing contest.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #82 November 24, 2008 Quote>I don't wanna hear it.....Jesus Rocks! That's fine. Just don't try to prevent _other_ people from hearing it. The First Amendment and all. That's fine, just don't try to prevent_other_people from hearing it when the Fairness Doctrine comes back for a vote in the US House. First Amendment and all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #83 November 24, 2008 QuoteRon, try staying on topic and you'll see that not every discussion in the world has to devolve into a 2nd Amendment pissing contest. Try not to show your hypocrisy when you are willing to piss away some rights in the Constitution, but get upset when others are trampled on. You support the 1st, yet wish to piss on the 2nd. If you can't see the topic is the Constitution...Well, I can't help that. Some support ALL of it....It seems you only support parts you like."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,085 #84 November 24, 2008 >That's fine, just don't try to prevent_other_people from hearing it when the >Fairness Doctrine comes back for a vote in the US House. Sadly I will not be voting on the Fairness Doctrine. Hopefully it will allow people to say whatever they want on their own time and will also allow dissenting opinions to be heard in public (including public parks, streets, sidewalks and frequencies.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #85 November 24, 2008 QuoteYou support the 1st, yet wish to piss on the 2nd. Ron, you're off base and off topic. If you'd like to talk about the 2nd there are more than enough threads in which to do so or feel free to start another, but keep it out of this one.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #86 November 24, 2008 It's somewhat offtopic. However, a person that thinks the 1st is not a universal protection, debating someone like you who asserts the contrary, has a reasonable point in asking why you don't apply such a strict definition to an amendment that says "shall not be infringed." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #87 November 24, 2008 QuoteHowever, a person that thinks the 1st is not a universal protection, debating someone like you who asserts the contrary, has a reasonable point in asking why you don't apply such a strict definition to an amendment that says "shall not be infringed." Ron's question (and to a lesser extent yours) assumes facts "You support the 1st, yet wish to piss on the 2nd." which are really simply his opinion. His question is asked in an irrational manner, so I can't really respond to that in any rational way. Just as I support certain laws that, in my and the Supreme Court's opinion, make certain reasonable provisions with respect to just about every Amendment to the Constitution, I also see that certain laws can be and have been passed with regard to the 2nd Amendment that are also reasonable. Now, if someone wants to call that "pissing on the constitution" I can't really deal with that person. He's speaking from well outside of what most people, including the Supreme Court, would consider reasonable. It's pretty much my opinion that Ron is simply being argumentative for the sake of it. Whatever. If that's how he wants to waste his time, he can do it with someone else. He certainly doesn't have to try to inject it into every thread ever made about every Constitutional issue. It's old and tired.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #88 November 25, 2008 QuoteRon's question (and to a lesser extent yours) assumes facts "You support the 1st, yet wish to piss on the 2nd." which are really simply his opinion. His question is asked in an irrational manner, so I can't really respond to that in any rational way. I can. I believe both amendments are far reaching, with limited restrictions permissible in the interest of the public (ie, inciting riots doesn't fly, background checks are suitable). It's only a problem for those who pick just one, which is probably 2/3rds the left taking only the 1, and the same with the right and the 2nd. His involvement in this thread suggests he thinks the first doesn't cover this sort of speech, and your history shows the same disdain for the 2nd, so you're both equal in my book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #89 November 25, 2008 I think you've misread my "history" then.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
squarecanopy 0 #90 November 25, 2008 QuoteI am an atheist and I don't hate God any more than I hate the Easter Bunny. I also don't mind Christian billboards. What I really hate is their suppressing of atheist billboards. WHO suppressed this billboard? It does not sound like the city ordered the removal, only asked if it could be removed. It seems to me from what I have heard so far, and unless the forthcoming facts prove otherwise, that the Billboard company took down the sign upon request, not force. Because we have the First Amendment, nobody can legally "supress" an atheist's right to spend their money displaying their view on a billboard. There must be more to this story. Just burning a hole in the sky..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #91 November 25, 2008 QuoteI think you've misread my "history" then. Kallend says that a lot too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #92 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteI am an atheist and I don't hate God any more than I hate the Easter Bunny. I also don't mind Christian billboards. What I really hate is their suppressing of atheist billboards. WHO suppressed this billboard? It does not sound like the city ordered the removal, only asked if it could be removed. It seems to me from what I have heard so far, and unless the forthcoming facts prove otherwise, that the Billboard company took down the sign upon request, not force. Because we have the First Amendment, nobody can legally "supress" an atheist's right to spend their money displaying their view on a billboard. There must be more to this story. When the government "asks" you to do something it is a lot like the mob "asking" you to do something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #93 November 25, 2008 QuoteRon's question (and to a lesser extent yours) assumes facts "You support the 1st, yet wish to piss on the 2nd." which are really simply his opinion. Nonsense, your history shows otherwise. QuoteHis question is asked in an irrational manner, so I can't really respond to that in any rational way. Boulder dash, you do not like the question since it spot lights your double standards in reguards to the Amendments. QuoteNow, if someone wants to call that "pissing on the constitution" I can't really deal with that person. You mean the kind of person who calls you out when you show a double standard? QuoteHe's speaking from well outside of what most people, including the Supreme Court, would consider reasonable. Like what? Who is being argumentative and making assumptions now? QuoteHe certainly doesn't have to try to inject it into every thread ever made about every Constitutional issue All I am doing is showing your double standard. You have no problem thinking the 1st should have no limits, but are fine with limiting the second as you see fit. Don't blame me for your double standard."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #94 November 25, 2008 QuoteHowever, a person that thinks the 1st is not a universal protection, debating someone like you who asserts the contrary, has a reasonable point in asking why you don't apply such a strict definition to an amendment that says "shall not be infringed." Actually, I think both are pretty universal. With few exceptions such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, or a felon owning a firearm....I think both should not be infringed. I just do not get how Quade and others can get upset about the trampling on one of the Amendments; yet demand more trampling on another."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #95 November 25, 2008 QuoteI just do not get how Quade and others can get upset about the trampling on one of the Amendments; yet demand more trampling on another. There is a great deal you "just do not get." Perhaps the fault does not lay with others.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #96 November 25, 2008 QuoteThere is a great deal you "just do not get." Perhaps the fault does not lay with others. Out of intellect so soon that you have to resort to lame personal attacks? Not my fault you do not like being called out on your double standards."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #97 November 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteThere is a great deal you "just do not get." Perhaps the fault does not lay with others. Out of intellect so soon that you have to resort to lame personal attacks? Not my fault you do not like being called out on your double standards. Ron, when you come into a thread for the sole purpose to posts about your opinion of someone else's supposed hypocrisy and double standards, perhaps you should look into a mirror when it comes to the subject of personal attacks. Seriously. I see shades of grey. You appear to want a black and white world. If you want to call that hypocrisy, so be it. Stay ON TOPIC. Your guide to this should the the subject line of the thread. If you don't want to specifically talk about that, then please find somewhere else to do so.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #98 November 25, 2008 QuotePretty ironic with all those "-God" billboards. I think this is the perfect juxtaposition of the issue at hand._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gary73 10 #99 November 26, 2008 Ummm, can we get back to the original issue? As I understand it, it is "Does our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion extend to include a freedom from religion? Many religious people think it does not. I've never heard of the FFRF before, but I like what they're saying. As for the claim somewhere above that this is a case of athiests trying to push their agenda again, I find that pretty amazing. It's 63 miles from my house to the dropzone. On that drive I pass 46 churches. Each one is a bold statement that this God person not only exists, but has certain characteristics. In contrast, I've been driving for 38 years and I've never seen a single athiest building or billboard. All the FFRF folks asked for was a few places where they could ask us to simply imagine a world in which separation of church and state is a reality. Apparently some people not only don't want to imagine that, they don't want anyone else to imagine it either. Very sad, in so many ways. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #100 November 26, 2008 QuoteUmmm, can we get back to the original issue? As I understand it, it is "Does our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion extend to include a freedom from religion? Many religious people think it does not. I've never heard of the FFRF before, but I like what they're saying. The separation of church and state is a result of the freedom from religion. Other results are the banning of Christmas trees, which personally I think is going too far, as for many of us, the Christmas tree has absolutely nothing to do with Christ. We don't have to reject all rituals derived from religion. It's just a tree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
