- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It appears you cannot differentiate between "tangible" and "intangible".
Please explain it then.
It appears you cannot differentiate between "tangible" and "intangible".
You have no idea how utterly stupid that is. Do you realize that they also have observed dogs ****ing each other and thus not doubt hence we have the right to nail whoever we can when we get aroused, since that is so natural too. It is this type of uneducated thinking that allowed kings to claim divine rights too.or Aristotle, the First Republican, who observed common natural behavior. If a bird, for example, tried to take over the nest of another bird rather than build his own nest there would be a fight. Hence, private property is a natural right widely exhibited in nature. Good govt merely understands nature and uses that understanding to help us minimize the fighting.
No, you did not answer you made an uneducated excuse.It was answered, and re-answered and belief has nothing to do with reading Kant or the constitution. Sorry you're having trouble with that.
Why is your church preaching politics?
Please explain it then.
If you are required, forced, pressured into hearing others', then how is that FREE exercise? Right to pray must also mean right not to pray. Right to go to religious services means the right not to. That being said, if someone is preaching on the corner, that's his right. I do NOT have the right to prevent him, but I do have the right not to listen. And if he decides to preach on my front lawn? I absolutely have the right to kick him out.Freedom OF...not freedom FROM. You have a right to your beliefs. You don't have a right not to hear other's.
Some things are real, but invisible, like gravity.
If they do exist in a legal system, they exist within that system. It's a game. You may choose not to play, but that doesn't mean that others must follow your lead. We cannot touch them and we cannot see them, but as long as there is a legal system in operation which recognizes them, they exist.
I think preaching to a 'captive audience' is unconstitutional...on the grounds that no one has a right to force to you listen to someone's else's beliefs.Freedom OF...not freedom FROM. You have a right to your beliefs. You don't have a right not to hear other's.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Or like gods floating in the ether dispensing rights to mortal man as if we were costumed Halloween children filling our little sacks with the favors of the mighty.
There is no game here. There is reality. And in reality what a person believes in their own mind does squat unless reality agrees with it and it is real. If the government of your country does not recognize what you believe is a right - you don't have it pure and simple.
And I can see my rights in action when they are exercised. They are real and can be proven to exist.
If you are required, forced, pressured into hearing others', then how is that FREE exercise? Right to pray must also mean right not to pray. Right to go to religious services means the right not to. That being said, if someone is preaching on the corner, that's his right. I do NOT have the right to prevent him, but I do have the right not to listen. And if he decides to preach on my front lawn? I absolutely have the right to kick him out.
Prove to me that gravity exists--I'm unable to see it or touch it.
Prove to me that our government governs in accordance with the founding document--I see no evidence of it, and much evidence contradicting the claim.
What do your rights look like, as you view them in action?
I think preaching to a 'captive audience' is unconstitutional...on the grounds that no one has a right to force to you listen to someone's else's beliefs.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/captive-audience-doctrine/
The First Amendment protects religion from government in the same vein that it protects government from religion.
You can see its effects every minute of every day and can run scientific experiments to prove it exists.
I can see my right to vote in action when I go to the polls and get a ballot and fill it out and see it counted in the totals. I can observe others exercising their right to vote. And so can you.
The problem is when the mob starts trying to define a "captive audience." I don't trust the mob. Do you? Case by case basis.
Also
I was speaking mainly about religion and politics in terms of politics being mentioned in church. I don't really care about "protecting government from religion." Not because it isn't important, but because someone has to be concerned about the other direction. And really...they have similar
End games in my view. Politics is the root of true evil if you ask me. Religion is ultimately corrupted by man trying to control other man...aka...politics.
I know. A little extreme. But also kind of true. How else could you corrupt a message like love your God and love one another?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The law has already defined a "captive audience" so the mob doesn't have to. Since public school is mandatory by law, the Captive Audience Doctrine protects school children from religious speech, too. Whereas going to church is voluntary so the doctrine doesn't apply to religion
Politics and religion should always be kept separate, imo.
Here is my issue. The "definition" is always subject to change. While it may be "defined," it is not concrete. My point is that I distrust government. And when people start restricting rights...my right to express myself here because other people "feel" they have no choice, or restrict your right to do "that" because other people "feel" this way? I don't trust that. And it has to be watched closely. Just because one does or does not have faith does not mean they are exempt from violating rights. I'm sure you know that. I'm just basically clarifying my point. Which leads too:
Exactly. I don't trust politics. And I don't trust religion that involves itself in politics. When the paths cross (slavery and so on), that is one thing. When one goes out of the way looking for trouble? That is another.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't trust government either, but I'm real hard pressed to find ANY of my rights that have been restricted. So, I'm also hard pressed to to find a problem with the separation of church and states in this instance that you have a problem with.
"Vigilance is eternal", on that I agree, however when a clearly constitutionally permissive, (constitutionally demanded) issue comes up like this one: you hold up the garlic.... I don't get that.
I don't trust government either, but I'm real hard pressed to find ANY of my rights that have been restricted. So, I'm also hard pressed to to find a problem with the separation of church and states in this instance that you have a problem with.
"Vigilance is eternal", on that I agree, however when a clearly constitutionally permissive, (constitutionally demanded) issue comes up like this one: you hold up the garlic.... I don't get that.
I don't quite get your metaphor? Never heard it before.
But I'm along the lines that "ambition must be created to counteract ambition." It is in the best interests of the "people" to distrust government. Especially when it comes to arbitrary definitions. They can always change.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
religion IS NOT allowed in public schools because they are state and federally funded.
the Constitution does allow religion in public schools, it does not allow the govt to establishment a religion or interfere with free practice of religion. Religion must be in schools since it is the source of morality on earth.
Aaaaand where does the constitution say that religion is allowed in public schools?
don't be silly, by not prohibiting it, it is in effect allowed. The Constitution is not a list of 1 billion things. Their concern was with establishing a religion or preventing free exercise, not whether there was religion in schools.
I'm glad to know that drug use is allowed in public schools too.