{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
5/11/2014 7:21:13 PM
33
-
Edited by Winy: 5/11/2014 10:25:55 PM[quote]Victory for freedom of religion.[/quote] You've got to be [i]shitting[/i] me. Max, stop acting like an insufferable douche. I'm curious to see your response to Seggi shutting you the hell down.
-
Your obsession is -blam!-ing pathetic, Methew.
-
...Who's Methew?
-
This is pathetic, Methew...
-
When / where? I never got a notification
-
You: [quote]daily reminder that disagreeing with this ruling = fedora[/quote] P.S. this is one of the most obnoxious things I've ever read from you. Him: [quote]Who would've thought that justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan were all fedora tipping neckbeards? It's especially odd since they're all religious, and Sotomayor is Catholic.[/quote]
-
wasn't really being serious dude
-
I don't care if that's your excuse. You at least have a partial acceptance of some of the "jokes" you put out; Humor doesn't work unless it makes sense- And you actually believe some of the things you joke about, at least to some degree. Plus the idea that this is actually a "victory for freedom of religion" is absurd.
-
That wasn't a joke, it is indeed a victory for freedom of religion. If you don't allow the people of this town to have a prayer if they so desire, you're suppressing their right to express their faith, which is unacceptable.
-
The main dissenting opinion of the case would not have held that any of the towns' residents were not permitted to pray at any particular time - very likely, it simply would have required that the the particular organised service held between the members of the town's legislature and its residents either incorporate a diversity of religious beliefs or to be generally non-sectarian. Even if the prayer session had been banned outright, it would not have affected the ability of any of the town's residents to engage in prayer, it simply would have held that they not conduct a religious service as part of the town's engagement between its residents and its legislature.
-
If the prayer is banned from the town's legislature assembly, this restricts the freedom of the assembly to express their religious views at that particular moment in time. Nobody should be forced to pray, but I absolutely do not believe that people have the right to not be exposed to a prayer. Nothing is being forced on them, they don't have to say it or believe it. What is next, should they also ban Sikhs from wearing turbans during their legislative session?
-
[quote]If the prayer is banned from the town's legislature assembly, this restricts the freedom of the assembly to express their religious views at that particular moment in time.[/quote] I'll say it again; you being prevented from expressing your religious beliefs at every available opportunity is not "oppression." There is a time and a place for certain types of conduct, and town-sanctioned prayers do not accurately reflect the equal recognition of religious beliefs in that regard.
-
I would say your obnoxious approach to blind allegiance to catholocism reminds me of william donohoue, but you'd take that as a compliment. Instead, I'll just show you this.
-
Blind allegiance would imply I did not put any thought into my beliefs, so nope, that's false.
-
Edited by dr0cx: 5/12/2014 9:10:43 PMYou may lie to yourself if you wish. Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802: [quote]Believing with you that [b]religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god[/b], that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their [b]legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state[/b]. [/quote] 8 years of strictly christian devotionals preceding council business is hardly a picket fence between a specific church and state. It's church itself presiding over matters of state, to the exclusion of those outside that specific church. City Council doesn't need any fictional divination before it makes decisions about length of grass, or the loud music coming from those kids cars. Just skip the bull and get straight to actual business. Please, by all means, pray. But when you begin city business with prayer, thus forcing the self-identification of those who aren't of that faith, you are setting up an us and them precedent. What happens when those who didn't participate in the prayer get their voices heard last, or not at all? Who cares? The majority religion got its daily devotional shoved down everyone else's throats. Freedom of religion indeed.
-
And it says government should stay out of religion, it does not mention the reverse. Do I personally find it necessary to start a city council meeting with a prayer? No. But I also believe the city has every right to do so if that is what their community wants.
-
You are more and more absurd by the day.
-
problem is this isn't accurate. those people in the Christian part of the pie aren't all Christian. it is the easiest thing to generalize yourself with though. hate to say it, but a good majority of the people who said they were Christian aren't really going anywhere(heaven.)
-
I'm afraid that you are pushing an extra litmus test on those other types of Christians. If one affixes the label of "Christian" to their chest, that is what that person is. Whether or not you think they are good enough or otherwise deserving of the title is relegated to your opinion.
-
Not always. If someone who doesn't believe in Jesus claims to be Christian, they aren't one.
-
Are you suggesting there is double-think among the religious? Are you suggesting that within religion there are swindlers among the suckers? You're coming a long way, Max.
-
-
Huh indeed. I'm seriously interested in where you got the idea of these nonjesus believers who claim to be Christian.
-
This is a thing, drocx.
-
I've heard of it before.
