View Single Post
Old 02-25-2014, 08:07 PM   #78
HolyHandgernade HolyHandgernade is offline
Integralist
 
HolyHandgernade's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Murrieta, CA
Casino cash: $45342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
In addition to being flat wrong on your first point (which I've already demonstrated) - I just want to make something absolutely clear: the above is a stupid argument to make, and it's being made for one reason: there is no other recourse but to obfuscate the issue.
I don't think it has anywhere except for your obviously confused mind. I don't think you're comprehending my point and thus sound like a ranting lunatic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
There is no discussion in this country about allowing the legitimization of murder on religious grounds. This is a straw man that has no place in this discussion. The fact that anyone would go here is a demonstration of how little they have to offer in the actual discussion of government mandating people to provide other people with birth control.
I don't think you understand the term "straw man". I didn't make up an argument and pretend this was your point. I listed first an extreme example, which I'm quite sure everyone knows is not a real issue, but then followed it up with the actual Supreme Court case from which this interpretation derives. (Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. at 164)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson

Let's please get the discussion away from this sophomoric thought eddy, and back on to the real issue.
Perhaps you need to take a breath. Your rantings are making you look rather unreasonable. I'll restate the point and perhaps it will be clearer to you.

The reason the religion clause uses prohibit instead of abridge is because "prohibit" implies a totality, whereas "abridge" implies a partiality. The free exercise of religion may not be prohibited, that is, totally done away with. But, it can be limited, especially where the law takes precedence. If it had said "abridging", then it would have meant one cannot infringe upon it at all.

Religion is opinion, not action. The government cannot prohibit your freedom of conscious, but it can limit your freedom of action. Since we're quoting Jefferson, let me continue his points:

Quote:
"The legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion],' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. ... , convinced he [man] has no natural right in opposition to his social duties" (Library of Congress, LC 20593-20594; Writings, 16:281-282).
The very case I reference also harkens back to Jefferson and his stance:

Quote:
"Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order" (Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. at 164).
In 1890 the Court again unanimously defined the "free exercise" of religion and said:

Quote:
"The First Amendment to the Constitution ... was intended to allow everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such notions respecting his relations to his Maker and the duties they impose as may be approved by his judgment and conscience ... It was never intended or supposed that the Amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical [hostile] to the peace, good order and morals of society. ... However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country" (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. at 342).
__________________
You'll see it's all a show, keep 'em laughing as you go, just remember, the last laugh is on you, and always look on the bright side of life!
Posts: 3,385
HolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliHolyHandgernade 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote