TH3 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) it took me a minute to realize you were referring to your previous post while quoting me speaking to another one. that's thoughtful of you to mitigate your choice of words in order to keep from offending me, and I appreciate that. I generally don't take offense at things like that, though. speaking strictly to my own personal preferences & sensibilities, I'm not a very religious person at all. what beliefs I have, I generally keep to myself and just try to get along. with regard to the guy who converted from being a Pabstfestidian (I wonder....was he ever 'Pabstized'?) to being a satanist, he's obviously just trying to prove a point in the most annoying and/or offensive way possible. he's not hurting anyone though, and he is well within his right to do what he's doing. he's going to piss a lot of people off, but it makes him happy, then I see no problem with it. I do think he could make his point in a manner that was less offensive, and I think he's being a jerk about the whole thing, but like the old saying goes: if someone wants to make an ass of himself, get out of the way and let him do it. That is kind of how I see anyone who feels the need to proselytize in a government meeting - whether it be Christians, Muslims, Satanists or Pabstists....and now thanks to SCOTUS....game on....and I mean game Edited May 9, 2014 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 proselytize I am now 100% certain you don't know what this word means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 "Who and what religons, sects etc now get to open whatever goverment function for their own specific purposes. This was not a judicious or conservative or safe ruling.....it was a religiously activist ruling. Can't wait for every religon to now try to spead their mission into every local or state meeting.....and the arguements to follow.......simply an awful ruling." First page.....champ sorry I missed one vague statement regarding 'every religion' trying to spread their mission to every local or state meeting and didn't equate it directly with one malcontent satanist convert. your assertions are still way off base in claiming that allowing a prayer of any type before a public meeting being tantamount to government sponsorship of a religion. constitutional rights do not stop just because you walked out your door into the public at large. the same rights that allow people to burn an american flag in public also allow the same freedom of expression with regard to religion. champ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 sorry I missed one vague statement regarding 'every religion' trying to spread their mission to every local or state meeting and didn't equate it directly with one malcontent satanist convert. your assertions are still way off base in claiming that allowing a prayer of any type before a public meeting being tantamount to government sponsorship of a religion. constitutional rights do not stop just because you walked out your door into the public at large. the same rights that allow people to burn an american flag in public also allow the same freedom of expression with regard to religion. champ?! He's also unfathomably inaccurate in asserting that individuals freely practicing their religion are actively working to convert others to their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 He's also unfathomably inaccurate in asserting that individuals freely practicing their religion are actively working to convert others to their faith. that's the way I see it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 I am now 100% certain you don't know what this word means. I am now 100% certain you don't know what this word means. Pretty sure i do.....you are telling me there is not an element of conversion in what these people are doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Pretty sure i do.....you are telling me there is not an element of conversion in what these people are doing? when people say grace at the dinner table, are they trying to convert their guests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Pretty sure i do.....you are telling me there is not an element of conversion in what these people are doing? Openly practicing your own religion in no way means you are trying to convert anyone to your religion any more than wearing a Bills jersey to Foxboro Stadium for a Patriots game means your trying to convert Patriots fans into Bills fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 when people say grace at the dinner table, are they trying to convert their guests? Actually i think it would be the complete opposite because you're forcing me to wait for my food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Pretty sure i do.....you are telling me there is not an element of conversion in what these people are doing? Municipalities, States and the federal government have all allowed prayers before convening for centuries. The two ladies were trying to get the prayers banned. The SCOTUS said no to the banning. How is this decision going to now cause problems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I am now 100% certain you don't know what this word means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proselytize Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Municipalities, States and the federal government have all allowed prayers before convening for centuries. The two ladies were trying to get the prayers banned. The SCOTUS said no to the banning. How is this decision going to now cause problems? Does anyone here actually READ and UNDERSTAND these decisions? Yes, prayer has been allowed in public government meetings. The content of these prayers - though - has been limited to general - and one could say - nondenominational language. What the two women were saying as that what was happening in Greece went beyond this boundary. I can see their point. They are lesbian and the Christians have been against their being in many ways - and now they are opening a government meeting in a "Christian" manner. You - and Scotus - have chosen not to see their point - or shrug it off as tough beans - but I do think they have a point. As well - you - and Scotus - have chosen to view these prayers as not "proselytizing". That is your choice and Scotus has determined as such. I disagree. When I am subject to these prayers - it comes across as "proselytizing" (yes I know wtf it means). Likewise - when I see these prayers or convocations in a government meeting - it does - to me - come across as government participation. I know you and Scotus disagree. What this decision has done has removed the "general" or "nondenominational" boundary to these prayers - and additionally - it has taken away any legislative ability to place a boundary on this language. So your local and state govt's don't get to decide what is appropriate for their constituents. I don't go to too many govt meetings - but - as I predicted - this opened the door for more depth and flavor to these prayers - but it has also opened the door for highly motivated religious people like our Pabstbetarien to see this as a battleground and a contest to win. Awesome - the local government meeting is now another place for religious viewpoints to be contested. Pretty simple just to keep them separate - but as you and Scotus see it no harm no foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Does anyone here actually READ and UNDERSTAND these decisions? Yes, prayer has been allowed in public government meetings. The content of these prayers - though - has been limited to general - and one could say - nondenominational language. What the two women were saying as that what was happening in Greece went beyond this boundary. I can see their point. They are lesbian and the Christians have been against their being in many ways - and now they are opening a government meeting in a "Christian" manner. You - and Scotus - have chosen not to see their point - or shrug it off as tough beans - but I do think they have a point. As well - you - and Scotus - have chosen to view these prayers as not "proselytizing". That is your choice and Scotus has determined as such. I disagree. When I am subject to these prayers - it comes across as "proselytizing" (yes I know wtf it means). Likewise - when I see these prayers or convocations in a government meeting - it does - to me - come across as government participation. I know you and Scotus disagree. What this decision has done has removed the "general" or "nondenominational" boundary to these prayers - and additionally - it has taken away any legislative ability to place a boundary on this language. So your local and state govt's don't get to decide what is appropriate for their constituents. I don't go to too many govt meetings - but - as I predicted - this opened the door for more depth and flavor to these prayers - but it has also opened the door for highly motivated religious people like our Pabstbetarien to see this as a battleground and a contest to win. Awesome - the local government meeting is now another place for religious viewpoints to be contested. Pretty simple just to keep them separate - but as you and Scotus see it no harm no foul. It's nothing more than letting things continue as before. You are making a mountain out of a molehill by making schit up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) Baskin: The bottom line is that you just don't like seeing people practice their religion, and so you want the government to prevent them from doing so. Your overt prejudice against the religious even extends to an absurd belief that any public displays of faith are directed attempts to convert you, which is, quite literally, a direct accusation of underhandedness. Your ugliness is precisely the reason why protections of the freedom to worship are necessary. Edited May 10, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Baskin: The bottom line is that you just don't like seeing people practice their religion, and so you want the government to prevent them from doing so. Your overt prejudice against the religious even extends to an absurd belief that any public displays of faith are directed attempts to convert you, which is, quite literally, a direct accusation of underhandedness. Your ugliness is precisely the reason why protections of the freedom to worship are necessary. Not sure why you feel the need to get personal and attempt to read into my psyche....I have attempted to lay out the facts of the case, the history involved, the Scotus decision, and what it means moving forward. Additionally, I am hardly the only one who forsaw hte coming of the Pabstbetariens. Instead of responding to this structure you decide to try to assasinate my character..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Living Document Theory assumes the the document is meant to be changed via interpretation, rather than exclusively through the Amendment process. The text is not written in "general language" as you have noted, but rather is worded very carefully and specifically, written in exact language. The Document, as written, was intended as a cage placed on the Federal Government, very specifically outlining what it was allowed to do, each branch's powers, as enumerated, pertaining only to it's execution of it's narrowly outlined duties. Marbury v Madison was the Great coining of the , say exactly what I say it says, but does not say what you say it says? Why was the coining of the phrase "seperation of church and state" used in reference to a Foriegn King who was the head of his own church? sorry, had to cut some of your quote....but I was wondering what your position on paper money is then? Constitution says we can coin money not print it. So is paper money unconstitutional in your world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Not sure why you feel the need to get personal and attempt to read into my psyche....I have attempted to lay out the facts of the case, the history involved, the Scotus decision, and what it means moving forward. Additionally, I am hardly the only one who forsaw hte coming of the Pabstbetariens. Instead of responding to this structure you decide to try to assasinate my character..... I didn't make this about you, you made this about you by introducing your own bigoted and ignorant opinions as evidence. See below: I disagree. When I am subject to these prayers - it comes across as "proselytizing" (yes I know wtf it means). Likewise - when I see these prayers or convocations in a government meeting - it does - to me - come across as government participation. If you don't like the outcome, perhaps you should stop doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 sorry, had to cut some of your quote....but I was wondering what your position on paper money is then? Constitution says we can coin money not print it. So is paper money unconstitutional in your world? Start another thread, that's completely off-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts