Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2012/02/08 22:48:43
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Ouze wrote:You'd see no problem, with, say, a Muslim running into midnight mass and screaming that everyone present was infidels and henceforth being ejected from the property?
There's a substantial difference here: in your example the Muslim is running into private property. I would have no problem with Muslims standing on the sidewalk outside and trying to drown out the message themselves.
OK, so that wasn't the best analogy. Let me try that again. How about a courtroom? There is a murder case going on, irrelevant to religion. Suddenly a spectator in the gallery starts screaming about (religious speech if any type) and disrupting the proceedings. It's a public venue, right, open court? Do they have an absolute right to be there?
biccat wrote:I can't help but think of the Shawshank Redemption every time I hear the word "obtuse." No offense intended[/size]
Speaking of no offense intended, I'll have you know I actually went to thesaurus.com to try to find a synonym for "obtuse" that meant "intentionally not getting something", but didn't imply "ignorant", and came up empty.
And, now I may watch Shawshank, a movie with infinite rewatchability.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2012/02/08 23:25:44
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Seeing as I'm ignoring Joey, he must obviously not exist.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/02/08 23:28:42
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2012/02/08 23:38:15
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
Ah, but to what theme music. I really feel the music could make or break something as awesome as that....
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
2012/02/08 23:42:26
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
Ah, but to what theme music. I really feel the music could make or break something as awesome as that....
I'm thinking either
Spoiler:
Or this
Spoiler:
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2012/02/09 00:50:04
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
Ah, but to what theme music. I really feel the music could make or break something as awesome as that....
I'm thinking either
Spoiler:
Or this
Spoiler:
This. All. The. Way.
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
2012/02/09 05:16:26
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Frazzled wrote:others call it freedom of speech and accepting the fact not everyone agrees with the Great Wienie. But I am sure you spend all your day browbeating people, or have no friends,
Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to never have your speech commented on by others, in fact a major argument for free speech is to facilitate the market place of ideas, which requires people to debate the arguments put forward.
Sorry if it feels like I'm browbeating your arguments. Perhaps if you had more sensible starting positions it would feel less one sided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
To be fair, I suspect that's only biccat's position as long as he thinks it'll annoy liberals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/09 05:20:49
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2012/02/09 12:53:39
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Ahtman wrote:Thanks to biccat I now know it is ok to run up and down the Senate floor while it is in session buck naked carrying a torch and a bucket of water yelling how we should set heaven on fire and douse hell and they can't do a damn thing about it becuase it is a religious expression in a public place.
If (and I doubt this is true), this is a sincerely held religious belief, then you're correct insofar as it would be a violation of your right to religious expression to prevent you from doing this.
That doesn't mean it's an impermissible restriction on your right to religious expression.
The violation of the protestors' constitutional rights in this case may or may not have been permissible. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a violation of those rights.
Ouze wrote:OK, so that wasn't the best analogy. Let me try that again. How about a courtroom? There is a murder case going on, irrelevant to religion. Suddenly a spectator in the gallery starts screaming about (religious speech if any type) and disrupting the proceedings. It's a public venue, right, open court? Do they have an absolute right to be there?
Yes, they have the right to be present in the courtroom. And they have a right to express their religious beliefs. But it may be legally permissible to remove them from the courthouse.
As above: that doesn't mean their right to free speech or free exercise wasn't violated, simply that it's a justified violation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/09 12:56:03
text removed by Moderation team.
2012/02/09 13:01:48
Subject: Re:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
What's the distinction between " a justified violation" and someone not actually having the right to engage in that speech at that time? Doesn't the fact it's justified (i.e correct) to remove them explicitly equate to them not actually having that right in those circumstances?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2012/02/09 13:24:28
Subject: Re:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Ouze wrote:What's the distinction between " a justified violation" and someone not actually having the right to engage in that speech at that time? Doesn't the fact it's justified (i.e correct) to remove them explicitly equate to them not actually having that right in those circumstances?
No.
There are two ways for speech/expression to be prevented or regulated: either the act is a protected right and the government is allowed to prevent you from doing it in this circumstance; or the act is not protected and the government can prevent you from doing it completely.
So, for example, praying in public protected speech, but the government can stop you from doing so in a courtroom (and disrupting proceedings). If praying in public weren't protected speech, then the government could prevent you from doing so anywhere for any reason.
It may sound like semantics, but it's an important distinction.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/09 13:25:05
text removed by Moderation team.
2012/02/09 19:39:30
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
biccat wrote:
If (and I doubt this is true), this is a sincerely held religious belief, then you're correct insofar as it would be a violation of your right to religious expression to prevent you from doing this.
So you're taking the position that Constitutional rights denote things independent of the protection of those rights?
I'll also say, for clarity, that I don't consider rights to be things in themselves.
Also, Kant!!!!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/09 19:40:17
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2012/02/10 17:14:07
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
However, he said prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.
Seems reasonable enough to me. You can say whatever prayers you want, you just can't force anyone else to attend.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/10 17:46:12
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
2012/02/10 18:27:22
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
text removed by Moderation team.
2012/02/10 18:47:16
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Symbolism, shmimbolism. Counsellers actually saying prayers during council time is completely different.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/10 18:48:25
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
2012/02/10 19:17:23
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Symbolism, shmimbolism. Counsellers actually saying prayers during council time is completely different.
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Symbolism, shmimbolism. Counsellers actually saying prayers during council time is completely different.
The Speaker of the House of Commons is a Jewish atheist, by the looks of it that's a small voluntary thing. I'd be surprised if anyone but a few deranged right-wing tories (there's some female tory MP who's trying to get abortion criminalised, can't remember her name though) in attendance.
Ever thought 40k would be a lot better with bears?
Codex: Bears.
NOW WITH MR BIGGLES AND HIS AMAZING FLYING CONTRAPTION
2012/02/10 22:56:21
Subject: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
Wait, isn't the UK Head of State also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England? And doesn't the Prime Minister advise Her Majesty on which officials to appoint to Church positions?
Indeed, very true.
So the curious situation is that a country without religious freedom, and with an official state religion, does not allow official state religion prayers during government meetings.
