CAMP: Roy Moore Is Not A Constitutional Conservative

[Sanguine]

It's a Rodney Dangerfield line.  In context, the "dump" was meant to refer to America, not this forum.  INVAR brags that he'll "defy" 200 years of settled Constitutional law that the SCOTUS can construe and apply the Constitution.  He's a self-appointed tin-pot pope.  Let him "defy" all he want - no one gives a damn.       

Since the prickly folks here lack a sense of humor, I'll delete the offending word. 

As the old saying goes, it didn't happen unless it was written down, and in this case, it was written down so it did happen.

[Jazzhead]

Only idiots and morons are stupid enough to bug the crap out of violent misanthropic, myth-mongering fools and think they can advocate the government impose their tyranny upon them without consequences.   Such imbeciles will rue the day they ever allowed themselves to pursue such things.

Is that a personal threat?   

[INVAR]

INVAR brags that he'll "defy" 200 years of settled Constitutional law that the SCOTUS can construe and apply the Constitution.

You think you can boldfaced lie that large and get away with it here?  200 years of "settled" Constitutional law????

When was the 'Everson' case again?

Let him "defy" all he want - no one gives a damn.   

That is exactly what all statist tyrants and their stooges like you say, right up until the moment they discover that imposing tyranny is not going to be as easy as they assumed.

[Cyber Liberty]

As the old saying goes, it didn't happen unless it was written down, and in this case, it was written down so it did happen.

And Quoted For Truth.   

[INVAR]

Is that a personal threat?

Do you feel threatened because you identify as an imbecile, moron or idiot?

[Mod1]

Back to your corners.  The topic is Roy Moore, not how cleverly you can circumvent the rules to insult each other.

[INVAR]

Back to your corners.  The topic is Roy Moore, not how cleverly you can circumvent the rules to insult each other.

It's actually grown into an all-encompassing argument about the Constitution and Conservatism the rule of men the courts and tyranny.  Our resident Leftist declared Roy Moore was neither a Constitutionalist or a Conservative based on his own twisted leftist view he keeps attempting to graft onto the terms, and thus the declarations of what we consider each other to be.

[Mod1]

It's actually grown into an all-encompassing argument about the Constitution and Conservatism the rule of men the courts and tyranny.  Our resident Leftist declared Roy Moore was neither a Constitutionalist or a Conservative based on his own twisted leftist view he keeps attempting to graft onto the terms, and thus the declarations of what we consider each other to be.

You should be able to argue your point without name-calling. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Mine was igneous petrology.  Makes me sleepy to even think about it.

Mine was Economics 302 in BEB 100 at 8 am at UT Austin.  400 others were in attendance and as sleepy as I was.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No I don't.  Provide me an example of American Christians being "unable to worship as they see fit".   

American Christians don't have much credibility as "victims", although they seem more than willing jump on the identity-politics bandwagon just the same.   

You are the one who said 'I don't see much real threat to the ability of Christians to "worship as they see fit".'  That implies you see some type of threat, otherwise you would have said 'no threat'.

What is it?

[Sanguine]

Mine was Economics 302 in BEB 100 at 8 am at UT Austin.  400 others were in attendance and as sleepy as I was.

BRB?  If so, I know exactly where that is.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I was talking to a friend about you earlier today.   (referring to "Jazzhead".)   


He mentioned that allowing people to worship their own religion as they see fit permits sharia law for Muslims.    Part of their religion is forcing their Women to wear hijabs,  and such.   Part of their religion is also executing homosexuals.   


If you do not let them practice their religion here you are interfering with their religion.   What right do you have to interfere with their practice of their religion?

He will never answer you as he has no way to advance his agenda with an answer.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

BRB?  If so, I know exactly where that is.

Yes, that's it.  It was introductory economics.  My very first class at UT in September 1969.

Why I did that remains a mystery.

[Sanguine]

Yes, that's it.  It was introductory economics.  My very first class at UT in September 1969.

Why I did that remains a mystery.

Hook 'em!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Hook 'em!

We did once upon a time.  Not so much now.

And if you had petrology classes, bet you had some geology classes too with the same guys I knew.

Did you go on the 10 day summer field geology class to Fredericksburg and Llano?

[roamer_1]

Whoops! missed this:

Had to look that one up (which isn't as easy as it could be if you didn't misspell the name of the case.  It's "Torcaso").   

Sorry, it was off the top of my head, and it's been a while.

That's called dicta.

Yeah, I know... but it was fun making you jump through the hoop.

And we've learned that there are indeed words that the high court pronounces that can be wholly ignored.

But regardless, yes, secular humanism is a religion... Complete with proselytizing and indoctrination. The difference being, of course, the absurdity of their mythology, their ever-changing morality and worldview (as they 'run to their prophets with itching ears'), and that they do not recognize, in their hubris, the 'god' they really serve, and how perfectly their rites and services conform with his. 

S'alright... Do as thou wilt.

 

[Jazzhead]

I was talking to a friend about you earlier today.   (referring to "Jazzhead".)   


He mentioned that allowing people to worship their own religion as they see fit permits sharia law for Muslims.    Part of their religion is forcing their Women to wear hijabs,  and such.   Part of their religion is also executing homosexuals.   


If you do not let them practice their religion here you are interfering with their religion.   What right do you have to interfere with their practice of their religion?

My post# 241 is relevant to your question:

Most of the free exercise issues really boil down to the same basic thing -  can the practice of faith be restricted or proscribed by laws of general application?    The law prohibits the consumption of marijuana; but can I claim an exemption from the law because I smoke weed as part of a religious ritual?    It's the same with the Colorado baker - laws against discrimination in public accommodations apply to all, and aren't intended to discriminate against the religious.  But is the baker entitled to an exemption if the reason for discrimination is claimed to be religious?    We've argued about this ad infinitum,  but the legal issue is really just this basic -  in what circumstances can one skirt laws that apply to everybody by pointing to one's religion? 

I'd venture the following:

  - Muslims should generally be free to wear hijabs and the like.   There may be some exceptions, such as a photo ID, say to vote or drive a car.   The picture needs to show the face - the requirement is of general application, isn't related to religion and applies to everyone

   
  - Muslims cannot execute homosexuals in the name of their religion.   The law against murder is of general application.

  -  Muslims cannot demand sharia law replace the general civil or criminal law - again, these are laws of general application and aren't related to the practice of religion.  Muslims can informally practice sharia law amongst themselves; for example, there are businesses that exist to provide financing without the charging of interest that would be against the Quran.           

[Sanguine]

We did once upon a time.  Not so much now.

And if you had petrology classes, bet you had some geology classes too with the same guys I knew.

Did you go on the 10 day summer field geology class to Fredericksburg and Llano?

I was a few years after you, and I did not go on the 2-week one, but did spend several long days at Pedernales.

[roamer_1]

Are you willing to extend the same license to Muslims? 
 

No need to if we are a Christian nation as consecrated. The Moors have been here all the way along, and benefited from Christian tolerance as much as anyone.

There is no argument at that point anymore, that we must allow ayahuasca or peyote, or the cannibalism of tribal religions.

We'd have ONE beneficial ethos, with a complete and mature sense of right and wrong.

In fact, it is secular humanism that claims all religions to be equal, and it is secular humanism that preaches relative morality - It is secular humanism that will loose Sharia law upon this nation, and which will defend pederasty, beastiality, and eventually cannibalism, ever conforming to every degradation in their shifting definition of 'human dignity'.

Watch and see.
But by the time you realize it, it will be way too late.

[DiogenesLamp]

My post# 241 is relevant to your question:

Not that I can tell.   It doesn't address the point about the differences in the legal foundations between Islamic countries and Christian Countries.    I'm trying to make you aware of the fact  that many of the things you take for granted as "normal', "moral",  and "proper",  are the consequences of the society being based on Christian ideas.    You think these ideas are secular.  They are not.  They were the byproduct of Christian principles put forth in the laws and culture of this nation. 

I'd venture the following:

  - Muslims should generally be free to wear hijabs and the like.   There may be some exceptions, such as a photo ID, say to vote or drive a car.   The picture needs to show the face - the requirement is of general application, isn't related to religion and applies to everyone

   
  - Muslims cannot execute homosexuals in the name of their religion.   The law against murder is of general application.

In the Islamic faith,  executing homosexuals is not "murder",  It is lawful killing.   

  -  Muslims cannot demand sharia law replace the general civil or criminal law - again, these are laws of general application and aren't related to the practice of religion. 

Says who?   What I am trying to get at here is that you keep applying specifically Christian principles,  and claiming they are of general interest to the law,  and you don't even realize you are doing it.   


You have been so immersed in the culture of a nation that is still running on the inertia of it's Christian foundation,  that you just assume your preferences are normal and universal.   


They aren't.    Other cultures don't look at things the same way Christian cultures do.   They don't care about bigotry.  They don't care about murdering homosexuals.   They don't care about equality between the sexes.   They don't care about "tolerance." 




You are advocating specifically Christian ideas,  and you don't even realize you are doing it.   

[Jazzhead]

Not that I can tell.   It doesn't address the point about the differences in the legal foundations between Islamic countries and Christian Countries.    I'm trying to make you aware of the fact  that many of the things you take for granted as "normal', "moral",  and "proper",  are the consequences of the society being based on Christian ideas.    You think these ideas are secular.  They are not.  They were the byproduct of Christian principles put forth in the laws and culture of this nation. 









In the Islamic faith,  executing homosexuals is not "murder",  It is lawful killing.   









Says who?   What I am trying to get at here is that you keep applying specifically Christian principles,  and claiming they are of general interest to the law,  and you don't even realize you are doing it.   


You have been so immersed in the culture of a nation that is still running on the inertia of it's Christian foundation,  that you just assume your preferences are normal and universal.   


They aren't.    Other cultures don't look at things the same way Christian cultures do.   They don't care about bigotry.  They don't care about murdering homosexuals.   They don't care about equality between the sexes.   They don't care about "tolerance." 




You are advocating specifically Christian ideas,  and you don't even realize you are doing it.

You've been infected by the propaganda that I am anti-Christian, or do not recognize the Christian roots of American culture.   I was raised Christian and believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.  I pray every day.  But I have left the church for reasons I've explained before, and which I believe Christ would understand. 

What I posted in #241 is very relevant.  The free exercise clause should be broadly construed, but does not give folks a free pass to ignore  laws of general application by claiming religion.   I can't claim religion as an excuse not to pay my taxes.   I can't claim religion as an excuse to execute homosexuals.   I can't claim religion as an excuse not to obey the laws that apply to my business regarding discrimination. 

YES, we are a nation rooted in Christian culture.  And yes,  Christians (and Muslims) under the Constitution are free to worship as they see fit - but not to ignore the community's rules.     

[roamer_1]

Says who?   What I am trying to get at here is that you keep applying specifically Christian principles,  and claiming they are of general interest to the law,  and you don't even realize you are doing it.   


You have been so immersed in the culture of a nation that is still running on the inertia of it's Christian foundation,  that you just assume your preferences are normal and universal.   

That was an exceptional post... and very true, generally (not piling on, but the point is right)

[Cyber Liberty]

That was an exceptional post... and very true, generally (not piling on, but the point is right)

Yes, it was.  There have been a few good posts to emerge from this thread.

[Bigun]

Not that I can tell.   It doesn't address the point about the differences in the legal foundations between Islamic countries and Christian Countries.    I'm trying to make you aware of the fact  that many of the things you take for granted as "normal', "moral",  and "proper",  are the consequences of the society being based on Christian ideas.    You think these ideas are secular.  They are not.  They were the byproduct of Christian principles put forth in the laws and culture of this nation. 









In the Islamic faith,  executing homosexuals is not "murder",  It is lawful killing.   









Says who?   What I am trying to get at here is that you keep applying specifically Christian principles,  and claiming they are of general interest to the law,  and you don't even realize you are doing it.   


You have been so immersed in the culture of a nation that is still running on the inertia of it's Christian foundation,  that you just assume your preferences are normal and universal.   


They aren't.    Other cultures don't look at things the same way Christian cultures do.   They don't care about bigotry.  They don't care about murdering homosexuals.   They don't care about equality between the sexes.   They don't care about "tolerance." 




You are advocating specifically Christian ideas,  and you don't even realize you are doing it.

BRAVO! ! !

  

[DiogenesLamp]

You've been infected by the propaganda that I am anti-Christian,

I do not believe that.   

or do not recognize the Christian roots of American culture.   

I have no doubt that you recognize the roots.   What I am trying to get you to do is recognize the branches.    They are all around you,  and you don't realize it.   What you regard as "of general application to the law",   is often Christian principles that you don't recognize as such because they have always been around you.   


"Equality" and "Tolerance"  are some "branches"  of those Christian roots you mentioned. 

What I posted in #241 is very relevant.  The free exercise clause should be broadly construed, but does not give folks a free pass to ignore  laws of general application by claiming religion. 

Who gets to decide what laws are of "general application"?   For example,   why should bigotry be illegal? 
Why is it the government's job to force people to like each other?   

I can't claim religion as an excuse to execute homosexuals.   

Why not?  We used to do it in this country back in the 18th century.   We locked them up until the 1960s.   We did it for reasons  of "general application to the law." 

I can't claim religion as an excuse not to obey the laws that apply to my business regarding discrimination. 

Why not?  That used to be the norm.   Why should discrimination be illegal?   Isn't that a case of the government forcing morality on us?