It’s Barrett....(Democrat Hysteria Game Thread)

Sledog said:

Yeah those damn Catholics rioting and burning shit down are the problem! Glad you understand.

Avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness:

creepycoug said:

@HoustonHusky

You, or someone, is saying a lot here. A few responses:

First and foremost, how do you get around the establishment clause with this line of reasoning?

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

I'm also not clear what you mean by "NOT the religion from the state." Are you saying that the state can't interfere with the free exercise of religion in private life but CAN sponsor or reflect a preferred religion? How far do propose to go with that one? Easter on the WH Lawn? Sure. Ceremonial invocations of certain government events? Alright. And, of course, individual government employees, including the Pres, are allowed to worship as they see fit. Seems to me that if the Church is in the state, then the state is in the Church. At least some particular Church.

This notion you share of "all law is intertwined with religion" seems fuzzy and suspect to me. As if government doesn't spend a lot, if not most, of its time entangled with humanist concerns. I reject it. Tax law, securities law, administrative law, environmental law, voting law, etc. all originate from religious thought? Sorry man, that seems like a real stretch and back-into-it thinking from my standpoint. Sure, I'm willing to agree basic concepts of our moral code - stealing, killing, raping, fairness, fraud, etc. etc. derive from an evolution of religious thinking. But that means next to nothing to me. A devout atheist can subscribe to a moral code as readily as a religious zealot.

Is there anything in the constitution that says plainly "when we say religion we mean Christianity"? And by implication, are you saying those who are here who do not subscribe to a religion based on Judeo-Christian principles, or any religion for that matter, are not contemplated in the First Amendment? So, for example, could the Congress pass laws that discriminate against, say, Islam? Could a President direct the IRS to give Christians a tax break over non-Christians? It seems to me if this point were so compelling, the drafters would have at least mentioned "Christianity" or "Christ" or "the Messiah" somewhere in the text. They use the word "religion" two times.

And, at the end of the day, there are some pretty stark contrasts even amongst religions that fit under your preferred category of Judeo-Christian. Lots of differences that exist amongst Christian-based beliefs, and we haven't even begun to discuss the Jews rejecting the Christ Our Lord and the Mormons with all their wives and the Jehovas with their problem with with Christmas celebrations. Pretty big difference of opinions there. Which one are we gonna pick?

I think its pretty ignorant to blanket treat all magically sky fairy beliefs as equally compatible with western morals or the constitution. Agreed. That would be pretty ignorant of someone. Glad it wasn't me.

You mocked @alumni94 when he said "The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around." and you brought up Jefferson's "wall of separation" line and made a quip about Gortex. I already explained the history behind the wall analogy, where it came from, and even explained Roger Williams first use of it further in my modified teepee analogy. You were wrong and alumni's oft-stated simplistic line is generally correct.

The next two of your paragraphs start with the dishonest "are you saying?" reframing that lawyers like to use and the other two paragraphs start with quotes that no one has said in this thread... You then proceed to fight strawmen of your own creation while simultaneously rapid firing 10+ questions in a single post. Your unrelated rant about the differences between Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses is an incoherent mess that displays either your inability to understand the conversation or a clumsy attempt to grasp at straws. It’s impossible to actually respond to this many false questions and non sequiturs in a single post.

My initial ruling was clear;

Therefore, my objective, secular ruling is that the 1st amendments goal was in fact to remove the state from religion NOT the religion from the state. The modern appearance that Laws are created from secular reason is just a testament to the religious and cultural thought homogeneity that has existed within the US. I don't find it possible to argue that the framers wrote about being endowed by their creator to certain specific natural rights and then attempted to create a legal system devoid of religious conscious enshrining those inherently religious rights. They fully understood that the nation's laws would (and should) be reflection of its citizens' religion(s).

You have failed to attack the meat of that argument. your motion for appeal has been denied.

Case dismissed.

The court has noted a trend with you this week... Your "colleague" gave you incorrect information on Barrett's position on religion and recusal and a "friend" gave you incorrect information on the Proud Boys... An odd trend to say the least, the court assigns bailiff @RaceBannon to monitor any further similar outbursts.

If the plaintiff would like to attempt to refile on new grounds, such as attempting to define their terms of humanist concerns vs religious concerns as a different angle of attack, the court may hear the argument but reserves the right to dismiss with prejudice if more time is wasted.

NorthwestFresh said:

Houhusky said:

creepycoug said:

@HoustonHusky

You, or someone, is saying a lot here. A few responses:

First and foremost, how do you get around the establishment clause with this line of reasoning?

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

I'm also not clear what you mean by "NOT the religion from the state." Are you saying that the state can't interfere with the free exercise of religion in private life but CAN sponsor or reflect a preferred religion? How far do propose to go with that one? Easter on the WH Lawn? Sure. Ceremonial invocations of certain government events? Alright. And, of course, individual government employees, including the Pres, are allowed to worship as they see fit. Seems to me that if the Church is in the state, then the state is in the Church. At least some particular Church.

This notion you share of "all law is intertwined with religion" seems fuzzy and suspect to me. As if government doesn't spend a lot, if not most, of its time entangled with humanist concerns. I reject it. Tax law, securities law, administrative law, environmental law, voting law, etc. all originate from religious thought? Sorry man, that seems like a real stretch and back-into-it thinking from my standpoint. Sure, I'm willing to agree basic concepts of our moral code - stealing, killing, raping, fairness, fraud, etc. etc. derive from an evolution of religious thinking. But that means next to nothing to me. A devout atheist can subscribe to a moral code as readily as a religious zealot.

Is there anything in the constitution that says plainly "when we say religion we mean Christianity"? And by implication, are you saying those who are here who do not subscribe to a religion based on Judeo-Christian principles, or any religion for that matter, are not contemplated in the First Amendment? So, for example, could the Congress pass laws that discriminate against, say, Islam? Could a President direct the IRS to give Christians a tax break over non-Christians? It seems to me if this point were so compelling, the drafters would have at least mentioned "Christianity" or "Christ" or "the Messiah" somewhere in the text. They use the word "religion" two times.

And, at the end of the day, there are some pretty stark contrasts even amongst religions that fit under your preferred category of Judeo-Christian. Lots of differences that exist amongst Christian-based beliefs, and we haven't even begun to discuss the Jews rejecting the Christ Our Lord and the Mormons with all their wives and the Jehovas with their problem with with Christmas celebrations. Pretty big difference of opinions there. Which one are we gonna pick?

I think its pretty ignorant to blanket treat all magically sky fairy beliefs as equally compatible with western morals or the constitution. Agreed. That would be pretty ignorant of someone. Glad it wasn't me.

You mocked @alumni94 when he said "The separation of Church and State was originally to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around." and you brought up Jefferson's "wall of separation" line and made a quip about Gortex. I already explained the history behind the wall analogy, where it came from, and even explained Roger Williams first use of it further in my modified teepee analogy. You were wrong and alumni's oft-stated simplistic line is generally correct.

The next two of your paragraphs start with the dishonest "are you saying?" reframing that lawyers like to use and the other two paragraphs start with quotes that no one has said in this thread... You then proceed to fight strawmen of your own creation while simultaneously rapid firing 10+ questions in a single post. Your unrelated rant about the differences between Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses is an incoherent mess that displays either your inability to understand the conversation or a clumsy attempt to grasp at straws. It’s impossible to actually respond to this many false questions and non sequiturs in a single post.

My initial ruling was clear;

Therefore, my objective, secular ruling is that the 1st amendments goal was in fact to remove the state from religion NOT the religion from the state. The modern appearance that Laws are created from secular reason is just a testament to the religious and cultural thought homogeneity that has existed within the US. I don't find it possible to argue that the framers wrote about being endowed by their creator to certain specific natural rights and then attempted to create a legal system devoid of religious conscious enshrining those inherently religious rights. They fully understood that the nation's laws would (and should) be reflection of its citizens' religion(s).

You have failed to attack the meat of that argument. your motion for appeal has been denied.

Case dismissed.

The court has noted a trend with you this week... Your "colleague" gave you incorrect information on Barrett's position on religion and recusal and a "friend" gave you incorrect information on the Proud Boys... An odd trend to say the least, the court assigns bailiff @RaceBannon to monitor any further similar outbursts.

If the plaintiff would like to attempt to refile on new grounds, such as attempting to define their terms of humanist concerns vs religious concerns as a different angle of attack, the court may hear the argument but reserves the right to dismiss with prejudice if more time is wasted.

TLDR although what I skimmed says this guy keeps arguing the same point over and over like it’s some tax lawyer legal brief and there is some judge to rule on his opinion.

Short story is he wants the Cuban woman even though there isn’t much known about her and she doesn’t help Trump in the election. Believe it or not, SCOTUS is a political body.

I tried to help you. Case dismissed.

you were going to be the court appointed amicus, but ill allow it.

This thread got shitty in a hurry.