WiseGuy wrote:
The First Amendment means what it says. If somebody wants to worship a rock, he should be feel to worship that rock, free from government encumbrances.
wrong that is your interpretation. what if someone wants to engage in human sacrifice viz a viz the aztec and the mayans. should he feel free to sacrifice voluntary victims free from government encumbrances?
Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think contrary to their convictions, but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows."
-Jones v. City of Opelika, (62 S.Ct. 1231, 1237, 86 L.Ed. 1691)
WiseGuy wrote:
The First Amendment means what it says. If somebody wants to worship a rock, he should be feel to worship that rock, free from government encumbrances.
wrong that is your interpretation. what if someone wants to engage in human sacrifice viz a viz the aztec and the mayans. should he feel free to sacrifice voluntary victims free from government encumbrances?
Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think contrary to their convictions, but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows."
-Jones v. City of Opelika, (62 S.Ct. 1231, 1237, 86 L.Ed. 1691)
I italicized the <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">money</a> shot for you.
these, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
ps. please answer the question. what if the sacrificial victim is voluntary? ought that to be allowed. (necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows). But then again the case you quoted is from 1942, hence far away from the original period of framing of the constitution when darwinism, socialism and other noxious philosophies skewed the interpretation of the constitution towards the desires of the wicked.
heck when pornography came up, vile lawyers and judges used the first amendment to justify it, by saying pornographers were members of the press. smh.
Check the method from Bedrock, 'cause I rock your head to bed
AtiliusRegulus wrote:
actually those laws and similar were on the books in puritan america and after america's founding and the constitution. go check out the laws of new england and delaware.
ps. the bible doesn't recommend the stoning of prostitutes, only adulterers or if the prostitute is the daughter of a high priest.
Great. Good luck with that.
good luck with syphillis, high healthcare costs, high crime, easy divorce, child support, alimony, inflation and when you are old enjoy the nursing home your kids are gonna put you in.
you humanists create a world of hell, then you distract those living in it with entertainment, then parade yourselves as creating heaven and freedom.
I am married, have no STDs, my wife and I both have good jobs with plenty of money, we are not involved with crime, and we all love each other very much. Also, I'm an atheist. Shocking, I know, but people who don't want to live by your silly, draconian rules can actually do alright.
AtiliusRegulus wrote:
wrong that is your interpretation. what if someone wants to engage in human sacrifice viz a viz the aztec and the mayans. should he feel free to sacrifice voluntary victims free from government encumbrances?
Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think contrary to their convictions, but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows."
-Jones v. City of Opelika, (62 S.Ct. 1231, 1237, 86 L.Ed. 1691)
I italicized the <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">money</a> shot for you.
these, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
ps. please answer the question. what if the sacrificial victim is voluntary? ought that to be allowed. (necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows). But then again the case you quoted is from 1942, hence far away from the original period of framing of the constitution when darwinism, socialism and other noxious philosophies skewed the interpretation of the constitution towards the desires of the wicked.
heck when pornography came up, vile lawyers and judges used the first amendment to justify it, by saying pornographers were members of the press. smh.
AtiliusRegulus wrote:
wrong that is your interpretation. what if someone wants to engage in human sacrifice viz a viz the aztec and the mayans. should he feel free to sacrifice voluntary victims free from government encumbrances?
Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think contrary to their convictions, but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows."
-Jones v. City of Opelika, (62 S.Ct. 1231, 1237, 86 L.Ed. 1691)
I italicized the <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">money</a> shot for you.
these, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
ps. please answer the question. what if the sacrificial victim is voluntary? ought that to be allowed. (necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows). But then again the case you quoted is from 1942, hence far away from the original period of framing of the constitution when darwinism, socialism and other noxious philosophies skewed the interpretation of the constitution towards the desires of the wicked.
heck when pornography came up, vile lawyers and judges used the first amendment to justify it, by saying pornographers were members of the press. smh.
The state has a compelling interest to preserve life and that includes preventing its citizens from killing themselves, by commission or omission.
Courts, no more than Constitutions, can intrude into the consciences of men or compel them to believe contrary to their faith or think contrary to their convictions, but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers, equally precious to mankind. So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows."
-Jones v. City of Opelika, (62 S.Ct. 1231, 1237, 86 L.Ed. 1691)
I italicized the <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">money</a> shot for you.
these, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
ps. please answer the question. what if the sacrificial victim is voluntary? ought that to be allowed. (necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows). But then again the case you quoted is from 1942, hence far away from the original period of framing of the constitution when darwinism, <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">socialism</a></a></a> and other noxious philosophies skewed the interpretation of the constitution towards the desires of the wicked.
heck when pornography came up, vile lawyers and judges used the first amendment to justify it, by saying pornographers were members of the press. smh.
yes
at least you're consistent with your irrationalism
Check the method from Bedrock, 'cause I rock your head to bed
WiseGuy wrote:
The state has a compelling interest to preserve life and that includes preventing its <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">citizens</a></a> from killing themselves, by commission or omission.
ROFLOL. so all religions are accepted except those that allow for human <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">sacrifice</a>. now where did your first amendment freedom of religion go?
Check the method from Bedrock, 'cause I rock your head to bed
WiseGuy wrote:
The state has a compelling interest to preserve life and that includes preventing its <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">citizens</a></a> from killing themselves, by commission or omission.
ROFLOL. so all religions are accepted except those that allow for human <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">sacrifice</a>. now where did your first amendment freedom of religion go?
You can practice your religion as long as your practice accommodates the rights of others. You don't have a Constitutional right to commit suicide.
WiseGuy wrote:
The state has a compelling interest to preserve life and that includes preventing its <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">citizens</a></a> from killing themselves, by commission or omission.
ROFLOL. so all religions are accepted except those that allow for human <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">sacrifice</a>. now where did your first amendment freedom of religion go?
This proves we need all Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims to leave the country.
these, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
ps. please answer the question. what if the sacrificial victim is voluntary? ought that to be allowed. (necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows). But then again the case you quoted is from 1942, hence far away from the original period of framing of the constitution when darwinism, <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">socialism</a></a></a> and other noxious philosophies skewed the interpretation of the constitution towards the desires of the wicked.
heck when pornography came up, vile lawyers and judges used the first amendment to justify it, by saying pornographers were members of the press. smh.
yes
at least you're consistent with your irrationalism
Why should I care if some idiots want to kill themselves? It doesn't affect me. That is the definition of natural selection. Get rid of the stupid. The world is way overpopulated anyway. If some morons want to kill themselves, have at it, hoss! I have no problem with voluntary sacrifice (as long as it doesn't involve children).
these, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?
ps. please answer the question. what if the sacrificial victim is voluntary? ought that to be allowed. (necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows). But then again the case you quoted is from 1942, hence far away from the original period of framing of the constitution when darwinism, <a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)"><a class="ktg6us78hf8vdu7" href="javascript:void(0)">socialism</a></a></a> and other noxious philosophies skewed the interpretation of the constitution towards the desires of the wicked.
heck when pornography came up, vile lawyers and judges used the first amendment to justify it, by saying pornographers were members of the press. smh.
yes
at least you're consistent with your irrationalism
I love churrasco
"Educated people make the world a better place, they mercilessly attack misery and cruelty, and eventually they win."
--Henry Rollins
