Law
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You blow donkeys. Now I suppose you're going to lie and say that you don't blow donkeys at all, but everything you have said in this forum indicates that you do, in fact, blow donkeys. Listen, troll, I am not an atheist, and believe that true atheism is as intellectually dishonest as fundamentalist religion. I am a Christian. You can say I'm lying all you want, but that changes nothing.
Great argument. :rolleyes: You had previously said that you agree with some tenants of the Christian religion but do not actually believe in God. That makes you an atheist. And a liar. However, there is no evidence that I actually blow donkeys. Of course, your system of government encourages such behavior.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you mean "atheist extremists", then you are wrong, there are not enough to fill a courtroom. If you mean Christians who believe in secular government, then you are also wrong, there are definitely enough to wield power outside of the court system.
Most Christians (including myself) believe in a secular democracy. However, those who have adopted the incorrect interpretation of secularism (like yourself) that officially endorses atheism as a state religion are "atheist extremists". There are more than a courtroom full, but fewer than necessary to bring down our government.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Being that I endorse government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and you endorse the subjugation of those in the minority, they would agree with me and be happy that their safeguards have protected this country so well from extremists like you.
What are you? 12? Everything you said so far has endorsed the subjugation of democracy and the democratic majority. Saying the reverse of my spoken truth just shines more light on your fallacious arguments.
espeir wrote:
do not actually believe in God
No, troll, I said that I don't necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ.
espeir wrote:
Most Christians (including myself) believe in a secular democracy.
Now you're lying. You have clearly stated that you would submit to any oppression if it were the will of the majority. You're a herd animal.
espeir wrote:
However, those who have adopted the incorrect interpretation of secularism (like yourself) that officially endorses atheism as a state religion are "atheist extremists". There are more than a courtroom full, but fewer than necessary to bring down our government.
Incorrect? According to whom? Atheist? According to whom? Extremist? According to whom? You are not an authority. On anything. To anyone.
espeir wrote:
What are you? 12? Everything you said so far has endorsed the subjugation of democracy and the democratic majority. Saying the reverse of my spoken truth just shines more light on your fallacious arguments.
Reading comprehension not your strong point, eh? Or you're just a troll. Although that "spoken truth" line is mildly amusing.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Don't you see these two statements as contradictory? If the government has changed over the course of your lifetime, why is that not the will of the people?
Because the will of the people comes from legislation. For example, abortion was illegal in all 50 states prior to Roe vs. Wade. However a supreme court packed with left-wing judges who had no respect for either the constitution or lesser laws arbitrarily decided that abortion should be legal. That obviously did not represent the will of the people. There are numerous examples of this. Fortunately Republicans have caught on and we're packing the courts with people who actually interpret the law rather than rewrite it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Also, I have to say that, contrary to what you and espeir think, I have no wish to subvert the democratic process.
You make that statement, then use terms like "the tyranny of the majority" and state that citizens "must not" have the democratic authority to pass certain laws that you and you ilk disagree with. Your true position and your description of it are incompatible. You are therefore either really stupid or a flat out liar.
espeir wrote:
For example, abortion was illegal in all 50 states prior to Roe vs. Wade. However a supreme court packed with left-wing judges who had no respect for either the constitution or lesser laws arbitrarily decided that abortion should be legal.
Spoken like a true Catholic. I'm guessing that everything you know about Roe vs. Wade, you learned in church.
espeir wrote:
You make that statement, then use terms like "the tyranny of the majority" and state that citizens "must not" have the democratic authority to pass certain laws that you and you ilk disagree with. Your true position and your description of it are incompatible. You are therefore either really stupid or a flat out liar.
Nothing you say has content. You just repeat yourself, misinterpret what everyone says, misquote people, misrepresent history, and end it all with name calling and accusation. You're a troll.
-
espeir wrote:
do not actually believe in God
No, troll, I said that I don't necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ.
espeir wrote:
Most Christians (including myself) believe in a secular democracy.
Now you're lying. You have clearly stated that you would submit to any oppression if it were the will of the majority. You're a herd animal.
espeir wrote:
However, those who have adopted the incorrect interpretation of secularism (like yourself) that officially endorses atheism as a state religion are "atheist extremists". There are more than a courtroom full, but fewer than necessary to bring down our government.
Incorrect? According to whom? Atheist? According to whom? Extremist? According to whom? You are not an authority. On anything. To anyone.
espeir wrote:
What are you? 12? Everything you said so far has endorsed the subjugation of democracy and the democratic majority. Saying the reverse of my spoken truth just shines more light on your fallacious arguments.
Reading comprehension not your strong point, eh? Or you're just a troll. Although that "spoken truth" line is mildly amusing.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, troll, I said that I don't necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ.
But you JUST SAID that you're a Christian! You're so retarded.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Now you're lying. You have clearly stated that you would submit to any oppression if it were the will of the majority. You're a herd animal.
The Founding Fathers were all either Christians or Deists (which is what you should call yourself. Try to understand it completely first, though). If the Founding Fathers, who chose their words carefully, ever intended for a government-free religion, they would have said so. Rather, they state that the government cannot force its citizens to belong to a particular religion and they cannot restrict them from joining another. That's what secularism is. It is not legal preference for atheists and the subjugation of the democratic majority. There is no indication that Thomas Jefferson or any other Founding Father had this intent. Your theory is also based on erroneous assumptions that the majority is automatically tyannical and must be controlled by a supposedly more insightful minority (exactly what our government prevents). I would begin to agree with you if America resembled Afghanistan at this point. However, the fact that you want it to resemble Afgahnistan and it does not is indicitive of your faulty thinking.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Incorrect? According to whom? Atheist? According to whom? Extremist? According to whom? You are not an authority. On anything. To anyone.
Neither are you. However, the difference between you and I is that I recognize the ability of Americans to choose their own destiny and you want to impose you authoritative view on a public that you deem incapable of self-determination. I think there might still be some banana republics in South America you can try and take over. They might be stupid enough for your crap. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
espeir wrote:
For example, abortion was illegal in all 50 states prior to Roe vs. Wade. However a supreme court packed with left-wing judges who had no respect for either the constitution or lesser laws arbitrarily decided that abortion should be legal.
Spoken like a true Catholic. I'm guessing that everything you know about Roe vs. Wade, you learned in church.
espeir wrote:
You make that statement, then use terms like "the tyranny of the majority" and state that citizens "must not" have the democratic authority to pass certain laws that you and you ilk disagree with. Your true position and your description of it are incompatible. You are therefore either really stupid or a flat out liar.
Nothing you say has content. You just repeat yourself, misinterpret what everyone says, misquote people, misrepresent history, and end it all with name calling and accusation. You're a troll.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Spoken like a true Catholic. I'm guessing that everything you know about Roe vs. Wade, you learned in church.
I'm obviously more educated on the subject than you, since you were unable to think of how the extremist minority (of which you are a member) removes the rights of the reasonable majority.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Nothing you say has content. You just repeat yourself, misinterpret what everyone says, misquote people, misrepresent history, and end it all with name calling and accusation. You're a troll.
Don't be angry just because I identified you as a violent dissident intent on removing the fundamental rights of self-determination from the American public. I must agree that your intentions are so trivial and transparent that there's really not all that much that I can point out. Just your lame justification to remove democracy. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
I find it telling that you would think "tyranny of the majority" to be a term for democracy. For explanation of the phrase, I suggest that you read John Stuart Mill, specifically "On Liberty". His fundamental premise, with which I unreservedly agree, is, "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." You have indicated that you believe this to be true only so far as the majority allows.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I find it telling that you would think "tyranny of the majority" to be a term for democracy. For explanation of the phrase, I suggest that you read John Stuart Mill, specifically "On Liberty". His fundamental premise, with which I unreservedly agree, is, "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." You have indicated that you believe this to be true only so far as the majority allows.
Actually you're the one who equated democracy to the tyranny of the majority. There was much talk about this during the continental congress which led to such provisions as the Bill of Rights (a guarantee of fundamental rights) and a government that requires large majorities for changes to these fundamental rights. You, however, take it one totalitarian step further and believe that the peoples' rights to self-government (i.e. democracy) should be stripped entirely. Guess what. t'ain't gonna happen, punk. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I find it telling that you would think "tyranny of the majority" to be a term for democracy. For explanation of the phrase, I suggest that you read John Stuart Mill, specifically "On Liberty". His fundamental premise, with which I unreservedly agree, is, "over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." You have indicated that you believe this to be true only so far as the majority allows.
Actually you're the one who equated democracy to the tyranny of the majority. There was much talk about this during the continental congress which led to such provisions as the Bill of Rights (a guarantee of fundamental rights) and a government that requires large majorities for changes to these fundamental rights. You, however, take it one totalitarian step further and believe that the peoples' rights to self-government (i.e. democracy) should be stripped entirely. Guess what. t'ain't gonna happen, punk. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Actually you're the one who equated democracy to the tyranny of the majority.
No, I equated tyranny with tyranny of the majority. You're the one who assumed I was talking about democracy in general, jackass. You want communities ruled by a religious simple majority. Read Mill, if you can read at that level. I'm guessing not.
-
espeir wrote:
Actually you're the one who equated democracy to the tyranny of the majority.
No, I equated tyranny with tyranny of the majority. You're the one who assumed I was talking about democracy in general, jackass. You want communities ruled by a religious simple majority. Read Mill, if you can read at that level. I'm guessing not.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, I equated tyranny with tyranny of the majority. You're the one who assumed I was talking about democracy in general, jackass. You want communities ruled by a religious simple majority. Read Mill, if you can read at that level. I'm guessing not.
Then you need to learn to write, because you really suck at it. Here's what you wrote: "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." If you scroll up, you can see that "everything you listed" includes such things as disallowing a community from banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday, among other things. That's in direct conflict with the 10th amendment's specification that communities do indeed have the democratic authority to make such local statues. Your reasoning that such a law should be disallowed was not that it violates a fundamental right granted in the constitution, but rather because it failed your own personal (and corrupted) definition of and desire for a seperation of church and state. That demand that the right to determine whether such a law goes into effect be stripped of the public because some punk kid disagrees with it is called "totalitarian tyranny". This is the "everything you listed"...Democracy. If you meant something else, then you're just an illiterate retard in addition to a leftist pig intent on overthrowing our government. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, troll, I said that I don't necessarily believe in the divinity of Christ.
But you JUST SAID that you're a Christian! You're so retarded.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Now you're lying. You have clearly stated that you would submit to any oppression if it were the will of the majority. You're a herd animal.
The Founding Fathers were all either Christians or Deists (which is what you should call yourself. Try to understand it completely first, though). If the Founding Fathers, who chose their words carefully, ever intended for a government-free religion, they would have said so. Rather, they state that the government cannot force its citizens to belong to a particular religion and they cannot restrict them from joining another. That's what secularism is. It is not legal preference for atheists and the subjugation of the democratic majority. There is no indication that Thomas Jefferson or any other Founding Father had this intent. Your theory is also based on erroneous assumptions that the majority is automatically tyannical and must be controlled by a supposedly more insightful minority (exactly what our government prevents). I would begin to agree with you if America resembled Afghanistan at this point. However, the fact that you want it to resemble Afgahnistan and it does not is indicitive of your faulty thinking.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Incorrect? According to whom? Atheist? According to whom? Extremist? According to whom? You are not an authority. On anything. To anyone.
Neither are you. However, the difference between you and I is that I recognize the ability of Americans to choose their own destiny and you want to impose you authoritative view on a public that you deem incapable of self-determination. I think there might still be some banana republics in South America you can try and take over. They might be stupid enough for your crap. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
But you JUST SAID that you're a Christian! You're so retarded.
We previously argued this. You were soundly and logically bitch-slapped, with no response. "Retarded"? Grow up.
espeir wrote:
The Founding Fathers were all either Christians or Deists (which is what you should call yourself. Try to understand it completely first, though).
I share some beliefs with Deists. However, I believe that the teachings of Christ are good and worth following. Not Jesus Christ, Superstar, but his teachings. Which, I believe was Jefferson's philosophy as well. And probably Christ's. For elaboration, please refer to the earlier bitch-slappage.
espeir wrote:
they state that the government cannot force its citizens to belong to a particular religion
And, again, you're okay with the government forcing its citizens to act as if they belong to a particular religion, as long as they don't force them to actually belong? You are a fool.
espeir wrote:
Your theory is also based on erroneous assumptions that the majority is automatically tyannical and must be controlled by a supposedly more insightful minority, blah, blah, blah...
Read Mill. He articulated it more effectively than I can in this forum. Or don't. At this point I don't really care.
espeir wrote:
I think there might still be some banana republics in South America you can try and take over. They might be stupid enough for your crap.
Whereas, thankfully, I don't think anyplace exists where they might be stupid enough for your crap. "The Founding Fathers, who chose their words carefully,...intended...legal preference for atheists and the subjugation of the democratic majority." espeir
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Spoken like a true Catholic. I'm guessing that everything you know about Roe vs. Wade, you learned in church.
I'm obviously more educated on the subject than you, since you were unable to think of how the extremist minority (of which you are a member) removes the rights of the reasonable majority.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Nothing you say has content. You just repeat yourself, misinterpret what everyone says, misquote people, misrepresent history, and end it all with name calling and accusation. You're a troll.
Don't be angry just because I identified you as a violent dissident intent on removing the fundamental rights of self-determination from the American public. I must agree that your intentions are so trivial and transparent that there's really not all that much that I can point out. Just your lame justification to remove democracy. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
The best you can do now is lame accusations, empty posturing, and name calling? I've wasted enough time on you, troll.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, I equated tyranny with tyranny of the majority. You're the one who assumed I was talking about democracy in general, jackass. You want communities ruled by a religious simple majority. Read Mill, if you can read at that level. I'm guessing not.
Then you need to learn to write, because you really suck at it. Here's what you wrote: "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." If you scroll up, you can see that "everything you listed" includes such things as disallowing a community from banning the sale of alcohol on Sunday, among other things. That's in direct conflict with the 10th amendment's specification that communities do indeed have the democratic authority to make such local statues. Your reasoning that such a law should be disallowed was not that it violates a fundamental right granted in the constitution, but rather because it failed your own personal (and corrupted) definition of and desire for a seperation of church and state. That demand that the right to determine whether such a law goes into effect be stripped of the public because some punk kid disagrees with it is called "totalitarian tyranny". This is the "everything you listed"...Democracy. If you meant something else, then you're just an illiterate retard in addition to a leftist pig intent on overthrowing our government. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Again, there's a certain irony in someone throwing around the term "illiterate retard", one paragraph after they assert constitutional protection of communities' right to make "statues". If you meant something else, then you're an illiterate boob in addition to being an ignorant, trolling, jackass entirely lacking in the most basic reading comprehension skills.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They aren't teaching the children religion, any religion. There is no such thing as this "secular religion" you keep yammering about. It doesn't exist. Secular religion is an oxymoron. There is also no "secular agenda". Secularism is barely an "-ism" at all, and certainly doesn't merit an agenda, unless you count keeping your religion out of my kids' classroom, and mine out of yours. If you believe that it is okay for the religion of the majority to be taught in public schools to everyone, it is most certainly you who hasn't the slightest clue about separation of church and state.
The concept of "separation of church and state" is a modern one crafted by judges who were not nearly as wise as Thomas Jefferson. Secularism in the United States has always merely meant government neutrality when it comes to religion. In other words, religion can neither be outlawed nor established. It does not and has never (until recent atheist extremists began inundating the courts) meant that democratically legislated laws and statutes must originate from purely secular means. Doing so undermines the government, the constitution and the people as it strips them of their 10th amendment right to self-government and, if taken as far as you want it to be taken, of their religious rights as well. Your entire argument stems from a personal and unfounded fear of religion and assumes that religious Americans as a whole are as extreme as yourself. As a result, you want to subvert America's ability to legislate anything contradictory to your personal anti-religious views which, of course, is directly contradictory to democracy. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were very astute people and gave us appropriate protections from people like you.
espeir wrote:
unfounded fear of religion and assumes that religious Americans as a whole are as extreme
All you have to do is watch TV. Pat Robertson, to name only the biggest asshole. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.