|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 1, 2011 14:19:33 GMT -5
Please tell me that he actually was laughed out of the court room and that the article just made a mistake. Please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Sept 1, 2011 14:37:43 GMT -5
The federal government filed a brief saying that Presidents as far back as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln recognized Islam as a religion. This was the response: What? The founding fathers should be ignored because they had slaves? Okay, let's throw out the Constitution then. I mean, how are you even supposed to respond to this? The Bible includes a set of rules regarding slaves. Should we throw the Bible out as well? |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 1, 2011 18:09:29 GMT -5
Who is celestefun and what does he have to do with anything? :-P Sorry, Castlefan, I should have known you'd take the piss out of a dyslexic for not getting your name right in one. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 1, 2011 18:17:48 GMT -5
Who is celestefun and what does he have to do with anything? :-P Sorry, Castlefan, I should have known you'd take the piss out of a dyslexic for not getting your name right in one. You're dyslexic? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 1, 2011 19:04:53 GMT -5
I, cestlefun17 (from French "C'est le fun ! It's fun!"), still don't understand what my role is in these proceedings.  And I of course have no way of knowing you're dyslexic. Uh duh. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Sept 1, 2011 19:10:56 GMT -5
Who is celestefun and what does he have to do with anything? :-P Sorry, Castlefan, I should have known you'd take the piss out of a dyslexic for not getting your name right in one. I always read it as Celestefun too - but celestefun to me is a woman. A woman I am madly in lust with. As for Ces't le fun - fuck that cracker |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 1, 2011 19:15:11 GMT -5
I, cestlefun17 (from French "C'est le fun ! It's fun!"), still don't understand what my role is in these proceedings. And I of course have no way of knowing you're dyslexic. Uh duh. Mostly cause it's how you argue. In circles and with leaps of logic that make Superman jealous. Ironbite-cause you know....you're like a brick wall. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 1, 2011 19:21:21 GMT -5
And I of course have no way of knowing you're dyslexic. Uh duh. Came up last time, circlefur. You could say you don't believe it, as I have pretty good proofing skills most of the time, but you can't say "how was I to know?" Also, what the midget robot said. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 1, 2011 20:11:17 GMT -5
Well, this discussion is going above my head. Time to be leaving now!  |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 1, 2011 20:24:22 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I don't keep track of the personal miscellanea you choose to share in past threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 1, 2011 20:31:58 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I don't keep track of the personal miscellanea you choose to share in past threads. Of course, that wasn't the issue. You said you had no way of knowing, which is false. You have been told. Therefore, you had a way of knowing. Anyway, the whole "case law" argument was what you said in prior arguments, almost verbatim. If you can't see how it parallels you, you may have worse problems than remembering my "personal miscellanea." It was basically case law, Constitution, and a heap of strawmen. Which sounds like this guy's deal minus the Constitution. EDIT: Actually, It seems this article would indicate he did pull out Constitutionality as an argument for why the permits shouldn't be issued. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 1, 2011 20:47:18 GMT -5
Touché. I will rephrase: It is unreasonable to expect that I would remember that you are dyslexic, unless it is common practice here to keep a diary of responses to one's posts.
I can't parse the fine details of what those people's arguments were, but just because you shout "case law!" doesn't necessarily make a good argument. In U.S. law (like any common law system) you need to show a link between "this is what you did before" and "so therefore this is what you should do now." If they could point to Supreme Court precedent showing that Islam is not a religion, then they would have an extremely strong argument. But of course such precedent doesn't exist. When interpreting laws, judges must define the words used as a reasonable person would understand them (unless the law explicitly calls for a technical or jargon definition to be used). As the First Amendment mandates that "Congress shall adopt no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof," it would be up to the complainants in this case to show that Islam cannot be considered a religion under our common, reasonable conception of what constitutes a religion (which is of course preposterous). They cannot do this by merely saying "there is no precedent saying Islam is a religion": it is not the responsibility for the government to draw up a list of what constitutes "officially recognized" religions, as this would defeat the purpose of the First Amendment itself.
So the system, which I've said all along I have great faith in, has worked in this case. The complainants lost on that point. That's not to say I agree with every judicial decision ever rendered, but the system, overall and for the most part, works.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Sept 1, 2011 21:23:55 GMT -5
I don't have my notes handy (they're on my laptop), but there was a federal district court several years ago that laid out a test to determine if a set of beliefs rises to the level of religion. I'll dig it out tomorrow, go over the list, and see if Islam qualifies.  |
|
|
|
Post by Whore of Spamylon on Sept 1, 2011 21:31:56 GMT -5
Yeah but remember, christianity isn't a religion either. It's a "personal relationship with jesus" You beat me to it. |
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Sept 1, 2011 21:34:19 GMT -5
I don't have my notes handy (they're on my laptop), but there was a federal district court several years ago that laid out a test to determine if a set of beliefs rises to the level of religion. I'll dig it out tomorrow, go over the list, and see if Islam qualifies. I'm fairly sure there are some Tax cases about scientology that set out the test for whether or not a belief is a religion. |
|
