Religious freedom not just for Xians

[Thejebusfire]

"Isn't it true that in the Qur'an Mohammad had a six-year-old wife that he had sex with," Brandon asked a county commissioner on the stand. "Is that your idea of what a religion is?"

The Christian god impregnated a woman without her consent.


Two can play at that game.

[ltfred]

Sept 1, 2011 22:46:54 GMT -5 Thejebusfire said:

"Isn't it true that in the Qur'an Mohammad had a six-year-old wife that he had sex with," Brandon asked a county commissioner on the stand. "Is that your idea of what a religion is?"

The Christian god impregnated a woman without her consent.


Two can play at that game.

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:1-18

"When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself." Deuteronomy 20:10-14

"...if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed..." Exodus 21:7-10

All taken from Skeptics Annotated Bible, a brilliant source for trolling Christ-fags.

skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/pedophilia.html

[Amaranth]

Sept 1, 2011 20:47:18 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

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.

Which is still bullshit, but at least it is more accurate than before.

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.[/quote

Yet you offered this as the predominant part of your argument prior.

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.

Ahh. Different standards. Gotcha

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).

Nice loophole you made yourself.

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).

Wait, so you have to actively prove something is NOT a religion? Sweet! I'ma start making religions today.

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.

Right. So they cannot stop Amarantism.

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.

Even though you have asserted that they should have to prove a universal negative. I bet you agreed with the communist witch hunts, too.

[Smurfette Principle]

Sept 1, 2011 22:46:54 GMT -5 Thejebusfire said:

"Isn't it true that in the Qur'an Mohammad had a six-year-old wife that he had sex with," Brandon asked a county commissioner on the stand. "Is that your idea of what a religion is?"

The Christian god impregnated a woman without her consent.


Two can play at that game.

Well, not entirely without her consent, but she was fourteen at the time.

[cestlefun17]

Ahh. Different standards. Gotcha

Different standards as opposed to what?

Nice loophole you made yourself.

That's not a loophole I made; it's the truth! See Perrin v. United States (444 U.S. 37): "A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning."

Wait, so you have to actively prove something is NOT a religion? Sweet! I'ma start making religions today.

It depends on where the burden of proof rests. If you are asserting that someone is not due his fundamental right to free religious worship, this would require an extremely compelling argument on your part and the burden of proof would rest on you to show that it is not a religion. You have the right to make up whatever religions you want in the United States, so long as you don't break any reasonable laws (e.g. no human sacrifices).

Right. So they cannot stop Amarantism.

So long as Amarantism doesn't involve human sacrifices or ritual double parking in the middle of the highway, then no they can't.

Even though you have asserted that they should have to prove a universal negative. I bet you agreed with the communist witch hunts, too.

Seriously, WTF?? This doesn't even make any sense.

[N. De Plume]

Sept 2, 2011 8:28:07 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

That's not a loophole I made; it's the truth! See Perrin v. United States (444 U.S. 37): "A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning."

(emphasis added)

Tangent Alert:

I just find this bit rather important, since the contemporary meaning of many words can be prone to rapid change. You can wind up with a lot of old laws—such as the Constitution itself—where people try to read it with the currently contemporary meaning, when the contemporary-when-it-was-written meaning is something quite different.

Just think if there were laws using the term “Gay” back in 1803, for example…

[cestlefun17]

If a law was written in 1803, judges will be expected to define the words as they were understood contemporary to the time in which it was written. If a law's terminology is outdated, it is up to the legislature to update it.

[shykid]

Sept 1, 2011 7:59:05 GMT -5 davedan said:

How the fuck is that retard an attorney. I mean where did he get his law degree from, fucking smacko's cereal boxes.

Apparently Patriot Bible University has a Law school.

[N. De Plume]

Sept 2, 2011 12:51:31 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

If a law was written in 1803, judges will be expected to define the words as they were understood contemporary to the time in which it was written. If a law's terminology is outdated, it is up to the legislature to update it.

Indeed. But some judges, of course, do not live up to even the most basic and straightforward expectations of what makes a good judge (though most do).

And then you get unqualified asshats like this “Islam is not a religion” fella making a lot of unnecessary noise at taxpayer expense, too. End result: lots of frustration and wasted time and money.

[Thejebusfire]

Sept 1, 2011 7:59:05 GMT -5 davedan said:

How the fuck is that retard an attorney. I mean where did he get his law degree from, fucking smacko's cereal boxes.

Hey now, calling him a retard is offensive to retards everywhere!

[verasthebrujah]

Sept 4, 2011 13:31:28 GMT -5 Thejebusfire said:

Sept 1, 2011 7:59:05 GMT -5 davedan said:

How the fuck is that retard an attorney. I mean where did he get his law degree from, fucking smacko's cereal boxes.

Hey now, calling him a retard is offensive to retards everywhere!

Yeah, and give the good people at Smacko's some credit! The provide high quality cheap crap in their cereal boxes.