tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post5534392964581084158..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: 'Beware the Red Mass...'mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-7295008647122190612012-10-08T15:52:51.429-04:002012-10-08T15:52:51.429-04:00My comment was not meant to impress. I am simply p...<i>My comment was not meant to impress. I am simply pointing out to you that my colleagues and regular contacts at NATO (KL and KLu) are very careful about how they express their prejudices. They seem to feel that Holland has very stringent anti-bigotry laws. I am suggesting that your comments equating ALL clergy of a specific faith group is a contravention of those laws. If someone were to act out and quote you as an inspiration, you would be held accountable as the law has been explained to me by my colleagues. Even a complaint could be very detrimental to ones education or career.</i><br /><br />Actually, Holland doesn't have very stringent anti-bigotry laws. Too stringent, yes sir we agree, but not that stringent. It's been a while since anyone received serious punishment for breaking those laws.<br /><br />Still, if only the theists wouldn't get in the way of getting rid of those laws. That's right, the Christians are blocking efforts to get rid of blasphemy laws.<br /><br />And don't you worry about my education and career. I'm untouchable.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-77599407210419758772012-10-08T12:42:55.663-04:002012-10-08T12:42:55.663-04:00Ilion,
My deepest condolences, mate.
But rest ass...Ilion,<br />My deepest condolences, mate. <br />But rest assured the nickname is not the real name. <br /><br />Troy, <br />My comment was not meant to impress. I am simply pointing out to you that my colleagues and regular contacts at NATO (KL and KLu) are very careful about how they express their prejudices. They seem to feel that Holland has very stringent anti-bigotry laws. I am suggesting that your comments equating ALL clergy of a specific faith group is a contravention of those laws. If someone were to act out and quote you as an inspiration, you would be held accountable as the law has been explained to me by my colleagues. Even a complaint could be very detrimental to ones education or career. <br />Personally, I don't give a shit what you say. Rant all you want. I am for free expression, not censoring people's speech - regardless of what they are saying.<br />Sticks and stones and all that jazz. <br />Besides.<br />Your commentary is an excellent example of the novice level unhinged atheistic left for any readers on here. <br />But I sense you're a young person (your diction, expressions ect), and I would not want you (or any young person) to 'step in it' for some juvenile nonsense you will no doubt grow out of later in life when you have a family etc. <br />As for your question: "Are they going to sue me?" , the answer is no. They are military and do not operate in a law enforcement capacity (at least within the Netherlands or any NATO country). <br />Actually NOBODY will sue you - the hate crime laws are CRIMINAL not CIVIL. If you break them and are reported or detected you will be arrested and investigated - not sued. <br />Nobody is threatening you with a law suit and nobody is calling the police. I certainly have no desire to. I am just pointing out to you that your rhetoric is dangerous considering your geography. <br />Think on it...while sober. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84899900994545044572012-10-08T10:45:22.816-04:002012-10-08T10:45:22.816-04:00As usual, your attempt at thinking failed miserabl...As usual, your attempt at thinking failed miserably.<br /><br />It's not bigotry to point out the facts that the Vatican is a criminal organization, run by a mob of child molesters and racketeers, supported by brainwashed suckers like you. troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-11606184057270722452012-10-07T17:54:46.723-04:002012-10-07T17:54:46.723-04:00@Ilion: Thanks for at least attempting to answer m...@Ilion: Thanks for at least attempting to answer my question. I think I must not have refined my point very well.<br /><br />At this point, I'm not asking about whether the bill of rights has any jurisdiction over non-Congressional bodies. Whether it does or not, I think we all agree it limits the powers of Congress.<br /><br />So when Congress passes a law (like the Selective Service Act or the Controlled Substances Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) how do you think the courts should rule on that law, in light of the establishment clause?<br /><br />1. Is Congress forbidden by the establishment clause to make any law that might compel some people to behave contrary to the doctrines of their faith? For instance, is the Selective Service Act unconstitutional because it punishes Quakers for refusing to go to war?<br /><br />2. Or does the establishment clause just mean that people should be granted exemptions under the law if their religion requires certain prohibited behavior? For instance, are we required to exempt Rastafarians from the Controlled Substances Act in the same way we exempted Catholics from the Eighteenth Amendment?<br /><br />3. Or does it just mean that Congress can't make a law the sole purpose of which is to restrict religious exercise? So, for instance, Congress can pass a law requiring employers to pay for sterilization procedures for their employees, even if some Catholic institutions might not be able to comply without violating the tenets of their faith, because the law does not target Catholics specifically, but only requires them to adhere to the same rules that apply to all other employers?<br /><br />4. Or does it mean something else entirely?<br /><br />I've been pondering this lately because of the HHS contraceptive mandate. (<a href="http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/content/docs/facts/ObamaCare-and-its-Mandates.pdf" rel="nofollow">details here</a>) A lot of people I respect are calling it unconstitutional, but I'm having trouble seeing why, given that we generally expect people to obey the law of the land, even when their religion requires them to do otherwise. (I couldn't get away with things like widow-burning, human sacrifice, or even smoking marijuana just because I happened to belong to a religion that requires them.) I fully believe the mandate is <b>tyrannical</b> but don't see it as unconstitutional.<br /><br />Truth be told, I'm still not 100% sure I fully understand the purpose and implications of the establishment clause in general. Given the author and readership of this blog, I was hoping to be presented with some perspectives I hadn't considered before.Sleeping Beastlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17320395468377972398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-8208969692403465032012-10-07T17:20:59.867-04:002012-10-07T17:20:59.867-04:00@illion: You're not even close enough to the t...@illion: You're not even close enough to the truth to be called wrong. Article III creates the supreme Court, and endows it with jurisdiction. Congress certainly has some say in the jurisdiction of the Court, but it cannot override the Constitutional grants that you breezed by on your way to your inane conclusion. One has to wonder if you ever actually studied law, or if you are just another ignorant moron spouting silliness on the internet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57054596562165233252012-10-07T17:17:06.413-04:002012-10-07T17:17:06.413-04:00Justice Thomas and many others have pointed out th...<i>Justice Thomas and many others have pointed out that the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment (which you are referring to) can't be applied to the establishment clause</i><br /><br />Justice Thomas' position is willfully wrong, and is unlikely to ever prevail in practice. Scalia and Thomas are the last dying gasps of anti-establishment clause jurisprudence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64417323445906929062012-10-07T16:04:37.930-04:002012-10-07T16:04:37.930-04:00Anonymouse: "If you did read Article III, you...<b>Anonymouse:</b> "<i>If you </i>did<i> read Article III, you would note that it creates a Supreme Court. The only parts of the federal judiciary that are "creatures of Congress" as you put it are the inferior federal courts.</i>"<br /><br />One wonders, is this Anonymouse a liar or simply intellectually dishonest? I <i>suppose</i> that his false assertion could be explained as an artifact of simple stupidity, but I'd rather not contemplate that logical possibility.<br /><br />What the Amonymouse's false assertion cannot be explained by is honest ignorance (*), for he <i>implicitly claims</i> to have read and inderstood Article III.<br /><br />This is from Artilce III, Section 2: "<i>In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, <b>with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.</b></i>"<br /><br />Note the part I have bolded -- the Constitution of the United States of America <i>explicitly</i> gives Congress the power and authority to set and regulate the jurisdiction of the "supreme Court" (notice lack of capitalization of "supreme") -- excepting that jurisdiction which the Constitution explicitly confers upon the "supreme Court"; which is to say, excepting the limits which the Constitution itself imposes upon the Congress.<br /><br />In other words, and just as I said, <i>even the "supreme Court"</i> is defined by the US Constitution as being a creature of the Congress. <br /><br /><br />(*) And there are only these three possible explanations, plus complex interactions between them, for his false assertion:<br />1) stupidity, which is incurable;<br />2) ignorance, which is curable;<br />3) dishonesty, which is willfully chosen.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-86877744232585657062012-10-07T15:54:01.835-04:002012-10-07T15:54:01.835-04:00@Anon:
[To get to your bizarre reading, one has t...@Anon:<br /><br />[To get to your bizarre reading, one has to ignore all of the Reconstruction amendments]<br /><br />Justice Thomas and many others have pointed out that the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment (which you are referring to) can't be applied to the establishment clause, because you can't "incorporate" to the states a clause (establishment clause) that specifically prohibits interference of the federal government with the states. <br /><br />The establishment clause is essentially an anti-incorporation clause, and it remains in effect. It cannot be "incorporated" to the states. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60652517760388397782012-10-07T15:46:18.611-04:002012-10-07T15:46:18.611-04:00someone who isn't rational enough to really be...<b>someone who isn't rational enough to really be named 'troy':</b> "<i>Especially coming from an ignorant code jockey who thinks he knows about science</i>"<br /><br />Or, to put it in other words, <i>I earn my daily bread by the practical application of stringent logic</i> -- therefore, when I criticise as illogical the '<i>Science!</i>' that 'troy' worships, chances are good that I know what I'm talking about.<br /><br /><b>someone who isn't logical enough to really be named 'troy':</b> "<i>If you really had something profound to say, you'd try to publish in science journals, but you're too much of a coward to have your ideas scrutinized by professionals such as myself.</i>"<br /><br />This assertion is both a <i>non sequitur</i>, and false.<br /><br />My ideas have been "scrutinized by professionals such as [him]self" ... the "professional" I most dealt happens to have been intellectually dishonest, besides being a mere liar -- and his "reasoning" was that since I couldn't force him to admit that he was misrepresenting both the known science touching on the matter <i>and</i> the content of 'modern evolutionary theory', that he had "won". But he still felt compelled to post a (misleading) series on Panda's Thumb.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12430940190292329382012-10-07T15:39:03.418-04:002012-10-07T15:39:03.418-04:00Ilion:
One of the best synopses of the Establishm...Ilion:<br /><br />One of the best synopses of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses I've read. Like a breath of fresh air. Thanks. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32076190622960813812012-10-07T15:36:00.212-04:002012-10-07T15:36:00.212-04:00(@Dr. Egnor: I beg your pardon, in advance, for go...(@Dr. Egnor: I beg your pardon, in advance, for going off on a tangent - what some might call hijacking a thread. If it's too distracting, please feel free to remove my comment.)<br /><br />John, Your comments are always thoughtful, apropos, and welcome. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-83065159007229344792012-10-07T15:19:00.056-04:002012-10-07T15:19:00.056-04:00@Ilion: I have rarely met someone who had as littl...@Ilion: I have rarely met someone who had as little grasp on the nature of the Constitution as you do. To get to your bizarre reading, one has to ignore all of the Reconstruction amendments and portions of Article III.<br /><br />If you <i>did</i> read Article III, you would note that it creates a Supreme Court. The only parts of the federal judiciary that are "creatures of Congress" as you put it are the inferior federal courts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57413009613755434912012-10-07T14:53:24.648-04:002012-10-07T14:53:24.648-04:00John Henry: "I'm wondering what, exactly,...<b>John Henry:</b> "<i>I'm wondering what, exactly, this looks like in practice.</i>"<br /><br />Concerning "religion", the First Amendment says, "<i>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;</i>"<br /><br />The first clause means <i>simply</i> that the Congress -- which is to say, the Federal government, or the "general government", as they tended to say in those days -- shall make no laws, whatsoever, which touch upon any "establishment of religion". To expand this, the Congress:<br />1) shall not establish any sect at the Federal level;<br />2) shall not disestablish within any State any sect which said State has established;<br />3) shall neither order nor induce any State either to establish or disestablish any sect within its jurisdiction.<br /><br />So, <i>in practice</i>, if Massachusetts has an established church, as it did at the time of Ratification, it is no business of Congress, one way or the other. Nor is it any business of mine (nor likely of yours), for I am not a citizen of Massachusetts.<br /><br />The second clause, that "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion];" is, again, a limitation on what <i>Congress</i> may do.<br /><br />The <i>whole point</i> of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to delineate what Congress may and may not do. <br /><br />Hint: your high school "civics" classes, if you are even old enough to have had any, taught you mostly false "facts". For starters, the Constitution does no establish "three co-equal branches" of government. Rather, it establishes Congress as Writer-of-Laws; it establishes the Federal courts as <i>entirely creatures of Congress</i>; it establishes the Presidency as the Executor of Congress' Laws, with some limited and well-defined independence of Congress.<br /><br />Moreover, since at least the 1950s, the Federal government has <i>actually</i> operated is as though the Federal Courts -- which are <i>entirely creatures of Congress</i> -- were the preeminent and supreme branch of government.<br /><br />So, "civics" classes have not taught the truth about the actual <i>design</i> of the Federal government, nor have they taught the truth about the actual present-day <i>operation</i> of the Federal government.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-39499423902981288352012-10-07T14:22:46.316-04:002012-10-07T14:22:46.316-04:00(@Dr. Egnor: I beg your pardon, in advance, for go...(@Dr. Egnor: I beg your pardon, in advance, for going off on a tangent - what some might call hijacking a thread. If it's too distracting, please feel free to remove my comment.)<br /><br />I'm curious to hear what people have to say about something I've been pondering for the past few months. As Dr. Egnor says, "The First Amendment ... prohibits the government from interfering in religious practice in church or civic life."<br /><br />I'm wondering what, exactly, this looks like in practice.<br /><br />Does this mean that Congress is forbidden to pass any laws that might infringe on someone's religious practice? That sounds impractical, especially in a religiously diverse country - at some point, one of your laws is going to bump up against someone's doctrines.<br /><br />Does it mean that any laws that are passed must make exceptions for people of faith? That too seems impractical, and actually somewhat unfair. (Why should I be granted an exemption to a law because of my faith, while my neighbor is denied such an exemption because his reasons for not wanting to comply with the law stem from aesthetic or philosophical views rather than religious views? For instance, why should a Quaker be allowed to exempt himself from the draft for religious reasons, but a secular pacifist would not be allowed to do so for philosophical reasons?)<br /><br />It seems to me that the way this winds up shaking down in practice is that some concessions are made if the courts decide it's fairly convenient to make them: Quakers can exempt themselves from the draft, but Rastafarians cannot exempt themselves from the controlled substances act.<br /><br />This, to me, seems arbitrary and unfair, and I have enough respect for the Constitution and its framers to believe that they could not have included such a clause in the document without thinking through these kinds of implications very carefully.<br /><br />I'm beginning to believe that the free exercise clause does not exempt anyone from any laws at all (as that would either eventually render all laws meaningless or require selective and arbitrary application of the law.) Instead, it is meant to prevent laws being passed that have no purpose other than to prohibit religious practices - that it's fine to pass a law forbidding animal cruelty that just so happens to also forbid animal sacrifice, but not to pass a law that allows animal slaughter except during the course of a voodoo ceremony. In consequence, I'm forced to think that the (grossly unfair and completely objectionable) HHS mandate is bad law, bad policy, and an all-around bad idea... but is not unconstitutional.<br /><br />Curious to hear everyone's thoughts, if you can spare a few minutes to comment.Sleeping Beastlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17320395468377972398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54491989343174066802012-10-07T14:06:39.443-04:002012-10-07T14:06:39.443-04:00Ouch. That hurts. Especially coming from an ignora...Ouch. That hurts. Especially coming from an ignorant code jockey who thinks he knows about science. If you really had something profound to say, you'd try to publish in science journals, but you're too much of a coward to have your ideas scrutinized by professionals such as myself.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67479839062953025012012-10-07T13:56:14.966-04:002012-10-07T13:56:14.966-04:00Isn't it just the most unfair thing that such ...<i>Isn't it just the most unfair thing that such a willful ignoramus is being allowed to call himself by my name?</i><br /><br />It's not unfair at all that you are being allowed to call yourself by your own name. troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54289892064044718952012-10-07T13:53:13.148-04:002012-10-07T13:53:13.148-04:00'Troy'
You're such a dishonest ass: yo...'Troy'<br />You're such a dishonest ass: you're a liar, and worse than a liar, for you are a fool (which word is to say, you are intellectually dishonest).<br /><br />While there are <i>Christian</i> reasons that one would prefer one's fellow Christians to not be Roman Catholics, the hatred and lies you spread are not among them.<br /><br />And, in any event, being a Roman Catholic is far preferable to being a God-denying liar-and-worse-than-liar, such as you are.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60853566267082118422012-10-07T13:50:24.113-04:002012-10-07T13:50:24.113-04:00Are you aware of Dutch anti-hate and libel laws? M...<i>Are you aware of Dutch anti-hate and libel laws? My Dutch (Christian) colleagues in Brussels sure are.</i><br /><br />Am I supposed to be impressed that you have Dutch Christian colleagues in Brussels? Are they going to sue me?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-3077523942197893032012-10-07T13:48:00.017-04:002012-10-07T13:48:00.017-04:00Isn't it just the most unfair thing that such ...Isn't it just the most unfair thing that such a willful ignoramus is being allowed to call himself by my name?<br /><br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-35182514882202476562012-10-07T13:46:58.735-04:002012-10-07T13:46:58.735-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-33321801672858257952012-10-07T13:44:10.852-04:002012-10-07T13:44:10.852-04:00"The Constitutional issue is rather simple. T..."<i>The Constitutional issue is rather simple. The First Amendment prohibits a federal church, and guarantees free exercise of religion, which prohibits the government from interfering in religious practice in church or civic life.</i>"<br /><br />And, indeed, despite the lies of the "secularists", our Revolution and our Constitution do not establish a secular State, but rather, a <i>non-sectarian</i> State.<br /><br />It was the French Revolution which established a secular State ... and we all know how that turned out.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37220335201462815942012-10-07T13:33:00.906-04:002012-10-07T13:33:00.906-04:00Well, at least Frank is honest about being gay. Un...Well, at least Frank is honest about being gay. Unlike the pope in his white dress and his effeminate diction, who covered up countless cases of child rape by his fellow priests. How can anyone in his right mind willfully be a member of that criminal cult?troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18196821456439875542012-10-07T12:32:40.594-04:002012-10-07T12:32:40.594-04:00:):)mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-92028874795619415512012-10-07T12:21:37.379-04:002012-10-07T12:21:37.379-04:00You must have accidentally clicked the link to the...You must have accidentally clicked the link to the story about the Barney Frank Farewell Party.George Boggsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68520663216753140142012-10-07T11:47:55.708-04:002012-10-07T11:47:55.708-04:00Crus:
Happy Thanksgiving to you and you family, a...Crus:<br /><br />Happy Thanksgiving to you and you family, and to all of our friends in Canada!mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.com