tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post7981954181975915707..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Ed Brayton: "Apparently, hurting the feelings of the religious is a crime in that county".mregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-84714142968213449802014-07-08T21:31:44.397-04:002014-07-08T21:31:44.397-04:00hope you don't handle a scalpel as bad as you ...hope you don't handle a scalpel as bad as you try to respond.<br /><br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/07/08/michael-egnor-doesnt-understand-analogy/sanfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06580867647162091670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-65909752181994812782014-02-25T18:19:55.043-05:002014-02-25T18:19:55.043-05:00"therefore the 14th amendment can't incor..."therefore the 14th amendment can't incorporate an anti-incorporation clause in the First Amendment" - why Egnor flunked constitutional law in college. The professor must have busted a gut over that kind of analysis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-412948369133786022014-02-24T00:26:56.085-05:002014-02-24T00:26:56.085-05:00OH brother.
Who in North america denies people are...OH brother.<br />Who in North america denies people are punished or corrected or warned if they hurt the feelings of some identity???<br />it shows those who most demand speech and thought control dON'T want everything controled especially what they don't care about.<br />It all shows the same equation.<br />who decides what is said or thought is decided by establishments and there is no existing social contract about freedoms of free men to think and say what they want .<br />Everyone can complain about what people say but today its not mere complaining but action and spirit to SILENCE people or else.<br />North America must take back our ancient rights and freedoms from the upper classes or anyone presuming to rule us.<br />if things are wrong that people say then society will handle and not those in power in society.<br />We can get along but someone wants to bring conclusions to what we think and say.<br />They are invaders to our civilization. they are dominators.<br />they show power so we must fight them carefully and make a better social contract.<br />If I may say so.Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-59399760482588551592014-02-23T22:31:08.201-05:002014-02-23T22:31:08.201-05:00I understand that you harbor such a personal belie...I understand that you harbor such a personal belief about the meanings of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The courts, of course, have long since decided that the law is otherwise.<br /><br />Given that, we are now talking about the difference between enforcing a law prohibiting individuals from saying or doing something offensive to those of certain religions and enforcing a law that prohibits government from taking sides in religious matters. My point, still unaddressed by you, is that "offense" is integral to the former, but not the latter, law. Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18433574089345131842014-02-23T19:35:28.964-05:002014-02-23T19:35:28.964-05:00Indeap:
The Constitution does not prohibit the go...Indeap:<br /><br />The Constitution does not prohibit the government from "promoting" religion. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause both promote religion by prohibiting federal regulation of religion. It is specifically the censorship that you are promoting that the Constitution actually prohibits. <br /><br />At the time of the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, many states had established religions, which were, and remain, entirely constitutional. The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to prohibit <em>federal</em> interference with state Establishments and with the right of the people to exercise religious belief without <em>federal</em> interference. <br /><br />The argument (which you censors always assert at this point in the debate) that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause to the states is nonsense. The Establishment Clause denies the federal government the option to exercise regulation of religion over the states-- it is an <em> anti-incorporation</em> clause, therefore the 14th amendment can't incorporate an anti-incorporation clause in the First Amendment.<br /><br />You are just an anti-Christian bigot, Indeap, using government force to suppress the faith you hate. Nothing new.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72025310739807010972014-02-23T17:03:42.698-05:002014-02-23T17:03:42.698-05:00There plainly is a difference, though seemingly lo...There plainly is a difference, though seemingly lost on Egnor in this post, between efforts to enforce blasphemy laws and the like, which restrict the free speech of individuals, and efforts to enforce the Constitutions’ constraint against the government promoting religion.<br /><br />A word should be added about the common canard that enforcing the Constitution is all about people easily offended. We’re not talking about the freedom of individuals to say or do something others find offensive; each of us has that freedom. We’re talking about the government weighing in to promote religion. Under our Constitution, our government has no business doing that--REGARDLESS of whether anyone is offended. While this is primarily a constitutional point, it is one that conservatives--small government conservatives--should appreciate from a political standpoint as well.<br /> <br />While the First Amendment thus constrains government from promoting (or opposing) religion without regard to whether anyone is offended, a court may address the issue only in a suit by someone with "standing" (sufficient personal stake in a matter) to bring suit; in order to show such standing, a litigant may allege he is offended or otherwise harmed by the government's failure to follow the law; the question whether someone has standing to sue is entirely separate from the question whether the government has violated the Constitution.<br />Doug Indeaphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16049465653137283724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-66340527854551725842014-02-23T14:12:01.254-05:002014-02-23T14:12:01.254-05:00Off topic.
At present I'm applying for Teachi...Off topic.<br /><br />At present I'm applying for Teaching jobs in Russia (Primary).<br />Does anyone have any relevant experience they could share?<br /><br />Thanks in advance,<br /><br />JR Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-69888281649174732902014-02-23T08:32:15.219-05:002014-02-23T08:32:15.219-05:00And Poland is wrong, wrong, wrong.
JQAnd Poland is wrong, wrong, wrong.<br /><br />JQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63326923600360043592014-02-23T08:31:33.824-05:002014-02-23T08:31:33.824-05:00I doubt very much that Ed Brayton loves the First ...I doubt very much that Ed Brayton loves the First Amendment. He probably hasn't even read it. He's in love with some very poorly decided legal cases, not with the First Amendment. <br /><br />Everyone has the right to believe as they wish and to practice their religion. That applies even if people think that the practice of your religion is mean, as is the case with the constant cake battles that homosexuals are waging against Christian bakers. <br /><br />It is also an atheist's right to be an atheist. Nowhere in this country is that right in jeopardy, despite their hysterical shrieking. <br /><br />JQAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63053819683812860982014-02-23T08:13:29.441-05:002014-02-23T08:13:29.441-05:00Off-topic, but exceeding cool....
Here's how ...Off-topic, but exceeding cool....<br /><br />Here's how a chess Grandmaster thinks:<br /><br /><i>Yes, maybe Yanukovych erred by not using chemical weapons on [Kiev’s Independence Square]. Then he could have given them to Obama and Kerry to stay in power.</i><br />--- Garry KasparovAdm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-63192573609875847102014-02-23T08:05:54.188-05:002014-02-23T08:05:54.188-05:00It's exceeding strange that, despite claims th...It's exceeding strange that, despite claims that Christianity is just fantasy and mythology, exposure to Christian artifacts has greater juridical import than exposure to "secondhand" smoke. Despite claims that God, the ultimate source of the discomfort and risk, "does not exist".<br /><br />And the presence of a rosary, or the sound of a murmured prayer has a more palpable power to move the legions of attorneys and courts than, say, those electromagnetic emissions the readers of <i>The New Yorker</i> worry so much about. The emf lawsuits have never gotten much traction in court. And they say the effects of prayer are imaginary. :-)<br />Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan Navynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-13996189154880692132014-02-23T07:53:42.221-05:002014-02-23T07:53:42.221-05:00Obviously, Poland is in the wrong for fining this ...Obviously, Poland is in the wrong for fining this woman for speech. It offends my concept of freedom even if the First Amendment does not apply.<br /><br />But you're right, it pales in comparison to the whining from atheists in this country. Something is not automatically unconstitutional just because it makes someone feel ostracized. As a matter of fact, I fell ostracized when small children are told they can't talk about Jesus at school. <br /><br />The First Amendment protects everyone's right to believe as they wish and to express those beliefs. It does not protect anyone's right to live in a religion-free zone. Those people need to get over their phobia and join the rest of society.<br /><br />BenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com