jakee 1,489 #101 December 14, 2008 QuoteFYI - the Indians have successfully fought those laws in court, so the law obviously was not crafted to affect the religion. You've not yet directly addressed Bill's point, though. The anti-alcohol laws had christian exemptions built in to them. Did anti drug laws have native american exemptions built in? Did they have Rastafarian exemptions built in? When it was a christian illegal drug, ok go right ahead. When it's an illegal drug of any other religion, sorry, no can do. It is clear bias.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteFYI - the Indians have successfully fought those laws in court, so the law obviously was not crafted to affect the religion. You've not yet directly addressed Bill's point, though. The anti-alcohol laws had christian exemptions built in to them. Did anti drug laws have native american exemptions built in? Did they have Rastafarian exemptions built in? When it was a christian illegal drug, ok go right ahead. When it's an illegal drug of any other religion, sorry, no can do. It is clear bias. 21 CFR 1307:31: QuoteSection 1307.31 Native American Church. The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration. Any person who manufactures peyote for or distributes peyote to the Native American Church, however, is required to obtain registration annually and to comply with all other requirements of law. Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal: QuoteThe Supreme Court heard oral arguments November 1, 2005, and issued its opinion February 21, 2006, finding that the Government failed to meet its burden under RFRA that barring the substance served a compelling government interest. The court also disagreed with the government's central argument that the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not allow for exceptions for the substance in this case, as Native Americans are given exceptions to use peyote, another Schedule I substance. SFGate article QuoteAt least that seemed to be the conclusion of a federal appeals court in San Francisco, which said Tuesday that a 1993 religious-freedom law puts limits on prosecutions in the "federal realm" -- specifically in a U.S. territory like Guam, or potentially within any other federal property. A conservative three-judge panel said a Rastafarian -- whose Jamaica-based religion regards marijuana as a sacrament that brings believers closer to divinity -- could not be federally prosecuted for merely possessing marijuana, a decision that upheld a portion of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Y'all were saying?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #103 December 14, 2008 QuoteY'all were saying? Guam? Marianas islands? National parks? The article you linked to demonstrates the bias!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #104 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteY'all were saying? Guam? Marianas islands? National parks? The article you linked to demonstrates the bias! The court cases aptly prove that the laws were NOT passed to infringe upon religions, but rather that the effect were unintented, and largely corrected by the court cases. I really don't care if you "percieve" a bias or not. Being so concerned with fairness as y'all are, I'm sure all of you are in favor of the laws against free speech (shouting 'fire' in a crowded venue and the like) and the bearing of arms (license requirements, registration and outright bans) to be thrown out as well - right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #105 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteY'all were saying? Guam? Marianas islands? National parks? The article you linked to demonstrates the bias! The court cases aptly prove that the laws were NOT passed to infringe upon religions, but rather that the effect were unintented, and largely corrected by the court cases. I really don't care if you "percieve" a bias or not. Mike, do me the simple courtesy of understanding the argument, 'kay? I'm not saying that the laws in question were passed with the intention of infringing upon religions. I don't know who the fuck you think you're talking to when you're saying that. What is it with you and replying to imaginary arguments?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #106 December 14, 2008 >The court cases aptly prove that the laws were NOT passed to infringe >upon religions, but rather that the effect were unintented, and largely >corrected by the court cases. Cool! In that case, anyone who complains about gun restrictions have no leg to stand on, either - since the law makes exceptions for things like target ranges. Therefore, any issue gun owners have with laws restricting rights in other areas are null and void, as long as there are places, however small, where they can exercise their rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #107 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteY'all were saying? Guam? Marianas islands? National parks? The article you linked to demonstrates the bias! The court cases aptly prove that the laws were NOT passed to infringe upon religions, but rather that the effect were unintented, and largely corrected by the court cases. I really don't care if you "percieve" a bias or not. Mike, do me the simple courtesy of understanding the argument, 'kay? I'm not saying that the laws in question were passed with the intention of infringing upon religions. I don't know who the fuck you think you're talking to when you're saying that. What is it with you and replying to imaginary arguments? YOU are the one claiming a deliberate bias - I am answering that claim. DO try to keep up, old chap.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #108 December 14, 2008 Quote>The court cases aptly prove that the laws were NOT passed to infringe >upon religions, but rather that the effect were unintented, and largely >corrected by the court cases. Cool! In that case, anyone who complains about gun restrictions have no leg to stand on, either - since the law makes exceptions for things like target ranges. Therefore, any issue gun owners have with laws restricting rights in other areas are null and void, as long as there are places, however small, where they can exercise their rights. That seems to be the liberal mindset on THAT issue, yes - luckily, we have cases like Heller that have pushed that back slightly - just as the laws I mentioned above lessened the inadvertent effects of drug laws on various religions.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #109 December 14, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteY'all were saying? Guam? Marianas islands? National parks? The article you linked to demonstrates the bias! The court cases aptly prove that the laws were NOT passed to infringe upon religions, but rather that the effect were unintented, and largely corrected by the court cases. I really don't care if you "percieve" a bias or not. Mike, do me the simple courtesy of understanding the argument, 'kay? I'm not saying that the laws in question were passed with the intention of infringing upon religions. I don't know who the fuck you think you're talking to when you're saying that. What is it with you and replying to imaginary arguments? YOU are the one claiming a deliberate bias - I am answering that claim. DO try to keep up, old chap. Nowhere but nowhere did I say those laws were passed to deliberately infringe upon the free practice of religion. Fuck it, I can't handle talking to someone who doesn't even know what argument he's trying to refute.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 December 15, 2008 QuoteNowhere but nowhere did I say those laws were passed to deliberately infringe upon the free practice of religion. We're in agreement, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #111 December 15, 2008 Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmkellett 0 #112 December 15, 2008 May I suggest that both sides of the religion thingy take a look at this guy, one of my favourites, he is my one of my hero's and if your a atheist like myself you may well wet yourself laughing..... I present to you, the man himself, PAT CONDELL ! http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell see ya D Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #113 December 16, 2008 You still haven't responded about Christmas being a federal holiday. Why aren't there any other religious Federal holidays? I'm waiting ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #114 December 16, 2008 QuoteYou still haven't responded about Christmas being a federal holiday. Why aren't there any other religious Federal holidays? I'm waiting ... Holidays aren't the purpose of the amendment - try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #115 December 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteYou still haven't responded about Christmas being a federal holiday. Why aren't there any other religious Federal holidays? I'm waiting ... Holidays aren't the purpose of the amendment - try again. No, you try again. I've shown you a law ... QuoteFederal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees. Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday). ... which aids one religion (Christianity). QuoteSchool District of Abington v. Schempp/Murray - QuoteSecond, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.""That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #116 December 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou still haven't responded about Christmas being a federal holiday. Why aren't there any other religious Federal holidays? I'm waiting ... Holidays aren't the purpose of the amendment - try again. No, you try again. I've shown you a law ... QuoteFederal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees. Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday). ... which aids one religion (Christianity). QuoteSchool District of Abington v. Schempp/Murray - QuoteSecond, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." A holiday is "aid"? Ludicrous. Since holidays seem to be the only thing you can come up with, find laws that state, for example, that Jewish people have to work during their holy days. I'll wait.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #117 December 16, 2008 Quote the underlying truths of how dumb atheists are. Irony score +10 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #118 December 16, 2008 QuoteA holiday is "aid"? Ludicrous. Since holidays seem to be the only thing you can come up with, find laws that state, for example, that Jewish people have to work during their holy days. I'll wait. Yes, a public holiday is an aid. Wait all you want because I'm done dealing with a troll ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #119 December 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteA holiday is "aid"? Ludicrous. Since holidays seem to be the only thing you can come up with, find laws that state, for example, that Jewish people have to work during their holy days. I'll wait. Yes, a public holiday is an aid. Wait all you want because I'm done dealing with a troll ... No skin off my nose, although I *was* wondering how much more ludicrous your 'examples' were going to get.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #120 December 16, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou still haven't responded about Christmas being a federal holiday. Why aren't there any other religious Federal holidays? I'm waiting ... Holidays aren't the purpose of the amendment - try again. No, you try again. I've shown you a law ... QuoteFederal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees. Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday). ... which aids one religion (Christianity). QuoteSchool District of Abington v. Schempp/Murray - QuoteSecond, this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another. Almost 20 years ago in Everson, supra, at 15, the Court said that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." A holiday is "aid"? Ludicrous. Since holidays seem to be the only thing you can come up with, find laws that state, for example, that Jewish people have to work during their holy days. I'll wait. One example of government violating the constitution is all it takes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #121 December 16, 2008 QuoteOne example of government violating the constitution is all it takes. Sweet - I take it that you have already written your elected officials about the illegality of the Chicago gun ban, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #122 December 16, 2008 Quote No skin off my nose, although I *was* wondering how much more ludicrous your 'examples' were going to get. What is ludicrous is your inability to understand that a Federal holiday pertaining to a particular religion is both an aid and a preference to one religion over another. PS: Don't worry about admitting you're wrong because I know you can't because it will destroy your fragile reality based on a imaginary deity ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #123 December 16, 2008 Quote Quote One example of government violating the constitution is all it takes. Sweet - I take it that you have already written your elected officials about the illegality of the Chicago gun ban, then. So you concede the point. Cool... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #124 December 16, 2008 Quote Quote No skin off my nose, although I *was* wondering how much more ludicrous your 'examples' were going to get. What is ludicrous is your inability to understand that a Federal holiday pertaining to a particular religion is both an aid and a preference to one religion over another. So, prove it, then. Prove how giving someone a day off "aids" a religion. Quote PS: Don't worry about admitting you're wrong because I know you can't because it will destroy your fragile reality based on a imaginary deity ... Nice PA, bub - I don't recall accusing YOU of insanity - of course, I was able to back up my claims, unlike you. It's a bit of a reach, though, since you know nothing about whether I practice any religion at all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #125 December 16, 2008 Quote Quote Quote One example of government violating the constitution is all it takes. Sweet - I take it that you have already written your elected officials about the illegality of the Chicago gun ban, then. So you concede the point. Cool Not at all. Just because Butters (and evidently you as well) thinks a holiday is "aid" to a religion doesn't make it so. Care to post the text of that letter to your state official in reference to Heller? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
