(August 4, 2018 at 12:28 am)Joods Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 12:22 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I’ll let you argue your own points.

Nope. You don't get to make an assumption about what I'm thinking and then back out when called out on it.

How about my assumption that this is just sophism to divert away from the topic.   And I would prefer to let you speak for yourself.  I may be wrong, perhaps you will go back and try to defend the unconstitutional claim again.

Quote:How about my assumption that this is just sophism to divert away from the topic.   And I would prefer to let you speak for yourself.  I may be wrong, perhaps you will go back and try to defend the unconstitutional claim again.

Translation you have nothing and will ignore that the constitution issue has not been resolved

(August 4, 2018 at 12:33 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 12:23 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So it’s just a feeling then?

This is just a policy, it’s not changing any laws. I don’t see what there is to be afraid of.

His policy on marijuana demonstrates a lack of respect for people's private choices that they make in their own private lives. He resists measures taken by states via their own democratic processes to legalize a mostly harmless drug due to his good ol' boy mentality. He's shown America what he's about numerous times by pushing backwards policies.

It's not "just a feeling" to wonder if he's not going to carry that same backwards-minded mentality into his religious liberty task force efforts. It's a genuine concern. I didn't say he was going to use his "task force" to infringe upon nonbelievers, but given his attitude concerning numerous issues, I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

I don't know anything about the marijuana issues.   But it seems unrelated.  Would you say this is more of a personal thing against Sessions (trust) than anything within the proposals for a Religious Liberty Task force?

Quote:I don't know anything about the marijuana issues.   But it seems unrelated.  Would you say this is more of a personal thing against Sessions (trust) than anything within the proposals for a Religious Liberty Task force?

It is related and projecting much

(August 3, 2018 at 11:07 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 3, 2018 at 9:55 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The constitution says ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The phrase separation of church and state, comes from a letter by Thomas Jeffereson in 1802 referencing this.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

This seems to be quite in line with the constitution, rather than "a direct violation" of it.  No matter what color your glasses are.

Have you actually read what Sessions said? It's definitely slanted toward christians. (it's easy to see, count the number of times he refers to something christian)

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attor...rty-summit

I see no need for a task force that is set out to protect the majority religion. I like what the ACLU has to say:

"As enshrined in the First Amendment, religious freedom includes two complementary protections: the right to religious belief and expression and a guarantee that the government neither prefers religion over non-religion nor favors particular faiths over others. " (read the yellow box thingies also)

https://www.aclu.org/issues/religious-liberty

And this article sums it up pretty good: https://www.pressherald.com/2018/08/03/r...s-liberty/

I fail to see how this is unconstitutional.   Do you have something specific?

(August 4, 2018 at 12:33 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 12:23 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: So it’s just a feeling then?

This is just a policy, it’s not changing any laws. I don’t see what there is to be afraid of.

His policy on marijuana demonstrates a lack of respect for people's private choices that they make in their own private lives. He resists measures taken by states via their own democratic processes to legalize a mostly harmless drug due to his good ol' boy mentality. He's shown America what he's about numerous times by pushing backwards policies.

It's not "just a feeling" to wonder if he's not going to carry that same backwards-minded mentality into his religious liberty task force efforts. It's a genuine concern. I didn't say he was going to use his "task force" to infringe upon nonbelievers, but given his attitude concerning numerous issues, I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

But Vul your just biased against sessions and are not seeing the right trying to erode the separation were all just delusional ....

---

Quote:I fail to see how this is unconstitutional.  

Your ignorance is not a counter 

Quote: Do you have something specific?

Now you play your game of "asking for specifics" AKA playing dumb

(August 4, 2018 at 12:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 12:33 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: His policy on marijuana demonstrates a lack of respect for people's private choices that they make in their own private lives. He resists measures taken by states via their own democratic processes to legalize a mostly harmless drug due to his good ol' boy mentality. He's shown America what he's about numerous times by pushing backwards policies.

It's not "just a feeling" to wonder if he's not going to carry that same backwards-minded mentality into his religious liberty task force efforts. It's a genuine concern. I didn't say he was going to use his "task force" to infringe upon nonbelievers, but given his attitude concerning numerous issues, I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

I don't know anything about the marijuana issues.   But it seems unrelated.  Would you say this is more of a personal thing against Sessions (trust) than anything within the proposals for a Religious Liberty Task force?

Generally speaking, I advocate for religious liberty, so (on paper) a task force whose purpose was to ensure "the free exercise thereof" is no problem for me. 

So long as your religious rites do not harm others (ie unlike the Satanism example a few pages back), nobody should be allowed to infringe upon your ability to worship or profess your beliefs to others.


But let me ask my original question again: What contemporary issue concerning religious liberty is so pressing that it warrants a task force?

That there isn't a clear answer to that question is one of my main issues with the proposal.

(August 4, 2018 at 12:39 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

---

Quote:I fail to see how this is unconstitutional.  

Quote: Do you have something specific?

Now you play your game of "asking for specifics" AKA playing dumb

I don't think that it is an unreasonable question.  If your so smart, perhaps you would like to answer it (shouldn't be difficult if it is as obvious as you claim).  I'm guessing that you won't though.

(August 4, 2018 at 12:33 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 12:28 am)Joods Wrote: Nope. You don't get to make an assumption about what I'm thinking and then back out when called out on it.

How about my assumption that this is just sophism to divert away from the topic.   And I would prefer to let you speak for yourself.  I may be wrong, perhaps you will go back and try to defend the unconstitutional claim again.

As usual, when called out, you resort to the dodge and evade tactic. How sad it is that you feel it necessary to make assumptions and then refuse to participate fairly.

Furthermore, if you wanted me to speak for myself, you would not have interjected your opinion about my thoughts. Instead, you would have asked rather than assume.

I'm done having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

(August 4, 2018 at 12:47 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 12:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I don't know anything about the marijuana issues.   But it seems unrelated.  Would you say this is more of a personal thing against Sessions (trust) than anything within the proposals for a Religious Liberty Task force?

Generally speaking, I advocate for religious liberty, so (on paper) a task force whose purpose was to ensure "the free exercise thereof" is no problem for me. 

So long as your religious rites do not harm others (ie unlike the Satanism example a few pages back), nobody should be allowed to infringe upon your ability to worship or profess your beliefs to others.


But let me ask my original question again: What contemporary issue concerning religious liberty is so pressing that it warrants a task force?

That there isn't a clear answer to that question is one of my main issues with the proposal.

So then your objection is just one of economy and not of principle then.   Would you agree?   That is, your not against, it, other than you just think it is unnecessary? 

I can understand if they are dumping a lot of money into this, and they are essentially doing nothing, where that may be of concern.  However I think that we are starting to see censorship Assembly Bill 2943 of California which would censor speech.   I've also heard of Pastors in Texas being asked to submit their sermons to the government.   And as was mentioned in the link that Mr. Brewer provided, attacks on Mosques.  In the masterpiece cake shop case, the supreme courts ruled largely against the lower governments bias towards the owners religious liberties.

I can understand the concern, if the argument is just that you think it's frivolous.  I wouldn't object to an audit of what they are accomplishing vs what they are spending after some time.

---

(August 4, 2018 at 12:49 am)Joods Wrote:

(August 4, 2018 at 12:33 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How about my assumption that this is just sophism to divert away from the topic.   And I would prefer to let you speak for yourself.  I may be wrong, perhaps you will go back and try to defend the unconstitutional claim again.

As usual, when called out, you resort to the dodge and evade tactic. How sad it is that you feel it necessary to make assumptions and then refuse to participate fairly.

Furthermore, if you wanted me to speak for myself, you would not have interjected your opinion about my thoughts. Instead, you would have asked rather than assume.

I'm done having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

It was unimportant, and if you don't want to discuss your position further, that is fine.   All I said, was that I thought that post was closer to the real reasons than "it's unconstitutional"  which is a bad argument anyway.   If your just going to twist things to attack me and call me stupid, I'm probably not interested in talking with you anyway.

But this is the comment that I was referring to

Quote:and again, only furthers the Christian faith and it's agenda where this country is concerned.