The ACLU Is Fighting For The 'Right' For Women To Go Topless In Public

[bwood]

again with the childish insults



You know thats not what I said, this is what I said when you tried to misinterpret the first amendment

how could you possibly interpret "establishment of religion" to mean "preference by government of one or more religions over others..." that interpretation makes no sense

preference of religion by government is'nt mentioned or inferred and had nothing to do with the framers intentions, it is spelled out precisely of their intent and has been appealed and upheld in the courts

You think you can come here and intentionaly misinterpret the first ammendment and I called BULLSHIT on your post





do you have any comprehension at all?


the differerence is that you are trying to imply that that when the framers wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
you imply that what they meant was:
"Congress shall make no law respecting preference by government of one or more religions over others..."

anyone with any comprehension knows that they meant it to mean a hell of alot more than that
it's fairly obvious their intentions, here it is in its entirety, where does it say anything about preference of religion?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.






I think I'm showing YOU to be the fool and a jack ass to



yes of course I know "red" means communist and of course "diaper baby" means infant, I just find it strange you would accuse me of being a communist simply because I'm not buying your BS as I would think not many do





No, I understand them and no it is'nt damning just childish



you insult me because you are childish and can't argue your points based on facts so you resort to insulting my intelligence like any little kid might do






the only thing you know about me is that I called BullShit on you when i seen it, so no need to try and put a label on me




Wow your parents realy did a number on you, lol

i insult you because of your inability to understand
that the early congresses had a much better handle
on the intent of the framers than the aclu and their
puppet like courts...you do understand that many of the
framers were active in these congresses???

and because of your failure to address the relevant point of what
the early congresses did versus what the revisionists
like to claim about seperation of church and state...

and because of your failure to understand the fact that most of the constitution and our laws are drawn from judeo christian
beliefs inspite of many of the founders being deists...are you anarchistic enough to go ahead and discard all of that???

you still have not addressed what early congresses did and
you cannot because it shit cans your argument...

but yet you persist...

you are a typical liberal, incapable of independent thought...

i would much rather be under a system based on the ten commandments than any commie/liberal egalitarian utopian bullshit fantasy political system ala hillary clinton...

 

[BonerBoy]

i insult you because of your inability to understand
that the early congresses had a much better handle
on the intent of the framers than the aclu and their
puppet like courts...you do understand that many of the
framers were active in these congresses???

...

you insult because you are childish and are incapable of debating on facts

you realy think the courts are puppets of the aclu? you are the one thats been brain washed dude

and because of your failure to address the relevant point of what
the early congresses did versus what the revisionists
like to claim about seperation of church and state...

I've already exposed you for misinterpreting the first amendment which is pretty cut and dry and like I've said before it has been appealed and upheld in the courts

why would I waste my time and your time whith what the early congresses did when you can't even correctly interpret something as simple as the first amendment

and because of your failure to understand the fact that most of the constitution and our laws are drawn from judeo christian
beliefs inspite of many of the founders being deists...are you anarchistic enough to go ahead and discard all of that???

Now I'm an anarchist??? lol

you still have not addressed what early congresses did and
you cannot because it shit cans your argument...

I don't have to address anything

I simply pointed out that you misinterpreted the first amendment and you have not proved me wrong

you have only labled and insulted me and tried to steer away from the facts

but yet you persist...

you are a typical liberal, incapable of independent thought...

so, because I don't believe as you do, that means I am not capable of independant thought???

how about if we all believed the same as you?

would this be proof of of how capable we are of independant thought???

lol, you make no sense in any of your posts, they are all contradictory

i would much rather be under a system based on the ten commandments than any commie/liberal egalitarian utopian bullshit fantasy political system ala hillary clinton...

Was'nt Jonestown under a system based on the ten commandments? lol

I realy don't care what kind of a system you would rather be under or your opinion of me

I did'nt realise what a weird religious fuck you were before I started debating with you or I would'nt have wasted my time

 

[musclebrains]

I am curious, bwood, to know what you think of this statement from Justice Kennedy's opinion in the SC decision in Lawrence v. Texas (another puppet of liberalism amid a conservative court?):

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

The "intent" of the framers is not nearly as clear as it's being represented here by either side, making Justice Kennedy's statement salient. The best site on the web documenting the ACTUAL statements of the framers regarding church/state is here:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm

The essential argument -- that the phrase "separation of church and state" is not contained in the Const. --- is addressed by this statement on the website:

Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. As noted earlier, separationists take this language from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." But, as noted above, separationists have never taken the phrase as anything more than a handy (if historically significant) summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Separationist scholar Leo Pfeffer, for example, notes:


"No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.'" (Church, State, and Freedom, pp. 118-119).
Second, accommodationists don't apply this argument consistently. Pfeffer, for example, observes that:


(T)he phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles (pp. 118).


The site also addresses the tedious argument that the Const. is based on the Judaeo-Christian Bible/10 commandments. This is so patently false as to be laughable. The Const. afterall gives us permission to worship any god we choose.

 

[BonerBoy]

thats cool
look at what else is on that site

It looks like Bwood belongs to a whole group of people that go around misquoteing the first amendment lol


look at this Bwood you've been exposed, hahahaha

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misqidx.htm


hahaha lol

 

[BonerBoy]

I don't think this a good idea. We will become desensitized to titties. I don't want that to happen because I like to suck on them.

lol, I did'nt mean to side track the titty thread lol

 

[bwood]

thats cool
look at what else is on that site

It looks like Bwood belongs to a whole group of people that go around misquoteing the first amendment lol


look at this Bwood you've been exposed, hahahaha

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misqidx.htm


hahaha lol

you are an idiot...i didnt find on this site where my principal argument about the actions of early congresses is addressed...correct me if i missed it...

i am sure that your puerile mind enabled you to read for all of 2 minutes before returning to the problem of deciding which nostril to harvest...perhaps further searching will grow your mind (the website, not the nostril)...

meanwhile, please fuck off and leave the big boy concepts to myself and musclebrains to debate...


musclebrains, you surely dont expect me to roll over and proclaim a website run by three people to be the "gospel..."

especially a website of the academic cognoscenti...

however, as you are not a waterhead like the above, i will enjoy entering into a leisurely and productive debate with you...

you should realize, if youve read many of my posts, that i am not any great proponent of religion...i merely feel that it is the lesser of the evils when compared to the radical individualism and radical egalitarianism that the left seeks to replace religion with...i argue for the most effective and tolerable opiate, if you will...

surely you agree that a nation that preaches narcissistic nihilism is heading for trouble...

but, as i stated to the waterhead, i dont see where this site addresses the actions of early congresses in respect to religion and seems to give most of its weight to interpreting quotes while simultaneously pointing out the propensity for quotes to be taken out of context...or giving credence to acts of the court that lacked stare decisis...

i find this quote from you...

"The site also addresses the tedious argument that the Const. is based on the Judaeo-Christian Bible/10 commandments. This is so patently false as to be laughable. The Const. afterall gives us permission to worship any god we choose."

when joined with the site's acknowledgment of the impact of christianity on the common law of england, to be an adequate medium of showing bias by the site builders, and fault in your argument...

to state that the men writing the constitution, who were born and reached well beyond the age of majority, while subject to the common law of england (which the site admits is heavily influenced by christianity) were able to distance themselves from this heritage and thus remove the influence of the ten commandments from its crafting is a huge leap...

you predicate this on the fact that the first two commandments dont fit into the mold...however, it seems to me that the other eight are fairly well represented, and when this is weighed with the above argument regarding the common law, the scale favors me...

please address the actions of the early congresses in regards to religion...i will answer your quiery about kennedy as soon as time permits...surely you are not arguing that the supremes are currently conservative driven???

peace...

and bonerboy remember...please fuck off...

 

[BonerBoy]

you are an idiot...i didnt find on this site where my principal argument about the actions of early congresses is addressed...correct me if i missed it...

no Bwood you are the idiot

stick to the fact:

YOU tried to misquote the the first amenment and I caught you and now you want to sidetrack this fact by bringing up these early actions of congress and any other BS you can come up with to keep off the subject that you were misquoting the first amendment

i am sure that your puerile mind enabled you to read for all of 2 minutes before returning to the problem of deciding which nostril to harvest...perhaps further searching will grow your mind (the website, not the nostril)...

These imature comments of yours don't intimidate me in the least

meanwhile, please fuck off and leave the big boy concepts to myself and musclebrains to debate...

I won't go away or "fuck off"
You started all of this shit your self, remember the "tool award"

and bonerboy remember...please fuck off...

Oh Ok whatever you say

Jackass!

 

[bwood]

no Bwood you are the idiot

stick to the fact:

YOU tried to misquote the the first amenment and I caught you and now you want to sidetrack this fact by bringing up these early actions of congress and any other BS you can come up with to keep off the subject that you were misquoting the first amendment





These imature comments of yours don't intimidate me in the least




I won't go away or "fuck off"
You started all of this shit your self, remember the "tool award"




Oh Ok whatever you say

Jackass!

dear fucktard...

is it misinterpret or misquote???you keep changing...

it isnt misquote as i havent done that, it isnt misinterpret as you and the website have done that...

you won the tool award for not being aware of the founding of the aclu by communists and for not being aware of the ongoing communistic mission of the aclu...but you still opened your mouth and brayed your ignorance...

now, you are attempting to exasperate me with the sheer weight of genetic pre-frontal damage that your parents graced you with, did you live under high power lines as a child or were they brother and sister???

if your brain touched your spinal cord, you would realize that quotes have less evidentiary value than what the early congresses, staffed by the founders and their contemporaries, actually did in regards to religion...

for you see, waterhead, i used to be a bleeting sheep like you about seperation, until i actually researched the matter and shook off the shackles of doublethink that the aclu and their ilk had fastened on me...i still dont participate in religion and havent been to church to years...

i enjoy insulting you, it is a sadistic pleasure...normally, i have to debate things like you in a professional and courteous manner, and here there are no such limitations...

you might notice that i respect musclebrains (inspite of his inclusion in the "chattering class" )because he is EDUCATED unlike you, and is capable of at least conceding valid points...

so keep it up...you do keep making amusing spelling mistakes that i am sure poye is writing down for future use...and this is just laziness on your part as i am sure you must be using a dictionary to understand much of my postings by now...

 

[BonerBoy]

I made my point

Tard

why do you think I would care wether or not you respect Musclebrains?

why would I care if poye keeps track of my spelling?

I use a screen name of BonerBoy for gods sake, do you think I come here looking for validation or respect?

Yes you did misinterpret the first amendment
you said:

"establishment of religion" at the time the first amendment was written meant "preference by government of one or more religions over others..."

misinterpretation if I ever seen one

preference of religion by government is'nt mentioned or inferred and had nothing to do with the framers intentions, it is spelled out precisely of their intent and has been appealed and upheld in the courts

You think you can come here and intentionaly misinterpret the first ammendment and I called BULLSHIT on your post

You have'nt given one shread of evidence to back up this rediculous contention

Yet you want me to run around and try to disprove all this other bullshit

only a religious freak would want to live by laws based on the ten commandments and
had I known how fucked up in the head you were I would never had wasted my time with this

I made my point and I won't respond back to your bullshit as I have exposed you as a part of a group religious freaks that run around spreading this shit

 

[musclebrains]

I confess I have not read the thread very closely, Bwood. It's difficult to sort the serious argument from the ad hominem material. I must be blind, but I haven't seen any concrete material about the actions of the early congresses. (I probly am blind.)

One observation:

The fact that the founders were Christians and followed the principal ethical constraints of the 10 commandments does not mean they intended an explicitly religious basis to the law -- or at least they did not mean to sanction a religious interpretation. (I am not sure you are arguing this.) You can find the same ethics in the work of Aristotle and Plato. (INdeed Christianity is a restatement of Platonism in many ways.)

I do not take issue with the statement that there is a parallel between the ethics of the 10 Commmandments and our law, but when you exempt the explicitly religious first commandment, you have a very poor argument on this basis for the perspective that there was an intention to sanction a close relationship between church and state. This, similarly, does not mean that Congress could nonetheless rationalize one as it did when it re-wrote the Pledge of Allegiance to include God's name in response to the threat of the godless masters of deceit. One could argue that Justice Kennedy's statement explains how interpretation can move between liberal and conservative polls at any time. One need not presume an inexorable move toward so-called progressive positions.

I'm sure you're aware of the enomrous amount of research into the way the SC has, with very few exceptions, tended to follow public opinion rather than oppose it. There was great popular support for Roe v Wade at the time of that decision, for example, and, at the time of Lawrence there was great support for the legalization of sodomy (which has now of course produced backlash to rev the culture wars back up).

I find Justice Kennedy's argument salient because if you inscript in stone (like the commandments) the early interpretations of the Constitution's protections (and its beneficiaries), we'd be living in a much more stratified society than we are today and, for one example, women would still be denied the vote by the similar linguistic trick present now: the Constitution doesn't mention women.

But maybe I have not picked up on your core argument.

As for the reliability of the site I directed you to, it's broadly considered among the best-researched on the subject. I don't see what the fact that three people may have constructed it has to do with its content....And, yes, most people agree that the current court is dominated by conservative appointees. Isn't that part of the outrage of the right -- a sense of betrayal?