Making Sense of the Issue of the Day - RBG

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee

So you have an implied right to get drunk in a bar?

TheRedneck

If the Constitution was black & white.

There would be no need for Constitutional lawyers.

a reply to: Annee

It is not a right if it is dependent upon the actions of another individual.

You want privilege. Yoiu conflate privilege with rights.



The Constitution is very clear, very specific.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee


The Constitution is very clear, very specific.

Then there should be no need for Constitutional lawyers.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee


The Constitution is very clear, very specific.

Then there should be no need for Constitutional lawyers.

Agreed.

But the leftists so want to reinterpret the Constitution to deny rights that we, unfortunately, need them.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

A high school graduation is secular and non-religious. A soccer game is non-religious and secular. Night clubs and bars are secular and non-religious. Yet Trump and his religious right toadies argued that churches should be allowed to operate as "business as usual" during the Covid19 shut downs, because the government should treat religious gatherings different, with more favor than secular, non-religious gatherings.

Show me where there is an enumerated right to graduate high school, play soccer, or get drunk in a bar.

TheRedneck

“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.”

A bar, a church, the barber shop, a concert, a ball game, a graduation...all peaceful secular assemblies.

a reply to: Annee

Just look at your own posts.

The Constitution states there will be no test for religion, yet you want to ignore, defy the US Constitution!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

When did church become secular?

a reply to: ketsuko

Fixed it.

But you get the point.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Just look at your own posts.

The Constitution states there will be no test for religion, yet you want to ignore, defy the US Constitution!

What does that have to do with the conversation?

And Sookie already addressed this — correctly.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

Fixed it.

But you get the point.

All btw completely abrogated by COVID and you cheerlead that effort all the way.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Just look at your own posts.

The Constitution states there will be no test for religion, yet you want to ignore, defy the US Constitution!

What does that have to do with the conversation?

And Sookie already addressed this — correctly.

No.

Sookie was and still is, wrong.

This thread is all about the appointment of a Justice.

The leftists seem to think that Catholics should be banned from even applying.

That's discrimination.

It's no different than racists saying, "Blacks need not apply".

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Just look at your own posts.

The Constitution states there will be no test for religion, yet you want to ignore, defy the US Constitution!

What does that have to do with the conversation?

And Sookie already addressed this — correctly.

No.

Sookie was and still is, wrong.

This thread is all about the appointment of a Justice.

The leftists seem to think that Catholics should be banned from even applying.

That's discrimination.

It's no different than racists saying, "Blacks need not apply".

Shakes head.

Moving on.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

Fixed it.

But you get the point.

All btw completely abrogated by COVID and you cheerlead that effort all the way.

And, it had nothing to do with your freedom of religion. President Trump wrongly said it was, while pandering to your sense of favoritism and privilege.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Annee

Just look at your own posts.

The Constitution states there will be no test for religion, yet you want to ignore, defy the US Constitution!

What does that have to do with the conversation?

And Sookie already addressed this — correctly.

No.

Sookie was and still is, wrong.

This thread is all about the appointment of a Justice.

The leftists seem to think that Catholics should be banned from even applying.

That's discrimination.

It's no different than racists saying, "Blacks need not apply".

Shakes head.

Moving on.

Of course.

I quote the Constitution and you post feelings.

You have lost the argument.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Do you agree that, according to the Constitution you so like to quote, that Scalia was wrong in determining that the government should favor religious ideals and dissuade people from secular ideals and fight against their influence in society?

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,”

www.huffpost.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

Do you agree that, according to the Constitution you so like to quote, that Scalia was wrong in determining that the government should favor religious ideals and dissuade people from secular ideals and fight against their influence in society?

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,”

www.huffpost.com...

I don't care. It has nothing to do with the current attack on Catholics who are in line to be Justices.

You're obfuscating. And failing at it.

And another thing, you may hold the US Constitution in disregard, but there are those of us who don't.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But you get the point.

Yes, I do, unfortunately.

OK, let's get a scorecard going here... so far I'm hearing that you don't want any Christians to have any input in government, you don't want Christians to have the right to peacefully assemble... are there any more rights you think we shouldn't have just because of our religion?

TheRedneck

a reply to: DBCowboy

I haven't attacked Catholics in this thread.

I've disagreed with you that religion, or lack thereof, can't be a Disqualifier when it comes to government appointments, legal or not. It is a qualifier for all of Trump's picks to be pro-life Christians, according to Trump's own words. Any non Christian and/or pro choice candidates are just not qualified according to Trump's priorities.

According to Justice Scalia, Trump is well within his in rights to favor a particular religious view, to fight against secularism, and secular ideals like women's reproductive rights, so are the Senators.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are trying to justify diqualifying people based on religion.

I only quoted the Constitution nullifying your attempt.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Wrong, on all counts.

I think that religious tests are alive and well, and that they favor the religious right. As proof that religious tests exists I presented Scalia's own words, in which he asserts that the government should favor religious ideals and influences over secular, non-religious influences and ideals, like same sex marriage and LGBT rights, for example.

I also presented evidence of States that have constitutions that still say that atheists need not apply, that inherently favor religious ideals over secular, non-religious ideals.

And, Oh yeah, they better love Israel!