Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

The 1st Amendment Forbids Religious Law

EricPrice
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 8:42:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Many religions have rules, oaths, ritualized behaviors, and other requirements that outsiders are not bound to follow. One purpose behind the First Amendment in the United States was to prevent those who do not wish to be bound by such requirements from being compelled to do so.

The Islamic Community in America has today convinced many media outlets not to display images and videos that they believe "offend" their Prophet. I am not certain that this practice does not represent a form of de facto religious control over our media " and therefore our 1st Amendment rights.

We are expected to submissively bow our heads in silent respect to these religions as they threaten our freedoms and our lives " Islam has little concept of freedom of speech and of worship, and has proven itself to be just as deadly as Christendom and Judaism.

Islam has long been spared the persistent questions and exposures to logic that Christian and the Jewish communities have long learned to accept. This has allowed Muslims to make the most outrageous and oppressive statements imaginable. Now even American Media outlets are cowed into submissive silence.

Muslims are just as wrong as Christians and Jews about their murderous and stupid religion. And it is time that somebody said so.

It is my firm belief " that the thing most likely to end the eternal wars in the Islamic world is not Christian bombing of Muslim children". but a good, healthy dose of good old fashioned atheism and apostasy.

I believe that we can use our First Amendment to accomplish this - and weaken the suicide bombers certainty of paradise. If not, we can at least resist having religious law imposed upon us.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 9:59:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 8:42:44 AM, EricPrice wrote:
Many religions have rules, oaths, ritualized behaviors, and other requirements that outsiders are not bound to follow. One purpose behind the First Amendment in the United States was to prevent those who do not wish to be bound by such requirements from being compelled to do so.

The Islamic Community in America has today convinced many media outlets not to display images and videos that they believe "offend" their Prophet. I am not certain that this practice does not represent a form of de facto religious control over our media " and therefore our 1st Amendment rights.

We are expected to submissively bow our heads in silent respect to these religions as they threaten our freedoms and our lives " Islam has little concept of freedom of speech and of worship, and has proven itself to be just as deadly as Christendom and Judaism.

Islam has long been spared the persistent questions and exposures to logic that Christian and the Jewish communities have long learned to accept. This has allowed Muslims to make the most outrageous and oppressive statements imaginable. Now even American Media outlets are cowed into submissive silence.

Muslims are just as wrong as Christians and Jews about their murderous and stupid religion. And it is time that somebody said so.

It is my firm belief " that the thing most likely to end the eternal wars in the Islamic world is not Christian bombing of Muslim children". but a good, healthy dose of good old fashioned atheism and apostasy.

I believe that we can use our First Amendment to accomplish this - and weaken the suicide bombers certainty of paradise. If not, we can at least resist having religious law imposed upon us.

The USSR tried to accomplish this, and they had pretty good success with atheism amongst Christians and Jews, but far less success amongst Muslims. Thing is, when confronted they become more radical and more fundamentalist, and their numbers grow dramatically. Infiltration and seeding of alternate ideas regarding religion has failed repeatedly, and led to militant balkanization in various regions of Eastern Europe, Central Asia and North Africa.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 11:08:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 8:42:44 AM, EricPrice wrote:
Many religions have rules, oaths, ritualized behaviors, and other requirements that outsiders are not bound to follow. One purpose behind the First Amendment in the United States was to prevent those who do not wish to be bound by such requirements from being compelled to do so.

The Islamic Community in America has today convinced many media outlets not to display images and videos that they believe "offend" their Prophet. I am not certain that this practice does not represent a form of de facto religious control over our media " and therefore our 1st Amendment rights.

We are expected to submissively bow our heads in silent respect to these religions as they threaten our freedoms and our lives " Islam has little concept of freedom of speech and of worship, and has proven itself to be just as deadly as Christendom and Judaism.

Islam has long been spared the persistent questions and exposures to logic that Christian and the Jewish communities have long learned to accept. This has allowed Muslims to make the most outrageous and oppressive statements imaginable. Now even American Media outlets are cowed into submissive silence.

Muslims are just as wrong as Christians and Jews about their murderous and stupid religion. And it is time that somebody said so.

It is my firm belief " that the thing most likely to end the eternal wars in the Islamic world is not Christian bombing of Muslim children". but a good, healthy dose of good old fashioned atheism and apostasy.

I believe that we can use our First Amendment to accomplish this - and weaken the suicide bombers certainty of paradise. If not, we can at least resist having religious law imposed upon us.

1. The establishment clause is considered inviolate.
2. The free exercise clause is not inviolate but, the government and society must have a cleat overriding interest.

Your entire thought process indicates the US would be better if you had an education or at the least were forced to write lines.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 11:15:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 11:08:25 AM, logicrules wrote:
At 9/13/2012 8:42:44 AM, EricPrice wrote:
Many religions have rules, oaths, ritualized behaviors, and other requirements that outsiders are not bound to follow. One purpose behind the First Amendment in the United States was to prevent those who do not wish to be bound by such requirements from being compelled to do so.

The Islamic Community in America has today convinced many media outlets not to display images and videos that they believe "offend" their Prophet. I am not certain that this practice does not represent a form of de facto religious control over our media " and therefore our 1st Amendment rights.

We are expected to submissively bow our heads in silent respect to these religions as they threaten our freedoms and our lives " Islam has little concept of freedom of speech and of worship, and has proven itself to be just as deadly as Christendom and Judaism.

Islam has long been spared the persistent questions and exposures to logic that Christian and the Jewish communities have long learned to accept. This has allowed Muslims to make the most outrageous and oppressive statements imaginable. Now even American Media outlets are cowed into submissive silence.

Muslims are just as wrong as Christians and Jews about their murderous and stupid religion. And it is time that somebody said so.

It is my firm belief " that the thing most likely to end the eternal wars in the Islamic world is not Christian bombing of Muslim children". but a good, healthy dose of good old fashioned atheism and apostasy.

I believe that we can use our First Amendment to accomplish this - and weaken the suicide bombers certainty of paradise. If not, we can at least resist having religious law imposed upon us.

1. The establishment clause is considered inviolate.
2. The free exercise clause is not inviolate but, the government and society must have a cleat overriding interest.

Your entire thought process indicates the US would be better if you had an education or at the least were forced to write lines.

Sorry.....wrong post.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2012 6:42:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 8:42:44 AM, EricPrice wrote:
Many religions have rules, oaths, ritualized behaviors, and other requirements that outsiders are not bound to follow. One purpose behind the First Amendment in the United States was to prevent those who do not wish to be bound by such requirements from being compelled to do so.

The Islamic Community in America has today convinced many media outlets not to display images and videos that they believe "offend" their Prophet. I am not certain that this practice does not represent a form of de facto religious control over our media " and therefore our 1st Amendment rights.

We are expected to submissively bow our heads in silent respect to these religions as they threaten our freedoms and our lives " Islam has little concept of freedom of speech and of worship, and has proven itself to be just as deadly as Christendom and Judaism.

Islam has long been spared the persistent questions and exposures to logic that Christian and the Jewish communities have long learned to accept. This has allowed Muslims to make the most outrageous and oppressive statements imaginable. Now even American Media outlets are cowed into submissive silence.

Muslims are just as wrong as Christians and Jews about their murderous and stupid religion. And it is time that somebody said so.

It is my firm belief " that the thing most likely to end the eternal wars in the Islamic world is not Christian bombing of Muslim children". but a good, healthy dose of good old fashioned atheism and apostasy.

I believe that we can use our First Amendment to accomplish this - and weaken the suicide bombers certainty of paradise. If not, we can at least resist having religious law imposed upon us.

A few things are wrong with this reasoning, at least the way you presented them:

1. If a media outlet caves in and refuses to show images, this is not a first amendment issue, just like if Chic-fil-A had images of Christ on its walls. It is a private establishment's choice, not a censored mandate from the government. If the gov't told ABC not to show an image, then we have an issue.

If a group cows due to feared reprecussions, this is not a First amendment issue.

2. Religious laws can be enforced, just not to the point that the government "favors" a certain religion. Tax dollars spent on Xmas on public land and not other holidays appears to favor one religion. Murder is a crime, yet also expressly forbidden in religious texts.

Also, government can, to a very limited extent, regulate religion. Sangria uses sacrifices, but the government has forbidden the use of anything "bigger" than a goat, I believe. Namely, they can't sacrifice humans.

3. Regarding Muslims and Mohammad, one could make the argument that posting images of the prophet are "fighting words", which are not protected speech. Fighting words are those that "a reasonable person" would react violently to, like racial epitaphs. So, if a reasonable Muslim could be proven to react to negative images of Mohammad, the showing of these images would not be free speech. Of course, this is tempered with a reasonable response, too.

In a bar, I insult Mohammad, you punch me. Perhaps that is fair. If instead, you burn my house down, that is not a reasonable response. I don't know what a reasonable response to ABC would be, though.

4. As far as what Muslims say IN AMERICA, this would be free speech, too, right? The government can't censor a religion. If the statements are too extreme, then they might not be protected then. I guess I don't know what American Muslims are saying.

5. Which group is the issue, radicals or mainstream Muslims? If it is radicals, there isn't much media can do, other than what they are doing, saying radicals are bad. If it is the radicals, we can't condemn the entire religion. Is Christianity bad because of the KKK, Nazis, and the Inquistion?

All in all, I think the issue is fear from retaliation, regardless of whether it is legal or not. The solution is a few brave souls or media outlets, who are credible, that speak out against these people. First would be the mainstream Muslims coming out and condemning these actions. But, they too, are afraid, or secretly part of the problem.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 10:06:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/13/2012 6:13:57 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Because we know how well forced atheism/secularism worked in places like Albania...oh wait...

Forbidding religious law does not mean mandating atheism. Derp, derp, derp. Voluntary associations ftw.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.