- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:14 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Clearly. Have you read the old testament?
Yes, and just about every historical event since then.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:15 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Now, let's say that my sincerely held religious belief requires human sacrifice. Is it your legal opinion that I would be able to engage in human sacrifice without legal consequence? If the state would endeavor to stop me from practicing ritual human sacrifice, would that not be abridging my right to the free exercise of my religious beliefs, as enshrined in the First Amendment?
That’s a pretty big jump from what we’re talking about here.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:16 am to OleWar
quote:
Yes, and just about every historical event since then.
Then you know that, while we can quibble over whether god(s) should be held to such a standard, it is beyond argument that the god of the old testament would not be considered "decent" by our standards of human decency.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:17 am to shawnlsu
Im with you. Im related to the judge too and think this was a terrible decision.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:19 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
That’s a pretty big jump from what we’re talking about here.
Certainly.
Doesn't change the fact that either the First Amendment is absolute, or it isn't. If I can't practice ritual human sacrifice, then it isn't. And if it isn't, we should move to debating whether the current status quo passes a strict scrutiny test, which requires the state to have a compelling interest in the limitation of the right, and whether the state has narrowly tailored that limitation to meet said compelling interest.
In short, the "hur dur the amendment says..." people should stop.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:20 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
That’s a pretty big jump from what we’re talking about here.
So you agree it’s not an absolute right
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:21 am to jonboy
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/1/20 at 1:48 am
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:22 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
That’s a pretty big jump from what we’re talking about here.
It is an extreme jump, but he is making the point of the contradiction and inherent conflict between a civic majority and a religious minority.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:25 am to JAlohaM
USSR of A
Hope you pussies are happy.
Hope you pussies are happy.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:32 am to tLSU
quote:
A community has the right to protect itself against an epidimic of disease which threatens the safety of its members."
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).
"The family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation…. The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death...."
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)
That’s dangerous language. “Communicable disease”, “ill-health and “threatens the safety” covers everything, including the common cold. I don’t agree with the government giving itself power to strip my constitutional freedoms whenever it sees fit.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:33 am to Joshjrn
quote:
god of the old testament would not be considered "decent" by our standards of human decency.
My thought is that the God of the Old Testament that unleashed plagues and floods and other things, would have continued on doing these things right up to present day and in general the reasons would be the same.
I guess my point if that as a Christian you must believe that this plague is an act of God as much as the ones cited in the Bible.
The argument then becomes how should Christians behave.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:33 am to olgoi khorkhoi
Hope tony is wearing 6 pairs of white underwear because he’s going to be spending a few nights going forward in parish jail
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:36 am to JAlohaM
This man be the biggest jerk on earth however, his constitutional rights are being trampled upon.
Meanwhile in Minneapolis Minnesota they (Muslims) are now doing public call to pray five times a day.
Meanwhile in Minneapolis Minnesota they (Muslims) are now doing public call to pray five times a day.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:39 am to Elleshoe
He wants to go to jail. It will make national headlines and a lot of nimrods will donate money for his victim hood cause
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:40 am to JAlohaM
Dude is still gonna come out ahead in the $$ game. With getting the stimulus checks from his flock, more people wanting to stick it to the man attending his services when he starts up, etc. Ole baw on easy street.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:41 am to red sox fan 13
quote:
We are becoming the Soviet Union. I never thought I’d see the day when Christianity was outlawed in the United States if America, but here we are. Sad day .
He was arrested for using his vehicle as a weapon trying to back over somebody. Not for having church.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:41 am to red sox fan 13
quote:
I never thought I’d see the day when Christianity was outlawed in the United States if America,
And I thought I would never see the day the collection plate was more important than the congregation.
Can you please refer me to anywhere in the bible it says one must attend church on Sunday?
hint: It aint there and has zero to do with Christianity
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:46 am to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
then to the USSC, right?
Do you even SCOTUS, brah.
Posted on 4/26/20 at 9:55 am to BestBanker
It's not a "counter to a right." It's a case that recognizes that the rights discussed in the Constitution, and particularly religious freedom, is not limitless in scope. It's been cited 9,000 times.
You may very well believe this is his right. The Supreme Court says you're wrong.
You may very well believe this is his right. The Supreme Court says you're wrong.
This post was edited on 4/26/20 at 9:56 am
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News