Ah yes. But, that's what the myth of the Devil is for. The truth you find via evidence can be the work of the Devil, and therefore you shouldn't trust anything Earthly, including evidence!
You should only trust in the BuyBull, because that's guaranteed to be the work of Gawd!
I can't be believe that some people can write such nonsense. As if they knew it all and had all the answers to all the world's mysteries. Self-centeredness? Conceit? Vanity? Narcissism? What would be the right word?
Though it seems to me for you it would make more sense to say:
"Feel the love. And then take responsibility for it instead of trying to butcher it on a whim you corrupt, immoral liberal". At least that would sound a little more in character I would think. hehe
True blasphemy concerns making fun of real people with real pain. Making light of slavery or discrimination or genocide is blasphemy. Making fun of mythology is not.
Unborn children haven't had that opportunity and they are innocent. I don't believe I have ever said that I believe all human life is equal.
You seem to value innocence very highly. Let's break it down and see what it is we're talking about. What is innocence to you, jethro? Usually, to be innocent of some act or thought, it has to be possible for you to commit that act or have that thought. Otherwise, we could say rocks are innocent, right?
So a sperm meets an egg, and it deposits its nuclear material into it, and you have a zygote. This zygote has not yet divided and made its way through exponential numbers of divisions from the miniscule world of cells, into our world of bodies, yet. Is this zygote an innocent human being, worthy of more human rights than the sinful adult human bodies around it?
If so, what is it about this thing that makes it an innocent human? It has no brain and is completely incapable of making any choices. It can't possibly have any free will, yet. Or can it? Not in the world of scientific inquiry, where free will is a product of brain activity. Remember that this thing has no organs yet, no brain, and no body.
Ok, so maybe it's not an innocent human, yet. At what point does it become one? What is the defining moment when an embryo becomes innocent, and worthy of more human rights than its mother?
You keep saying "more human rights." It is a loaded phrase that reaches the conclusion you want without addressing the reality. I say the unborn child has the right to life as do any other human being. However, the right to life can be taken away through due process of law based on certain violations of law.
a virgin giving birth and a bloke who walks on water, dies and comes back to life always sounded as mythologically bizarre to me as Vishnu on a snake and the half-man , half woman Hindu deity.
All I said was that it was blaspheme. And if you were honest, which I clearly see that you are not not capable of, you would know that I have said my position on abortion is not based on religion.
Well Fold, the Christian faith says its path alone is good and everyone else is doomed. The Muslims want to behead all the kafirs. The Hindus order everything by caste. The Buddhists condemn everyone who is not peaceful.
This judge will be looking for a new job soon... As well he should be.
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- A federal judge declared unconstitutional South Carolina's license plates with the anti-abortion slogan "Choose Life."
Senior U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman said last week that the specialty plates, approved by the Legislature in 2001, violate the First Amendment because they provide a forum for abortion foes that abortion rights supporters do not have.
Planned Parenthood had challenged the plates and won an injunction that kept them from being issued.
"It's wrong for the government to provide a forum for one group and discriminate by viewpoint," said Peter Murphy, an attorney for Planned Parenthood. "The only way to address this may be to eliminate the forum."
The state said it will appeal.
The decision conflicts with a ruling by a federal appeals court that said abortion rights advocates could not sue the state of Louisiana over its anti-abortion license plates.
South Carolina motorists would have to pay an extra fee for the plates.
Some nitwit made the comment:
Hah! Awesome! I love it when a judge does his job!
The judge didn't do his job. He imposed his own personal views, stupid.
I don't know. It says they needed the legislature to approve the "Choose Life" option. That doesn't sound like they could easily just get their own license plates. And I agree that the government shouldn't be allowing a venue to one viewpoint and not to others. It does strike me as a violation of the 1st Amendment also.
How is it a violation of the first amendment? As for choosing a political viewpoint or position government does that everyday. The problem is the butchers didn't like this viewpoint.
It wouldn't be violating separation of church and state because it's not strictly a religious issue or mandated by a religion. It's simply a matter of perception or personal belief that it's wrong. It doesn't have to be motivated by religion and there's no way of determining whom is or isn't. There are atheists against it because they see it as wrong. You can think that punching an old woman in the face is wrong or stealing is wrong or a whole host of things are wrong and not be even the slightist bit spiritual.
I would agree that it shouldn't be allowed by the state. The reason I do is not because I wouldn't like to see them, it's a matter of principal. It's alos a slippery slope and you'd have every interest group asking the state for them. Put on a bumper sticker of a sign in your window, it's much more effective and if everyone had those plates they'd blend in anyway and it would become ineffectual.
So Jethro, it's now govt's function to provide liscence plates that make political statements ?
There's bumper stickers etc. Now I might like to see them be made, but you start down that road and you have a whole new can of worms. Perhaps the KKK wants their own or PETA etc. etc.
Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't be upset if some judge let the pro-choice crowd have pro-choice plates ? Ask yourself if it's A) a legitimate function of govt. and B) What slippery slope does that put you on.
I think you may be confused on what the 1st Amendment is. I never said anything about it being a separation of church and state issue, nor is that what the 1st Amendment talks about. The 1st Amendment guarantees free speech (among other freedoms). Now that doesn't mean you can come into my house and say whatever you want and there's nothing I can do about it. It just means the *government* isn't supposed to be deciding what people can and can not say. But if the government allows some people to express their viewpoint via a government controlled medium and not others, then it seems to me they are indeed violating the 1st Amendment.
Either everyone should be able to put a slogan on their plates, whether it be "Choose life," "Choose anarchy", "Up the Orange" or whatever, or since that's rather impractical, such messages should be left off the plates entirely.
The 1st Amendment guarantees free speech (among other freedoms). Now that doesn't mean you can come into my house and say whatever you want and there's nothing I can do about it. It just means the *government* isn't supposed to be deciding what people can and can not say. But if the government allows some people to express their viewpoint via a government controlled medium and not others, then it seems to me they are indeed violating the 1st Amendment. No. the state has taken the position that it prefers life over abortion. The state can and does take political choices and actions all the time. There is no reason for the federal government to impose its view in this matter. Next question: What about the argument of the state's right to free speech?
Why? It seems clear to me that what a state allows on its plate is a state's business not federal judges. Apparently there is no end to what you think the Supreme Court should stick its nose in. I thought that this was supposed to be a free country not dictatorship by the judicairy.
My apologies for reading your post wrong. I still don't see it as a violation of free speech at this point but then again I don't think govt. ought to be getiing involved.
Jethro,
I would agree with you that the state should be allowed to decide and that the Supreme court ought to stay out of state business especially in a case like this. But I would then disagree with the state. The state ought ot not do it for the reasons I stated. If they want to they should do so but I think they are making a mistake.
BTW didn't MN have a similar proposal on the doclet last year or so ? It didn't pass if I remember or perhaps I am incorrect on the state.
Apparently there is no end to what you think the Supreme Court should stick its nose in.
Like stopping Florida's legal recounts? You confederacy proponentsstate's rights people only want the states to have the right to implement yourphilosophy. If the states do something you don't like, then you often do want the Federal Government to intervene. What about Califorina's right to legalize medical marijuana?
Whatever side people come down on we should remember that wether it be recounts, pot, abortion etc. The Supreme court has it's place for hearing apppeals.
Like stopping Florida's legal recounts? At least that concerned a federal office as well as a violation of federal statute.You confederacy proponents state's rights people only want the states to have the right to implement your philosophy. There you go again. You are wrong. The issue should be left up to the states where the people have much more influence over their government. It also allows for diversity of opinions say maybe 50 of them.If the states do something you don't like, then you often do want the Federal Government to intervene. No, again you are wrong.What about Califorina's right to legalize medical marijuana? That would be a state concern. You big federal government should be careful of what you ask for.
Whatever side people come down on we should remember that wether it be recounts, pot, abortion etc. The Supreme court has it's place for hearing apppeals.
think again, jethro. the first amendment gives it to the people directly, by preventing the congress from legislating against it, thereby overriding the provisions of the 10th amendment.
ares, do you have any clue to your meaning? I certainly don't. I think you need to read it again. it only prohibits Congress from "abridiging the freedom of speech..." You need a remedial reading course, dude!
amendment, the first: 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.
amendment, the tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
now. you wanna care to justify how it is that the 10th amendment grants freedom of speech to the individual state? the first amendment explicitly grants freedom of speech to the peoplenot the states. and since its enumerated therein, the 10th amendment is quite irrelevant.
amendment, the tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is no power delegated by the first amendment to Congress. It is a PROHIBITION.
you wanna care to justify how it is that the 10th amendment grants freedom of speech to the individual state? the first amendment explicitly grants freedom of speech to the people not the states. No it doesn't. It circumscribes Congressional power.and since its enumerated therein, the 10th amendment is quite irrelevant. Tell me where the free speech is denied to the states?
Hmmm, well after reading Ares' post I'll partially concede jethro's point. The Amendment seems to clearly state that Congress can not pass federal laws that abridge free speech. But I still maintain that the state law abridges free speech nonetheless. So what happens if a state passes a law that conflicts with a federal law? As a citizen of both, which one determines what my actual rights are?
States are not individuals. It's silly to say "the state" has a right to free speech since the state has no singular voice and doesn't actually say anything. Only people representing the state say anything and they have the same rights as any other individual.
But I still maintain that the state law abridges free speech nonetheless. It doesn't. No one is prevented from speaking.So what happens if a state passes a law that conflicts with a federal law? As a citizen of both, which one determines what my actual rights are? But there is no infringement of anyone's rights when it comes to the license plate issue.
States are not individuals. It's silly to say "the state" has a right to free speech since the state has no singular voice and doesn't actually say anything. The states are organizations that speak on issues all the time. Every statute or every ordinance is speech.Only people representing the state say anything and they have the same rights as any other individual. The people that represent the state are speaking on behalf of the state and its policies. Those policies are often different, at least to a degree, than the individuals speaking on behalf of the state.
hey what can i say? i give the wipe i use when i'm done on the toilet more respect than i give jethro most of the time.
Oh yes can't deal with the issue so you resort to such childish statements. You and fold should grow up. If either of you were half as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you would realize just how conceited and thoughtless you really are.
Hey, Allison, can I have "Feel the love!" for a new tag line?!!!!!!
someone posted this, somewhere:
I can't be believe that some people can write such nonsense. As if they knew it all and had all the answers to all the world's mysteries. Self-centeredness? Conceit? Vanity? Narcissism? What would be the right word?
stealing posts again from bhorc, jethro?
Sure. It's hardly like I came up with the phrase.
Though it seems to me for you it would make more sense to say:
"Feel the love. And then take responsibility for it instead of trying to butcher it on a whim you corrupt, immoral liberal". At least that would sound a little more in character I would think. hehe
Satire?
No, I don't think satire is the right word. Blaspheme, maybe?
No. It is satire.
True blasphemy concerns making fun of real people with real pain. Making light of slavery or discrimination or genocide is blasphemy. Making fun of mythology is not.
You seem to value innocence very highly. Let's break it down and see what it is we're talking about. What is innocence to you, jethro? Usually, to be innocent of some act or thought, it has to be possible for you to commit that act or have that thought. Otherwise, we could say rocks are innocent, right?
So a sperm meets an egg, and it deposits its nuclear material into it, and you have a zygote. This zygote has not yet divided and made its way through exponential numbers of divisions from the miniscule world of cells, into our world of bodies, yet. Is this zygote an innocent human being, worthy of more human rights than the sinful adult human bodies around it?
If so, what is it about this thing that makes it an innocent human? It has no brain and is completely incapable of making any choices. It can't possibly have any free will, yet. Or can it? Not in the world of scientific inquiry, where free will is a product of brain activity. Remember that this thing has no organs yet, no brain, and no body.
Ok, so maybe it's not an innocent human, yet. At what point does it become one? What is the defining moment when an embryo becomes innocent, and worthy of more human rights than its mother?
Making fun of mythology is not.
The fact you say it is mythology is blaspheme.
You keep saying "more human rights." It is a loaded phrase that reaches the conclusion you want without addressing the reality. I say the unborn child has the right to life as do any other human being. However, the right to life can be taken away through due process of law based on certain violations of law.
Which "Mythology" are you speaking of, and why is "IT" "Blaspheme"?
If you want to join the conversation go back a few posts and read.
a virgin giving birth and a bloke who walks on water, dies and comes back to life always sounded as mythologically bizarre to me as Vishnu on a snake and the half-man , half woman Hindu deity.
All I said was that it was blaspheme. And if you were honest, which I clearly see that you are not not capable of, you would know that I have said my position on abortion is not based on religion.
AS USUAL, that answer was pretty useless. And, contradictory.
No, not at all. I am sorry you are incapable of understanding.
Well Fold, the Christian faith says its path alone is good and everyone else is doomed. The Muslims want to behead all the kafirs. The Hindus order everything by caste. The Buddhists condemn everyone who is not peaceful.
Guess I will remain a pagan.
This judge will be looking for a new job soon... As well he should be.
COLUMBIA, South Carolina (AP) -- A federal judge declared unconstitutional South Carolina's license plates with the anti-abortion slogan "Choose Life."
Senior U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman said last week that the specialty plates, approved by the Legislature in 2001, violate the First Amendment because they provide a forum for abortion foes that abortion rights supporters do not have.
Planned Parenthood had challenged the plates and won an injunction that kept them from being issued.
"It's wrong for the government to provide a forum for one group and discriminate by viewpoint," said Peter Murphy, an attorney for Planned Parenthood. "The only way to address this may be to eliminate the forum."
The state said it will appeal.
The decision conflicts with a ruling by a federal appeals court that said abortion rights advocates could not sue the state of Louisiana over its anti-abortion license plates.
South Carolina motorists would have to pay an extra fee for the plates.
Some nitwit made the comment:
The judge didn't do his job. He imposed his own personal views, stupid.
I thought the immoral b******* were for choice. Why don't they get theri own plate. It could say: Choose butchery!!
I don't know. It says they needed the legislature to approve the "Choose Life" option. That doesn't sound like they could easily just get their own license plates. And I agree that the government shouldn't be allowing a venue to one viewpoint and not to others. It does strike me as a violation of the 1st Amendment also.
How is it a violation of the first amendment? As for choosing a political viewpoint or position government does that everyday. The problem is the butchers didn't like this viewpoint.
A.W
It wouldn't be violating separation of church and state because it's not strictly a religious issue or mandated by a religion. It's simply a matter of perception or personal belief that it's wrong. It doesn't have to be motivated by religion and there's no way of determining whom is or isn't. There are atheists against it because they see it as wrong. You can think that punching an old woman in the face is wrong or stealing is wrong or a whole host of things are wrong and not be even the slightist bit spiritual.
I would agree that it shouldn't be allowed by the state. The reason I do is not because I wouldn't like to see them, it's a matter of principal. It's alos a slippery slope and you'd have every interest group asking the state for them. Put on a bumper sticker of a sign in your window, it's much more effective and if everyone had those plates they'd blend in anyway and it would become ineffectual.
I would agree that it shouldn't be allowed by the state.
Who should decide whether it should be allowed?
So Jethro, it's now govt's function to provide liscence plates that make political statements ?
There's bumper stickers etc. Now I might like to see them be made, but you start down that road and you have a whole new can of worms. Perhaps the KKK wants their own or PETA etc. etc.
Can you honestly tell me you wouldn't be upset if some judge let the pro-choice crowd have pro-choice plates ? Ask yourself if it's A) a legitimate function of govt. and B) What slippery slope does that put you on.
I think you may be confused on what the 1st Amendment is. I never said anything about it being a separation of church and state issue, nor is that what the 1st Amendment talks about. The 1st Amendment guarantees free speech (among other freedoms). Now that doesn't mean you can come into my house and say whatever you want and there's nothing I can do about it. It just means the *government* isn't supposed to be deciding what people can and can not say. But if the government allows some people to express their viewpoint via a government controlled medium and not others, then it seems to me they are indeed violating the 1st Amendment.
Either everyone should be able to put a slogan on their plates, whether it be "Choose life," "Choose anarchy", "Up the Orange" or whatever, or since that's rather impractical, such messages should be left off the plates entirely.
Maybe they want them but the state doesn't have to give them.
Who should decide whether it should be allowed?
The Supreme Court.
Mwah ha ha ha ha.
The 1st Amendment guarantees free speech (among other freedoms). Now that doesn't mean you can come into my house and say whatever you want and there's nothing I can do about it. It just means the *government* isn't supposed to be deciding what people can and can not say. But if the government allows some people to express their viewpoint via a government controlled medium and not others, then it seems to me they are indeed violating the 1st Amendment. No. the state has taken the position that it prefers life over abortion. The state can and does take political choices and actions all the time. There is no reason for the federal government to impose its view in this matter. Next question: What about the argument of the state's right to free speech?
Who should decide whether it should be allowed?
The Supreme Court.
Why? It seems clear to me that what a state allows on its plate is a state's business not federal judges. Apparently there is no end to what you think the Supreme Court should stick its nose in. I thought that this was supposed to be a free country not dictatorship by the judicairy.
AW,
My apologies for reading your post wrong. I still don't see it as a violation of free speech at this point but then again I don't think govt. ought to be getiing involved.
Jethro,
I would agree with you that the state should be allowed to decide and that the Supreme court ought to stay out of state business especially in a case like this. But I would then disagree with the state. The state ought ot not do it for the reasons I stated. If they want to they should do so but I think they are making a mistake.
BTW didn't MN have a similar proposal on the doclet last year or so ? It didn't pass if I remember or perhaps I am incorrect on the state.
since when does the state have the right to free speech, jethro?
BTW didn't MN have a similar proposal on the doclet last year or so ? It didn't pass if I remember or perhaps I am incorrect on the state.
I don't know. Anyone else know?
since when does the state have the right to free speech, jethro?
Why wouldn't a state? Don't you think a state has such a right?
Like stopping Florida's legal recounts? You
confederacy proponentsstate's rights people only want the states to have the right to implement yourphilosophy. If the states do something you don't like, then you often do want the Federal Government to intervene. What about Califorina's right to legalize medical marijuana?Whatever side people come down on we should remember that wether it be recounts, pot, abortion etc. The Supreme court has it's place for hearing apppeals.
well, jethro, its certainly not granted to the states in the constitution.
Like stopping Florida's legal recounts? At least that concerned a federal office as well as a violation of federal statute.You confederacy proponents state's rights people only want the states to have the right to implement your philosophy. There you go again. You are wrong. The issue should be left up to the states where the people have much more influence over their government. It also allows for diversity of opinions say maybe 50 of them.If the states do something you don't like, then you often do want the Federal Government to intervene. No, again you are wrong.What about Califorina's right to legalize medical marijuana? That would be a state concern. You big federal government should be careful of what you ask for.
Whatever side people come down on we should remember that wether it be recounts, pot, abortion etc. The Supreme court has it's place for hearing apppeals.
As long as it is a federal issue, I agree.
well, jethro, its certainly not granted to the states in the constitution.
I guess it is one that reserved to the states by the the 10th Amendment.
think again, jethro. the first amendment gives it to the people directly, by preventing the congress from legislating against it, thereby overriding the provisions of the 10th amendment.
ares, do you have any clue to your meaning? I certainly don't. I think you need to read it again. it only prohibits Congress from "abridiging the freedom of speech..." You need a remedial reading course, dude!
fold, you can only dream of being up to ares level.
amendment, the first: 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.
amendment, the tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
now. you wanna care to justify how it is that the 10th amendment grants freedom of speech to the individual state? the first amendment explicitly grants freedom of speech to the peoplenot the states. and since its enumerated therein, the 10th amendment is quite irrelevant.
amendment, the tenth: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is no power delegated by the first amendment to Congress. It is a PROHIBITION.
you wanna care to justify how it is that the 10th amendment grants freedom of speech to the individual state? the first amendment explicitly grants freedom of speech to the people not the states. No it doesn't. It circumscribes Congressional power.and since its enumerated therein, the 10th amendment is quite irrelevant. Tell me where the free speech is denied to the states?
Hmmm, well after reading Ares' post I'll partially concede jethro's point. The Amendment seems to clearly state that Congress can not pass federal laws that abridge free speech. But I still maintain that the state law abridges free speech nonetheless. So what happens if a state passes a law that conflicts with a federal law? As a citizen of both, which one determines what my actual rights are?
States are not individuals. It's silly to say "the state" has a right to free speech since the state has no singular voice and doesn't actually say anything. Only people representing the state say anything and they have the same rights as any other individual.
precisely, aw. jethro is so into reading into the intent of the framers. i think they were just a bit smarter than that.
hey what can i say? i give the wipe i use when i'm done on the toilet more respect than i give jethro most of the time.
Yeeeeeesh!
actually, that's almost tagline material.
But I still maintain that the state law abridges free speech nonetheless. It doesn't. No one is prevented from speaking.So what happens if a state passes a law that conflicts with a federal law? As a citizen of both, which one determines what my actual rights are? But there is no infringement of anyone's rights when it comes to the license plate issue.
States are not individuals. It's silly to say "the state" has a right to free speech since the state has no singular voice and doesn't actually say anything. The states are organizations that speak on issues all the time. Every statute or every ordinance is speech.Only people representing the state say anything and they have the same rights as any other individual. The people that represent the state are speaking on behalf of the state and its policies. Those policies are often different, at least to a degree, than the individuals speaking on behalf of the state.
hey what can i say? i give the wipe i use when i'm done on the toilet more respect than i give jethro most of the time.
Oh yes can't deal with the issue so you resort to such childish statements. You and fold should grow up. If either of you were half as intelligent as you seem to think you are, you would realize just how conceited and thoughtless you really are.