This is the kind of thing that happens when a society accepts homosexuality

It isn't.

Predictably and as ever, you're confused.
All these pages and you don't actually know what my argument is , but you've been trying to argue against it.
That's pretty dumb even by your standards.

...whereas you obviously don't, or you wouldn't be trying to use that.
On the other hand you are clearly inclined to pick up anything to throw against an argument, even when you don't actually know what the argument is.

I see you've returned to that perverse form of absurd response where you learn something, so that means, I learned something.
Not very convincing.

Prohibiting the making of any law which is respecting an establishment of religion, is the exact opposite intent for any so called "right" to establish religion.
You really are being too ridiculous.

The "protection" is in your head.
There was no "protection" to endorse religion, anymore than there was "protection" to endorse slavery.

The omission of one and an exclusion for the other in the Constitution does not suggest "protection".
Unless you are deviant toward the Constitution of course.

Yes I can see that. Making a complete ass of yourself is evidently easy for you.


The ethos is freedom.
Freedom is not the imposition of a superstitious christian or other belief onto the people through any government state or fed.
If you want to practice that nonsense in your own home in your own state then fine.
But you, nor any state, nor the government, should have the ability to force anyone through law to practice juju if they don't want.
That is what the Constitution is protecting.

Get a clue.

 

Since stu can not even explain... what he is trying to say.

I will point out again that...

Article 6 does not say what Stu pretends it says...

And that we know I am correct about the establishment clause not being applied to the states until there was a 14th amendment... because the supreme court said so.

 

So this is what religious apologetics looks like when it accomplishes utter denial.

The christian brainwashing so complete in distorting perception, that even the direct and precise wording of the United States Constitution is a pretence.

Whoever "we" is, you are not correct Jem.
Here's a tip. If you ignore what I am saying, then you are going to continue looking silly and ignorant arguing with yourself.

You've just been informed that the establishment clause being applied by the Supreme Court, is not my argument. In fact it is yours.

I merely pointed out the irony in the Bill of Rights you said was supposed to protect religion from government.
But in reality it had the effect of removing religion from all government by constituting in law how state governance as well as fed, was intended to be free from, and free of, the very thing you imagine the country was founded on.

You can't come to terms with that so "we" get a whole lot of illogical nonsense from you about so called law the Supreme Court has never made, along with a bunch of state constitution cut&paste that was always out of line with the Constitution anyway, as confirmed in the Bill of Rights.

Freedom is not about having religion forced upon someone as a condition of government office or anything else. The Constitution always protected against that.

That certain states wouldn't follow that manifestly self-evident truth, but were later made to do so by the 14th Amendment, does not make their inappropriate religiously based constitutions right, or good law, whilst they were out of line with the ethos of the Constitution and underlying framework in the 1st Amendment; in which the Founders saw a danger, especially including an exclusion for any religion.

It's so obvious everything starts with freedom and liberty , it's laughable watching you trying to put some infantile superstitious christian beliefs in front.

 

Stu vs. the Supreme Court.

In the past it has been:

Stu vs. noble prize winning physicists (whether our universe appears designed)
Stu vs. the dictionary (definition of atheist)
Stu vs. Josepheus ( whether there is a historical record of Jesus)

Only a zealout whose mind is not open to fact and science ...would make anyu of the claims you have made.

In this argument I refer to the Supreme Court. You just make shit up.




Why, because the U.S. Supreme Court defines the law in situation.

Nothing Stu can do to change that.

Its ironic that instead of discussing case law to support his delusions... he prefers to try and discredit the messanger.




1. You have no support for your statement that Article 6 had any impact on the states ties to religion during our nations first 100 years.

In fact you produced no case law at all on any point.

I understand you do not understand authority... but that is pathetic.

2. I produce case law showing the establishment clause and the rest of the bill of rights could not be applied to the states until after the passage of the 14 th amendment.

The establishment clause was part of the bill or right protecting the states from too strong a federal govt.

and I produced a U.S. Supreme court that cited all those state ties to Religion.

Those citations can not be denied by any one who can read.

3. You have produced nothing but atheist delusion in support of you initial argument that the establishment clause prevented the states from having ties to religion. You belief is counter factual... Which makes it delusional.

4. Your belief that Article 6 prevented states from having ties to religion for the first 100 years of our nations history.... is the manifestation of a warped reality.

On its face Article 6 only addresses a very limited scope of activities. It can also be argued it only applies to Federal offices.

so for you to be right you would have to show history and U.S. Supreme Court case law. You have done neither. And once again your arguments run counter to historical fact.

 

Nope, no good Jem. The arguments you've tried to make are untenable and absurd.
Of course they are, your only answer to the points raised against them, is to is to keep repeating the same dumb arguments.

If you ever did stop grabbing at staws to summon enough intellect to even follow what’s going on, you'd understand at least two simple things.

1..
(a.) Historical fact: The US Constitution specifically excludes and rejects the use of religion in government. So do Amendments/Bill of Rights.
(b.) Historical fact: The Supreme Court has never passed any law at any time declaring the country was founded on [christian] religion.
(c.) Historical fact: With no law anywhere to found this country on religion this country is not founded on [christian] religion. duh!

2.
That the "noble prize winning physicists" you constantly refer to
(a.) is nothing to do with any of this
(b.) is not a nobel prize winning physicist
(c) you’re quite happy to be dishonest in what you assert as he did make it completely and perfectly clear in his own video by saying, the universe appears designed but it isn't.

Bit of friendly advice. Don't be dick brain all your life.

 

Regarding physics.

You know damn well the noble prize winning physicist said that the universe we live in looks spectacularly designed. But, the scientist proposes there almost infinite universes which therefore combats the inference of designer.


Now I will produce another quote on the subject.
--


Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137

 

Before you "produce another quote on the subject" which actually is not on the subject, are you done with mutilating Constitution and Supreme Court law?

Absurdity is a big contributor in the making of your un-grounded argument for the country being founded on religion, so being an idiot is obviously not helping you get out of it.


First off it's Nobel, not noble. you uneducated dimmy. Not the first time you've done that. At least 6 or 7 times previously and before you try to squirm yet again, it can be no more a typo than when you used the word site for cite.

If you're going to use "typing fast" or "my browser isn't working properly" as you also do, then why not stop posting until you can type within your capabilities (which would seem to be about 1 word per hour) or get your computer fixed, which must be trying to dumb itself down to get as stupid as you are.

Second, the Nobel prize winning physicist you are indirectly referring to would be (Susskind) . He is not a Nobel prize winning scientist.

Third, he (Susskind) said that the universe we live in looks spectacularly designed but it isn't.


btw. you've no credibility left. Even the Jesus guy can't believe how dumb you are being.

 

Why don't you check to see who introduced both the scientists to you.

Why don't you check to see the dozens of times I spelled nobel correctly..

Regarding Susskind you are incorrect - Susskind says that he believes our universe is not designed because he believes that we will find there are almost infinite other universes.

When you understand what Susskind has said... you will close the door on you atheist delusion.

---------

 

Are you a closet gay ????
A quote from another post of yours ... "long & hard"... . The facts are strongly suggesting you are a homosexual peil !!!!!