Multiculturalism

[BotanyBoy]

The Queen is the head of state. That's what we in the business call a fact.

A symbolic one yes, not effectively though.

She doesn't run shit, can't wage war and can't create, pass or enforce law.

She's an English hood ornament/tourist attraction there to conduct ceremony and keep tradition alive.

The Iranian political system is complex but nobody is forced to be a muslim as you've stated is the case under sharia.

Well they openly persecute Jews, Christians and brutally savages anyone who breaks Islamic law which provides ZERO concessions for religious among many other freedoms and calls for the destruction of infidels.

That's forcing Islam under sharia. Bigger than shit.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy.

Yea, one that enforces Islamic law and deeply intertwined with the religious hierarchy of the state. Once again, a textbook definition of a theocracy.

Your assertions have been refuted. Grow up will you?

No they haven't, you just try to dodge reality and talk shit....as usual.

 

[phrodeau]

A symbolic one yes, not effectively though.

She doesn't run shit, can't wage war and can't create, pass or enforce law.

She's an English hood ornament/tourist attraction there to conduct ceremony and keep tradition alive.



Well they openly persecute Jews, Christians and brutally savages anyone who breaks Islamic law which provides ZERO concessions for religious among many other freedoms and calls for the destruction of infidels.

That's forcing Islam under sharia. Bigger than shit.



Yea, one that enforces Islamic law and deeply intertwined with the religious hierarchy of the state. Once again, a textbook definition of a theocracy.




No they haven't, you just try to dodge reality and talk shit....as usual.

Iran is not persecuting Christians to any greater degree than America is persecuting Muslims. You really should do some research on your topic.

While you're at it, look up neo-liberal.

 

[Sean]

Nope, no theocracy in the US, no sirree.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-hobby-child-20160819-snap-story.html

 

[eyerami]

Nope, no theocracy in the US, no sirree.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-hobby-child-20160819-snap-story.html

You just need to point the law to exactly where...

...the US has the separation of church and state written into its constitution...

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=79809520&postcount=271

...wannabe.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif

 

[Sean Renaud]

Which is to say you don't know shit about the UK parliamentary form of government.

Ishmael

No, I really don't. Is that something that I'm supposed to have learned in school?

 

[Sean]

You just need to point the law to exactly where...



...wannabe.

That would be the establishment clause of the First Amendment, Eeyore. I can explain it further to you, but educating morons is like pissing in the wind.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Iran is not persecuting Christians to any greater degree than America is persecuting Muslims. You really should do some research on your topic.

While you're at it, look up neo-liberal.

When America starts committing human rights violations on a grand scale against the Muslim community including unjust detainment, torture and large scale exicitutions just for being Muslim then you can say that.

Till then you take your goofy assertion that the USA's level of religious persecution is no different than Irans and blow it out your ignorant ass. You really should do some research on your topic.

I did, it has your picture next to it with the words "Freedom for me but not for the!".

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nope, no theocracy in the US, no sirree.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-hobby-child-20160819-snap-story.html

As much as you might hate Christians, respecting their right to be assholes doesn't make the US a theocracy.....you ignorant cunt.

 

[eyerami]

That would be the establishment clause of the First Amendment, Eeyore. I can explain it further to you, but educating morons is like pissing in the wind.

"explain it further"?



That's funny, wannabe.

Why don't you simply quote exactly where your imagined "separation of church and state" is "written" in the Constitution?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Amendment I. 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.


There you are moron.

 

[Bookishleigh]

The Constitution, like all legal documents, is subject to interpretation. Since the founding fathers are no longer around, we cannot exactly ask them what their exact intentions where and how they would have liked them applied to our evolving society. Thomas Jefferson, however, is the one who made commentary as to the "wall of separation" and the Supreme Court has used that as its basis to enforce the separation of church and state in several legal opinions.

 

[Conager]

The Constitution, like all legal documents, is subject to interpretation. Since the founding fathers are no longer around, we cannot exactly ask them what their exact intentions where and how they would have liked them applied to our evolving society. Thomas Jefferson, however, is the one who made commentary as to the "wall of separation" and the Supreme Court has used that as its basis to enforce the separation of church and state in several legal opinions.

Your statement contradicts itself, counselor. We have voluminous writings of founding fathers in order to be able to discern intent. Typically though those writings are ignored if they don't fit whatever narrative is desired. By either side.

 

[eyerami]

Got a Franklin for anyone who can literally quote exactly where "the separation of church and state" is "written into" the Constitution...

 

[Disgustipated]

Got a Franklin

http://i.imgur.com/EcCmc3J.jpg

 

[Sean Renaud]

Your statement contradicts itself, counselor. We have voluminous writings of founding fathers in order to be able to discern intent. Typically though those writings are ignored if they don't fit whatever narrative is desired. By either side.

Because much of it contradicts other parts. The reality is that we talk about the Founding Fathers as some sort of hive mind and they were not.

 

[Conager]

Amendment I. 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.


There you are moron.

You and Sean are wrong, Fermina is correct. The idea that the separation of the state from churches somehow goes the other way is in no way contained within the black letter words contained in the Constitution. SCOTUS used a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a friend to assert that new point of law. Nothing in the Constitution has the force of law that you suggest. The interpretation by the Supreme Court does.

Even the fact that Supreme Court decisions have the force of law is simply the Supreme Court bootstrapping. Without Marbury the Supreme Court doesn't have that power no where in the constitution is it granted to the Supreme Court.

I dare say that I am a bigger fan of Thomas Jefferson and his writings then either of you are and I happen to agree with the wisdom of he is suggesting in this particular case interfering with whatever decisions that the citizens of the various sovereign states chose to do amongst themselves with regard to religion. Several States had actual state official religions and were not in conflict with the Constitution.

This is very much analogous to why the Heller decision is wrong. I happen to be a huge fan of the Heller Decision. It is constitutionally wrong however. just as the first amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a national state religion the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from having any say-so about the right to keep and bear arms among the citizens of the various sovereign states who are free to do as they wish in that regard which they could and did at the time.

The reason SCOTUS had to decide Heller the way they did was to protect the incorporation clause which of course is a complete bastardization of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause contained in the 14th Amendment was clearly written to mean that the 14th Amendment is incorporated not that all of the other amendments which clearly were not incorporated historically or by actual black letter law would then going forward be incorporated. But if you want to incorporate the First Amendment you have to incorporate the Second as well.

 

[Conager]

Because much of it contradicts other parts. The reality is that we talk about the Founding Fathers as some sort of hive mind and they were not.

Only in that it is a consensus document, and spirited, well documented debate resulted in the words we agreed to be bound by to this day. We know who advanced what and why, and who had reservations or even dissented. If we want to relitigate what the clearly understood meaning of the document is now, they helpfully provided the amendment process.

That onerous hurdle is a design feature, not a bug. It is a big burden to a lot of modern lawyering which is why law schools teach the invented concept of a living document. Without Marberry, there would be no way to vary the meaning one jot or tittle.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Only in that it is a consensus document, and spirited, well documented debate resulted in the words we agreed to be bound by to this day. We know who advanced what and why, and who had reservations or even dissented. If we want to relitigate what the clearly understood meaning of the document is now, they helpfully provided the amendment process.

That onerous hurdle is a design feature, not a bug. It is a big burden to a lot of modern lawyering which is why law schools teach the invented concept of a living document. Without Marberry, there would be no way to vary the meaning one jot or tittle.

I agree that they provide important insights into what they were thinking. But when you recognize that it was a consensus document written by intelligent men you have to assume that the dissenters had some input on the final wording and forsaw at least SOME of the debates we have today. The truth is they are dead and the dead don't matter.

With out Marbury there would be no way to vary it. . .but that case was in 1803 and involved and original framer. That's close enough to the originators for my tastes.

Not that I for the life of me understand why anybody gives a shit.

 

[Conager]

I agree that they provide important insights into what they were thinking. But when you recognize that it was a consensus document written by intelligent men you have to assume that the dissenters had some input on the final wording and forsaw at least SOME of the debates we have today. The truth is they are dead and the dead don't matter.

With out Marbury there would be no way to vary it. . .but that case was in 1803 and involved and original framer. That's close enough to the originators for my tastes.

Not that I for the life of me understand why anybody gives a shit.

No one does give a shit unless and until it means something important to you is infringed upon, or it infringes upon something that you wish to do and are proscribed from doing so. The words Obama read from lecture notes he did not author speaks to the latter frustration.

and yes they very much for saw our times which is why they provided the amendment option and since there are certain things that certain parts of the country are never going to be able to agree on the only sane and rational thing to do would be to break this country up into manageable chunks with actual representation. That's never going to happen though because we are spending 4 trillion dollars (40% of it is phony money) per year. since States cannot do without suckling at that time and are not able to create phony money themselves the system as it stands will continue until of course it won't. Because the one thing that all Economist agree upon is that if something is unsustainable it cannot be sustained indefinitely. of course then you have to get down in the weeds and argue about what is sustainable and of course the vast majority of people who call themselves economists work in the government or academic industrial complexes and have a vested interest in pretending that we can continue to spend 40% more than we have indefinitely. Which of course is not true by any rational stretch of the imagination.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No one does give a shit unless and until it means something important to you is infringed upon, or it infringes upon something that you wish to do and are proscribed from doing so. The words Obama read from lecture notes he did not author speaks to the latter frustration.

and yes they very much for saw our times which is why they provided the amendment option and since there are certain things that certain parts of the country are never going to be able to agree on the only sane and rational thing to do would be to break this country up into manageable chunks with actual representation. That's never going to happen though because we are spending 4 trillion dollars (40% of it is phony money) per year. since States cannot do without suckling at that time and are not able to create phony money themselves the system as it stands will continue until of course it won't. Because the one thing that all Economist agree upon is that if something is unsustainable it cannot be sustained indefinitely. of course then you have to get down in the weeds and argue about what is sustainable and of course the vast majority of people who call themselves economists work in the government or academic industrial complexes and have a vested interest in pretending that we can continue to spend 40% more than we have indefinitely. Which of course is not true by any rational stretch of the imagination.

I would say nobody gives a shit until they are losing a debate but close enough. We seem to be in agreement there.

But the money is fake. All of it, not 40% (and we're down considerably from that number. You're talking 2008 numbers if I'm not mistaken) it is sustainable.

 

[underguy1]

A symbolic one yes, not effectively though.

She doesn't run shit, can't wage war and can't create, pass or enforce law.

She's an English hood ornament/tourist attraction there to conduct ceremony and keep tradition alive.

You were wrong about her being head of state but are too juvenile to admit the mistake. You are also wrong about the political power of the royalty.

Well they openly persecute Jews, Christians and brutally savages anyone who breaks Islamic law which provides ZERO concessions for religious among many other freedoms and calls for the destruction of infidels.

That's forcing Islam under sharia. Bigger than shit.

That's just complete bullshit. You're not travelled at all. You just read islamophobic web sites and swallow the war propaganda whole.

Read a fucking book will you?

Yea, one that enforces Islamic law and deeply intertwined with the religious hierarchy of the state. Once again, a textbook definition of a theocracy.

Ah, so you've changed your previously stated definition of a theocracy, And apparently the text books have changed with you.

Laughable.

No they haven't, you just try to dodge reality and talk shit....as usual.

You're getting your arse kicked again. You're just too childish to admit it.

Your username should be Walter Mitty.

 

[underguy1]

When America starts committing human rights violations on a grand scale against the Muslim community including unjust detainment, torture and large scale exicitutions just for being Muslim then you can say that.

Till then you take your goofy assertion that the USA's level of religious persecution is no different than Irans and blow it out your ignorant ass. You really should do some research on your topic.

I did, it has your picture next to it with the words "Freedom for me but not for the!".

America has killed over 4 million muslims in the past decade. It has muslims locked up in a vast gulag of torture centres all over the world.

It assassinates muslims on a daily basis in numerous countries by drone strikes and black ops.

It is behind the wars in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Ethiopia and Eritrea among others.

So blow your own ignorant assertions, Captain America.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's just complete bullshit. You're not travelled at all. You just read islamophobic web sites and swallow the war propaganda whole.

No it's not according to the entire industrialized 1st world.

America has killed over 4 million muslims in the past decade. It has muslims locked up in a vast gulag of torture centres all over the world.

It assassinates muslims on a daily basis in numerous countries by drone strikes and black ops.

It is behind the wars in Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Ethiopia and Eritrea among others.

So blow your own ignorant assertions, Captain America.

Yea in 3rd world shit holes who started shit, that's what happens when you fuck with M'uricuh. Those people are savages and should be treated as such until they learn how the fuck to behave.

We don't treat our citizens anything like we treat our enemies and we sure as don't treat them anywhere near as badly as the Islamic theocracies of the middle east treat theirs.

 

[underguy1]

No it's not according to the entire industrialized 1st world.



Yea in 3rd world shit holes who started shit, that's what happens when you fuck with M'uricuh. Those people are savages and should be treated as such until they learn how the fuck to behave.

We don't treat our citizens anything like we treat our enemies and we sure as don't treat them anywhere near as badly as the Islamic theocracies of the middle east treat theirs.

You're a childish racist Team America moron.

And don't insult anyone's intelligence by whining that the highlighted sentence isn't proof of your overt racism.

You whine like a little girl.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're a childish racist Team America moron.

And don't insult anyone's intelligence by whining that the highlighted sentence isn't proof of your overt racism.

You whine like a little girl.

A slight nationalist maybe but not a racist.