Welcome to Thunderdome

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:56 pm**

GORDON wrote:And that is what I have been saying from the beginning, and now everyone is on board: banning a building does not persecute a religion.

Banning a building is insane.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:59 pm**

GORDON wrote:And that is what I have been saying from the beginning, and now everyone is on board: banning a building does not persecute a religion.

I never said that. In fact, I said ...

But if you banned images of the Cross of the Star of David, you are indeed persecuting Christians or Jews.

If you think it isn't, then you're either claiming :

(i) Freedom of religion isn't guaranteed.

or

(ii) Freedom of religion IS guaranteed, but only as some abstract, intrinsic relationship between you & the imaginary/divine spiritual being(s) of your choice. Then maybe that guarantee doesn't extend to the physical world -- i.e., you can believe in whatever god you want, but damned if you can build whatever concrete structure to worship him because someone is made uncomfortable by it.

If you can use the logic in (ii) to bullshit your way around what's written into our own Bill of Rights as "inalienable," then you can apply the same argument to something like freedom of speech w\ frightening results. Sure, you're free to think whatever you want, provided you don't actually say it or write it down -- it might make someone uncomfortable.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:02 pm**

Malcolm wrote:(i) Freedom of religion isn't guaranteed.

or

(ii) Freedom of religion IS guaranteed, but only as some abstract, intrinsic relationship between you & the imaginary/divine spiritual being(s) of your choice. Then maybe that guarantee doesn't extend to the physical world -- i.e., you can believe in whatever god you want, but damned if you can build whatever concrete structure to worship him because someone is made uncomfortable by it.

Well I hope it isn't guaranteed. There are some religions that espouse cannibalism and human sacrifice.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:10 pm**

So your right to free speech is only as "free" as you've got guns to back up your position?

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:19 pm**

Malcolm wrote:So your right to free speech is only as "free" as you've got guns to back up your position?

I guess. It will definitely take someone armed if they want to make me a human sacrifice to their gods.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:04 pm**

GORDON wrote:
Malcolm wrote:So your right to free speech is only as "free" as you've got guns to back up your position?
I guess. It will definitely take someone armed if they want to make me a human sacrifice to their gods.

So, if the gov't suddenly makes it illegal to publish negative things about the corrupt U.S. legal system, it's ok cos they've got the guns to back it up?

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:26 pm**

I have no problem with the ban. Mostly because muslims used the fact that they held a part of Spain back around 900 something AD (the act of aggression that brought about the Crusades) as justification for the Spain bombing since they considered it to be still Islamic land that was held by infidels.

Yeah, blah blah blah Nazis and blah blah blah gassing the jews. Since that was 70 years ago and Muslims are cutting off heads and blowing shit up TODAY I'm not going to make a big fuss about it. Using that logic we can't speak out against slavery since it used to be legal here.

Will banning them really change the minds of the radicals? No. But it sends a message. And being soft seems to bring about incidents like what happened in Ft. Hood.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:47 am**

Malcolm wrote:
GORDON wrote:
Malcolm wrote:So your right to free speech is only as "free" as you've got guns to back up your position?
I guess. It will definitely take someone armed if they want to make me a human sacrifice to their gods.
So, if the gov't suddenly makes it illegal to publish negative things about the corrupt U.S. legal system, it's ok cos they've got the guns to back it up?

Did a majority of people vote to make it illegal to criticize the government, or did the government take it upon itself to make that rule?

I am reminded of Adams's Alien and Sedition Act, by your question. That didn't last long.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:51 pm**

Mostly because muslims used the fact that they held a part of Spain back around 900 something AD (the act of aggression that brought about the Crusades) as justification for the Spain bombing since they considered it to be still Islamic land that was held by infidels.

Just because they use shitty logic doesn't mean shitty logic suddenly makes sense when we use it.

Using that logic we can't speak out against slavery since it used to be legal here.

You, the citizen, can speak out all you want.

But it sends a message.

What message? That we think not having them build bulbous towers will somehow crush their will or break their spirit? Yet again, if you're going to be prejudiced against a certain group of folk, just ramp it up to maximum from the get-go & make it legal for your gov't to expel members of that group w\ no warning or provocation. Don't half-ass it by arbitrarily banning things associated w\ them.

And being soft seems to bring about incidents like what happened in Ft. Hood.

Lack of security & craptacular personnel evaluation techniques is what happened in Ft. Hood. Muslims didn't write the regulations nor did they promote incompetents to positions they obviously weren't qualified for. Otherwise, someone might've noticed something odd about that chap.

Did a majority of people vote to make it illegal to criticize the government, or did the government take it upon itself to make that rule?

Congress can make laws w\o the consent of the people. Hell, let's even say a majority of the populous voted. Sometimes the majority are pricks. My argument isn't one of legality. There's nothing that realistically stops a society from making biased laws. If a society would like to claim (as that Swiss douchebag put it) that they're tolerant of other religions, then making illegal any architectural features associated w\ one or ANY religion is pure hypocrisy.

Does might make right? The entire Bill of Rights gets a big-ass asterisk attached to it?

On a side note, I don't see what is wrong with a population using a peaceful vote to say "I don't think that fits in with our culture."

"Peaceful" is hardly how I'd describe the feelings of the Swiss douchebag I quoted.

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:18 pm**

Malcolm wrote:
Did a majority of people vote to make it illegal to criticize the government, or did the government take it upon itself to make that rule?
Congress can make laws w\o the consent of the people. Hell, let's even say a majority of the populous voted. Sometimes the majority are pricks. My argument isn't one of legality. There's nothing that realistically stops a society from making biased laws. If a society would like to claim (as that Swiss douchebag put it) that they're tolerant of other religions, then making illegal any architectural features associated w\ one or ANY religion is pure hypocrisy.

Does might make right? The entire Bill of Rights gets a big-ass asterisk attached to it?

I'm saying the Bill of Rights ALREADY has an asterisk behind it. Do you disagree?

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:19 pm**

Malcolm wrote:[
On a side note, I don't see what is wrong with a population using a peaceful vote to say "I don't think that fits in with our culture."
"Peaceful" is hardly how I'd describe the feelings of the Swiss douchebag I quoted.

Oh, does his freedom of speech have a big asterisk behind it?

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:20 pm**

A free society has to be free to tell an undesirable group to fuck off. I don't think you'll ever be able to convince me otherwise.

And they aren't even being told to fuck off, they are just being told they can no longer blot out the sun with their religious symbols. And they don't even need to remove the ones that are already there. I don't really give a shit.

Edited By GORDON on 1259869000

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:11 pm**

Malcolm wrote:
Using that logic we can't speak out against slavery since it used to be legal here.
You, the citizen, can speak out all you want.

Just the government can't? That pretty much strikes down every treaty. Ever.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:22 pm**

Malcolm wrote:So your right to free speech is only as "free" as you've got guns to back up your position?

This statement is a tuatology.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:19 pm**

I think if you are afraid of them kick there asses out. Don't just fuck with them. I'm with Catt banning a building is stupid. As for minarets. Allot of Muslim places of worship don't have them in the first place.
As for religious persecution. I think it already goes on in this country. God forbid I should say a prayer at the opening of a football game.

Edited By unkbill on 1260386474

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:10 pm**

It's only a problem for schools because you're spending tax dollars to fund the program. The simple solution there is to stop using tax dollars to pay for school football programs, then you can do whatever you want at them.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:11 pm**

unkbill wrote:I think if you are afraid of them kick there asses out. Don't just fuck with them. I'm with Catt banning a building is stupid. As for minarets. Allot of Muslim places of worship don't have them in the first place.
As for religious persecution. I think it already goes on in this country. God forbid I should say a prayer at the opening of a football game.

What do you mean, I know tons of gamblers who pray before football games.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:32 pm**

TPRJones wrote:It's only a problem for schools because you're spending tax dollars to fund the program. The simple solution there is to stop using tax dollars to pay for school football programs, then you can do whatever you want at them.

Well there in lies my problem. 80% of our stadium is paid for buy sports boosters. Not the taxpayer. But I am still told to shut the fuck up. I really don't mind to much I just hate being told to shut up without a good reason.

Posted: **Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:54 pm**

Pay back the other 20%, and I won't have any problems with it. Oh, and of course pay for all the equipment and coaches without tax dollars, too.

Well, in theory at least. Since I don't live there it's mostly not my tax dollars involved so I don't care.

Posted: **Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:28 am**

TPRJones wrote:Pay back the other 20%, and I won't have any problems with it. Oh, and of course pay for all the equipment and coaches without tax dollars, too.

Well, in theory at least. Since I don't live there it's mostly not my tax dollars involved so I don't care.

I don't care to get into a long drawn out argument with you about this but I'm a taxpayer to. Isn't it the same as saying your tax dollars are more important than mine. I've heard the suggestion if you don't want to hear the prayer shut your ears. I don't know if that is fair either. How does everyone get a voice and be fair.

Welcome to Thunderdome

Switzerland bans (new) minarets