2012 Elections

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I don't even want to think about what would happen if the birthers ever got the proof they were looking for. total chaos.

It would absolutely be terrible for the country. No doubt.

I think if somebody had real proof they would be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think if somebody had real proof they would be eliminated with extreme prejudice.

Assuming it's true, the "evidence" has long been destroyed. PS. I don't assume it's true.Pps. But it might be?

[DJ Vu 176]

You still haven't explained why you think the law violates the 1st amendment. Is it because it requires someone to do something that is against their religion?

I've already stated multiple times that the government has no business forcing people to do something against their religion, if that part of their religion isn't criminal, or affecting the liberty of someone else.

Not to be obnoxious, but if something is against the law, isn't it "criminal" by definition. So...

From that point there are two options:1). Georgetown must follow the law.2). Georgetown must take the matter to the supreme court and have the unconstitutional law thrown out.

I think I'm going to need a flow chart to untangle this.

[iZuma 764]

venn diagram

[vbnautilus 48]

I've already stated multiple times that the government has no business forcing people to do something against their religion, if that part of their religion isn't criminal, or affecting the liberty of someone else.

Of course, and vb has already pointed that out to me several times. From that point there are two options:1). Georgetown must follow the law.2). Georgetown must take the matter to the supreme court and have the unconstitutional law thrown out.#2 is going to happen this year.

Your argument is completely circular. It violates the first amendment because you can't force someone do something against their religion if that part of their religion isn't criminal, but the law makes it criminal, so the law must be unconstitutional? You don't see the problem here? The government can absolutely force you do so something against your religion by making it criminal to avoid doing that thing. Again, if it is against my religion to pay taxes, I must still do it. By your logic that law requiring me to pay taxes must be unconstitutional, because it criminalizes something that is against my religion.

I think it was a joke, until he said I don't believe you. That's when it changed. I agree that the original statement was a joke, which is why vb went back to what he originally said, because he realized that his line of thinking about my personal beliefs was wrong.

Look you still clearly don't get the joke, so I will now stoop to the level of explaining it. The central teaching of christianity is self-sacrifice. So when the atheist is arguing for self-sacrifice and the christian guy is advocating selfishness, that's ironic. okay?

[brvheart 1,752]

Your argument is completely circular. It violates the first amendment because you can't force someone do something against their religion if that part of their religion isn't criminal, but the law makes it criminal, so the law must be unconstitutional? You don't see the problem here? The government can absolutely force you do so something against your religion by making it criminal to avoid doing that thing. Again, if it is against my religion to pay taxes, I must still do it. By your logic that law requiring me to pay taxes must be unconstitutional, because it criminalizes something that is against my religion.

The law IS unconstitutional in this case, and you will see that when the supreme court hears the case. I'm well aware of the fact that currently Georgetown must follow the law even though it's obviously suppressing religious freedom.You keep bringing up taxes, but it's not the same at all, because the constitution allows the federal and state governments to collect taxes. No one will win that argument before the SC. You should be bringing up slavery or some other law that goes against personal freedom, because that's how you are trying to frame your argument. It's very simple. You are wrong. We will all find that out as soon as the supreme court hears the case. Feel free to keep acting like I'm wrong.

look you still clearly don't get the joke, so I will now stoop to the level of explaining it. The central teaching of christianity is self-sacrifice. So when the atheist is arguing for self-sacrifice and the christian guy is advocating selfishness, that's ironic. okay?

What are you talking about. Everyone understood the original joke. You're deflecting.

[BaseJester 1]

The law IS unconstitutional in this case, and you will see that when the supreme court hears the case. I'm well aware of the fact that currently Georgetown must follow the law even though it's obviously suppressing religious freedom.You keep bringing up taxes, but it's not the same at all, because the constitution allows the federal and state governments to collect taxes. No one will win that argument before the SC.

I think you're saying that the First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from making laws covered by its enumerated powers. And some Catholics' religious practice of foregoing birth control is protected by the First Amendment, because the government has no enumerated power for forcing them to.Right?What if I have religious practice of pedophilia? Are laws against pedophilia unconstitutional? Why not? Because there is no good answer to this, I don't think a First Amendment challenge to Obamacare has merit. I.e., the First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from outlawing any action for which a person has a religious reason. It does prohibit the government from making laws that criminalize actions or expressions because of their religious significance.

[CaneBrain 95]

Because there is no good answer to this, I don't think a First Amendment challenge to Obamacare has merit. I.e., the First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from outlawing any action for which a person has a religious reason. It does prohibit the government from making laws that criminalize actions or expressions because of their religious significance.

I think this is excellent analysis.I think Brv has a 50/50 chance of predicting the outcome correctly bc of the composition of the Supreme Court.

[vbnautilus 48]

The law IS unconstitutional in this case

Why? Why do you think that? You have still provided no reason, except to insist that the SC will overturn it. If you are so sure of that, let's make a wager!Loser has to pierce his left ear.

What are you talking about. Everyone understood the original joke. You're deflecting.

ok this is too much. you've got to be trolling? or early onset dementia. no, trolling.

[BaseJester 1]

Supreme Court's rulings on peyote is relevant. It probably weakens my argument.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESSyllabusGONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUITNo. 04–1084. Argued November 1, 2005—Decided February 21, 2006Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) in response to Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, where, in upholding a generally applicable law that burdened the sacramental use of peyote, this Court held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not require judges to engage in a case-by-case assessment of the religious burdens imposed by facially constitutional laws, id., at 883–890. Among other things, RFRA prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, “even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(a), except when the Government can “demonstrate that application of the burden to the person (1) [furthers] a compelling government interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that . . . interest,” §2000bb–1(b).Members of respondent church (UDV) receive communion by drinking hoasca, a tea brewed from plants unique to the Amazon Rainforest that contains DMT, a hallucinogen regulated under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, see 21 U. S. C. §812©, Schedule I©. After U. S. Customs inspectors seized a hoasca shipment to the American UDV and threatened prosecution, the UDV filed this suit for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging, inter alia, that applying the Controlled Substances Act to the UDV’s sacramental hoasca use violates RFRA. At a hearing on the UDV’s preliminary injunction motion, the Government conceded that the challenged application would substantially burden a sincere exercise of religion, but argued that this burden did not violate RFRA because applying the2GONZALES v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL SyllabusControlled Substances Act was the least restrictive means of advancing three compelling governmental interests: protecting UDV members’ health and safety, preventing the diversion of hoasca from the church to recreational users, and complying with the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances. The District Court granted relief, concluding that, because the parties’ evidence on health risks and diversion was equally balanced, the Government had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest justifying the substantial burden on the UDV. The court also held that the 1971 Convention does not apply to hoasca. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.Held: The courts below did not err in determining that the Governmentfailed to demonstrate, at the preliminary injunction stage, a compellinginterest in barring the UDV’s sacramental use of hoasca. Pp. 6–19.

See Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think you're saying that the First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from making laws covered by its enumerated powers. And some Catholics' religious practice of foregoing birth control is protected by the First Amendment, because the government has no enumerated power for forcing them to.Right?What if I have religious practice of pedophilia? Are laws against pedophilia unconstitutional? Why not? Because there is no good answer to this, I don't think a First Amendment challenge to Obamacare has merit. I.e., the First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from outlawing any action for which a person has a religious reason. It does prohibit the government from making laws that criminalize actions or expressions because of their religious significance.

Because a pedophile would be encroaching the liberty of another person. That person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think this is excellent analysis.I think Brv has a 50/50 chance of predicting the outcome correctly bc of the composition of the Supreme Court.

I think it's very dangerous to assume that the Supreme Court is always political. I think it's so clearly a violation, and it won't be a 5-4 decision.(Of course, I think Kagan can't be involved anyway, so it can't be 5-4)

[brvheart 1,752]

Why? Why do you think that? You have still provided no reason, except to insist that the SC will overturn it. If you are so sure of that, let's make a wager!

?¿ I give up.Also, I already said I would make a wager.

Loser has to pierce his left ear.

Again?Boom!

[brvheart 1,752]

Supreme Court's rulings on peyote is relevant. It probably weakens my argument.See Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

This is why you're the best, Base. Thanks for finding that.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Because a pedophile would be encroaching the liberty of another person. That person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That's probably a bad example. What about, oh, let's say, having multiple wives. Many Mormons believe that bigamy is a part of their religious practices. You must obviously think that it should be legal, correct?And, by natural extension, you must also be pro gay marriage, because certainly if bigamy is legal, gay marriage must be.Correct?

[brvheart 1,752]

That's probably a bad example. What about, oh, let's say, having multiple wives. Many Mormons believe that bigamy is a part of their religious practices. You must obviously think that it should be legal, correct?And, by natural extension, you must also be pro gay marriage, because certainly if bigamy is legal, gay marriage must be.Correct?

Correct.

[BaseJester 1]

That's probably a bad example.

Why is that a bad example? I want an example where there's an obvious reason to make it illegal. If it doesn't hurt anybody, what basis do we have for making it illegal in the first place, religious practice or not?

What about, oh, let's say, having multiple wives. Many Mormons believe that bigamy is a part of their religious practices. You must obviously think that it should be legal, correct?

See, this example sucks because there's no obvious government interest in making it illegal in the first place.The Religious Freedom Restoration Act basically says, "If it's kind of a silly law in the first place, people can violate it for religious reasons." Then people go to court to discuss exactly how silly the law is. This law was made by the same institution that makes those other laws. This strikes me as a convulted way to run a legal system.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Correct.

Okay, cool. Umm, wanna get pizza?

[iZuma 764]

ok so are we done here then? can we go ahead and shut the forum down now?

[DJ Vu 176]

ok so are we done here then? can we go ahead and shut the forum down now?

Yeah, Yorke's post was a Truman Show-like ending.

[hblask 1]

What if I have religious practice of pedophilia? Are laws against pedophilia unconstitutional? Why not? Because there is no good answer to this, I don't think a First Amendment challenge to Obamacare has merit. I.e., the First Amendment doesn't prohibit the government from outlawing any action for which a person has a religious reason. It does prohibit the government from making laws that criminalize actions or expressions because of their religious significance.

I think there are two sides: they can't criminalize actions because of their religious significance, as you state here. The other side is that they can't criminalize religious activities that don't harm others. Pedophilia harms unconsenting others, and the right to be free from being actively harmed outweighs the right to free religion.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Good Stuffhttp://reason.tv/video/show/remy-cough-drops-the-mandate-f"Look! I'm probin' somebody!"

[Balloon guy 158]

The federal government stepping on state's rights again.Cliffs:Texas says you have to have a photo ID to vote.Feds say that would prevent hispanics from votingBtw you must have photo ID in order to fly, drive, enter some government buildings, use a credit card, enroll your kids into school, buy cigarettes and alcohol, get a job, and return a gift to Walmart. But elect person to run the most powerful country in the world? Nah.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Btw you must have photo ID in order to fly, drive, enter some government buildings, use a credit card, enroll your kids into school, buy cigarettes and alcohol, get a job, and return a gift to Walmart.

The difference is that none of these things are rights that are guaranteed by our democracy (except for the kids in school part).I mean, it's a bit of a thorny issue. I agree that it doesn't seem like too much of a burden to demand ID for voting. But it's a fact that this will have the effect of preventing many from voting (mainly the poor and elderly). The only thing I wonder is why these laws only seem to come up in the months before an election. Why can't we make such a law right after an election and give people years to comply, or grandfather it in or something? The reason that people are against them is because election fraud isn't that much of an issue, and forcing people to use ID's would take away more people's ability to vote than the number of frauds it would prevent, and it's not very close, really.

[mrdannyg 274]

How do you prove your identity without providing ID? This is a serious question - do they get voter cards or something?