NATION

PASSWORD

Not allow Atheists to graduate from HS? GOP says yes!

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Post a reply
User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:13 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:No.

So Hindus don't have rights?

No.

The UK in Exile wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:If it is not mentioned in the First Amendment than I do not need to.


sure you do, everyone else says atheism comes under the heading of "religion."

the supreme court says that it comes under the heading of "religion."

Atheism is not a religion.

Shnercropolis wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:If it is not mentioned in the First Amendment than I do not need to.


No.

Alright. Listen. So far your argument has been "the rights aren't guaranteed" and denials. Do you intend to do anything other than stubbornly defend your completely baseless opinion?

It is not baseless.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:13 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:So Hindus don't have rights?

No.

Alright.

So Christians don't have rights?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:14 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:No.

Alright.

So Christians don't have rights?

Yes we do.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues
Top
User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:14 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:So Hindus don't have rights?

No.

The UK in Exile wrote:
sure you do, everyone else says atheism comes under the heading of "religion."

the supreme court says that it comes under the heading of "religion."

Atheism is not a religion.

Shnercropolis wrote:Alright. Listen. So far your argument has been "the rights aren't guaranteed" and denials. Do you intend to do anything other than stubbornly defend your completely baseless opinion?

It is not baseless.

Right, you have a base just as electrons have mass.
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:15 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:It is not baseless.

So you don't have any of these rights?

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)
Last edited by Mavorpen on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:16 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Alright.

So Christians don't have rights?

Yes we do.

So atheists have rights? Because Christian atheists exist.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:16 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:It is not baseless.

So you don't have any of these rights?

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

I would have all those rights according to the US.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:16 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:So you don't have any of these rights?

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

I would have all those rights according to the US.

Actually no. Those rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. If they are, show me.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Individuality-ness
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37712
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Individuality-ness » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:17 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:So you don't have any of these rights?

The right to interstate travel
The right to intrastate travel
The right to privacy (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage
b. The right to procreation
c. The right for a women to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability
d. The right to private education (homeschooling one's children)
e. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices)
f. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together)

I would have all those rights according to the US.

Not under your argument, since they're not explicitly stated.
"I should have listened to her, so hard to keep control. We kept on eating but our bloated bellies still not full."
Poetry Thread | How to Not Rape | Aspergers v. Assburgers | You Might be an Altie If... | Factbook/Extension
Top
User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:17 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:I would have all those rights according to the US.

Actually no. Those rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. If they are, show me.

great tactic.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Last edited by Shnercropolis on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.
Top
User avatar
Franklin Delano Bluth
Senator
 
Posts: 4962
Founded: Apr 13, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Franklin Delano Bluth » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:18 pm

Of course, the words "so help me god" are not actually part of the Presidential oath--they're just a traditional addition, not constitutionally required.

Loyalty oaths are morally indefensible.

LeftNightmare: Courts do not require you to swear upon a Paulinist Bible if you do not wish to.
The American Legion is a neo-fascist terrorist organization, bent on implementing Paulinist Sharia, and with a history of pogroms against organized labor and peace activists and of lynching those who dare resist or defend themselves against its aggression.

Pro: O'Reilly technical books, crew-length socks, Slide-O-Mix trombone lubricant, Reuben sandwiches
Anti: The eight-line signature limit, lift kits, cancelling Better Off Ted, Chicago Cubs
Top
User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:18 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:I would have all those rights according to the US.

Actually no. Those rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. If they are, show me.

Than Atheists would not have them either.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues
Top
User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:18 pm

Franklin Delano Bluth wrote:Of course, the words "so help me god" are not actually part of the Presidential oath--they're just a traditional addition, not constitutionally required.

Loyalty oaths are morally indefensible.

LeftNightmare: Courts do not require you to swear upon a Paulinist Bible if you do not wish to.

You could swear upon a Satanist bible?
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.
Top
User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 111685
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:19 pm

Individuality-ness wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:I would have all those rights according to the US.

Not under your argument, since they're not explicitly stated.

Well, yeah, he would, because Amendment IX says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:19 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Actually no. Those rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. If they are, show me.

Than Atheists would not have them either.

So what you're saying is, things that are not even mentioned in the constitution are protected by the Constitution?

How exactly can you then argue that atheists do not have any rights?
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Atwoodland
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Jan 19, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Atwoodland » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:19 pm

Ashmoria wrote:and THAT is why arizona is crazy and new mexico is not.

i dont think it would be constitutional.


Definitely unconstitutional - and should hit the 'Most unbelievable facts of the United States'.
Top
User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:19 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Actually no. Those rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. If they are, show me.

Than Atheists would not have them either.

That's funny. Why would they have rights at all, if nobody gets to enjoy them?
Oh right, they're there for every citizen to enjoy.
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.
Top
User avatar
The United Soviet Socialist Republic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17944
Founded: Aug 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The United Soviet Socialist Republic » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:20 pm

Mavorpen wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:Than Atheists would not have them either.

So what you're saying is, things that are not even mentioned in the constitution are protected by the Constitution?

How exactly can you then argue that atheists do not have any rights?

No?

Rights to not worship. They are granted all other rights just not a lack of faith, according to the 1st amendment.
Gay and Proudand also a brony
Political Compass:Left: 7.76, Authoritarian: 5.6
I am: Fascist/Corporatist on economy,
Conservative on social issues(Support same sex marriage),
Anti secularist on religion,
Anti-Republican on government,
Interventionist/Imperialist on international issues
Top
User avatar
Mavorpen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63266
Founded: Dec 20, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Mavorpen » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:21 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
Individuality-ness wrote:Not under your argument, since they're not explicitly stated.

Well, yeah, he would, because Amendment IX says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

According to him though, that Amendment does not matter because the First Amendment is the one that grants rights.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."—former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
Top
User avatar
Individuality-ness
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37712
Founded: Mar 02, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Individuality-ness » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:21 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
Individuality-ness wrote:Not under your argument, since they're not explicitly stated.

Well, yeah, he would, because Amendment IX says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yeah, but he's saying that because the First Amendment doesn't directly say that people have the right to "not exercise a religion", so to speak, that we don't actually have said right.
"I should have listened to her, so hard to keep control. We kept on eating but our bloated bellies still not full."
Poetry Thread | How to Not Rape | Aspergers v. Assburgers | You Might be an Altie If... | Factbook/Extension
Top
User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 111685
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:21 pm

Shnercropolis wrote:
The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:Than Atheists would not have them either.

That's funny. Why would they have rights at all, if nobody gets to enjoy them?
Oh right, they're there for every citizen to enjoy.

I enjoy them daily. I especially like the candied ones, with the little sprinkling of sea salt. Nom.
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.
Top
User avatar
Threlizdun
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15623
Founded: Jun 14, 2009
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Threlizdun » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:21 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:Actually no. Those rights are not enumerated in the Constitution. If they are, show me.

Than Atheists would not have them either.

Nice dodge. So would you prefer that we have implied rights by the Constitution or that we take all of these away from you to conform to the literalism you support?
Communalist, Social Ecologist, Bioregionalist,
Sex-Positive Feminist, Queer, Trans-woman, Polyamorous

This site stresses me out, so I rarely come on here anymore. I'll try to be civil and respectful towards those I'm debating on here. If you don't extend the same courtesy then I'll probably just ignore you.

If we've been friendly in the past and you want to keep in touch, shoot me a telegram
Top
User avatar
Wisconsin9
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35753
Founded: May 18, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Wisconsin9 » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:21 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:So what you're saying is, things that are not even mentioned in the constitution are protected by the Constitution?

How exactly can you then argue that atheists do not have any rights?

No?

Rights to not worship. They are granted all other rights just not a lack of faith, according to the 1st amendment.

And then they are granted that right according to the UDHR.
~~~~~~~~
We are currently 33% through the Trump administration.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Top
User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 111685
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Farnhamia » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:21 pm

Individuality-ness wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:Well, yeah, he would, because Amendment IX says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yeah, but he's saying that because the First Amendment doesn't directly say that people have the right to "not exercise a religion", so to speak, that we don't actually have said right.

Ah, I see. That would make him ... what's the word? Oh, right ... that would make him wrong.
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo ... Ashmoria (Freedom ... or cake)
This is the eighth line. If your signature is longer, it's too long.
Top
User avatar
Shnercropolis
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9391
Founded: Sep 30, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Shnercropolis » Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:22 pm

The United Soviet Socialist Republic wrote:
Mavorpen wrote:So what you're saying is, things that are not even mentioned in the constitution are protected by the Constitution?

How exactly can you then argue that atheists do not have any rights?

No?

Rights to not worship. They are granted all other rights just not a lack of faith, according to the 1st amendment.

De Facto, they are guaranteed. And everybody but you agrees that it has been that way, is that way, and will stay that way.
it is my firm belief that I should never have to justify my beliefs.
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Des-Bal, Elejamie, Fartsniffage, Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States, Grinning Dragon, New Proviles, Pangurstan, Port Caverton, The Notorious Mad Jack, Valyxias

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Advertisement

Remove ads