Too stupid to understand sarcasm?Interesting you're trying to pretend like pedophilia in religious groups never happens.
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Too stupid to understand sarcasm?Interesting you're trying to pretend like pedophilia in religious groups never happens.
We were talking about Mohammed being a pedo and then you started talking about Christian churches and claiming there weren't any pedos in Christian churches.Too stupid to understand sarcasm?
Yep too stupid.We were talking about Mohammed being a pedo and then you started talking about Christian churches and claiming there weren't any pedos in Christian churches.
What Christian church do you attend?
ninth circuit aiming for another reversal, I seehere's what 9th said re: church gatherings and CA prohibition on same:
We conclude that appellants have not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal. Where state action does not “infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation” and does not “in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief,” it does not violate the First Amendment. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533, 543 (1993). We’re dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a “[c]ourt does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
I am learning my dickhead trolling from the best!Good answer.
You're learning.
I'm thinking that if one were to look at the current attendance levels for grocery stores, home improvement stores, etc., and compare those to the size of the average church, this argument will face some challengeshere's what 9th said re: church gatherings and CA prohibition on same:
We conclude that appellants have not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal. Where state action does not “infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation” and does not “in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief,” it does not violate the First Amendment. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533, 543 (1993). We’re dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a “[c]ourt does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
will be interesting. don't know much about this area of the law and intend to learn more out of curiosity.I'm thinking that if one were to look at the current attendance levels for grocery stores, home improvement stores, etc., and compare those to the size of the average church, this argument will face some challenges
Thank God for mundus & hal to tell everybody the things have to begood thing you’re here to tell people what is and isn’t essential about their religions!
the dissent of that opinion was pretty interestingwill be interesting. don't know much about this area of the law and intend to learn more out of curiosity.
Mundas wants to ban IslamThank God for mundus & hal to tell everybody the things have to be
Did he force the press to print only good things about him? Did he criminalize criticism? No.LOL, how about Trump calling the free press the enemy of the people.
People exercise their religion by going to church.wasn't Jesus the most liberal, commie, anti-establishment kinda guy? he was totally against organized religion. why do you guys feel the need for a monolithic, organized religion to tell you what to do all the time?
the bible doesn't say anything about a physical church. the church is not the building. worshipping god doesn't necessitate going into a building or gathering with "x" number of people.
the first amendment doesn't say anything about a church building either, nor does it discuss gathering among people to worship
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
show me where congress made a law respecting establishment of a religion here. or where it prevented people from exercising their religion.
it never happened. you guys are freaking out over nothing. yell into the sky some more.
9thhere's what 9th said re: church gatherings and CA prohibition on same:
We conclude that appellants have not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal. Where state action does not “infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation” and does not “in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief,” it does not violate the First Amendment. See Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533, 543 (1993). We’re dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure. In the words of Justice Robert Jackson, if a “[c]ourt does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
You're free to hide as long as you wantIf only fellow church goers could get infected, it would be no big deal. The whinging malcontents just cant understand the concept of contagion.
Quoting Hitler is such a good look for the President, right Proud Boi?Did he force the press to print only good things about him? Did he criminalize criticism? No.
Criticizing the press is just as much part of the 1A as the press criticizing the President. The 1A doesn't protect you against mean names, snowflake
Keep whinging, malcontent.You're free to hide as long as you want
Straight to Godwin's LawQuoting Hitler is such a good look for the President, right Proud Boi?
LOLKeep whinging, malcontent.