Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

Do I need another reason ? I ignored it, because it is not true. States cannot abridge a Constitutional right, basic law 101

Did you skip constitutional law in law school, because that is absolutely false?

 

[shmogie]

Actually the ability to regulate religion is something that is part of the assumed powers of the government. For example one cannot do something that is illegal in the name of religion. There were a lot of battles with this with Voodoo. I remember I was talking to someone yesterday about the Mormon religion. Its claim to having multiple wives was beat back by the law.

There are certainly circumstances where we are allowed to circumvent religion through law 1st amendment or not. Its implied that you can have freedom of religion within reason otherwise it leads to some pretty tricky situations you don't want. For example what if someone had a religious belief that they should be able to murder their daughter because she had sex before marriage thus breaking her vow to god and becoming an adulterer? The religious answer is to stone her to death. Should this be allowed for religious freedom?

You are right, illegal activities cannot be shielded by the first amendment, say, plotting a terrorist act in a mosque as part of a religious duty. But even this is not entirely true. those who practice santeria (sp?) were given a legal right to sacrifice animals in the most gruesome ways as part of their religious practices, Contrary to the state animal cruelty laws. According to some FBI bulletins I have read, satanists do some things that are illegal, misdemeanors, not felonies, and are left pretty much alone

 

[Midnight Rain]

You are right, illegal activities cannot be shielded by the first amendment, say, plotting a terrorist act in a mosque as part of a religious duty. But even this is not entirely true. those who practice santeria (sp?) were given a legal right to sacrifice animals in the most gruesome ways as part of their religious practices, Contrary to the state animal cruelty laws. According to some FBI bulletins I have read, satanists do some things that are illegal, misdemeanors, not felonies, and are left pretty much alone

Actually there were laws put in place to regulate the sacrifices. Main reason that it was allowed is because the inhumane treatment of most common farm animals is far worse than what they do with animal sacrifices. IT isn't a slow tortured death despite what some people believe. In Santeria there is respect and importance put on the sacrifice of the animal.

I don't practice that myself but if its just "killing" animals then we do that a lot and there is no justifiable reason to stop it from being done for religious reasons. Also at least in Louisiana (as I don't know the specific laws for other states) there are laws regulating the number of goats that can be used for sacrificial reasons.

And I'm curious what things Satanist have done. Most satanist don't do any kind of illegal activities.

 

[McBell]

Of course, the USA, If you believe state law has curtailed the freedom of religion you must believe in aliens. not the illegal kind. There, a better fit ?

You revealing your ignorance is most entertaining.
Please continue.

 

[shmogie]

Nope. You have that wrong. The constitution is limited to individual rights against state and federal government. Obviously there are rights that aren't included. And, the constitution is not all there is. For example, the right to privacy is not included in the constitution. It only exists because of court interpretation. To limit rights to only those explicitly stated in the conctitution not only goes against original intent, but goes against common sense and human decency as well.

What ? "The Constitution is limited to individual rights against state and federal government" I have no idea what that sentence means. Non enumerated rights must meet a constitutional test, and cannot limit any numerated rights. The non enumerated right of privacy was used to shield murder, and then had to go to the bizarre definition that a viable, 9 month in the womb baby, could be murdered before birth, as partially born, or abandoned after a failed attempt at murder left it alive (although that is being brought back) all in the name of a non enumerated right of "privacy" that shields the murder from view. Very bad law, but expedient for the majority on the court who politically supported this genocide. Original intent is a nebulous concept that is very difficult to qualify in a court of law

 

[leibowde84]

You are right, illegal activities cannot be shielded by the first amendment, say, plotting a terrorist act in a mosque as part of a religious duty. But even this is not entirely true. those who practice santeria (sp?) were given a legal right to sacrifice animals in the most gruesome ways as part of their religious practices, Contrary to the state animal cruelty laws. According to some FBI bulletins I have read, satanists do some things that are illegal, misdemeanors, not felonies, and are left pretty much alone

If it violates federal law, then it is not protected under law, whether you feel that the law is constitutional or not. Take the use of peyote for native American rituals.

 

[leibowde84]

What ? "The Constitution is limited to individual rights against state and federal government" I have no idea what that sentence means. Non enumerated rights must meet a constitutional test, and cannot limit any numerated rights. The non enumerated right of privacy was used to shield murder, and then had to go to the bizarre definition that a viable, 9 month in the womb baby, could be murdered before birth, as partially born, or abandoned after a failed attempt at murder left it alive (although that is being brought back) all in the name of a non enumerated right of "privacy" that shields the murder from view. Very bad law, but expedient for the majority on the court who politically supported this genocide. Original intent is a nebulous concept that is very difficult to qualify in a court of law

You are ignorant of the real issue with abortion, which is bodily autonomy, not privacy generally. No citizen can be forced to give up the direct use of their body against their will. Not very complicated, imho. The fetus' right to survive does not trump the mothers right to bodily autonomy. Often, pro-lifers conveniently ignore this obvious truth.

 

[leibowde84]

What ? "The Constitution is limited to individual rights against state and federal government" I have no idea what that sentence means. Non enumerated rights must meet a constitutional test, and cannot limit any numerated rights. The non enumerated right of privacy was used to shield murder, and then had to go to the bizarre definition that a viable, 9 month in the womb baby, could be murdered before birth, as partially born, or abandoned after a failed attempt at murder left it alive (although that is being brought back) all in the name of a non enumerated right of "privacy" that shields the murder from view. Very bad law, but expedient for the majority on the court who politically supported this genocide. Original intent is a nebulous concept that is very difficult to qualify in a court of law

I fail to see how your opinion of court rulings is relevant to the law though.

 

[McBell]

What ? "The Constitution is limited to individual rights against state and federal government" I have no idea what that sentence means. Non enumerated rights must meet a constitutional test, and cannot limit any numerated rights. The non enumerated right of privacy was used to shield murder, and then had to go to the bizarre definition that a viable, 9 month in the womb baby, could be murdered before birth, as partially born, or abandoned after a failed attempt at murder left it alive (although that is being brought back) all in the name of a non enumerated right of "privacy" that shields the murder from view. Very bad law, but expedient for the majority on the court who politically supported this genocide. Original intent is a nebulous concept that is very difficult to qualify in a court of law

You have crossed the line from entertaining to sad.

 

[shmogie]

Actually there were laws put in place to regulate the sacrifices. Main reason that it was allowed is because the inhumane treatment of most common farm animals is far worse than what they do with animal sacrifices. IT isn't a slow tortured death despite what some people believe. In Santeria there is respect and importance put on the sacrifice of the animal.

I don't practice that myself but if its just "killing" animals then we do that a lot and there is no justifiable reason to stop it from being done for religious reasons. Also at least in Louisiana (as I don't know the specific laws for other states) there are laws regulating the number of goats that can be used for sacrificial reasons.

And I'm curious what things Satanist have done. Most satanist don't do any kind of illegal activities.

Hmmmm. The main reason the sacrifices were allowed is that they were part of a religious ceremony. Obviously, if the state humane society was upset and animal protection laws were being broken, they could not be the same as legally butchering an animal for food. One wonders about your familiarity with satanists. There are satanists, then there are SATANISTS. Like many
clandestine groups they have been penetrated by the authorities. Your curiosity will have to remain.

 

[shmogie]

You have crossed the line from entertaining to sad.

Yes, genocide is sad, If you believe that my examples are not legally protected, then prove it. Of course, you can't. So your comments have no standing and are a waste of a tiny bit of bandwidth. Duly noted, duly discarded.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Hmmmm. The main reason the sacrifices were allowed is that they were part of a religious ceremony. Obviously, if the state humane society was upset and animal protection laws were being broken, they could not be the same as legally butchering an animal for food. One wonders about your familiarity with satanists. There are satanists, then there are SATANISTS. Like many
clandestine groups they have been penetrated by the authorities. Your curiosity will have to remain.

I am currently an agnostic atheist but I've long since been a pagan. I've met a lot of people on a lot of different paths including satanist. Typically there are two major kinds of satanist that I find. The ones who are usually atheists and use Satan as a symbol but not an actual belief and then crazy people who believe the Christian religion and attempt to invoke an actual christian devil. The latter kind is rare and unorganized. Usually made of crazy people. Anton LaVey who is the founder of Satanism was of the prior type. Though an occultist and believer in magic he didn't believe in a god or devil of any kind that I know of. What he really was is an impressive showman and actor.

 

[shmogie]

I fail to see how your opinion of court rulings is relevant to the law though.

My opinion is only relevant in that I have been educated and trained in the law, for what that is worth. However, my opinion is shared with many prominent jurists and legal scholars. It is settled law, till it is unsettled, and many infinitely more qualified then me believe this should be revisited on legal grounds,

 

[shmogie]

I am currently an agnostic atheist but I've long since been a pagan. I've met a lot of people on a lot of different paths including satanist. Typically there are two major kinds of satanist that I find. The ones who are usually atheists and use Satan as a symbol but not an actual belief and then crazy people who believe the Christian religion and attempt to invoke an actual christian devil. The latter kind is rare and unorganized. Usually made of crazy people. Anton LaVey who is the founder of Satanism was of the prior type. Though an occultist and believer in magic he didn't believe in a god or devil of any kind that I know of. What he really was is an impressive showman and actor.

You are absolutely correct. Many of the crazies are not as crazy as you think. Some are bankers, doctors, professors and other professional types. They operate in very clandestine small cells, and will conduct their "rites" in various places. They do crazy stuff though

 

[McBell]

Yes, genocide is sad, If you believe that my examples are not legally protected, then prove it. Of course, you can't. So your comments have no standing and are a waste of a tiny bit of bandwidth. Duly noted, duly discarded.

*yawn*
now you are being boring.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You are absolutely correct. Many of the crazies are not as crazy as you think. Some are bankers, doctors, professors and other professional types. They operate in very clandestine small cells, and will conduct their "rites" in various places. They do crazy stuff though

Can you link me to a news article that busted a banker as the second kind of satanist? And how did you come to find out about them?

 

[McBell]

My opinion is only relevant in that I have been educated and trained in the law, for what that is worth. However, my opinion is shared with many prominent jurists and legal scholars. It is settled law, till it is unsettled, and many infinitely more qualified then me believe this should be revisited on legal grounds,

Interesting.
Especially given that your posts strongly indicate that you do not know the definitions of many of the words you use.
Like:

genocide
murder
baby​

 

[shmogie]

Interesting.
Especially given that your posts strongly indicate that you do not know the definitions of many of the words you use.
Like:

genocide
murder
baby​

Interesting in that I know exactly what the words I use mean. You have no evidence to submit ? Didn't think so

 

[leibowde84]

My opinion is only relevant in that I have been educated and trained in the law, for what that is worth. However, my opinion is shared with many prominent jurists and legal scholars. It is settled law, till it is unsettled, and many infinitely more qualified then me believe this should be revisited on legal grounds,

So, just to clarify, you believe that organizations should legally be aloud to discriminate on any ground they see fit in regards to membership? Not asking what the Bible claims, but your personal opinion.

 

[shmogie]

Can you link me to a news article that busted a banker as the second kind of satanist? And how did you come to find out about them?

Nope, can't produce an article. Being that kind of satanist is not inherently illegal. I learned about these groups through an FBI intelligence document that I do not have, as all copies were collected after they were discussed. I have had no personal contact with them. I am aware of a case in the town I used to live in, where a city owned heritage victorian home alledged to be haunted was broken into, by passing the fairly sophisticated alarm system, and there was evidence of a group of people, many used votive candles, various satanic emblems on the walls, and some dead animals. Kids or satanists ? no one ever found out