Forum Thread

Texas shooting, "first amendent problem

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 28 of 28 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: Lonely , you continue to think that religion is the sole cause of most if not all killings, you particularly seem to single out the Christian faith, which did it's fair share of killing, but certaintly not the most, , why the extreme dislike of religions? If they all went away do you really think this world would become a Utopia. There is no need to highlight biblical passages to make your point, why not use passages from the Koran or the Torah, , or is your bias showing ? This thread is about the First Amendment and not about who killed the most, I mentioned that the 1st Amendment is a double edged sword, it cuts both ways, and if there is a way to diminish the downside , then I like to hear about it, other than censorship of course,
    you fail continuously but as a religionist that is not surprising. Religion, period, is used as a cloak for violence. I have said this.

    And as for the first amendment you wheedled religion into the picture as you generally do.

    i don't expect religion to go away as man is not wired in that manner. I don't expect utopia as man is not wired that way. What i do expect is that religion does not inform secular law. When religion does do so beyond simply saying "don't kill, don't steal" outside the context of a particular religious viewpoint based upon tribalism then I have a problem.
    There was no wheedling of religion into the post , the act in question was about religion and the disrespect that those who believe in their prophet felt had to be addressed, unfortunately violently, but again man is wired for violence not by any particular belief, man may chose to use religion or any other form of organized grouping to commit violence and then justify it by that very medium.. Religion attempts to utilize a certain set of moral standards by which all strive to live within but then that pesky man with the huge ego problem comes into play and screws everything up, is it the fault of religion, or man, A Christian is a Christian right up to when he isn't,
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: Lonely , you continue to think that religion is the sole cause of most if not all killings, you particularly seem to single out the Christian faith, which did it's fair share of killing, but certaintly not the most, , why the extreme dislike of religions? If they all went away do you really think this world would become a Utopia. There is no need to highlight biblical passages to make your point, why not use passages from the Koran or the Torah, , or is your bias showing ? This thread is about the First Amendment and not about who killed the most, I mentioned that the 1st Amendment is a double edged sword, it cuts both ways, and if there is a way to diminish the downside , then I like to hear about it, other than censorship of course,
    you fail continuously but as a religionist that is not surprising. Religion, period, is used as a cloak for violence. I have said this.

    And as for the first amendment you wheedled religion into the picture as you generally do.

    i don't expect religion to go away as man is not wired in that manner. I don't expect utopia as man is not wired that way. What i do expect is that religion does not inform secular law. When religion does do so beyond simply saying "don't kill, don't steal" outside the context of a particular religious viewpoint based upon tribalism then I have a problem.
    There was no wheedling of religion into the post , the act in question was about religion and the disrespect that those who believe in their prophet felt had to be addressed, unfortunately violently, but again man is wired for violence not by any particular belief, man may chose to use religion or any other form of organized grouping to commit violence and then justify it by that very medium.. Religion attempts to utilize a certain set of moral standards by which all strive to live within but then that pesky man with the huge ego problem comes into play and screws everything up, is it the fault of religion, or man, A Christian is a Christian right up to when he isn't,
    Failure again. Religion states in the case of the abrahamic religions that you believe a certain way or you are damned. If religion were ethic alone then you would have a point. But it is not.

    Of of course man is wired for violence but your continual failure lies in refusing to acknowledge that religion is the agitprop tool of choice for much violence. Man does not require religion to engage in violence but man sure as hell uses it for that exact purpose.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Then we agree than that man is the sole seeker for violence and does use whatever medium he choses to use to attain his ends, including religion, violent or otherwise, and since man tends to group up , the loudest or the biggest or sometimes both plus a little above average intelligence tends to rise above the rest and control the others, now how he does that therein lies the problem. A fire consumes everything in the forest if left unchecked but why blame the fire, why not the fire starter?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Then we agree than that man is the sole seeker for violence and does use whatever medium he choses to use to attain his ends, including religion, violent or otherwise, and since man tends to group up , the loudest or the biggest or sometimes both plus a little above average intelligence tends to rise above the rest and control the others, now how he does that therein lies the problem. A fire consumes everything in the forest if left unchecked but why blame the fire, why not the fire starter?
    of course man is the issue. charlatanism of any stripe is dangerous. that includes religion or white power or ukip or le pen or whatever. the subversion of democracy and damage to people is unacceptable.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    JC - this thread is about religious violence, NOT violence in general. Once again you misunderstand the whole argument. Religion is a crutch for violent people to act out their aggressions on others by using the excuse "God said". Religion does tend to make many, very weak people, feel strong (and they use that unfounded strength as an excuse for committing violence against others that are different in some way than they).
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote: JC - this thread is about religious violence, NOT violence in general. Once again you misunderstand the whole argument. Religion is a crutch for violent people to act out their aggressions on others by using the excuse "God said". Religion does tend to make many, very weak people, feel strong (and they use that unfounded strength as an excuse for committing violence against others that are different in some way than they).
    No, actually this thread is about two issues , freedom of expression and religion, the statement was made that most violence was religious inspired and I dispute that, and went to list my thoughts on that matter, religious people are not inherently violent but religious people can and do subvert and pervert religion for their own gain as do other people who can spot the weakness in others and then exploit that weakness for their own gain and violence is their quick and easy tool to accomplish their goals. No misunderstanding on my part.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    pr Wrote: JC - this thread is about religious violence, NOT violence in general. Once again you misunderstand the whole argument. Religion is a crutch for violent people to act out their aggressions on others by using the excuse "God said". Religion does tend to make many, very weak people, feel strong (and they use that unfounded strength as an excuse for committing violence against others that are different in some way than they).
    No, actually this thread is about two issues , freedom of expression and religion, the statement was made that most violence was religious inspired and I dispute that, and went to list my thoughts on that matter, religious people are not inherently violent but religious people can and do subvert and pervert religion for their own gain as do other people who can spot the weakness in others and then exploit that weakness for their own gain and violence is their quick and easy tool to accomplish their goals. No misunderstanding on my part.
    And that is your problem - you don't understand how you misunderstand just about everything you post on here!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The title of the thread is Texas shooting- first amendment what is there to misunderstand,you insist on dragging religion into this and any other side issue, the question remains is this (the shooting) a first amendment issue?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: The title of the thread is Texas shooting- first amendment what is there to misunderstand,you insist on dragging religion into this and any other side issue, the question remains is this (the shooting) a first amendment issue?
    Quite an amount of verbal tap dancing. Violence is violence. It is not about amendments. You claim it isn't about religion but in the mind of those who committed the violence it is about religion, their practice thereof, trumping everything else. If that isn't about religion one doesn't know what is.

    the bottom line is this:

    religious belief, religious practice and most especially violence cloaked in religion does not trump secular law. That includes everything from actions such as theses mopes engaged in and equal treatment in the public square including the marketplace. A person is free to believe as they wish as long as their belief does not damage someone else. The state will not tell you that you believe incorrectly or that one religion or sect is proper belief. That is not the place of the state. The state does say that violence under the cloak of religion and discrimination are not acceptable.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: The title of the thread is Texas shooting- first amendment what is there to misunderstand,you insist on dragging religion into this and any other side issue, the question remains is this (the shooting) a first amendment issue?
    Quite an amount of verbal tap dancing. Violence is violence. It is not about amendments. You claim it isn't about religion but in the mind of those who committed the violence it is about religion, their practice thereof, trumping everything else. If that isn't about religion one doesn't know what is.

    the bottom line is this:

    religious belief, religious practice and most especially violence cloaked in religion does not trump secular law. That includes everything from actions such as theses mopes engaged in and equal treatment in the public square including the marketplace. A person is free to believe as they wish as long as their belief does not damage someone else. The state will not tell you that you believe incorrectly or that one religion or sect is proper belief. That is not the place of the state. The state does say that violence under the cloak of religion and discrimination are not acceptable.
    I am not the one tap dancing thanks to my two left feet, you made my point about violence is violence and that it doesn't matter what particular venue is used, but religion is not about violence, at least not Christianity as I know it, when a Christian commits a violent act then he or she are not acting according to the tenets of the Christian faith, now this thread is not about religion per se but about the parameters of the First Amendment and should censorship play a bigger role. Also violence under the cloak of anything is wrong . Also my post was in reply to what Dutch or PR had posted , but thanks for chiming in with your opinion.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: Quite an amount of verbal tap dancing. Violence is violence. It is not about amendments. You claim it isn't about religion but in the mind of those who committed the violence it is about religion, their practice thereof, trumping everything else. If that isn't about religion one doesn't know what is.
    Well said. Anyone who kills in the name of their god is clearly using their religion as a justification to kill. Deflecting blame away from the religious texts that sanction killing in the name of their god is an easy way for religious people to wipe their hands clean and act like their religion has nothing to do with the senseless killing of thousands of people each year.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    lonely bird Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: The title of the thread is Texas shooting- first amendment what is there to misunderstand,you insist on dragging religion into this and any other side issue, the question remains is this (the shooting) a first amendment issue?
    Quite an amount of verbal tap dancing. Violence is violence. It is not about amendments. You claim it isn't about religion but in the mind of those who committed the violence it is about religion, their practice thereof, trumping everything else. If that isn't about religion one doesn't know what is.

    the bottom line is this:

    religious belief, religious practice and most especially violence cloaked in religion does not trump secular law. That includes everything from actions such as theses mopes engaged in and equal treatment in the public square including the marketplace. A person is free to believe as they wish as long as their belief does not damage someone else. The state will not tell you that you believe incorrectly or that one religion or sect is proper belief. That is not the place of the state. The state does say that violence under the cloak of religion and discrimination are not acceptable.
    I am not the one tap dancing thanks to my two left feet, you made my point about violence is violence and that it doesn't matter what particular venue is used, but religion is not about violence, at least not Christianity as I know it, when a Christian commits a violent act then he or she are not acting according to the tenets of the Christian faith, now this thread is not about religion per se but about the parameters of the First Amendment and should censorship play a bigger role. Also violence under the cloak of anything is wrong . Also my post was in reply to what Dutch or PR had posted , but thanks for chiming in with your opinion.
    Your point wasn't yours. It is the nature of man to be violent under certain circumstances and with the use of various agitprop tools. And one of those tools is religion, whether you like it or not. As for Christianity we must adjourn to the religion thread in order to discuss theology more in depth because violence has permeated Christianity as well as many other religions since they were established.

    as for censorship those who engage in such acts as drawing cartoons or satire are most certainly protected as they should be. Unfortunately protection doesn't equate arbitrarily to physical protection unless you want the most massive surveillance state imaginable. In the long run protection devolves down to the justice system which will address violence. That it is violent itself is unsurprising and discussion for another day. But looking more closely attempts to use religion to justify violent acts must be trumped by secular law since violence damages people. And guess what? The same applies from a damage standpoint to those who will not serve gays based upon religious beliefs.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I wish there were a common sense type of censorship along with a common sense of decency, but those who wish to do violence do not really need a reason , just an excuse will do. I have often stated on different threads that man is a predator, and those predators will prey on the weaker among us, the only thing a predator fears is a larger or more intense predator where the roles would be switched. I am not a turn the other cheek Christian , you hit me , prepare to be struck back and often, until I feel the threat is either diminished or gone.