Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#134 - LocoJoe (12/02/2013) [-]
"I believe churches and other organised religions should be banned for protesting without factual evidence."

So much for those rights of freedom of speech and religious practice.
#360 to #134 - xaviaxz (12/02/2013) [-]
I believe you should not be allowed to speak politically basing arguements on religion.
For example: Can't have gay marriage because bible says no hurrr.
User avatar #392 to #360 - LocoJoe (12/03/2013) [-]
Why not? The first amendment doesn't have prerequisites on how you can claim grievances to your government. Will we have prerequisites for which religions we can practice? Can we only practice religions that are nice and it everyone's morals and doesn't butthurt anyone? How about you can only have a jury of your peers if you don't hurt someone's feelings during your crime. Steal some chips? Fine, here's your jury. Beat up a couple of gay guys while calling them a "couple of cocksucking queermosexuals"? No, muh feelings are hurt! No more rights for you!
#401 to #392 - xaviaxz (12/03/2013) [-]
First of all, I'm not american, so I do not know much about your amendments, but I will try to explain what I mean as well as possible. I think that state and religion should be separated, and I think that is a core belief in american society, which means that laws should not be based on a religious text, like the bible. I'm not sure what you mean when you write "Will we have prerequisites for which religions we can practice", I never claimed that. I only said that religion has nothing to do with how the state should be led, therefore an ORGANIZED group, shouldn't say anything about things that does not concern them, like making/passing laws. If a group doesn't like something because it says so in their "holy" book, they shouldn't try to base laws just of that. Sorry if it is hard to understand what I write at times, I only speak English as a foreign language.
User avatar #316 to #134 - buttinspecter (12/02/2013) [-]
I believe everyone should be born with freedom of speech, but that it should be taken away if it's discovered that you're a ******** .
User avatar #318 to #316 - LocoJoe (12/02/2013) [-]
So does that mean we must also have IQ tests, writing tests, and prerequisites to vote, have a jury of our peers, and not incriminate ourselves? Yeah sure, lets have second class citizens. Oh wait, 14th Amendment!
User avatar #324 to #318 - buttinspecter (12/02/2013) [-]
I'm not suggesting preventative tests. I'm suggesting being punished for offenses of spewing unintelligent **** . Most Facebook users would be in trouble.
User avatar #327 to #324 - LocoJoe (12/02/2013) [-]
So people can't express themselves if they express things the government doesn't like? That's the ******* point of the 1st Amendment. I am protected from saying things like "The NSA spies on citizens! The government is ruling over its citizens! etc etc".
User avatar #328 to #327 - buttinspecter (12/02/2013) [-]
No, that's the beauty of it. The government isn't the one who gets to decide it. In fact, the government can be shut up as well.
User avatar #333 to #328 - LocoJoe (12/02/2013) [-]
So what? The citizens choose? The citizens get to force everyone to conform? You can't have individual thought without everyone going after you? Yay! I love me some mob rule! Can't wait until some hardcore neo nazi factions spout up and start setting the norms.
User avatar #341 to #333 - buttinspecter (12/02/2013) [-]
Weird. Your arguments seem to be getting more and more specific and off topic at the same time. "Mob?" "Nazi?" No one has said anything about either of these. Of course, I didn't say it was perfect, but it's a start. Just like with anything, you have to get rid of the greed and tyrany for it to truly work. For this reason, it'll probably never work, but fully free speech isn't a perfect plan either.
User avatar #145 to #134 - newsuperyoshi (12/02/2013) [-]
You get those freedoms, and if they're in actual danger of being discriminated, they would have factual evidence. This wouldn't be banning outright, it would be limiting so they couldn't turn it into a social weapon, and that is perfectly legal under the Constitution and Federal Laws.
User avatar #138 to #134 - cupcakecrusader (12/02/2013) [-]
Firstly: I'm not in the US.
Secondly: You seem to have mixed up "Freedom of speach" and "legal protest". I think they should be allowed to continue preaching whatever the hell they want, who am I to say otherwise?
But if they're going to debate against gay marrage (bad example, but it's the first thing I could think of) purely because "The bible says it's wrong", then why the hell should I listen to them?

GM crops, cloning, nanomachines, you see it all the time. And you know what happened last time we let the church have free reign? That's right, the dark ages.
User avatar #149 to #138 - newsuperyoshi (12/02/2013) [-]
I'd like to say something on that issue of Gay Marriage, the main argument anti it from a bible POV is Leviticus, but no where in the Ten Commandments (how God wanted you to live your life) does it say anything on the matter, and if your going to use Leviticus, then I'll gladly attack you for eating pork.

tl;dr I'm attacking anti-gay marriage.
#225 to #149 - anon (12/02/2013) [-]
Gay marriage is also banned in 1 Corinthians as well. Well, technically it bans being homosexual in general, but you can imply that the marriage would be banned if the act of it is banned.
 Friends (0)