Scientism - The Belief System of Atheists

This is why there is an Ignore function so as to screen out those who are severely subject matter challenged across a broad spectrum or just asinine trolls which is probably a distinction without any significant difference when it comes down to it.

 

This is the post you replied to:

The US constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791.

Your source says that the politicians agreed to include a Bill of Rights, not that the Constitution already included the Bill of Rights when it was ratified (it didn't).

 

Yes

As I posted, the BoR was included by the Massachusetts_Compromise

I never said the BoR was a completed before its addition to the constitution, It was not necessary to make the point and correct the misunderstanding about reserved rights

 

kind of a pain to have to constantly sort out and correct their propaganda.

 

Come to think of it the most enjoyable thing about them is how they preempt their disingenuous posts by pointing their fingers to blame those who correct their constant attempts to fool the gullible and exposing their propaganda for the fraud it is.

 

And what they "sought" to do didn't happen. You said yourself they sought to amend the Constitution BEFORE ratification. That didn't happen. The Constitution was amended years AFTER ratification. BEFORE and AFTER are not the same things. They are polar opposites. Please tell me you grasp this concept.

And please at least try to read your own posts before posting. This is getting embarrassing.

 

yeh thats why its not a good idea to play word games and argue distinctions without a remarkable difference then you wont have that problem. It should be painfully obvious to everyone but trolls to note the disingenuous redirection of the focus of to your strawman ramblings.
The addition of the BoR was agreed upon prior to the ratification of the constitution, therefore it goes without saying it was included. Your nitpicking strawman points are based on your shifting the context and is without material difference to point I made.

Following this compromise, Massachusetts voted to ratify the Constitution on February 6, 1788.

I see

 

Try actually addressing my previous post. At least pretend to be interested in an honest debate.

 

That is way too high of a bar for any troll to ever reach.

 

It almost hurts to say I agree,
mirror mirror on the wall.

 

I have no reason to address either your strawmen or red herrings
So please refrain from demanding that I address your redirection of points that I make and have proven.

 

Mislabelling historical facts as "strawmen or red herrings" won't make them stop being historical facts. I repeat (and you will again dodge, I'm sure):

And what they "sought" to do didn't happen. You said yourself they sought to amend the Constitution BEFORE ratification. That didn't happen. The Constitution was amended years AFTER ratification. BEFORE and AFTER are not the same things. They are polar opposites. Please tell me you grasp this concept.

And please at least try to read your own posts before posting. This is getting embarrassing.

 

as it should be

included
contained as part of a whole being considered.

https://www.google.com/search?q=included&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-e

 

Strike 2. Swing and a miss.

You can't beat a dead horse if you haven't even aimed at the horse yet.

Trying again:

And what they "sought" to do didn't happen. You said yourself they sought to amend the Constitution BEFORE ratification. That didn't happen. The Constitution was amended years AFTER ratification. BEFORE and AFTER are not the same things. They are polar opposites. Please tell me you grasp this concept.

And please at least try to read your own posts before posting. This is getting embarrassing.

I look forward to your next consecutive dodge.

 

Strike 3

I look forward to your continued demands to debate your strawman

BTW hows that working out for you?

 

Well ‘‘tis way to easy. You have yet to explain why the analogy comparing god with unicorns isn’t valid. And no your rather ignorant claim that it is a straw-man doesn’t wash for anyone who bothered to lean what a straw-man argument actually is.

 

The LDS church does not believe in plural marriage.

You're misinterpreting the first amendment. It is not saying that all you have to do is claim to have a religion that supports X and that therefore you can do X.

Just think what that would mean! Remember that our legal system has no way of judging whether your religious beliefs are legitimate. So, anything you make up could be claimed by you to be legal due to your preposterous theory that saying it is religions means it is legal.

Also, remember that ALL the bill of rights have exclusions and limitations that are there for reasons such as public safety.

That first amendment phrase means the government can't pass laws against being Islamic. However, it doesn't mean that your neighbor can use a tower and speakers to call your entire vicinity to pre-dawn prayers.

 

On the record they cant or they will be shut down and forced to go completely underground in stead of those who still practice poly

Rallee? Do tell how am I misinterpreting the constitution
Oh so whats it saying? That you have to ask for the gubmint to give you permission to exercise your rights? Seriously?

yeh we would have freedom of religion.
then why are they judging it?
Thats an extraconstitution action and carries stiff penalties.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

In 1862, the United States Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories.[3] In spite of the law, Mormons continued to practice polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment. [****ing dream on] In 1879, in Reynolds v. United States,[5] the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Morrill Act, stating: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinion, they may with practices."[3] [Patently FALSE in the context he used it]

Only if someone is damaged and only in that case. The ******* judges did a broadsweep funnel ruling that wiped out and completely destroyed the 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ' part of the constitution. It no longer exists. No one authorized that kleptocratic mafia you call gov to remove our rights, period, yet there it is plain as day.

Our secular atheist gubmint.

While its true that our criminal kleptocrats may step in to curb actions that is valid ONLY in cases where someone suffered 'injury or damages' due to what you are calling and exercising as your religion, and on a per case basis.

Damages on a per case basis, no more.

No it dont
Are you from this country meaning america?

Why are you so diligently trying to convert reserved rights of the people to privileges granted by da gubmint?

 

You have no rights pal, if you are american you and everyone else are owned, suck it up!



Congress made the unconstitutional Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act violating the free exercise clause.

1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise [of Religion]

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the unconstitutional Morrill Act also in violation of the free exercise clause.

They totally wiped out and completely destroyed the 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

??
No, they changed BEFORE the government made the law.

This is me hoping you'll catch on to how our government works and to the SC rulings that have been in place for a VERY long time.

 

What religious practice are you being barred from?

 

then feel free to do some homework

citation?
Do you bother to read before you post?
In spite of the law, Mormons continued to practice polygamy, believing that it was protected by the First Amendment.

I get how the kleptocracy 'works', this is me hoping you will will catch on to how it was intended and is supposed to work.

 

poly
the freedom to exercise

the ass helmet judicial purposefully vaporized WtP ability to have a religion. Without action you have no religion. you have ethics, philosophy, wishful thinking, dreaming, everything BUT religion. Now the courts can opine any way they want with impunity. That was no accident, rest assured it was a calculated move by the kletpo's

 

The LDS church does not support polygamy. There are sects that aren't in lock step with the church. I don't know how much they get prosecuted for polygamy, but I don't remember a recent case.

 

Sorry, dude. You don't get to do anything and everything you want even if you believe your god ordered you to.