In the opinion of just about everyone in the Democrat party, the idea of asking someone to display a photo ID in order to cast a vote is a thinly veiled racist attempt to intimidate and disenfranchise low income and minority voters. But ssk them whether you should have to show a photo ID in order to purchase a gun — which, unlike voting, is a Constitutionally protected enumerated right — they’re all for it. Somehow they don’t see that as a racist attempt to disarm low income Americans. Now, however, one Pennsylvania man is challenging that requirement on an interesting premise: he’s Amish, and having his photograph taken is against his religion . . .
From Penn Live:
Andrew Hertzler claims in a suit filed Friday in U.S. Middle District Court that the requirement is a violation of his constitutional right to possess a firearm and of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Defendants are the federal government, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James B. Comey and Thomas E. Brandon and Christopher C. Shaffer, acting director and assistant director of public and government affairs, respectively, for the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives.
Hertzler states he is an active member of the Amish faith and community in Lancaster County with a sincerely held religious belief that prohibits photographs being taken of him.
The suit states Hertzler on June 2 was not allowed to purchase a gun for self-defense purposes at a Pennsylvania licensed firearms dealer with his state-issued non-photo ID.
He is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm, he notes.
This will be an interesting case to watch. There’s a definite double standard in the logic being used by gun control activists here. Requiring an ID in one situation is clearly racist, but requiring one for another (better protected, Constitutionally speaking) activity is perfectly fine. Given the way the courts are ruling these days the result on this case is up in the air thanks to the religious angle. If it were a straight challenge on the constitutionality of the process I’d see it laughed out of court, but the desire to bend over backwards to accommodate the “politically correct” culture of religious tolerance may give it a fighting chance. We shall see.
I’m pretty sure the constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to vote.
Only for citizens. Shouldn’t you be required to prove that you are one?
If you believe in having a “Papers, please” society.
By the same people who have “interpreted” the Constitution to enumerate authority to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
You are wrong in that…..An interpretation is needed to even gurantee regular citizens the right to vote…..If you want to play the only what it says game…Then no person has the right ot own one…only a Militia
Nowhere does the 2A say the rkba is related to the militia. It makes a statement that a well-regulated militia is needed, and then says the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed. Nothing more.
What is so difficult to understand about this clause: …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right applies to the people not to the militia. The grammar and sentence structure are plain. The effectiveness of the militia to serve its purpose is dependent upon upholding the inherent, pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms.
unless you actually understand what it says.
Since amendments have been required three times in the history of the Constitution to expand the franchise, it is self-evident that voting is not a Constitutional right, except in the cases of those groups specifically named. It’s not a Constitutional right, for example, for people under 18. It used to not be a Constitutional right for people under 21, or women, or blacks, or people who didn’t own land, etc.
The right to keep and bear arms has never been so Constitutionally limited.
I really wish we could go back to being a land owner as a requirement to vote. People who have the most skin in the game care the most about the outcomes.
I disagree. Freeloaders care – they care very much that your wealth be “redistributed” to them.
I know that sounds very elitist, but its very true. There is a tipping point in a society when 51% of the people realize they can vote themselves the wealth of the other 49%. After that there’s no coming back in a true democracy.
Its just another reason I’m grateful we are a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy.
So those of us apartment dwellers have no right to vote? I can’t afford to buy a house or land currently, so until I do, I have rights taken away? So much for freedom.
This is for Jon in CO, actually – Participating in a REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) might be the side door to getting some skin in the game. Barristers in residence? A response, please?
Ethan, I just wanted to say, you’re 100% right- my old man would say it all the time and still does.
It’s only a matter of time, and I mean LITERALLY, a matter of time in which the clock is ticking, until a majority and by that I mean a voting 51% majority realizes, we can make laws, we can amend the Constitution, we can do whatever we want. All we need to do is get our own people in charge, and then say, “We resolve to put forth this bill (aka make a law) that says, all government money is paid out to us, …..” lets get a little sinister here…. because it’s possible—-> all (people of one race/color) are hereby taxed 75% and all that money is given to people of (different race/color).
It sounds ridiculous, but with the way society is going and this whole Occupy This/Our Lives Matter But Yours Don’t/”democratic” socialism-communism/wealth redistribution/etc……. it’s only a matter of time.
I’d rather it come now, frankly, while I’m young enough to do something about it and contribute to the Good Guys but probably won’t be another 50-100 years….. however, it’s coming.
Property owners should be the voters for Senate races, taxpayers for the House.
State govs should determine their representation in the state’s house (senate), taxpayers in the peoples’ house (house of reps). States have been denied representation in Congress since 1913.
We’d be far better off returning to the original model, in which state legislatures elected US Senators. The Senators represent the States, not the people of the States.
I’d be good with that, if only property owners were allowed in state legislatures.
BTW, that doesn’t just mean land; business owners would count, too, so long as their incomes were above, say, the federal poverty level,
Four times, actually (14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th), however this doesn’t prove your (or Nick’s) point; voting is an enumerated (meaning specifically named) right. It has a lot more specific definition on the limitations allowed/disallowed given to it than most other Constitutionally enumerated rights, but that does not mean that it is less important or less existent.
Now, since there are specific restrictions applied to the right to vote by the Constitution, it seems that reasonable steps should be taken to enforce those restrictions. This is where voter ID laws come into play; only with positive identification can you have any confidence that a given person is over 18 and a citizen.
Since there is no constitutional restriction (and, indeed, no Federal restriction) on foreign nationals possessing guns, positive identification is not necessary for that purpose, at least. I think this Amish guy has a better argument than most for his case. He should be able to produce reliable witnesses to his identity and that should be good enough for the FFL’s purposes.
“It’s not a Constitutional right, for example, for people under 18. It used to not be a Constitutional right for people under 21, or women, or blacks, or people who didn’t own land, etc.
The right to keep and bear arms has never been so Constitutionally limited.”
I see what you’re saying, but the Constitution never limited voting rights by gender, race, or property.
If you want to play the schematics game then yes it has…and technically still is….The constitutional only gave the rights to a well regulated militia. It never gave it to the average citizen…That is just something that many reasonable people interpreted to be the intention of the framers…but it is unknown….For all we know Washington and Jefferson could have said nope you are wrong all these years
Please quote the part of the constitution that asserts that the militia has the right to keep and bear arms. My copy of the constitution says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Nope. First of all, it didn’t GIVE the right to anyone. I recognized a pre-existing right and guarantees that the federal government couldn’t take it away. Second of all, it recognizes the right belongs to the people. Thirid of all, as regards militias, they are assembled and disbanded as required. You can’t do that without the people having arms.
Read the writings of the founding fathers. They were very clear on this.
How remarkably self-misinformed you are.
The Constitution stipulates a number of reasons that may not be used to deny the right to vote. It does not make voting inalienable. Contrast that with ” shall not be infringed”.
It is not a decision about the right to vote. The decision is over proving citizenship and the legal vote.
There is no (enumerated) Federal Constitutional right to vote. Some state Constitutions do specifically say it is, however, which is the reason why there are various amendments that refer to it.
Hope he wins…
Funny this reminds me of a movie, “Holyman Undercover” where an Amish Christian is sent on a mission to find his uncle in the ‘big city’ and instead of a photo (because they don’t take them) is given a crude line drawing. We should let this guy draw his own picture.
The problem with that is that in the Amish faith the belief is that they can not make a graven image. So drawings would still be considered a sin in their eyes. Even dolls in the Amish community don’t have faces.
THAT’S RIGHT B_TCHES!!! CAN’T VOTE WITHOUT PICTURE I.D., err, oh wait POS (D)’s don’t care if you are American and want to give you the right to vote illegally, at which time they could make the request to own a firearm by AMISH Dude #1, Party in the first Part, but they don’t want Party in the first part from obtaining the firearm otherwise.
FU satan’s evil army of blue (D).
Wow.. that kind of rhetoric is NOT helpful. Gun rights are not a republican thing – republican’s just happen to support them more often.
You’re blending your issues, please stop.
Don’t bother. Frothing, nonsensical ravings are kind of his schtick, of late.
Nothing wrong with a good rant, just as there’s nothing wrong with sarcasm, which some liberals regard as “cruel”.
Best rant of the day, owing to the fact it’s the only rant of the day…
Yes they are (and Libertarian, etc.). I can show you the Democrat platform to prove it. If you think I’m wrong and you’re right, you show me the Democrat platform proving you are right.
From the Democrat party’s own website, democrats.org go to the platforms and find this:
“We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole….”
In my mind, that’s infringement of my rights. The Democrat party is evil. Simple as that.
Republicans in general tend to support the constitution more than Democrats, and that is a fact.
LOL
The GOP has tended to not like the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
The Republican Party certainly has a tarnished record regarding the 2A but they are not the clear and present danger to the 2A. They have certainly never been anywhere near as rabid for gun control that would proceed confiscation as the Democrats. Democrats including a front runner for POTUS are aggressively trying to subvert the Constitution while calling the NRA terrorists. Some Democrats have already gone past that and stated all gun owners are terrorists.
I am not a Republican (but much closer to than a Democrat) but how can you not think this insane attack on gun rights is not a product of the Democrats? Also, you may not find the rhetoric helpful but it would be far from the first time that the harsh truth did not prove to be helpful to someone and the world still turns..
The narcissistic childish leader of the party that has never stopped campaigning long enough to govern, the one that currently sits in the White House has completely lost his shit over not getting to put useless/symbolic/unconstitutional gun control on the books for his lame duck legacy. But him being Democrat has nothing to do with it?
Silly Leghorn: religious accommodation and “protected class” status doesn’t apply to Christians.
Because Christians arent a religion of peace like that embraced by ISIS and other middle eastern groups
This…
He’s “white”, christian, and male… The left wing of the Supreme Court will sweep him under the rug. After all, lately, men don’t even have the right to due process or the presumption of innocence anymore thanks to SJWs and Femminazis.
The Amish are….different. They get a certain amount of social love for being quaint and peaceable and strange to most modern Americans. They can be white Christian men, but they are still their own kind of minority. It’s hard to explain.
Best example is when that nutter shot their little girls. There is talk of forgiveness and then there is true forgiveness – we saw the latter there, and see how that contrasts with the responses to crime that we see on a regular basis. People don’t understand the mentality, and so they can only hope to preserve it as a link to a better past.
I don’t think he’ll be able to ride RFRA very far since the RFRA doesn’t treat sincerely held religious beliefs as uninfringable.
It’ll get waved off as the “least restrictive” means of furthering a “compelling state interest”.
Or Christian cults…honestly I thought the Amish were against any violence. Amish Mafia guy English?
I’m a non-denominational Christian, and I’m against violence, too. That’s why I carry a firearm, to help prevent violent people from perpetuating violence against me and my family.
I assume the Amish desire to carry for much the same reason.
If ANYONE should be allowed to do a “straw purchase” it should be the Amish. Shaker’s would have to do a “wicker purchase” (slightly more complicated transaction).
; P
If you can find one.
Shakers were so puritanical that they thought sex was such a sin that they refused to engage in it.
Therefore, no more shakers. Great furniture, though!
http://maineshakers.com
Still extant today.
GOD bless and keep them all, and cradle them gently with both hands.
One thing for sure is they are not against hunting, and so the same problem arises (unless they make their own, which I suppose in Lancaster may still occur).
Around me, they all buy muzzle loaders. I think some groups frown on the idea of owning modern firearms.
My grandfather voted Republican up until the day he died, then he voted Democrat.
If you want to see Hillary at one of her events (and not sure why you would), they ask for an ID to get in. They ask for an ID when you go to the doctor too, just to make sure you’re not using someone’s insurance other than your own. The ID thing is such a transparent attempt to rig voting.
Democrat motto: If you can’t win an election based on your track record and policies, cheat.
A rather novel argument given that it would be a violation of his religion to anything in defense of himself or someone else that inflicts harm in the attacker.
How about you let the person who has actually devoted his life to the Amish faith to determine the doctrine of that faith, and its applicability to methods of self-defense?
No, sir. Once this man walks into court and demands an exemption from the law that the rest of us have to follow, and claims his religion as the basis for that exemption, then that doctrine and his interpretation of it become matters of fact to be determined by the trial jury.
Otherwise, anyone could just claim anything is their religion, reserve exemptions for themselves and nobody else could challenge them.
This guy’s claim is ludicrous on its face, anyway. He ought to be subjected to stern questioning and perhaps should expect some public ridicule.
Well it worked for them with regards to Social Security, so….
“then that doctrine and his interpretation of it become matters of fact to be determined by the trial jury”
No, that’s not how religious exceptions work. And we have a rich history of them in the United States. President (formerly General) George Washington wrote to the Annual Meeting of Quakers in 1789, commending them as “exemplary and useful citizens” and praising them despite their “declining to share with others the burden of the common defense”.
“This guy’s claim is ludicrous on its face, anyway.”
Again, no. It’s debatable, but it’s hardly ludicrous. It could easily be derived from a plain reading of “shall not be infringed”.
Good point, BDub. I hadn’t thought of that.
Twency, afraid not. Religious exceptions must be based on a reasonable interpretation of a bona fide religion. Even then, there are no guarantees.
Assuming such a thing existed, the government is not going to let you run around carrying a light saber, just because you call yourself a Jedi. You cannot do that legally with a steel saber, claiming a Christian exemption, even though swords are referred to repeatedly and favorably throughout the Bible, including among Jesus’ retinue.
For crying out loud, you don’t get to engage in some boisterous airing of grievances and feats of strength in public without risking a possible disorderly conduct charge, just because you claim Festivus is legitimate.
Spoken like the deep-fried FUDD you are.
No sh*t.
This self-defense issue is nonsense. He may be buying a long-arm for hunting or target shooting. Or, just because it is his right. He has no need whatsoever to claim an intention to use it for self-defense; nor, to claim that he intends to prepare for muster for militia duty. Why introduce a spurious issue?
Interesting to see where that goes.. Why would he need a modern gun anyway? Shouldn’t he be buying a sling shot or bow?
I don’t have an issue with background checks personally.
I live in Alabama (very fun friendly state) and have to do a background check for every stripped lower I buy. (I still think that blows goats as much as the NFA papers for my can)
But I don’t really have an issue with a check for buying a functioning firearm for CMA purposes.
Honestly, I’ve never bought a gun and not had a check ran. Only had to experience a ‘cool down’ period once when I was 19 or 21 (can’t remember) with my first pistol; which actually pissed me off. Heh
10 mins to fill out a form and a 3 min phone call and yur out the door.
What bothers me more is any and every time a cop sees my permit he uses it as an excuse to try to search my car and handle my pistol, even if it’s locked in the glove box.
Maybe because he lives in 2015, and not in 515? Why should he not avail himself of the most effective tool available to provide for his self-defense?
Would you take issue with background checks for voting? Or speaking?
And what, pray tell, do background checks accomplish?
“And what, pray tell, do background checks accomplish?”
With our current prosecution rate? Not much. If we actually enforced the NICS system like it was meant to be, I think it would help to a small degree. Its still not worth it though – “Shall not be infringed” and all…
What background checks should accomplish is to allow a seller to decide whether the prospective buyer is someone he wants to sell to. Hence, it should be open to everyone.
It irks me that for years the Democrats have opposed making NICS open to anyone, but now they want to force it on everyone.
Yeah, in most cases they have the infringement time pass pretty quickly. It isn’t the time that is infringing so much, it is the underlying assumptions.
Oh bull.
This guy should have no more right to flout the law because he thinks his beliefs make him special than the women who want to wear a full burka in their driver’s license pictures for the same reason.
You, Nick, are conflating two completely unrelated issues solely to rile up the self righteous Fox News buyers around here in order to cash in on their persecution complex-based click rates.
It’s disingenuous, smarmy and is something that used to be beneath you.
Why should a law-abiding person have to produce a photo ID as a prerequisite to exercise a natural right that is constitutionally protected against infringement?
Because we live in 2015, not 1791 and the infringement ship sailed a long time ago. The NRA estimates that there are over 30,000 infringements to 2A in place in this country. I don’t like that anymore than you do, but arguing about one more kind of lacks impact.
And I don’t think having to show ID is an infringement anyway. It doesn’t bother me to show an ID to buy a gun. How do you know if a person is law-abiding if you don’t know who he is? Keep in mind there are some other religions, more dangerous ones, who claim the “no picture” thing also.
It is not the law-abiding person’s burden to prove that he is law-abiding. He enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Indeed. And photo ID requirements and background checks do absolutely nothing to prevent such people from obtaining firearms.
Your logic is…..OK it isn’t, logical that is.
Wow, since there are unconstitutional infringements, why worry about more? OK sure, next only Leo’s, elected officials, or those given authority by selected for officials shall be allowed the rkba. Just a other infringement, right? That ship sailed long ago.
Just because your chains don’t bother you doesn’t mean others share your views.
You sound just like all the people yesterday, who were ok with a BGC on non-NFA silencers, just because there already is one under the NFA – except this is more egregious still. The yoke is no less cumbersome because you have grown used to the weight.
John: They know who he is. He has a state issued ID card, sans photo. That ID is as common here for the Amish, and some Mennonites, as chicken corn soup and shoo fly pie. They have already established his identity – that is not at issue here.
JohnF wrote on October 27, 2015 at 15:39 hours:
“And I don’t think having to show ID is an infringement anyway.”
He _did_ “show an ID”: a state-issued ID, no less:
“…Hertzler…was not allowed to purchase a gun for self-defense purposes at a Pennsylvania licensed firearms dealer with his state-issued non-photo ID.”
But the ATF requires that there be a photo on the ID, even if the state doesn’t.
If no photo ID is needed or required to vote, then it’s unconstitutional to require one to exercise RKBA.
So we need to actually get back to the 2A. In the mean time all the religious whack-a-doodles have to follow the same rules as the rest of America.
Sorry Chip, my last comment was meant for 1/16th Watt.
AC/DC – the founding fathers of the U.S. took up this project with incredible, indelible, visible, complete deference to my GOD (meaning, from what I know of them, I believe we shared belief in the same one). They founded the U.S. in shrinking-awe, and “Fear of the Lord”. No one will ever be able to change that.
Further, nowhere is it written in any of our founding documents that we should have separation of ‘Church and State’ but even if it was IT WOULD STILL NOT BE IN THE PURVIEW OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, OR THE POWERS OR AUTHORITIES OF ANY OF IT’S EMBODYING CITIZENS TO REDUCE MY INITIAL STATEMENT TO THAT OF SUPERSTITION.
We get that you don’t fit-in, you’re angry about it and you don’t know why. You lash-out at Amish people and people of faith, we get it. We just want you to know that you can un-f_ck yourself at any time.
Egads Joe (diRt), you are a complete illiterate who can’t even read The Constitution The FFs tolerated you ignorants as a convenience, nothing more.
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry 1776
“The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.” The US Congress 1782
“Let…statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by…educating their little boys and girls…and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” – Samuel Adams
“The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.” – Noah Webster
“I do not believe that the Constitution was the offspring of inspiration, but I am perfectly satisfied that the Union of the States in its form and adoption is as much the work of a Devine Providence as any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testaments.” – Benjamin Rush
“There is not a truth to be gathered form history more certain, or more momentous, than this: that civil liberty cannot long be separated from religious liberty without danger, and ultimately without destruction to both. Wherever religious liberty exists, it will, first or last, bring in and establish political liberty.” – Joseph Story, Congressman and Supreme Court Justice
So you would be ok with voter ID laws then? Why should people be allowed to flaunt THAT law and not THIS one?
Which part of “shall not be infringed” is confusing?
Seemingly all of it – when it applies to those he disapproves of.
So, if he wins (big if) in this day and age of identity politics, I think I will “identify” as Amish, but only when present in a gun store or a gun show.
He does have a state-issued non-photo I.D.
You really couldn’t tell that was sarcasm?
I didn’t catch it, but I’m lacking in the whole emotion/empathy category (ask my wife)! However, I didn’t take that comment too seriously – it would be such a PITA that it would hardly be worth it. I know I would hate it.
Heck, claim “Gay Amish Native American” — grab some serious minority status!
🙂
A law cannot give preferential treatment over another on the basis of religion. This is literally in the First Amendment of the Constitution, which I guess the Amish guy (and many of the commentors here) haven’t read.
Unless he is trying to remove the photo ID requirement for everyone in the US? In which case, good luck with that.
Or perhaps you’re the one who hasn’t read the first amendment? That, or you don’t know the definition of literally. Maybe both.
In any case, neither the literal text of the first amendment, or its meaning, bears any resemblance to your statement. The first amendment says that the government may not establish a State religion, and may not pass no law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
Thus, if congress passes a law that forces someone to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs in order to follow, then the law is unconstitutional. I’ll be happy to cite several related Supreme Court cases that uphold the point.
Your personal exercise of religion has sweet FA to do with following the laws the rest of us have to follow.
A la requiring someone to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs in order to exercise an enumerated right is a violation of the establishment clause, because it gives preferential treatment to religions without those beliefs.
The law also can’t require someone to violate a religious belief to exercise a basic right. Without photo ID he cannot keep and bear arms according to the law. It’s not preferential treatment, it’s the fact that since the law forces him to choose between a right and his religious beliefs, it is unconstitutional. (Then the rest of the law is unconstitutional because it preferentially gives one person the ability to ignore it.)
Sad to say, you’re gonna be explaining this over and over and over to the dimmer switches.
Accept the Amish have a legal exemption to Social Security Taxes, and all churches are exempted from most taxes. I don’t agree with it, but it does shoot a hole in your argument.
That’s actually not what the First Amendment says….
I live in Lancaster, PA, and have some Amish as friends. Many view them as one group, but there are numerous “Ordnung” – a German word for their “order” or the rules they follow. There is no central Amish church structure, so each local assembly is autonomous and locally governed, and some of the rules they live by vary based on what the elders decide. He probably wants the gun to hunt – there are a lot of Amish and Mennonites (there are Old Order Mennonites that can be mistaken for Amish) here that hunt. We call them the “Straw Hat Army” when they hit the woods in the fall. Self defense? Not so much – Anabaptist theology is pretty much pacifist across the board in. It’s pretty much universal that they don’t have photo ID, don’t vote or get involved in the politics of the “English” (that’s all of us by the way) and don’t like their picture taken.
He will never win. If they allow this, then the floodgates will open for people to skirt around all sorts of government control based upon “religion.”
I believe that’s part of what makes the Bill of Rights work so well. They’re interlinked.
Well, on the rare occasion that the government actually obeys it, that interlinking works well…
?? Amish people can’t even drive 1920’s cars – how can they own something complicated like a firearm? Shouldn’t he be sticking to horse drawn wagons, black and white outfits, etc? I’m not questioning his gun rights – everyone should be able to buy a gun without an ID; I’m questioning this religious concept.
Guns in general are not complicated machines. Not even select-fire shoulder fired ones.
I agree. But neither are 1920 cars.
A model T has much more complexity than an AR15, for example.
And a Model T is far more reliable…
Not even close. Mean time between failure? The model T is abysmal compared to the AR.
Granted, you say a lot, without much knowledge to back any of your words. Typical.
Gotta keep that AR lubed up – just like the Steve Miller Band said: “…everything’s better when wet”
Paul G, Statements like this is where you demonstrate the true “depth” of your knowledge and “intellect”…
A Model T turned about 1600 revs per minute. I’ve personally never seen an AR/M go 1600 rounds without a misfire/FTF, but let’s pretend…
Let’s pretend they go 16,000 rounds – that’s a Model T running for a whole 10 minutes.
Let’s pretend they go 160,000 rounds – that’s a Model T running a whopping 100 minutes. And there is NO AR/M platform that has done near 100K rounds without a full rebuild. Ever. They’re trashed by 10K.
Seriously, do you really succeed with these type of uneducated arguments anywhere in life?
Cyclic rate does not translate into engine rpm. Only someone technically and mechanically inept would attempt such a comparison.
Oh really? Do explain the difference between a cyclic rate and a cyclic rate. I’m just dying to hear this tortured illogic tree…
A model T engine can do 1600 RPM and be providing no work. Comparing cyclic rates provides no meaningful measure of reliability. Similarly, an AR15 propels it’s payload at supersonic speed, as opposed to 45 mph. I am sorry if such ideas are too technical for you. Neither is a good measure. Service life perhaps? No contest, especially considering the increased pace of technology.
Except while running at 1600 RPM it was putting out 26HP+ of work. You just appear to be a 5th-grade dropout every time you post. You should really revisit middle-school as a prelim to getting you set for grown-up life in public.
Had you actually learned your middle-school math, you’d know how to convert joules to HP with a time specification. The people who actually matter know this, or are googling right now. I feel so sorry for your parents.
Wrong. Out of gear, at 1600 rpm, that motor is doing zero work, and producing negligible horsepower. Odd that you mentioned 5th grade, I understood that in 5th grade. Guess you haven’t made it there yet.
I guess they taught us better in the old days.
Google Rangers always like to throw around conversion factors, since they are easy to google. How many kW is that?
The Model T put out 28HP at 1600RPM under load,
Do keep trying kid, I’ll keep burying you with actual facts.
And put out negligible power at 1600 rpm when not under load, something you seem oblivious to understanding.
You have no facts without google. I guess you still haven’t found the hp to kW conversion, it is either .746 or .747, I forget which. Fuel consumption is much lower under no load conditions, of course.
Not a history buff I see.
No – not a history buff on “amish people.” No.
No history of Amish people needed to understand that guns, being technologically simpler that cars, predate cars by hundreds of years.
Well – in that case – the Amish would only be limited to muzzle loaders then? Since it depends on dates?
Based on Ordnung, simple firearms should not be an issue at all. Amish can hunt, and use firearms to deal with farm pests.
Just because they choose to live the way they do does not mean they are non functioning morons. Many are very smart, productive, resourceful and inventive. My father in law is friends with an Amish man that runs a $12 Million dollar business from a mobile phone Do some research – that was a profoundly insulting statement.
I never said they were non-functioning morons. I’m not trying to insult Amish people. I’m just questioning why they can own a firearm but can’t own a 1920’s vehicle.
Good question. The Amish appear to reject technology but actually use it selectively. TV, radio, PC’s are rejected while other things are modified to fit Amish purposes. Amish mechanics build new machines that conform to the cultural guidelines. They don’t consider technology evil, but feel that the adoption of too much of the modern world will undermine the family cohesion, traditions and accelerate their assimilation into the adjacent society by introducing values foreign to their culture. Cars equal mobility – which would weaken local ties and pull the community apart. A horse and buggy will definitely keep you local. They originally rejected electricity because the people providing it would have to work on Sundays. They have, in effect, dramatically slowed the pace of social change in their society. They use guns to hunt, and to deal with pests/vermin on their farms. Self defense may be on the table for a few of them (they’re people too – they don’t all fit in the same bucket, even in their local Ordnung), but only under dire circumstances – they generally go the non-resistance/pacifist route. No involvement in government, law enforcement or military. Also, many Amish see handguns as only for shooting other people, as opposed to long guns, which the see as being just a tool for the practical purposes described. FYI – Amish Mafia is a complete an total fabrication of bovine droppings.
…runs a $12 Million dollar business from a mobile phone…
I have strict adherence to my values and beliefs. That is, until I can make a bunch of money by flagrantly violating them. I will them find a twisted rationalization to justify that which formerly was a mortal sin.
Religion in a nutshell.
Speak for yourself…..oh, you are!
16V – Let me get this straight – you are disparaging a man that you do not know, who has built a business that employs many people, gives generously, treats employees like family and does so while following his legal, chosen beliefs by claiming he’s making a ton of money while violating those precepts? You have no evidence or rational foundation for any portion of your comment. It appears your motivation is the outright hatred of anything religious. You accuse a man you do not know of being a fraud because he’s a successful businessman and a practitioner of a religion. I simply pointed out that he has achieved much in spite of operating from a position of technological weakness, if not outright deficiency, and that’s the conclusion you reach? What standard do you hold yourself to when proffering misplaced ad hominen attacks on people you know nothing about? Do you hold yourself accountable, or give yourself a free pass because you think it’s OK to despise religion, and therefore, religious people? No religious rules for you, so complete subjectivity is the rule of the day? Please find out why you are so angry with the concept of religion. You are entitled to your opinions on content just like everyone else here, and those are very much welcome. However, the pompous, condescending, and unnecessarily divisive tone of your comments is very much out of place in what is supposed to be a free marketplace of ideas. We all come together here because we agree that our constitutional rights are important, particularly the 2nd Amendment as the protector of the others, and you decide your contribution will attacks and insults on those who hold views different than yours, without even considering they might have something of merit to share. Go back and read what you wrote. It’s shameful. Are you proud of that? That’s how how you treat people? Please just stop it.
Tom. Please, typical response.
Do explain why this/your cult is entitled to special privileges that others are not.
I suppose it’s fortunate that the fundamentals of gunsmithing and rifle/revolver/shotgun design were extant in the 19th century.
I never got the “poll tax” thing personally. We’re in a day and age where you do a thumb print of everyone who votes. In the case of virtually all of us it would prevent voter fraud. Either that or give away IDs to people for the sake of voting. Hell they could even use facial recognition software these days which is kinda creepy to me but whatever.
Regardless, it is at a level a double standard and if applied to the second amendment in the same way would make a lot of things that go on now illegal such as fees for permits, ammunition/firearms taxes etc.
The day I have to give a print to vote is the same day voting and I go our separate ways.
Why not just shoot anyone that trys to “infringe” your right?
Why not troll somewhere else? Your shtick is tired and weak.
Hey maybe the ACLU will pick up this case, right?
The real issue that this case is addressing is this: Does the government have the power/authority to make you choose between inalienable rights you wish to exercise? That is, can it infringe on your 1stA rights to allow exercise of your 2ndA rights, and vice versa?
No, that would be judicial activism for the court to take it upon itself to transform the narrow issue in contention into a much wider issue that nobody has brought before the court.
Perhaps. I’m not certain you can adequately resolve the narrower issue before the court with out addressing the principle in my previous statement. Maybe we’ll get to see legal acrobatics necessary to do so..who knows?
There is the aspect of context here. In locales where there is an Anabaptist population (Lancaster County, PA for example) there are reasonable accommodations made for them. They’re our neighbors and friends. He is simply asking for an accommodation rather than preferential treatment, even though he shouldn’t have to. Even though this man does not have a photo ID his identity has been established – he has state issued ID with no photo – common here among the Anabaptist communities. Many Anabaptist families here go back to the mid-1700’s – not hard to figure out who they are. The plain communities are very tight knit, so I’m absolutely certain that he could parade 200+ people through the courthouse to testify as to who he is, where he lives and what he looks like. That’s a hell of a lot more compelling than the contrivance of a photo ID and the security theater of a PICS background check. Yep, we have to ask the government’s permission to exercise constitutional rights. How did our ancestors ever settle this land without the benefit of digital photography….
Your comment points to the fact that this particular “law” in question is merely defining a Crime Against the Bureaucracy itself. What victim is The State protecting? Who’s rights would be violated if his non-photo ID were accepted as sufficient?
He’s met the spirit of the law, but that’s never good enough to bureaucratic automatons. It is fundamentally about control. “They” say his ID has to have a photo, and by golly, what they say is going to go.
This is simply a slightly more complicated example of the Zero Tolerance horse feces that has infected public school administrators. “The rule says x, no exceptions. We interpret it that way because we can.”
Yep – It’s always about control!
That’s the danger inherent in “the rule of law”: the law takes the place of God and common sense; it becomes an absolute that must be satisfied regardless of the damage to lives or anything else.
“And Susie, your socks have images of Annie Oakley shooting bottles out of the air – to be clear, guns AND alcohol! Indefinite suspension. May God have mercy on your soul…. er, we mean….”
If he wins this case i’m going to become Amish just before entering gun stores. I’m going to grow and cut my beard and put on a big hat just like this guy:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/92/ac/4f/92ac4fc9f6441f6ecdc97abcf1998eda.jpg
Then i’m going to get buying.
Not sure what good any of that would do… He still had to show ID and go through the background check. Just no photo on the ID.
You live in Amish Country, I take it?”
I’m kidding. Your ignorance is too expansive for that to be true.
Brilliant tactic and it even has a really solid constitutional backing and could be a hell of a barrier to forcing universal background checks on us. I really wonder who’s backing this case, although I understand why they’re not being really vocal here.
The Amish value humility and eschew excessive pride. That’s part of their objection to photographs of themselves. They frown upon drawing attention to their physicality; believing it’s a distraction from the more important matters of their devotion and how they lived their life. Fair enough.
However, NOBODY schlepps down to the DMV for a Glamour Shots photo shoot. It’s only about identification, not vanity. After all, the Amish must have license plates on their buggies. Vanity plates? No. But regular ol’ license plates for identification? Yes. Nobody makes a federal case that the plates violate their religion by drawing attention to their sweet, sweet ride.
Their other objection is that photographs constitute graven images, challenging the supremacy of God. That could be true, but when so that trait lies in the picture taker and the observer, not in the photo itself. The inanimate photo, like an inanimate firearm, lacks volition and cannot reasonably be held to the same standard as a person acting on free will.
Therefore, it is not the license photo itself that violates Amish beliefs, but rather it’s how that particular Amish person regards the photo. Really, a license photo is as much about proving who you are not, as it is about proving who you are. That’s hardly an elevation to Godlike status. Bounce this clown out of court. Fine him two goats and a bushel of sorghum as court costs.
Jonathan – Houston wrote on October 27, 2015 at 16:31 hours:
“After all, the Amish must have license plates on their
Look closely at this WashPost photo and show us the “license plates” on this Amish buggy:
https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2015/10/iStock_000003314222_Small.jpg
They are required to display the triangular “Slow Moving Vehicle” placard, but no “license plate(s).”
The law varies by state. Pennsylvania? I don’t believe so.
Indiana requires them. Ohio did, and may still, but I’m not sure on that one.
Illinois enacted a buggy licence law in 2002.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-07-23/news/0207230199_1_donald-b-kraybill-buggies-amish-life
“having his photograph taken is against his religion”
Well he’s been violated six way from Sunday with all the surveillance cameras he walked by going to and fro.
Don’t introduce rational thought or facts, they’re making a religious argument. He’ll never sue the owners of all those video cameras, his faith only matters when it’s convenient.
I lived in SLC for a while. The LDS are incredibly flexible on their ‘deeply held beliefs’ whenever there’s money on the table.
LDS are not Amish. Apples and oranges.
A rose by any other name…
It takes a lot of ignorance to put the LDS and Amish belief systems in the same basket. Says a lot about you.
That you don’t understand how similar they are speaks volumes of how little you have actually experienced of either.
To the contrary, it is your seeing them as so similar that underscores the shallowness of your insight.
Actually the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments deal with the right to vote. The Fifteenth says not “abridgment” which is interesting as the amendment prohibits the denial or abridgment of the right to vote (except for gender). The Nineteenth eliminated that later.
I am a little disappointed. I figured that most Amish people don’t have any state issued identification. They would indeed be the quintessential “sovereign citizens” in our land. As such, I thought the lawsuit was going to be over requiring identification, period. That would be an interesting lawsuit.
“Requiring an ID in one situation is clearly racist”
It’s not clear to me. Why the claim?
How is a photo ID racist?
It would have to discriminate against a race, photos don’t discriminate, asking to see something to verify it looks like its supposed to isn’t race.
“You cant have a firearm because you’re mentally ill!” “That’s racist!”
Try that argument out…..
If it were a straight challenge on the constitutionality of the process I’d see it laughed out of court
I haven’t read the pleadings, but it seems that this challenge may in fact be based on First Amendment grounds, namely the “free exercise” clause pertaining to religion.
In addition, Pennsylvania issues non-photo IDs so that Mennonites, Amish and other voters can show an accepted form of state ID without violating their faith. If the non-photo ID is good enough for voting, why isn’t the same ID good enough to buy a gun? It doesn’t make sense.
And BTW, the requirements for obtaining a non-photo ID are far more stringent than the requirements for obtaining a non-driver photo ID.
This will be interesting. Pennsylvania and the Federal Government have bent over backwards in order to accommodate the Amish. I thought they were even exempt from paying Social Security.
The religious angle on this will be fascinating….Consider we already have redonkulous arguments about wearing full burka for a drivers license photo.
If he shows up to the shop with his jacket with the letter A sown on to it, I’m sure that will be more than enough to identify him.
If we replaced the word “Amish man” in this story with “Muslim woman”, I wonder how the comments would roll?
I would want them to roll thusly: If you want to buy a gun, get an official photo ID that shows a fully recognizable face, regardless of your superstition of choice. Let’s all play by the same rules.
If.the muslim women was asking for a non photo I’d I’d say give it to her. And the give her the gun. If she wants a photo ID or drivers license the. Yes face please.
As usual, atheist bigotry against people of faith remains alive and well here at TTAG, despite the “ad hominem free zone” signs posted around the joint.
Referring to deeply held religious beliefs as one’s “superstition of choice” is highly offensive, and offers nothing of benefit to the conversation.
You are basically asserting that people of faith do not have freedom of conscience, unless their conscience conforms to your own. Well, tough. That’s not how liberty works.
So, different laws for you then, eh? I’m sorry but that’s not how it works.
You are free to believe as you wish. You are free not to be gay, or be gay married. You are free to handle snakes. You are free to believe all sorts of mythology that has no basis in any science whatsoever. You are free to not have an abortion. The rest of us are free to not have to live like you seem to think is “right”: Read some Jefferson, please. We founded this place as much about freedom from religion, as freedom of it.
We all still have to follow the same laws. The suggestion that in the US, there is actually discrimination against Christians of any stripe is beyond laughable, it’s pathetic and obscene. The only reason polls don’t show the US to be 50%+ atheist or agnostic is because of the employment and political retribution from you “tolerant” people. You get to have your holidays, we don’t care, just keep the religious aspects off my tax dollar. Your churches get a free ride on every taxpayer’s back already. You don’t get to not do your taxpayer-funded job because of your “beliefs”.
Don’t like the law that us “godless” types have to follow? Get it changed, on that we can agree. Until then, there is no exemption because of your “beliefs” or “faith”.
And the primary law is “shall not be infringed”. Or, as Jefferson said “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms”.
Try actually reading his words, not making false allusions as if you had.
Yes Paul, do read again. As I noted, the law needs to be changed, none of us should have to do anything but give our money to Amazon Guns an get our new firearm in 2 days for free with Prime..
In the mean time, you get no legal carve-outs for your “beliefs”. Or is it OK to discriminate against atheists? I know your Bible says to kill us, so, is that next? Followed by another carve-out again for your beliefs? Just curious.
What Bible says to kill atheists? The quran is not the Bible.
This seems like a good enough summary to which to respond:
Perhaps you misread the first amendment? …or prohibit the free exercise thereof [religion]… is specifically a religious “carve-out”. Don’t like it? Feel free to work to get it amended.
I suppose that it’s a good thing that Christians know how to read the Bible. It is even more of a good thing that atheists of your ilk (arrogant, condescending, hateful, to be precise – as opposed to those who are content in a live-and-let-live society) aren’t beholden to your complete misunderstanding of the Bible.
We’ve already seen what your ilk accomplish. The nine-figure death toll of the twentieth century will go down in history as your greatest achievement.
Just to be clear: the free exercise of one’s rights does not extend to infringing upon the rights of another. Do you mention murder and rape as sincere argument, or is it merely sophistry to employ the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, evincing your lack of logical response?
Paul, Just like the Muslims who have never actually read the Qu’ran save for it’s “nice” parts, the Bible and OT are filled with hate and admonitions to kill. If you’re gonna believe in something, you should maybe read it first and then form an opinion. Just a thought…
“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 )
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst.” (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 )
Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the Lord your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
And before you think it, the Jesus character requires you to follow all the OT law, so forget that dog, it don’t hunt either.
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 )
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
Please point out which OT admonitions to kill_were open-ended and thus still in effect today. Also, which would apply to Christians? Hint……zero.
Keep trying.
I have read the Quran too, there is a huge difference. I have a hard copy and probably still have a paperback edition around if you would like to read it.
Jesus fulfilled the law. In case you hadn’t noticed, Christians are not obligated to circumcise on the 8th day, or to eat kosher, etc….
That being said, Jews are not obligated to kill atheists either.
John 8:7 “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
Which is why there isn’t a wholesale movement of Christians killing non-Christians purely for religious reasons.
I find it rather interesting that hostile Atheists and Islamic fundamentalists have actually one thing in common, that is both have a tendency to quote without context and cherry pick their justifications.
That scripture reference is about Christ stopping an accused adulterer from being stoned. Christ knew that the law (Judaic) was not being followed.
So, no Christians stoning anyone, let alone atheists.
Try again?
Yellow Devil, Conflating Islam with atheism? Oh that is rich.
Atheists only care about religious types when they try to interfere with the rest of us living our lives. Remember the whole “freedom” thing? I guess you don’t know, but the Qu’ran is essentially a re-write of the OT/NT, done by a blood-thirsty warlord to help justify his slaughter. Just like the OT…
The Qu’ran even lists the Jesus character as a prophet, how’s that for a cooperative-crossover episode?
Islam has destroyed every civilization it has infected since about 100 years after it’s “founding”. Atheists? They’ve given you everything you have right now, from the founding of the USA, to television, radio, cell phones, computers, and pretty much every piece of modern medicine. I won’t argue that all tech is good, but modern life is brought to you by people who don’t believe in a magical sky-daddy.
You have now absolutely proven that you have no clue what you are remarking about. Spend less time seeking already refuted arguments from atheist websites and actually read the pages. Context escapes most atheists, they don’t read for it. You haven’t even skimmed the readings, that’s even less reputable.
You are also seriously deluded about the contributions of atheists. Many, if not most, of the things you mentioned were the work of religious persons. Reality sucks for you I guess.
Once again Paul, do *read*. There’s over half-a-dozen cites in the NT which have the Jesus character telling you that the OT law is in force until the end of time.
I know it doesn’t fit with what you want to believe, but it’s there in (created from whole cloth) black & white.
I went to a snobby Catholic school on scholarship. I learned after many an ‘off-line’ debate in the office after religion class that ‘we were the leaders’ and this was the tool to lead the proles, and keep them in line. We had lengthy discussions about how it was created, and how we were to use it as a tool. All in roundabout phrasing of course.
Did that snobby Catholic school have Sabbath after sundown on Friday? Eat kosher? I could go on ad nauseum.
Sounds like you skipped too many classes or just are bad at retaining I formation.
Maybe you need to actually revisit the scriptures and try to learn something this time.
I highly doubt the story you related about you being in some sort of leadership role, for obvious reasons to any reading here.
Keep trying to elevate your status.
So Paul, let’s dispense with the frivolities. Bennet (and you’re carrying his water since he obviously can’t formulate a response) is arguing that he gets to ignore the laws because of his beliefs.
Where does this end? Do the North African primitives we have allowed in continue FGM because of their beliefs? Do the Muslims get to stone apostates/rape victims/adulterous women to death because of their beliefs?
I have no need or desire to carry water for anyone. I am certain Chip is quite capable of responding adequately on his own. Maybe he just realizes that some people aren’t worth the trouble. He is probably right.
Sorry, boss. I didn’t realize that I needed your leave to sleep.
Can’t argue the actual point as waterboy either I see.
His statement is very clear, ‘since we have a “belief” we don’t have to follow the same rules the rest of the US population does’.
So please, address the point. Obviously, you don’t seem to have the focus, or the facts. Why do you suggest that your ‘beliefs’ confer a different set of rules on you than the rest of us?
I responded to queries addressed to me, it was my choice to do so. Your vision is obviously lacking in clarity. If Chip wishes to reply to your questions of him, he will.
16V wrote on October 27, 2015 at 20:15 hours:
“Read some Jefferson, please. We founded this place as much about freedom from religion, as freedom of it.”
It’s obvious that you didn’t read the whole “Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists,” otherwise you would have found this:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship…”
And he closes with:
“I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.”
(Signed)
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Jaunito, por favor esse…
Jefferson was manipulating some people to political advantage. The mass of his writings are very clear, he was a convenient deist. One who used a vague “god” to sell the origins of “natural rights” to the uneducated masses.
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote “Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?”)
I have never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789
Oh yeah, the fun part of that letter to the Danbury folks…
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? …Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
I’ve got a dozen more for my position. Y tu?
“Once again Paul, do *read*. There’s over half-a-dozen cites in the NT which have the Jesus character telling you that the OT law is in force until the end of time. ”
Then please provide them. Nothing given so far works.
To be helpful I’ll point out that Jesus’ word “fulfill” means “fill up”, so when He said He came to fulfill the Law, that meant He was “filling up” its requirements — and once something is full, no one has to put anything else into it. So any statement that includes Jesus fulfilling the law is against the above claim.
“…no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Actually Jefferson was quite in error on this one. The Trinity concept would have been obvious and everyday to the people of the third and early second millennium BC. I came across a parallel just the other day, reading some Assyriology: they had a word for “sun”, and could use it to refer to the blazing thing in the sky, the deity who was associated with that blazing thing, and the image in a temple of the blazing thing. They took it for granted that each of those three was equally the sun, yet they plainly understood that the blazing thing was not the god, nor was it the image, that the god was not the blazing thing, nor the image, and that the image was neither the god nor the blazing thing.
That sort of thinking wasn’t alien to first, second, and third century Greek culture. But somewhere along the line Western culture ran through the filter of Latin, which is less tolerant of such intermixing of entities, and then strict rules of logic that excludes it entirely. Jefferson is in that Western line of thought, so he misses the fact that if you told an ancient Assyrian that he has three suns — the god, the blazing thing, and the image — he would look at you blankly as though you were an idiot, and say no, of course there is only one sun.
“Sorry, boss. I didn’t realize that I needed your leave to sleep.”
And your response is? I don’t see one, still thinking? Been a while, how long do you need?
Once again, explain how your “beliefs” exempt you from the law the rest of us have to follow. Do tell how that’s “equal treatment under the law”.
I stated more than once that the law is not Constitutionally correct. That said, explain why you don’t have to follow it like the rest of us do until we change it.
C’mon, still waiting.
Already answered. Try more reading, and less blind rage.
I’m sorry you don’t like the explicit religious “carve out” of the first amendment free exercise clause. I urge you to begin the amendment process.
Roymund, Ask and ye shall receeee-uv….
For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Do tell, have ‘heaven and earth passed away’? Are we still here, or is this just all an illusion ad the “rapture” has already happened? Please, do inform me, I’m curious.
Thanks for pointing out that Jesus said He fulfilled the Law. In the Greek (and the original Aramaic which He likely was speaking), that means He filled it up. Once something is filled up, you don’t have to add to it any more. So Jesus is saying no one has to obey the Law any longer.
You can’t just pull bits out of a piece of literature without understanding it — it doesn’t matter what kind of literature it is. You’re trying to pick out bits that make one set of statements by Jesus false — but you quoted one of those statements! The presumption behind the writing is that it is internally coherent, which means it doesn’t contradict itself. So since Jesus has stated that the Law doesn’t have to be obeyed any longer — that’s what “fulfilling” it means — those other statements can’t contradict that.
You’re actually doing the same thing the literalists do: grabbing at things you think agree with you and throwing them out like they were ammunition fired at the enemy. That’s a stupid way to treat any book — it’s like reading a detective novel and insisting that the solution at the end is wrong because the detective said something different back in chapter four.
Roymond, so the “end of heaven and earth” has come to pass? Really? Have you even read the Bible? Seriously?
Read the quotes, they’re very clear that “fulfilled” has nothing to do with the bovine feces you are peddling. Amateur hour try. Do play again.
It seems you cannot comprehend much at all. It could be willful ignorance, or it could be intelligence deficit disorder..
Paul, from the emotional-laden content of his posts on the matter, and his leaping to the conclusion that I was defending God when I was championing science, it appears he has a serious subjective involvement here, one sufficient to short-circuit reason and lash out rather than discuss.
And while “intelligence deficit disorder” is a cute turn of phrase, and several steps above his terminology, it really doesn’t up your game.
Though I’m going to have to remember it for future use in an impersonal way. 🙂
I consider it a DPU, defensive pun use, I didn’t initiate the exchange.
“Defensive Pun Use”!
Okay, THAT cracked me up!
I read it in the original languages.
When something is “fulfilled”, it’s over — it requires no more attention. That doesn’t mean it’s thrown away; it’s there for reference and learning. It hasn’t been made invalid, it just has no more to be done by anyone.
Paul illustrates this as he says in one place that “All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable”. So on the one hand, the Law is no longer relevant; there’s no such thing as “breaking” it or “violating” it any more, because Jesus fulfilled it. But on the other hand, it’s there to look and and learn the principles it illustrates as a help to figuring out what is “profitable”.
In other words, the Law hasn’t passed away, not a bit of it — but it is no longer commands, just examples. We’re expected to have grown out of needing to do morals by rules and reason for ourselves.
As usual, atheist bigotry against people of faith remains alive and well here at TTAG
You nailed it.
And while I have no animus against atheists, I will have more respect for them when I see Atheist Children’s Hospitals popping up all over America.
Go ahead, atheists. I’ll wait.
They’re just called ‘Children’s Hospitals’ Ralph.
Many don’t feel the need to announce they don’t believe in mythology…
I guess you are one of the exceptions.
I’m grateful for the experience this evening; it’s reminded me why I hold most atheists in most terrible regard: their unmitigated arrogance. Not to mention boorish manners.
(FTR), I am basically agnostic when it comes to the existence of a Supreme Being. I would never be so arrogant as to ignorantly claim that one didn’t exist.
“mythology that has no basis in any science whatsoever.”
So, your religion is Ontological Naturalism. Got it.
You seem under the delusion that faith is within the purview of science.
It’s not.
Science is concerned ONLY with the observable. Matters of faith and “Why am I here” and “What does it mean to be Good” type questions are not now, and never can be testable. Or falsified.
As such questions lie outside the realm of the Scientific Method, they fall into the world of philosophy. Theology is a subset thereof. When examined from this world of philosophical, logical inquiry, it becomes evident that the worship of “science” as somehow encompassing all that exists is, itself, a religion….complete with the self superiority of its adherents that they claim to so despise in people of other faiths.
Theology is not philosophy, nor a subset thereof. Nice try though.
Theology is the belief in a deity and trying to twist vague sentences to meet our current human beliefs. Philosophy is objectively examining our selves and actual life, which has no more to do with imaginary deities than it does with Frosty the Snowman.
There is no better route to a closed mind than the arrogance of sure knowledge. That’s my paraphrase of an Einstein quote in case you are wondering.
Philosophy is concerned with larger questions of things like ethics and morality, which certainly overlaps with theology. So, maybe not a true “subset” in the strictest sense, but theology has more connection with philosophy than science. Faith is not a science question because faith is concerned with questions science cannot address.
Frosty the Snowman has nothing to do with an intellectual conversation regarding philosophy and theology (since, as stated above, science is about OBSERVABLE things and we can readily observe that FtS does not exist so is fantasy), but again the phrase arrogance comes to mind. As does condescension…which is not, by the way, the persuasive rhetorical device you seem to think it is.
Closed minded people are such fun. That’s a group that includes Progressive elitist a-holes, incidentally. That’s the kind thinking that breeds people that look down their nose at us proles that should not be allowed to own guns.
Ahh yes, the ‘open mind’ is allowing of faeries, trolls, leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, Zeus, Apollo, Ahura Mazda, Tarot, Astrology, Hitler was a great guy, that somehow our national debt is payable without Zimbabwe inflation, and a host of other flights of fancy. Not supported by anything but “faith”.
Thanks, I’ll stick with what is real and right here. Just like you do when you pay your bills, follow the law, and obey the traffic signals instead of relying on your deity to protect you while running a red light.
+1000
No Paul, you didn’t address the queries directed at you any more that Bennett did. Maybe it was past his bedtime and he’ll have the intestinal fortitude to formulate a reply on why his cult deserves special treatment under the law tomorrow. But I seriously doubt it.
Pretty sure he won’t, anymore than you will answer the question that you already dodged several times – why are you entitled to special treatment? ‘Splain Lucy…
First, I have more than answered all asked that was pertinent. Second, nobody here is beholden to answering anything.
My guess is that most everyone else sees you for the boorish malcontent you are, and has no desire to interact with you. Smart of them.
Good night.
You can’t formulate a logical argument, and the rest are putting popcorn in the microwave.
Once again, explain why you are ‘entitled’ to special rights?
I never claimed to want special rights. You might want to look up the word logical before you start using it.
Nothing you say is grounded in logic.
So wanting to flaunt the law the rest of us must follow is not special rights?
Still waiting for an answer.
Nobody is flaunting any law. Are you incapable of comprehension?
So, expecting not to provide the same photo ID that the rest of have to is not flaunting the law? Do tell? I know you can’t, so for the tenth time, do tell?
No, it most certainly is not. Words have meaning. Look them up if they challenge your vocabulary.
So Paul, do explain how following the same rules the rest of have to is somehow ‘discriminatory’. Still waiting for you to form a cogent argument. And you haven’t….
Show me where I said it was. You keep trying so hard to play with the big boys….too bad confidence and effort are not substitutes for logic or intelligence.
Bennet isn’t asking for “special treatment”, he’s just asking for the treatment guaranteed by the Supreme Law of the Land.
So Roymond, he’s just asking to follow his “beliefs” that are a contravention of law is somehow ok? Just like the primitives who believe in FGM? That is their ‘belief system’ after all. Support that?
atheist bigotry against people of faith remains alive and well here at TTAG
As does the tedious and incessant persecution complex of the conservative Christians who make up the majority around here.
They may be the majority of the posters, but they are not the majority of gun owners (at least the few hundred I know).
Your humble agnostic is standing with the Christians on this one, and against the atheists. So-called atheists.
William, “So-called” how exactly? I have no belief in a deity, how does that make me “so-called” exactly? I figured it out around 6, and haven’t varied (after much study) for the last 4 decades and some change.
How did the public school kirpan thing work out? You know, sikhs wanting to carry their knives in public schools. Didn’t they file suit? How did that work out?
They won.
What about all these woman who will not uncover there faces for drivers license and other forms of I D. It could be anybody under that berka or vail. More power to this Amish man for standing up for his rights
All those ninja women look the same to me.
Question asked and already answered in Florida:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-06-06-license-veil_x.htm
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/frmnfl60603opn.pdf
Yikes-the trolls are out in force. Keep on thinking the bible is not testable when bible prophecy is unfolding DAILY. Even the developmentally disabled can see the literal fulfillment in the mideast as I type…
Prophetic language is rarely concise, and when subjected to interpretation…
Still, I think it takes severe myopia not to see some things, as you said.
Well, the only problem with that assertion is that folks have been saying that about those prophesies since about 70 AD. In fact, some of them were written about what was going on in the world at the time.
Before you jump my sh1t for being a troll, though, bear in mind that I am a Christian. My faith is guided by my own observations of the truth of the Bible. These observations, however, not ‘testable’ in the science sense. As a scientist, I feel no need to explain everything in the universe through the very narrow lens of “science.”
I, like many scientists, am perfectly comfortable with my faith. It is sad that so many have bought into the myth that science somehow supplants faith…a myth perpetuated by people that understand neither true science nor faith.
Riiiiight. Scientists who believe in a deity. Next up, RF guys who think Marconi invented radio…
If you actually follow the scientific method, by definition, you can’t believe in imaginary deities. Betcha think Einstein believed too…
Einstein may not have been an orthodox Jew, but he was no atheist. Oops. The list of scientists, biologists, etc, who are Christian, not to mention other religious faiths, is extremely long. You didn’t know that? Boy are you out of your league here!
Francis Collins is a start, you know what he did? Raised agnostic even!
Try and stay on subject, and remember who you address, so that you don’t ‘accuse them of helping others when they dignify your request for an answer. The only one who looks foolish when you do that is you yourself. You have done enough of that for one topic.
Suggesting that Einstein believed in a god was all you had to do to seal the deal on how completely ignorant/brainwashed you are.
I award you today’s Dunning-Kruger 1st place ribbon…
Ah, another worshipper of Dawkins, who should know to check Dawkins’ sources. You would not look so silly if you had done so. Einstein quotes:
“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8]
“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9]
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10]
“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11]
“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12]
“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13]
“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14]
“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15]
“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16]
http://www.bethinking.org/god/did-einstein-believe-in-god
Even your statement about the invention of radio belies your mentality. Flush with pseudo-facts, you rush to proclaim it from the mountain tops, only to be a laughingstock, again. God did not make you so foolish, you did that to yourself.
Cherry pick some quotes out of context, I expect nothing less (or more) of the uninformed. Meanwhile, his letter in 1954 very well laid out his thoughts….
” I read a great deal in the last days of your book, and thank you very much for sending it to me. What especially struck me about it was this. With regard to the factual attitude to life and to the human community we have a great deal in common.
… The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.
In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e; in our evaluations of human behavior. What separates us are only intellectual ‘props’ and ‘rationalization’ in Freud’s language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
With friendly thanks and best wishes,
Yours, A. Einstein”
Wait, so one letter isn’t cherry-picking, referencing dozens of letters and also other quotations is? You have it backwards.
I already said Einstein was no orthodox Jew, and the letter is to an orthodox Jewish author who sent him a book about judaism.
Paul, who is your dealer? He obviously sells extremely good product.
A bunch of out-of-context quotes v. a letter that specifically spells it all out. Yup, the early quotes where he was trying to sell and manipulate the religious kooks in soundbites are the real deal, not the fully formed letters where he lays bare his thoughts.
Got it.
Interesting. Whenever a historic figure speaks positively or in affirmation of belief in a God, you decide they were trying to manipulate others. Einstein did so in at least 27 letters, and numerous other quotes. You discount all of that.
Also, when others challenge you with facts and logic, we are religious wack-o’s or you allude that we are on drugs. For the record, I do not drink, smoke, or use drugs. Guess you misjudged that as well.
Keep trying, maybe someday you will be right about something. You should realize that when it seems like everyone is correcting your mistakes or telling you how wrong you are, they are not belittling you. Take it as constructive criticism and learn from it.
When a man makes obvious allusions throughout his career, then wraps it up with a letter that lays it all bare near the end of his life, you decide to take some soundbites out of context.
The thinking class has you nailed, you just want to fuel your delusions.
Often when a person sharply changes opinions held for years as old age sets in, it is attributed to something quite different than you assert. Of course, you dismiss a lifetime of quotes and written letters as trivial or intended deception. Your cherry picking is correct, his lifetime of words was his cover story. Yeah, right.
I am certain that the thinking class doesn’t include you. You continually prove that assumption of mine to be correct.
“Riiiiight. Scientists who believe in a deity. Next up, RF guys who think Marconi invented radio…
If you actually follow the scientific method, by definition, you can’t believe in imaginary deities. Betcha think Einstein believed too…
“
Were you dropped on your head repeatedly as a small child? Your hostility toward anyone that disagrees with you is very telling. Closed minded bigotry is not hard to spot.
There is NOTHING in the scientific method that is inconsistent with faith in a deity. Nothing.
The scientific method is nothing more than a system of making observations, collating / cataloging them and summarizing them. And, if you want…communicating those summaries to others.
As I outlined above, but apparently you missed, science is ONLY concerned with that which can be observed directly. Theological and philosophical questions transcend “science.”
So, it’s completely and utterly pointless, and logically flawed, to continue to make the claim that science is inconsistent with faith.
Your worship at the alter of Naturalism is rabidly dogmatic.
There are MANY scientists, including Nobel laureates, who are people of faith. Your closed mind on this subject is very telling, yet you continue to deny it and claim we have some sort of problem and are inferior to your worldview.
In other words, you are ignoring data (faith can exist in scientists) because it does not fit your dogma. There are words for that…and “science” is not generally one of them.
Why are you trying so hard to convert me to your religion?
I don’t want to worship ‘science;’ I’ve been there. Earlier in my career, I drank some of that Kook Aid. It took some hard lessons from ‘real life’ and some wisdom of aging to show me how foolish that path is for me.
If your immaturish snark is meant to imply that I am not really a scientist because I am also a man of faith, I could offer to pull out transcripts, an employment history, a publication list, a CV and professional references.
But what will that accomplish? You are so closed to ANY information that challenges what you already believe to be true that I have to question if you could even approach ‘objectivity’ in a science experiment. Or, are you one of those “scientists” that only sees the data you WANT to see and come up with excuses to reject all the other?
The scientific method does not assert that things not knowable by science do not exist. Only someone who doesn’t understand science would claim that it has any bearing on whether or not God is real — it can only have a bearing on whether God is (presently) testable.
So to assert that following the scientific method means not believing in God, you have to have found a test for God and had it come up false — repeatedly, by yourself and others, under widely varying conditions.
Therefore, please — share with us your test, with full detail of procedures, plus links to al the others who have duplicated your test.
You’re not even going to scrape any off before wading in deeper, are you? Plenty of scientists have religious faith.
Roymond, Don’t actually submit their “beliefs” to the scientific method, they’ll just scream like two-year-olds that they know what it *really* is. Despite everything they’re saying being instantly discredible by any 5th grader who actuallly passed his logic class. A highschool debater would eat them for lunch like Dawkins.
They’re all in favor of actual science when it comes to firearms, but attempt to dissuade them of their delusions that there’s a magical sky-daddy and they’ll get to see everybody they love after they die? They immediately forget what science even is.
Remind me again what you were saying about civility?
16V, I was responding to you: since you claim that science tells us God doesn’t exist, then please, tell us the test you used, and preferably link us to the peer-reviewed journal where it was published so that others could use the same test.
JR I’m completely open to new facts. The problem is your ilk attempt to sell a steaming pile as a chocolate cake, that withstands no scrutiny. Then get mad when we know it’s just bullshit.
Roymond, it’s incumbent upon you to prove your hypothesis that there is a “god”. You have not even the slightest “evidence”, do quit. Before the nice men bring you a long-sleeved coat with lots of buckles.
Nope. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Throughout human history, belief in a deity (or deities) is quite the ordinary claim. Atheism is the extraordinary claim. Good luck with your proof.
Also, trying to submit the supernatural ( outside of nature) to methods which only work on the natural world, is an exercise in futility. It shows your lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Interesting argument, Paul, but that isn’t really what “extraordinary” means in that context.
The real point here is that I ventured no proposition nor hypothesis —
“If you actually follow the scientific method, by definition, you can’t believe in imaginary deities.”
Taking out the emotionally-laden epithet “imaginary”, he’s saying science rules out deity. For that to be the case, he has to have found a test for deity, one that others can do, i.e. can be reproduced. If he has such a test, he should share it with us — as someone who earned an honors degree in science, I’d love to see it!
The interesting thing is his leap to the assumption that I’m defending God — I’m defending science, by making it clear that untestable claims are not within its reach. Making claims for science when there is no test is as valid as making claims of an angel visiting you in the hospital room: no reproducible evidence… no substance.
I see no reason to see extraordinary as being taken out of context. Typically, those responding will come back with the idea that they cannot prove a non-existence. Which is not my problem, it is their claim.
“Extraordinary” in that phrase doesn’t mean “uncommon”, it means more like “far beyond the realm of accepted thought”.
So I suppose it depends on one’s presuppositions, and the realm of thought involved. For science, “God” is an extraordinary claim; for philosophy, not so much; for theology, it’s nothing extraordinary, just a question of definitions.
For science, God is outside their field, though belief in Him amongst scientists is hardly extraordinary.
My assertion was historical in nature.
Nice try, but I ventured no hypothesis — I merely pointed out that since you advanced a claim about God based on science, then it is your responsibility to present to us the science on which that claim is based. If you really have a test for God, you’ll be famous.
I suspect, though, that you’re engaging in the fallacy nicely refuted by the maxim, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. It’s an easy error to make, but if you’re actually into science you need to avoid it.
The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” people are right on that — or do you have a test for flying spaghetti monsters, too?
Hokey smokes, you fcktards are really unstoppable with your complete ignorance of logic and scientific proof. (I’ve known this for 40+ years, but it still amazes me how completely willfully ignorant one has to be to believe in obviously man-made nonsense.)
YOU are suggesting that there is a ‘deity’. YOU offer no proof. YOUR imaginary deity has NEVER offered proof, ever, of his supposed existence. YOU are free to hold your own opinions, you are NOT free to hold your own facts. The scientific method only searches for the truth – which is what your ‘beliefs’ have fought since, well, forever. PROVE there’s a deity, the onus is on you for suggesting that there’s a magical sky daddy – prove it.
You’ve got nothing but ignorance and stupidity.
When you speak of ignorance and stupidity, I can only conclude that you are being introspective. Being quite familiar with the scientific method, I can assure you that there are limitations to its utility. There are more than a few things that cannot be proven (or disproven) via such means. The existence of God is one of those things.
Only someone with absolutely no understanding of the scientific method would claim that such a thing is possible. Since you make such an extraordinary claim, where is your proof? I look forward to your attempt, it will further underscore your sad lack of comprehension of that which you comment regarding.
Remember, fallacies of contradictory premises are not proofs. We will need data.
Paul, you’re quite right: claiming that science rules out belief in a deity is quite an extraordinary claim! It requires a number of extraordinary claims, in fact:
1. Deity has substance that can be detected by scientific means.
2. Science has achieved such means.
3. Such means have been employed.
4. No trace of deity has been found.
Except… that just absence of evidence, and thus evidence of nothing. To actually make such a claim, science would have to identify all possible states in which deity might exist, and have developed means for detecting such states, and have done so — for all locations both within this universe and outside it!
That last part alone would be worthy of a Nobel Prize; being able to test for existence of something outside this universe would be revolutionary; being able to test for the existence of an array of specific properties and conditions would be astounding!
My only claim remains that assertions made in the name of science must have scientific substance to them, i.e. they will have a measurable hypothesis, that hypothesis will have been tested, the results will have been shared, and others will have repeated the testing and achieved the same results — and since 16v made such a claim, he is required to either present those results, or admit his claim is baseless.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method10.htm
Are you sure God has never offered proof? Just because you haven’t seen it? I am sure there are a lot of things you haven’t seen. Like the pages of a middle school science book.
And of course, what proof could be sufficient?
Well, 16V, you’re a liar as well as a coward. I didn’t suggest anything but that you follow the scientific method. You made this assertion:
“If you actually follow the scientific method, by definition, you can’t believe in imaginary deities.”
I merely noted your assertion and asked for your test for deities.
So you didn’t answer, and now you hysterically didn’t answer. Running from a fight makes one a coward, so, objectively speaking, you’re a coward. And rather than answer repeated requests for your test, you deliberately made a false statement about who said what. Making false statements makes one a liar, so objectively speaking, you’re a liar.
Since those are objective conclusions, they are not ad hominem attacks; they’re logically firm statements.
Now you can either retract your initial claim, admitting you have no such test and have not made one, in which case we are all left poorer, or you can inform us of the rigorous scientific procedure by which you reached your claim.
And meanwhile you can apologize to all here for being such a coward and a liar, dragging down the good name of gun owners.
Haters gotta hate
PLEASE. “Haters” is something 14-year olds say.
I thought it was funny. Must be my twisted sense of humor commenting on how this whole thread degraded into juvenile bickering.
In my neck of the woods, the Amish can get state identification which has the default placeholder instead of a photo (white question mark on a bluebackground). I hope he wins but I anticipate the court agreeing with him on religious freedom grounds but not on RKBA grounds. The result will be a carve out for Amish and other religious groups but not a ruling in support of shall not be infringed.
Which is the problem. A carve-out for any belief system is antithetical to the stated ideals of The Constitution.
Don’t care how they want to live or believe, they have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.
I do not support carve outs and shall not be infringed makes them unecessary.
Additionally, if our government were operating within its legitimate authority, no exception would be needed for anything. Freedom of conscience, freedom of travel, freedom of ownership, freedom of privacy, and freedom of self defense have all been dangerously violated by a tyrannical government. In a free society, government’s only purpose is to protect rights. Today, our government is the biggest violator of rights. I am probably more in danger of having my rights violated minute to minute by government than by any individual criminal. It shouldn’t be this way but our people would no longer recognize Liberty even if it bit them in the ass. They cry out for the chains of bondage like frightened children in a thunderstorm.
I suspect that the plaintiff’s suit will fail. He has to show a substantive burden to the exercise of his religion, and it is quite a reach to posit that standing for a photograph places a burden upon his exercise thereof.
The other reason why this will fail is that carving out an exception for the Amish means the courts will have to carve out an exception for Muslims and their obsession with covering women head-to-toe so no one can see their faces. We don’t want to go down that road.
Guys: What happened to the concept of civil discourse here? When did this become the platform for contrived arguments to insult others to “win”? What is there to “win” here? A temporal, virtual world – not even an empire of dirt. The ad hominen attacks are alive and well, with the other logical fallacies following close behind. The behavior of an impetuous child masquerading as an adult has no place in what is supposed to be productive, rational adult conversation.
This is TTAG. In the couple years I’ve been commenting here, I’ve noticed that there are just some issues that are allowed to be discussed without even a modicum of civility, including the militant-atheist hatred/bigotry toward people of faith, a certain strain of statist disdain for open carry, and the anarchist-libertarian invective toward law enforcement. Ad hominem is permitted to run rampant in these areas.
The irony is, Bloomberg can spend his millions and tens of millions, and yet we POTG are far more effective with our own-goal division of our own ranks, for free.
Hi-effen-larious. No one in any of the posts is being the least uncivil. Spirited discourse, sort of (rather tame by my standards, but still).
The only thing you think is ‘civil’ is allowing your side to win without a fight. Sorry old chap, I’m not that weak and I have my rights too.
Read The Constitution and then think. Hard. Please.
Again, please drop the Democrat sheet. There are plenty of Republicans who would say the same thing about purchasing guns, period. I have no problem with this fellow buying a gun with his non-photo ID. ALIENATING PRO GUN FOLKS BASED UPON WHAT PARTY THEY MAY BELONG TO, DOESN’T HELP GUN RIGHTS.
One of the lawyers handling this case spoke at the recent GRPC in Phoenix. She said that the state of New York told her that her client’s only recourse was to sue. She responded that in the history of the US, there was no record of any Amish persion using a government court to sue anybody, because the Amish simply don’t do that. I haven’t verified for myself that this is entirely true, but if it is, this is truly a landmark case indeed.
That’s a very good point!
I’ve lived near Amish and Mennonites both, and politicians never pushed them to the point of their needing to sue — some accommodation was always reached. It’s this idolatry of “the rule of law” that’s the problem here; discretion and good sense are no longer allowed.
My guess is he’ll win, with the judge telling the legislature to fix the law, since there are other very good ways to establish his identity in the case of a solid community like the Amish. But it will be on religious grounds, with little or no reference to the RKBA.
I hope he wins.
Comments are closed.