Workers In Tennessee Forced To Take Muslim Holiday Instead Of Labor Day

Stu, you are wasting your time.

Jem is not only a true believer, (ie , you will burn in hell if you dont believe what he believes) , but he is a lawyer to boot.


Rational arguments don't count in his world. Supposed legal ones do.....

If you want to find the basis of this halfwittery, you need to go back in time, and examine "Articles of Faith", as they STILL apply in commonwealth countries,(possibly even america, thats a constitutional law issue im sure)
the ones that , obviously, aren't America as such.

A carefull reading of these fragments of 18th century law, will likely tell you more than you actually need to know, re; the blind, belligerent refusal to accept reality that so many nations hold as a benchmark of progress.
 
The messenger does not matter it is the message.

Whether I believe or not is not the logical question.

The question is - were religious tests in state constitutions - legal valid or constitutional (STU said unconstitutional) prior to the 1950s.

STU said no they were not constitutional.
I said prove it. (stu has not come close to proving his point)

Stu lacked the competence and education to prove his point. Plus he was wrong procedurally and by case law. The argument was over before it started. Stu was too ignorant to know it.

Instead of simply saying he is not a lawyer he repeatedly manifested his ignorance.

I did not make any statements about my faith - they were unncecessary. Stu was dead ass wrong.

The lack of support for his thesis was Stu's downfall it had nothing to do with whether I believe there is a God. Only an irrational zealout like Stu would could keep arguing from ignorance. Once again note - I did not argue from faith - I argued from case law.
 
Finally, I have never said you will burn in hell if you do not believe what I believe. I do not even believe that is case.

But, I do not think it would be unjust for any arbiter to severely punish those who bear false witness.

And I am speaking as a lawyer and business person and speculator when a I say that - not as a person who believes in God.
 
Quote from jem:

The messenger does not matter it is the message.

Whether I believe or not is not the logical question.

The question is - were religious tests in state constitutions - legal valid or constitutional (STU said unconstitutional) prior to the 1950s.

STU said no they were not constitutional.
I said prove it. (stu has not come close to proving his point)

Stu lacked the competence and education to prove his point. Plus he was wrong procedurally and by case law. The argument was over before it started. Stu was too ignorant to know it.

Instead of simply saying he is not a lawyer he repeatedly manifested his ignorance.

I did not make any statements about my faith - they were unncecessary. Stu was dead ass wrong.

The lack of support for his thesis was Stu's downfall it had nothing to do with whether I believe there is a God. Only an irrational zealout like Stu would could keep arguing from ignorance. Once again note - I did not argue from faith - I argued from case law.
More...
You don't like proof. That's obvious enough.

  • Not consistent with nor according to, or contrary to the U.S. Constitution... is what unconstitutional means
  • It says right there in the U.S. Constitution... ”…no religious test…ever….”
  • A religious test is not consistent with , is not in accordance with, and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution .
    Therefore is unconstitutional.
  • Since its ratification the U.S. Constitution shows exactly how it would always be unconstitutional for any state to require a religious test.
Better watch all that bearing of false witness there jem. If your nonsense no means yes testimony isn't deliberate, it won't just be an arbiter who will be after you, but a doctor with a straightjacket.
 
Quote from stu:

You don't like proof. That's obvious enough.

  • Not consistent with nor according to, or contrary to the U.S. Constitution... is what unconstitutional means
  • It says right there in the U.S. Constitution... ”…no religious test…ever….”
  • A religious test is not consistent with , is not in accordance with, and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution .
    Therefore is unconstitutional.
  • Since its ratification the U.S. Constitution shows exactly how it would always be unconstitutional for any state to require a religious test.
Better watch all that bearing of false witness there jem. If your nonsense no means yes testimony isn't deliberate, it won't just be an arbiter who will be after you, but a doctor with a straightjacket.
More...

you really do not know what proof means - do you.

Notice your out of context quotes. Notice your lack of support. Stu vs the Supreme court again.

Nice work slick.
 
As well as out of your depth , you're out of steam jem. You have no argument left. Just like any state religious test which was always unconstitutional, your argument always had no ground to stand on.

The Constitution says no religious test. That is all the proof I ever needed. There is nothing out of context about that.

In the Constitution as clear as day, no test... ever ... and it stops amongst other things this nation becoming a theocracy. Follow your perverted ideals and you'd have America taking on an Islamic form , where they do insist on religious tests for their "government officers".

Thank goodness the Founders had wisdom and foresight to reject wrong headed eccentric justifications like yours . They thankfully provided distinct remedy in the Constitution to disable the strongest, the worst and the most absurd excuses, made by desperate and deviant religionists like you.

No religious test ever ... Constitutional
Therefore any religious test ... always unconstitutional

get over it
get over yourself



Quote from jem:

you really do not know what proof means - do you.

Notice your out of context quotes. Notice your lack of support. Stu vs the Supreme court again.

Nice work slick.
More...
 
Stu you have proven yourself to be the biggest horses ass on the internet.

Once again from wikipedia... Its not JEM against Stu - its not Christianity against Stu, its now not even the Supreme Court against Stu. Its now just plain old truth vs. Stu LSD induced worldview:

The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:
“ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”

This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, "career" or "political," can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath of support to the Constitution. This implies that the requirement of an oath, even presumably one taken "So help me God" (not a part of the presidential oath, the only one spelled out in the Constitution, but traditionally almost always added to it), does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine.

The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is important as this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

[edit] State law

Earlier in U.S. history, the doctrine of states' rights allowed individual states to choose not to have this provision in their state constitutions or even to have an opposite provision; such provisions have by extension in recent decades been deemed to be unconstitutional by the extension of the First Amendment provisions to the states (via the incorporation of the 14th Amendment).

Did you read that Stu - The doctrine of States rights.

As we know your case came along in 1961.
 
Still flapping around jem, trying to bullshit your way out I see.

Doctrine of states' rights are those rights not denied by the Constitution. Religious tests are denied by the Constitution.

Ironically and again in your ignorance, states rights doctrine is supported by the Tenth Amendment anyway. So no doubt you’d want to go on to use the Constitution to constitutionally validate a doctrine which relies on provisions of the Constitution itself .
That is, you would if you had half a clue what you were doing.

Religious tests are denied by the Constitution , your doctrine of states rights is invalid as far as they are concerned. Says so in the Tenth.


sorry jem but no still does not mean yes, however desperate you are to have it so.
 
you are the horses ass of the internet.

you took you quotes out of context - leaving out the part about "under the United States".

And you fail to accept that the final arbiter of what the Constitutions means - used those religious tests as evidence that we are a Christian Nation.

Stu against the world - yet he tries to blame Christians.

Enjoy your prozac this weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top