Yes. And I'm saying You're WRONG. There is no possible set of details that could be added to that story to make it other than professional misconduct.
If you disagree and can think of such a set, please enlighten me.
Yes. And I'm saying You're WRONG. There is no possible set of details that could be added to that story to make it other than professional misconduct.
If you disagree and can think of such a set, please enlighten me.
Got some evidence of that claim?
Got some evidence of that?
Was it the chicken or the egg that came first?
It varies. Today it's rather greyish.
Yes.
Yes, I've got evidence of that, too.
But at this point I've ceased providing it to you, since you're not responding rationally to the evidence that has already been presented.
Have fun playing in your imaginary world with your imaginary friends and imaginary rules of law.
Thanks. I think you've established the answer I sought, and I suspect others should be able to see the game and result.
I think that clarification helps solidify your position.
No religion has been "established", and Congress has had nothing to do with that law.
Maybe that's because the problems were stemming between Christians and non-christians at the time?
Maybe we'll soon be seeing ]similar laws regarding Islam? (I wonder if Mrs. Huntster can wear her Catholic veil for her next driver's license photo?)
Did you note the title of the Massachusetts law?:
Do Marines pounding irreverent professors constitute "good order"?
Does a ban on "crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order" advance or inhibit religion?
How about "good order"? Keep the zealots on both sides in check?
And what keeps the Supreme Court from doing so?
What is "irrational" regarding my responses to your posts?
Regardless where I find myself, I try to have fun.
Now I'm in a cyber world. I suppose you can call it "imaginary". It certainly is.................interesting.
Now, do you have some evidence we can discuss?
The words, mostly. The spelling and font choice is acceptable.
Yes. You can start by "discussing" the evidence I've already presented, that the law as written is out-of-the-box unenforceable, to the point that any attempt to enforce it would leave the local attorney open to charges himself.
Actually, don't bother. I'm heading out of town for a few days and you'll probably have been slapped around by others by the time I get back.
Doesn't matter. if the law were evenly written -- e.g., covered both blasphemy against Christians and non-Christians, it might have passed constitutional muster. Byt that's not what we're dealing with. As written, this is a non-starter. Only the Christian religion is protected, hence it's an "establishment."
No, we won't.
Doesn't matter. The controlling analysis is of the effect, not of the wording of the title.
That's not what this ordinance bans. A more narrowly crafted law that only addressed "crimes against chastity, morality, decency, and good order" might pass constitutional muster, but that's not what we're dealing with here
Nope. There's no "both sides" in the law, and that's a major reason why it's unconstitutional.
A more broadly crafted law that outlawed blasphemy against all religious figures might pass constitutional muster (although "freedom of speech" would come into play, too) -- but, again, that's not what we're dealing with.
Basically, your analysis has no basis in the actual law under discussion. There are lots of laws that could be written, would be constitutional, and could be enforced, but this one isn't one of them.
Would it?
Would it "pass muster" with you?
Would the atheists on this forum see it as a law establishing "chastity, morality, decency, and good order" instead of an "establishment of any religion"?
Did you follow the link?
Can Mrs. Huntster cover her Christian face with a veil during her driver's license photo taking?
Can I cover my face?
Islamic women can................
And the effect would be that "the professor" is violating "good order" laws inciting "the Marine" to violate assault laws.
Equity. "Decency". "Good order."
The law bans crimes committed by people like the professor, which lead to further crimes committed by those offended.
The other side of the law is obviously (like my example showed) assault laws.
That's exactly what I'm trying to deal with here.
The anti-religious crowd likes it all their way. They want to talk squat, be absolutely free of responsibility and consequence for their poison, and want their nose protected by the authorities to boot.
Does that promote "good order"?
Would you try to write an example of such a law?
Hmmmmm. No "potty mouth". No accusations. Just reasonable questions.
How sensitive..................
Well, I'd agree that the law might not last long as written simply because Judeo/Christianity appears to be the only religion covered.
So I'd love to see it re-written to cover all religions and ideologies.
You?
Oh, no doubt about that.
But this will be here nonetheless for your possible consideration.
I daresay prosecuting under that statute would also be a violation of the Free Speech Clause, not just the Establishment Clause. Interestingly, so far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled a blasphemy law unconstitutional, but there are some more or less closely related cases that make it pretty clear (if it wasn't clear enough already) that such laws are effectively null in the United States.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, it wasn't until 1925 that the Supreme Court determined that the First Amendment applied to the states, so right up through the first quarter of the 20th century there was no (federal) reason to doubt the enforceability of state blasphemy laws. Indeed, I'm aware of a 1921 decision in a Maine case - where the blasphemy statute was almost identical to that of Massachusetts - in which a blasphemy conviction was upheld on appeal. That's pretty late!
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
What a wonderful example of why I don't read Huntster's posts.
"all their way"? Everyone should be allowed to say whatever he wants to.
What "consequences" do you have in mind? Getting beaten up by someone who disagrees with their position? That's not a necessary consequence. We can outlaw beating people up. I prefer that to outlawing the holding and stating of disagreeable positions.
Basically, freedom of speech is good, and freedom to beat people up isn't.
No, I don't see how that could work.
I can imagine a fanatical theist and a fanatical atheist who would each be terribly offended merely by hearing the other blandly state his position on the existence of God. So no one can say anything any more?
It's good to be polite, but I don't think it's a good idea to make impoliteness illegal.
I didn't.
As far as I could tell, the point of the story is just "ha, an atheist got what he deserved". And the story's intended audience is people who think he deserved it because they believe in God. If there isn't really any God, then the professor wasn't committing any sort of transgression against Him; he was just being impolite to religious members of his class. It's harder to claim he deserved a beating for that, I'd think.
Ah, I think I get the joke. The Marine is another one of those blasphemous men who assert, despite numerous Scriptural assertions to the contrary, that God is so powerless to act in the world that He requires assistance from time to time from the always-ready fist of the self-righteous man. The implications of that belief, expressed through violent action, are far more damaging to Christian ideas than anything the Professor could have said with mere words in fourteen minutes.
So, the Marine beating up the professor for blasphemy is kind of like a wife-beater beating up another man for insulting his wife. I guess that's why the story is funny (except it's not really, because wife beaters and other immoral violent people often do behave that way; nothing makes them angrier than someone doing something that they do in a far worse way themselves).
Fortunately God is also forgiving, so He will forgive the Marine for taking His name in vain (it doesn't just mean swearing; it also applies to assuming His authority for one's own immoral actions) and violating Jesus's commandment to love thy neighbor, if the Marine repents.
Respectfully,
Myriad
So, the Marine beating up the professor for blasphemy is kind of like a wife-beater beating up another man for insulting his wife. I guess that's why the story is funny (except it's not really, because wife beaters and other immoral violent people often do behave that way; nothing makes them angrier than someone doing something that they do in a far worse way themselves).
Fortunately God is also forgiving, so He will forgive the Marine for taking His name in vain (it doesn't just mean swearing; it also applies to assuming His authority for one's own immoral actions) and violating Jesus's commandment to love thy neighbor, if the Marine repents.
Respectfully,
Myriad
May all the blasphemers blaspheme 'til the end of days
...
I thought that your nation was founded on the concept of free speech? And with that freedom comes peoples right to say (almost) anything they want even the uncomfortable (plz correct me where I might be wrong)....
...I thought that your nation was founded on the concept of free speech? And with that freedom comes peoples right to say (almost) anything they want even the uncomfortable (plz correct me where I might be wrong)....
JamesDillon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,631
May all the blasphemers blaspheme 'til the end of days
I thought that your nation was founded on the concept of free speech? And with that freedom comes peoples right to say (almost) anything they want even the uncomfortable (plz correct me where I might be wrong)....
The concept of what constitutes "free speech" has evolved quite a bit since the eighteenth century. Also, as ceo_esq notes above, the First Amendment, by its terms, applies only to Congress, and did not apply to state statutes such as Massachusetts's anti-blasphemy law until it was made applicable to them via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment-- and that application is itself based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that, though widely accepted these days, is not exactly obvious from the text.
Last edited:
What was the original intent of that part of the Fourteenth Amendment? It was passed around the end of the Civil War. So, something to do with treating former slaves as full citizens, I guess?
I solidified my position with my first post. You asked the same question several times and my answer did not change.
Out of curiosity what answer were you seeking? Something tells me it is a strawman version of what I actually said.
I might also point out that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has its own state Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights (which, unlike in the U.S. Constitution, actually comes at the beginning of the document rather than tacked on at the end). The blasphemy law has been unconstitutional with respect to the state constitution since at least the mid 20th century (when freedom of speech was strengthened by amendment LXXVII) and probably since 1917 (when freedom of religion was strengthened by amendment XLVI).
Of course, Massachusetts has also had universities and strongly opinionated professors for a very long time too, so it's conceivable that the Marine in the story had just recently seen action by the shores of Tripoli on a square-rigged wooden ship, and the blasphemy law was fully in effect. In which case, charges against the professor might be possible. That might have mitigated any assault charges against the Marine. But such charges are also unlikely to have been prosecuted. For some reason, Massachusetts courts have been rather reluctant to punish people for offenses involving invisible beings, since about, oh, 1693 or so.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited: