Jacob Stuart Harrison Storytelling Thread - FSTDT Forums Ex-Pet Lolcow

  • Thread starter Thread starter MW 590
  • Start date Start date
Jacob Harrison said:
But a good case can be made that can hopefully cause the Supreme Court to overturn their decision. I am now disappointed in Antonin Scalia, a Catholic for agreeing to it.
Click to expand...

He didn't have a choice. If he wants his fairy tale story to have special rights that means all the fairy tale stories get special rights or none of them at all.

I prefer the latter in the French approach personally, but I suppose it just highlights how stupid the whole arrangement is.


And how much persecution would you cry if you were being screamed at like these lot?
 
Last edited:
Fagatron said:
He didn't have a choice. If he wants his fairy tale story to have special rights that means all the fairy tale stories get special rights or none of them at all.

I prefer the latter in the French approach personally, but I suppose it just highlights how stupid the whole arrangement is.


And how much persecution would you cry if you were being screamed at like these lot?
Click to expand...
Antonin Scalia could have made this argument on why Satanism does not have the same rights.
As James Madison famously stated in his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia”:

It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.

In other words, conscience rights or religious freedom are not abstract freedoms applicable to whatever spiritual reality you seek to embrace. It is rooted in obligation to God. The freedom of religion found in the First Amendment is a freedom to worship God according to the dictates of one’s conscience – not the license to disparage or deride Him.

In contrast, Satanism – either the old-fashioned allegiance to Old Scratch or the modernist atheistic version – is irreligion or anti-religion, meant to deny devotion to God. Its goal is to produce a society where religion is no longer viewed as a duty or unalienable right. Thus, granting Satanism religious-freedom protections undermines rather than strengthens religious-freedom rights by directly attacking their foundation: the existence of a Creator who is the source of unalienable rights.

There is no evidence that either our Founders or founding citizens understood freedom of religion to include irreligion. Nor would such a right even make sense. The very basis for recognizing religious freedom – our common duty to worship God freely – cannot support the right to become His enemy
Click to expand...
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: KimCoppolaAficionado
Antonin Scalia, despite his religious fervour, did have a capacity for the most part to set his personal biases on one side and follow precedent from his years of vast experience (as a good judge should) and I can admire that.

Our civil rights have no dependance upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry - Thomas Jefferson
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion - John Adams

The idea that "Freedom of Religion" means the freedom to worship the one religion that is true is a Catholic concept from Syllabus Errorum, one that was near universally rejected back in the 18th century and remains so today.

You're going to have a hard time claiming the ammendment supports the subjugation of non-theists when at least half of the founding fathers openly rejected Christianity which was at the time the only religion present in the US. The other half were fairly lukewarm and/or non-practicing Christians to all accounts as well.
 
Fagatron said:
Antonin Scalia, despite his religious fervour, did have a capacity for the most part to set his personal biases on one side and follow precedent from his years of vast experience (as a good judge should) and I can admire that.

Our civil rights have no dependance upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry - Thomas Jefferson
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion - John Adams

The idea that "Freedom of Religion" means the freedom to worship the one religion that is true is a Catholic concept from Syllabus Errorum, one that was near universally rejected back in the 18th century and remains so today.

You're going to have a hard time claiming the ammendment supports the subjugation of non-theists when at least half of the founding fathers openly rejected Christianity which was at the time the only religion present in the US. The other half were fairly lukewarm and/or non-practicing Christians to all accounts as well.
Click to expand...
While it is true that the form of government is not founded on Christianity(it is traditional European monarchy that is founded on Christianity), the concept of certain inalienable rights comes from Christianity. The Declaration of Independence says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

While I am a bigger fan of George Washington because he was one of the more Conservative Christian of the founders, even the non Christian ones still believed in a creator so the founders intended for the First Amendment to mean that people can worship their creator according to their own conscience as shown by what James Madison said, not the freedom to worship the evil one that is in opposition to the creator.

The US being founded on the principle of inalienable rights given by the creator is why the American Revolution was not bloody like the French Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Dumb
Reactions: KimCoppolaAficionado
Jacob Harrison said:
the American Revolution was not bloody like the French Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution
Click to expand...

Yeah they only fought a war

The reason it didn't involve the overthrow of the monarch like it did in France and Russia is because it happened across an ocean and created a new country; it was never about overthrowing the monarchy, but breaking away from it. It's got nothing to do with a "Creator".
 
The "creator" referenced in the Constitution isn't the Christian God. It's the deistic god which doesn't intervene in mortal affairs. And George Washington wasn't a conservative Christian. He didn't even take communion. And the writings of the founders indicate when they put religion in the First Amendment, they meant all religions, not just Christianity. Ditto with the no religious tests clause. People tried several times to tack on a part about still having to be Christian onto both of those, but it was rejected every time they tried.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KimCoppolaAficionado and Dildo
The American revolution wasn't bloody?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

U funny man. Then you've got that manifest destiny taking over the rest of the west and purging the indiginous peoples....

AAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
MarineTrainedTard said:
Yeah they only fought a war

The reason it didn't involve the overthrow of the monarch like it did in France and Russia is because it happened across an ocean and created a new country; it was never about overthrowing the monarchy, but breaking away from it. It's got nothing to do with a "Creator".
Click to expand...
What I mean by not being bloody is that they did not have guillotines and behead a whole bunch of people like what happened in the French Revolution.
 
Jacob Harrison said:
What I mean by not being bloody is that they did not have guillotines and behead a whole bunch of people like what happened in the French Revolution.
Click to expand...
The guillotine was thought to be more humane at the time than the American/British approach of just stabbing people with bayonetts or the inaccuracy of firearms at the time that couldn't reliably kill a man outright and would probably mutilate them first.

Was it more humane? It seems ridiculous deciding what form of execution is "worst", but then again dear old Papa Francis has been condemned as a communist heretic for saying the death penalty is unacceptable, so why are you complaining?

Execution is traditional Catholic doctrine.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KimCoppolaAficionado
Jacob Harrison said:
The US being founded on the principle of inalienable rights given by the creator is why the American Revolution was not bloody like the French Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution
Click to expand...

The French Revolution was also based on that, and in particular the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The reason it was more bloody is not only did they not actually respect it in practice, they also didn't have a coherent theory of government.

Moreover, they actually overthrew the existing government in its entirety.

In the United States, the predominant form of government at the time was government at the state level, and the states, starting as colonies, already had foundational documents in the form of colonial charters and, ultimately, state constitutions modeled on the federal constitution (although many states took quite a long time to do this and still operated under their charters for years or even decades after).

The state governments were not overthrown by the revolutionaries, who merely cast aside the foreign power which was not respecting their rights.

So after the French Revolution, there was nothing but the revolutionaries. After the American Revolution, the state governments still existed, still did the vast majority of governing, and the new federal government was deliberately limited in power.

Fagatron said:
The guillotine was thought to be more humane at the time than the American/British approach of just stabbing people with bayonetts or the inaccuracy of firearms at the time that couldn't reliably kill a man outright and would probably mutilate them first.
Click to expand...

The guillotine was a more humane way of massacring large amounts of your own people, but Americans have never been a huge fan of doing that, so we had no real need for guillotines.

We simply shot at the bad guys until they went back home and then went about our business.
 
DrJonesHat said:
The "creator" referenced in the Constitution isn't the Christian God. It's the deistic god which doesn't intervene in mortal affairs. And George Washington wasn't a conservative Christian. He didn't even take communion. And the writings of the founders indicate when they put religion in the First Amendment, they meant all religions, not just Christianity. Ditto with the no religious tests clause. People tried several times to tack on a part about still having to be Christian onto both of those, but it was rejected every time they tried.
Click to expand...
But most of the US population was Christian back then, so the writers of the Declaration of Independence knew that the population would consider it to be referring to the Christian God.

The reason George Washington refrained from communion was not because he wasn’t a Christian. “Historian Paul F. Boller suggests that Washington, a man who had help to promote a major war, refrained from receiving communion from the idea that his heart and mind were not in "a proper condition to receive the sacrament," and that Washington simply did not want to indulge in something he regarded to be an act of hypocrisy on his part.”

His letter to Native Americans prove that he was Christian.

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.

Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it...

And I pray God He may make your Nation wise and strong."

And while the Constitution gives freedom to all religions, Satanism does not count as religion.
In contrast, Satanism – either the old-fashioned allegiance to Old Scratch or the modernist atheistic version – is irreligion or anti-religion, meant to deny devotion to God. Its goal is to produce a society where religion is no longer viewed as a duty or unalienable right.
Click to expand...
 
You should sue England. The lolsuit to end lolsuits.
 
AnOminous said:
The French Revolution was also based on that, and in particular the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

The reason it was more bloody is not only did they not actually respect it in practice, they also didn't have a coherent theory of government.

Moreover, they actually overthrew the existing government in its entirety.

In the United States, the predominant form of government at the time was government at the state level, and the states, starting as colonies, already had foundational documents in the form of colonial charters and, ultimately, state constitutions modeled on the federal constitution (although many states took quite a long time to do this and still operated under their charters for years or even decades after).

The state governments were not overthrown by the revolutionaries, who merely cast aside the foreign power which was not respecting their rights.

So after the French Revolution, there was nothing but the revolutionaries. After the American Revolution, the state governments still existed, still did the vast majority of governing, and the new federal government was deliberately limited in power.



The guillotine was a more humane way of massacring large amounts of your own people, but Americans have never been a huge fan of doing that, so we had no real need for guillotines.

We simply shot at the bad guys until they went back home and then went about our business.
Click to expand...
Things to keep in mind is that the French Revolutionaries had a more collectivist idea of rights belonging to society in general based off of the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau while the American Revolutionaries believed in individual rights that came from God.

And your right, the US revolution preserved an existing system of state governments and believed in preserving the existing order while the French Revolutionaries believed in completely destroying the old order and radically changing society. They were machiavellian and believed that beheading people who opposed them was justified means to transforming society.

The most important thing is that the American Revolution did not interfere with people’s religious practices while the French Revolutionaries were anti religion because they viewed the Catholic Church as part of the old order so they persecuted the Church and faithful Catholics which contributed to the bloodshed.

dopy said:
what do you think about MOldbug OP
Click to expand...
I oppose him for his racist views and his opposition to democracy, because while I support absolute monarchy in England, I support democracy in the US because it was founded as such.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AnOminous
Jacob Harrison said:
The most important thing is that the American Revolution did not interfere with people’s religious practices while the French Revolutionaries were anti religion because they viewed the Catholic Church as part of the old order so they persecuted the Church and faithful Catholics which contributed to the bloodshed.
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church was the first estate, it WAS the old order. Do check, it described itself as such. Even the King was only the second estate of the Ancien Regime.

Kings of France claimed divine right and the Catholic Church was what the Orthodox one is today for Putin, a horde of fawning cheerleaders who whore themselves on condition of favours and tax breaks from the ruler to threaten the population with threats of damnation for daring to rebel and focus on improving this life, rather than just hoping for some better fantasy land to come.

Interestingly, most of the Founding Fathers including Washington were Freemasons, who the Catholic Church has long defined as Satanists. Would you care to explain if your Church considers the Founding Fathers to be Satanists because they were Freemasons, how can the Constitution not protect satanism?

Either the Catholic Church has been wrong for the best part of nearly three hundered years on declaring Freemasons to be enemies of God and devil worshippers, or Satanists founded America. Which is it?
 
Fagatron said:
The Catholic Church was the first estate, it WAS the old order. Do check, it described itself as such. Even the King was only the second estate of the Ancien Regime.

Kings of France claimed divine right and the Catholic Church was what the Orthodox one is today for Putin, a horde of fawning cheerleaders who whore themselves on condition of favours and tax breaks from the ruler to threaten the population with threats of damnation for daring to rebel and focus on improving this life, rather than just hoping for some better fantasy land to come.

Interestingly, most of the Founding Fathers including Washington were Freemasons, who the Catholic Church has long defined as Satanists. Would you care to explain if your Church considers the Founding Fathers to be Satanists because they were Freemasons, how can the Constitution not protect satanism?

Either the Catholic Church has been wrong for the best part of nearly three hundered years on declaring Freemasons to be enemies of God and devil worshippers, or Satanists founded America. Which is it?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church never declared Freemasonry to be Satanic, they just declared it to be incompatible with the Catholic Faith because it contains doctrines and rituals that contradict with the Catholic Faith. They are a different religion. Luckily the American Freemasons were far better than the European Freemasons who were direct enemies with the Catholic Church since they helped overthrow Catholic monarchies and caused the decrease in the Church's power and influence in Europe. The European Freemasons are true Satanists while the American Freemasons had Christians in their organization and they did not harm the Catholic Church in America.

There is also evidence that Freemasons infiltrated the Catholic Church and were responsible for the horrible Vatican 2 reforms. https://catholictruthblog.com/2014/06/23/freemasons-celebrate-vatican-ii/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh shit now we got Masons involved.

Alright Jake here's something you may not want to hear. Every government in this world and every religion in this world is run by human beings who in general are pretty crappy. That's none of them are perfect including the apostate vicar of Rome who will one day see the error of his ways and rejoin the true Othodox Christian Church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back