forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Wow is that argument flawed. Last time I checked the Constitution was amended to change those things. They didn't come about by judicial fiat. That was the way the document was supposed to work

So having a Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of each amendment is flawed?  

Great, let's go straight to #2: does it mean that a person must be part of a well-organized militia to bear arms, or does it mean that the right of the people to own nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles shall not be infringed?
 

When it makes up things that don't exist, yes.

#2 is easy. It doesn't say you have to be part of militia to keep weapons. It says that "people" have the right to keep arms because it can never be known when those people may have to organize to protect the security of the country.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

START: Strategic arms reduction talks . . . intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads are arms.  The right of the people to own nuclear missiles shall not be infringed?
 

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

So having a Supreme Court to interpret the meaning of each amendment is flawed?  

Great, let's go straight to #2: does it mean that a person must be part of a well-organized militia to bear arms, or does it mean that the right of the people to own nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles shall not be infringed?
 

When it makes up things that don't exist, yes.

#2 is easy. It doesn't say you have to be part of militia to keep weapons. It says that "people" have the right to keep arms because it can never be known when those people may have to organize to protect the security of the country.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

START: Strategic arms reduction talks . . . intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads are arms.  The right of the people to own nuclear missiles shall not be infringed?
 

You don't like the document, it can be amended.

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

START: Strategic arms reduction talks . . . intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads are arms.  The right of the people to own nuclear missiles shall not be infringed?
 

You don't like the document, it can be amended.

Well, you've made your argument plain and I can't ask for more than that.

Keeping score, you don't know and you don't care if Jews and Muslims might be required to walk upon crosses in the workplace, and you think that the people currently have (or should have) the right to private ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Just checking.
 

Just to make sure I understand the first part are you under the impression that a private workplace can't (or maybe shouldn't) display religious symbols? Or maybe more to the point, that employers should restrict their employees from displaying such symbols?

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

Well, you've made your argument plain and I can't ask for more than that.

Keeping score, you don't know and you don't care if Jews and Muslims might be required to walk upon crosses in the workplace, and you think that the people currently have (or should have) the right to private ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Just checking.
 

Just to make sure I understand the first part are you under the impression that a private workplace can't (or maybe shouldn't) display religious symbols? Or maybe more to the point, that employers should restrict their employees from displaying such symbols?

I have the belief that no one should be required to work at a work station in which a religious symbol is displayed as a normal part of conducting their job.  Nor should they be required to publicly erase a religious symbol from their workplace, in case you planned to make the argument that they could scratch it out.  

Your belief is way out of line with the law.

The law requires employers to accommodate an employee's bona fide religious beliefs. That may require allowing an employee to display religious symbols. If the employer doesn't permit the requested display, the employer likely violates the law.

Every year thousands of private employers display Christmas trees. Thousands, if not millions of Jewish and muslim employees go to work for such employers.

Plenty of private employers have religious underpinnings. You may remember the SSM system of hospitals in the St. Louis area. They are all based on Catholicism and there are crosses throughout the hospital. I'm guessing not all of their employees are Catholic. Every employee who works for the organization wears a badge with the system's mission statement, "Through our exceptional health care services, we reveal the healing presence of God."

Do I feel bad for any of the employees who have to "deal with" these working conditions?  Not in the slightest.

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

beacuse likely only the minority has a problem with the cross.  There for the majority is being disrespectfull.  Max is just sticking up for those  poor suppressed souls.  
 

What if the next pitcher is Jewish, or Muslim, or some other religion?  What if the groundskeeper had etched a Jewish or Muslim symbol on the mound, and some fundamentalist Christian pitched for the other team?  Well, nine times out of ten, people would just duck their heads and get on with it.

But the problem with that math is that when you are the minority, you are ducking you head and getting on with it a lot more often than is the majority.  That is why the basic test of freedom in modern nations is in how they respect the rights of the minority.  

I lived in areas where Christians could not even build churches or attend mass of any kind, because the majority took the argument, "we are the majority and they have to respect our wishes".  

We think the fabric of civilized society is strong, but history shows it is easily torn.  Even here, listen to the argument, "who are the assholes complaining about crosses on a playing field?"

There is always someone out there that has a problem with every single issue.  Not everyone can agree.  I think it is people with opinions like yours that do more harm then good.  Crying wolf over nothing is a waste of everyones time.

forsberg_us wrote:

"But the problem with that math is that when you are the minority, you are ducking you head and getting on with it a lot more often than is the majority. That is why the basic test of freedom in modern nations is in how they respect the rights of the minority."

Since when does "respecting the rights of the minority" equate to suppressing the rights of the majority?

Since max said so
 

forsberg_us wrote:

Your belief is way out of line with the law.

Possibly, . . . just as yours are way out of line with the constitution.  We are each entitled to our own beliefs.  Mine is that people should not be required to work at a workstation with religious symbols in a job that has nothing to do with religion.  Should a Jew working the Post-Disptach be required to sit on a chair that has a cross on it?  I think not.  You think people should be allowed to have privately owned nuclear weapons unless the constitution is changed.  Each has his druthers.
 

JV wrote:

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

You don't like the document, it can be amended.

Well, you've made your argument plain and I can't ask for more than that.

Keeping score, you don't know and you don't care if Jews and Muslims might be required to walk upon crosses in the workplace, and you think that the people currently have (or should have) the right to private ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Just checking.
 

I never want to jump into these exchanges although I do find them entertaining, but 2nd Amendment discussion is too intriguing to ignore. For the record, I've always interpreted it as Fors does, but now Max's example suggests yet another way to parse it. Can't "keep and bear" be read so strictly as to mean one can't possess a weapon too large to carry? Just sayin'.

OK.  The right to bear suitcase dirty bombs and pocket nuclear weapons shall not be infringed.  *phew*, you dodged a constitutional bullet, JV.  
 

Last edited by Max (6/29/2013 11:43 am)

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"But the problem with that math is that when you are the minority, you are ducking you head and getting on with it a lot more often than is the majority. That is why the basic test of freedom in modern nations is in how they respect the rights of the minority."

Since when does "respecting the rights of the minority" equate to suppressing the rights of the majority?

Since max said so
 

There are two logical problems here.  The first is that Fors has once again used a logical fallacy, which I tried to politely side-step.

The second is AP's ad hominem argument.  
 

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

"But the problem with that math is that when you are the minority, you are ducking you head and getting on with it a lot more often than is the majority. That is why the basic test of freedom in modern nations is in how they respect the rights of the minority."

Since when does "respecting the rights of the minority" equate to suppressing the rights of the majority?

Since max said so
 

Max isn't the only one. In reading the P-D yesterday, there was a story that the St. Louis Gay Pride parade was moved to downtown. I realize homosexuality isn't a religion, but it's practice is offensive to those who practice many different religions. In preparation for the parade and whatever other events are scheduled for the weekend, the lights atop the St. Louis Civil Courts building will shine a rainbow pattern and rainbow flags are displayed beneath the US flag on all City Hall flag poles.

I have little doubt that anyone who protested the City's decision would instantly be labeled a bigot and a homophobe, but if come Christmas time, City Hall decided to display a Christmas tree the "champions of civil rights" would be racing to the courthouse for the chance to be the first to claim the government had overstepped its boundaries.

The double standard that exists is a joke, and I find that a lot more offensive than a cross scratched into some dirt.

The civil court is celebrating a new exapnsion of civil liberty.  The same was true when the civil rights acts of the 1960s were passed.  And there are many churches and relgions that were and remain deeply offended by civil rights.  

So, your point is well-taken: homosexuality is not a religion.  
 

Max wrote:

JV wrote:

Max wrote:

Well, you've made your argument plain and I can't ask for more than that.

Keeping score, you don't know and you don't care if Jews and Muslims might be required to walk upon crosses in the workplace, and you think that the people currently have (or should have) the right to private ownership of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles.  Just checking.
 

I never want to jump into these exchanges although I do find them entertaining, but 2nd Amendment discussion is too intriguing to ignore. For the record, I've always interpreted it as Fors does, but now Max's example suggests yet another way to parse it. Can't "keep and bear" be read so strictly as to mean one can't possess a weapon too large to carry? Just sayin'.

OK.  The right to bear suitcase dirty bombs and pocket nuclear weapons shall not be infringed.  *phew*, you dodged a constitutional bullet, JV.  
 

 I wasn't hanging my hat on this; I was just making an observation. But that's OK; I'll just sit back quietly and watch Fors and AP knock you around some more.

" I don't remember losing many of these"

We have the Americans on the run.

Sincerely,

Baghdad Bob

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

" I don't remember losing many of these"

We have the Americans on the run.

Sincerely,

Baghdad Bob

Chuckle if you like, but as soon as you realized I was not saying that any rookie pitcher had suffered as a result of the promotion/demotion cycle, the debate ended.  Although I don't recall that you ever apologized for calling me a coward for not answering a question about something I did not say.   

that was just one of the spins you put on it max.  It was your stance that minority opinions should be accepted over the majorities that caused the debate in the first place.