Did CP raise a good point?

[HMS_Beagle]

You apparently don't understand human nature. Where the law attempts to restrict an individual's rights, the individual has other options.

So you finally agree the law can't force anyone to do photography. That's a good start.

What I have figured out is that your very narrowly defined and oft cited definition is flawed. The Bill of Rights was to protect the Rights of the individual, and the government is prevented from "establishing" ANY religion as the State Religion. That's the intent. The reason you keep twisting this as "one religion over another" is so you can then argue that one religion believes one thing and one religion believes another.

You are correct that the second clause does not modify your fabrication of a definition of the first clause.

LOL @ the interpretation being mine. Go do your homework.

The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .

The Establishment Clause is immediately followed by the Free Exercise Clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "Religion Clauses" of the First Amendment.[1]

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Wiki source

You're so funny when you squirm to avoid admitting you were wrong!

[HMS_Beagle]

This thread is about my cite from Cornell Law, which was intended to oppose your claim that "not a single constitutional scholar..." So, while it doesn't technically dispute your very oft cited mischaracterization of the first clause of the First Amendment, it does demonstrate the internal conflict of the First Amendment itself.

In other words you made up yet another false claim about what I said to make yourself look good and you got caught in the fabrication. Please stop the fabrication.

[Cow Poke]

In other words you made up yet another false claim about what I said to make yourself look good and you got caught in the fabrication. Please stop the fabrication.

No, Beagle. I made an error in failing to see that you were unduly narrowly defining something that was not intended to be so defined. Let's see how your buddies at the ACLU define it....

First, they quote Jefferson:

Source: ACLU.org

"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787

© Copyright Original Source

Then they make these points, among others:

Source: ACLU.org

FREEDOM OF RELIGION
The right to exercise one's own religion, or no religion, free from any government influence or compulsion

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, PETITION & ASSEMBLY
Even unpopular expression is protected from government suppression or censorship

© Copyright Original Source

Note that the ACLU identifies this as the right of an individual -- and that the government cannot infringe that right. They don't pretend to portray it as narrowly as you repeatedly define it.

[HMS_Beagle]

This thread is about my cite from Cornell Law, which was intended to oppose your claim that "not a single constitutional scholar..." So, while it doesn't technically dispute your very oft cited mischaracterization of the first clause of the First Amendment, it does demonstrate the internal conflict of the First Amendment itself.

Here is my quote from the locked thread you are twisting

Let's ignore for a minute the fact that every single legal scholar in the country disagrees with you. I'll keep an open mind. Go ahead and explain how the second phrase above gives the government the right to favor one religion over another.

It had to do with your ridiculous claim that the Free Exercise clause allows the government to pass laws favoring one religion over another. You were wrong, dead wrong, and you've chosen to try and smear me instead of manning up and admitting your mistake.

[HMS_Beagle]

No, Beagle. I made an error in failing to see that you were unduly narrowly defining something that was not intended to be so defined. Let's see how your buddies at the ACLU define it....

LOL! I guess that's as close as your ego will let you come to admitting your mistake.

First, they quote Jefferson:

Source: ACLU.org

"[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787

© Copyright Original Source

Then they make these points, among others:

Source: ACLU.org

FREEDOM OF RELIGION
The right to exercise one's own religion, or no religion, free from any government influence or compulsion

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, PETITION & ASSEMBLY
Even unpopular expression is protected from government suppression or censorship

© Copyright Original Source

Note that the ACLU identifies this as the right of an individual -- and that the government cannot infringe that right. They don't pretend to portray it as narrowly as you repeatedly define it.

There's not a single thing in there about the Government being able to favor one religion over another. You're squirming again.

[Cow Poke]

First of all, thank you for confirming what many of us have suspected, Tig.

[HMS_Beagle]

First of all, thank you for confirming what many of us have suspected, Tig.

Whatever you say Jorge. You still screwed up this argument big time and aren't man enough to admit it.

[Cow Poke]

LOL! I guess that's as close as your ego will let you come to admitting your mistake.

No, Tig -- I quite readily admitted my mistake --- I was arguing against what I thought you were saying, instead of your very narrowly crafted definition. My mistake entirely.

There's not a single thing in there about the Government being able to favor one religion over another. You're squirming again.

There's nothing in there either, about eating peanut butter on rye bread, Tig.

[Cow Poke]

Whatever you say Jorge. You still screwed up this argument big time and aren't man enough to admit it.

I'm admitting my error, Tiggy.

Let's look at the game you're playing now.... you quoted yourself, using the name Tiggy - did you fail to see that? Was it an error on your part? So, exactly how does that justify you calling me Jorge? I'm only calling you what you called yourself.

[HMS_Beagle]

There's nothing in there either, about eating peanut butter on rye bread, Tig.

That's right, your cite didn't support your claims.

My handle is not "Tig". Please address me correctly or not at all. Fair warning - any further misuse of the name will be reported as harassment.

[Cow Poke]

Whatever you say Jorge. You still screwed up this argument big time and aren't man enough to admit it.

What I'll gladly admit, Tig, was that I allowed my contempt for your anti-Christian bigotry to blind me from seeing the game you were playing. In fact, several of us had discussed that you were probably Tiggy, with the same agenda.

I'll also admit it was WRONG for me to allow my contempt for your attitude to keep me from seeing what you were actually up to. And I kept digging deeper, because of that contempt for your extreme bias.

I will FURTHER admit it was wrong for me to paint Phank with that same brush. Part of the reason I'm here is to learn from my mistakes. I think YOUR mistake was removing your mask, and revealing who you really are (or have been).

[Cow Poke]

That's right, your cite didn't support your claims.

My handle is not "Tig". Please address me correctly or not at all. Fair warning - any further misuse of the name will be reported as harassment.

Hmmmm.... look carefully at your Post #49. And, please, DO report me, OK?

[HMS_Beagle]

Hmmmm.... look carefully at your Post #49. And, please, DO report me, OK?

Yes, that was my mistake which has been corrected.

CP, who I did or didn't post as on the old board is not germane to the board now. Please use my correct handle.

[Paprika]

Yes, that was my mistake which has been corrected.

CP, who I did or didn't post as on the old board is not germane to the board now. Please use my correct handle.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, that was my mistake which has been corrected.

I took a screenshot before you edited, it, Tig, and saved it for the Mods.

CP, who I did or didn't post as on the old board is not germane to the board now. Please use my correct handle.

It's entirely relevant, Tig. We suspected you were disguising yourself as somebody less anti-Christian, and you finally revealed what we assumed.

So, tell, me, WHY did you try to deny it, even with this goofy nonsense of calling me Jorge? And you accuse ME of being dishonest?

Please report me.