Did CP raise a good point?

[Cow Poke]

Phank, did you know Beagle was really Tiggy? Is it possible that you are really Pitchfork Pat?

[HMS_Beagle]

Phank, did you know Beagle was really Tiggy? Is it possible that you are really Pitchfork Pat?

Post reported.

I have asked to be referred to by my correct handle. Constantly referring to my old handle is harassment, pure and simple.

I changed my handle when the new board opened to have a fresh start and avoid the rancor that had built up over the years on the old one. This was not a deception - I let the NS301 moderator Rogue06 know about it when I first joined. Ask him.

I'll ask again - please respect my wishes and remove this harassment.

[Darth Executor]

Seems to me that you're working pretty hard to build that rancor right up again.

CP: I got modded for partially revealing outis's previous identity a while back. The admins here get really butthurt when you point out the obvious.

[HMS_Beagle]

Seems to me that you're working pretty hard to build that rancor right up again.

CP: I got modded for partially revealing outis's previous identity a while back. The admins here get really butthurt when you point out the obvious.

Rancor takes two. Go look in the mirror.

[Cow Poke]

Post reported.

Thanks

I have asked to be referred to by my correct handle. Constantly referring to my old handle is harassment, pure and simple.

Well, as long as you admit it WAS your old handle, I'll comply.

I changed my handle when the new board opened to have a fresh start and avoid the rancor

Yeah, how's that workin out for ya?

that had built up over the years on the old one. This was not a deception - I let the NS301 moderator Rogue06 know about it when I first joined. Ask him.

So why the games in trying to deny it? It's out there, Beagle --- and you did it yourself.

I'll ask again - please respect my wishes and remove this harassment.

I will do my best to refer to you as Beagle, if I refer to or address you at all.

[Cow Poke]

Seems to me that you're working pretty hard to build that rancor right up again.

CP: I got modded for partially revealing outis's previous identity a while back. The admins here get really butthurt when you point out the obvious.

Yeah, well, Beagle outted himself, but I'll try my best to behave, and pretend he's a new guy without a history.

[Darth Executor]

Rancor takes two. Go look in the mirror.

I don't care about rancor. But you do. And yes, it takes two. As in, you are contributing to it even though the purpose of the name change was... not to.

[HMS_Beagle]

I will do my best to refer to you as Beagle, if I refer to or address you at all.

Thank you. Now maybe the ad hominems will stop and the actual points made will be addressed.

[Cow Poke]

Thank you. Now maybe the ad hominems will stop and the actual points made will be addressed.

Do you REALLY want to keep this fiasco alive, Beagle? Just drop it, and I will too.

[lilpixieofterror]

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.

Really? Do you think that was some kind of secret? I had it figured out weeks ago and I'm sure pretty much everybody else did too. Now do yourself a huge favor and just stop.

[robrecht]

So is HMS_Beagle really an anti-Christian bigot and is his interpretation of the 1st Amendment nonestablishment clause incorrect? I have not read every post in these last couple of threads, but from what I've seen, I'm inclined to say 'no' to both question. Am I wrong?

[phank]

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.

So it might be helpful for you to address the very question your citations raise: Does the free expression clause grant carte blanche for anyone to break any law they damn feel like if they can claim religious conviction, or should there be some compromise between free expression and civil law? And if so, where should that compromise be situated? Could it have been the intention of the First Amendment to avoid having an Official State Religion, and to suppress or outlaw any other religion? Or was it their intention to provide all religious convictions with a "get out of obeying the law without penalty" card?

[phank]

So is HMS_Beagle really an anti-Christian bigot and is his interpretation of the 1st Amendment nonestablishment clause incorrect? I have not read every post in these last couple of threads, but from what I've seen, I'm inclined to say 'no' to both question. Am I wrong?

I agree with you, but I can understand that the free expression clause ought to mean something, or else we really DO have, in practice, an amendment which reads "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibit the free expression thereof EXCEPT where prohibited by law."

However, anti-discrimination for any reason is, in my mind, entirely distinct from anti-Christianity, even if Christianity is the motivation for the discrimination.

[Darth Xena]

Prank good insight.

[Darth Xena]

So is HMS_Beagle really an anti-Christian bigot and is his interpretation of the 1st Amendment nonestablishment clause incorrect? I have not read every post in these last couple of threads, but from what I've seen, I'm inclined to say 'no' to both question. Am I wrong?

Yes. He is as bigoted as they. come