• Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    So… like a typical conservative- you’re just going to skip over the part that applies, and argue against the one that doesn’t?

    We’re done here kid. I’m not wasting my time with you anymore, so I’m going to block you now. Based on your comment history- I’m not going to be missing any quality content from you in doing so.

    • NeuromancerM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      You have yet to say which part you think applies nor refuted the cites I have you. You ignore the case law or weren’t even aware if the case law.

      • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        HAH!

        Dude you lost this argument the moment it started:

        The Establishment Clause is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation establishing an official religion, and by interpretation making it illegal for the government to promote theocracy or promote a specific religion with taxes.

        The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from preventing the free exercise of religion.

        While the Establishment Clause does prohibit Congress from preferring one religion over another, it does not prohibit the government’s involvement with religion to make accommodations for religious observances and practices in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

        Just stop man. You’re embarrassing yourself.

        • NeuromancerM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Who are you replying to as it has nothing to do with what I said?

            • NeuromancerM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              I think you are replying to the wrong person.

            • ThrowawayOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              Please do not name call. It’s part of rule 1. Consider this a warning.

              • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                For the record, where was their warning when they said the other person “looked silly?” or are we showing a bias?

                EDIT: Yeah. I thought as much.