Top secret DoD documents containing Bible verses released

[Pangloss]

I said evidence presented in the thread, not evidence presented in the thread by him. And once again you resort to derogatory remarks because you can't stand the fact that anybody would have the gall to actually debate with you.

 

Tell me to pull my head out of my ass again, and you and I are going to have a whole different kind of conversation.

[iNow]

I was thinking about this in detail this morning, and I think I've found two major reasons (in addition to my prior point) that this information strikes me as "bad":

 

1) Foreign relations - If you recall, back when these two wars started up, and particularly with the Iraq war, a lot of time had to be spent assuring our allies in the Middle East that this wasn't a "War Against Islam", especially in light of some of the more crusade-ish quotes from the White House and pundits. This revelation basically implies that those assurances were BS, and that it was/is a war against Islam, especially given the nature of the quotes used.

This is a great point. As even Pangloss can admit, in politics and international relations, perception IS reality, and the perception has always been that this war had religious tones.

 

These documents give that speculation a giant concrete footing on which to stand.

 

 

2) Command decisions - Whether or not it's constitutional, having people high up in the chain of command viewing a war from a religious perspective is a bad thing. And not because it's religion. It'd be just as bad if they viewed the war as some sort of personal vendetta for the same reason...

 

<...>

 

Whether it's religious, personal, political, or otherwise, if you have an axe to grind in a combat situation, you'll make bad moves, and the influence may be too subconscious for you to counter. I'm not saying we need to force officers to abandon their faiths, but rather that we should not be encouraging *any* sort of framework which puts the situation in anything beyond the most calculated, tactical perspective.

Another fantastic point. I'm seeing zero positive arguments to support the idea that having such quotes from the Christian bible on top level government/military briefings about an active war engagement is "A-Okay!"

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And once again you resort to derogatory remarks because you can't stand the fact that anybody would have the gall to actually debate with you.

 

Tell me to pull my head out of my ass again, and you and I are going to have a whole different kind of conversation.

 

No problem (except, I fail to see how you have the audacity to suggest that others are offering an "actual debate.")

 

Would you like to please now address the questions I've put forth, and articulate precisely where the SCOTUS precedents I've shared fail to support my position? That would be a very welcome change from all this waffling about personal opinion and what you think my motivations may or may not be.

Edited May 22, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

They don't fail to support your position. Your position fails to refute the argument.

[iNow]

They don't fail to support your position. Your position fails to refute the argument.

 

Alright, thanks Confucius.

 

Care to elaborate for us pale-faces precisely what "argument" my position "fails to refute," and why? Or, are you instead content to reply with barely intelligible hit and run posts for the remainder of this thread?

[Pangloss]

I will be happy to repeat the argument in spite of the fact that you've chosen to insult me again.

 

JohnB argued that the messages on these cover sheets might have constituted nothing more indoctrinal and/or endorsing than the "In God We Trust" on the currency. I pointed out that we lack context to decide what their purpose was.

 

You responded with an argument that indoctrination and endorsement is forbidden under the Constitution. That does not address the point JohnB and I were making. It therefore fails to refute it.

[bascule]

JohnB argued that the messages on these cover sheets might have constituted nothing more indoctrinal and/or endorsing than the "In God We Trust" on the currency.

 

Our money doesn't say "In Jesus We Trust" now does it? I'm not a fan of "In God We Trust" but it at least covers all monotheistic religions.

[The Bear's Key]

JohnB argued that the messages on these cover sheets might have constituted nothing more indoctrinal and/or endorsing than the "In God We Trust" on the currency. I pointed out that we lack context to decide what their purpose was.

But we don't lack the context to make an educated "reasonable person" guess about their habitual purposes for such actions.

 

Our money doesn't say "In Jesus We Trust" now does it? I'm not a fan of "In God We Trust" but it at least covers all monotheistic religions.

Doubt it. Just think who'd bitch and moan loudest of its removal. Jews? Muslims?

 

I personally don't like it there or in the Pledge. It might tell the flocks what Government does must be OK if they support God. And whoever desires its removal (liberals) must be the wicked part of government.

[Mr Skeptic]

Doesn't seem necessarily illegal, but it certainly does not look good. It's not illegal to draw inspiration from religion. But it does look bad when they want to say that the war was not religiously motivated.

 

I wonder, were biblical passages the only inspirational quotes, or just the best story?

[iNow]

JohnB argued that the messages on these cover sheets might have constituted nothing more indoctrinal and/or endorsing than the "In God We Trust" on the currency. I pointed out that we lack context to decide what their purpose was.

 

You responded with an argument that indoctrination and endorsement is forbidden under the Constitution. That does not address the point JohnB and I were making. It therefore fails to refute it.

Okay, I can see part of the confusion.

 

You continue to to focus too heavily on the "endorsement of religion" wording, while simultaneously ignoring the references I've provided which give context on that.

 

My references and citation of SCOTUS precedent demonstrates CLEARLY that interpretations and rulings made extend the meaning FAR BEYOND mere endorsement as being unconstitutional. Those extensions from the courts are informed DIRECTLY from and reinforced DIRECTLY by the writings of the constitutional framers who wrote those actual words into our constitution (namely, Madison and Jefferson).

 

This is why the Everson v. BoE case is so important here, and why I've used that reference in support of my position. Here is what it means.

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0330_0001_ZS.html

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

 

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

The case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that

all nine justices agree

that the clause was intended to do

far more

than

merely

prohibit the establishment of a state religion.

 

 

Further, we don't always have an precise and exact precedent to guide us in whether or not a specific action is or is not constitutional. For example, I'm pretty sure we've never had a court case regarding a president receiving top secret military briefings from the Department of Defense related to an active wartime engagement with quotes from the Christian bible plastered around it.

 

However, what we do have is a very long and consistent tradition of how the courts have viewed these issues. We have precedent about the need for all government actions to have a relevant secular purpose. We have precedent that cities and states cannot have any symbol from a specific religion as part of their official seal or documents. We have precedent that state events and schools cannot promote prayer or religious ritual, and they cannot put biblical quotes on textbooks, or any official documents.

 

All indicators suggest how this issue would be ruled based on existing cases addressing similar issues. It would be deemed unconstitutional, and that is MUCH MORE than an opinion. That is a statement of high probability supported by mountains of evidence and history.

 

 

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html

The meaning and scope of the First Amendment, preventing establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress, have been several times elaborated by the decisions of this Court prior to the application of the First Amendment to the states by the Fourteenth. The broad meaning given the Amendment by these earlier cases has been accepted by this Court in its decisions concerning an individual's religious freedom rendered since the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted to make the prohibitions of the First applicable to state action abridging religious freedom. There is every reason to give the same application and broad interpretation to the "establishment of religion" clause. "The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference."

[Pangloss]

Mod Note: More infractions for rude behavior have been issued in this thread.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

All indicators suggest how this issue would be ruled based on existing cases addressing similar issues. It would be deemed unconstitutional, and that is MUCH MORE than an opinion. That is a statement of high probability supported by mountains of evidence and history.

 

Your position requires a great deal of interpretation, and you've been shown examples and given supporting evidence, most specifically in post #58, in which I pointed out that your broad, unilateral interpretation is clearly not what happens, since after all that would stop the president from ever using the word "god" in a speech.

 

I went on to point out the conditions of the Lemon Test and the Endorsement Test, showing that in both cases the specific requirements of those tests cannot be clearly applied in this case without significant interpretation. Could go your way. Might not. Who knows? Again, we lack context that the Supreme Court would perhaps have in passing such judgment.

 

And so this is a matter of opinion, not fact. You're welcome to restate your opinion, but if you continue to (a) declare it to be factual or more valid than other opinions, or (b) declare other people's opinions to be invalid, then you will find another response from me. When you can make a statement without those two things, then you will have the last word, at least so far as I'm concerned.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Anyone else care to comment? I'm kinda tired of Pangloss repeating himself and bringing no new information to the table.

[bascule]

Anyone else care to comment? I'm kinda tired of Pangloss repeating himself and bringing no new information to the table.

 

I've argued from the start that this circumstance represents an endorsement of the Christian religion by the DoD and thus fails the Endorsement Test, at least in my opinion. But IANACL

[iNow]

But IANACL

 

Neither am I, however, I'm seeing zero non-waffling hand-waving support for the position that these comments from the Christian bible on the DoD briefings about an active wartime engagement aren't unconstitutional.

 

 

Let’s put this into a slightly different form for context…

 

This just in! High level presidential briefings regarding an active war engagement, briefings prepared by the Department of Defense, have quotes intended to sway executive decisions taken from the Quran. Below represent the cover pages given our president by the Secretary of Defense, with the US DoD seal affixed beside:

 

5:51: “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as friends, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people who are the wrong doers.”

 

9:123: “O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the pious.”

 

9:14: "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them."

 

"The Messenger said: 'Anybody who equips a warrior going to fight in the Way of Allah is like one who actually fights. And anybody who looks after his family in his absence is also like one who actually fights."

 

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

 

 

This isn’t about personal belief or expression. The problem here is with this being on DoD briefings to the President of the United States about an active wartime engagement, and noting that the only people defending it are those who happen to share similar beliefs.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Your position requires a great deal of interpretation, and you've been shown examples and given supporting evidence, most specifically in post #58, in which I pointed out that your broad, unilateral interpretation is clearly not what happens

 

Okay... Let me take a whack at your attempt at a rebuttal.

Below quotes are from the aforementioned post #58:

 

People employed by the government can express their religious views even within the context of their actions as an agency of government. This is protected

Your point fails because you are no longer representing the actual situation under discussion here in this thread. As has been pointed out previously, the issue at play here is not the mere "expression of religious views," it is INSTEAD the intertwining of said views with official government documents, and the plastering of quotes from the Christian bible on military briefings from the Department of Defense to the POTUS regarding an active wartime engagement.

 

You equivocating that with merely "expressing their religious views" is both disingenuous and greatly lacks integrity. This is not an issue of mere expression, and relates entirely on where and how that expression was made. Please try to keep your arguments focused on the issue at hand and perhaps we can avoid some of these unnecessary misalignments we keep experiencing with one another.

 

 

To quote Robert N. Bellah, "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension."

I say AGAIN:

Nobody here is arguing that our leaders and officials in government cannot have their own beliefs, or that they cannot use the word god. While I do personally think it would benefit all of us greatly if they avoided so doing, that is not a valid description of the argument taking place here.

 

This is SPECIFICALLY about the insertion of quotes from the Christian bible onto military briefings to the POTUS prepared by the Department of Defense regarding an active wartime engagement.

 

I implore you! At least try to represent this matter based in reality, Pangloss. Your comments continue to imply that this matter is based on something much more trivial, as if the president exclaimed "God, I hate the Yankees" and we are roasting him for something so silly and unimportant. That’s not the case. This is a serious matter, and part of the challenge is that you continue to misrepresent it. Please… At least try to represent the matter based in reality. This is not a difficult request, and is precisely why you've seen the word "strawman" in this thread appear so many times.

 

 

 

Not really. Stereologist wrote about a specific point with regard to expression, and you answered him with a point about how the state cannot establish/promote/endorse religion.

No, actually, I answered him with a point about how any mixture of religion and government in our official documents or official actions is treated by our constitution. This is a critical difference, in that this is not merely about personal "expression," but where and how that expression has taken place… which has been pointed out repeatedly to you and others already.

 

 

So the issue is one of judgment (i.e. opinion), which is whether or not these documents constitute unfair influence in that direction. That is, of course, why the Supreme Court has the so-called "Lemon Test", which it uses to rule in such cases (as recently as 2000) along three criteria (any of which can cause a ruling against the expression):

 

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

I think perhaps that the funniest part of this quote is that your own argument implicitly defeats the position you are using it to try to defend. By citing the Lemon Test, you have defeated your own assertion.

 

The Lemon Test would actually have prevented these quotes from the Christian bible from being allowed on the DoD briefings regarding an active wartime engagement since there is no relevant secular purpose for having them there.

 

Now, when I challenged you to give one secular reason for allowing quotes from the Christian bible on to DoD briefings to the POTUS regarding an active wartime engagement, you responded that these quotes were there for "the morale of the troops." Excuse me? The "morale of the troops?" Since when are troops given visibility to presidential briefings from the DoD? That's certainly news to me? Your response is a completely bullshit answer since the audience for these documents was NOT the troops, but the president and other top rank military officials… Not to mention that the documents themselves were being used in an official governing capacity.

 

Your position is simply indefensible. Point #3 in the Lemon Test regarding "entanglement" cited by you above is clearly infringed, and there is simply NO secular reason for having quotes from the Christian bible on these DoD briefings to the POTUS regarding active wartime engagements. So, I say again, your position is simply indefensible.

 

 

Did the government in this case intend to endorse religion in these statements?

And yet again, you focus solely on the word "endorsement," at the expense of the clear and precise context which has been brought to that language from the SCOTUS rulings and reading of texts from the authors of those words. It has been abundantly established that the meaning of “endorse” or “establish” has been consistently interpreted to extend beyond just those narrow few acts.

 

As noted above, the Everson case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that all nine justices agreed that the clause was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the endorsement of religion or the establishment of a state religion.

 

In sum, I didn't find your post #58 to be a very useful argument regarding the topic under discussion. I found it entirely lacking and wholly off-point as per the reasons summarized above.

Edited May 23, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Mod Note: More infractions for rude behavior have been issued in this thread.

What's funny is that you are obviously aware that you've lost your footing in this thread, and I posit that you're now trying to reassert your power in a way which brings nothing to the debate.

 

Let's try to remain focused on the actual points under discussion instead of summoning "Mr. Stompy," shall we?

 

You can posit all you want, but I have not issued any infractions in this thread (I'm also not the one who moved it out of Politics for a while). My only comments to the other moderators from this discussion have been regarding your rudeness towards other members (such as the comment above). You're the one who uses derogation and defamation as argument, not I. If you find your infraction record growing as a result, you have only yourself to blame.

 

But I agree with you: None of that has anything to do with the relative merits of our discussion.

 

 

Your point fails because you are no longer representing the situation under discussion here in this thread. As has been pointed out previously, the issue at play here is not the mere "expression of religious views," it is INSTEAD the intertwining of said views with official government documents, and the plastering of quotes from the Christian bible on military briefings from the Department of Defense to the POTUS regarding an active wartime engagement.

 

You equivocating that with merely "expressing their religious views" is both disingenuous and greatly lacks integrity. Please try to keep your arguments focused on the issue at hand and perhaps we can avoid some of these unnecessary misalignments we keep experiencing with one another.

 

No, I've stayed on point and discussed only the issue at hand.

 

The reason for the breakdown in communication is your inability to accept that other points of view will be allowed on this forum. You have a compelling need to either frame those opinions as invalid/untruthful, or demonize them and victimize their adherents, and you're frustrated because I will not allow you to get away with that -- I respond to it, pointing it out, showing how it is intolerant and immoral and against the purpose of this forum. You feel that this forum should be intolerant of opposing view points; that sometimes opinions are so egregious that they must be attacked (you've said so yourself). I feel differently -- I believe in openness and freedom of expression and welcoming other points of view. THAT is the source of our disagreements.

 

 

 

I say AGAIN:

Nobody here is arguing that our leaders and officials in government cannot have their own beliefs, or that they cannot use the word god. While I personally think it would benefit all of us greatly if they avoided so doing, that is not the argument here.

 

This is SPECIFICALLY about the insertion of quotes from the Christian bible onto military briefings to the POTUS prepared by the Department of Defense regarding an active wartime engagement.

 

That is a matter of judgment and opinion. You have yours, and another has been expressed on the matter.

 

 

 

At least try to represent this matter based in reality, Pangloss. Your comments continue to imply that this matter is based on something much more trivial, as if the president exclaimed "God, I hate the Yankees." This is a serious matter, and part of the challenge is that you continue to misrepresent it. At least represent the matter based in reality. This is not a difficult request, and is precisely why you've seen the word "strawman" in this thread appear so many times.

 

This is another example of slandering an opposing viewpoint. You accuse it of not being based in reality, of not being serious, and of not being logical.

 

 

 

The Lemon Test would have prevented these quotes from the Christian bible from being allowed on the DoD briefings regarding an active wartime engagement since there is no relevant secular purpose for having them there.

 

You don't know that, and can't prove it, and I've demonstrated by example and sourced material that another outcome is possible and (in my opinion) more likely.

 

 

 

The Everson case is noteworthy for its extensive discussion of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, and for the fact that all nine justices agreed that the clause was intended to do far more than merely prohibit the endorsement of religion or the establishment of a state religion.

 

Certainly. And I addressed that directly and showed how another direction is possible and (in my opinion) more likely.

 

 

 

When I challenged you to give one secular reason for allowing quotes from the Christian bible on to DoD briefings to the POTUS regarding an active wartime engagement, you responded that these quotes were there for "the morale of the troops." Excuse me? The "morale of the troops?" Since when are troops given visibility to presidential briefings from the DoD? That's certainly news to me? Your response is a completely bullshit answer since the audience for these documents was NOT the troops, but the president and other top rank military officials.

 

"The troops" includes Pentagon personnel, high brass, and the president, and morale is created from the top down. That's how it works. Therefore the argument for that explanation for these inclusions is a valid one. So you have your opinion about it, and I have mine. Both are valid, both are honest, both are "based in reality".

 

And neither one is "bullshit".

[iNow]

What I think is troubling me most, Pangloss, is that you're not so much rebutting my argument, but instead simply calling it bunk and moving on. The few citations you've actually shared have been addressed, and I feel that I have now provided enough context to show why those citations are not relevant nor supportive of your position.

 

Basically, those on the "this is unconstitutional" side are sharing precedent and references, explaining why and how those references and precedents are relevant, whereas the other side of the issue is simply going, "Nuh Uh. It's all opinion, so you're wrong."

 

That's not an argument... not a valid or useful one, anyway. That's what I find so frustrating, since the precedent we've been sharing and the arguments we've been making speak very strongly in favor of this being about much more than mere opinion, or simply free expression, but instead a very clear breach of our nations laws, constitution, and establishment clause.

 

As I said, this has proven to be a big source of frustration for me. With every post, spending all of this time exploring our history, finding references from experts on the topic, researching the writings of our courts and founding fathers, explaining SCOTUS precedent and how it applies here to this case with top level Department of Defense briefings to the president of the United States regarding active wartime engagements being plastered with quotes from the Christian bible... and in response?

 

"That is a matter of opinion."

 

No, it's not. It's about laws and constitutionality... or, more specifically, the disregard for our laws, and actions which are unconstitutional for the reasons shown above.

 

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, but I feel confident that my position is the better supported one, and more reflective of reality.

Edited May 24, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[SH3RL0CK]

While my opinion on the matter has not changed; I do appreciate the efforts of all parties bringing forth useful arguments with supporting documentation. I do not beleive there is anything more to say in this regard; certainly there is not a lack of information provided. Let me just say thank you to iNow and to Pangloss (as well as others) who have contributed to this thread. Obviously, the extent to which a politician or bureaucrat can express religious beliefs (and in what contexts) is a controversial issue with plenty of grey area. Issues such as these are why we have a Supreme court (as well as a way to modify the Constitution) to provide rulings as necessary.

[iNow]

Thanks for the kind words, SH3RLOCK, but just as a reminder, this isn't about "the extent to which a politician or bureaucrat can express religious beliefs," but whether there is any secular purpose, which does not violate the establishment clause in the First Amendment of our constitution, for putting quotes from the Christian bible on to top level DoD briefings to the POTUS regarding active wartime engagements.

[Mokele]

Since there really hasn't been anything new in the past two pages, and it generally seems that every argument that can be made has been made from each side, this thread is on 24-hour suicide watch.

 

If something really new or interesting crops up, it'll continue.

[Pangloss]

You should have left that post as it was, iNow -- I was going to let you have the last word. But you seem to want to discuss this some more. So be it.

 

I have never called your opinion "bunk". As usual you've stated a really interesting, well-supported position. It has a lot of merit. It adds something to this community. And, as I have shown (at your request), it is an opinion, not a fact. Therefore other people's opinions on this subject are acceptable as well.

 

What frustrates you is that I won't let you get away with declaring other people's opinions and arguments to be invalid. When you speak in the plural as if you represent this community, when you use phrases like "my position stands", when you ridicule other members of this forum in lieu of logical argument, when you call other people's opinions "not reflective of reality", then you you will find me standing there ready to hit the reply button.

[iNow]

Would you be willing to make a post now about the actual topic of discussion instead of about me?

[Pangloss]

I did. You raised the subject of your frustrations, and you also accused me of calling your argument "bunk". I addressed those matters directly in my previous post. If you don't want to talk about something, don't bring it up.

[Mokele]

What frustrates you is that I won't let you get away with declaring other people's opinions and arguments to be invalid.

 

Can you really say some arguments aren't bunk? What if someone's argument on a legal issue is blatantly contradicted by a long, well-established, and uncontroversial history of legal decisions?

 

I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm always skeptical of "everyone's opinion is worthwhile".

[Pangloss]

I agree. And we don't tolerate unsupported opinions in our science threads. But these Politics threads are really based on opinion -- that's their purpose. Unless someone actually states something that's factually incorrect, then their opinion has to be respected, or we don't have egalitarian, open discussion, but rather a tyranny of the majority (or loudest) viewpoint.

[iNow]

we don't tolerate unsupported opinions in our science threads. But these Politics threads are really based on opinion -- that's their purpose.

I know you're the moderator of this board, but I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on this point.

 

Unsupported opinions have no place in either science threads or politics threads. Your worldview on this illuminates clearly why we keep having this conflict.

 

This isn't about free and fair expression. It's about making a well-supported argument that is based on something more than just, "Nuh uh... I disagree."

Nobody is being censored. Nobody is being muzzled. Everyone is free to express their opinion, in much the same way that I'm free to attack it as ridiculous nonsense while further strengthening my own points with citations, references, and precedents.

 

 

Either way, we're still off topic. Your on-topic criticisms have been addressed, and I'm still waiting for you to reciprocate with something more than a response about me, my motivations, or how important it is to see the Politics board as a world of unsupported opinion.

[Pangloss]

Unsupported opinions have no place in either science threads or politics threads. This isn't about free and fair expression. It's about making a well-supported argument that is based on something more than just, "Nuh uh... I disagree."

 

My opinions in this thread have been well-substantiated and well-reasoned. So were yours, Bascule's, The Bear's Key's, JohnB's, john5746's, Sisyphus's, Mokele's, Sh3rlock's, Gutz's, etc.

 

But you chose to denigrate the opinions of those you disagreed with. Sterologist raised a valid question about whether these documents would have received the same objection had they come from a different religious text, and you rudely dismissed him. Sh3rlock made a relevant comment about whether or not most Americans would be offended by this, and you rudely rephrased his opinion (inaccurately), then declared it to be irrelevant and said "my point stands". Oh, and suggested that his eyesight needed correction. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

That is not supporting the free expression of ideas. That's stomping your opponents flat because you don't like what they're saying.

 

 

Everyone is free to express their opinion, in much the same way that I'm free to attack it as ridiculous nonsense while further strengthening my own points with citations, references, and precedents.

 

No, you are not. And your infraction rap sheet proves it.

 

And if anybody had the gall to do to one of your opinions what you casually and frequently do to other people's opinions you would be on that Report Post button in a nanosecond. You don't care about the free expression of ideas, what you care about is which opinions this community will tolerate and which ones it will not.

 

 

Your on-topic criticisms have been addressed, and I'm still waiting for you to reciprocate with something more than a response about me, my motivations, or how important it is to see the Politics board as a world of unsupported opinion.

 

It is not appropriate for you to declare what would be an acceptable reply to your opinions.

 

It is not appropriate for you to declare on behalf of the entire community whether or not an issue has been adequately addressed.

 

It is not appropriate for you to declare that another person's opinion does not constitute a valid reply, and stamp your feet and demand a better one.

 

Doing these things constitutes an attempt to control and frame this community's range of acceptable opinions, not because you actually represent this community, but by being the loudest and most obnoxious voice in the room.

 

I will continue to respond to these inappropriate behaviors.