Chongo94
Active Member
Are there any of them still around? I remember they had a bit of a presence down around the Big Bend area but that seemed to be their only major localized area. I remember they printed their own driver’s licenses too ha.
Ohio State wants to trademark "THE"
- Thread starter CryptoMiner
- Start date
Are there any of them still around? I remember they had a bit of a presence down around the Big Bend area but that seemed to be their only major localized area. I remember they printed their own driver’s licenses too ha.
Zubaz
Member
Sovereign Citizens is my new favorite YouTuber craze.
"AM I BEING DETAINED!?!? I AM AN ARTICLE IV FREE INHABITANT! I AM NOT DRIVING I AM TRAVELING!"
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
Chongo94
Active Member
Wow....they even have an ambassador to the Philippines.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
And here is one now!
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Their religion is in fact causing the state from building a telescope, isn’t it?
Zubaz
Member
I don’t think so? They certainly have the right to protest construction on land they consider to be sacred (kinda like the DAP), but ultimately it appears the government is staying pretty neutral on the matter, unlike your Ten Commandments example where that is an explicit endorsement of a religion on government property.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
By allowing their protest to block construction of a government project (when there are other telescopes there already) on the basis that infringes on their religion is okay, but posting Ten Coomandments that doesn’t stop anyone from doing anything is wrong?
Zubaz
Member
Private citizens are allowed to protest. If they block or trespass where they aren't supposed to, they get cited (apparently this has happened). The government has stayed neutral on the matter of religion (that's kinda why the natives are upset in the first place), and as I understand it construction has pretty much continued.
Meanwhile, a government isn't allowed to favor a specific religion, which is why those monuments are (usually, not always) ruled to be removed.
In one case you have private citizens, in the other you have the government. They aren't really the same thing.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
The Ten Commandments do not favor a specific religion, do not force anyone to combine church and state nor do they force anyone to adhere to what they represent or prevent anyone from any right afforded them by the state necessitating their separation.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Back to the issue at hand...
Zubaz
Member
Disagree personally. IMO it pretty clearly does endorse Judaism / Christianity over religions where the Ten Commandments have zero importance. That is, of course the ux of the debate.
(And since literally every one I've ever seen uses the Protestant numbering convention, you could probably argue that's its a specific endorsement of the Protestant faith).
Either way, we are discussing a government endorsing a religion, not private citizens protesting a government for NOT recognizing their religion. That's why I said I think they are different situations.
Realtorfrog
Full Member
The Tom Brady does not approve!
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
I don’t think it is disputed that English Common Law is the basis for our system and it appears the English are unabashedly grounded by Christian philosophy. So, I guess you would say our system of jurisprudence is illegitimate?
First, of course, there is the general influence of the Bible through the medium of the Christian religion upon the law. It has been often said, indeed, that Christianity is part of the common law of England, and this is due in great measure to the authority of Sir Matthew Hale (King v. Taylor, i Vent. 293, 3 Keble 507), Blackstone and other writers, while Lord Mansfield held (Chamberlainof Lon- don v. Evans, 1767) that the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.
Limey Frog
Full Member
God help them when they try to use their trade marked definite article to identify any particular man as being the 12th.
Zubaz
Member
Weird conclusion there at that the end, bit extreme no? No, I wouldn't say our system is illegitimate. Of course it is based on English Common Law, but only insofar as that jives with the Constitution that we wrote. Since the First Amendment was pretty explicitly done to contrast our view on religion with England's (who of course has their own state religion), I don't think is reasonable to conclude that US common law recognizes Christianity as the basis for our law. Arguing that the culture that wrote those laws was predominately influenced by Christianity isn't something we are in disagreement on either, but to extrapolate that to the point where it would be acceptable for a government to erect a Christian monument to recognize that though? I think that's too far, personally.
1) Citations next time, my man. Don't plagiarize
(this is a joke, please don't take it seriously)
2) Also note the first citation made in that paper, a case where a man was convicted in England of "blasphemy", something that would (thankfully) NEVER stand in the US system today.
3) Note the English citations made after the ratification of the US Constitution, which of course hold no common law precedent in the US system.
4) That paper having been written in 1890, lists several court cases that have since been overturned, specifically the aforementioned blasphemy laws that was (rightfully) overturned 60 years after this paper was written as a First Amendment violation. Blue laws that they cite were also clarified as being secular, rather than religious, in nature in the 1960's.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Weird conclusion there at that the end, bit extreme no? No, I wouldn't say our system is illegitimate. Of course it is based on English Common Law, but only insofar as that jives with the Constitution that we wrote. Since the First Amendment was pretty explicitly done to contrast our view on religion with England's (who of course has their own state religion), I don't think is reasonable to conclude that US common law recognizes Christianity as the basis for our law. Arguing that the culture that wrote those laws was predominately influenced by Christianity isn't something we are in disagreement on either, but to extrapolate that to the point where it would be acceptable for a government to erect a Christian monument to recognize that though? I think that's too far, personally.
1) Citations next time, my man. Don't plagiarize
(this is a joke, please don't take it seriously)
2) Also note the first citation made in that paper, a case where a man was convicted in England of "blasphemy", something that would (thankfully) NEVER stand in the US system today.
3) Note the English citations made after the ratification of the US Constitution, which of course hold no common law precedent in the US system.
4) That paper having been written in 1890, lists several court cases that have since been overturned, specifically the aforementioned blasphemy laws that was (rightfully) overturned 60 years after this paper was written as a First Amendment violation. Blue laws that they cite were also clarified as being secular, rather than religious, in nature in the 1960's.
I thought it was obvious it was not an original thought and I don’t have a KFC style book demanding the use of footnotes. I didn’t think I needed quotes, but perhaps it would have been clearer.
And I never said any English law holds precedent in anyway. I merely said it was the basis for our system.
