*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[CoccoBill]

is this a sincere question? Do you really need an answer to this?

Of course I know exactly whether you think yes or no, I'm interested how you're going to justify that when the person's inalienable rights from the 1st amendment say he can do it.

[Mr.Banana]

Of course I know exactly whether you think yes or no, I'm interested how you're going to justify that when the person's inalienable rights from the 1st amendment say he can do it.

So you do need an answer. Ok then...

What you're describing is exactly why we have courts. Their whole job, their reason for existing is to look at cases like this, interpret the constitution, and make a ruling. Those rulings stand as legal precedents, usually forever, unless an even wackier case comes along and the precedent becomes irrelevant.

I'm not a legal expert so I can't quote cases or laws for you. But I know enough to be sure there are a great many long standing legal precedents outlining what is, and is not a religion or religious practice. I know you can't just make up religions out of thin air. You can't just say you're a Vordookian and start killing teenage girls for your religion. So there are already constitutional legal standards for what constitutes a religion. It can't be one guy who wants to kill a girl. You have to have an organization, a congregation, ongoing traditions, etc.

Nothing that legally qualifies as a religion, and engages in the practice of virgin sacrifice, exists in the west. And unless millions of people convert to verdookianism overnight, it will never happen. So your question is insincere anyway. Just another tactic you're using to avoid debate and villainize me.

But even if Verdooks ran congress, we still have laws against murder. The girl would have to be willing. And she would have to kill herself. And everyone looking on would be guilty of not intervening to save someone from suicide, which is a crime.

[CoccoBill]

So you do need an answer. Ok then...

What you're describing is exactly why we have courts. Their whole job, their reason for existing is to look at cases like this, interpret the constitution, and make a ruling. Those rulings stand as legal precedents, usually forever, unless an even wackier case comes along and the precedent becomes irrelevant.

I'm not a legal expert so I can't quote cases or laws for you. But I know enough to be sure there are a great many long standing legal precedents outlining what is, and is not a religion or religious practice. I know you can't just make up religions out of thin air. You can't just say you're a Vordookian and start killing teenage girls for your religion. So there are already constitutional legal standards for what constitutes a religion. It can't be one guy who wants to kill a girl. You have to have an organization, a congregation, ongoing traditions, etc.

Nothing that legally qualifies as a religion, and engages in the practice of virgin sacrifice, exists in the west. And unless millions of people convert to verdookianism overnight, it will never happen. So your question is insincere anyway. Just another tactic you're using to avoid debate and villainize me.

But even if Verdooks ran congress, we still have laws against murder. The girl would have to be willing. And she would have to kill herself. And everyone looking on would be guilty of not intervening to save someone from suicide, which is a crime.

Now, did I ask you whether you think under current legislation the action is considered a crime, or

"Do you think the government should not intervene if..."

Now rate your performance on answering the question.

[Mr.Banana]

Now, did I ask you whether you think under current legislation the action is considered a crime, or

"Do you think the government should not intervene if..."

Now rate your performance on answering the question.

If someone is about to be murdered then everyone, not just the government, has an obligation to intervene.

No religion exists in the west that practices human sacrifice. No one could use first amendment religious freedom as a a credible defense for murder.


You really some fucking balls accusing me of wiley debate tactics. This is fucking bullshit man. Christianity is a REAL religion. There's more than a billion people practicing it worldwide. It has long-standing, well documented, deeply held beliefs about the sacredness of marriage and they passionately object to extending it's definition to include practices they regard as sins. That's what Christianity, and it's billion-plus members, believe.

But you think you can poke a hole in their argument by inventing some human sacrifice religion that does not, could not, or would not exist anywhere except in your stubborn head. "Ooooh, does that mean I can sacrifice virgins for my religion??" is that really your fucking argument dude?