Should Freedom of Religion include Freedom from Religion?

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Obviously that wasn't the loaded component of your q.
Try again.

///
Obviously, no 1 needs to tell you to try again. What it is you are trying no 1 knows.

<>

 

[Musika]

///
Obviously, no 1 needs to tell you to try again. What it is you are trying no 1 knows.

<>

Whatever the case may be, when you balk at the loaded part of your questions, your intentions are quite apparent.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Whatever the case may be, when you balk at the loaded part of your questions, your intentions are quite apparent.

///
Nothing is apparent in your delirious dream delusion.

<>

 

[Musika]

///
Nothing is apparent in your delirious dream delusion.

<>

Nothing is substantial in your salacious, shallow search-enginery.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Nothing is substantial in your salacious, shallow search-enginery.

///
Why are you obsessed with whether & how much I search?

<>

 

[Musika]

///
Why are you obsessed with whether & how much I search?

<>

Because it is relative to the content you post.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Because it is relative to the content you post.

///
No cause for your obsession.

<>

 

[Musika]

///
No cause for your obsession.

<>

Finally, there's something we can agree on

 

[billvon]

The grounding for the basis of equal rights is then obviously not a material calculation.

?? The grounding for the basis of equal rights is that material superiority (i.e. strength, male-ness, power, money) should not equate to an advantage in basic rights.

 

[Goldtop]

Then it just leads us to question what part of the planet you are familiar with.

Reality. What about you?

Because your ideas about equality do not sit well in such apparently "obvious" parameters.

Unfortunately, you have yet to make any points in that matter, all you've managed to do so far is repeat the word, "Material" for some strange and unknown reason.

 

[Goldtop]

a psychological anthrapologist should study this idea.
it seems to me that if people insist on always making a leader who is deemed to be superior to others, then the intrinsic nature of the psychology is to define non equality.

I'm not sure if they're deemed to be superior. I don't go see a doctor, dentist or lawyer because they're superior, only because they understand and practice a discipline I'm not familiar. If that were the case, I would be superior to them if they recruited my services.

though i can see several ways around this singular perspective it would be most interesting to read a schollars discussion of it.
Theologins may conclude that Dogma is the tenet of circumstance.

I've never really been a big fan of what theologians say as they can rarely if ever substantiate what they say.

 

[Musika]

Reality.

If you can't fathom the role resource allocation plays in competition, then this claim of yours is debatable.

Unfortunately, you have yet to make any points in that matter, all you've managed to do so far is repeat the word, "Material" for some strange and unknown reason.

I can't be held responsible for your shortcomings.

 

[Goldtop]

If you can't fathom the role resource allocation plays in competition, then this claim of yours is debatable.

The problem here is your desire to redefine words. Competition is not crime. Look it up yourself.

I can't be held responsible for your shortcomings.

I know, I am responsible for my shortcomings. Are you responsible for dishonestly redefining words to suit your narrative? Or, is that mine, as well?

 

[Musika]

?? The grounding for the basis of equal rights is that material superiority (i.e. strength, male-ness, power, money) should not equate to an advantage in basic rights.

Talking about what is not equal is the poor form for arriving at the conclusion of what is equal.

 

[Musika]

The problem here is your desire to redefine words. Competition is not crime. Look it up yourself.

You missed a step or two between "competition" and "crime".

 

[billvon]

Talking about what is not equal is the poor form for arriving at the conclusion of what is equal.

And yet it is how we arrived at the rights we have here in the US - in reaction to the injustices of a monarchy-based government. (And, of course, philosophical work by people like John Locke, Stephen Langton and Thomas Paine.)

 

[Goldtop]

You missed a step or two between "competition" and "crime".

You missed on how to use a dictionary.

 

[Musika]

And yet it is how we arrived at the rights we have here in the US - in reaction to the injustices of a monarchy-based government. (And, of course, philosophical work by people like John Locke, Stephen Langton and Thomas Paine.)

Yet you don't find any negative terminology (eg use of words like "not") in the DOI.
IOW in the final form of things, there is no reliance on language to discuss what equality isn't.

 

[Musika]

You missed on how to use a dictionary.

You missed a few key steps in your reiteration.

 

[Goldtop]

You missed a few key steps in your reiteration.

And, like I said, you keep failing to point anything out unless you redefine words to suit your narrative. That's dishonest.