Search results for query: *

Scotland's rule of law is not America's rule of law, especially in terms of freedom of speech. I am admittedly not familiar with those. My historical education and study didn't cover those, so I don't feel I can make an honest argument/opinion on this. I'll try with a few moments of google...

Why would I ask a guy in Scotland about checks and balances in America? You are the one who talked about a violent take over here in bold: So asking if there is actual proof that they are doing so is a valid question, because of the part underlined, making it seem like an arbitrary choice...

Then set up appropriate checks and balances like any sane person would. Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are attempting a violent takeover (as opposed to winning the vote on election day) of the government? There are laws already in place that would prevent this, and HAVE...

And how do you believe that it would be abused? Just because it has root doesn't mean that you need to believe in those roots in order to see logic behind it.

In their founding, sure they had reasons. But their followers in modern times? You would need to be a scholar or do extensive research to know the exact reasoning behind it. Modern morality is so far divergent from the morality of the big religious groups that it's meaningless. Modern morals...

Religious arguments, the few scientific or logical arguments are rather weak from what I have seen. Because it's not coincide, it's based. Religion should always be a choice, if you force a person to follow a religion you damage that religion and the population as a whole in the long run. We...

That is true, and undeniable. But the reverse is true as well, applying the laws of one religion across everyone could inflame tensions in general across the board if they are not careful. Regardless, I think we've gone off topic and I apologize for going so far off point. @FriedCFour , I am...

The answer? No. Gun rights, environmental rights, and union rights are all arguably useful to the nation as a whole. But what basis is there for hypothetically enacting Sharia law just to get the the Muslim vote? In real life, what use is there banning porn, or banning gay marriage? Banning...

Other special interest groups shouldn't have disproportionate influence in the first place, but it would be completely unrealistic to want them gone as well. Why? Well religion itself has had a very bloody history in politics. Anything that removes undue influence is a plus in my book. Note...

Does their charity meet the point of a hypothetical taxation? Granted, the exact amount / percentage has not been discussed, so it was a bad question to begin with. Consider it retracted. If it's the Churches airplane, then I agree. Not in the case of personal ownership. You are correct...

...I hate the fact that you are right, not because you or anything like that, but because those guys would be able to operate exactly as you say. Point conceded. But do they donate to the point where they would have been taxed anyway? Plenty of small churches would meet that standard if they...

Yes, and I acknowledge this. But you gotta admit that churches pocketing all profit and not helping the community that gave them money at all is morally wrong. That's a large personal worldview you have there. I suppose this would be true for those who are consistent with their faith, but I...

I wouldn't mind the first amendment being replaced with something similar that doesn't allow them to hide a business pretending to be a church. TV churches are the absolute worst examples of this.

(Le shrug) Houses of worship should be taxed anyway, including mosques and other non-christian places of worship, with the only exception being if they can prove whatever community service / charity they do meets a certain threshold that meets whatever they would have been taxed. The good...