OLAADEGBU:

Are you serious that you missed that again?

Maybe I did. Why don't you re-post those where you answered?

OLAADEGBU:
What I established was that the so called Separation of Church and State is a myth and I hope you get that point.

No you didn't establish that.

This was what I said to which you didn't respond. You're welcome to try again.

thehomer:
. . .

Why can't you see it? Since the government is restricted, it cannot be used to favour or endorse one religious sect over others. How difficult is this concept to understand?

It appears that what you need to do is to understand what is meant by the separation of church and state. It also means that a church cannot dictate what the state should do.

Enigma:


^ I always knew it would come to that: ad hominem in face of failed argument.

Sad thing is I'm not surprised.

Okay, I'm back. First and foremost, let me teach you the meaning of the phrase Ad hominem. It seems that people like you like to use it a lot on Nairaland to escape with weak arguments.

argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If I establish you're an idioot and then try to discredit something you've said, perhaps you say that the sun is hot, by arguing that you're an idioot so therefore your claim that the sun is hot cannot be true, That is an Ad hominem.

If however things are reversed and you claim that the Sun is freezing cold and I thereby conclude that you must be an Idiiot for saying that. That is not an Ad Hominem. The fact that you are an idiiot is the conclusion and not a part of the argument.

Do you understand this?

Not only Enigma, please anybody else on Nairaland that does not understand, I beg you, Raise your hand.

Enigma:

OK let's see, there are laws in the American legal system e.g. respecting religious freedom, inter alia. How come there are such laws if "Congress cannot pass any law with respect to religion"?

By the way a well trained first year law student on reading the First Amendment that you quoted should be able to tell you straight away that your representation was and remains inaccurate. If an A student, he will also note that it is inaccurate illogical.

Please can you tell us some of these laws that congress has passed in respect to religion. You can't just make a claim without examples.

First year law student? In which universtity? Covenant University? Or your local bible school?

Enigma: I'll do better; I'll redraft the First Amendment in simpler terms for you.

Congress may pass any law concerning religion as long as such law does not (1) establish a religion, or (2) interfere with free exercise of religion.

Simples.

I hope everybody reading this thread is paying attention to how Enigma interprets texts, because this is exactly the same way he interprets the bible. At least in this matter of US constitution he cannot hide behind the claim that you need 'Holy Spirit' to understand it. There is no holy spirit matter in US constitution.

How does one pass a law concerning a religion that will not interfere with the exercising of that religion? How do you make a law concerning anything at all that will not limit the way in which that thing is done? If I make a law saying you should only drive your car on the right side of the road does that not limit you and restrain you from driving on the left?
The very nature of law is a confining and a restricting of affairs.

Check out the Insidiousness. The constitution says the 'Congress shall make no law [/b]respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . '
Enigma says that that means that Congress [b]may pass laws but on certain conditions. The conditions then turn out to be logical impossibilities, however the hope is that his listeners are too daft to notice. Meanwhile the poison has already seeped in, namely that 'Congress may pass laws . . . .'

I'm still keen to read of an example of such a law that does not restrict yet is to be applied to the exercising of religion.

^^^ My friend you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

You are also exposing your ignorance and illogic. It is sad to see.

You cannot understand a simple concept that a law can be passed which (a) does not establish a religion and (b) does not interfere with free exercise of religion. Extremely simple concept, yet you go on and on about "intellectual discussions".

There are specific examples of such laws even in the American legal system but I will not teach you that. Even more pathetic, you couldn't do a simple googling exercise which will bring up examples for you.

Look, my friend, you were maligning Olaadegbu's "intellectual capacity", you went further saying he does not have two brain cells to rub together. Yet on the specific intellectual issue of "separation of church and state" he has demonstrated vastly superior understanding and intellectual perception than you". What does that say about your intellectual capacity?

Oh and about the daft reference to Covenant University, I don't even know where it is.

Oh, regarding the Holy Spirit: yes the Holy Spirit does teach the Christian of course; we cannot speak for non-Christians.

OLAADEGBU:

You still don't get it. What he is saying is that your so called Separation of Church and State is a myth that is found nowhere in the 1st Amendment. It is just a gimmick that the Secular humanist movement use in deceiving the people and keeping them in the dark as Obama is successfully doing.

Enigma:

Strictly speaking "separation of church and state" is not a legal concept. Further, the concept, though known in American "politics" (for want of a better word presently) is open to different interpretations.

From a legal point of view, what the authorities are not allowed to do is divided into the two broad categories: (a) do not establish a religion and (b) do not interfere with free exercise of religion.

This is far far far removed from "Congress cannot pass any law with respect to religion"

LOL!!! Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum now do a tag team routine for our entertainment.

Enigma:

You use this kind of expression; but I can easily point to you and fellow atheists/non-Christians "slapping each other on the back" ------ constantly as a matter of fact.

Please you will have to give me a link of me and 'atheist or non-christians' slapping each other on the back. It seems that there are somethings about me that you simply just can't grasp. I defend and support IDEAS that I agree with regardless of who is proposing them, whether an atheist, a christian, a catholic, a moslem, or whatever. Similarly when I don't agree with the same person on another point I will also voice my disagreement.

You see I am quite different from you. Not only you, but a lot of other people. Actually it seems that the moslems are the worst at this. They will rather argue in favour of rubbish than be seen to stand against an 'ally'. And you know, to be frank, that that is all it is - Alliances. I've observed for a while now that you belong to a secret (or maybe not so secret) cabal on Nairaland. Your posts expose as much. For instance check this:

[

Enigma: Well, I guess some of the points made will be addressed on an appropriate thread someday or by relevant people e.g. davidylan (or perhaps frosbel or Olaadegbu or noetic16) someday.

https://www.nairaland.com/882034/10-basis-scripture-interpretation/2#10417592

So who are these 'relevant people'? I would actually like a full list and if you could publish your constitution and agenda for me too that would be nice.

At the moment those I can discern clearly are Enigma/Olaadegbu/ and Davidylan, also known to me as Tweedle-dim, Tweedle-dumb, and Tweedle-daft (not respectively so you're free to choose amongst yourselves which one is which), or alternatively as The UNHOLY TRINITY.

^^^ I had noticed this about you a long time ago: when you are defeated on the central issue of a debate, you seek to widen it to nonsenses.

Enigma: ^^^ My friend you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

You are also exposing your ignorance and illogic. It is sad to see.

You cannot understand a simple concept that a law can be passed which (a) does not establish a religion and (b) does not interfere with free exercise of religion. Extremely simple concept, yet you go on and on about "intellectual discussions".

No, I cannot understand this 'simple' concept. However I do understand that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . '

Enigma: ^^^ I had noticed this about you a long time ago: when you are defeated on the central issue of a debate, you seek to widen it to nonsenses.

Thank you, now can you give me an example of US congress passing laws in respect to Religion. Don't cop out by telling me to google it.
In fact, you know what?, I'll allow that. All I want you to do is give me some guidelines. What keywords should I use to google it because congress passes many laws and I don't want to start looking for a nonexistent needle in a haystack.

And as regarding 'defeats', I'm not here to conquer or defeat anybody. Anybody that shows me the error in my thinking is doing me a favour, not defeating me.

deleted double post

In truth (no irony meant) you do not understand! Let me try again.

Congress shall make no law respecting [size=14pt]an establishment[/size] of religion . . ."



Edited: previously ballsed up the coding.

Enigma: ^^^ I had noticed this about you a long time ago: when you are defeated on the central issue of a debate, you seek to widen it to nonsenses.

The central issue of the 'debate' is that Obama is not a Christian. How have I been defeated? Even you have said that you take his word as face value. Stop going on like a muppet!!

The issue you have debated with me is about Congress passing a law concerning religion.

Simples.

Now who is the muppet?

Enigma: In truth (no irony meant) you do not understandi]! Let me try again.

Congress shall make no law respecting [size=14pt]an establishment[/size][/ [i]of religion . . ."



Edited: previously ballsed up the coding.

Instead of giving yourself an embolism why don't you just give us an example of Congress making a law regarding religion. You would be making it easier on yourself and on all of us too. That way, you would shut me up good and proper.

Enigma: The issue you have debated with me is about Congress passing a law concerning religion.

Simples.

Now who is the muppet?

I don't know about anyone actually being a muppet, but I do know that you're going on LIKE a muppet.

Enigma: The issue you have debated with me is about Congress passing a law concerning religion.

Simples.

Now who is the muppet?

Okay, now you could put a swift end to all of this by just posting an example of Congress passing a law affecting the practice of religion.

I'm already getting bored and I have a busy program for later today.

Expected, NID.

OK, after what I have written, who's been going on like a muppet?

Pastor AIO:

Okay, now you could put a swift end to all of this by just posting an example of Congress passing a law affecting the practice of religion.

I'm already getting bored and I have a busy program for later today.

I am not posting llareggub!

Those who know me know how I react to gratuitous rudeness.

Enigma:

I am not posting llareggub!

Those who know me know how I react to gratuitous rudeness.

Okay sir, I realise that I have been a little rude. It seems that I woke up on the wrong side of bed this morning. Please forgive me.

However it would put an end to our 'debate' if you gave us some examples of congress passing laws with respect to religion.

Once again I apologise for the gratuitous rudeness.

^^^ First of all, work on the concept and try to understand it ----- that Congress can pass a law which does not establish a religion or interfere with freedom of exercise of religion. Then it would be easy for you to find examples.

Enigma: ^^^ First of all, work on the concept and try to understand it ----- that Congress can pass a law which does not establish a religion or interfere with freedom of exercise of religion. Then it would be easy for you to find examples.

Even after my apologies you're still reverting to idiocy. That is not what the constitution says at all. Your twisting of it would make any law, e.g law against murder, an example. Any way, I'm off, but I'll return with more thoughts on what I think is really going on with this thread. I'm done with dealing with Enigma and I'm sure that any discerning reader will see through all that is going on.

^^^ You are of course free to continue in your daft ignorance.

And NO I will not school you on examples even though I have plenty.

The First Amendment

In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ( " religion " ) or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking cannabis[6][not in citation given] or, as in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the use of the hallucinogen peyote. Currently, peyote and ayahuasca are allowed by legal precedent if used in a religious ceremony; though cannabis is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

This says it all.

In short, Enigma is right.

However from a jurisprudential point of view, my personal thought would be to throw this to you both:

Is there a difference between -

"Congress may make no laws regarding AN establishment of religion." AND -

"Congress may make no laws regarding THE establishment of religion."

Just a thought.

Finally. Pastor. If you really think about it you would recognise that reading the first amendment the way you do would lead to absurdity. It would mean that religious establishments are ungovernable by law. That they can do absolutely anything, and that their activities cannot be regulated by law. Think about it.

By the by, please read very carefully the text in red above.

Cheers.

Deep Sight: The First Amendment

In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ( " religion " ) or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking cannabis[6][not in citation given] or, as in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the use of the hallucinogen peyote. Currently, peyote and ayahuasca are allowed by legal precedent if used in a religious ceremony; though cannabis is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

This says it all.

In short, Enigma is right.

However from a jurisprudential point of view, my personal thought would be to throw this to you both:

Is there a difference between -

"Congress may make no laws regarding AN establishment of religion." AND -

"Congress may make no laws regarding THE establishment of religion."

Just a thought.

Finally. Pastor. If you really think about it you would recognise that reading the first amendment the way you do would lead to absurdity. It would mean that religious establishments are ungovernable by law. That they can do absolutely anything, and that their activities cannot be regulated by law. Think about it.

By the by, please read very carefully the text in red above.

Cheers.

Well, well, well . . . .!

I'll go and think about it.

^^^ I believe that the foregoing ends the discussion, but in addittion, how is it possible to say that a Church is subject to IRS regulations - and say at the same time that "congress may make no laws with respect to religion?"

How does a church even attain legal personality, if not under extant laws?

http://uschurchlaw.com/501

Aside from this, there are of course many laws that touch on religious practices and religious freedom, or even specific protection of places of worship - such as -

The Church Arson Prevention Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/hr3525

The International Religious Freedom Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Religious_Freedom_Act_of_1998

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act

. . . and many others. As such it would make no sense to read the first amendment the way pastor AIO does. Enigma's reading is more correct.

Deep Sight: The First Amendment

In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The "Establishment Clause," stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is generally read to prohibit the Federal government from establishing a national church ( " religion " ) or excessively involving itself in religion, particularly to the benefit of one religion over another. Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and through the doctrine of incorporation, this restriction is held to be applicable to state governments as well.

The "Free Exercise Clause" states that Congress cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religious practices. The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example, in the 19th century, some of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints traditionally practiced polygamy, yet in Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court upheld the criminal conviction of one of these members under a federal law banning polygamy. The Court reasoned that to do otherwise would set precedent for a full range of religious beliefs including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court stated that "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices." For example, if one were part of a religion that believed in vampirism, the First Amendment would protect one's belief in vampirism, but not the practice. This principle has similarly been applied to those attempting to claim religious exemptions for smoking cannabis[6][not in citation given] or, as in the case of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), the use of the hallucinogen peyote. Currently, peyote and ayahuasca are allowed by legal precedent if used in a religious ceremony; though cannabis is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

This says it all.

In short, Enigma is right.

However from a jurisprudential point of view, my personal thought would be to throw this to you both:

Is there a difference between -

"Congress may make no laws regarding AN establishment of religion." AND -

"Congress may make no laws regarding THE establishment of religion."

Just a thought.

Finally. Pastor. If you really think about it you would recognise that reading the first amendment the way you do would lead to absurdity. It would mean that religious establishments are ungovernable by law. That they can do absolutely anything, and that their activities cannot be regulated by law. Think about it.

By the by, please read very carefully the text in red above.

Cheers.

Thanks a lot Deepsight. I get it. Humble pie is never palatable, but what it lacks in taste it more than makes up for in nutrition. Enigma's simplification went:

Congress may pass any law concerning religion as long as such law does not (1) establish a religion, or (2) interfere with free exercise of religion.

Would I be right to put it this way: Congress may pass a law so long as it is not Aimed at Religion (a religion), or aimed at prohibiting the practice of a religion. But if Congress passes a law, without religion in mind, and it happens to prohibit the practice of a religion then that is tough for that religion.

If this is right then, Olaadegbu's case would rest on whether or not it became illegal to block the thoroughfare specifically to hinder the prayer of christians. And whether the previously mentioned area was made restricted specifically to prohibit christians praying there.

thehomer:

Maybe I did. Why don't you re-post those where you answered?

If you had taken the pain to check you would have saved yourself of all this misery. I remember saying something to the effect that If God said it I believe it and that settles it for me. Would you say that you don't remember me saying that even if you cannot find it/

thehomer:

No you didn't establish that.

This was what I said to which you didn't respond. You're welcome to try again.

I cannot keep on repeating myself like a parrot, you need to closely observe what is posted. It is not rocket science.

Pastor AIO:

Okay, I'm back. First and foremost, let me teach you the meaning of the phrase Ad hominem. It seems that people like you like to use it a lot on Nairaland to escape with weak arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

If I establish you're an idioot and then try to discredit something you've said, perhaps you say that the sun is hot, by arguing that you're an idioot so therefore your claim that the sun is hot cannot be true, That is an Ad hominem.

If however things are reversed and you claim that the Sun is freezing cold and I thereby conclude that you must be an Idiiot for saying that. That is not an Ad Hominem. The fact that you are an idiiot is the conclusion and not a part of the argument.

Do you understand this?

Not only Enigma, please anybody else on Nairaland that does not understand, I beg you, Raise your hand.

You don't have to twist the meaning of Ad Hominem even though you've been armed with your favourite wikipedia. Ad Hominem is directing an argument against the person making the claim rather than the claim itself. Either you are saying the person is an idiiot as a conclusion has no bearing on the position of the person making an argument. It means "to the man" that means you are directing your argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself, and your reason for doing this as we can see in your posts here, is that you are hoping that viewers would reject your opponents claim simply on the basis that there is something objectionable about the person making the claim. Name calling is name calling either abusive or circumstantial. So you have to learn what a logical fallacy really means before you start to shoot yourelf in the foot.

Pastor AIO:

Please can you tell us some of these laws that congress has passed in respect to religion. You can't just make a claim without examples.

First year law student? In which universtity? Covenant University? Or your local bible school?

This is a typical poor attempt of your use of circumstantial Ad Hominem. You assume that he attended a local school his interpretation of the law would not be tenable.

Pastor AIO:

I hope everybody reading this thread is paying attention to how Enigma interprets texts, because this is exactly the same way he interprets the bible. At least in this matter of US constitution he cannot hide behind the claim that you need 'Holy Spirit' to understand it. There is no holy spirit matter in US constitution.

How does one pass a law concerning a religion that will not interfere with the exercising of that religion? How do you make a law concerning anything at all that will not limit the way in which that thing is done? If I make a law saying you should only drive your car on the right side of the road does that not limit you and restrain you from driving on the left?
The very nature of law is a confining and a restricting of affairs.

Check out the Insidiousness. The constitution says the 'Congress shall make no law [/b]respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . '
Enigma says that that means that Congress [b]may pass laws but on certain conditions. The conditions then turn out to be logical impossibilities, however the hope is that his listeners are too daft to notice. Meanwhile the poison has already seeped in, namely that 'Congress may pass laws . . . .'

I'm still keen to read of an example of such a law that does not restrict yet is to be applied to the exercising of religion.

It is even pathetic that you have to resort to the claim that he relies on the Holy Spirit to interprete the law. Did you see how Deep Sight agreed with his interpretation? Who has to eat his humble pie now?

Pastor AIO:

LOL!!! Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum now do a tag team routine for our entertainment.

Please you will have to give me a link of me and 'atheist or non-christians' slapping each other on the back. It seems that there are somethings about me that you simply just can't grasp. I defend and support IDEAS that I agree with regardless of who is proposing them, whether an atheist, a christian, a catholic, a moslem, or whatever. Similarly when I don't agree with the same person on another point I will also voice my disagreement.

You see I am quite different from you. Not only you, but a lot of other people. Actually it seems that the moslems are the worst at this. They will rather argue in favour of rubbish than be seen to stand against an 'ally'. And you know, to be frank, that that is all it is - Alliances. I've observed for a while now that you belong to a secret (or maybe not so secret) cabal on Nairaland. Your posts expose as much. For instance check this:

[
https://www.nairaland.com/882034/10-basis-scripture-interpretation/2#10417592

So who are these 'relevant people'? I would actually like a full list and if you could publish your constitution and agenda for me too that would be nice.

At the moment those I can discern clearly are Enigma/Olaadegbu/ and Davidylan, also known to me as Tweedle-dim, Tweedle-dumb, and Tweedle-daft (not respectively so you're free to choose amongst yourselves which one is which), or alternatively as The UNHOLY TRINITY.

Here is another example of your circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy displayed in broad daylight. So you think because of Enigma's association with the likes of me and Davidylan his arguments must not be taken seriously. It is just like arguing blindly that Christianity isn't true and that I am only a Christian because I was brought up in a Christian family and that if I were to be brought up in a Muslim family that I would be a Muslim.

In other words you are saying Enigma's association with the "Cabal" defeats any argument he makes. Enigma's circumstance with the "cabal" has no bearing on the argument he makes. Just like the fallacy by which a person becomes a Christian are not relevant to his or her argument for Christianity even though I am more likely to become a Christian because of my upbringing in a Christian family.

Pastor AIO:

Would I be right to put it this way: Congress may pass a law so long as it is not Aimed at Religion (a religion), or aimed at prohibiting the practice of a religion. But if Congress passes a law, without religion in mind, and it happens to prohibit the practice of a religion then that is tough for that religion.

I think its simple enough to say that Congress may pass laws even with respect to the practice of religion so long as such laws do not infringe the Establishment and Free Excercise clauses mentioned in the First Amendment.

You are right to the extent that if the practice of any religion borders on criminality (ala Jihad, Vampirism, etc) then of course normal secular criminal laws will prohibit such religious practices. Ditto, if they infringe secular civil regulations, such as the restricted area which you cited.

If this is right then, Olaadegbu's case would rest on whether or not it became illegal to block the thoroughfare specifically to hinder the prayer of christians. And whether the previously mentioned area was made restricted specifically to prohibit christians praying there.

Correct, and of course in that instance he would have no case.

Mind you I have not watched any of those videos and I make my comments based on what you have written.

We still have some folks in Hollywood that are not blindfolded by the deception and that can speak out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60kfViVu5PY

OLAADEGBU:

You don't have to twist the meaning of Ad Hominem even though you've been armed with your favourite wikipedia. Ad Hominem is directing an argument against the person making the claim rather than the claim itself. Either you are saying the person is an idiiot as a conclusion has no bearing on the position of the person making an argument. It means "to the man" that means you are directing your argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself, and your reason for doing this as we can see in your posts here, is that you are hoping that viewers would reject your opponents claim simply on the basis that there is something objectionable about the person making the claim. Name calling is name calling either abusive or circumstantial. So you have to learn what a logical fallacy really means before you start to shoot yourelf in the foot.



This is a typical poor attempt of your use of circumstantial Ad Hominem. You assume that he attended a local school his interpretation of the law would not be tenable.



It is even pathetic that you have to resort to the claim that he relies on the Holy Spirit to interprete the law. Did you see how Deep Sight agreed with his interpretation? Who has to eat his humble pie now?

@Olaadegbu

I let most of those (as well as others) go because I thought they weren't really worthwhile.



Edited