PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of religion as a tool for preservation of Gun rights?


Experimentalist
02-23-2009, 9:23 PM
The first amendment to the U.S. constitution reads:
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.

I appreciate the purpose of the second amendment. Furtherance of the individual rights interpretation is clearly priority 1.

However, it seems that additional leverage might be gained through exploitation of the first amendment. A shallow declaration that "Jesus wants me to have a gun!" isn't going to go very far (apologies to my Christian friends).

On the other hand a serious religion (ideally recognized by the State) may offer useful protection. A religion that has as a central principle the responsibility for self-reliance and protection.

I know it sounds a bit cultish, but someone must have considered the possibilities that founding our own religion might offer?

Your thoughts?

dwa
02-23-2009, 9:26 PM
maybe i think it may be easier to find a forgotten religion that espouses those ideals with martial prowess being one of them.

sorensen440
02-23-2009, 9:27 PM
They are already ignoring one amendment what makes you think they wont ignore another?
Interesting idea though

Blue
02-23-2009, 9:30 PM
I'd be down as long as I didn't have to sit next to Slayer :p

Experimentalist
02-23-2009, 9:31 PM
They are already ignoring one amendment what makes you think they wont ignore another?
Interesting idea though

You have a good point, if a particular medicine is impotent then a larger dose isn't going to be effective.

But if the Constitution retains some credibility (I argue it does) then additional leverage may be useful.

Experimentalist
02-23-2009, 9:33 PM
I'd be down as long as I didn't have to sit next to Slayer :p

If we make any range our "Church", you can sit at whatever bench is free, brother. :)

sorensen440
02-23-2009, 9:33 PM
You have a good point, if a particular medicine is impotent then a larger dose isn't going to be effective.

But if the Constitution retains some credibility (I argue it does) then additional leverage may be useful.

There already are limits on bigamy even though its part of some religions

Experimentalist
02-23-2009, 9:37 PM
There is a precedent.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7461/waco.jpg

WEAPONS RECOVERED FROM THE BRANCH DAVIDIAN COMPOUND:
TREASURY SUMMARY OF REPORT PREPARED BY THE FBI FOR PROSECUTORS
AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

ILLEGAL WEAPONS RECOVERED
Machine guns... (edit)



Texan in Exile has a good point, credibility is central to an effective argument along these lines. Otherwise it's easy to be dismissed as the lunatic fringe.

Also, an intelligent game plan is critical. Point blank confrontation with the government is not just stupid, it's hard on your health. But carefully applied, perhaps there is something interesting here.

Experimentalist
02-23-2009, 9:41 PM
There already are limits on bigamy even though its part of some religions

So we're already hitting on a very important point, and that is you don't go slapping someone across the face by crudely offending the social norms.

But incrementally applied I think you could make progress. OLL's are a fine example, people didn't immediately come out with AR's equipped with bullet buttons. First we had pinned mags, then Prince50's, then B15's, B16's, Raddlock's, etc.

Heat, gradually applied, can boil most frogs.

Dr Rockso
02-23-2009, 9:45 PM
I worship at the Church of the Prophet John Moses Browning. My religion requires full auto.

mymonkeyman
02-23-2009, 9:47 PM
The free exercise clause is pretty much non-starter as an enforceable clause under constitutional law, other than a few ultra-specific situations. See Employment Division v. Smith. 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (holding no religious exceptions to laws of general applicability under the free exercise clause).

The RFRA (religious freedom restoration act) was meant to fix Employment Division, but SCOTUS held RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states (as beyond the 14th amendment section 5 power of Congress). See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

However, RFRA is still an active (albeit weak) free-exercise-like statutory limitation of Federal Laws. See Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).

Experimentalist
02-23-2009, 9:52 PM
...(holding no religious exceptions to laws of general applicability under the free exercise clause)...

Agreed, head-on challenging of existing law is a non-starter.

However, as a lever to further our arguments, as current law is interpreted...?

383green
02-23-2009, 10:45 PM
My first reaction was "I'm an atheist. Screw this.". Then I realized that if the Scientologists can get away with it, I want a piece, too. All Hail the Lord of Divine Kinetic Penetration! :p

bulgron
02-24-2009, 12:21 AM
I'm surprised we don't have more Sikhs in the pro-gun movement. The Kirpan is interesting in that the original intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan) for wearing it is what many of us think is the reason we should be CCWing:


The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind.


Substitute 'gun' for 'kirpan' and a lot of what that paragraph says is pretty spot on for what gunnies think.

anony mouse
02-24-2009, 3:48 AM
The first amendment to the U.S. constitution reads:


I appreciate the purpose of the second amendment. Furtherance of the individual rights interpretation is clearly priority 1.



try again :P

There was a religion of sorts that basically used marijuana as a sacrament, the court (AZ state) ruled in a way that kinda leaves the door open, but I wouldnt hold my breath. Basically you have the right to believe anything you want, but they said that you do not have the right to act or abstain from certain actions based on that. The freedom in essence only exists in your head.

If this case makes it to SCOTUS then you can look at their wording and try to guage what their response may be, however if you look at recent things, Blachley v Washington State they ruled one way, in followup cases, Booker and FanFan they ruled the complete opposite way to avoid a flood of federal appeals from people previously convicted.

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/250846

Now, there are wording oddities that can make it seem like this would be a valid thing to claim, but it would mean having to challenge the law, which typically means that you have to be arrested first before you can bring a case, and if you lose, you can lose big.

The difference between marijuana and the allowed peyote stuff was that the defendant has to prove that it was less dangerous than the government alleged, and the peyote stuff is only allowed (even though banned generally) by one church, they cite that as a "well defined group" as opposed to the general population, and that could mean a difference in the firearms stuff should that same logic be applied.

Yeah its a different court, yeah its a different issue, but the way they arrived at their decision can be fairly directly applied to this situation.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-24-2009, 4:42 AM
Welcome to the "First Church of Tactical Zen" we celebrate and embrace our inner / ancient predator and our tactical warrior self. We experience one type of Zen by non doing, by witholding the action of violence of our inner warrior self while possessing the very means to act. This act of non doing leads to enlightenment, the gun represents the power of the controlled self and is an extension of the creators goodness into this world, therefore the gun is a symbol of goodness. We honor and embody the goodness of the Creator by possessing the power and the will to destroy evil if called upon to do so. This experience is the "Zen of Tactical Truth" and can only be experienced by carrying a gun, this goodness is a quality of the Creator that can be experienced by us mortals and demonstrates the requirement to carry a gun. In this possession of a gun is a sacrament. Additionally, we acknowledge our inner ancient predator by taking the life of game animals and celebrating all life by using the harvest for subsistence as a design of the Creator. Hunting, killing and eating the meat of our harvest promotes harmony between man and the Creator it is a bridge between the worlds. The Creator designed this world for the hunt and experiences the hunt as we doIn this hunting becomes a sacrament. All harvest is a gift to us by the harvested, the animals sacrifice themselves to us so the Creator and his agents -we humans-can experience the hunt, prey and harvest as a wholistic Gestalt. This celebration of our inner predator by killing and eating of meat in the context of and as a part of the larger Gestalt makes us whole, the hunt heals the wounds of modern living. This hunting experience is the "Zen of Predator Truth". Thomas Jefferson touched the surface of these ideas


Amen!

The Raisuli

deleted by PC police
02-24-2009, 5:00 AM
I think your best approach would be to go for the god given right to self defense.

Experimentalist
02-24-2009, 7:09 AM
Welcome to the "First Church of Tactical Zen" we celebrate and embrace our inner / ancient predator and our tactical warrior self. We experience one type of Zen by non doing, by witholding the action of violence of our inner warrior self while possessing the very means to act. This act of non doing leads to enlightenment, the gun represents the power of the controlled self and is an extension of the creators goodness into this world, therefore the gun is a symbol of goodness. We honor and embody the goodness of the Creator by possessing the power and the will to destroy evil if called upon to do so. This experience is the "Zen of Tactical Truth" and can only be experienced by carrying a gun, this goodness is a quality of the Creator that can be experienced by us mortals and demonstrates the requirement to carry a gun. In this possession of a gun is a sacrament. Additionally, we acknowledge our inner ancient predator by taking the life of game animals and celebrating all life by using the harvest for subsistence as a design of the Creator. Hunting, killing and eating the meat of our harvest promotes harmony between man and the Creator it is a bridge between the worlds. The Creator designed this world for the hunt and experiences the hunt as we doIn this hunting becomes a sacrament. All harvest is a gift to us by the harvested, the animals sacrifice themselves to us so the Creator and his agents -we humans-can experience the hunt, prey and harvest as a wholistic Gestalt. This celebration of our inner predator by killing and eating of meat in the context of and as a part of the larger Gestalt makes us whole, the hunt heals the wounds of modern living. This hunting experience is the "Zen of Predator Truth". Thomas Jefferson touched the surface of these ideas

Clever stuff! This is very close to what I had in mind.

Clearly the establishment of such a religion would not allow people to CCW who are already prohibited from doing so, nor should it.

However, CCW is a reality in something like 30+ States of the Union. Assertion of religious freedom might be one way to getting a CCW in California, once we've done our homework.

383green
02-24-2009, 7:21 AM
Maybe the church should be founded in a shall-issue state, and then become oppressed upon branching out to California?

By the way, the open discussion of this here pretty much shoots the idea out of the water. If this were to actually go forward, authorities would hold up this very conversation as evidence of the church being a sham. I don't think that Scientology would have gotten a foothold if more people knew that the whole thing is based on Hubbard's mediocre sci-fi.

tiki
02-24-2009, 9:19 AM
There is a precedent.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7461/waco.jpg



texan_in_exile, I was laughing so hard when I got to the picture that I was in my cube with tears in my eyes. The guys in the cubes next to me came over to see what was going on. Ha ha ha ha ha.
That made my day. Thanks.

On a serious note, I don't think this would work any more than polygamy worked for the Mormons. I also doubt that you could get marijuana allowed for communion services or animal sacrifice.

7x57
02-24-2009, 9:25 AM
Texan in Exile has a good point, credibility is central to an effective argument along these lines. Otherwise it's easy to be dismissed as the lunatic fringe.

I think this is not a terribly good idea (there are words for people who create religions they don't believe in, and they're not nice words), but I'll play the game.

Perhaps you should work with an existing religion with a mandate to carry a weapon, since there is case law in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#United_States

Perhaps you should become a Sikh and work to expand the existing case law before trying out a shiny new religion that demands every adherent to carry a select-fire carbine. :D

This brings up the interesting issue that we always talk about he 2A as though it protects a Right To Bear Firearms, when it certainly applied to blades and other defensive weapons.

ETA: that's what I get for breaking my rule of reading the rest of the thread before replying to a message. This was already pretty much covered, also the problem of open discussion of creating a religion just to game the system.

7x57

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 9:27 AM
However, it seems that additional leverage might be gained through exploitation of the first amendment. A shallow declaration that "Jesus wants me to have a gun!" isn't going to go very far (apologies to my Christian friends).

People have tried to tie religion to all kinds of other activities to get 1st amend protection. "Pot is a sacrament!" "God orders me to have sex with this young girl!" "My house is a church, I shouldn't pay taxes!" And so on. Basically none of these have worked to any meaningful degree. Trying to tie it to guns is going to work even less.

Cypren
02-24-2009, 9:44 AM
It's worth noting that while there are precedents permitting the carriage of the Sikh kirpan as a religious item, courts have always required that it be non-functional in order to be carried in places where normal weapons would otherwise be banned.

Gurdev Kaur Cheema v. Harold Thompson, 67 F. 3d 883 (9th Cir. 1995)
"As a result of the majority's ruling, the school district must allow 7, 8 and 10 year-old children to carry 7-inch knives to school, as long as the knives are worn under the children's clothing and are sewn to their sheaths..."

The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Partap Singh, 135 Misc. 2d 701; 516 N.Y.S.2d 412 (NY, 1987)
"A 'symbolic kirpan' encased in a solid protective element such as plastic or lucite would remove it from the category of knife or weapon, thereby relieving the wearer from the liabilities inherent in Administrative Code 10-133 while at the same time permitting the observance of the five 'K's'."

Under these precedents, you might be able to claim religious exemption for your Church of the Blessed Powder (assuming that, of course, this thread didn't exist showing it was a fraud, and that you had a demonstrable faith with adherents, and that it had established principles for a duration sufficient to make it a tradition, and a number of other things you'll never be able to prove), but a court's decision based on precedent would probably be that your religious firearm would have to be non-functional as a weapon -- a permanently disabled action or plugged barrel.

DDT
02-24-2009, 12:00 PM
(there are words for people who create religions they don't believe in, and they're not nice words),

TBN?

wash
02-24-2009, 2:13 PM
Any one serious about this should check out the Universal Life Church (http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=main). They did it right and their ministers can legally marry people in all 50 states.

You might possibly use their organization as is or you could copy what they did.

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 2:20 PM
Any one serious about this should check out the Universal Life Church (http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=main). They did it right and their ministers can legally marry people in all 50 states.

Yeah, ability to do marriages is just about the one single thing you can get using a made-up religion, and the reason why it's legal is because it doesn't matter because people who want to get married could easily find plenty of legal options to do so.

People have tried to use "I'm a church!" as legal justification for:


Drug use. And in fact, I think some Indian tribes can use peyote, but that's as far as that has gone
Weapons. And in fact, with the Sikhs, this is a legitimate claim, so they are in most cases allowed to carry a non-functional symbolic kirpan (dagger). But note that Sikhism is a long established religion, and the legally protected daggers are symbolic, not functional, and are a universe away from functional, loaded firearms.
Illegal sex / polygamy. Been tried repeatedly, doesn't work.
Taxes taxes and taxes. "But but but... I'm a minister and my house is a church!" Unless the person is an ordained minister in a mainstream religion it does not work, period, and the IRS somehow ends up wrecking the guy's life


This is a really bad idea. You're not the first to have it, and surely not the last, but it's a bad idea. Courts feel that this is making a mockery, and they are right. "Church of tactical Zen" is a joke, and courts will see it as such, and will not find it funny.

Mikeb
02-24-2009, 2:44 PM
" Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition "
Mike

7x57
02-24-2009, 4:03 PM
TBN?

That too. ;)

7x57

7x57
02-24-2009, 4:05 PM
Taxes taxes and taxes. "But but but... I'm a minister and my house is a church!" Unless the person is an ordained minister in a mainstream religion it does not work, period, and the IRS somehow ends up wrecking the guy's life.

Actually, it worked for L. Ron Hubbard, and he is pretty much on record as saying the religious angle was "the solution to a practical business problem." The problem being, I assume, that the government wanted a cut of the swag, and L. Ron wanted to keep it.

7x57

383green
02-24-2009, 4:17 PM
The problem being, I assume, that the government wanted a cut of the swag, and L. Ron wanted to keep it.

That, and market research which showed that his mediocre sci-fi sold better among the "brainwashed" demographic. :p

7x57
02-24-2009, 4:29 PM
That, and market research which showed that his mediocre sci-fi sold better among the "brainwashed" demographic. :p

Boy howdy. When SF people get too proud of being above all that religion stuff, I remind them that SF is sort of responsible for just about the worst cult that doesn't actually do human sacrifice or other obvious felonies. Scientology is pretty good at burying the bodies deep, er buying more than their own weight in "justice" skirting the edge of the law.

7x57

383green
02-24-2009, 4:38 PM
Don't say that too loud, or you'll be declared fair game! :hide:

CCWFacts
02-24-2009, 4:39 PM
It only worked for Lafayette Hubbard after a long legal fight, and he had some very substantial resources to throw at it, and an institution that had enough size and trappings of a religion that he could make the case. Oh and he ended up living on a boat for 8 years also.

It partially worked for the Universal Life Church but again, after a big fight.

This is a really hopeless and bad idea and many people have thought of it before. "I want to do X. X is illegal. I'll claim that X is part of this new religion that I've made up believe in and then I'll be able to do X because it's protected under the First Amend!"

I listed all the stuff above they have tried this for: sex, drugs, taxes, weapons and probably many other things, and, with very limited exceptions, it doesn't work and the people who try it get put through the wringer in some way.

DDT
02-24-2009, 4:43 PM
Boy howdy. When SF people get too proud of being above all that religion stuff, I remind them that SF is sort of responsible for just about the worst cult that doesn't actually do human sacrifice or other obvious felonies. Scientology is pretty good at burying the bodies deep, er buying more than their own weight in "justice" skirting the edge of the law.

7x57

Not to mention they are also the home of the worst cult that DID result in 100s of people dying. Jonestown. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown)

bohoki
02-24-2009, 5:10 PM
yea we need to start some kind of cowboy bushido

7x57
02-24-2009, 5:25 PM
Not to mention they are also the home of the worst cult that DID result in 100s of people dying. Jonestown. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown)

I was totally puzzled for a while by this, but perchance did you take my reference to "SF" to mean San Francisco? Otherwise, I'm a bit confused, as I don't think Jonestown had much to do with Science Fiction. :D

Well, except if you count Carl Marx as the greatest Science Fiction writer of the nineteenth century, then Jim Jones was all about SF. :eek:

7x57

383green
02-24-2009, 5:28 PM
How about that other batch of suicidal whackos who thought that a flying saucer was going to take them to another planet?

Experimentalist
02-24-2009, 6:12 PM
This has all been interesting discussion, and thanks to everyone who's participated so far.

I think the idea of establishing a whole new religion has been shown to be of limited (if any) use. That's fine, the exercise we went through to get here has had value for me, and validated some of my own suspicions. I feel it's often good to start out on a problem with no boundaries, sometimes you come up with something you weren't expecting.

Setting the creation of an entirely new religion aside, I still think there may be some use to be made of the First Amendment. After all, reference to a Creator can be found in our founding documents in significant ways.

Mulay El Raisuli
02-25-2009, 7:18 AM
It only worked for Lafayette Hubbard after a long legal fight, and he had some very substantial resources to throw at it, and an institution that had enough size and trappings of a religion that he could make the case. Oh and he ended up living on a boat for 8 years also.

It partially worked for the Universal Life Church but again, after a big fight.

This is a really hopeless and bad idea and many people have thought of it before. "I want to do X. X is illegal. I'll claim that X is part of this new religion that I've made up believe in and then I'll be able to do X because it's protected under the First Amend!"

I listed all the stuff above they have tried this for: sex, drugs, taxes, weapons and probably many other things, and, with very limited exceptions, it doesn't work and the people who try it get put through the wringer in some way.


All of this is true. But, while such an idea wouldn't be of any use now, that's not to say that it wouldn't be of use in the future. I.E., start the thing now & don't actually push the carry of weapons too much to start. Wait a generation (or two or three). In 50 years, your grandchildren will be able to point to many years of establishment as support for the claim.
OK, it doesn't do any of use any good, but just as the FFs took the long view, we can also. There is more than today at stake here, after all.

The Raisuli

7x57
02-25-2009, 7:31 AM
All of this is true. But, while such an idea wouldn't be of any use now, that's not to say that it wouldn't be of use in the future. I.E., start the thing now & don't actually push the carry of weapons too much to start. Wait a generation (or two or three). In 50 years, your grandchildren will be able to point to many years of establishment as support for the claim.
OK, it doesn't do any of use any good, but just as the FFs took the long view, we can also. There is more than today at stake here, after all.


You want *generations* of foresight and diligent preparation from a group of people who generally cannot spend twenty hours of campaign volunteering during an election? :rolleyes:

7x57

CCWFacts
02-25-2009, 7:34 AM
I think the idea of establishing a whole new religion has been shown to be of limited (if any) use.

It's worse than useless, the people who have tried stuff like that have ended up suffering very negative consequences from it.

Everyone comes up with this idea: "If I make up my own religion, I can suddenly get First Amendment protection for whatever I want to do, and I don't have to pay taxes!"

If it worked, everyone would do that for everything. It's the opposite; the system (somehow or other) punishes people who try to pursue that approach.

bohoki
02-25-2009, 11:52 AM
seems like we have had "the church of zombie preparedness" for years

Mulay El Raisuli
02-26-2009, 5:24 AM
You want *generations* of foresight and diligent preparation from a group of people who generally cannot spend twenty hours of campaign volunteering during an election? :rolleyes:

7x57


Not at all. I want this from the few capable recognizing that there is a future & planning ahead for it. IOW, I don't expect just everyone to do it.

The Raisuli

7x57
02-26-2009, 7:45 AM
Not at all. I want this from the few capable recognizing that there is a future & planning ahead for it. IOW, I don't expect just everyone to do it.

Ah, OK, so then your only obstacle is the moral perversion of starting a religion in which you do not believe. As long as you have the ethics of L. Ron, you're good.

7x57

InvictusManeo
02-26-2009, 8:11 AM
maybe i think it may be easier to find a forgotten religion that espouses those ideals with martial prowess being one of them.

I haven't read every post, so this may have been covered, but Odinism/Asatru is pretty firmly based on self-reliance and the protection of your kin. It has a bad rap as a haven for white supremacists, but as I read their pillars of faith, this is a perversion of the ideal as much as it is in christianity.

The other plus to falling in with this crowd rather than most other religions is that you don't have to worship gods you don't believe in to pretend you fit in: the major norse gods are supposed to all have died during Ragnarok, and there's no point in worshipping someone who's dead. Just learn from their legends.

Disclaimer time: I am not a practitioner (actually, I'm Lutheran born, raised, and educated). I have simply studied a decent variety of cultures and faiths, and this one seemed to fit the general idea the OP was looking for. If you want to see what I'm talking about, google the Odinic Pillars and the Rede of Honor.

7x57
02-26-2009, 9:04 AM
I haven't read every post, so this may have been covered, but Odinism/Asatru is pretty firmly based on self-reliance and the protection of your kin.


And human sacrifice. Or do you just intend to ignore this and pick and choose the parts you happen to like? If so, fine, but don't call it the same religion.


The other plus to falling in with this crowd rather than most other religions is that you don't have to worship gods you don't believe in to pretend you fit in: the major norse gods are supposed to all have died during Ragnarok, and there's no point in worshipping someone who's dead. Just learn from their legends.

And what on earth makes you think that Ragnarok is in the past and not the future?

IOW, you're talking about a modern made-up version, not anything approaching historical Germanic worship. Why do you not just make up your own with the exact features you want, instead of using someone else's play-religion?

7x57

Meplat
02-26-2009, 9:16 PM
very good point. I have a lot of respect for Sikhs. I know a lot of red neck right wing teachers and administrators in rural areas that look the other way, if they can, regarding young Sikhs who have Knives at school. The ones who follow this tradition are devoutly moral and are never a problem.

yeah but what about the Sikhs they are allowed to carry knives as part of their religion http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1031/p2s2-ussc.html

what would we call our church? What would be the beliefs?

Meplat
02-26-2009, 10:24 PM
Are you sure one didn't?

How about that other batch of suicidal whackos who thought that a flying saucer was going to take them to another planet?

lilamyb83
02-26-2009, 10:25 PM
-p51Ic7kgpA

Dark&Good
02-26-2009, 11:37 PM
:rofl2: :innocent:

Mulay El Raisuli
02-27-2009, 5:51 AM
Ah, OK, so then your only obstacle is the moral perversion of starting a religion in which you do not believe. As long as you have the ethics of L. Ron, you're good.

7x57


I'm sorry I offended thee. I wast unknowing that I was in the presence of someone holier than I. :-)

The Raisuli

tcrpe
02-27-2009, 6:02 AM
I'd be down as long as I didn't have to sit next to Slayer :p:rofl2:

7x57
02-27-2009, 7:59 AM
I'm sorry I offended thee. I wast unknowing that I was in the presence of someone holier than I. :-)


I don't claim to be holier than anyone. It's not being holier-than-thou to point out that robbing widows and orphans is wrong either. Which, in the case of made-up religions, is often the same thing.

But as long as it's understood to be a game, I'm down with inventing religions. But most of the fun ideas I know of don't actually involve guns.

7x57

Mulay El Raisuli
02-28-2009, 5:31 AM
I don't claim to be holier than anyone. It's not being holier-than-thou to point out that robbing widows and orphans is wrong either. Which, in the case of made-up religions, is often the same thing.


Unless you're "morally perverse" also, you ARE claiming to be holier than me. Also, no one here said word one about widows & orphans, much less anything robbing them.



But as long as it's understood to be a game, I'm down with inventing religions. But most of the fun ideas I know of don't actually involve guns.

7x57



Well, I guess its time I point out that this wasn't my idea. I merely commented on it. But, I will point out that the main thrust of the post appears to be about protecting guns, not to have fun (or rob widows & orphans).

The Raisuli

7x57
02-28-2009, 5:44 PM
Unless you're "morally perverse" also, you ARE claiming to be holier than me.

Fine, if you don't really believe that there are any moral principles and that advocating basic ones is thus claiming superior holiness, I'll just run with the ball and say I *am* holier than you after all. It's weird, but could be fun for a while.

I have only a few billion more people to surpass in holiness. At this rate, it'll be a while.

7x57

CCWFacts
02-28-2009, 5:51 PM
I wish this thread would die, or be locked, or even better, be deleted. This is a really terrible idea and, honestly, we should be embarrassed to be discussing it here. I'm sorry for being harsh here but this is just an awful idea.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-01-2009, 5:15 AM
Fine, if you don't really believe that there are any moral principles and that advocating basic ones is thus claiming superior holiness, I'll just run with the ball and say I *am* holier than you after all. It's weird, but could be fun for a while.

I have only a few billion more people to surpass in holiness. At this rate, it'll be a while.

7x57


Whatev

The Raisuli