SkepticalOne

You said 500k victims per year. those are numbers of sexual assaults, not rape, and yeah, grabbing butt without consent is considered sexual assault. I dont see what confuses you here.

Are you going on record stating inappropriate and unwanted touching is a minor thing? Again...yikes.

Non-consensual touching falls under the sexual assault label which itself is included under the sexual violence umbrella. That in no way equates half a million sexual violence cases to ~500k cases of butt grabbing. Not to mention, nonconsensual groping is a crime for good reason.

Moving the goalpost, sexual assault isnt rape. Someone grabbing your butt would be sexual assault, but its still way better than entering a car with a drunk driver.

You are conflating sexual violence to butt grabbing. Yikes. ...talk about moving the goalposts. Your argument can not be serious.

No, anarcho-fascism is anarchy implemented by a dictator. And anarchy does involve a lot of socialist elements, because anarcho-fascism isnt anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-fascism is considered right wing because of the authoritarianism and ultranationalism it embraces.

Oh yeah, it only harms over 200,000 people in USA each year. No biggie.

There are nearly 500k victims of sexual violence in the US each year. Spare me your mock outrage. There is no comparison between DUI and rape. Rape is a much more heinous and harmful crime.

I measure how bad a traumatic event is by how often people go to the hospital over it.

This is not a good standard as trauma isn't limited to physical.

That being said, it's pretty disgusting to suggest an intentional act of stealing another person's 'self' is not as bad as negligently driving under the influence (which doesn't necessarily cause harm). Clearly, this is a poorly considered argument or something grossly unserious.

Nice try, but a single clause of the last sentence of the quote in my #12 reveals no other conclusion: "...it will scarcely be contended that the government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance or its pecuniary aid."

This means that the government has not been harmed or weakened by keeping itself separate from religion and refusing to fund it. Here is a modern translation: "Hardly anyone can argue that the government has been damaged by keeping its hands off religion and refusing to give it financial support."

You can be forgiven for misunderstanding this phrase by itself given the archaic terms, but when your understanding doesn't match the rest of the letter it should set off alarm bells. Did you read the letter you referenced??

My quote came from a letter from James Madison to Edward Livingston in 1822. Full letter attached here.

Your quote is spliced from the letter you mention from 2 separate paragraphs to suggest a different tone and meaning than the original letter. Madison was responding to (arguing against) a sermon of Adams. Here is the full letter. I believe you have been duped because Madison isn't arguing against separation in that letter, my friend.

Yes they do (Trump).

I see what you did there. ;-)

But should the assaulter have to worry about consequences of his own for assaulting you? Yes; DUH!

"Duh", indeed.

Clearly, we are talking past one another and have no common ground from which to debate. Cheers.

Children have same autonomy as adults

No, they dont. If that were true, punishment of any kind would be against the law and/or immoral.

This is because removing autonomy for subjective reasons is a self-defeating principle.

Argument from repetition? You're not addressing the counter-argument...

Person A wants to remove autonomy from others for subjective reasons = autonomy can be removed for subjective reasons = People can remove autonomy from person A for subjective reasons = person A loses ability to remove autonomy from others for subjective reasons

That is really not very clear. Morality itself is subjective.

So autonomy is proved by objective truth that any violation of it is self-contradictive in justification.

Even if that were true, it would not make it objective truth. It makes it an objective standard built on a subjective foundation.

Secondly, autonomy isn't an absolute for every person for every situation. For instance, a child doesn't that hasnt achieved the age of reason/consent doesnt have full autonomy. Parents have the ability to override a child preferences to protect them. Barring that means a lot of youth will die ir suffer unnecessarily.

looked at the political reality and changed her mind

The political reality being widespread gerrymandering encouraged explicitly by POTUS.

Yet, in its present context, government has become religion's adversary. Witness the assault by government over abortion, trying to impose abortion or trans surgery on Catholic hospitals and care centers. "separation" in these instrances is hardly religion beating down the doors of government, but the reverse.

It's not adversarial to expect recipients of public funds to treat the public according to their needs as determined by their doctor.

Bodily autonomy sits on a subjective foundation. It's important to us because we say so. Challenges to it can't be simply dismissed as 'subjective' without deteriorating bodily autonomy itself.

Nothing I've read about Madison would lead me to believe he would agree with OP:

"We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion Flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government."

- James Madison

I'd guess there is a large range of preferences determined by climate, culture, health, medications, age, etc.

I used to think 60+ was short pants weather and long pants were unbearable around 80+. Now, I mostly wear long pants even when the temp is over 100.

You ignore that up until the seventh decade of the 18th century, the colonial governments did... what? Contributed public funds of government to religions, [...]

You mean up until the Colonies officially declared independence from England? The Declaration famously rejected the divine right of Kings and passionately argued governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed.

Within a few years of the Constitution being raitified, the First Amendment built an implicit wall between religion and government. It no longer made sense to have gods working for government or government working for gods. The timing is no coincidence - it was an intentional collective decision built from the realizations contemporary events brought on.

The point of the 1A is neither "endorsement," nor "promotion." pls look up the meaning of "establish

You attempt to oversimplify the debate, but the courts themselves disagree. They have long held "establishment" as literally establishing a national religion (your position) as well other less explicit actions where government support constitutes establishment. [1]

Two young men emersed in replacement theory (and right ring Hatriotism) killing innocent folks at a mosque is the Democrats fault.

OP is not tethered to reality.

If Person A disrespects God, then Left Wing Christians don't care.

Do right wing Christians worship a smaller god by the same name?

From an anthropological view, this is fascinating.

“…that although the United States government cannot promote religion, it also cannot be religion’s adversary.”

Prayer exclusively (or predominately) to one deity by government agents in their official capacity is an endorsement and promotion of religion.

The absence of government endorsement of religion is not adversarial.

'Not adversarial' doesn't mean tolerating Christian nationalists pushing the line either. Keep religion personal.

Lets NOT legalize assault because the assaulter is angry. All assaulters are angry when they assault.

Who is arguing for legalizing assault?

I am pointing out that actions have potential consequences. If you use a racial slur against someone (which isnt necessarily legal) there are consequences. The best way to avoid those potential consequences is to choose a less ignorant path.

This claim I decide it is hateful. Would you respect me to knock your front teeth out for saying it?

You're welcome to try, but as I was saying, everything is optional except for the consequences.

Insulting terms (like low IQ, the N word, etc) do NOT justify a violent response. You can walk away, but you do NOT get to be violent.

People can say hateful things and other people can respond to that violently. Everything is optional except for consequences.

Well, this is the first post, so let's make it an easy and non-controversial position: morality does not require gods.