• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

The WTF thread (NSFW images must be linked & labelled)

i find it more weird that cannibalism isnt illegal in japan
 
revnort said:
... Now, you fucing sick bastards that payed to eat it. WTF. Seriously WTF?! Eating any part of a human is just well, fucking sick. The mans genitals though? Shudder. ...
Click to expand...

And the patrons wanted a second meal.
 
tumblr_m4umd35TxU1qat9xfo1_1280.jpg
 
cynner said:
[zimg]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4umd35TxU1qat9xfo1_1280.jpg[/img]
Click to expand...

(banning atheists)

Not so much a WTF for me ('cause one idea behind is so common) but still, what other classes of people do we diminish so by legislation?
 
kevin 714 said:
I would be very intersted to know if this is legit
Click to expand...

googled:
from Marylands constitution
Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a
declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this
Constitution.

and Tennessee:
ARTICLE IX
Disqualifications.
Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated
to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great
duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this
state.

Section 3. Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution,
fight a duel, or knowingly be the bearer of a challenge to fight a duel, or send or accept a challenge for that purpose, or be an aider or abettor in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office of honor or profit in this state, and shall be punished otherwise, in such manner as the Legislature may prescribe.

:wtf duel
 
The question is really whether those are actually enforced in this day and age.

I'd wager not.
 
onehighfocus said:
googled:
from Marylands constitution
Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a
declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this
Constitution.

and Tennessee:
ARTICLE IX
Disqualifications.
Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated
to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great
duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this
state.

Section 3. Any person who shall, after the adoption of this Constitution,
fight a duel, or knowingly be the bearer of a challenge to fight a duel, or send or accept a challenge for that purpose, or be an aider or abettor in fighting a duel, shall be deprived of the right to hold any office of honor or profit in this state, and shall be punished otherwise, in such manner as the Legislature may prescribe.

:wtf duel
Click to expand...

:wtf
 
That Guy said:
:dunno did he step on your shoe or something?
Click to expand...

If you know anything about the culture, this(inside a train) is NOT exactly an appropriate time/place to act like a twat. Eating, talking on a cell phone is even frowned upon on trains. I can tell you that the captive audience in this train would have felt nervous/embarrassed/uncomfortable... Also public antics such as this feed the xenophobic machine within the country and do nothing positive for the rest of us foreigners.

Oh, he's been recently arrested in relation to a murdered Irish Woman.

/serious
 
Last edited:
dub599 said:
whatever happened to separation of church and state
Click to expand...

Please find and cite for me anyplace in the Constitution OR the Declaration of Independence where it defines a separation between church and state.

It doesn't.

That phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to a church. No place else.

Per Wikipedia:

In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court determined that the First Amendment applied to the states and that a law enabling reimbursement for busing to all schools (including parochial schools) was constitutional.​

So it's been established by court rulings, but not specified in the Constitution. Activist judges and the mainstream media have fed this particular beast until everyone thinks that it's part of the Constitution, when it's not.
 
And Federalism, where the individual States have the right to make their own rules (so prostitution is legal in Nevada but not in other states, and lane-sharing is legal in California but not in other states) allows this.

If you don't like it, don't move there. Or if you are a resident and you don't like it, then get involved in politics and get it changed. Our system of government allows that. Or didn't your teachers cover that? :rolleyes :laughing
 
Cincinnatus said:
Please find and cite for me anyplace in the Constitution OR the Declaration of Independence where it defines a separation between church and state.

It doesn't.

That phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to a church. No place else.

Per Wikipedia:

In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, the court determined that the First Amendment applied to the states and that a law enabling reimbursement for busing to all schools (including parochial schools) was constitutional.​

So it's been established by court rulings, but not specified in the Constitution. Activist judges and the mainstream media have fed this particular beast until everyone thinks that it's part of the Constitution, when it's not.
Click to expand...

yes i know that exact phrase isn't in the constitution, i can use wikipedia too. like it says in bold print, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." to me atleast it seems like a direct violation of that to say atheists who choose not to believe in god shouldn't have laws stopping them from anything that anyone who believes in god is able to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top