BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Goose Gander
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:36 PM

In a decision of this sort, it's important to look beyond the specific case to the broader implications and to the precedent set.   This ruling does not apply only to right-wing bigots. Many progressives cite religious beliefs to buttress their political arguments. Religious minorities in the UK make legal claims based upon faith. Will this ruling be applied universally to enforce the secularization of society? Or will it be used a bludgeon against particular groups? It's a troubling decision either way.

" . . . religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence."

The same could be said for matters of conscience in general. Go back and read your Nietzsche. Are you certain you want to discard anything that cannot be empirically verified?

" . . . a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."

I don't know how one determines whether a position is "purely" religious, and I question whether such a distinction can even be made, but it doesn't take a scholar to see that this line of reasoning can be used against any position based upon religious faith. Well, there goes the 'Higher Law' argument made by abolitionists in the antebellum United States. So much for the arguments of Liberation Theology, and the opposition of some Christian groups to the Reagan administration's "low-intensity warfare" and support for right-wing dictators in Central America during the 1980s. And I'm afraid this ruling does undermine much of the basis for conscientious objectors, sophistic distinctions between 'religious views' and 'personal conscience' notwithstanding.

Finally, if matters that cannot be empirically verified have no valid legal standing, and if matters of religion and conscience are equally unverifiable, then what remains? It seems to me that this ruling – whether deliberately or not – essentially claims that law itself is the source of truth. You might want to ponder the implications of this philosophical position.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:37 AM

I fail to see any war; I only see reasoned and calm discussion.

ummm... how about "Lots of things may exist that nobody has..."...etc.

Nope. I'm certain there are things that exist that nobody has proven. Million of them. They have to exist before they can be proven. Proving them doesn't bring them into existence. If the moons of Jupiter didn't already exist, Galileo couldn't have proved they did. His proof didn't make the moons, the moons made his proof (so to speak).

Willie said, Neither can exist unless and until somebody proves otherwise.

Nope. They can exist without waiting for your puny proof. Not saying they do. That's a whole 'nother can o' worms™. But your proving or disproving them doesn't change their ontological status a foothair.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 10 - 12:34 AM

Huh??...Look at how all the 'assumptions' you've made about what I posted turned into 'how I set myself up'..then Amos says " God does not have a voice',...then this, amazing insight from one who professes to be a Christian: "Yep, GfS does indeed present a front of spirituality, devoid of religious influence, then spoils it entirely by quoting the bible, which, as I have pointed out, was written by religious leaders, NOT by God."....and then this: "How can this be safely distinguished from someone who hears the voice of "God" in his head, possibly telling him to do things that any of the "robot parrots" around him would find appalling? Who "objectively" determines what is the "objective" truth?"

To answer the last question first, I'm sure Robots don't understand LIFE, and are presumably 'appalled' at it, being as being 'appalled', required emotions...which of course robots don't have.

I mean, shit guys, give me something to work with!

Mention God, and watch all the confused, make even less sense, and not even see THAT!

Anyway, I'm tired, I might check this out later.

G' Night..Slan,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 May 10 - 08:42 PM

Has anyone noticed how discussions of religion always turn into war?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 10 - 07:32 PM

God does not have a "voice". Like any spiritual power, he transmits thought which brains turn onto concepts (stage 1 step-down) cultural representations of concepts (stage-two step-down) language (stage 3) and ones own vernacular (stage 4 step-down) AFTER filtering through one's personal capacitance filter to ensure only those patterns which one is already willing to think are allowed through.

With all that alteration, it is mighty presumptuous to assert you are hearing the voice of God, as Mister Presumption Bush himself did in respect to invading Iraq, I think for him the voice came through his hairdryer or somp'n.   



A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 10 - 06:39 PM

Yes..untenable...but a straw man, and not the only possible counter position.

If I had time, I'd do 7-8 Venn diagrams of the alternatives...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 10 - 05:10 PM

Got ya Bill.

Well, the counter position is "everything that exists has been proven..." which is equally untenable.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:28 PM

Amos.. no one said"If something does not exist you can't prove it" neither mousethief nor I.

The line I took issue with was "Lots of things exist that nobody has proven yet." That has a certain ring to it...at least it rings MY alarm bell. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 May 10 - 02:18 PM

""On the other hand, You seem to be setting yourself up as one who has a direct spiritual connection undistorted by religious or political indoctrination, so that you are able to arrive at "objective" spiritual truth.""

Yep, GfS does indeed present a front of spirituality, devoid of religious influence, then spoils it entirely by quoting the bible, which, as I have pointed out, was written by religious leaders, NOT by God.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 May 10 - 01:46 PM

Can, or Diet?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 May 10 - 01:39 PM

Frogprince: "so that you are able to arrive at "objective" spiritual truth. How can this be safely distinguished from someone who hears the voice of "God" in his head, possibly telling him to do things that any of the "robot parrots" around him would find appalling? Who "objectively" determines what is the "objective" truth?"

In regards experiencing spiritual Truth, Gnostics call that sudden overwhelming awareness "Gnosis" - a Greek term describing *divine* Knowledge, distinguished from it's mundane brother term Episteme reffering to *intellectual* knowledge.

As for the supposed "gnosis" telling someone to do 'appalling' things, some speak of "unverified personal gnosis" - in contrast to personal 'verifiable' Gnosis which has strong features common to the gnosis of others. In other words you'd have to be around people of like mind, to contrast and compare your visions or individual mystical experiences. Mind you, that it itself opens a whole great can of worms...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: frogprince
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:55 PM

Gfs, I believe I get, and can relate to, a lot of your last couple of posts. I know people whom I consider to be genuinely spiritual, although not at all religious. I know others who are markedly religious, but for whom the trappings do not appear to interfere that much with their genuine spiritual connection. I also know too many, with their religious definitions locked up so tight that they are entirely surrounded by the unrighteous "them", in whom I can't see a trace of actual spirituallity.

On the other hand, You seem to be setting yourself up as one who has a direct spiritual connection undistorted by religious or political indoctrination, so that you are able to arrive at "objective" spiritual truth. How can this be safely distinguished from someone who hears the voice of "God" in his head, possibly telling him to do things that any of the "robot parrots" around him would find appalling? Who "objectively" determines what is the "objective" truth?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:42 PM

"If something does not exist you can't prove it" does not mean "if it is unproven, it probably exists" Bill. No way, no how.

Any number of impossible things can be emvbedded into words before breakfast, and believed, too. It should be obvious, I would think, that belief and actuality are independent variables!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 12 May 10 - 12:01 PM

mousethief: "Lots of things exist that nobody has proven yet. If they didn't exist you couldn't prove them."

ummm... how about "Lots of things may exist that nobody has..."...etc.

And the 2nd part is a tautology that tends to suggest that 'because you haven't proved them yet, they probably exist'.
I am not being facetious...I have heard essentially this argument made.
It is SO easy to make a mis-step on the slippery slope of our own language and begin embedding assumptions of the sort.. 'if we have words for it, it kinda validates its existence'.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 12 May 10 - 11:35 AM

Robot parrots? At least my hobbit stands a chance of existing.. Robot parrots cannot exist as I would determine the term "robot" to denote made by other beings, (humans normally as my dog hasn't got past the opposing thumbs dilemma yet, although he can lick his own balls, which puts him on a higher plane of existence than me in that respect.)

If you are made by others to carry out their function, ergo you don't exist. It is a bit like a company setting up a department, as opposed to contracting to another company.

All this of course has little to do with religion and its standing in law. Of course, it is a dilemma when you try to make a case or agree with a stance, knowing that touchy buggers will get all self righteous and upset that by not agreeing with their superstitions, you are aggressive towards them personally. In my case, not true. I don't begin to understand stamp collecting or Morris Dancing but so long as laws don't exist to make me put penny blacks in wallets or wear bells, I have an infinite live & let live attitude. I even allow a good friend to keep telling me what a great time you have Morris dancing, keeping you fit whilst drinking beer from a leather tankard. Heady stuff...

But if he told me there should be a law preventing me from taking the piss out of him, I draw a line. And that is the situation I have with religions. A bloke with a dog collar once told me I should be arrested for blasphemy. So I told him that if I was around 2,000 years ago and saw a bloke we could blame for the Spanish inquisition, Crusades etc., I would get my hammer and nails out and do the job myself.

Didn't go down too well. I am barred from his crummy church and he is not welcome in the pub until he apologises to the landlord for provoking and upsetting his regulars. So you see, religion and I don't even get the chance to to exist.

Anyway, ability to process information is just the start, you need to analyse and assess before you spout. In any case, metaphysical considerations make circular arguments, which makes me have to reboot the old brain.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 10 - 04:34 AM

theleveller: "Apologies for the typos - my eyes and fingers aren't working yet"

So heavenly minded and bound, that you're no earthly good???....Wink!

GfS

P.S. My man has done his homework!!..Take a bow!

Think of it as peoples minds are like 'modems' that plug into the master conscious computer 'in the sky', from where all collective consciousness and life, being a form of living consciousness, originates. ..Gotta' watch out for those viruses, called politics and religion, though, which keep your feet nailed to the floor(makes it hard to fly)...gotta' keep your filters clean, and able to process the information coming in, as not to screw up one's objectivity, and therefore damaging the data to be analyzed.

As I posted before: Intelligence is the ability to process information. Speed, is a Bi-product of accuracy!...........and at that, Good Night, (morning).

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:35 AM

Apologies for the typos - my eyes and fingers aren't working yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:29 AM

"I wouldn't think robot parrots would have the slightest clue what the hell I'm talking about!"

Actually, I do and, to a point, I agree with you. This is something I've been studying for over 40 years - from the neol;itic maind and the early philosophers, through Jung's archetypes to Sheldrake's morphic resonance and the thinking on the nature and origins of consciousness by that superb modern philosopher, David Chalmers, in his book The Conscious Mind. I firmly believe that spirituality, the nature of the 'soul' and even memory and experience are linked to consciousness, including both collective consciousness and the collective unconscious. Once, if ever, the nature, origins and development of cosnciousness are understood, then the nature of spirituality will also be revealed.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 10 - 03:17 AM

With all the statements slamming 'religions', one must point out that there IS a difference between 'religions' and the spiritual side of things, or even the 'dimensionally' unseen part of both our existence, and reality.
Religion, as a man made, provision to provide 'righteousness' as a 'ticket' for one, or a group, is usually absolute nonsense. In contrast, those who have a conscious valid link, to the unseen, including the unseen collective consciousness, or any other communications, from the origin of life, is quite another thing!..

Come to think of it, why am I posting that here??? I wouldn't think robot parrots would have the slightest clue what the hell I'm talking about!

Oh boy, here they come!.....of course, a response without thinking it through........

Have Fun!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 May 10 - 08:34 PM

""But they also have a lot of wise and pithy syaings which are useable as general guides in the confusions of life and which although they are not material can certainly be deemed rational.""

Plenty of Atheists and Agnostics have produced equally useable and equally wise words.

Religion is not an indispensible prerequisite for a moral, or ethical, compass. I have naught against religions, and I understand the need some people have to believe in a deity, but to assert that the only way to lead a moral and ethical life is through religion simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

In point of fact, religion is not even an indispensible prerequisite for belief in a deity.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 11 May 10 - 05:53 PM

Willie: Religious belief however involves accepting irrational statements

Some does.

Whilst accepting that religion is a proxy for having power over others, that aside it certainly looks like a superstition to me?

Are you the person who gets to define "superstition"? Or is this just post-modernism in disguise?

There is no difference between the existence of a god and the existence of a hobbit that lives in my pantry but is invisible and therefore I cannot see it. Neither can exist unless and until somebody proves otherwise.

Perhaps no difference you can see. But there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy. Lots of things exist that nobody has proven yet. If they didn't exist you couldn't prove them.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 11 May 10 - 01:09 PM

Religious belief however involves accepting irrational statements.

I submit that depends on the religion and the statements. Our dominant religions--Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism, have plenty of authoritarian dicta that aren't rational by any usual standard of the word. But they also have a lot of wise and pithy syaings which are useable as general guides in the confusions of life and which although they are not material can certainly be deemed rational. Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoisdm are also rich with propositions which are pretty rational even when they are abstract and sometimes poetic.

A lot of intellectual abuse has been perpetrated by churches and priests of various religions (whatever they are called). This makes people understandably of the whole sloppy mess. But, ya know, babies versus bath water.


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin Willie
Date: 11 May 10 - 12:26 PM

Well, considering religious belief must be, by any definition, a belief, then it must be believing something. Now, believing the sun is hot takes little or no imagination and can by conversational definition be a fact.

Religious belief however involves accepting irrational statements, such as an interventionalist god, elevating some humans to the status of being different to the rest of us and capable of doing things that no human can ever have done. Also, religious people don't like their irrational behaviour to be questioned, hence the Spanish inquisition, crusades, Islamic terror etc.

Whilst accepting that religion is a proxy for having power over others, that aside it certainly looks like a superstition to me?

There is no difference between the existence of a god and the existence of a hobbit that lives in my pantry but is invisible and therefore I cannot see it. Neither can exist unless and until somebody proves otherwise. I am amused by those who say normal people must prove there is no god rather than superstitious people prove there is one. Sorry, but your mental health is for you to deal with, not me. All I can do is a) point and laugh and b) go out of my way to stop religion having an intervention in my life. Get the bishops out of the Lords, repeal laws that are based on religion such as opening hours of shops and have the guts to call a bigot a bigot, even if, or especially if for that matter, he wears a dog collar and thinks that being a woman or a gay dude prevents anybody doing his job to the same level of expertise.

This judgement is a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 11 May 10 - 01:33 AM

I'm waiting for the internet to get invented.

Oh. Never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 10 May 10 - 01:27 PM

...ummm..well, perhaps they are waiting for the religious ones to figure out the difference....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 10 May 10 - 12:21 PM

Sad old secularists who can't tell the difference between superstition and religion. When will they evolve?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 May 10 - 05:44 AM

My method for resolving my dilemma was to purchase, via the internet (which doesn't recognise superstition) a couple of quarter turn ceramic valve tap inserts, thus negating the need to either buy washers nor indeed chase Schroedinger's cat with Occam's razor. (Sorry, I have a bet with a fellow mudcatter that I couldn't weave the RSPCA into this thread.)

Dizzying intellect? Who has one of those then? Guest from Sanity?

I reckon the clue is in the title of this thread; "religious beliefs - no standing in law." it obviously wasn't said as a debating point but a fact. I'm comfortable with that. In the meantime, for all our true believers out there, whether it be Jesus, Mohammed, a tree or Elvis; Stop quoting Einstein and then go on to say why superstition is relevant to law. Because you'd better watch out, you'd better beware, Albert said........

"You cannot solve a problem with the mindset that created it."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 10 - 04:07 PM

I stand corrected...he joined A political party....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 10 - 03:54 PM

HfS has a bee in her bonnet, believing that anyone who does not see the world as she does must have been programmed into robotic compliance by one of the Lurking Powers.

Sad it is not so, but, in a larger sense, a great blessing.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 10 - 03:39 PM

"...where he was instructed both WHAT to think, and how to re-act."

I thought it was Rush Limbaugh who dispensed that kind of wisdom....my liberal friends never quite agree on the details...which may account for some of the election results recently.

Now...back to the silly physicist remarks...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 10 - 03:16 PM

Bill D: "So Planck, Occam and Heisenberg walk into a bar and meet Descartes, who soon doesn't know WHAT to think......"

.....So he became a liberal Democrat, where he was instructed both WHAT to think, and how to re-act. He dies not long after, from boredom....but not before he took up singing Folk/protest songs!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:29 PM

So Planck, Occam and Heisenberg walk into a bar and meet Descartes, who soon doesn't know WHAT to think.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:28 PM

Amos: "As a contribution to the power of your dizzying intellect, let me suggest buying a box of washers, assorted, and keeping them with your tools for just such emergencies..."

".....and if you need to figure it out, you can rely on your box of rocks..between your ears!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:22 PM

As a contribution to the power of your dizzying intellect, let me suggest buying a box of washers, assorted, and keeping them with your tools for just such emergencies...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:21 PM

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 09 May 10 - 05:57 AM

At last, somebody recognises my "handle" as being my pan handle. Takes one to know one nerr err.

Planck's constant is not an absolute to be fair, and can only be exhibited as being less than probability of position multiplied by probability of time. ergo - there is a probability it is an absolute, and then only for the reason of being a relative mathematical quantity for relative resolution.

Which comes down to light versus enlightened.

Or put another way, some see being enlightened as seeing Jesus's love. Others see being enlightened as seeing Jesus is a cracking good yarn, even selling more than Wilbur Smith on a good day.

Planck's constant weaves into the probability of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow turning out to be a bucket of shit.

Despite blokes with large hats sitting in the House of Lords, law is secular and it took an "enlightened" judge to see through the mist (or ether...) and state the fact.

Next step, allow me to buy a washer for my leaking tap after 4.00pm on a Sunday. Can't wait..

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:37 AM

I love irony but enough is enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:15 AM

Steamin' Willie: "Oh, guest from sanity; I heard you the first time. So did Albert, and he told me to tell you to f.........."

"......ind someone who has more intelligence to correspond with, who isn't so pre-occupied with his 'steamin' willie'...so much, he names himself after it"

Of course Al,..What was I thinking?? I mean, look where all his brains are!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:10 AM

I'll have to remove the Planck from my own eye first.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:08 AM

I think I know what your platform will start with...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 12:20 AM

Planck's Constant is a global absolute. I may start a church with Planck's Constant as its deity. Properly handled, it could make me a lot of money.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Amos
Date: 08 May 10 - 10:05 PM

ALl things are NOT made of light. The photon is a gauge boson. Photons are the quantum of light and other electromagnetic energy, regarded as discrete particles having zero rest mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. Matter absorbs photons, and matter emits photons, but matter is not "made of" photons.

It is possible that all things are made of thought, including light, but that is a different metaphysic altogether than this shallow-witted attempt to proselytize "enlightened" Christianity as some sort of global absolute.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 08 May 10 - 11:07 AM

God already did punish me. The Owls were relegated to the fizzy pop league...

I wish he would send a flood. Despite a bit of rain, the soil is bone dry after an inch or two, and my tatas need a bit of moisture, not to mention the greenhouse plants that are watered by an irrigation system from a water butt.

And don't get me started on the Jehovah's Witnesses coming to the door the other day when I was getting out of the shower and expecting a delivery so came down in a towel dripping wet. Now... remembering that God botherers are used to being proved wrong all the ruddy time and that not deterring them... Get a load of this; they saw I was "recently baptised" and still dripping wet and yet still started rattling on about the bible even as the door slammed... Got to admire their perseverance.

Unlike the bloke this thread is about, who thought his hobby allows him not to do what he is paid to do. I don't admire his sanctimonious arrogance.

Oh, guest from sanity; I heard you the first time. So did Albert, and he told me to tell you to f..........

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 06:01 PM

It's all those Catholic priests.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 10 - 03:56 PM

"Anybody else notice the increase in volcanic activity over the last few decades?"

Sure...the supply of virgins to sacrifice is way down...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 May 10 - 02:16 PM

Anybody else notice the increase in volcanic activity over the last few decades?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: mousethief
Date: 07 May 10 - 02:09 PM

God promised no more floods. It's lava this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Bill D
Date: 07 May 10 - 01:17 PM

How messages from God REALLY work

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: frogprince
Date: 07 May 10 - 01:03 PM

And that is the most intelligent thing posted for awhile!
       (heeheeheeheehee)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 May 10 - 12:45 PM

God asked me to tell you all to stop talking about this shit. Yes, the Constitution protects your rights to believe as you wish, BUT he says you shouldn`t piss him off because he`ll send a flood and wipe you out.

If anyone`s upset by that, please don`t shoot the messenger. And, have a NICE day.