You ask..... "What forms of religious expression have you been denied?"

I have given you multiple examples and you pretend to be ignorant and have no clue to what I'm saying. I guess you never want to actually address my many examples of how American has lost it's rights to religious expression such as nativity scenes on public land, or Christmas and Easter holidays in pubic schools, etc.

I was asking which ones you personally have been denied. Do you actually want to discuss the concept of religious depictions on public land or in public schools? Or will you insult me if I have a different opinion than you?

These freedoms of symbols expressing our Christian history and heritage, are not some big government establishing a religion.

Do you understand what people mean when they say they are establishing a religion? Children in schools are legally considered a captive audience. So when the government uses taxpayer money to put symbols relating to a particular religion around a captive audience of children, people who aren't in that religion tend to view it as the government expressly endorsing said religion, which has been ruled to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. If you disagree with that, can you explain what legal and constitutional justification you have?

These are small communities all over our nation made up of a majority of people like me who pay taxes to those public lands and schools, etc.

Yes but people of other communities pay taxes too. Why should their tax dollars go towards your religious symbols?

If those tax payers vote to have a nativity scene on their public land, then they should have the freedom to do so. People like you would say no.

Do you believe that the public should be able to vote on everything, regardless of the Constitutionality of it?

I will at least give you a compliment to having the common sense intelligence NOT to vote for Hillary. You gained some respect from me for that.

It's not a matter of "common sense". I actually find that phrase incredibly obnoxious. I just find it ethically questionable to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in light of their actions.

You are very deceptive to what is going on around us, OR YOU ARE TOTALLY STUPID!

Is this what you call debating?

There are a thousand ways the Left is pushing their political correct ideology and for deniers to ignore these decades of battles over freedoms to dissagree with the PC collective, is mind blowing! We are living a cultural war case you just arrived on this planet.

This is a debate website. Provide some examples so I can see what frame of reference you are working with.

Whether it be Gay marriage FORCED on every state,

What aspect of Obergefell v Hodges' ruling do you agree with specifically?

or private businesses being forced to cater events that go against their religious beliefs,

Do you believe all private businesses deserve exemption from state laws based on religious beliefs, and if so, to what extent?

or Churches being sued to allow openly Gay sunday school teachers

It was my understanding that essentially all of those suits lost.

or progressives going after our 2nd amendment rights to keep our hunting rifles if they hold more than seven rounds(which is what the New York State's "Safe Act" was trying to do),

Not sure what that has to do with the right to disagree or political correctness, though I agree it was a stupid move on their part.

or coal miner's occupations taken from them because of Progressive environmentalists pushing their mandates on all states, etc. etc. etc.

So should we ignore the very real public cost the nation bears by using forms of energy such as goal for the sake of their occupations?

KEEP PLAYING STUPID! Keep ignoring all Hillary's corruptions and perjury and tell us all how Trump's private speech with a friend 11 years ago, that was invaded against his will, is worse than what Hillary has done.

If we are going to actually debate, why don't you let me speak for myself and stop insulting me? I'm not even voting for Hillary Clinton.

I have no problem with a non biased Supreme court of Justices whose main focus is to honestly discern the intent of the Consitution.

But everyone is biased. That's why we refer to Justices as being left or right leaning.

If there is some new issue in our nation that is not clearly understood through precedent from our history, then I would be open to Justices making a decision that would reflect the intent of the Constitution.

But again ,there was no singular intent. The intent of the founding fathers differed depending on the founder. So are you going to go with the federalists or the anti federalists?

And even then, why do you think their intent is the most important factor?

Lets say decisions on our freedoms to Internet usage, or decisions on matters of Government taxing the internet, etc. etc.

I understand that these types of issues might go to the supreme court, and that the justices would have to compare the internet with other inventions through out history, and discern how the Constitution would treat them.

But no other form of communication is similar to the internet, so the founding father's intent would have no relevance to issues with the internet.

When it comes to freedom of religious expression, the many precedents from our past have clearly shown the intent of the 1st amendment.

I strongly disagree, as our SCOTUS precedent for religious expression is incredibly diverse. The past hundred years of precedent seem to be what you strongly disagree with.

The problem today is that the Left has become a politcal tool to transform the intent of the Constitution, because their progressive transformation of America is at odds with the constitution's intent.

Again, what intent? What singular intent are you referring to?

They want a Government establishing a secular America rather than allowing the freedom of religious expression.

What forms of religious expression have you been denied?

Liberals are at war with our religuous freedoms and are trying to censor any religious expression on public lands. Sick PC Big Brother in action.

Are you actually up to debate on this, or are you going to insult me again if I dare to disagree?

They want activist politcal justices to create law becuse they want the Consitution to be a living document changing with the times.

It does change with the times. Both right-wing and left-wing justices have been acting as if it is a living document pretty much since the founding of the SCOTUS. It's impossible to actually function within the judiciary otherwise. The difference is determining in what ways it is "living".

As technology and values change over centuries, our great nation is held together by the Constitution so that no new Party or Ideology will ever supercede the intent of the Constitution.

Then why does the amendment process exist? The amendment process has subverted the "original intent" of the Constitution on multiple occasions.

The freedoms and liberties of every American is first and foremost no matter how our culture changes over time.

And what about in instances where the Constitution in its original form doesn't protect freedoms and liberties of some Americans?

Neither do the commands of some cosmic despot have any objective value. God may have created us but it is a non sequitor to think that implies we have any obligation to obey his dictates.

I wasn't saying that it was, at all. I was simply saying that no such moral obligation would exist, as there is no objective moral imperative towards democracy.

If morality comes from reason, as I believe it does, God is not necessarily a good God either. If he were to establish a divine North Korea here on earth, it would strongly imply that he is not good, but malevolent.

If he came down and Established a bunch of Denmark's I don't think that would necessarily prove he was good, either. But in a hypothetical where god exists in a tangible form, then even if morals come from reason, our reason would come from god and therefore morality would come from god.

Mind you I disagree with the entire premise, but the debate in question assumes certain hypotheticals as facts, so I was working within those.

It is an affront to human dignity to be the slave of any despot.

I'm not sure I agree. I would consider it an affront to my dignity, sure, but much of our current concept of dignity stems from being raised in a society that strongly emphasizes individual liberty and autonomy.

Furthermore, the God of the Old Testament was obviously evil, if he were to assume the vulnerabilities of a human existence, I believe we would have the added obligation to try him for crimes against humanity. Would that not be deliciously poetic?

They should get Keanue Reeves to do a "Devil's Advocate" squeal based on that premise.

I'd watch that.

The Left hates Trump because he embodies all the Americans whose freedom's are being taken from them. The freedom to dissagree with Big Brother political correctness.

Wait, so you think everyone on the left believes that people shouldn't have the freedom to disagree?

Please do not play ignorant to what's going on around us when the President of the US is trying to FORCE every public school to allow boys with transgender disorders in our daughter's bathrooms!

I can see why you would disagree with that, but how is that proof that the Left as a whole wants to take away freedom to disagree? That's an incredibly niche example.

We as parents are no longer allowed to dissagree with that kind of political correct conditioning.

Aren't you disagreeing now? Freely and openly?

The Left has created all kinds of insulting demaning words towards those on the right, for simply not agreeing with them. We are all phobics of some sort or another if we do not tow the PC line.

So what? Those words have no power. The right has plenty of ways to insult the left as well, and those insults have no power either. That's just rhetoric, it serves no legitimate and useful purpose.

He could follow the Platonic concept of the penultimate Philosopher King. Democracy doesn't have some objective, inherent value over non-democratic systems, after all.

Do you think there are legitimate reeasons to "hate" Trump, or do you believe that everyone that disagrees with him does so because of "standing up to political correctness, for being willing to speak to the Clinton scandals, for fighting the biased media" etc.?

I would hope that Trump would allow prosecution of Hillary so that she would be subject to the same laws as everyone else. The only reason she was not prosecuted is because the lies and the scandals goes all the way up to the President.

Do you have any evidence that is the "only reason"? That seems like an unverifiable claim to me.

I am debating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Neither of us are debating. You started by declaring the conditions in which you would debate, now you are asking rhetorical questions.

If you have any intelligent facts to explain why my many examples of religious expression on public lands was ok in the past but not now, then share them with us all. It's called DEBATING!

Well if that is where you want to start, then okay. To start off, do you believe that legal paradigms regarding Constitutional amendments should change, or do you believe they must stay the same? This isn't deflection, it's an important question I need to answer to get some context before addressing your two examples.

You assert that the money given to Gates was for nothing in return. That is a false premise.

It's a false premise in that I didn't assert that.

The person got something of value, be it a product or service, in return for his/her money. It was a fair/even exchange, not a lop-sided one where the other side was left holding the bag.

Multiple things. First, I still didn't make that claim. Second, an exchange of goods/services isn't inherently fair or even. Third, the distributor and the purchaser are not the only parties involved here.

I have many times presented evidence such as in the past, many public school teachers were being chosen on the basis of their being Christian so as to be good role models for the children.

What you have done in the past means nothing to me, as you obviously weren't talking to me. This is also fairly irrelevant to what I am talking about.

How on Earth could our courtroom walls have the ten commandments on them if it went against the 1st amendment.

Do you want to actually discuss that?

Why would Congress open every session with a prayer in our Government buildings if it went against the 1st amendment? They have done this from the beginning after our Consitution was written.

Do you want to actually have this debate or not? We can could into those questions in detail.

I could go on and on, but guess what? IT NEVER MATTERS because I'm debating the flat earthers or in this case, the bigoted censors of our Christian heritage.

So do you want to actually debate or not? I don't know why I have to ask this so many times.