Search Results: he has a thing for me

A society has the right to recognize that public blasphemy against God or Christianity is not just “ordinary disagreement,” but an attack on the moral and religious foundation that shaped much of our civilization. At the founding, some states treated Christianity as part of the public moral order, and I do not think that history should be dismissed as automatically tyrannical.

That said, I would not support vague laws that punish honest theological disagreement, private unbelief, or respectful criticism. The line would need to be narrow and aimed at public, malicious, contemptuous attacks on sacred things — not at forcing belief.

I understand current First Amendment doctrine would likely reject laws like this today, but as a matter of principle, I do think states should have more authority to defend public moral order than modern secular liberalism allows.

At the time of the U. S. founding, some states had laws punishing blasphemy or speech considered contemptuous toward Christianity. Do you support or oppose allowing states to enforce blasphemy laws today?

Did any of the AIs (not just on the GaG) ever told you something really hilarious, or simply dumb?

I asked one of the AIs: "Do you recommend pancakes with marmalade or Nutella?
AI replied: "I don't eat pancakes with Nutella anymore, because Nutella has too much sugar and fat"
😆😂🤣