Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 52

Thread: Somedays all the PC nonsense just fires me up

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131

    Angry Somedays all the PC nonsense just fires me up

    Dont think this is a repost but who really knows with all this crap going on nowadays!

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...180949616.html

    I remember when living in san diego a few years ago, that a similar group was trying to get the SC to force the moving of Soledad Memorial Park, which is a giant white cross on top of Mount Soledad surrounded by picture and engraved walls "similar to Vietnam memorial" for all fallen soldiers of San Diego. The SC finally threw it out!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by tim12232 View Post
    Dont think this is a repost but who really knows with all this crap going on nowadays!

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...180949616.html

    I remember when living in san diego a few years ago, that a similar group was trying to get the SC to force the moving of Soledad Memorial Park, which is a giant white cross on top of Mount Soledad surrounded by picture and engraved walls "similar to Vietnam memorial" for all fallen soldiers of San Diego. The SC finally threw it out!
    PC nonsense, to you, then, is upholding separation of church and state?

    Also, you're uh... wrong about both the legal status of the Soledad cross and why it was erected. It was erected as an easter cross and no mention of it being a war memorial was made until after the first time they were sued (end run around the constitutions? of course). Second, it's been held unconstitutional at the 9th circuit level but has not been heard at the supreme court: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...4/08-56415.pdf

    Now, if they allow any group that wants to put up their religious symbols to do so as well, it would be okay, as no preference in monetary spending would be part of the official government policy. However, the government cannot simply fund a specific religious symbol to the exclusion of others.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Also, I'd like to point out a quote from that article outlining things a bit better for those who don't read it:

    Two Jewish plaintiffs said they find the cross "offensive and repugnant to their beliefs." The brother of a first responder who died of lung problems after volunteering at Ground Zero for two weeks is also a plaintiff.

    "As a survivor of the 9/11 attack and family member of one of the brave responders to the 9/11 attack, Mark Panzarino is appalled that the state has permitted a symbol of Christianity to represent a tragedy that affected all Americans. The Panzarinos unequivocally do not wish for a cross to represent Frank Joseph Panzarino's sacrifice unless it is a Lutheran Cross," he said in the complaint. (A Lutheran cross features a rose-shaped inlay that, in turn, showcases another crucifix; the plaintiffs evidently singled it out to make the point that any such choice of a Christian symbol excludes someone else's belief.)
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    Separation of church and state was originally intended to keep the government out of the church's affairs and not so much the other way around. Regardless this country was still founded upon Christian faith, if it were not, the Declaration of Independence would have made no mention of God and Creator.

    IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

    The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    You can read the rest.

    Here is a little info on separation of church and state as well.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts



    Tim

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    The most intolerant, close minded and judgemental people in the world are the very moonbats who can be heard wailing and gnashing their teeth anytime a christian openly practices their faith. After accusing christians of intolerance, close mindedness and being judgemental. As annoying as some christians can be, their greatest detractors are some of the most disgusting and repulsive psuedo-intellectual parasites on earth. We can only pray that liberals abort themselves out of existence in a generation.

    Amen.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    [COLOR=#0000ff]We can only pray that liberals abort themselves out of existence in a generation.
    There is that bit of evolutionary bit to consider. Yes, by all means, let those with such horrid believes be the ones with the least amount of offspring.

    It was also nice to read earlier today that a judge shot down the San Francisions measure to ban circumcision. The Jewish community was unanimously opposed, and the Christians nearly so. Regardless, the judge correctly ruled that health matters are under the purview of the state, not a city.
    Last edited by since9; 07-30-2011 at 04:51 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    The most intolerant, close minded and judgemental people in the world are the very moonbats who can be heard wailing and gnashing their teeth anytime a christian openly practices their faith. After accusing christians of intolerance, close mindedness and being judgemental. As annoying as some christians can be, their greatest detractors are some of the most disgusting and repulsive psuedo-intellectual parasites on earth. We can only pray that liberals abort themselves out of existence in a generation.

    Amen.
    Let me guess. You're not of a mind to be exchanging Christmas cards with any ardent anti-religion liberals this year, eh? (please not the humor in this)

    The thing that gets all messed up in this is the simple fact that the phrase, "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It does not exist. So why do we constantly see and hear it? How did it come about when it does not exist in out supreme law of the land founding documents? For the same reason that the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment has been twisted and perverted. It serves an interest or agenda that what is not there, be there, or what is there is not.

    The phrase, "separation of church and state" is a shortening of some text which appeared in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Association of Danbury. This phraseology adoption was the product of Justice Hugo Black. Jefferson's intent was that of restriction of the federal government's potential desire to sanction any sort of state religion. The Founders, being excellent and highly knowledgeable students of history, knew well the dangers of mixing a state run religion with government and this was their reasoning behind the "establishment" clause portion of the First Amendment. There is nothing in this segment which restricts and controls what schools or firehouses or court houses or anything of the sort can and cannot do in regards to religious practices. Quite the contrary;

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    It clearly and concisely states that "Congress shall make no law..." and guess what? In 224 years, congress never has made no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. How was it that for 175 years this worked as designed until the Warren Court thought different? The second phrase somehow gets lost in the rush to interpret the first phrase. It states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So a student who wishes to say a prayer at graduation ceremonies is well within his rights under the First Amendment to do so.

    The Bill of Rights has clarity which at times, makes those who believe otherwise cringe in their boots. Purveyors of anti-gun dogma are going to try their damnedest to ignore part of the Second Amendment in an attempt to prove their position that only a militia (read that as the National Guard), the police, and the military can keep and bear arms. This serves their purpose. We see this same thrust in all ten of the articles in the Bill of Rights. What we miss is the fact that words have meaning and understanding the original intent, instead of ignoring or twisting it, is the key to understanding and following this most hallowed document.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    here is my two cents;

    i have a whole litany, on if you want things done, don't have the government do it, do it yourself. if you want a cross (star of Davide, hex sign, etc.) on a memorial buy the property and build it. if you want to save the tree, buy the property and keep it. if you want to preserve an old house, buy it and fix it , don't expect the taxpayers to do it.
    just maybe if we would stop giving the government so much power. we could shrink it back to the constitution

    just to add too if you don't like the way a business is ran, buy it and run it the way you want, if your way is better it will thrive. if not, OH well

    sorry for the rant
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    here is my two cents;

    i have a whole litany, on if you want things done, don't have the government do it, do it yourself. if you want a cross (star of Davide, hex sign, etc.) on a memorial buy the property and build it. if you want to save the tree, buy the property and keep it. if you want to preserve an old house, buy it and fix it , don't expect the taxpayers to do it.
    just maybe if we would stop giving the government so much power. we could shrink it back to the constitution

    just to add too if you don't like the way a business is ran, buy it and run it the way you want, if your way is better it will thrive. if not, OH well

    sorry for the rant

    I agree! but to your pointe we have a problem because the system is so broken, If I buy land I still have to go through every stupid loophole just to try and use the land as I see fit! I cant even hang out clothes in my back yard because of HOA which is protected by the gov, yet has no formal jurisdiction over it! my land my taxes paying for it and I cant do what? hang clothes, fly a flag the list goes on. my rant sorry!

  10. #10
    Regular Member sFe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Laurinburg, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    139
    http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-...-re-9-11-cross

    Death threats aimed at American Atheists populated the Fox News Facebook page after Blair Scott, Communications Director for American Atheists, appeared on America Live with Megyn Kelly Thursday.

    Scott's appearance on Fox News was motivated by the recent complaint filed by American Atheists and others with the state of New York asking for fair and equal treatment by the National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

    American Atheists argue that inclusion of the 9/11 cross and the exclusion of representations suitable to non-Christians constitutes a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

    Apparently for many self identified Christians, the request by atheists for fair and equal treatment under the law was too much to handle. The explosion of hate coming off the Fox News Facebook page is alarming. As one might expect, freethinkers and atheists are deeply uncomfortable with the death threats.

    American Atheists report that moderators on the Fox News Facebook page had been trying diligently to delete the violent threats, but not before they were screen-captured by a diligent American Atheists member named Robert Posey.

    (For screen shots of just a few of the death theats that have been preserved, please see the slide show.)
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan

    When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts

  11. #11
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by tim12232 View Post
    I agree! but to your pointe we have a problem because the system is so broken, If I buy land I still have to go through every stupid loophole just to try and use the land as I see fit! I cant even hang out clothes in my back yard because of HOA which is protected by the gov, yet has no formal jurisdiction over it! my land my taxes paying for it and I cant do what? hang clothes, fly a flag the list goes on. my rant sorry!
    brother we are on the same page. that was the whole point i was trying to make we have given the government to much power to decide what to do with our own land. i blame the watermelons, green on the outside red in the middle.

    but actually the real point i was trying to make is keep the government out of as much as possible and we wouldn't have this problem

    BTW, i am close to King , NC where there was a big issue on this subject
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    The most intolerant, close minded and judgemental people in the world are the very moonbats who can be heard wailing and gnashing their teeth anytime a christian openly practices their faith. After accusing christians of intolerance, close mindedness and being judgemental. As annoying as some christians can be, their greatest detractors are some of the most disgusting and repulsive psuedo-intellectual parasites on earth. We can only pray that liberals abort themselves out of existence in a generation.

    Amen.
    You're so cute, calling anyone who disagrees with you a moonbat. I don't even understand that word as an insult, could you or someone else explain it to me?

    Science flew people to the moon. Religion flew people into buildings.
    Science shoots for the stars. Religion shoots people on an island.

    All many of us ask is that religion remain a private matter and that it not be used as a form of influence or control in politics. It seems many of you aren't happy with that, and want to force your particular beliefs into the government-sponsored positions. Whether that's a particular brand of christian cross being sponsored by the government, intercessory christian prayer at government functions, or similar acts, these are not things that are meant to be legal, by one of the founders own words:
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
    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 & State
    Moreover:
    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.
    It is not the 1st amendment alone that is in play, though. It's the 14th as well. That's where Hugo Black derived this part of the of the Emerson v. Board of Education ruling:
    Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'
    I note that even the dissent agreed with his definition of the establishment clause under the 14th amendment.

    Of further import is the 9th amendment. Freedom of religion beyond mere congressional establishment of law should not be disparaged on the basis of congress being mentioned by the law.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    You're so cute, calling anyone who disagrees with you a moonbat. I don't even understand that word as an insult, could you or someone else explain it to me?

    Science flew people to the moon. Religion flew people into buildings.
    Science shoots for the stars. Religion shoots people on an island.

    All many of us ask is that religion remain a private matter and that it not be used as a form of influence or control in politics. It seems many of you aren't happy with that, and want to force your particular beliefs into the government-sponsored positions. Whether that's a particular brand of christian cross being sponsored by the government, intercessory christian prayer at government functions, or similar acts, these are not things that are meant to be legal, by one of the founders own words:

    Moreover:


    It is not the 1st amendment alone that is in play, though. It's the 14th as well. That's where Hugo Black derived this part of the of the Emerson v. Board of Education ruling:

    I note that even the dissent agreed with his definition of the establishment clause under the 14th amendment.

    Of further import is the 9th amendment. Freedom of religion beyond mere congressional establishment of law should not be disparaged on the basis of congress being mentioned by the law.
    Thanks again for using "modern interpretation" to justify your reasoning! The context in which the Jefferson and Madison spoke was very different from how the SC understood.
    please edumacate your selv http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by tim12232 View Post
    Thanks again for using "modern interpretation" to justify your reasoning! The context in which the Jefferson and Madison spoke was very different from how the SC understood.
    please edumacate your selv http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html
    Uh, you linked to something that supports exactly what I am saying. Do you care to try again, or would you just like to ride the failboat as it sinks?

    Hint: you can't solely apply the constitution at the time of its initial passage. The 14th amendment takes those limits upon the federal government and applies them to subordinate governments via substantive due process.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by tim12232 View Post
    SNIP Separation of church and state...
    Just a reminder for everybody.

    There is no separation of church and state. Its a metaphor from a letter from Thomas Jefferson.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Just a reminder for everybody.

    There is no separation of church and state. Its a metaphor from a letter from Thomas Jefferson.
    It is a metaphor describing how he and the other founders viewed the intended effect of the first amendment. It is a metaphor that has been used in many legal opinions since then, affirming that the court recognizes what the founders intended when they wrote a law that establishes a wall between church and state.

    So yeah, there is separation of church and state, unless you're just playing semantics games.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    It is a metaphor describing how he and the other founders viewed the intended effect of the first amendment. It is a metaphor that has been used in many legal opinions since then, affirming that the court recognizes what the founders intended when they wrote a law that establishes a wall between church and state.

    So yeah, there is separation of church and state, unless you're just playing semantics games.
    So what you are saying Twanos, is that all those crosses at Arlington Cemetery are un-constitutional? They must be, because it is federal land filled with dead christian soldiers.

    I really think you are misguided. Quote me the part of The Constitution that mentions "church and state" in the same sentence.
    Exodus 21:12-14

    Click here for some Common Sense

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by SourKraut View Post
    So what you are saying Twanos, is that all those crosses at Arlington Cemetery are un-constitutional? They must be, because it is federal land filled with dead christian soldiers.

    I really think you are misguided. Quote me the part of The Constitution that mentions "church and state" in the same sentence.
    Amen brother!

    Tawnos the Failboats back and doest seem to sink very well!



  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by SourKraut View Post
    So what you are saying Twanos, is that all those crosses at Arlington Cemetery are un-constitutional? They must be, because it is federal land filled with dead christian soldiers.

    I really think you are misguided. Quote me the part of The Constitution that mentions "church and state" in the same sentence.
    Please spell my nick correctly. Also, what crosses? http://i.pbase.com/g6/92/690792/2/81662456.7mdwCtM7.jpg

    Do you mean one of the many approved symbols, where each person gets their non-cross grave marker engraved with one of these?

    Quote me somewhere where I ever claimed that the constitution said those words. Since you can't, I'll point out what I did say: "[Jefferson's description of the first amendment] is a metaphor describing how [Jefferson] and the other founders viewed the intended effect of the first amendment. It is a metaphor that has been used in many legal opinions since then, affirming that the court recognizes what the founders intended when they wrote a law that establishes a wall between church and state.

    So yeah, there is separation of church and state, unless you're just playing semantics games. "

    Toot toot, your ship is sunk.
    Last edited by Tawnos; 07-31-2011 at 11:26 PM.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    113
    Help me out with this metaphor thing,Tawnos. Are you saying the First Amendment is just writen in figures of speech? Are any of the other amendments to The Bill of Rights written in this kind of code?
    Exodus 21:12-14

    Click here for some Common Sense

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by SourKraut View Post
    Help me out with this metaphor thing,Tawnos. Are you saying the First Amendment is just writen in figures of speech? Are any of the other amendments to The Bill of Rights written in this kind of code?
    Are you dense? I simply quoted the authors' metaphors which explains the first amendment, not that the first amendment is a figure of speech or metaphor for something else. A->B != B->A

    Jefferson said, in essence, "the people put great value in separating religion and government." He used a metaphor to do so, saying that the inclusion of the amendment in the constitution built a wall between church and state.

    Madison went further and said ""things are great for religion and government because of the total separation we've put between religion and government."
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Are you dense? I simply quoted the authors' metaphors which explains the first amendment, not that the first amendment is a figure of speech or metaphor for something else. A->B != B->A

    Jefferson said, in essence, "the people put great value in separating religion and government." He used a metaphor to do so, saying that the inclusion of the amendment in the constitution built a wall between church and state.

    Madison went further and said ""things are great for religion and government because of the total separation we've put between religion and government."
    Dude, Jefferson wanted to keep the government from interfering with church's and religions. Not the other way around you simply cannot separate christian beliefs from our legal system and government. If we were based on say Sharia law, we would be very very messed up, so yes we can lean towards one common religion "christianity" because its the more appropriate way to deal with many issues. Right vs Wrong, the 10 commandments, the golden rule, the list keeps going. Please stop talking about Jeffersons metaphors like some yale hippy. I go by what was written in ink in the constitution, and also Jefferson's stance when he penned the letter to the Baptists in Danbury, CT.

    BTW I'm sure the Atheist symbol first used in the early 1960's wasnt available to Arlington before that. Which means most go crosses, I guess its time to go sue the government over petty nonsense! Its America and our money says in God we trust! not Allah not Buddha and not is some atomic symbol. Ship is still sailing!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by tim12232 View Post
    Dude, Jefferson wanted to keep the government from interfering with church's and religions. Not the other way around you simply cannot separate christian beliefs from our legal system and government. If we were based on say Sharia law, we would be very very messed up, so yes we can lean towards one common religion "christianity" because its the more appropriate way to deal with many issues. Right vs Wrong, the 10 commandments, the golden rule, the list keeps going. Please stop talking about Jeffersons metaphors like some yale hippy. I go by what was written in ink in the constitution, and also Jefferson's stance when he penned the letter to the Baptists in Danbury, CT.
    Odd that you claim that last sentence, when I'm the one quoting him and Madison.

    As for your diatribe about separating christian beliefs from the legal system and government... Uh, you're wrong. Just so far wrong I don't even know where to start.

    BTW I'm sure the Atheist symbol first used in the early 1960's wasnt available to Arlington before that. Which means most go crosses, I guess its time to go sue the government over petty nonsense! Its America and our money says in God we trust! not Allah not Buddha and not is some atomic symbol. Ship is still sailing!
    And then you bring up other stupidity, indicating your lack of knowledge of history. Let's see, the continental congress had money that said "mind your business". Our federal reserve notes had no idiocy about god until 1956...

    ...you know what, I'm done with you. You're unlikely to see anything but the inside of your own posterior, and I have better things to do and people to talk with.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    And then you bring up other stupidity, indicating your lack of knowledge of history. Let's see, the continental congress had money that said "mind your business". Our federal reserve notes had no idiocy about god until 1956....
    You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I happen to have a 1921 Morgan dollar in my hand right now, and it says "In God We Trust" on the reverse.

    In God We Trust has been on U.S. currency long before the FRB started. Your opinion that the phrase "In God We Trvst" is "idiocy" is idiotic.
    Exodus 21:12-14

    Click here for some Common Sense

  25. #25
    Regular Member sFe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Laurinburg, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    Odd that you claim that last sentence, when I'm the one quoting him and Madison.

    As for your diatribe about separating christian beliefs from the legal system and government... Uh, you're wrong. Just so far wrong I don't even know where to start.



    And then you bring up other stupidity, indicating your lack of knowledge of history. Let's see, the continental congress had money that said "mind your business". Our federal reserve notes had no idiocy about god until 1956...

    ...you know what, I'm done with you. You're unlikely to see anything but the inside of your own posterior, and I have better things to do and people to talk with.

    It started appearing on coins in 1864 and congress passed a law in 1955 to put it on paper currency when deemed practical.
    For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan

    When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •