Freedom From Religion

[Lurchiron]

What I find funny, and I do mean find funny, is how much sleep these people lose over symbols. It should be a Saturday Night Live skit...

+1...and the ironic part is that they can't even agree on a symbol of their own; must be what gets those panties in a bunch :idea:
Sig Ostara und Alaf Sal Fena

 

[WalkingWolf]

What I find funny are neocons who criticize Islam while simultaneously trying to make this country a Christian mirror image of an Islamic theocracy.

Who brought up Islam? OHHHH wait it was YOU!

 

[mikeyb]

1. Our right/wrong morals are derived from religious right/wrong (or reinforced at least).
2. Who really cares? It's not like the 10-ton marble slab inscribed with the 10 commandments is knocking on your door asking if you're prepared for the end times.
3. If someone gets all indignant from a religious-based item, why don't they get indignant of clothing worn when prescribed by religions? Oh, 'cause that be a hate crime.
4. If you don't believe, then don't believe. You don't have to read the religious rhetoric. You can scribble/file out the offending passages on money. Or you can just nut up and worry about truly important things that are directly affecting your life.

 

[minarchist]

Who brought up Islam? OHHHH wait it was YOU!

This is irrelevant since neoconservatism (a salient feature of which is political opposition to Islam, of course) and the Religious Right (which relates to this thread in that Christian supremacism is being promoted (unless you have no problem with symbols from all religions being allowed on government property?)) have a large degree of overlap. Of course I brought Islam up when I decided to highlight wannabe Christian theorcratic hypocrisy. Duh.

 

[WalkingWolf]

What's next not allowing cars on the streets with emblems on the cars? Why should a dodge ram believer be forced to look at on a public street a Mercedes symbol? What if I should find black shoes offensive in court, could I get the government to intervene? And let's not even get started on jewelry and tattoos.

There sure are a lotta nutty folks in this country...

 

[minarchist]

3. If someone gets all indignant from a religious-based item, why don't they get indignant of clothing worn when prescribed by religions? Oh, 'cause that be a hate crime.

Do you seriously not comprehend the difference between (1) the government promoting a particular religion using tax money and/or public property, and (2) a private citizen promoting his religion on his own time with his own money?

4. If you don't believe, then don't believe. You don't have to read the religious rhetoric. You can scribble/file out the offending passages on money. Or you can just nut up and worry about truly important things that are directly affecting your life.

A theocracy wherein non-adherents of the state-sponsored religion are marginalized (AT BEST) is of no particular concern to you?

 

[minarchist]

What's next not allowing cars on the streets with emblems on the cars? Why should a dodge ram believer be forced to look at on a public street a Mercedes symbol? What if I should find black shoes offensive in court, could I get the government to intervene? And let's not even get started on jewelry and tattoos.

There sure are a lotta nutty folks in this country...

Do you seriously not comprehend the difference between (1) the government promoting a particular religion using tax money and/or public property, and (2) a private citizen promoting his religion on his own time with his own money?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Do you seriously not comprehend the difference between (1) the government promoting a particular religion using tax money and/or public property, and (2) a private citizen promoting his religion on his own time with his own money?

Please cite the instances where the government promotes a "particular" religion?

How do we stop them from promoting a particular flooring? or color? or flag? Or style of dress in courthouses and rooms? Style of buildings?

 

[Lurchiron]

This is irrelevant since neoconservatism (a salient feature of which is political opposition to Islam, of course) and the Religious Right (which relates to this thread in that Christian supremacism is being promoted (unless you have no problem with symbols from all religions being allowed on government property?)) have a large degree of overlap. Of course I brought Islam up when I decided to highlight wannabe Christian theorcratic hypocrisy. Duh.

Hmmmm... Hey, Svartalfar das keyboard commando; what are your views on the time honored practice of Holmgang ??? :uhoh:
:dude:

 

[ADobbs1989]

Please cite the instances where the government promotes a "particular" religion?

How do we stop them from promoting a particular flooring? or color? or flag? Or style of dress in courthouses and rooms? Style of buildings?

Anytime a government body uses tax payers money to fund a religious emblem to be put on government property. Separation of church and state, no one has said anything about flooring or colors. That's a strawman.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Anytime a government body uses tax payers money to fund a religious emblem to be put on government property. Separation of church and state, no one has said anything about flooring or colors. That's a strawman.

Sooooo hack up some cites? instead of claims. NO it is not a strawman, it is based on some individuals finding tastes or believes of other individuals offensive and trying to use government to force their agenda on others.

Strawman is the strawman that people who can't back up what they say claim. And your claim that nobody said anything about flooring or colors, I did. You don't like it don't read it, don't like religious symbols, close your eyes.

 

[minarchist]

Please cite the instances where the government promotes a "particular" religion?

• Congress conducts Christian prayers
• Christmas Day is a federal holiday (before anyone cites "tradition", it was almost a century before this was done)
• For decades the military provided chaplins for favored religions (Judaism and Christianity) to the exclusion of others

 

[WalkingWolf]

• Congress conducts Christian prayers
• Christmas Day is a federal holiday (before anyone cites "tradition", it was almost a century before this was done)
• For decades the military provided chaplins for favored religions (Judaism and Christianity) to the exclusion of others

Evidently Congress does not find them offensive

So is a day honoring a preacher

Military provides chaplains for the soldiers, what you saying they should have YOUR religion forced on them. Now you see why atheists are considered jokes.

 

[minarchist]

Sooooo hack up some cites? instead of claims. NO it is not a strawman, it is based on some individuals finding tastes or believes of other individuals offensive and trying to use government to force their agenda on others.

I have always been amused when the theocrats cry like little children with accusations of "They're using the government to force their views on us!!!!" when the other side is trying to STOP that side from using the government to force their religion onto them! WTF?!?

 

[WalkingWolf]

I have always been amused when the theocrats cry like little children with accusations of "They're using the government to force their views on us!!!!" when the other side is trying to STOP them from using the government to force their religion onto them! WTF?!?

I am amused as helll you can't back up a word you say with reputable cites. Just whimper and cry because others believe and YOU can't control it.

 

[minarchist]

Evidently Congress does not find them offensive

I do not care what Congress finds offensive. I care about being treated like a second class citizen.

So is a day honoring a preacher

Christmas is a Christian holiday.

Military provides chaplains for the soldiers, what you saying they should have YOUR religion forced on them. Now you see why atheists are considered jokes.

Do you have issues with reading comprehension? I stated "to the exclusion of others". Explain to me how me complaining that chaplins are being denied to adherents of certain religions qualifies as me pushing my "religion" onto the people who already have chaplins. Also, tell me what you think my religion is.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I do not care what Congress finds offensive. I care about being treated like a second class citizen.



Christmas is a Christian holiday.



Do you have issues with reading comprehension? I stated "to the exclusion of others". Explain to me how me complaining that chaplins are being denied to adherents of certain religions qualifies as me pushing my "religion" onto the people who already have chaplins. Also, tell me what you think my religion is.

I don't care what you find offensive.

Christmas is a retail holiday.

I read just fine, you want to control other people's beliefs and it is not working for you. Again we agree I don't care and couldn't care less about your whimpering on other people's right to worship.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

P.S. I take it that you would have no problem with Moslem symbols on government property then?

If placed for cultural, historical, or artistic reasons same as Christian symbols have traditionally been, no, I have no problem with that.

 

[minarchist]

I am amused as helll you can't back up a word you say with reputable cites.

Do you seriously want me to back up the claim that Christmas Day is a federal holiday? Are you for real?

Just whimper and cry because others believe and YOU can't control it.

I don't want to control anyone. I want others to stop trying to control me, and I also want people to stop acting like ****** idiots and pretending that the latter constitutes the former.

I am still waiting for you to explain how Switzerland's neutrality in WWII constituted aggression on behalf of one of the sides (which is what your moronic, asinine, utterly retarded argument is equivalent to).

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Do you seriously want me to back up the claim that Christmas Day is a federal holiday? Are you for real?



I don't want to control anyone. I want others to stop trying to control me, and I also want people to stop acting like ****** idiots and pretending that the latter constitutes the former.

I am still waiting for you to explain how Switzerland's neutrality in WWII constituted aggression on behalf of one of the sides (which is what your moronic, asinine, utterly retarded argument is equivalent to).

Well you have a point about being controlled by Christmas, that Santa Claus is watching you all the time and can give you all your wishes or cruelly deny them by his judgement or your adherence to his subjective moral rules