User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:07:06 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I faxed them a copy of my ass. Slow day at work. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Freedom From Religion Foundation PO Box 750 Madison WI 53701 608-256-8900 FAX 608-204-0422 I faxed them a copy of my ass. Slow day at work.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:14:22 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hate crime or sex crime? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom From Religion Foundation PO Box 750 Madison WI 53701 608-256-8900 FAX 608-204-0422 I faxed them a copy of my ass. Slow day at work. I hope he cleaned the copier off afterwards. 
The only flesh prints acceptable on office equipment are boob prints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:14:47 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
hate crime or sex crime? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom From Religion Foundation PO Box 750 Madison WI 53701 608-256-8900 FAX 608-204-0422 I faxed them a copy of my ass. Slow day at work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKkNQ8l9XqQ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:15:16 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A public school is not your home, that's 'the rub'. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? A public school is not your home, that's 'the rub'. Cool. Can you point me to the section that limits our human rights to our own property? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:18:50 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A public school is not your home, that's 'the rub'. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. It means what it says. Nothing more, nothing less. Congress may not make any laws preferring one religion over another. Additionally, Congress may not pass any laws that prohibit one from freely exercising one's religion. It does NOT say that school board officials can't say an optional prayer before meetings. It does NOT say that the Mayor can't decorate City Hall as he/she sees fit. It does NOT say that school field trips can't take place at a location with religious propaganda. It DOES say that you are free to exercise whatever religion you want to exercise, others can exercise whatever religion they want to exercise, nobody can force you to worship otherwise, and you can't force them to worship otherwise. To restrict someone from exercising their religion as they see fit so that others don't feel offended or perceive bias is to shit on the "Free Exercise Clause". Like how "Shall not be Infringed." Was viewed? They get some activist judge to regulate for them. Either way it is infringement of rights no matter what side of the isle you sit on. You know the best way to make sure no one's toes are stepped on? Keep that shit at home and church. However, frivolous court case is frivolous. Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? A public school is not your home, that's 'the rub'. What's your point? Because you avoided the question. What does "openly practice" mean to you? As in openly pray, if you so choose, in public, or open carry in public? Which comes first in the BoR's, again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:19:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
On the one hand, it's a pity because it's a quaint tradition in a beautiful place. On the other, imagine the uproar if a school district sent children to a Moslem festival. So? My religion is objectively better than Islam. You think that's offensive? Deal with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:20:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool. Can you point me to the section that limits our human rights to our own property? Just curious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? A public school is not your home, that's 'the rub'. Cool. Can you point me to the section that limits our human rights to our own property? Just curious. It's pretty simple, tax dollars can not, by law, be spent on religious speech. Take away the tax-free status of all religious organizations, and I'd have less of a problem with it. When an organization wants to do something, like teach "intelligent design" in public schools, but doesn't want to pay taxes because "freedom of religion", they're no better than a welfare cheat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:21:54 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like much of our government, the first amendment has been bastardized by leftists. There is no separation of church and state, There are 2 prohibitions. 1. Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion. That simply means congress can not pass a law that favors a particular establishment of religion. 2. Congress making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That simply means congress can not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It has nothing to do with the people on the city council or the people in a public school saying a prayer as part of their day. It has to do with what laws congress can not make. And this clearly was not meant to limit what a state govt could do. It clearly and specifically says congress shall make no law... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like much of our government, the first amendment has been bastardized by leftists. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof There is no separation of church and state, There are 2 prohibitions. 1. Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion. That simply means congress can not pass a law that favors a particular establishment of religion. 2. Congress making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That simply means congress can not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It has nothing to do with the people on the city council or the people in a public school saying a prayer as part of their day. It has to do with what laws congress can not make. And this clearly was not meant to limit what a state govt could do. It clearly and specifically says congress shall make no law... Nothing changes the fact that it's the constitution of a racist, sexist, homophobic patriarchy. Check your privilege you cis shitlord! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:22:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have no control over activist judges, nor can I speak for them. I'm simply reading a line of text and taking it at face value. Either the amendments mean what they say or they don't. You can't pick and choose which amendments you want to be treat as-is and which you want to "interpret". Otherwise you might as well piss on the whole thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like much of our government, the first amendment has been bastardized by leftists. There is no separation of church and state, There are 2 prohibitions. 1. Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion. That simply means congress can not pass a law that favors a particular establishment of religion. 2. Congress making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That simply means congress can not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It has nothing to do with the people on the city council or the people in a public school saying a prayer as part of their day. It has to do with what laws congress can not make. And this clearly was not meant to limit what a state govt could do. It clearly and specifically says congress shall make no law... The second half of the "Establishment Clause" is the "Free Exercise Clause", which prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. No. It means what it says. Nothing more, nothing less. Congress may not make any laws preferring one religion over another. Additionally, Congress may not pass any laws that prohibit one from freely exercising one's religion. It does NOT say that school board officials can't say an optional prayer before meetings. It does NOT say that the Mayor can't decorate City Hall as he/she sees fit. It does NOT say that school field trips can't take place at a location with religious propaganda. It DOES say that you are free to exercise whatever religion you want to exercise, others can exercise whatever religion they want to exercise, nobody can force you to worship otherwise, and you can't force them to worship otherwise. To restrict someone from exercising their religion as they see fit so that others don't feel offended or perceive bias is to shit on the "Free Exercise Clause". Like how "Shall not be Infringed." Was viewed? They get some activist judge to regulate for them. Either way it is infringement of rights no matter what side of the isle you sit on. I have no control over activist judges, nor can I speak for them. I'm simply reading a line of text and taking it at face value. Either the amendments mean what they say or they don't. You can't pick and choose which amendments you want to be treat as-is and which you want to "interpret". Otherwise you might as well piss on the whole thing. Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:24:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It probably goes to a computer and you'll send them a lengthy bunch of electrons 
I do actually still have a fax machine with paper in it.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom From Religion Foundation PO Box 750 Madison WI 53701 608-256-8900 FAX 608-204-0422 I was thinking of a lengthy fax. Who uses a fax machine?
I do actually still have a fax machine with paper in it.
So you're the one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:27:22 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carrying is a far cry from using public dollars to influence on sect over another. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? Carrying is a far cry from using public dollars to influence on sect over another. I am not advocating one sect or another. Understand that here & now. Heck, do I even find any fruit in lighting a candle if the one who lights doesn't hold a meaning behind it? Or is it all for show at that point? It is not at all different as a Right is defined exactly the same regardless of its subject matter, is it not? Maybe you can find a dictionary that says the right to openly worship, meaning with no restrictions what so ever, or another right done openly, are defined differently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:30:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not advocating one sect or another. Understand that here & now. Heck, do I even find any fruit in lighting a candle if the one who lights doesn't hold a meaning behind it? Or is it all for show at that point? It is not at all different as a Right is defined exactly the same regardless of its subject matter, is it not? Maybe you can find a dictionary that says the right to openly worship, meaning with no restrictions what so ever, or another right done openly, are defined differently. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? Carrying is a far cry from using public dollars to influence on sect over another. I am not advocating one sect or another. Understand that here & now. Heck, do I even find any fruit in lighting a candle if the one who lights doesn't hold a meaning behind it? Or is it all for show at that point? It is not at all different as a Right is defined exactly the same regardless of its subject matter, is it not? Maybe you can find a dictionary that says the right to openly worship, meaning with no restrictions what so ever, or another right done openly, are defined differently. Read my post above. No one is saying people can't pray in public. The issue is the use of Public dollars and/or resources for religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:30:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's pretty simple, tax dollars can not, by law, be spent on religious speech. Take away the tax-free status of all religious organizations, and I'd have less of a problem with it. When an organization wants to do something, like teach "intelligent design" in public schools, but doesn't want to pay taxes because "freedom of religion", they're no better than a welfare cheat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? A public school is not your home, that's 'the rub'. Cool. Can you point me to the section that limits our human rights to our own property? Just curious. It's pretty simple, tax dollars can not, by law, be spent on religious speech. Take away the tax-free status of all religious organizations, and I'd have less of a problem with it. When an organization wants to do something, like teach "intelligent design" in public schools, but doesn't want to pay taxes because "freedom of religion", they're no better than a welfare cheat. What you decribed is the abolishment of the real purpose of the separation of church & state. You just made a liberal leftist argument that can be used to infringe on people's rights by the .gov having the power, hidden or openly done, to institute a corrupt governance of law. Is that what you want? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:37:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read my post above. No one is saying people can't pray in public. The issue is the use of Public dollars and/or resources for religion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? Carrying is a far cry from using public dollars to influence on sect over another. I am not advocating one sect or another. Understand that here & now. Heck, do I even find any fruit in lighting a candle if the one who lights doesn't hold a meaning behind it? Or is it all for show at that point? It is not at all different as a Right is defined exactly the same regardless of its subject matter, is it not? Maybe you can find a dictionary that says the right to openly worship, meaning with no restrictions what so ever, or another right done openly, are defined differently. Read my post above. No one is saying people can't pray in public. The issue is the use of Public dollars and/or resources for religion. But the teaching about Islam in public schools is OK with many libs... Why is that? Also, what is on printed money again? So that which declares faith, which is another word for trust, in God, shouldn't be used to advocate, or be made possible, for worship made unto God? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:37:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you decribed is the abolishment of the real purpose of the separation of church & state. You just made a liberal leftist argument that can be used to infringe on people's rights by the .gov having the power, hidden or openly done, to institute a corrupt governance of law. Is that what you want? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? A public school is not your home, that's 'the rub'. Cool. Can you point me to the section that limits our human rights to our own property? Just curious. It's pretty simple, tax dollars can not, by law, be spent on religious speech. Take away the tax-free status of all religious organizations, and I'd have less of a problem with it. When an organization wants to do something, like teach "intelligent design" in public schools, but doesn't want to pay taxes because "freedom of religion", they're no better than a welfare cheat. What you decribed is the abolishment of the real purpose of the separation of church & state. You just made a liberal leftist argument that can be used to infringe on people's rights by the .gov having the power, hidden or openly done, to institute a corrupt governance of law. Is that what you want? Nope. What I want is religious folks of all stripes to keep that shit away from tax dollars. You know, at home and at church. I mean, if you're one of those folks that likes to pray, pray. Do it with your family in a park for all I care. But outside of a History of Religion section of curriculum or a dedicated class, religion should not have any direct influence in public money or resources. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:40:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But the teaching about Islam in public schools is OK with many libs... Why is that? Also, what is on printed money again? So that which declares faith, which is another word for trust, in God, shouldn't be used to advocate, or be made possible, for worship made unto God? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? Carrying is a far cry from using public dollars to influence on sect over another. I am not advocating one sect or another. Understand that here & now. Heck, do I even find any fruit in lighting a candle if the one who lights doesn't hold a meaning behind it? Or is it all for show at that point? It is not at all different as a Right is defined exactly the same regardless of its subject matter, is it not? Maybe you can find a dictionary that says the right to openly worship, meaning with no restrictions what so ever, or another right done openly, are defined differently. Read my post above. No one is saying people can't pray in public. The issue is the use of Public dollars and/or resources for religion. But the teaching about Islam in public schools is OK with many libs... Why is that? Also, what is on printed money again? So that which declares faith, which is another word for trust, in God, shouldn't be used to advocate, or be made possible, for worship made unto God? As long as it is "teaching about", and not "converting to", I see no problem with it, nor would I if the subject was Christianity or Hindu. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:45:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as it is "teaching about", and not "converting to", I see no problem with it, nor would I if the subject was Christianity or Hindu. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Carrying is a far cry from using public dollars to influence on sect over another. I am not advocating one sect or another. Understand that here & now. Heck, do I even find any fruit in lighting a candle if the one who lights doesn't hold a meaning behind it? Or is it all for show at that point? It is not at all different as a Right is defined exactly the same regardless of its subject matter, is it not? Maybe you can find a dictionary that says the right to openly worship, meaning with no restrictions what so ever, or another right done openly, are defined differently. Read my post above. No one is saying people can't pray in public. The issue is the use of Public dollars and/or resources for religion. But the teaching about Islam in public schools is OK with many libs... Why is that? Also, what is on printed money again? So that which declares faith, which is another word for trust, in God, shouldn't be used to advocate, or be made possible, for worship made unto God? As long as it is "teaching about", and not "converting to", I see no problem with it, nor would I if the subject was Christianity or Hindu. You avoided my last question, for good reason, as the logic is undeniable. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:46:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Does my toddler have a constitutional right to show up for his first day of kindergarten with my HK91 on a sling around his neck and the bayonet attached? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:47:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's pretty simple, tax dollars can not, by law, be spent on religious speech. Take away the tax-free stays of all religious organizations, and I'd have less of a problem with it. When an organization wants to do something, like teach "intelligent design" in public schools, but doesn't want to pay taxes because "freedom of religion", they're no better than a welfare cheat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? A public school is not your home, that's 'the rub'. Cool. Can you point me to the section that limits our human rights to our own property? Just curious. It's pretty simple, tax dollars can not, by law, be spent on religious speech. Take away the tax-free stays of all religious organizations, and I'd have less of a problem with it. When an organization wants to do something, like teach "intelligent design" in public schools, but doesn't want to pay taxes because "freedom of religion", they're no better than a welfare cheat. First, intelligent design does not endorse any specific religion and would be presented as just another theory. Second, they can only endorse it. They do not have the authority to make it law. They are exercising what constitutional scholars often refer to as "free speech", and it's tax-free. They may be violating your patience and sensitive feelings, but they are not violating your civil rights. Third, taxing a religious institution would, in effect, be prohibiting the free exercise of religion, therefore it is not taxed. Fourth, I have not made any reference to federal or state law. I'm simply arguing that this field trip doesn't violate anyone's first amendment rights. Nobody is forced, through legislative action or otherwise, to recognize or exercise any religion. Nobody, through legislative action or otherwise, is prohibited from freely exercising their religion of choice. Whether or not they can legally spend the money on it is another matter entirely. Fifth, you never answered my question, which I assume you meant to do since you quoted me. So I'll ask again. Can you point me to the section that limits our human rights to our own property? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:47:54 PM EDT
[#20]
Oh and the objection to the christmas choir in the article is silly before I get accused of hating Christmas
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:48:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You avoided my last question, for good reason, as the logic is undeniable. http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx160/gtfoxy1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbdnj4hvg.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
You avoided my last question, for good reason, as the logic is undeniable. http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx160/gtfoxy1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbdnj4hvg.jpg Not proselytizing. Not promoting one god over another. Also. The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism" are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:55:08 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you have a right to start praying anywhere? Middle of a trial, middle of a common council meeting about installing a new sewer system, you have a unilateral right to conduct church anywhere? Funny how these spontaneous prayers only seem to come to mind at government functions, I never see anyone leap up and say a prayer before a movie starts or after a band finishes a song. Does my toddler have a constitutional right to show up for his first day of kindergarten with my HK91 on a sling around his neck and the bayonet attached? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Does my toddler have a constitutional right to show up for his first day of kindergarten with my HK91 on a sling around his neck and the bayonet attached? You're confusing the exercise of rights with the social expectation of civilized behavior. It's uncivil to disrupt the order of a meeting with extraprocedural stuff. It's wrong to create a distraction in a hearing or council meeting or whatever no matter what you're saying/doing. You could rant about how it's bullshit that the show Firefly got cancelled, and no matter how right you are on that subject, and no matter how much of a right you have to hold that opinion, it's still wrong to create a distraction in a meeting like that. If you want the council to pass a resolution admonishing FOX for cancelling the show, you should submit it for business following the procedural rules which are in place. We don't need to pass a law, or prohibit a law, or really address it at all within the legal forum, in order to tell people that they should behave in a civilized and polite manner. There's no law that says that if you're going to stand on an escalator, please stand on the right side so that those of us whose legs function and aren't overweight can use the left side to walk. True, left-standers deserve gruesome death, but civilized behavior says that they should just be given a polite "excuse me" and everyone goes on their way. There's an objective right and wrong, but we don't need to codify that in law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:55:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have no control over activist judges, nor can I speak for them. I'm simply reading a line of text and taking it at face value. Either the amendments mean what they say or they don't. You can't pick and choose which amendments you want to be treat as-is and which you want to "interpret". Otherwise you might as well piss on the whole thing. Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Is that not what I just said? I literally said you either read them as-is or you don't. If you think "the RKBA shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says then you must also assume that "can make no law establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion" also means exactly what it says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:57:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not proselytizing. Not promoting one god over another. Also. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You avoided my last question, for good reason, as the logic is undeniable. http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx160/gtfoxy1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbdnj4hvg.jpg Not proselytizing. Not promoting one god over another. Also. The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism" are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content. So you do it over & over again, day in & day out it holds no meaning? Oathes having no meaning then it is no wonder politicians are so quick to violate them... Huh. Well, I believe he will be judged by a greater judge than he. Much greater. Maybe I, as a Christian, don't agree with the "Pledge of Alegience". Not because of "One nation under God", but because of the evils the government does barred me from pledging an allegiance to them, or a flag representative of those evils. Do not confuse that hesitance with a given resilience to stand in defense of the liberties of my fellow countrymen. Which I am doing now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:58:19 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're confusing the exercise of rights with the social expectation of civilized behavior. It's uncivil to disrupt the order of a meeting with extraprocedural stuff. It's wrong to create a distraction in a hearing or council meeting or whatever no matter what you're saying/doing. You could rant about how it's bullshit that the show Firefly got cancelled, and no matter how right you are on that subject, and no matter how much of a right you have to hold that opinion, it's still wrong to create a distraction in a meeting like that. If you want the council to pass a resolution admonishing FOX for cancelling the show, you should submit it for business following the procedural rules which are in place. We don't need to pass a law, or prohibit a law, or really address it at all within the legal forum, in order to tell people that they should behave in a civilized and polite manner. There's no law that says that if you're going to stand on an escalator, please stand on the right side so that those of us whose legs function and aren't overweight can use the left side to walk. True, left-standers deserve gruesome death, but civilized behavior says that they should just be given a polite "excuse me" and everyone goes on their way. There's an objective right and wrong, but we don't need to codify that in law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Does my toddler have a constitutional right to show up for his first day of kindergarten with my HK91 on a sling around his neck and the bayonet attached? You're confusing the exercise of rights with the social expectation of civilized behavior. It's uncivil to disrupt the order of a meeting with extraprocedural stuff. It's wrong to create a distraction in a hearing or council meeting or whatever no matter what you're saying/doing. You could rant about how it's bullshit that the show Firefly got cancelled, and no matter how right you are on that subject, and no matter how much of a right you have to hold that opinion, it's still wrong to create a distraction in a meeting like that. If you want the council to pass a resolution admonishing FOX for cancelling the show, you should submit it for business following the procedural rules which are in place. We don't need to pass a law, or prohibit a law, or really address it at all within the legal forum, in order to tell people that they should behave in a civilized and polite manner. There's no law that says that if you're going to stand on an escalator, please stand on the right side so that those of us whose legs function and aren't overweight can use the left side to walk. True, left-standers deserve gruesome death, but civilized behavior says that they should just be given a polite "excuse me" and everyone goes on their way. There's an objective right and wrong, but we don't need to codify that in law. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 12:58:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're confusing the exercise of rights with the social expectation of civilized behavior. It's uncivil to disrupt the order of a meeting with extraprocedural stuff. It's wrong to create a distraction in a hearing or council meeting or whatever no matter what you're saying/doing. You could rant about how it's bullshit that the show Firefly got cancelled, and no matter how right you are on that subject, and no matter how much of a right you have to hold that opinion, it's still wrong to create a distraction in a meeting like that. If you want the council to pass a resolution admonishing FOX for cancelling the show, you should submit it for business following the procedural rules which are in place. We don't need to pass a law, or prohibit a law, or really address it at all within the legal forum, in order to tell people that they should behave in a civilized and polite manner. There's no law that says that if you're going to stand on an escalator, please stand on the right side so that those of us whose legs function and aren't overweight can use the left side to walk. True, left-standers deserve gruesome death, but civilized behavior says that they should just be given a polite "excuse me" and everyone goes on their way. There's an objective right and wrong, but we don't need to codify that in law. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Does my toddler have a constitutional right to show up for his first day of kindergarten with my HK91 on a sling around his neck and the bayonet attached? You're confusing the exercise of rights with the social expectation of civilized behavior. It's uncivil to disrupt the order of a meeting with extraprocedural stuff. It's wrong to create a distraction in a hearing or council meeting or whatever no matter what you're saying/doing. You could rant about how it's bullshit that the show Firefly got cancelled, and no matter how right you are on that subject, and no matter how much of a right you have to hold that opinion, it's still wrong to create a distraction in a meeting like that. If you want the council to pass a resolution admonishing FOX for cancelling the show, you should submit it for business following the procedural rules which are in place. We don't need to pass a law, or prohibit a law, or really address it at all within the legal forum, in order to tell people that they should behave in a civilized and polite manner. There's no law that says that if you're going to stand on an escalator, please stand on the right side so that those of us whose legs function and aren't overweight can use the left side to walk. True, left-standers deserve gruesome death, but civilized behavior says that they should just be given a polite "excuse me" and everyone goes on their way. There's an objective right and wrong, but we don't need to codify that in law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:00:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that not what I just said? I literally said you either read them as-is or you don't. If you think "the RKBA shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says then you must also assume that "can make no law establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion" also means exactly what it says. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no control over activist judges, nor can I speak for them. I'm simply reading a line of text and taking it at face value. Either the amendments mean what they say or they don't. You can't pick and choose which amendments you want to be treat as-is and which you want to "interpret". Otherwise you might as well piss on the whole thing. Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Is that not what I just said? I literally said you either read them as-is or you don't. If you think "the RKBA shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says then you must also assume that "can make no law establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion" also means exactly what it says. There is a difference in extrapolation. One inevitably leads to infringement. Yours. The 1st in this way, the second, well, you know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:02:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you do it over & over again, day in & day out it holds no meaning? Oathes having no meaning then it is no wonder politicians are so quick to violate them... Huh. Well, I believe he will be judged by a greater judge than he. Much greater. Maybe I, as a Christian, don't agree with the "Pledge of Alegience". Not because of "One nation under God", but because of the evils the government does barred me from pledging an allegiance to them, or a flag representative of those evils. Do not confuse that hesitance with a given resilience to stand in defense of the liberties of my fellow countrymen. Which I am doing now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You avoided my last question, for good reason, as the logic is undeniable. http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx160/gtfoxy1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbdnj4hvg.jpg Not proselytizing. Not promoting one god over another. Also. The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism" are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content. So you do it over & over again, day in & day out it holds no meaning? Oathes having no meaning then it is no wonder politicians are so quick to violate them... Huh. Well, I believe he will be judged by a greater judge than he. Much greater. Maybe I, as a Christian, don't agree with the "Pledge of Alegience". Not because of "One nation under God", but because of the evils the government does barred me from pledging an allegiance to them, or a flag representative of those evils. Do not confuse that hesitance with a given resilience to stand in defense of the liberties of my fellow countrymen. Which I am doing now. I don't read anything on my money besides the numbers in the corner, no. My oath meant something to me, not because I had to say "so help me god" at the end, but because I have honor. So yeah, there are words that really do mean nothing to folks, especially when actions prove a lot more about a man's character than any words, written or spoken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:07:27 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know how I know you don't know much about Jefferson? He disliked religion and even went so far as to rewrite the bible without any miracles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from it. One cannot have Freedom OF Religion unless one also has Freedom From <Your> Religion. That is Nobodies religion gets to set the rules for themselves and everybody else has to cow tow. Wrong. Read all the founding fathers many letters & private memos. Heck, read the declaration of Independance. In Jeffersons letters he speaks of God & They were in large-part Christian. One of the last straws before the revolt was the abuse of Protestants for speaking their minds on the matter. You are free to believe what you want to believe. If you demand people to not pray, for any reason, then you are infringing on their rights. By banning school kids, as in this case, from doing something then you are violating the rights of those that want to. If there are those that don't want to go & do it, then don't. Don't make others not able to because you wouldn't. Again, that is an infringement. The fact it is a public school is irrelevant as when the constitution was written teachers & children alike prayed at schools. So if it was protected then why not now? Duh! You know how I know you don't know much about Jefferson? He disliked religion and even went so far as to rewrite the bible without any miracles. Exactly. And as for "speaks of God" in letters, writings, and documents, I always ask: Which god? Because, they certainly never mentioned Christ, or even "God of The Old Testament". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:09:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a difference in extrapolation. One inevitably leads to infringement. Yours. The 1st in this way, the second, well, you know. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no control over activist judges, nor can I speak for them. I'm simply reading a line of text and taking it at face value. Either the amendments mean what they say or they don't. You can't pick and choose which amendments you want to be treat as-is and which you want to "interpret". Otherwise you might as well piss on the whole thing. Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Is that not what I just said? I literally said you either read them as-is or you don't. If you think "the RKBA shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says then you must also assume that "can make no law establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion" also means exactly what it says. There is a difference in extrapolation. One inevitably leads to infringement. Yours. The 1st in this way, the second, well, you know. I'm telling you that you CAN NOT "The 1st in this way, the second, well, you know." You have to take each amendment at face value. You can't pick one to read and protect as-is and pick another to interpret and protect as you see fit. I don't see how taking amendments at face value "inevitably leads to infringement." Maybe you just aren't understanding me. I can probably whip something up in MS Paint if that will help.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:09:15 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is not and never has been a unilateral right to start holding religious ceremonies in the middle of any public function. Nor do you have a right to rant about Firefly in the middle of the same meetings. This behavior would get you ejected from the meeting and maybe charged with disorderly conduct. You are free to go stand outside and prayer or complain about Firefly all day and night Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does my toddler have a constitutional right to show up for his first day of kindergarten with my HK91 on a sling around his neck and the bayonet attached? You're confusing the exercise of rights with the social expectation of civilized behavior. It's uncivil to disrupt the order of a meeting with extraprocedural stuff. It's wrong to create a distraction in a hearing or council meeting or whatever no matter what you're saying/doing. You could rant about how it's bullshit that the show Firefly got cancelled, and no matter how right you are on that subject, and no matter how much of a right you have to hold that opinion, it's still wrong to create a distraction in a meeting like that. If you want the council to pass a resolution admonishing FOX for cancelling the show, you should submit it for business following the procedural rules which are in place. We don't need to pass a law, or prohibit a law, or really address it at all within the legal forum, in order to tell people that they should behave in a civilized and polite manner. There's no law that says that if you're going to stand on an escalator, please stand on the right side so that those of us whose legs function and aren't overweight can use the left side to walk. True, left-standers deserve gruesome death, but civilized behavior says that they should just be given a polite "excuse me" and everyone goes on their way. There's an objective right and wrong, but we don't need to codify that in law. Your argument is flawed. When the public function, in this case, was apparent to be a religious ceremony, it is, of-course, prudent. Around here prayer is what hopefully bind in solidarity before government functions. Just as it should be. A government devoid of acknowledgment of a higher power & is a government on the always immediate precipice of being an evil one. Lots of .governments throughout history attest to this fact, as well as those controlling or controlled by corruptible man. Of course the Holy Roman Empire is guilty of this as they respected not freedom of religion. Only their distorted views. It is simple really: the fruitage of their labors his their testimony. Do they work to prohibit, enslave & murder, or do they act in accordance with Gods commands? That is what it really boils down to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:14:10 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't read anything on my money besides the numbers in the corner, no. My oath meant something to me, not because I had to say "so help me god" at the end, but because I have honor. So yeah, there are words that really do mean nothing to folks, especially when actions prove a lot more about a man's character than any words, written or spoken. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You avoided my last question, for good reason, as the logic is undeniable. http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx160/gtfoxy1/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsbdnj4hvg.jpg Not proselytizing. Not promoting one god over another. Also. The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism" are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content. So you do it over & over again, day in & day out it holds no meaning? Oathes having no meaning then it is no wonder politicians are so quick to violate them... Huh. Well, I believe he will be judged by a greater judge than he. Much greater. Maybe I, as a Christian, don't agree with the "Pledge of Alegience". Not because of "One nation under God", but because of the evils the government does barred me from pledging an allegiance to them, or a flag representative of those evils. Do not confuse that hesitance with a given resilience to stand in defense of the liberties of my fellow countrymen. Which I am doing now. I don't read anything on my money besides the numbers in the corner, no. My oath meant something to me, not because I had to say "so help me god" at the end, but because I have honor. So yeah, there are words that really do mean nothing to folks, especially when actions prove a lot more about a man's character than any words, written or spoken. If you don't believe it, why say it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:14:44 PM EDT
[#33]
Those Founding Fathers. They tried their best, and they knew just what assholes their fellow men were, but few had any idea of how big of an asshole their fellow citizens would become.
Otherwise, the Bill of Rights would have been 500 pages long, with tons of small print at the bottom of each page. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:15:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. And as for "speaks of God" in letters, writings, and documents, I always ask: Which god? Because, they certainly never mentioned Christ, or even "God of The Old Testament". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from it. One cannot have Freedom OF Religion unless one also has Freedom From <Your> Religion. That is Nobodies religion gets to set the rules for themselves and everybody else has to cow tow. Wrong. Read all the founding fathers many letters & private memos. Heck, read the declaration of Independance. In Jeffersons letters he speaks of God & They were in large-part Christian. One of the last straws before the revolt was the abuse of Protestants for speaking their minds on the matter. You are free to believe what you want to believe. If you demand people to not pray, for any reason, then you are infringing on their rights. By banning school kids, as in this case, from doing something then you are violating the rights of those that want to. If there are those that don't want to go & do it, then don't. Don't make others not able to because you wouldn't. Again, that is an infringement. The fact it is a public school is irrelevant as when the constitution was written teachers & children alike prayed at schools. So if it was protected then why not now? Duh! You know how I know you don't know much about Jefferson? He disliked religion and even went so far as to rewrite the bible without any miracles. Exactly. And as for "speaks of God" in letters, writings, and documents, I always ask: Which god? Because, they certainly never mentioned Christ, or even "God of The Old Testament". Want to know how I know scripture is not your strong suit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:17:29 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you don't believe it, why say it? Kinda automatic when your LT says "raise your right hand and repeat after me."
And hell, with a word like "god", which no religion has a particular monopoly on, I could have been swearing my oath to toe fungus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:20:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm telling you that you CAN NOT "The 1st in this way, the second, well, you know." You have to take each amendment at face value. You can't pick one to read and protect as-is and pick another to interpret and protect as you see fit. I don't see how taking amendments at face value "inevitably leads to infringement." Maybe you just aren't understanding me. I can probably whip something up in MS Paint if that will help.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no control over activist judges, nor can I speak for them. I'm simply reading a line of text and taking it at face value. Either the amendments mean what they say or they don't. You can't pick and choose which amendments you want to be treat as-is and which you want to "interpret". Otherwise you might as well piss on the whole thing. Your thinking here is inverse. Applying the RKBA & the 1A in this manner is counterintuitive. Either you have a right to openly practice, & KBA, or you don't. Which is it? Is that not what I just said? I literally said you either read them as-is or you don't. If you think "the RKBA shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says then you must also assume that "can make no law establishing religion or prohibiting free exercise of religion" also means exactly what it says. There is a difference in extrapolation. One inevitably leads to infringement. Yours. The 1st in this way, the second, well, you know. I'm telling you that you CAN NOT "The 1st in this way, the second, well, you know." You have to take each amendment at face value. You can't pick one to read and protect as-is and pick another to interpret and protect as you see fit. I don't see how taking amendments at face value "inevitably leads to infringement." Maybe you just aren't understanding me. I can probably whip something up in MS Paint if that will help.... Because your face value of one leads to infringement of all rights. The public facet of a right is, as in a public place or in public school, paramount to the freedom provided. Otherwise we accept limitations. Limitations is infringement. Maybe you are OK with that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:22:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are free to go stand outside and... We are, then, in agreement. I read your post as if it was rhetorical support of government action to specifically prevent uncivil behavior based upon the subject (religion). There should be, per 1A, precisely no law regarding it. Rules of order and decorum, which a council or body may adopt, are suitable for the purpose and it needn't go higher than that. What FFRF gets wrong is the claim that any expenditure of public money or effort on anything which is even peripherally religious is, by some fashion, the government establishment of religion. The will of a community to do as it pleases must be respected, especially considering the 1st and 10th Amendments. It's wrong to interrupt a meeting, as we've established. However, the other side of that coin is that, while following procedure, the body also needs to be permitted to do as it likes. If a city council wants to amend their procedure to include a moment of prayer before each meeting, what authority does any other body have to tell them that they can't? If the council wants to take for business the discussion of a resolution on Firefly, only the electorate of that council has the right to demand that they quit wasting their time on frivolities, and then only through established procedure. If you don't like that your city council prays before each meeting, the proper course of action is to petition the council to change, or else campaign on the issue and elect people who will change it. And if you lose, then tough cookies. Don't go whine to the courts because people are praying and you don't like it. My city council told Chik-Fil-A that it can't put in a restaurant because the now-dead founder didn't approve of a gay lifestyle. Oh, sure, they disguised it as a zoning issue (and so they put in another restaurant instead, right?). I don't agree with that. I'd rather have hate chicken. I wrote letters and made my argument in the proper manner. My side lost, and that was that. You don't see me threatening lawsuits to get my way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:23:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Want to know how I know scripture is not your strong suit? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Exactly. And as for "speaks of God" in letters, writings, and documents, I always ask: Which god? Because, they certainly never mentioned Christ, or even "God of The Old Testament". Want to know how I know scripture is not your strong suit? Yes, I would like to know that, so please explain how you know this about me, especially never having become acquainted with me. And, since you're professing to expert status on scripture, let me know how a Christian would re-write the New Testament to remove all reference to the divinity of Christ (as did Jefferson), and how such a Christian would reconcile that effort with his faith. Again, the question is, "Which god?" The founding documents, and letters and writings of the founders are not holy scripture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:24:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kinda automatic when your LT says "raise your right hand and repeat after me."
And hell, with a word like "god", which no religion has a particular monopoly on, I could have been swearing my oath to toe fungus. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you don't believe it, why say it? Kinda automatic when your LT says "raise your right hand and repeat after me."
And hell, with a word like "god", which no religion has a particular monopoly on, I could have been swearing my oath to toe fungus. So just following orders. Got it. Ahh yes, the anecdotal "What is God? There isn't one, so which one is it." argument. Do you believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth? Obviously not, you said so yourself. So how am I, or anyone else, to find truth in what you say? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:24:55 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those Founding Fathers. They tried their best, and they knew just what assholes their fellow men were, but few had any idea of how big of an asshole their fellow citizens would become. Otherwise, the Bill of Rights would have been 500 pages long, with tons of small print at the bottom of each page. Absolutely correct. They had no way of even fathoming the notion of a sizable portion of "the people" actively working to destroy the country. "A good and moral people" indeed. Well, it was great while it lasted, but watching the death throes of the Republic is gut wrenching. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:28:58 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Carrying is a far cry from using public dollars to influence on sect over another. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Like you should keep & bear your arms only at home? Carrying is a far cry from using public dollars to influence on sect over another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:34:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Why not just follow the Bible?
Matthew Chapter 6
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. 5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. If everyone did that, wouldn't this be a non-issue? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:36:05 PM EDT
[#43]
Complain in one thread about the Jews killed Jesus, complain in another that we need prayer at public meetings to bring us together, except I guess those Jesus killing Jews
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:36:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I would like to know that, so please explain how you know this about me, especially never having become acquainted with me. And, since you're professing to expert status on scripture, let me know how a Christian would re-write the New Testament to remove all reference to the divinity of Christ (as did Jefferson), and how such a Christian would reconcile that effort with his faith. Again, the question is, "Which god?" The founding documents, and letters and writings of the founders are not holy scripture. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Exactly. And as for "speaks of God" in letters, writings, and documents, I always ask: Which god? Because, they certainly never mentioned Christ, or even "God of The Old Testament". Want to know how I know scripture is not your strong suit? Yes, I would like to know that, so please explain how you know this about me, especially never having become acquainted with me. And, since you're professing to expert status on scripture, let me know how a Christian would re-write the New Testament to remove all reference to the divinity of Christ (as did Jefferson), and how such a Christian would reconcile that effort with his faith. Again, the question is, "Which god?" The founding documents, and letters and writings of the founders are not holy scripture. First of all I am by no means an expert. Every time I read scripture & meditate on its meanings I find new doors opening up that show me Gods wisdom. At the same time I can easily tell when someone doesn't read & comprehend much of anything regarding scripture. Start by finding the scripture that says "There is one true God." Many people make up Gods, no doubt. They even make Gods out of themselves. But none of those are true, meaning true to their word, meaning scripture. You see, God, as in the creator of everything, laid out promises to those who place Faith in him. He fulfilled that promise in Christ. To answer your question how could the RCC leave out scriptures that pointed to Devine actions? I don't agree with the labeling of Gnostic texts & the omission of their being read & understood. That is an infringement on what the 1A stands for. Ever consider his efforts in such an endeavor were to provide a glimpse of the futility to do so? & that the OT can exist as a testament to Christ on its own? Because, after all, it was about him & what he would be needed to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:38:04 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So just following orders. Got it. Ahh yes, the anecdotal "What is God? There isn't one, so which one is it." argument. Do you believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth? Obviously not, you said so yourself. So how am I, or anyone else, to find truth in what you say? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you don't believe it, why say it? Kinda automatic when your LT says "raise your right hand and repeat after me."
And hell, with a word like "god", which no religion has a particular monopoly on, I could have been swearing my oath to toe fungus. So just following orders. Got it. Ahh yes, the anecdotal "What is God? There isn't one, so which one is it." argument. Do you believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth? Obviously not, you said so yourself. So how am I, or anyone else, to find truth in what you say? Feel free not to, no skin off of my nose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:38:28 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Complain in one thread about the Jews killed Jesus, complain in another that we need prayer at public meetings to bring us together, except I guess those Jesus killing Jews It coalesces better than you realize. Read Acts, Romans & Hebrews & get back to me on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:39:15 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It coalesces better than you realize. Read Acts, Romans & Hebrews & get back to me on that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Complain in one thread about the Jews killed Jesus, complain in another that we need prayer at public meetings to bring us together, except I guess those Jesus killing Jews It coalesces better than you realize. Read Acts, Romans & Hebrews & get back to me on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:39:44 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It coalesces better than you realize. Read Acts, Romans & Hebrews & get back to me on that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Complain in one thread about the Jews killed Jesus, complain in another that we need prayer at public meetings to bring us together, except I guess those Jesus killing Jews It coalesces better than you realize. Read Acts, Romans & Hebrews & get back to me on that. Mel Gibson? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:41:18 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Complain in one thread about the Jews killed Jesus, complain in another that we need prayer at public meetings to bring us together, except I guess those Jesus killing Jews It coalesces better than you realize. Read Acts, Romans & Hebrews & get back to me on that. Oh snap! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 1:41:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Feel free not to, no skin off of my nose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you don't believe it, why say it? Kinda automatic when your LT says "raise your right hand and repeat after me."
And hell, with a word like "god", which no religion has a particular monopoly on, I could have been swearing my oath to toe fungus. So just following orders. Got it. Ahh yes, the anecdotal "What is God? There isn't one, so which one is it." argument. Do you believe the stuff that comes out of your mouth? Obviously not, you said so yourself. So how am I, or anyone else, to find truth in what you say? Feel free not to, no skin off of my nose. Perhaps not. I just find your logic to be not overly-pragmatic. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
