She had to leave the HS because of threats & needed a police escort; so much for the "devout" being "peaceful".

-- Modified on 1/14/2012 1:26:13 PM

Hey, guess what Christians? your rights don't trump the rest of ours.

Someone else should have put a stop to this 59+ years ago.

Good for her, and her intolerant atheist parents. it takes guts to stand up these "good and tolerant" Christians who made her fear for her life for standing up to them. I know, i have been there and seen exactly how fucking scary these good christians can be, especially when they are in a group. Like most cowards they seem to grow courage as they grow in numbers.

Not because of her stance, but because this CUNT thinks she is so special she should be able to inconvenience everybody else.

What a stuck up CUNT.

We put up with youe bullshit "There is no God post" and do not ask that you be kicked off the board.

Why don't you get your head on straight for once and ask the right question.

Where was HER tolerance?

company makes a banner that lasts for 60 years. Got some business for them, lol.

My 'spidey sense' says there's too much bullshit in this 'news report' to believe the story in it's entirety. Not denying it happened, just not believing all facts are as stated.

It was her pantshitting atheist intolerant parents.

Imagine someone so fucking intolerant and weak they crap their pants over a stupid banner that had been there for 60 years!

Hope everybody mails them Christmas cards!!

banning school mandated prayer. Hence, the banner was taken down. If school doesn't like decision they can appeal all the way to SCOTUS ( where, more than likely it will be upheld-----SCOTUS is loathe to overturn precedent )

"You do not have a right not to be offended"

Phil, are you saying the girl didn't have a right to file a lawsuit against the school ?

Why do so many atheists find fear in something they don't believe in ?

I do agree religion should not be in public schools though I don't see a religious message in the banner .

Most people would not be hurt following the banner's message.

Christianity or Jesus is not mentioned .
 
 Heavenly Father could be space dust.

You see it your way and I'll see it mine, but mine is the correct way of course. lol

BTW are you claiming that she did not have the right to bring suit? or that the judge ruled in error? or that she should have just kept her mouth shut and not created any waves despite the fact that the school was "promoting" school prayer in obvious defiance of the law?

Or, please don't tell me this, but are you claiming that there should be no secular rights and that you are fine with our school system promoting one religion over all others?

Pretty judgmental on your part.

Lastly a Q: if the banner in the school subtly denounced all religions & this same girl brought suit, would you feel the same way ?

-- Modified on 1/15/2012 10:19:57 AM

Flawed hypotheiss, because not for me to question motivation of someone filing suit. If they want to file suit, that's their right.

Main bone of contention phil, for you & others, is did you find '62 SCOTUS ruling "unjust" ?! If not for that,all this stuff wouldn't be going on.
Perhaps you & others would like legal way to overturn it ( along with some wanting to overturn
Roe V Wade ) which is certainly within yours & other's rights.

1) The girl did not ask that anybody be kicked out of school, so your analogy with being kicked off this board totally fails.  Nice try with a red herring defense, though.  And how is the loss of a banner an "inconvenience" to anybody?  Did they really need a reminder to pray, because otherwise they might have forgotten?
2) No matter how many years the banner had been there, it's a clear and blatant plea for prayer in schools, which is completely illegal. So you're suggesting she should have been "tolerant" of obvious  illegality.
3) What you're really missing is that the erosion of Constitutional rights is a slippery slope.  If anyone is permitted to hang a banner promoting school prayer, what's the next step? Choosing what the prayer is?  Choosing who you are to pray to?  The obvious cases are always easy.  Like when the Nazis wanted to march in Skokie and the ACLU supported their right to do it.  Sometimes, as repugnant as it seems, perserving the rights of a minority is what ultimately preserves everyone's rights.

1) OK, I will accept not kicking off of the board as not being equivalent. Neither had anyone asked the Mod to not allow any of the "No God" posts, so I think it is a small leap to figure out it is just another form of censorship. Why you were not able to connect the dots should not have suprised me though, I gave you too much credit, that is my fault.

2) No matter how may years? Who the hell talks about time being a factor here? I did not? Can we stick to the subject at hand, religious intolerance.

3) Don't know what to say about your third argument. Just so damn wrong to start with. Have you actually READ the constituion?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So how does posting a banner constitute making a law? I can see how making them take it down violates the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof",but see no laws being established.

If you want to pretend to be a protector of the constitution, you need to understand it first. It is not just a document to protect the rights of minority groups, it is a document to protect the rights of ALL groups.

1) Removing the banner is not censorship. It is removing a statement that is not permitted by the Constitution (see below).
2) You have completely missed the point (no surprise). Of course time is not a factor.  Simply because an offense has been committed for 60 years does not give it the cloak of legality.  Simply because you did not mention the length of time involved does not make it irrelevant.  It was in the original post.
3) Yes, I am familiar with the establishment clause.  You, it appears, not so much.  Of course, posting a banner does not make anything a law, which is not the point.  Posting a banner violates the establishment clause because it uses a public space (funded by public tax dollars) to promote a religious message. This is a well-recognized legal principle with numerous court decisions supporting it.  Why you are unfamiliar with all of them is beyond me.
I really don't expect any pants-shitting religious wack-os to get this.  Thanks so much for the "education."  LMAO!

So I walk in a building or down the street and I see a sign that I don't agree with.  Am I so weak that I have to make a federal case out of it? Literally.  Am I so hurt that I can't function?  If it bothers me that much, is it something wrong with me.

I live near Thai Town in L.A.  As you enter the area ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK are two huge gold statute of Thai angeles.  I could not begin to estimate the number of Christians who drive down that street, one of the busiest in Los Angeles.

How can those statutes remain there?  Should I sue?

You said "it's a clear and blatant plea for prayer."
No. it is a prayer, but I don't have to repeat it. I can see it and say, "Fiddle Dee Dee." Putting a prayer up does not mean I have to pray.

If the Nazi's could display their offensive message in public, that is because you do not have a right not to be offended.  

Funny how Nazis marching is protected, but putting up a sign is not.

The republic is saved now that that banner is down.

Clearly the message was supporting the Cranston High School West Religion that left unchecked, would have dominated the world.

Thank doG for atheists.

Yes, she had the right to sue, but that doesn't mean it is right.  
Having the legal right to do something means you can do it without legal consequences.  You often have the legal right to do something, but it is wrong in other ways.  

I have the legal right to be rude to people and tell waiters they are stupid jerks which is why they have a shit job.  I have the right to not tip waiters, leave a Coke can on the park bench instead of tossing it in the garbage can, and 1,000 other things.

That doesn't mean I should do it.
In her case, she had the right to sue.  The judge may be right. But she should have asked her self, "For what ever stupid reason, even though they believe is stupid religious stuff, my friends and neighbors like this stupid sign.  Does it hurt me so much that I cannot bear to be happy as long as that sign is up?
Would it be better for me to deprive them of what ever stupid solace they get out of it or is it better for me to get rid of it?"

She is weak.  If something like that is so offensive, she will go through life hurt at the slightest thing possible.

I know legally it was right.  I am not talking legally.  Just because something is legally right doesn't mean it is correct to do it.

See my post above. She had the right to do it, legally.  But would it be better for her to say, "My friends and community like this stupid sign for some idiotic reason.  Does it really hurt me that much, or can I give up a tiny bit to make my community happy?"

Bottom like, in many situations you chose what will offend you.  If you are going to get so bent out of shape over something so bland, this is also your problem. Yes, she had the right to seek redress. But that doesn't mean she was correct to do so

In all honesty, don't you think she is a little hyper-sesnative to get so riled up over something so bland?

Should I sue to remove the Thai religious figures down the street from me?

To say it cheapens the word is an understatement. As a free individual she is free to believe what she wants. NO one, and certainly not this sign is FORCING her to believe anything. You've been around the world enough I should'nt have to explain it to you so lets just drop the oppression business.

As a 16 year old, I seriously doubt she has "the right" to bring suit, I could very well be wrong about that but that is beside the point. I also seriously doubt she lacks the wherewithal to bring the suit and that's why I say it is HER PARENTS who are using her as a puppet and expressing THEIR pant shittyness thru this suit.

It's their Dracularian (i made up a new word) reaction to this sign that prompted it and they are simply using her as a tool. I find THAT disgusting.

Also, this sign DOES NOT promote 1 religion over another AND establsih THAT religion over all others as the state religion. THAT was the main thrust behind the 1st amendment in the first place. You have to go the wonka school of twisting shit to believe that the framers intended to keep all religious references out of the public dialouge. The facts bear that out. I would be vehemently opposed to a state religion but the danger of that is incredibly exaggerated.

Should she just keep her mouth shut? No, she can speak her mind. Does her concern trump all others? NO. Her parents are the ones who should STFU and teach their daughter to think for herself and understand other people's points of view. Instead, they are cramming THEIR religion, or rather, their hatred of religion down their daughters throat. And making her a target for abuse in the meantime.

I condemn the abuse but that comes with the territory.

What about Christmas/Easter vacation? Oh sure, they changed the names, but the dates put the lie to that shell game.

And these are PAID holidays for government employees.

If someone is so sensitive that a sign that bland hurts them so much, yes, I am calling her weak.  I have seen millions of things that offend me, and I shrug my soulders.  I am better for it.

As to your question, I think the sign would be very offensive.  If they put it up, I would think it is stupid, but although I would be offended, I wouldn't file a law suit.  If the majority of my friends and neighbors wanted it, I could live with it.

Of course, in that case, the only purpose of the sign would be to offend.  Why should you want to offend your friends and neighbors?

For those who agree with this girl, I have a question:

As I have mentioned, I live near Thai Town in L.A. and there are two Thai religious figures at the entrance to the area.  They were put up their by my Thai neighbors.

Obviously, I have the legal right to have them removed, and I have said that this girl had the legal right.

My question is would it be good for me to demand their removal?  Would it be better for me to allow my fellow citizens of this are the enjoyment they get from those statutes?  Would the community and city be better off if I demanded that my feeling be respected and the statues have to go?

Are my feelings more important so they should prevail legally?

I had ro endure years of people saying the pledge of allegiance while I stood there quitely, and then was sometimes ridiculed or questioned for it. At one school, I had to come up to the front of the class and face everyone each day while they pledged and I stood silence. It made me strong and tsught me to stand up (no pun) for what I believe.

Big fucking deal. That's life. You have to be willing to be who you are when those around you are different.

This story is about a waste of human flesh forcing others to bow to her behavior. NMore froof that SOME athiests really worship themselves as god, wanting all others to bow to them.


HH

I did not mean  "would it be good FOR ME?" in the sense would it make me feel good.  I meant, would it be good for me in the sense of whether it would make me a better person.

Phrased another way, the question is would it be good.  I.e,  for the community.

You keep saying "right," and I never said they did not have a legal right.  Do you not understand the difference between a "legal right" and somethng being right?

As for your questioning their motives, you don't have to do that.  But you do have the right to ask yourself, regardless of the motives, which may be wonderful, would I have made the world better by making my Thai neighbors give up there statute?

I am not that concerned about the state of the law as to whether it is allowed or not.  The law decides what is allowed, and that does not necessarily equate with what is good.  

I am more concerned with is it better for the community that I allow my neighbors to engage in conduct that doesn't really hurt me.

Again, to be clear:  Would it be good for me as a person to demand its removal. WOuld it be good for the community for me to demand that my Thai neighbors remove their statues?  Would I be a better person for allowing them that tiny pleasure?  

...mean Buddhism?  And are the statues on public property?  Maybe Tom Labonge was smoking his bong when they were erected.

Buddhists aren't seeking to convert the whole world like Christians and Muslims, but it does still set a precedent to which other religions can point when they want to erect their religious symbols on government property.

I argued against the Menorah at a City Council meeting when Chabad tried to shove it down Beverly Hills' throat.  It's not there anymore during Hannukkah.

But I'd still support you if you decided to do it.

I totally agree with you, perfectly said.

If you see a Thai church ahead sign ,it's Buddhist.

Buddhism , like Christianity and Islam is a missionary religion .

Beware: They want to convert you .

 

If I were wrong, I think you could say, "He has a legal right. I recognize that. But I do not support him."

I would be a worse person to do that to my neighbors, some of whom are my friends.

You don't have to stop me. You don't have to overturn the law, but there is no reason why you should support me doing something that was wrong, even if legally right.

You can understand that I have a legal right, but you could say I am wrong to impose my will on my Thai neigbors, and you don't have to support me being a bad person.



 

means I believe you're a bad person for doing it.  We simply look at this issue differently.  Not much new here.  And I did not say you would be wrong to impose your will on your Thai neighbors.  I simply said I would not do it myself.
One reason is I love Thai food, lol!
No, really, even though there's no legal distinction, I am not worried about a religious tyranny from our tiny Thai population.  I'm somewhat more concerned about tyranny from our Christian majority.

Many people have a hard time labeling others as "good" or "bad."

Please answer two questions:
1) If I sued to take down the statues and caused distress to my neighbors, would I be a better person? Would I be worse?  
2) Would I be a better person if f I looked at them and said, "It makes my fellow residents happy.  It doesn't hurt me that much.  I will let them have their silly little statue."

I think I would be better for not upsetting my fellow residents.  I think I would be better for being a less sensitive individual. I think I would be better for being able to live and let live with other people whose beliefs I don't share.

As  Jew, I am so unconcerned about tyranny from our Christian majority.  It is so far off and there have been so little evidence of it, it is silly to be afraid of it.

In the old days, in the 50's - yes, I am that old - I had to sing Silent Night in 6th grade.  It didn't hurt me.  I didn't have to believe it, just appreciate the musical qualities.  I did feel a little weird to tell you the truth.  But I was a better person for not making a big deal of it.  I was a stronger person for not letting it bother me.

Today, someone has a little emotional boo-boo because they saw the word "God" on the street.  It hurts them. They have to run to Daddy Fed Gov and say they are so sad.  Make those people take down that sign.

Yes, they have the right.  I feel sorry for them if those three letters hurt them so much they have to upset the friends and co-residents.

I'm afraid you misunderstood the core of my point, so I'll clarify.
1)"Would you be a better person?" Depends entirely on what your view of right and wrong is.  It would make you a better person if you had a rigorous and uncompromising view of the law, and a strong believe that any compromise on an issue like this is destructive.  It would not be true if you were doing it for spite.  In your case, I'm sure you would not feel like a better person.  As I said, I wouldn't do it either but do not automatically assume anyone who took the other route is not behaving well. I think this answer works for your question 2).
As for fears of Christian tyranny, I'll admit it doesn't keep me up at night.  But I grew up about when you did, Jewish, too, and my experience was different.  When I went to a supposedly non-denominational summer camp, we were expected to sing a hymm before our meals with the words, "praise father, son and holy ghost."  It made me feel uncomfortable and different from my fellow campers.  When I first recited the Pledge of Allegiance it did not contain the words "under God."  Then, one day, it did.  I thought, "it's probably not my God they mean."  Again, I felt pushed away.  I know that was not the intent, but it was the result.  Is this tyranny? No.  But it's obviously unnecessary.

You say if I would be "better" depends on what my view of right and wrong is.  THis implies that right and wrong is a question of view point, which is a popular belief.  I think there an absolute "right" and "wrong?" If I think that murder is not "wrong," am I correct?  Is it just my opinion?  If I think it is not "wrong" to steal, who the hell is anyone else to impose their view on my life, unless there is a real "right" and "wrong" above subjective views.

I think following a "rigorous uncompomising" view of the law makes me a rigid ass hole who doesn't give a shit if he makes people miserable because I am rigorously and uncompromisingly enforcing the law, even if it prevents people from doing relatively harmless things which bring enjoyment to the entire neighborhood.  

If I am doing that, even if it is from a sincere belief, I am a worse person.  Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Hitler all had rigorous and uncompomising views that they were doing good. NO. DO'NT GET ME WRONG. I am not comparing anyone here to those 4. I am just saying a rigorous uncompromising view that you are doing good may be doing bad.

It is rare to make people feel good in ways that take so little from you.  It is so easy to let my neighbors enjoy something.  If it doesn't really hurt me, why not let them enjoy life.

My "non-denominational" school also had a hymn that we sang.  If that is the extent of tyranny that I will suffer in 60-some years, I will be so happy my heart will burst.  When I see the tyranny and oppression of other groups outside the U.S.



It isn't a question of doing it for

I disagree that in the scenario you created there is an absolute right and wrong because it depends on your beliefs. When you then extend the question from Thai statues to murder, that's so obviously a different question it's almost a joke.  Would you really argue this way in court?  I hope not. You did not even frame your original argument on a strict "right" and "wrong" basis but on which choice would make you a better person.  Now you're going all legalistic and it's just silly.  You are welcome to your views of what makes you a good person vs. an asshole, but please don't escalate this minor debate in which we basically agree on what the right course is, to invokiong Mao and Stalin.  Feel free to respond, but
I am done with this.

First, it is the principle. Is there a subjective right or wrong?  Or is right and wrong objective?  It doesn't matter whether it is a big sin or a small sin. The question remains the same.  If you view right and wrong as personal view, then there is no division. Okay, you laugh at murder.  How about theft?  Theft from insurance companies?  Theft from private persons?  Illegal pirating of a friend's CD.  Some people think there is a difference.   Why is their view of what is "wrong" incorrect.

As to changing the argument, I did not.  True I framed it in terms of "right and wrong" and later discussed it in terms of whether it would make me a better person.  But I think that if I do things that make me a better person it is right and if I do things that make me a worse person it is wrong.  

I didn't change the argument. I just tried to explain one of thing tests to see if something is good.

I am not going to legalistic. I am avoiding legalistic. For the whole time, I have been saying she has a legal right, but she is wrong.  The legalistic view would be the rigorous and uncompromising adherence to the law is not "wrong."  I am saying that it would be wrong.  It is not the legalistic right or wrong that I have ever been talking about.

If I do things that hurt my neighbors when not doing it would be no skin of my nose, it is bad.
If I am so intolerant that I can't let my neighbors enjoy their little statute, it is bad.
If my view of life is "it offends me" so it has to stop even if everyone else likes it, it is bad.

When did I do that????  At this point, phil, I bet the whole board is laughing at you.  You are, without a doubt, the most tendentious arguer I've ever seen!  You are a lost cause and the poster boy for why people have such disdain for lawyers. I have a feeling you actually a frustrated paralegal. You need to do some serious self-reflection.  Why is it I doubt you will?
PS: cue the reflexive hurt response.

You said, "When you then extend the question from Thai statues to murder, that's so obviously a different question it's almost a joke.

If you say something is "almost a joke," my saying that you call it laughable is not that much of a distoration, assumng jokes are intended to induce laughter.

Hardly a record distortion on my part.

But not everyone is as strong as you are.  Nor should they have to be.

promoting Islamic "prayer meetings" and a Christian or other non Muslim student filed suit for it's removal on the same grounds, what would the reaction be then?

As for Thai religious statues on a public st. There are literally millions of religious icons of every imaginable religion littering the streets of every city on the planet, poor analogy IMO. I find no offense to the millions of Crucifixes, Stars of David, and other religious icons, I briefly toyed with having some "Temple Dogs" on my own front door, and I find Buddhism every bit as foolish as any other religion. (I thought they looked cool) I just don't find the Buddhists any where near as offensive as the Christians or the Muslims because they don't have any impact on my life.

There is a huge difference between a banner on school property promoting one single religion and a simple innocuous icon, of course Phil already knows this, he is just acting like a lawyer.

it's never going to happen, but it wouldn't bother me at all, and Willy might be getting paid on those days, but not me. lol

BTW I don't believe MLK day really fits as a "religious holiday" in spite of the fact he was a Reverend. It's really a civil rights holiday and although I agreed with the state of Arizona that we already had enough paid holidays for government workers, even I can't make the stretch that MLK day has much in common with Christmas or Easter.

As for putting a stop to those holidays on religious grounds, one battle at a time. Just like the rabid anti gunners have the sense not to call for banning all guns immediately, anti religious activists have the good sense to fight their battles a bit more selectively.

BTW I said "it wouldn't bother me" , I did not say I am actively for banning religious holidays, I don't celebrate Christmas, Easter, etc and it wouldn't bother me a bit to pick and choose my own days to close up shop, but since I can't get any business done on those days, I go play like  everyone else.

"you are making up things I did not say" line any more.


       There is a big difference between taking your reasoning and saying - this is the consequence of your reasoning as in your complaint about EPA compliance orders - and engaging in deconstruction of this calibre - this guy came no where close to "laughing at murder" or treating murder as a joke.

I too have had this conversation with Phil and like you grew weary when the "leaps of logic" defied anything that Evel Knevel ever attempted.

It seems like the weaker his argument, the more ridiculous leaps he tends to take, up to the point where you have to just shake your head and end the conversation.

I sincerely hope he does't employ this approach in court, I can see many at judge throwing his ass out of court after pulling out his last hair in frustration. lol

One last thing, Phil seems to be incapable of making a distinction between a harmless expressions by individuals, and the acts of an oppressive majority who ignore minority rights.

Q. What is the difference between a dead lawyer and a dead buzzard on the highway?

       A. There  are brake marks in front of the buzzard.

when I get in these "debates" with him, I simply grow weary of the never ending, tedious arguments and analogies as loose as a two dollar whore, and just give up.

I think he counts that as victory, but I am certain he is in a minority of one. Eventually you have to say "Enough".

That's not to say that Christians have not been oppressing non christians for centuries, I am glad they have at least stopped killing non christians, but my no means have they stopped oppressing them.

This certainly does not rise to the level of oppression, but the judge obviously agreed with the plaintiff that it did violate the law, so good for her. It takes courage to stand up to an oppressive majority.

and yes the sign was only promoting one religion, or where there any Muslims, Hindus, Moonies, Wiccans, or anyone else but Christians attending these prayer meetings?

I mean we all get bored, or drunk, or drunk AND bored. lol

To the extent that it is belief based mythical figure, the principle is the same.

First off in a perfect world (by my standards of course) religion would not be outlawed, simply justifiably laughable and not practiced by anyone and treated a lot like we treat ancient religions like those practiced by the Greeks or Romans.

Since that is not likely to happen anytime soon, we need to co exist and the constitution amazingly provides for this.

The military has religious counsel for all religion and to the best of my knowledge even people who give spiritual counseling for those even those who are agnostic/atheists. So no problems so far.

Praying before battle is one's right, what it not one's right it to force me as a non christian to listen to Christian prayer before going into the same battle.  Just like prayer in school is permissible, but school led prayer is not.

A POTUS is first and foremost a human being with his own set of religious and moral values, his family should have the ultimate say in how his final wishes are to be carried out, which would include being shoved in a box and dirt shoveled over them if that what THEY choose.

I don't want to step on you, but I sure as fuck am sick of you stepping on me. Now don't you feel foolish for this post? If you don't, you should lol

This is plainly "pro christian" and by default that means anti everything else. Or if not "anti" it certainly promotes Christianity over all other religions, and that would fall into the realm of "state sponsored" religion.

sorry, but this one is pretty cut and dried.

Want to see some outrage, try hanging a muslim prayer meeting banner on a school campus in Tuscaloosa or some such bible belt city. Lets' see the fur fly then.

Please don't tell me that you are so narrow minded as to think that "all religions" is synonymous with "all Christian denominations" That really isn't your argument, is it?

as someone who will take the slightest opening, no matter how strained, to make a weak attempt to rebut an argument.  "almost a joke" is a figure of speach.  If I substituted, "ridiculous," "ludicrous" or some other synonym it would have meant the same thing.  So, in fact, you did distort what I said, though I don't think you fooled anyone but yourself.

Which unfortunately seems to be too much to ask for.

I take it you didn't find my answers to be satisfactory, what would you prefer I say?  Why does it bother Christians so much when others just want to be left alone? After the crusades, the puritans, the witch burnings, the modern conflict between the Christians and the Muslims that threatens to end the world as we know it, when is enough enough?

I don't want to persecute anyone, I just want to be left alone and not have Christianity rammed down my throat.

-- Modified on 1/16/2012 1:46:30 PM

Q. What do you have, when you've got ten lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?
A. Not enough sand.

to an outsider the divisions within the Christian religion are almost indistinguishable, yes we all know that there are Baptists, and Lutherans and Catholics and Protestants, but ask any non christian the difference between a Baptist and a Lutheran, and I'll give you a hundred to one he won't have a clue. Truth be told, I bet it's a pretty small percentage of actual Christians that can tell you the difference between a Pentecostalist  and Methodist. I know I don't have clue. Do you even know without looking it up?

If even a practicing Christian can define the differences between the sects how can you deny my claim "that to a non christian, you all look pretty much the same to us"? Non Christians can no more tell the difference between the various denominations of Christians, than the average Christian can discern between the different sects of Islam.

then I re-read his post re my use of "it's almost a joke" and couldn't let it slide.  I promise from now on to follow your policy of ignoring his natterings.

-- Modified on 1/16/2012 10:13:06 AM

does not mean I have failed.

1) Removing the banner is not censorship? I guess you are ok with burning books then as well. Sames damn difference, just make sure no one can read them. BTW, why don't you take a look at all the "people's movements that started with book burning. I think you will find they have a shitty track record. Also, it does NOT violate the constitution but then can not point out where it does. How WEAK is that.

2) We agree, time does not weigh into this argument.

3) You claim the posting of the banner violates the establishment clause. That is crap!! Have courts sided with your argument, YES. Have courts sided with my argument, YES. Remember, GOD is still in the pledge of allegiance, and the courts ruled that was OK. So let me give you a clue since you have none, the courts are not a great source to cite in many of these cases, since they constantly rule differently and are steadily over-turned.

I don't understand how you can be on a political board and suck so bad at debating topics. Perhaps you are here as a learning experience?

There are many differences between various Christian denominations, some of which even you would appreciate.

You shouldn't always lump them together just because you don't know the variations.

for not being able to debate.  All you do is rant and make little sense.
   No, it is not censorship to remove a banner that violates the law.  No, I am not OK with burning books and there is no comparison between that and removing a banner.  Only a complete lame-brain would make such an obviously bankrupt comparison.  Not to mention that books are not a public "statement" like a banner.  You can read them if you want to, or choose not to open one. You are starting to sound like phil with your inane comparisons that defy intelligent thought.
  As for the courts, name one that has sided with your argument.  One.  I don't think you can.  As for god being in the Pledge of Allegiance, it shouln't be, but why not also mention our currency says "In God We Trust."  So what?  The relevent case law relates not to that, but to religious displays on public property.  They are virtually always won by those seeking removal of religious objects.  That's what's relevent here.
  The problem here is that, not only are you too stupid to know when your ass has been kicked, you are too stupid to post.  You statement about sucking so bad at debating topics applies only to you.

Where would you like to take this. How far can you go.

The Military is a government institution. They have churches and priest, pastors and rabbi's. Should all that be banned.

As a matter of fact when you're in the Military you give up your constructional rights. You are subject to Military law. How about we don't allow military personnel to pray before battle. Would outlawing that do it for you. We could shoot those fucker to protect your rights.  

When a President dies they get a state burial.  How bout we shove them in a box and shovel dirt in their face. No more prayers, no religion. After all we are stepping all over you poor non believers and the government is footing the bill.  So have all the religious content removed.

Wonder how far we could really go so we don't offend the defenseless, oppressed non Christian.

Judges make bad decisions all the time. They get reversed, set aside.

Could be, if this went to the US Supreme Court this could be reversed. It is "Not coercive , and does not prefer one narrow sect over another."

That was their decision in the law suit which tried to remove "In God We Trust" from US money. I didn't see anything on the sign that said "Baptist God".

"To non Christians you are all the same to us"; should probably read; "To some non Christians most of you are all the same to us".

Although I'm not too sure who the "non Christians" are or for that matter who we include in "us".

In a post above you said the Constitution provided for the problems of co existence. The Supreme Court which settles disputes on the Constitution ruled in favor of retaining "In God We Trust".

I don't see it as pro or anti. I look at it as law.

I don't know much about "all religions" and not that much about "Christian denominations".

I'm a little more knowledgeable about absurdity.

"Where does discretion end and aversion begin. I'm sure I do know know."

I'll make you look it up lol.

The Methodist faith has eliminated certain "Books" from the mainstream biblical texts.

And you thought my texts were a pain

This may come as a shock to you, but you are NOT the sole arbiter of what is relevant.

They are in fact very relevant and point out the duplicity of the courts, which is why you citing the courts if such a joke!!!

Did you know ...

As you walk up the steps to the Capitol Building which houses the Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view it is Moses and the Ten Commandments!

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.  As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall right above where the Supreme Court judges sit a display of the Ten Commandments!

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher...whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

ALL PUBLIC PLACES, ALL FUNDED WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

Now what were you saying about the courts not allowing religious displays in government facilities?

BTW, added a link to a ruling you CLAIMED never existed. Not sure what was more pathetic, your challenge or how EASY it was to prove you wrong.

Guess that backs up another argument I made, YOU ARE NOT VERY GOOD AT THIS DEBATE THING



-- Modified on 1/17/2012 6:40:10 AM

As if any more was needed! LMAO!  As for the difference between the banner and a book, I've already explained it but you are too dense to comprehend that a book on a shelf somewhere is not the same as a public banner that's in front of everyone.  As for "In God We Trust" I was the one to point it out as an inconsistency, not you.  But I also pointed out such court cases do not validate things like the banner case, a subtle distinction you are too idiotic to comprehend.  I give up now, not because you've made any case at all, but because you are too stupid to debate (a new cateogry, invented just for your lame ass.)

talks about the inconsistency of the courts, and then uses them to back up his arguments!!!

And who said the book had to be in a library. Try putting a bible on display in a school. Just because it is on display does not mean it is suddenly not a book. DUH!!!

Your ignorance is amazing!!! You say that these cases do not validate the banner case and argue that is because the banner case is a public display of religion in everyones' faces. I show you tons of examples where the court had backed these types of displays like the cross on federal land, basically the EXACT SAME THING, and you say they are not.

Man, if you can't see the relationship between these, it is NO WONDER you don't comprehend what I am saying.

Go back and read this string again.  Slowly.  Several times.  Perhaps then you'll see what a true lame-brain you are.  But I doubt it.  You might also try Reading Comprehension 101, which you clearly have failed in the past.

You replied to MY post, not me to yours, so take your own advice and see where I originally stood.

GEEZ, You  better hurry up before your mom catches you on the board!!

-- Modified on 1/18/2012 10:57:10 AM