|
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article , earl8131
@hotmail.com says... BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/6/12 10:21 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/6/2012 10:00 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/6/2012 1:30 PM, Califbill wrote: Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to door missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just close the door in their face. They are using the courts to enforce the constitution. Show me where it says "freedom from religion"?? You have no understanding of the Constitution or the "separation" clause, so why should anyone bother to "show" you a thing. If we use your interpretation of the Constitution and the laws we may end up with a tax lien on our property or we may even be sued by the government for non-payment of taxes. You should put the deed in you wife's name if you are going to screw the government out of taxes you owe! It is. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:42:38 -0500, ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20 witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do not expect society to pay for your medical bills. ----------------- dang Ipad and the spelling corrections. You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a 'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham. Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want you to do? Yes. He also would want me to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. He didn't like deadbeats, Krause. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/12 12:28 PM, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 08:42:38 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20 witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do not expect society to pay for your medical bills. ----------------- dang Ipad and the spelling corrections. You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a 'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham. Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want you to do? Yes. He also would want me to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. He didn't like deadbeats, Krause. snerk |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:19:23 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20 witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do not expect society to pay for your medical bills. ----------------- dang Ipad and the spelling corrections. You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a 'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham. Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want you to do? He pays his taxes, unlike you. How do you know that? We know each other. So. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 11:03:34 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote:
On Sat, 08 Dec 2012 07:21:21 -0500, ESAD wrote: On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else... That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the public schools. Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring one religion over another. It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools or onto public facilities. ---------------------------- Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the Atheists. And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your own. So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all... It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot. What an anti-Constitution asshole, huh? Forgot the link so you could see who I meant! http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slides...?1354836651271 Federal property, federal employee, conducting federal business. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/2012 11:22 AM, ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 9:58 AM, JustWait wrote: On 12/8/2012 9:27 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/7/12 11:24 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/7/2012 10:24 PM, thumper wrote: On 12/7/2012 2:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: Atheists are bullying Christians all over the country. Putting up nasty posters to mock and just kill Christian freedom of speech at Nativities and such, even going as far as taking the word God from a 6 year olds poem to her granny at a school function, and getting "A Charlie Brown Christmas" banned... This is just intolerance and hate, nothing else... That's yet another crock of crap. Atheists are not bullying anyone. You want a Nativity scene? Fine. Put it up on your front lawn or on your church's lawn, but not on the lawn of a public school or in a public park. There is no place for religious functions or displays in the public schools. Note, however, there is little objection to public college courses teaching "comparative religions," so long as the teaching isn't favoring one religion over another. It is intolerant to force your religious views onto the public schools or onto public facilities. ---------------------------- Those public facilities belong to the religious as well as to the Atheists. And that doesn't entitle either to state sponsorship. Do it on your own. So what does putting up a Christmas Tree, or Playing A Charlie Brown Christmas have to do with State Sponsorship? Nothing, nothing at all... It does if the tree is put up on public property, idiot. No it doesn't, asshole... Sure it does. A Christmas tree has evolved to become the symbol of Christmas, the alleged time of the birth of Jesus, a religious figure. The tree is not a symbol of wintertime or the coming of the new year. It is a Christian religious symbol, just like Jesus, for who it is named. When the tree is put up in front of a public school or in a public park, et cetera, the implication is that the government supports/sponsors that religion. Such support is not Constitutional. It isn't my problem that you are too stupid to understand the principle. Oh, and for consistency's sake, I am opposed to the "national" Christmas tree in downtown DC, along with any other religious symbolism supported/sponsored by government. I don't think the POTUS should be engaged in supporting such religious celebrations if they are sponsored/supported by the government. These beliefs have nothing to do with agnosticism or atheism, by the way. You should write a letter to the prez-e-dent stating said opposition. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article 610427301376509105.183778bmckeenospam- , says... ESAD wrote: On 12/6/12 7:46 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Funny post, really, and it shows how disconnected you are. Please explain how liberals have made marriage a sham and while you are at it, tell how atheists are "imposing" their beliefs. Atheists don't give a damn about your religious beliefs so long as you don't try to impose them on others. Atheists aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone...there are no door to door atheist. Atheists are using the court to enforce their beliefs. The door to door missionary is at least honest about their views, and you can just close the door in their face. Cite? ----------------- Can not help since you are intellectually lazy. As expected, you have NOTHING. --------------------------------- Nope, probably a better degree than you. I do not need to do your work. You need to do a little work to defend your thesis. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"GuzzisRule" wrote in message
... On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20 witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do not expect society to pay for your medical bills. ----------------- dang Ipad and the spelling corrections. You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a 'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham. ----------------------------- It is supposed to be a free country. If you pay your taxes, do not force your views on someone else, and the partners are not children and are in agreement, then just let it be. Does not concern most of us, except maybe in your views, but their views are allowable also. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"ESAD" wrote in message
m... On 12/8/12 8:39 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:40:34 -0800, "Califbill" wrote: "Califbill" wrote in message ... GuzzisRule wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:55:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 11:03:07 -0500, GuzzisRule wrote: This article sums it up pretty well. Of course, I didn't write it, but hopefully you'll get the drift. http://tinyurl.com/a3a6gfy Sorry you're disappointed, but it's not the first time and probably won't be the last. ==== Judging from that article I'd have to say that the author, and probably you, share some confusion about the difference between values, religious beliefs and political beliefs. Sometimes reasonable people with high values have to agree to disagree. More importantly, it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others and then accuse them of lacking "values". Other than, possibly, the first one, there is nothing religious there. I don't consider the first one a religious position. 'Marriage' was an institution that had some meaning. Now liberals, especially, have made it a sham. And, I agree that 'it is 'it is inappropriate to try and impose your religious beliefs on others', and that includes atheists imposing theirs. If you can't read that and determine what 'values' are being discussed, then I can understand your comments. Religious beliefs are fine. Just do not force them on others, but likewise, others should not infringe your religious freedoms. And marriage has been different things through the years. Lots of the profits in the bible had multiple wives. In the 1800's you could marry multiple spouses in Texas, Alabama and another regions also. And not even have to be Mormon. Texas about we're married if you announced it in front of 20 witness's or signed in to a hotel as Mr. And Mrs. No church or state involved. It is supposed to be a free country. You want to marry same sex? Go for it. Just do not require the rest of unto pay for your lifestyle. Same goes for most drugs, do them, die if that happens, but do not expect society to pay for your medical bills. ----------------- dang Ipad and the spelling corrections. You've referred several times to differences in the number of wives. Not a lot of instances in the bible of male prophets marrying other males, goats, or whatever. Ditto with Texas, Alabama, and other regions. I have a gay niece living with her girlfriend. They will probably invite me to a 'wedding' soon. I won't attend because I think the 'ceremony' is a sham. Obviously you will be a hate-filled asshole until the day you die, and probably thereafter. Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want you to do? ----------------------------------- You seem to be the hate filled asshole. Herring has his views, and as long as he does not force them on others, that is OK. If you do not like the idea of a gay partnership, then it is ok to pass on the ceremony. Same as passing on most others ideas that are abhorrent to oneself. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com