Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 4:03 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 2:56 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1278725896376618279.354367bmckeenospam-
, says...

ESAD wrote:
On 12/7/12 5:37 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article 1635163131376547539.158933bmckeenospam-
, says...

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.

Debatable. The constitution does not say there will not be
religion.
Basically it states there will not be "state religion" ala Church of
England. God is even referenced in the Declaration of Independence.
Religious people also have a right to use public property. It is
also
owned by them. This a government of, by, and for the people. Even
atheists can have a display on public property.

Ever hear of separation of church and state?


----------------------------
yup. Where does it state that in the Constitution?


In the first amendment and in interpretations by the supreme court,
neither of which you've probably read for comprehension.

The supremes have made conflicting interpretations over the years. The
first states there will not be State Religion. Even congress has
priests.

Do you really think it would be a good thing to have The Church run our
country without checks and balances? That's stupid.


------------------------

Where did I say that? The constitution states that the government will
be hands off religion. Not that there will be no religion.


You never did say that. But because he is an atheist with no moral core,
he will keep saying it. Doesn't matter to him what is right and wrong,
as long as he gets his govt check...


You two are really rocket scientists. Really. Ka-boom.

Does Calvert County know about the modifications and additions you have
made to your house. Meaning, did you get permits pulled so that you
taxes can be raised for the perceived increase in value to your
landlord's property? I wouldn't want you to be in a conspiracy to commit
tax fraud.

What difference does it make, he doesn't pay his taxes anyway!!

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article , says...

On 12/8/2012 3:04 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

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.


----------------------
Only if put up by the government and paid for by the government. And
only one religious viewpoint allowed.


They couldn't show where the Constitution said "freedom from religion",
so now they are on to the next red herring. Fact is, they hate anybody
who doesn't devolve to their own selfish lifestyle, and are willing to
do anything to avoid facing the fact that they just selfish haters...

I'm selfish because I know that Christianity is a hateful religion?

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:49 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/8/2012 3:04 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message
m...

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.


----------------------
Only if put up by the government and paid for by the government. And
only one religious viewpoint allowed.


They couldn't show where the Constitution said "freedom from religion",
so now they are on to the next red herring. Fact is, they hate anybody
who doesn't devolve to their own selfish lifestyle, and are willing to
do anything to avoid facing the fact that they just selfish haters...


Neither of you have any understanding of the Constitution. Not a whit of understanding.

Actually you seem to have little sense of anything meaningful.


It is meaningful to keep church and state separate.

Why is it meaningful?

Do you want to be ruled by a theocracy?

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:


I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country of origin.

Actually you always preach hate at people who come from a country or state
you seem to dislike.



I have little tolerance for most of today's right-wing extremist
politicians and the people who elect them. Many of these right-wing
extremist politicians have shown they don't like women, they don't like
gays, they don't like blacks, they don't like latinos, they don't like
science and yet they are in positions of power and attempt to push their
backwards beliefs on the rest of us. I don't "hate" them, as you claim,
but I have no respect for these politicians or the people who elect
them. I'm glad to see Jim DeMint toddle himself out of the U.S. Senate,
though I suspect the governor of that state will name an interim U.S.
Senator who is just as much a backwards asshole as DeMint.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article , says...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:


I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country of origin.

Actually you always preach hate at people who come from a country or state
you seem to dislike.



I have little tolerance for most of today's right-wing extremist
politicians and the people who elect them. Many of these right-wing
extremist politicians have shown they don't like women, they don't like
gays, they don't like blacks, they don't like latinos, they don't like
science and yet they are in positions of power and attempt to push their
backwards beliefs on the rest of us. I don't "hate" them, as you claim,
but I have no respect for these politicians or the people who elect
them. I'm glad to see Jim DeMint toddle himself out of the U.S. Senate,
though I suspect the governor of that state will name an interim U.S.
Senator who is just as much a backwards asshole as DeMint.

Maybe if your weren't a tax cheat and deadbeat your words would be worth
something. You, Harry, have proved time and again that you are
duplicitous and a liar.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article , says...

On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote:


I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country of origin.

Actually you always preach hate at people who come from a country or state
you seem to dislike.



I have little tolerance for most of today's right-wing extremist
politicians and the people who elect them. Many of these right-wing
extremist politicians have shown they don't like women, they don't like
gays, they don't like blacks, they don't like latinos, they don't like
science and yet they are in positions of power and attempt to push their
backwards beliefs on the rest of us. I don't "hate" them, as you claim,
but I have no respect for these politicians or the people who elect
them. I'm glad to see Jim DeMint toddle himself out of the U.S. Senate,
though I suspect the governor of that state will name an interim U.S.
Senator who is just as much a backwards asshole as DeMint.

I have little tolerance for ANY extremist politicians, left or right.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

"thumper" wrote in message ...

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.

--------------------
If the government only allowed one religion or only atheists to use the
facilities, then that would be sponsorship. Allow all to use them. Around
here the are small churches that rent rooms at the local schools for church
services. The people / Government get revenue, and no state sponsorship of
a religious view.

Harry "The Tax Cheat" Krause and Kevin "Booger" Noble would put a stop
to that.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

"thumper" wrote in message ...

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.

--------------------
If the government only allowed one religion or only atheists to use the
facilities, then that would be sponsorship. Allow all to use them. Around
here the are small churches that rent rooms at the local schools for church
services. The people / Government get revenue, and no state sponsorship of
a religious view.

Harry "The Tax Cheat" Krause and Kevin "Booger" Noble would put a stop
to that.

Everybody's Kevin..... Everybody's Harry..... BOO!

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"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.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

Bob Costas speaks the truth
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:47:49 -0800, "Califbill" wrote:

"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.

I agree. They were both here for a 'Thanksgiving' dinner the week before Thanksgiving. No problem.
But, I won't attend their wedding - if and when it occurs.

You're just a bigoted asshole, Racist John.