|
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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"ESAD" wrote in message
m... 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. -------------------------- Supreme courts interpretations seem to morf over the years. Constitution and the framers said there would not be a state religion. And that the government should just stay out of the religious business. Not that the people could not use public (the peoples) facilities for religious purposes. There would be no state ordained religion. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... On 12/7/2012 5:41 PM, Califbill wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: 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. 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... ------------------ It may be hate and intolerance, but they have the same rights to speech as do those of a religious bent. Getting such banned, should not be, but they have the right to speak against religion. But not chase it down to shut it down and no other reason... They are sick bullies, pure and simple. Not confident enough with their own beliefs to stand strong without attacking others. Very weak people indeed. Gee, do you think that if some atheists put up a display that told people the atrocities of Christanity and that it's all a lie that Christians would just let it go?? Ever hear of Westboro? http://tinyurl.com/aey4u3v http://tinyurl.com/8bbjbz7 Let's see, Christians hate homosexuals, lesbians, Buddists, Muslims, any and all other religions, atheists, agnostics. They believe that all humans are sinners and deserve to be tortured for all eternity and the only solution to that IS Christianity. In other words, Christians tell everyone that they are horrible and that you should be tortured mercilessly because you are so horrible, but if you dedicate your like to worshiping [insert you favorite fictional character], you can be forgiven for being such a horrible person. Chic-fil-a fired a person because that person didn't want to participate in group prayer. Yeah, that's tolerant! -------------------- Private business, not government. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"ESAD" wrote in message
... On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message m... On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: 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. 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. Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs. -------------------- The Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state religion. Nothing about not using public facilities. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... 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... You ****ing moron!!!! If it's on State property it is state sponsorship! Are you really too stupid to understand that? ----------------- You sound like a communist. The STATE PROPERTY. It is public property. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/12 2:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
"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. I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country of origin. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote:
"ESAD" wrote in message ... On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message m... On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: 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. 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. Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs. -------------------- The Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state religion. Nothing about not using public facilities. Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of the charlatan believers. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/2012 2:58 PM, Califbill wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... On 12/7/2012 5:41 PM, Califbill wrote: "JustWait" wrote in message ... On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: 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. 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... ------------------ It may be hate and intolerance, but they have the same rights to speech as do those of a religious bent. Getting such banned, should not be, but they have the right to speak against religion. But not chase it down to shut it down and no other reason... They are sick bullies, pure and simple. Not confident enough with their own beliefs to stand strong without attacking others. Very weak people indeed. Gee, do you think that if some atheists put up a display that told people the atrocities of Christanity and that it's all a lie that Christians would just let it go?? Ever hear of Westboro? http://tinyurl.com/aey4u3v http://tinyurl.com/8bbjbz7 Let's see, Christians hate homosexuals, lesbians, Buddists, Muslims, any and all other religions, atheists, agnostics. They believe that all humans are sinners and deserve to be tortured for all eternity and the only solution to that IS Christianity. Your dilusions are hilarious... and sad at the same time. Must suck to harbor so much hate you are willing to lie just to try to justify your own selfishness and lack of moral core... In other words, Christians tell everyone that they are horrible and that you should be tortured mercilessly because you are so horrible, but if you dedicate your like to worshiping [insert you favorite fictional character], you can be forgiven for being such a horrible person. Chic-fil-a fired a person because that person didn't want to participate in group prayer. Yeah, that's tolerant! -------------------- Private business, not government. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/2012 1:33 PM, Meyer wrote:
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. Nope, you are too stupid to understand Christian, is not a Religion... Freedom of speech is for everybody, not just the folks you are afraid of... 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
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... |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/12 3:46 PM, JustWait wrote:
Nope, you are too stupid to understand Christian, is not a Religion... Isn't that something that nighttime asshole on Fox claims, Bill O'raly? Your ignorance is just incredible. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
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... |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/7/2012 7:16 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 12/7/12 10:55 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:31:35 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: 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. Then why do they go state to state, town to town chasing Christians where ever they are? Most times suing towns and organizations when not one person from that town or org is even involved or complaining, only the lawyers from San Fransisco? Because they "do" care about "my" religion and my right to celebrate it with my friends and family and country... They are just hateful bullys, using lies and any other underhanded, backhanded, cowardly way to get what they want. 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? Here, Kevin: About 5,670,000 results (0.17 seconds) Search Results Home - Freedom From Religion Foundation ffrf.org/FFRF takes IRS to court to enforce church electioneering ban ... Portlanders to their ?friendly neighborhood atheists? was defaced recently. ... Non-Belief Relief ... Atheist group sues IRS for failing to enforce church electioneering ... http://www.rawstory.com/.../atheist-...r-failing-to-e... Churches *should* be called on the carpet for electioneering. I wasn't aware there was a Freedom *from* Religion Foundation. Sounds like a great idea. Here it is... http://ffrf.org/ Why are you shoveling religion? You certainly don't practice the preaching of your savior. Churches have just as much right to push their beliefs as any other tax exempt organization. Harry, are you a tax exempt organization? Is that why you didn't pay your taxes? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/2012 4:08 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 12/7/2012 7:16 PM, BAR wrote: In article , says... On 12/7/12 10:55 AM, GuzzisRule wrote: On Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:31:35 -0500, iBoaterer wrote: 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. Then why do they go state to state, town to town chasing Christians where ever they are? Most times suing towns and organizations when not one person from that town or org is even involved or complaining, only the lawyers from San Fransisco? Because they "do" care about "my" religion and my right to celebrate it with my friends and family and country... They are just hateful bullys, using lies and any other underhanded, backhanded, cowardly way to get what they want. Atheists aren't imposing their beliefs on anyone...there are no door to door atheist. Yes there are... they go from the door of one town hall, town to town, looking for Christians to attack... 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? Here, Kevin: About 5,670,000 results (0.17 seconds) Search Results Home - Freedom From Religion Foundation ffrf.org/FFRF takes IRS to court to enforce church electioneering ban ... Portlanders to their ?friendly neighborhood atheists? was defaced recently. ... Non-Belief Relief ... Atheist group sues IRS for failing to enforce church electioneering ... http://www.rawstory.com/.../atheist-...r-failing-to-e... Churches *should* be called on the carpet for electioneering. I wasn't aware there was a Freedom *from* Religion Foundation. Sounds like a great idea. Here it is... http://ffrf.org/ Why are you shoveling religion? You certainly don't practice the preaching of your savior. Churches have just as much right to push their beliefs as any other tax exempt organization. Harry, are you a tax exempt organization? Is that why you didn't pay your taxes? |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message ... On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message m... On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: 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. 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. Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs. -------------------- The Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state religion. Nothing about not using public facilities. Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of the charlatan believers. As a matter of fact it say "Congress shall make no law." |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
|
Bob Costas speaks the truth
In article ,
says... On 12/8/12 2:50 PM, Califbill wrote: "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. I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country of origin. Unless they are Black Muslims, Korean dentists and others. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
|
Bob Costas speaks the truth
Is skipping that wedding something Jesus would want you to do? Do you understand that just asking that question itself shows how ignorant you are about the subject.. Sorry, I just don't care enough to tell you why... Guess I am a bad Christian:)... ----------------------------------- 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. I don't care who people marry or what color people are or their country of origin. Unless they are Black Muslims, Korean dentists and others. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message ... On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message m... On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: 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. 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. Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs. -------------------- The Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state religion. Nothing about not using public facilities. Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of the charlatan believers. Non Christian's also use public facilities. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
ESAD wrote:
On 12/8/12 2:50 PM, Califbill wrote: "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. 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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/12 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote: On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message ... On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message m... On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: 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. 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. Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs. -------------------- The Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state religion. Nothing about not using public facilities. Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of the charlatan believers. Non Christian's also use public facilities. The objection is to using public facilities for religious purposes or to promote religion. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
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. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
On 12/8/2012 8:48 PM, Califbill wrote:
ESAD wrote: On 12/8/12 3:00 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message ... On 12/7/12 5:42 PM, Califbill wrote: "ESAD" wrote in message m... On 12/6/12 4:42 PM, JustWait wrote: On 12/6/2012 4:30 PM, Califbill wrote: 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. 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. Actually, they belong to the people, and the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings since say you cannot use the public schools or facilities to push religious beliefs. -------------------- The Establishment Clause in the Constitution says there will not be a state religion. Nothing about not using public facilities. Please. Save your interpretations for Herring, Snotty, and the rest of the charlatan believers. Better than you and your KKK brothers.... Non Christian's also use public facilities. |
Bob Costas speaks the truth
BAR wrote:
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! That's a great idea isn't it Harry? He doesn't respond when he's called out as a ****ing deadbeat. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com