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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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?

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."

In article ,
says...

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.

You didn't have an understanding of law in general and tax law
specifically until the IRS hauled your deadbeat ass into court and gave
you an education.