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.

In article ,
says...

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.

I don't go to the Church of Christianity, I go to the Roman Catholic
church in my neighborhood. I am not a Christian specifically, I am Roman
Catholic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.