On 4/24/2013 8:23 PM, Earl wrote:
True North wrote:
I thought Snottie wasn't allowed in the public schools, probably due
to behaviour problems, and had to be 'home schooled'.
Why would you think that and what post are you responding to?

He only said it because he is a cowardly little slob.. I wonder if his
wife got those rabies shots yet? The old whore spent the last few
weekends downtown paying for donnies' beer...

On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 22:11:23 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 4/24/2013 8:23 PM, Earl wrote:

True North wrote:

I thought Snottie wasn't allowed in the public schools, probably due

to behaviour problems, and had to be 'home schooled'.

Why would you think that and what post are you responding to?



He only said it because he is a cowardly little slob.. I wonder if his

wife got those rabies shots yet? The old whore spent the last few

weekends downtown paying for donnies' beer...

There you go again... cementing your reputation as a miserable, nasty, low life, who delights in attacking other poster's innocent family members.
If you only would man-up and put the same effort into finding a real job....

On 4/24/2013 10:20 PM, True North wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 22:11:23 UTC-3, JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On 4/24/2013 8:23 PM, Earl wrote:

True North wrote:

I thought Snottie wasn't allowed in the public schools, probably due

to behaviour problems, and had to be 'home schooled'.

Why would you think that and what post are you responding to?



He only said it because he is a cowardly little slob.. I wonder if his

wife got those rabies shots yet? The old whore spent the last few

weekends downtown paying for donnies' beer...

There you go again... cementing your reputation as a miserable, nasty, low life, who delights in attacking other poster's innocent family members.
If you only would man-up and put the same effort into finding a real job....


And you cement yours as a cowardly little bitch every time you troll me
out, then a crybaby bitch every time I answer back.. LOL **** you
donnie, your family isn't innocent, they obviously enable you... So ****
'em...

On 4/25/13 12:30 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:36:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

They don't seem to understand the difference between tolerance and
"establishment"

If a government advanced one religion to the exclusion of all others,
that is clearly unconstitutional but if they allow the exercise of any
of them it is complying with the actual words on the page.



I don't see where "the government" is allowing or disallowing the
exercise of religion. What is not and should not be allowable is the
exercise of religion on the public's property, and the exercise of
religion includes manger scenes that allegedly depict the birth of the
Jewish fellow the Christians call Jesus.

Where does the 1st amendment say can't allow people to express their
faith on government property?
The congress is not making any law about it.
I have said before they can't favor one over another.
That was the basis for McLeary County
I can understand if they limited it to "free speech" zones that anyone
could use but that might actually be the show stopper if the
particular government did not want to allow other religions to display
their faith.



You're going way off into "tangent land." It's perfectly OK for, say, a
kid in a public school to say a prayer if he or she wants prior to
taking a test or whatever. It is NOT ok for the classroom teacher to
lead such a prayer.

An individual saying a prayer has nothing to do with any religious group
putting up a creche in the front yard of the public school, which should
not be allowed.

It's interesting to me that in this country, it is only christians for
the most part who seem most eager to push their religious beliefs onto
society as a whole through legislation, and who talk about America as a
"christian" nation. I wonder if it is because these sorts of christians
really have doubts about their beliefs and try to find security in
forcing others to believe as they do.

You silly little man.
I don't involve them in any part of the crap in here.
As far as they know, I discuss boating with other boaters...not spending my time flushing out little turds from the head.

On 4/25/13 7:17 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:46:45 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/25/13 12:30 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:36:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Where does the 1st amendment say can't allow people to express their
faith on government property?
The congress is not making any law about it.
I have said before they can't favor one over another.
That was the basis for McLeary County
I can understand if they limited it to "free speech" zones that anyone
could use but that might actually be the show stopper if the
particular government did not want to allow other religions to display
their faith.



You're going way off into "tangent land." It's perfectly OK for, say, a
kid in a public school to say a prayer if he or she wants prior to
taking a test or whatever. It is NOT ok for the classroom teacher to
lead such a prayer.

An individual saying a prayer has nothing to do with any religious group
putting up a creche in the front yard of the public school, which should
not be allowed.

It's interesting to me that in this country, it is only christians for
the most part who seem most eager to push their religious beliefs onto
society as a whole through legislation, and who talk about America as a
"christian" nation. I wonder if it is because these sorts of christians
really have doubts about their beliefs and try to find security in
forcing others to believe as they do.


As long as it is OK for the government to use my tax money to build
stadiums for privately owned and operated sports franchises that I
have no interest in, I think they should be allowed to let religious
people use a little corner of a public park for their passion.


Well, I don't think it is appropriate for governments to be subsidizing
privately owned sports franchises in any way, and especially should not
be building or remodeling sports stadiums for the billionaires who own
the teams.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:20:47 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:

====

To understand what the fuss is about I think you have to put yourself
in the minority view for a minute. For example, what if you lived in
a town that had an Islamic majority, and everywhere you went there
were Islamic religious symbols on display. After a while you would
probably come around to the view that Islam was the "official"
religion and that everything else,

Well, not if you were in America and ever went to school..

====

I think you're forgetting that the purpose of this exercise is to put
yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment. One of the big issues
is that the parents in "other" religions resent having their children
surrounded by christian religious symbols. I think that's
understandable.

Why would Georgetown University be compelled to cover up or remove religious symbols on their
campus when they are a religious institution and working at and attending the school is
voluntary?

On 4/25/2013 7:47 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/25/13 7:17 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:46:45 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/25/13 12:30 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:36:28 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:


Where does the 1st amendment say can't allow people to express their
faith on government property?
The congress is not making any law about it.
I have said before they can't favor one over another.
That was the basis for McLeary County
I can understand if they limited it to "free speech" zones that anyone
could use but that might actually be the show stopper if the
particular government did not want to allow other religions to display
their faith.



You're going way off into "tangent land." It's perfectly OK for, say, a
kid in a public school to say a prayer if he or she wants prior to
taking a test or whatever. It is NOT ok for the classroom teacher to
lead such a prayer.

An individual saying a prayer has nothing to do with any religious group
putting up a creche in the front yard of the public school, which should
not be allowed.

It's interesting to me that in this country, it is only christians for
the most part who seem most eager to push their religious beliefs onto
society as a whole through legislation, and who talk about America as a
"christian" nation. I wonder if it is because these sorts of christians
really have doubts about their beliefs and try to find security in
forcing others to believe as they do.


As long as it is OK for the government to use my tax money to build
stadiums for privately owned and operated sports franchises that I
have no interest in, I think they should be allowed to let religious
people use a little corner of a public park for their passion.


Well, I don't think it is appropriate for governments to be subsidizing
privately owned sports franchises in any way, and especially should not
be building or remodeling sports stadiums for the billionaires who own
the teams.


How about privately own farms, manufacturing entities, special
interests, foreign countries, congressmens pet airports?

In article ,
says...

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 2:15:00 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:22:27 PM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:



No, nothing evil about it. It's that to listen to a Christian, they'll

tell you that it's the end all, it's not to be questioned, and to do so

means that you will be subjected to a very violent death!



Complete BS. Christians can, and do, question their faith all the time. The only thing they tell you about being a non-believer happens *after* your death, it doesn't cause it. Sheesh.



Huh, don't know your bible very well, eh? YOU may be stoned to death!!!

Cite me the last time someone was stoned to death by Christians in the US. Or anywhere on the globe.

Does that include bombings?


Muslims stoned Christians in Dearborn last year.

Bull****.

http://tinyurl.com/ap4zadv

In article ,
says...

On 4/24/2013 12:19 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:56:01 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 4/23/2013 5:29 PM, wrote:


As far as I am concerned, holiday displays celebrate the diversity in
our community and we should accept them all.
That might mean the christians have to tolerate a wiccan display on
halloween tho. Fair is fair.


That's fine... and we won't mock them on Halloween, and they don't mock
us on Christmas. It's not the Christians trying to stop others free
speech, that only seems to go in one direction...

Really?

http://tinyurl.com/ao94hkr

http://tinyurl.com/bcf2ty9

http://tinyurl.com/axkrq9j


It is like the boycott of Chik Fil A, Whole Foods and Walmart isn't
it?

I am not sure how effective boycotts are but they are non-violent,
legal ways to protest.


There is a big difference between mocking and political speech... Was
that kevin posting those apples to our discussion of oranges, sounds
like him?

I don't know what KevinHarryPlume (that name should feed your insanity)
posted but *I* posted directly on topic to your idiotic, stupid, and
ignorant claim that Christians aren't stopping free speech.