|
Cramming Religion Down Throats
....I think I'd rather have a Mormon come to my door and leave when politely asked:
http://www.cbn.com/tv/1509282970001 John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/15/2013 11:12 AM, John H wrote:
....I think I'd rather have a Mormon come to my door and leave when politely asked: http://www.cbn.com/tv/1509282970001 John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! You know what they do when they catch folks like Harry? Let's just say, Harry would be pecking away at his keyboard with a pencil in his mouth. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:12:42 AM UTC-5, John H wrote:
...I think I'd rather have a Mormon come to my door and leave when politely asked: http://www.cbn.com/tv/1509282970001 John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! When I saw the title of the post I was actually thinking of this, John. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/politi...food-pantries/ This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/15/13, 8:57 PM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:12:42 AM UTC-5, John H wrote: ...I think I'd rather have a Mormon come to my door and leave when politely asked: http://www.cbn.com/tv/1509282970001 John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! When I saw the title of the post I was actually thinking of this, John. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/politi...food-pantries/ This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/15/13, 8:57 PM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:12:42 AM UTC-5, John H wrote: ...I think I'd rather have a Mormon come to my door and leave when politely asked: http://www.cbn.com/tv/1509282970001 John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! When I saw the title of the post I was actually thinking of this, John. http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/14/politi...food-pantries/ This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:35:43 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? You didn't read the article. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/16/13, 7:05 AM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:35:43 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? You didn't read the article. Sure I did. My question stands. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:44:21 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/16/13, 7:05 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:35:43 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? You didn't read the article. Sure I did. My question stands. And my answer is... 'no' Now the point I'm making is I'd like to know why the furloughed gov't employees aren't flocking to the gov't programs for food? Because they're not available? or maybe it takes too long and too much red tape for assistance? When people are hungry they need fed. That's what churches do. feed people. Body first and soul second. Prov. 22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor. James 2:14- 17 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless. I'm sure you'll try to find some spiritual trade-offs for food and clothing in there, Harry But there aren't any. So, now that you've read my questions, they stand as well. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/16/13, 8:37 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:44:21 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 7:05 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:35:43 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? You didn't read the article. Sure I did. My question stands. And my answer is... 'no' Now the point I'm making is I'd like to know why the furloughed gov't employees aren't flocking to the gov't programs for food? Because they're not available? or maybe it takes too long and too much red tape for assistance? When people are hungry they need fed. That's what churches do. feed people. Body first and soul second. Prov. 22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor. James 2:14- 17 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless. I'm sure you'll try to find some spiritual trade-offs for food and clothing in there, Harry But there aren't any. So, now that you've read my questions, they stand as well. Most food banks are not operated by government agencies. So long as religion isn't piled on the plate with the food, I tip my hat to religious organizations that feed the hungry. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:18:49 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/16/13, 8:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:44:21 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 7:05 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:35:43 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? You didn't read the article. Sure I did. My question stands. And my answer is... 'no' Now the point I'm making is I'd like to know why the furloughed gov't employees aren't flocking to the gov't programs for food? Because they're not available? or maybe it takes too long and too much red tape for assistance? When people are hungry they need fed. That's what churches do. feed people. Body first and soul second. Prov. 22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor. James 2:14- 17 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless. I'm sure you'll try to find some spiritual trade-offs for food and clothing in there, Harry But there aren't any. So, now that you've read my questions, they stand as well. Most food banks are not operated by government agencies. Well then, why not? So long as religion isn't piled on the plate with the food, I tip my hat to religious organizations that feed the hungry. You mean in the same way that if a church or religious institution is to be used as a polling place they should cover up any crosses or icons? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/16/13, 9:36 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:18:49 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 8:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:44:21 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 7:05 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:35:43 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? You didn't read the article. Sure I did. My question stands. And my answer is... 'no' Now the point I'm making is I'd like to know why the furloughed gov't employees aren't flocking to the gov't programs for food? Because they're not available? or maybe it takes too long and too much red tape for assistance? When people are hungry they need fed. That's what churches do. feed people. Body first and soul second. Prov. 22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor. James 2:14- 17 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless. I'm sure you'll try to find some spiritual trade-offs for food and clothing in there, Harry But there aren't any. So, now that you've read my questions, they stand as well. Most food banks are not operated by government agencies. Well then, why not? So long as religion isn't piled on the plate with the food, I tip my hat to religious organizations that feed the hungry. You mean in the same way that if a church or religious institution is to be used as a polling place they should cover up any crosses or icons? I am absolutely opposed to any religious building being used as a polling place, and I fought against that in Florida. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:03:45 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/16/13, 9:36 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:18:49 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 8:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:44:21 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 7:05 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:35:43 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? You didn't read the article. Sure I did. My question stands. And my answer is... 'no' Now the point I'm making is I'd like to know why the furloughed gov't employees aren't flocking to the gov't programs for food? Because they're not available? or maybe it takes too long and too much red tape for assistance? When people are hungry they need fed. That's what churches do. feed people. Body first and soul second. Prov. 22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor. James 2:14- 17 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless. I'm sure you'll try to find some spiritual trade-offs for food and clothing in there, Harry But there aren't any. So, now that you've read my questions, they stand as well. Most food banks are not operated by government agencies. Well then, why not? So long as religion isn't piled on the plate with the food, I tip my hat to religious organizations that feed the hungry. You mean in the same way that if a church or religious institution is to be used as a polling place they should cover up any crosses or icons? I am absolutely opposed to any religious building being used as a polling place, and I fought against that in Florida. Now that's being a champion of a cause, I guess. So why should church's and religious institutions are 'dangerous' then why should they be allowed to feed and cloth those who are without? That is the governments job, isn't it? BTW, my questions still stand. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/16/2013 10:03 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/16/13, 9:36 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 8:18:49 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 8:37 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:44:21 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 7:05 AM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 5:35:43 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? You didn't read the article. Sure I did. My question stands. And my answer is... 'no' Now the point I'm making is I'd like to know why the furloughed gov't employees aren't flocking to the gov't programs for food? Because they're not available? or maybe it takes too long and too much red tape for assistance? When people are hungry they need fed. That's what churches do. feed people. Body first and soul second. Prov. 22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor. James 2:14- 17 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless. I'm sure you'll try to find some spiritual trade-offs for food and clothing in there, Harry But there aren't any. So, now that you've read my questions, they stand as well. Most food banks are not operated by government agencies. Well then, why not? So long as religion isn't piled on the plate with the food, I tip my hat to religious organizations that feed the hungry. You mean in the same way that if a church or religious institution is to be used as a polling place they should cover up any crosses or icons? I am absolutely opposed to any religious building being used as a polling place, and I fought against that in Florida. The battle between good and evil continues. Harry, you are making a fool of yourself. Carryon. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 22:57:43 -0400, Hank©
wrote: Harry, you are making a fool of yourself. Carry on. === But you have to admire his expertise... :=) |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:34:36 PM UTC-4, Hank© wrote:
You know what they do when they catch folks like Harry? Let's just say, Harry would be pecking away at his keyboard with a pencil in his mouth. No, coward krause would try to figure out a way to say that they invaded his house so he could shoot them with his Roy Rogers Cap Gun !! |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 10:03:45 PM UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
I am absolutely opposed to any religious building being used as a polling place, and I fought against that in Florida. Was that after you ripped people off and went bankrupt there , or before?? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/2013 12:07 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 22:57:43 -0400, Hank© wrote: Harry, you are making a fool of yourself. Carry on. === But you have to admire his expertise... :=) Did you mean to say acknowledge? AFAIK only Don White admires Krause the louse. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/16/13, 10:39 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:03:45 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 9:36 PM, Tim wrote: You mean in the same way that if a church or religious institution is to be used as a polling place they should cover up any crosses or icons? I am absolutely opposed to any religious building being used as a polling place, and I fought against that in Florida. Now that's being a champion of a cause, I guess. So why should church's and religious institutions are 'dangerous' then why should they be allowed to feed and cloth those who are without? That is the governments job, isn't it? BTW, my questions still stand. I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
|
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/2013 7:42 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/16/13, 10:39 PM, Tim wrote: On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 9:03:45 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/16/13, 9:36 PM, Tim wrote: You mean in the same way that if a church or religious institution is to be used as a polling place they should cover up any crosses or icons? I am absolutely opposed to any religious building being used as a polling place, and I fought against that in Florida. Now that's being a champion of a cause, I guess. So why should church's and religious institutions are 'dangerous' then why should they be allowed to feed and cloth those who are without? That is the governments job, isn't it? BTW, my questions still stand. I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. Oh poo poo Harry. You have no problem violating things, fer instance IRS rules, the trust of those with whom you do business, etc. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/2013 7:56 AM, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On 10/16/13, 1:31 AM, Tim wrote: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50:59 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: This is what us rightie-Christian-fundies do. If people are hungry we feed them regardless of who they are. And you know, it seems that nobody accuses us of 'shoving' religion down their throats especially when they have their mouths full. No religion accompanying the meals, eh? I didn't say that. you did. - - - You're proselytizing the hungry, eh? It is all about choice. If those who want to be fed aren't willing to listen a little bit of talking while they are eating then they are free to choose to go somewhere elese and get their food. You are pro-choice aren't you? Or, are you only pro-choice when it comes to pregnancy? Democrats are only pro choice when it keeps them from accountability.... |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:42:46 AM UTC-4, F.O.A.D. wrote:
I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. Krause telling us what is " inappropriate"...too much ****. **** off Krause...go squeeze your pustules, you ****ing slug. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. For the average citizen, nothing is more "statelike" than voting for public officials, and that voting should take place in politically neutral places, like public schools, fire stations, public libraries, et cetera. A church is not a politically neutral place. When I lived in Virginia, we voted at a firehouse. Here, our polling place is the activities room of a public grammar school. It took me several years and the threat of a lawsuit to get our polling place in Florida moved out of an extremist fundamentalist church. Even a supermarket would have been a more appropriate place. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/2013 6:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? He has been getting pretty sick here lately. Wishing death, having sexual fantasies about children, and encouraging gun play in churches.... Most have stopped talking to him, he is getting desperate.. if we keep it up, alt.kooks will likely be unleashed on us yet again:) |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
Tim wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
It took me several years and the threat of a lawsuit to get our polling place in Florida moved out of an extremist fundamentalist church. Even a supermarket would have been a more appropriate place. Now that your life's work is done, what's next? |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/2013 6:31 PM, Tim wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Because he's a sicko. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/17/2013 6:54 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:19:43 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:17 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment? How can voting at a church or religios facility violate the right of and for a US citizen to lawfully bear arms? First amendment...my mistake. Yeah, great idea...take your guns to church, and if the preacher gets him wrong, why, just shoot him and everyone else you can. Terrific. Why would you encourage foul gun play? Sarcasm, Sickism. |
Cramming Religion Down Throats
|
Cramming Religion Down Throats
|
Cramming Religion Down Throats
On 10/18/13, 5:41 PM, Califbill wrote:
iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 10/17/2013 6:38 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:28 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:24 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: On 10/17/13, 6:11 PM, Tim wrote: On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:46 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote: I didn't say religious polling places were "dangerous," you did. But I do believe they are completely inappropriate as polling places for several reasons, including my feeling that voting at a church is a violation of the Second Amendment. In other words.."Dangerous" Why are you looking for "other words" when I provided the exact word: *inappropriate* ? Why are you equating the word "inappropriate" with the word "dangerous"? inappropriate: Not appropriate; unsuitable to the particular case; unfitting, improper. dangerous: Fraught with danger or risk; causing or occasioning danger; perilous, hazardous, risky, unsafe. Do you think these words are synonyms? What would be considered "inappropriate" about casting a vote inside a building dedicated as a house of worship? Is it because some one just might receive religious leanings there? If that be the case, the in you're view I'd think that 'dangerous' would be a term deemed appropriate. It is inappropriate because it mocks the wall that is supposed to exist between church and state. What wall, show me that in the constitution.. this "wall"... Gee, never heard of seperation of church and state, eh? Where does it say there will be no religion contact to government in the constitution? The Constitution and the founders stated there would be no state religion. You forget they mention God a few times in the founding documents. You don't understand the 1st Amendment or the disdain many of the founding fathers had for religion. And what has god to do with religion, assuming for the moment there were a god? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com