|
Holiday Music
On 12/26/15 4:28 PM, Tim wrote:
2:00 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. ....... They don't seem to infringe on mine... Religious displays on public property infringe on the Constitutional right of the separation of church and state. |
Holiday Music
On 12/26/15 4:34 PM, Califbill wrote:
Tim wrote: 2:00 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. ....... They don't seem to infringe on mine... Plus was not the government that put up the display, except for the maybe the government is the people. And all religions seem to be able to install a display. Even the religion of Atheism. The Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. By erecting the 10 commandments or a cross on public property, that clause is violated. |
Holiday Music
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/26/2015 1:54 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:42:41 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:31:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:39:22 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:34:35 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 1:44 PM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 10:38 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:33:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: The best of the best: El?na Garan?a Cantique de Noel http://tinyurl.com/j64ruwf Enjoy! Why thanks, Harry. That's not my favorite rendition of 'Oh Holy Night', but your thoughtfulness is appreciated. I was trying to think of something you would appreciate, and here is the best I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmwAD7nHqaY Enjoy! -- Ban idiots, not guns! I'm not an atheist, John, but thank you for the kind thoughts. Gosh, I keep thinking only an atheist could continuously write the anti-religious rhetoric you come up with. -- Ban idiots, not guns! There are significant differences among agnostics, atheists, and anti-religionists. Yes, Agnostics mind their own business about it. Atheists stay offended like you or are you calling yourself anti religionist (which is probably more accurate anyway) 'Anti-religionistists' is a new one on me. I suppose most atheists would fall in that category. I thought it describes a lot of people perfectly. They live to ridicule other people's most deeply held beliefs and rid their universe of any reminders that people think differently than they do. . Anti-Religionists see the horrors religion has perpetrated on mankind over the centuries and recognize them for what they are - horrors perpetrated by religious beliefs. As in, "my religion is better than your religion, so you have to die." I understand a fast-growing segment of society in much of the modern world is Non-Religionists, people who might believe in a creator but want nothing to do with "organized" religion. I can appreciate how that would make sense for many people who want to believe in a god but whose stomachs are turned by the behavior of those with "religious beliefs." The difference is, you equate a crèche at the park with a muslim beheading. Talk about false equivalencies. wbullshi I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Being "offended" by a display of a traditional custom or even a discussion of anything they don't believe in is the new, progressive liberal fad. If you don't believe or agree with it, ban it. Hint: It's easier to just ignore it and let those who enjoy it ... do so. No fights, no arguments, no hostilities or bad feelings. True. |
Holiday Music
wrote:
On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 3:29:34 PM UTC-5, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:03:11 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:42:41 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/26/15 11:10 AM, wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 08:31:53 -0500, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 21:39:22 -0500, wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 14:34:35 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 1:44 PM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:18:57 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 12/25/15 10:38 AM, John H. wrote: On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 09:33:40 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: The best of the best: El?na Garan?a Cantique de Noel http://tinyurl.com/j64ruwf Enjoy! Why thanks, Harry. That's not my favorite rendition of 'Oh Holy Night', but your thoughtfulness is appreciated. I was trying to think of something you would appreciate, and here is the best I could find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmwAD7nHqaY Enjoy! -- Ban idiots, not guns! I'm not an atheist, John, but thank you for the kind thoughts. Gosh, I keep thinking only an atheist could continuously write the anti-religious rhetoric you come up with. -- Ban idiots, not guns! There are significant differences among agnostics, atheists, and anti-religionists. Yes, Agnostics mind their own business about it. Atheists stay offended like you or are you calling yourself anti religionist (which is probably more accurate anyway) 'Anti-religionistists' is a new one on me. I suppose most atheists would fall in that category. I thought it describes a lot of people perfectly. They live to ridicule other people's most deeply held beliefs and rid their universe of any reminders that people think differently than they do. . Anti-Religionists see the horrors religion has perpetrated on mankind over the centuries and recognize them for what they are - horrors perpetrated by religious beliefs. As in, "my religion is better than your religion, so you have to die." I understand a fast-growing segment of society in much of the modern world is Non-Religionists, people who might believe in a creator but want nothing to do with "organized" religion. I can appreciate how that would make sense for many people who want to believe in a god but whose stomachs are turned by the behavior of those with "religious beliefs." The difference is, you equate a crèche at the park with a muslim beheading. Talk about false equivalencies. wbullshi I will keep this in mind the next time you are griping about a 10 commandments rock in front of a city hall somewhere in Mississippi and tell us how it is infringing on your rights. Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. === Which of the ten commandments infringe on your rights? They've always seemed sort of common sense to me. Thou shalt not steal? -From the government (taxpayers) or debtors? He'll have the latest iPhone until they catch up with him. |
Holiday Music
Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. So "In God We Trust" on your money should prevent you from handing it to a store clerk for your ammo or cheeseburgers, right? |
Holiday Music
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/26/15 4:34 PM, Califbill wrote: Tim wrote: 2:00 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. ....... They don't seem to infringe on mine... Plus was not the government that put up the display, except for the maybe the government is the people. And all religions seem to be able to install a display. Even the religion of Atheism. The Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. By erecting the 10 commandments or a cross on public property, that clause is violated. You would be in your right to sue but they might want their tax money back if you started a ruckus. You might want to settle your debts before you form an opinion. |
Holiday Music
Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Establishment cause did not ban religion! Founding fathers even used under God. Stated there would not be a State Religion established. Vis a vis Church of England. |
Holiday Music
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 12/26/15 4:34 PM, Califbill wrote: Tim wrote: 2:00 PMKeyser Söze - show quoted text - Such a display infringes on everyone's rights. ....... They don't seem to infringe on mine... Plus was not the government that put up the display, except for the maybe the government is the people. And all religions seem to be able to install a display. Even the religion of Atheism. The Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. By erecting the 10 commandments or a cross on public property, that clause is violated. Did the government put up the religious display? Or did they just supply a place? |
Holiday Music
On 12/26/2015 7:44 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time. I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in this country. But not outrageously offended. Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it? That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective. Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who drive around the country trying to be offended. "Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the Constitution. Horse****. It's nothing more than an extreme interpretation by liberals that forbids political control of the country by a religious organization or group. You are so "offended". What a joke. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com