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.

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.

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."




Yet your wife went to a Christian college?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.