On 12/26/2015 11:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.



Not really. The founding fathers chose "E Pluribus Unum" as the nation's
motto. "In God we Trust" didn't come until later. It was used on some
coins after the Civil War but it wasn't until 1956 when it was adopted
on all coins and paper money.

"Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until then also.

Never knew this ... The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in
1892 by a socialist.

On 12/26/2015 8:01 PM, 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.

Horrors.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:21 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 12/26/15 1:57 PM, wrote:

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.

Any more than a gay rights parade with guys in ass chaps or an art
gallery with religious symbols in ****?

You are really talking about the right to not be offended and the same
article you cite says that right does not exist.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, 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.

Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed
to be placed on public property?
In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise
thereof".

I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court
might rule the other way and it could even be this one.

I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the
"democrat" thing to do I guess.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:58:47 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

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.

I am a lot more concerned with public money being used to promote
sports teams and that borders on a religion..

On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 9:30:30 PM UTC-5, Alex wrote:
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.

Maybe.

- Sent from my iPhone 8++ -

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/26/2015 11:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.



Not really. The founding fathers chose "E Pluribus Unum" as the nation's
motto. "In God we Trust" didn't come until later. It was used on some
coins after the Civil War but it wasn't until 1956 when it was adopted
on all coins and paper money.

"Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until then also.

Never knew this ... The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in
1892 by a socialist.




Sorry, the statement under God was not what I wanted to use. Acknowledging
a god or creator was my intent.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Fantastically written document, the Declaration of Independence. And I do
not think a degree in English was held by any of the signers.

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 18:45:33 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 12/26/2015 5:43 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:35:58 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 12/26/2015 1:54 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
We have prominent christian pastors and lay christians in this country
who sound very much like the bat**** crazy mullahs.


The rev Wright came immediately to mind. Now who studied under him for
20 sumpin years? Think hard Krowsie baby.

===

Isn't he the one who wanted to kill all the white devils?

Wright or his student?

Both?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:50:11 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, 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.

Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed
to be placed on public property?
In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise
thereof".

I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court
might rule the other way and it could even be this one.

I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the
"democrat" thing to do I guess.

Perhaps you were just not 'entitled' to a response.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 17:39:16 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 12/26/2015 2:00 PM, 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.

Exactly which right is infringed upon? I hope thinking about this
doesn't cause your brain to shatter Krowsie baby.

Are you feeling especially 'entitled' today?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!