Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#101
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On 12/17/17 2:07 PM, Its Me wrote:
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:57:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 1:32 PM, Its Me wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:53:48 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 12:44 PM, Its Me wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 12:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:15:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It's interesting that of the 35 major denominations of Christianity in the United States you focus on one of the smallest ...evangelical ... with your complaints about shoving religion down your throat. Of the others, I don't know of any that purposely go out and try to convert anyone. Maybe there are a few but I've never heard of it or experienced it. https://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=000087 Harry thinks any thing remotte;y related to religion is "ramming Jesus down his throat". I bet he thinks this is a great policy https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10278 I may laugh at beliefs based on speculation and superstition and hypocrisy, but it doesn't bother me until or unless it intrudes into public policy, is supported by tax dollars, influences laws, et cetera. I don't give a ****, really, what "religious folk" practice in their churches, religious schools, homes, et cetera. I just wish they'd keep it in those venues. But you have no problem with non-religious folk injecting their beliefs into public policy, especially when it coincides with your beliefs. Funny how that works, eh? Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains. The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it. I never said the were injecting their "religious" beliefs into public policy, ****-for-brains. Just their beliefs. Got it now? What an idiot you are. And on purpose. Nope. There's no law against injecting non-religious beliefs. I figured you were bright enough to realize that, eh? But apparently not. There's also no law against injecting beliefs that might be aligned with religious beliefs. That's the magic of our democratic system. We just can't have a state supported religion. Majority rules, eh? Fortunately, we have the ACLU to fight religious nonsense. |
#102
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:06:37 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze - hide quoted text - On 12/17/17 1:32 PM, Its Me wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:53:48 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 12:44 PM, Its Me wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 12:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:15:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It's interesting that of the 35 major denominations of Christianity in the United States you focus on one of the smallest ...evangelical .... with your complaints about shoving religion down your throat. Of the others, I don't know of any that purposely go out and try to convert anyone. Maybe there are a few but I've never heard of it or experienced it. https://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=000087 Harry thinks any thing remotte;y related to religion is "ramming Jesus down his throat". I bet he thinks this is a great policy https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10278 I may laugh at beliefs based on speculation and superstition and hypocrisy, but it doesn't bother me until or unless it intrudes into public policy, is supported by tax dollars, influences laws, et cetera. I don't give a ****, really, what "religious folk" practice in their churches, religious schools, homes, et cetera. I just wish they'd keep it in those venues. But you have no problem with non-religious folk injecting their beliefs into public policy, especially when it coincides with your beliefs. Funny how that works, eh? Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains. The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it. I never said the were injecting their "religious" beliefs into public policy, ****-for-brains. Just their beliefs. Got it now? What an idiot you are. And on purpose. Nope. There's no law against injecting non-religious beliefs. I figured you were bright enough to realize that, eh? But apparently not. .... Don’t be dim, Harry. No law(s) about “injecting religious beliefs” either... You can't brighten a burned out bulb. |
#103
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:55:55 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: Very limited definition of “disciplined”. Engineering is considered a discipline, and probably a more disciplined course of study than 90%of the Liberal Arts studies. When you are talking classic math and some aspects of science "discipline" is an admirable trait but if you are too disciplined in believing what is true now, will always be true, even science will not advance. It was not that long ago that "science" believed we could not break the sound barrier or split the atom. They could prove it to you on paper. Those "facts" became obsolete in a little over a decade. |
#104
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:09:55 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 2:07 PM, Its Me wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:57:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 1:32 PM, Its Me wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:53:48 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 12:44 PM, Its Me wrote: On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 12:39:10 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 12:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:15:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It's interesting that of the 35 major denominations of Christianity in the United States you focus on one of the smallest ...evangelical ... with your complaints about shoving religion down your throat. Of the others, I don't know of any that purposely go out and try to convert anyone. Maybe there are a few but I've never heard of it or experienced it. https://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=000087 Harry thinks any thing remotte;y related to religion is "ramming Jesus down his throat". I bet he thinks this is a great policy https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10278 I may laugh at beliefs based on speculation and superstition and hypocrisy, but it doesn't bother me until or unless it intrudes into public policy, is supported by tax dollars, influences laws, et cetera. I don't give a ****, really, what "religious folk" practice in their churches, religious schools, homes, et cetera. I just wish they'd keep it in those venues. But you have no problem with non-religious folk injecting their beliefs into public policy, especially when it coincides with your beliefs. Funny how that works, eh? Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains. The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it. I never said the were injecting their "religious" beliefs into public policy, ****-for-brains. Just their beliefs. Got it now? What an idiot you are. And on purpose. Nope. There's no law against injecting non-religious beliefs. I figured you were bright enough to realize that, eh? But apparently not. There's also no law against injecting beliefs that might be aligned with religious beliefs. That's the magic of our democratic system. We just can't have a state supported religion. Majority rules, eh? Fortunately, we have the ACLU to fight religious nonsense. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Ah, the "free exercise" of religion when it come to electing politicians of the same mindset. Sweet. |
#105
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 17:55:56 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: Maybe if the academics practiced that and kept their beliefs out of schools and tax dollar public policy we would be more accommodating. We could say that about a lot of things that have crept into curriculums. At a certain point things like "environmentalism" have become more of a religion than science. "Recycling" would be a good example. It is not economically valid and the ecological benefits are dubious in a lot, if not most, cases. How is it ecologically sound for them to truck my empty plastic bottles 1500 miles to a Trex factory when they already have more than they need from local sources? They just end up in a land fill somewhere along the way. |
#107
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:53:46 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains. The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it. The words "separation of religion and state" do not exist in the 1st amendment. You should "go read it" It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." It is just revisionist thinkers like you who bend that around to suit your beliefs. You really need more "discipline" in your reading comprehension. |
#108
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 12:53:46 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: Non-religious folks aren't injecting religious beliefs, ****-for-brains. The Constitution calls for *separation* of religion and state. Go read it. The words "separation of religion and state" do not exist in the 1st amendment. You should "go read it" It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." It is just revisionist thinkers like you who bend that around to suit your beliefs. You really need more "discipline" in your reading comprehension. Heh. Couldn't agree more. |
#109
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text - Read up on the Establishment Clause. ..... Evidently you think that effects street preachers and those who witness in public places. Re-read the Establishment Clause. |
#110
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On 12/17/2017 2:03 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 1:32 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/17/2017 12:39 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 12/17/17 12:09 PM, wrote: On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 05:15:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: It's interesting that of the 35 major denominations of Christianity in the United States you focus on one of the smallest ...evangelical ... with your complaints about shoving religion down your throat.* Of the others, I don't know of any that purposely go out and try to convert anyone.* Maybe there are a few but I've never heard of it or experienced it. https://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=000087 Harry thinks any thing remotte;y related to religion is "ramming Jesus down his throat". I bet he thinks this is a great policy https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10278 I may laugh at beliefs based on speculation and superstition and hypocrisy, but it doesn't bother me until or unless it intrudes into public policy, is supported by tax dollars, influences laws, et cetera. I don't give a ****, really, what "religious folk" practice in their churches, religious schools, homes, et cetera. I just wish they'd keep it in those venues. "One Nation, under God ...." Probably the worst mistake of the Eisenhower presidency. And sadly funny. After all, with no proof of the existence of any god, it might have been termed, one nation under Zeus or one nation under Ra, or some Egyptian stone god. And if there were a god, how would a mere mortal know whether his or her nation were under it? I think the pledge as modified in the Eisenhower presidency violates the Establishment Clause. I got curious so I did some reading. Seems that although the majority of states require a time be allocated for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, most also make it optional. A few states have no statutes on it at all and about three that I found do not have a formal "opt out" clause in their current statues. Surprisingly, Massachusetts is one of them. Bottom line is that in almost all cases it is voluntary. The 3 or 4 with no formal opt-out clause don't enforce it as a requirement. So, if it bothers the student or the student's parents, just don't participate. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Talk about "black" humor... | General | |||
Texas says "dirty talk" to kids is ok... | General | |||
The most positive result of the "Cash for clunkers" program? ... | General | |||
Would Sotomayor Exonerate Bill Richardson & His "Moving AmericaForward" "Latino Voter Registration" Scam? | General |