Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#111
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:03:48 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: "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. The term "god" is far from establishing any particular religion as you so eloquently pointed out. In fact Jefferson used the term "nature's god" in the DOI which might have made him our first evangelical environmentalist. |
#112
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On 12/17/2017 2:09 PM, 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. Funny that when "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 the ACLU had no objections. They thought it was just fine. |
#113
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 14:04:31 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 12/17/17 1:34 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 12/17/2017 12:53 PM, 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. He didn't say "religious" beliefs. Non-religious folk don't have religious beliefs to insert, do they? No, you inject words into the constitution that don't exist and let them justify your beliefs |
#114
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
|
#115
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
|
#116
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On 12/17/17 2:13 PM, Its Me wrote:
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. I don't give a **** what the religious beliefs are of the assholes you elect down there...all I ask is they keep their religious beliefs out of Congress. |
#118
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
|
#119
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 11:36:49 -0800 (PST), Its Me
wrote: 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. === He probably didn't get enough "discipline" in his education. http://assets.rebelcircus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/19ab2d7b54caa72eaecde4f9e9ec480f.jpg --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#120
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
"Come talk to us, honey. We pay cash..."
On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/17/17 2:13 PM, Its Me wrote: 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. I don't give a **** what the religious beliefs are of the assholes you elect down there...all I ask is they keep their religious beliefs out of Congress. And I don't give a **** what the atheist beliefs are of the asshole you vote into office are... all I ask is they keep their ****ty beliefs out of Congress. |
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 |