On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 20:23:25 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:


As to government making laws against religion. Reason we have problems
with the different versions of marriage these days is because until the
Edmunds Act in 1862 or so, Government was not involved in marriage. That
act was passed because some people with government connections did not like
the Mormons.

As we continue to define deviancy downward, I expect that to get
tossed out soon too by the LBGTQ community. After all, you are denying
bisexuals the right to marry or you are forcing them into adultery.
After all you can't have a male and a female lover and only be able to
marry one of them. It is just not fair ;-)

Keyser Soze wrote:
Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/8/18 11:36 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/8/18 2:28 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 14:01:25 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


I'm agnostic, but I don't mind. Someday, we non-believers are going to
get together so we can emulate you christians and kill christians,
moslems, jews, buddhists, sikhs, et cetera, because their religion is
different from ours. Oh, wait...we don't have a religion.

Of course you do. Atheism has become as strong a force in your life as
any other person's religious beliefs and you force your dogma on
everyone around you by simply being offended and using the power of
government to quell things you find offensive. It is a unique form of
offense too because other offensive things don't seem to bother you at
all.


Atheism is not a force at all. I don't give a **** what the religious do
in their churches or homes, so long as no one gets hurt. When the
religious try to push their superstitions on society or the government,
then that is where they exceed what they should be allowed to do.


Which superstition? One like do unto others as you would want to be done
to you? Thou shelt not steal? Thou shall pay back their debts?


Heh heh heh. Do you know what superstition is, Bilious? Your post makes
any rational observer think..."No, he doesn't."


You are the one saying religious ideas are superstition. So which of
those “superstition “ do you support or deny?



When my kids were little, I used to try to convince them the tooth fairy
was real, but even as little kids, they didn’t believe in fairies.


Should have visited San Francisco.



Took them there on a three week trip to california when they were older
They were already aware there were gay folks...but knew better when they
were nine and 12 than to call them “fairies.�


Hell, they make jokes about fairies and ferry’s also. Most do not bother
me. We have gay friends who also get upset about the in your face actions
of a lot of the gays. Stuff, that is not acceptable of straight people.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:12:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

They are close to religion these days. And the constitution stated the
government would not get involved in the practice of religion. So the
religious have just as much right to influence law as a union does. Maybe
a better right than a government union.

The constitution just says congress shall make no law establishing a
national religion.
It doesn't say anything about tolerating religion, if fact it says we
have the right free exercise of religion.
It also says nothing about state or local government.
Why can't we just read the words and understand what they say?

On 4/9/18 11:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:12:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

They are close to religion these days. And the constitution stated the
government would not get involved in the practice of religion. So the
religious have just as much right to influence law as a union does. Maybe
a better right than a government union.

The constitution just says congress shall make no law establishing a
national religion.
It doesn't say anything about tolerating religion, if fact it says we
have the right free exercise of religion.
It also says nothing about state or local government.
Why can't we just read the words and understand what they say?



Oh. *You* think the constitution and bill of rights aren't interpreted.
I get it.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:32:57 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/9/18 11:38 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:12:11 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

They are close to religion these days. And the constitution stated the
government would not get involved in the practice of religion. So the
religious have just as much right to influence law as a union does. Maybe
a better right than a government union.

The constitution just says congress shall make no law establishing a
national religion.
It doesn't say anything about tolerating religion, if fact it says we
have the right free exercise of religion.
It also says nothing about state or local government.
Why can't we just read the words and understand what they say?



Oh. *You* think the constitution and bill of rights aren't interpreted.
I get it.

The court can interpret the constitution but they re not supposed to
just make **** up that they wished it said.
As Scalia said, The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not
living, but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means,
today, not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought
to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:21:43 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:

JackOff erupts.....

*Justine...y'all are a silly lass. *Are you trying to emulate your exaulted ruler, The John?*
I never had a "Nun" teach me anything...or even try for that matter. *The girls had Sisters of Charity teaching them and the boys had 'Catholic lay teachers'. **
Got it?*

"So you were taught by heathens. Got it."



SAY WHAT?
Maybe lay teachers are heathens where y'all were hatched but here they were usually Catholic teachers wo also taught Catechism first period and were responsible for marching us down to the church for confession every first Friday of the month.

You were raised Catholic and have no problems with Harry denigrating your faith every chance he
gets.

You're the man, Donnee.