If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(St. Joseph News-Press)   "I Believe" license plate with Christian cross coming soon to South Carolina and Florida (w/pic)   (charleston.net) divider line 627
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

20252 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 May 2008 at 9:08 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



627 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-05-22 01:51:02 PM
FireGiver!: An atheist was smart enough to build the atomic bomb, Christians were dumb enough to use it.

I believe I read once that a very high ranking Japanese official admitted long after the fact that the bomb saved many of lives because if the conventional warfare continued they would not have given up until Tokyo was captured, which would have cost more lives than the bomb took.

There are plenty of reasons to hate on us, please don't invent new stupid ones.
 
2008-05-22 01:52:26 PM
Eegah: No, they shouldn't be doing them at all in my view. If the only way that they can provide a service is to do it in a discriminatory way, they shouldn't do it.

Batewoman: You don't seem to understand. This is just a money-making venture for the state government. ANY group that gets enough people with enough money can purchase a plate to state their opinions. The fact that any group can do it makes it non-discriminatory.

Any group that can afford the fee and guarantee enough purchasers. Small minority groups can't.

Batewoman: If FL started saying that all opposing viewpoints needed to be represented at the cost of the taxpayer then it would no longer turn a profit.

I agree. The point I was trying to make was that the only way for this to work is for them to do it in a discriminatory way, therefore they shouldn't do it at all.
 
2008-05-22 01:55:00 PM
thepostess: dahmers love zombie: I wonder if FL has a rule that they will consider a plate if 400 people say they'll buy one.

You think there's 400 FL Farkers out there who'd shell out an extra $35 a year for a FSM plate? I know I would.

Count me in.


OMG a reason to move back to Florida!

/that's ONE...ONE reason! Ah-ah-ah-ah...
 
2008-05-22 01:55:57 PM
Samsaran: NuclearWinter

Moreover, it is the simple fact is that virtually all of the founding fathers were Christian. Some of them had Deist leanings. Deism is an Enlightenment era creed which is Christian in ideal but rejecting the divinity of Christ or miracles. Deism has no separate ethic or morality from Christianity.


Um, no. How the hell is Deism Christianity if it rejects the single fundamental truth of Christianity--Christ's divinity?
 
2008-05-22 01:57:32 PM
matrygg: Samsaran: NuclearWinter

Moreover, it is the simple fact is that virtually all of the founding fathers were Christian. Some of them had Deist leanings. Deism is an Enlightenment era creed which is Christian in ideal but rejecting the divinity of Christ or miracles. Deism has no separate ethic or morality from Christianity.

Um, no. How the hell is Deism Christianity if it rejects the single fundamental truth of Christianity--Christ's divinity?


You haven't had to follow Christ to call yourself a "Christian" for a long time sadly.

/You are right, I just wanted to make my snarky comment which isn't directed at you.
 
2008-05-22 01:59:58 PM
DAnthrope: BillCo: I can't believe that the atheist legion that is Fark has not risen up in anger and indignation over this. Come on guys, you can do it.

First day on Fark?

There are plenty of religious wingnuts ready to fight for your cause. Maybe you should stay out of the Brittney threads and you might find a few.


My cause? You obviously have not looked at my profile noob.
 
2008-05-22 02:03:23 PM
I just popped in here to make sure everyone was respecting each others opinions on the matter.
 
2008-05-22 02:03:56 PM
We have one of the SC "In Reason We Trust" plates. I've yet to see another one on the road, but I couldn't spit without hitting an "In God We Trust" plate. In theory, "In God..." covers anyone who believes in "God," be they xian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever. But it seems to me that having a Jesus-specific plate is, in fact, promoting a particular religion, especially when the proceeds from the plate go to a religious group, and no plates for other religions are offered.

I *heart* my IRWT plate.

/Ramen
 
2008-05-22 02:07:44 PM
liam76: indylaw: Tell that to the judges that overruled poll taxes.

So you are comparing personal plates to the right to vote?

And if they are equal then I should have the right to have my starwars plate.


You're the one who's saying that having a Jesus plate is essential to your 1st amendment rights.

Saying that a right exists and that it's the losers' fault that they can't afford the arbitrary price that comes with that right has been reject in court over and over.
 
2008-05-22 02:08:30 PM
So, does this mean I get an easier time picking out the douchebag drivers whenever I happen to drive around South Carolina or Florida?

If you need a cross printed on your license plate to affirm your beliefs, your faith may not be all that strong. On top of this, only the egotistical assholes will be getting these plates anyways.

I'm glad I was raised Catholic (although I left the church later). It at least taught me not to be an Attention Whore in public.
 
2008-05-22 02:10:08 PM
--------------------------
TruBluBaptist 2008-05-22 10:36:26 AM

The US was founded as and is at its core values a Christian country, and these are important rights if we want our nation to survive.
-------------------


It was founded on deist values. The era when Christ was elevated above god came later.
 
2008-05-22 02:14:13 PM
chipspastic
You completely missed my point about equal protection. Nothing I've said could be construed to imply your preposterous nonsense about bibles and prayer groups. Equal protection applies to citizens: all citizens must be treated equally under the law. Equal protection does not apply to SIGs: all SIGs do not need to be treated equally under the law.

Actually, if they are a corporation, the equal protection clause does in fact apply to them. Most special interest groups of any political importance are non-profit corporations, including churches. If you go look at cases involving the 14th amendment and corporations, you will indeed see that the law applies equally to groups of people versus a single person. Thanks for playing though, we do have some great parting gifts.
 
2008-05-22 02:15:23 PM
I for one agree with all the Christianists in this thread.

After all, if there's one thing our Founding Fathers couldn't stand, it was separation of Church and State.

That's why we're a monarchical theocracy.

Oh, wait.
 
2008-05-22 02:17:39 PM
JSVB: I for one agree with all the Christianists in this thread.

This assumes all Christians in this thread agree. Maybe you should read the thread before making such an ignorant statement.
 
2008-05-22 02:18:59 PM
Atheists rejoice! This'll make it that much easier to round 'em up for the re-education camps when we take power.
 
2008-05-22 02:22:50 PM
I prefer the science versus god threads. this one sucks.
 
2008-05-22 02:23:42 PM
Haven't read the thread, and no-one will read this, but as long as they're paying specialty plate fees, I agree with it a lot more than it being a choice of the free ones like it is here in Indiana.
 
2008-05-22 02:24:26 PM
captain_heroic44: Batewoman: captain_heroic44: As a Christian, to me, the best thing about license plates like these is that they help me identify others of the faith. You really can't live in America in most places without having a car. So all I have to do to know whether I want to know someone, to do business with them, to employ them, etc., is to take a look at their car. Then I'll know if they have the right moral values. Gone are the days when I'll have to risk a "religious discrimination suit" because I subtly turned questions in a job interview to religion. Now I'll just take note of the interviewee's plates!

Now that IS scary. I never put my opinions on my car. We have enough car shootings in FL the last thing I need is to cut off a gun-toting evangelical and have them know for sure I'm not one of them.

Hah. Nothing but stereotypes. Yes, I go to church. Yes, I own a firearm. In fact, I own many firearms. And yes, I drive a truck. No, it doesn't have a confederate flag in the back window (but my old one did!). Maybe that makes me "gun toting," but I don't care. I only keep them for self-defense--and in case the government oversteps its bounds.

I'm proud of who I am, and that's why I'm willing to put it on my license plate. Can't say the same about the atheists. Wonder why that is?


Probably because most atheists don't have an agenda, so there's no central atheist organization willing to pony up the lobbying money to get something like this through? I'm just spittballing here...
 
2008-05-22 02:25:49 PM
TruBluBaptist:
About this, so what if people want to have an I believe license plate and demonstrate their faith? Its not illegal for homosexuals to flaunt their sin with a rainbow flag, so I will dang sure put my cross and verses where I please.


If you read the actual article, you'd notice the debate comes over whether the object in question is a government issued document/object. If a gay person wants to put a rainbow flag sticker on his car, or if you want to put religious bumper stickers on your car, go ahead, its your car and you can say whatever you want. However, when it's government issued by a license plate and it's religious, that starts getting close to the state establishment of a religion.

If people wanted to create license plates with Jewish or Muslim symbols, would you be just as OK with it?
 
2008-05-22 02:27:13 PM
bline21:
I think it is hilarious that he gets labeled a troll by most of you and it's really for two simple reasons.
1. He thinks/believes something different than most of you
2. He sticks to what he believes and doesn't back pedal or flip flop every other day on issues just so he can post something sarcastic or funny or play Devil's advocate.


I would agree, but with his whole "dinosuars existed during biblical times" rants in the last couple of days it's become a bit harder believing he actually believes what he says.
 
2008-05-22 02:28:34 PM
Ummmmm... so that means "Satan Rules!" is okay too? Or are we singling out one religion for special treatment - because, as I recall, there might be something, somewhere that says not to do that...
 
2008-05-22 02:29:31 PM
matrygg: Samsaran: NuclearWinter

Moreover, it is the simple fact is that virtually all of the founding fathers were Christian. Some of them had Deist leanings. Deism is an Enlightenment era creed which is Christian in ideal but rejecting the divinity of Christ or miracles. Deism has no separate ethic or morality from Christianity.

Um, no. How the hell is Deism Christianity if it rejects the single fundamental truth of Christianity--Christ's divinity?


Deists believe that Christ was enlightened. That he was simply a teacher and philosapher who worked to spread a message. The Deists don't recognize him as the son of God or that he was born of a virgin or that he could turn water to wine. They beleive that to be mythology and exageration in order to exhault a prophet and thus dilute his message. His miracles along the way seemed to be more important than his sermons which dictate the princables that Deists, along w/ all Christians, beleive are the right to follow.
 
2008-05-22 02:31:00 PM
TruBluBaptist: Yup. The troll labeling on fark seems to me to be the symptom of the discrimination that Christians face in daily life in the USA.

Translation: OMG! People are calling me a troll! That's persecution of my beliefs!

Dude, no one really cares about what you believe. People like me just hate it when you have to be all high and mighty about it. Try asking the holocaust survivors what persecution really is sometime. I'll guarantee that it's much worse than a bunch of people making fun of your arguments on a Fark forum.

People laugh at our president just because he realizes it is important to pray. There are so many other examples.

Like what? People arguing that the US should remain secular? Until the liberals make a bunch of concentration camps to round up Christians or something, I don't think you have a right to scream persecution whenever someone happens to disagree with you. Complaining about trivial things like a forum post arguing against your beliefs only makes you look less credible.

Besides, although you have freedom of speech, it still does not protect you from having to hear from people who voice a different opinion. The First Amendment swings both ways.

About this, so what if people want to have an I believe license plate and demonstrate their faith?

I really don't care either, except for the government funds being involved to favor these people. In my last post, I already said that people who need a cross printed on their license plate probably does not have all that strong of a faith to begin with.

Its not illegal for homosexuals to flaunt their sin with a rainbow flag, so I will dang sure put my cross and verses where I please.

Go the fark ahead. At least people will know what kind of person they are dealing with on the road. Oh, and you can stop with the arguing about the "sinful gheys" thing. I think we all get it by now. I take it you have eaten bacon lately. Although it is also listed in Leviticus as an abomination like catching teh ghey, I personally know it's very, very tasty.

The US was founded as and is at its core values a Christian country, and these are important rights if we want our nation to survive.

Culture wise, that may be somewhat true, but if the US really was a Christian nation, why didn't they fully establish that when writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights? The freedom of religion extends to all faiths, not just Christianity. If there really was such an establishment, I think they would have been more clear in how the First Amendment was worded.
 
2008-05-22 02:32:41 PM
captain_heroic44: I'm proud of who I am, and that's why I'm willing to put it on my license plate.

I forget, where does "pride" fit in the list of virtues we Christians should strive for again? I mean, I remember that "faith" and "hope" are in the top three, and number one is "love", I just don't remember the part where Christ told us "pride" fits in.
 
2008-05-22 02:35:52 PM
oroku_saki: ...if the US really was a Christian nation, why didn't they fully establish that when writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights? The freedom of religion extends to all faiths, not just Christianity. If there really was such an establishment, I think they would have been more clear in how the First Amendment was worded.

*insert applauding Citizen Kane here*
 
2008-05-22 02:40:59 PM
matrygg: How the hell is Deism Christianity if it rejects the single fundamental truth of Christianity--Christ's divinity?

Actually fort he first few centuries that Christianity was around, the issue of Christ's divinity was up in the air. And it was resolved not by one opinion becoming more popular than the other, but by force of declaration. In reality it's perfectly acceptable to be a Deist Christian, since to be a Christian at its core is nothing but following the example that Jesus set and what he taught.
 
2008-05-22 02:43:43 PM
captain_heroic44: I'm proud of who I am,

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, read them, follow them. Especially the parts where Jesus gives lessons on how to behave. None of which you show even the faintest knowledge of.
 
2008-05-22 02:44:45 PM
matrygg: Probably because most atheists don't have an agenda, so there's no central atheist organization willing to pony up the lobbying money to get something like this through? I'm just spittballing here...

mysite.verizon.net

Lori Lipman Brown, lobbyist for the Secular Coalition of America.
 
2008-05-22 02:47:01 PM
French Rage

TruBluBaptist:
About this, so what if people want to have an I believe license plate and demonstrate their faith? Its not illegal for homosexuals to flaunt their sin with a rainbow flag, so I will dang sure put my cross and verses where I please.

If you read the actual article, you'd notice the debate comes over whether the object in question is a government issued document/object. If a gay person wants to put a rainbow flag sticker on his car, or if you want to put religious bumper stickers on your car, go ahead, its your car and you can say whatever you want. However, when it's government issued by a license plate and it's religious, that starts getting close to the state establishment of a religion.

If people wanted to create license plates with Jewish or Muslim symbols, would you be just as OK with it?


Actually, I would have a problem with it. I don't want to see any religion promoted by our government, period, in any shape or form. There is a reason why the framers of the Constitution were so set against any type of established religion: they didn't fear faith, rather they were worried about government perversion of faith. I have always maintained that my faith is an issue for me and my god, and no one else, in particular the government.

This is the very reason why many public schools, after having dabbled in bible study courses, find themselves rethinking the whole concept. The problem is not the subject matter, it is how it is taught. Many who pushed for bible studies in public schools thought about their own bible studies, and just assumed that schools would teach it the exact same way. But government doesn't work that way. The government likes to determine a particular curriculum, lay out course objectives, and then have everyone teach it the same way. But a Baptist parent from the Dallas area may see some things different from a Church of Christ parent from Corpus Christi. Hence, many of the calls to end bible study in public schools have come from church leaders, who suddenly found themselves unable to control the message the way they wanted.

The other problem I have with the whole license plate thing is that it isn't about fair and equal access. Its about having all the access. The message at your local church is consistent, and it is solitary. No other views are allowed, and the message is very controlled. You don't hear about Pro-Choicers getting equal time in a church. And you don't hear about other religions getting equal time in whatever church school you want to mention. Yet again, they want to not just have 100% of the message all the time in their own church, they always want to get as much of the message as possible outside the church.

Want to have faith, fine, have faith. Just don't use your government as a blunt object to foist your views on me. Keep religion out of government, period. Its so much easier that way.
 
2008-05-22 02:47:52 PM
jst3p: captain_heroic44: I'm proud of who I am, and that's why I'm willing to put it on my license plate.

I forget, where does "pride" fit in the list of virtues we Christians should strive for again? I mean, I remember that "faith" and "hope" are in the top three, and number one is "love", I just don't remember the part where Christ told us "pride" fits in.


Right before the fall, I believe.
 
2008-05-22 02:48:03 PM
lockers: chipspastic
You completely missed my point about equal protection. Nothing I've said could be construed to imply your preposterous nonsense about bibles and prayer groups. Equal protection applies to citizens: all citizens must be treated equally under the law. Equal protection does not apply to SIGs: all SIGs do not need to be treated equally under the law.

Actually, if they are a corporation, the equal protection clause does in fact apply to them. Most special interest groups of any political importance are non-profit corporations, including churches. If you go look at cases involving the 14th amendment and corporations, you will indeed see that the law applies equally to groups of people versus a single person. Thanks for playing though, we do have some great parting gifts.


As far as I'm aware, the extent to which the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments apply to corporations is still a matter of debate, but by all means, don't take my word for it. One place you could start is here. (new window)
 
2008-05-22 02:53:01 PM
Thats Not Right: French Rage

TruBluBaptist:
About this, so what if people want to have an I believe license plate and demonstrate their faith? Its not illegal for homosexuals to flaunt their sin with a rainbow flag, so I will dang sure put my cross and verses where I please.

If you read the actual article, you'd notice the debate comes over whether the object in question is a government issued document/object. If a gay person wants to put a rainbow flag sticker on his car, or if you want to put religious bumper stickers on your car, go ahead, its your car and you can say whatever you want. However, when it's government issued by a license plate and it's religious, that starts getting close to the state establishment of a religion.

If people wanted to create license plates with Jewish or Muslim symbols, would you be just as OK with it?

Actually, I would have a problem with it. I don't want to see any religion promoted by our government, period, in any shape or form. There is a reason why the framers of the Constitution were so set against any type of established religion: they didn't fear faith, rather they were worried about government perversion of faith. I have always maintained that my faith is an issue for me and my god, and no one else, in particular the government.

This is the very reason why many public schools, after having dabbled in bible study courses, find themselves rethinking the whole concept. The problem is not the subject matter, it is how it is taught. Many who pushed for bible studies in public schools thought about their own bible studies, and just assumed that schools would teach it the exact same way. But government doesn't work that way. The government likes to determine a particular curriculum, lay out course objectives, and then have everyone teach it the same way. But a Baptist parent from the Dallas area may see some things different from a Church of Christ parent from Corpus Christi. Hence, many of the calls to end bible study in public schools have come from church leaders, who suddenly found themselves unable to control the message the way they wanted.

The other problem I have with the whole license plate thing is that it isn't about fair and equal access. Its about having all the access. The message at your local church is consistent, and it is solitary. No other views are allowed, and the message is very controlled. You don't hear about Pro-Choicers getting equal time in a church. And you don't hear about other religions getting equal time in whatever church school you want to mention. Yet again, they want to not just have 100% of the message all the time in their own church, they always want to get as much of the message as possible outside the church.

Want to have faith, fine, have faith. Just don't use your government as a blunt object to foist your views on me. Keep religion out of government, period. Its so much easier that way.


No disagreement there. I wasn't saying it should be done for any faith, just pointing at that people feel different when all faiths are included as opposed to when it's just their own.
 
2008-05-22 02:55:45 PM
jst3p: matrygg: Samsaran: NuclearWinter

Moreover, it is the simple fact is that virtually all of the founding fathers were Christian. Some of them had Deist leanings. Deism is an Enlightenment era creed which is Christian in ideal but rejecting the divinity of Christ or miracles. Deism has no separate ethic or morality from Christianity.

Um, no. How the hell is Deism Christianity if it rejects the single fundamental truth of Christianity--Christ's divinity?

You haven't had to follow Christ to call yourself a "Christian" for a long time sadly.

/You are right, I just wanted to make my snarky comment which isn't directed at you.


No, it's ok. I understood. That just bothers me because I am a Deist (after reading about and thinking about religion quite a bit when I was younger), and the reason why I can't call myself Christian (despite agreeing with about 90% of what it is reported Christ said in the Bible) is because I don't believe in his divinity. I've had a lot of arguments and trouble because of that, and such fundamental misunderstanding of any belief system or philosophy bothers me.
 
2008-05-22 02:57:46 PM
God spoke to me last night and told me the license plates are tacky and that I should make tons of money to make Christianity look cool.
 
2008-05-22 03:02:39 PM
BillCo: I can't believe that the atheist legion that is Fark has not risen up in anger and indignation over this. Come on guys, you can do it.

Why should we be upset? No one is making me buy it. It'll probably make some money for the state. Of course I'd feel better if I could get my own plate. Possibly a Starfleet or I'm Evolved plate. I'd go with either.
 
2008-05-22 03:03:37 PM
French Rage

No disagreement there. I wasn't saying it should be done for any faith, just pointing at that people feel different when all faiths are included as opposed to when it's just their own.

Sorry bout that. I know what you meant. I just kinda included your post as a lead-in for my rant. But the rant wasn't directed at you.

/carry on
 
2008-05-22 03:03:53 PM
WhyteRaven74: matrygg: How the hell is Deism Christianity if it rejects the single fundamental truth of Christianity--Christ's divinity?

Actually fort he first few centuries that Christianity was around, the issue of Christ's divinity was up in the air. And it was resolved not by one opinion becoming more popular than the other, but by force of declaration. In reality it's perfectly acceptable to be a Deist Christian, since to be a Christian at its core is nothing but following the example that Jesus set and what he taught.


I know about the Council of Nicaea and the other councils. But I would argue that between that point and when the country was founded there were a number of incidents that made it pretty clear that the "Jesus was just a man" line of reasoning (which is what would have to be the case if you are a Christian Deist) was considered to be counter to the notion of the hypostatic union and thus heretical to most if not all Christian belief at the time.
 
2008-05-22 03:05:35 PM
GilRuiz1: matrygg: Probably because most atheists don't have an agenda, so there's no central atheist organization willing to pony up the lobbying money to get something like this through? I'm just spittballing here...



Lori Lipman Brown, lobbyist for the Secular Coalition of America.


I stand corrected. Huh. Do you happen to have figures for how much they spend in comparison to the myriad of Christian/Religious Right lobbying groups? I'm curious if it's enough to make a real difference.
 
2008-05-22 03:07:53 PM
Samsaran: Come on Dimensio that was lame and you know it. That treaty was to appease a Muslim nation and keep them from attacking our shipping. Period. It was clearly meant to convince the Muslim Berbers that we were not the same as the British and the French. Take in its context and stop being so childishly simplistic. You are smarter than that.

I am not attempting to be "childish". The treaty explicitly states that the United States "is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". If Congress did not believe this claim to be true at the time that the treaty, with this included text, was ratified, then Congress was endorsing an official lie told by the United States government. The "context" of the phrase is a treaty written and entered into by the United States government. Claiming that I am being "childishly simplistic" does not alter the basic facts that the treaty makes a specific statement that the United States is not founded upon the Christian Religion and that, were the authors of this treaty under the belief that the aforementioned statement was not true, then they were lying when they wrote the statement within the treaty.
 
2008-05-22 03:10:45 PM
matrygg: I stand corrected. Huh. Do you happen to have figures for how much they spend in comparison to the myriad of Christian/Religious Right lobbying groups? I'm curious if it's enough to make a real difference.

Well, this article (pops) says that she's got a budget of $120,000, but it says that amount hardly even buys you lunch in DC. I'd like to know where lobbyists eat!
 
2008-05-22 03:10:52 PM
cjoshuav: /try being a pro-gay, pro-choice, straight pastor

My brother fit this description (Methodist church). He died last August. I guess it wasn't easy!

Perhaps TruBluBaptist can ask him about it when he makes it to the Great Beyond.
 
2008-05-22 03:24:16 PM
img60.imageshack.us
 
2008-05-22 03:34:04 PM
Wytchocolate: Since the snake handler keeps ducking me and won't answer my questions:

Now that's a fun looking card.
 
2008-05-22 04:01:18 PM
Can I get 'I believe in the special hell' on mine?

/I don't talk at the theater.

JColtrane That's beautiful!
 
2008-05-22 04:13:34 PM
Cool! Will it be available along with the Praise Allah and Jehovah's Hit And Run Witnesses license plates?
 
2008-05-22 04:49:39 PM
So why is the bill limited to just Christian plates? Does every religion really have to go hat-in-hand begging for its own plate?

What next, the Baptist and Methodists rabble rousing to get different plates?

This might be fun.
 
2008-05-22 04:56:22 PM
BillCo:

My cause? You obviously have not looked at my profile noob.



LOL
How DARE I not think you're important enough to waste a few minutes reading your beloved profile to learn more about you!!!

/you think your masterpiece profile is so cool everybody will be compelled to read it - and I'm the noob :-)
 
2008-05-22 05:02:35 PM
Nutsac_Jim: DAnthrope: Good thing the government wastes our tax dollars on such issues. Nothing more important in this country than the religious majority.

This is hardly a waste of money. Until the atheists or ACLU get involved, it is probably the best return on investment in the govt playbook.


Even taxes cost money to extort. This is people asking to pay you 20-50 dollars and it probably costs a penny or two.


I will confess that I don't know the exact total cost of resources invested, salaries, yadayada, in the discussion of the topic. And I'll admit that for all I know it could indeed be a profit maker in the end.

I'd rather have them discuss government sponsored pot plantations and crack houses though. I mean, if we're going for profit and NOT the resolution of some of societies problems then why not? LOL

My view is that every dollar spent by my government discussing religion is wasted, whether it can turn a profit in the end or not. There are less tangible costs (like people getting so disgusted by our government that they walk out).
 
2008-05-22 05:14:53 PM
Farking Canuck: DAnthrope: WOW
I swear I'm not trying to troll or start a brawl - but - do you live in the same USA that I do? Really?

You try to get anything anti-religious "approved" for something like this, then tell me if that separation of church and state you support is reality or fiction.

No I don't live in the same USA that you do ... I live in Canada.

My point was that this is fine right up until the part where they block the non-christian plates or atheist plate. As soon as they do that then the lawsuits need to start.

Allowing this plate is not in violation of your constitution but allowing it while not allowing plates from other religions would be.


I agree completely. Well said!

It won't happen though, not in the USA I live in anyway.
Anything "christian" (or similar) is clearly favored, but just try getting equal protection under the law for other religions and watch the bloodsport. This is the land of the majority rule, and the majority has always been some form of christianity (witness the money, pledge, etc.). Did the politicians discussing this issue consider a version with the Buddha, or perhaps a Wiccan symbol? (Leaving out the obvious whipping-boy of atheism) There's no equality in the USA with regards to religious belief (or lack thereof), you can believe that my northern friend.

/Very much appreciate your well-written non-snarky post! Kinda made the end of a suckass day suck just a little less!
 
2008-05-22 05:17:50 PM
The Onanist: DAnthrope: do you live in the same USA that I do?

He's Canadian.

:)


OH! You mean the USNT! The US Northern Territory - don't we own that now? LOL

/The North American Union - aka ROME-II
 
Displayed 50 of 627 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report