Ah good old Christian love. I find it so ironic when Christians trot out the whole "Religion of Peace" line sarcastically like they are any better.

Keizer_Ghidorah: UHC2005: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you." John 15:12

Hey you fundie asshats: YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

According to Fundies, God doesn't love. He seethes and rages and looks for any excuse to toss you into the lake of fire. They're following the example of their vision of God.

If that's their God, both they and he can get farked.

Granted, these are the same assholes that cherry pick laws out of Leviticus to suit their needs, so I shouldn't be surprised.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Care to point it out?

Shifting the topic.

There are other things in life than the career, and typically in an atheist/theist thread, that's a bit irrelevant. I certainly never mentioned it, and you were replying to me as if I did, ergo...strawman.

hitlersbrain

No ever 'forced' catholics or anyone else to provide abortions.
Stop listening to AM radio. It makes you full of shiat.

The link points to the lawsuit because of the Obammy Care mandate that ALL employers provide insurance that included birth control and abortions - ALL employers means private schools and charities such as those run by various religious groups including the Catholics who are steadfastly against these.
LinkCatholics sue over HHS Mandate.

From a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association - Jefferson first quotes the First Amendment, the adds; "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." I had previously recalled it was a letter to his father. Not so.Further ,the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People. The Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment thus putting the restrictions on the People. Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.



Thanks for playing and showing how full of shiat (and misinformation) you are.

/Don't listen to AM radio
//No fan of Limbaugh, Beck, Schnitt, etc/
///More slashies say you are the idiot troll in this thread.

Put up a cross and the atheists get mad at you. Put up a cross with a black Jesus hanging on it and white people get mad. Put up a cross with a transvestite hanging on it and Christians get mad at you. (Or if you put up a Crescent and Star or a Star of David, American Christians really aren't very tolerant of other people's religious symbols, at least not the American Christians who tend to support crosses on public land.

If you put it on public land it's clearly endorsing one religious interpretation or another. Congratulations, you've just violated the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is a much better set of 10 rules than the 10 Commandments. Seriously, I give the Bill of Rights 9/10 (10 out of 10 if you interpret number two in a rational way). 10 Commandments? 4.5 out of 10. Lousy document.

CultureVulture: hitlersbrain

The link points to the lawsuit because of the Obammy Care mandate that ALL employers provide insurance that included birth control and abortions - ALL employers means private schools and charities such as those run by various religious groups including the Catholics who are steadfastly against these.
LinkCatholics sue over HHS Mandate.

From a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association - Jefferson first quotes the First Amendment, the adds; "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." I had previously recalled it was a letter to his father. Not so.Further ,the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People. The Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment thus putting the restrictions on the People. Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.

Thanks for playing and showing how full of shiat (and misinformation) you are.

Allowing organizations to force their religious preferences on their employees is kinda immoral. Just, you know, FYI. Or do you think if an organization is Jehovah's Witness affiliated, they shouldn't be required to insure any blood transfusions? Or hell, how about Christian medicine followers that think prayer is all you need... they should be totally exempt from providing insurance, right?

Don't be farking stupid. The requirement is so that people are protected from religious institutions doing that kind of crap. Kinda exactly along the lines of separation of church and state. If all businesses must provide healthcare, they must do so in a secular manner.

UHC2005: Keizer_Ghidorah: UHC2005: "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you." John 15:12

Hey you fundie asshats: YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

According to Fundies, God doesn't love. He seethes and rages and looks for any excuse to toss you into the lake of fire. They're following the example of their vision of God.

If that's their God, both they and he can get farked.

Granted, these are the same assholes that cherry pick laws out of Leviticus to suit their needs, so I shouldn't be surprised.

If you're courageous, read some Chick Tracts. I suggest here, so you have some light-hearted commentary to balance the crazy. It's terrifying, looking into the mind of a Fundamentalist.

CultureVulture: hitlersbrain

No ever 'forced' catholics or anyone else to provide abortions.
Stop listening to AM radio. It makes you full of shiat.

The link points to the lawsuit because of the Obammy Care mandate that ALL employers provide insurance that included birth control and abortions - ALL employers means private schools and charities such as those run by various religious groups including the Catholics who are steadfastly against these.
LinkCatholics sue over HHS Mandate.

From a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association - Jefferson first quotes the First Amendment, the adds; "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." I had previously recalled it was a letter to his father. Not so.Further ,the First Amendment puts Restrictions only on the Government, not the People. The Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment thus putting the restrictions on the People. Today the government can stop you from Praying in school, reading the Bible in school, showing the Ten Commandments in school, or have religious displays at Christmas. This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice.



Thanks for playing and showing how full of shiat (and misinformation) you are.

/Don't listen to AM radio
//No fan of Limbaugh, Beck, Schnitt, etc/
///More slashies say you are the idiot troll in this thread.

As soon as you go into business dealing with and hiring the general public, you provide the full medical coverage that everyone else does, regardless of your primitive backwards beliefs. It's none of your damn business what people do with their medication as long as it's not illegal, like making wacky drugs to sell to others. If that means you have to give women contraception and you think it's evil and icky, too bad, a lot of women use them for more than birth control. No one complains about men getting boner pills through insurance, why should we prevent women from getting medicine that does a lot more for them?

The health and well-being of others trumps righteous indignation over others not doing what you don't want them to.

SweetSilverBlues: I don't think they were trying to promote Christianity, I think they thought "Oh, Spanish Mission, we should have Spanish Missiony details!"

Your opinion is intelligent, logical, and based on common sense and reason. You are clearly in the wrong place. Unfortunately, we live in a world of hyper-reactive assholes who get their panties in a bunch over everything.

For me, the personal irony is that I was raised Mormon, and we hate the Cross the way vampires hate... uh, the Cross. Mormons consider it tacky and in bad taste- like honoring JFK by plastering rifles all over everything. You won't find a single Cross anywhere in any Mormon church or official building, and Mormons used to be told that they risked disciplinary action for wearing Crosses. (I think they've backed off on that in recent years, though.) I'm not defending the Cross per se. I'm just saying that maybe people ought to grow the hell up, yank the stick out of their asses, and stop whining about things as trivial as a Cross motif on a building that was built to look like a Spanish mission. Funny thing- we somehow managed to get along just fine for the past two or three centuries, and have even been seen as a bastion of religious tolerance and freedom, while simultaneously allowing Crosses to exist. It's only recently that a few lunatics have managed to suck all the joy out of life by insisting that everything must be as generic as humanly possible, to avoid the risk of bruising the delicate feelings of some fragile flower who found their whole world shattered by the idea of a few tiny decorative Crosses on a Spanish Mission style building in friggin' San Antonio.

But I guess it never occurred to the outraged Atheists in the thread that maybe the people who were pissed at the teacher who caused all this weren't basing their anger off of any sort of religious notions. It's quite possible that they were normal, every day non-religious folks who are sick and tired of whiny biatches pissing all over their community.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Separation of church and state. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. And one of the two political parties of this nation is determined to turn it into a Christian theocracy.

Far more Christians rage and scream about other religions doing something as inoffensive as having their symbols somewhere than atheists do about Christian symbols being somewhere. Christians are the ones who become outraged when you tell them "Happy holidays". Christians are responsible for inanities like One Million Moms. Christians are the ones responsible for preventing equality in this country, being far more obsessed with gay buttsex than even the most nympho power bottom twink and how much it horrifies them to the point that they need to outright call them demons in disguise and strip them of more and more of the freedoms and rights that Christians laud over for themselves.

Whatever pure and noble intentions Christianity may have once had, it's gone in this country. Their god and his son tell them to love one another, to show compassion, to not judge, and they twist those words into weapons of hate and bigotry, denouncing everyone who isn't them. Good has become evil, the god a devil, the worshipers cultists.

Christianity is old and broken. Either fix it or discard it, before it causes a disaster.

Atheism scares Christians. It reminds them of the God-shaped hole in their mind.

Saturn5: What legal document spells out this "Separation of Church and State?"
All the 1st Amendment covers is laws passed by Congress.

Is it Poe's Law when he asks this question about a blog named "Wall of Separation" and that gives the actual quote and names the author, all in the letterhead?

ThrobblefootSpectre: homosexuals in America have absolutely NO idea what it feels like to be persecuted. None. At all. Try going to Iraq and having a gay pride parade..

Try telling that to Matthew Shepard.

Homicider: Funny thing- we somehow managed to get along just fine for the past two or three centuries, and have even been seen as a bastion of religious tolerance and freedom, while simultaneously allowing Crosses to exist.

Right...because somebody wants to ban all crosses....
I know you know the distinction between private and public. So why say something so ridiculous?

ciberido: Try telling that to Matthew Shepard.

Or Marcus Bachmann. Just look at who society has forced him to marry to cover up his love of cock.

Homicider: I find it harder and harder to remember why I have you Favorited.

I'm guessing you find it harder and harder to remember a lot of things.


FTA: The tower was on private land, but it was built with city funds, featured the university seal and was on track to someday become the property of the public school.

Homicider: If you read the article, you'd see that the crosses were on PRIVATE farkING PROPERTY.

Speaking of people who didn't read the article...

Silly Jesus: [api.ning.com image 350x355]

Latin for universal.
it's not.

Why would they hire someone who's already shown a tendency to sue to get her way? It doesn't really matter WHAT the lawsuit was over - she's identified herself as more of a risk than any of the other people they could be hiring instead. Not to mention that the majority of the people in the area really dislike her now and this would definitely affect funding.

Regarding the "vicious harassment" - none of it came even close to what the average well-known person gets on a day-to-day basis. The few really nasty messages she did get weren't to the point where the police thought she was at risk, and she was never actually attacked. This doesn't mean the people who sent some of those messages weren't being bad Christians, mind you - but stop trying to equate this to the thousands of death threats that anyone who says even the slightest thing bad about gays, feminists, etc. receives.

0Icky0: I know you know the distinction between private and public. So why say something so ridiculous?

Assuming we both know the difference, then I'd politely point you to the part of the article that says the building was on PRIVATE land.

But I guess I'm just a bit confused as to why anyone cares.

ciberido: I'm guessing you find it harder and harder to remember a lot of things.

Yes, when you run out of intelligent things to say, go for the moronic insult. That certainly proves the superiority of your argument.

j0ndas: but stop trying to equate this to the thousands of death threats that anyone who says even the slightest thing bad about gays, feminists, etc. receives.

That would require that Farkers develop a sense of moral proportion, which isn't likely to happen any time soon.

Homicider: 0Icky0: I know you know the distinction between private and public. So why say something so ridiculous?

Assuming we both know the difference, then I'd politely point you to the part of the article that says the building was on PRIVATE land.

But I guess I'm just a bit confused as to why anyone cares.

With PUBLIC money. I believe someone else pointed that out to you earlier in the thread.

FloydA: You, sir, are a liar. Nothing but a dishonest bigot.

...and you sir, are an idiot.

Keizer_Ghidorah: With PUBLIC money. I believe someone else pointed that out to you earlier in the thread.

Somebody did something with "public money" that you didn't like? How sad. Personally, I'd prefer it if public money weren't being used to kill women and children in the Middle East. I'd also prefer it if public money wasn't being used to build chemical and nuclear weapons. And I'd really prefer it if public money wasn't being used to house and provide security for a statue of Rush Limbaugh, as we saw in thread earlier this week. But yes,for fark's sake, I certainly acknowledge your right to be upset over some decorative metal crosses. That makes you a MUCH better person than the rest of us.

Homicider: Keizer_Ghidorah: With PUBLIC money. I believe someone else pointed that out to you earlier in the thread.

Somebody did something with "public money" that you didn't like? How sad. Personally, I'd prefer it if public money weren't being used to kill women and children in the Middle East. I'd also prefer it if public money wasn't being used to build chemical and nuclear weapons. And I'd really prefer it if public money wasn't being used to house and provide security for a statue of Rush Limbaugh, as we saw in thread earlier this week. But yes,for fark's sake, I certainly acknowledge your right to be upset over some decorative metal crosses. That makes you a MUCH better person than the rest of us.

Calm down, child, your troll is showing. Last time I checked, we're dismantling our nukes, not building them. We're not making chemical weapons, unless you think pepper spray counts. We're not mindlessly slaughtering everyone we see in the Middle East. I will agree on the Rush statue, the hell is wrong with those people?

However, using public money to erect Christian symbols is against the separation of church and state, which states that we shall not put one religion over any other.

FloydA: Homicider: FloydA: You, sir, are a liar. Nothing but a dishonest bigot.

...and you sir, are an idiot.

Yours is a troll account created a few days ago in the crazy lady addresses city council thread. Your act is neither creative nor funny. I don't know why I haven't plonked you before, but I'm rectifying that now.

Yes dumbass, me announcing that I was making the account and telling everyone what my original name was certainly makes this a "troll account". It's like you too a college course in stupid. But for the rest of you: Here's the entire sum of what the First Amendment says about religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Perhaps one of you turbo geniuses could explain how you've extrapolated that to "you can't have decorative crosses on a building."

Homicider: FloydA: Homicider: FloydA: You, sir, are a liar. Nothing but a dishonest bigot.

...and you sir, are an idiot.

Yours is a troll account created a few days ago in the crazy lady addresses city council thread. Your act is neither creative nor funny. I don't know why I haven't plonked you before, but I'm rectifying that now.

Yes dumbass, me announcing that I was making the account and telling everyone what my original name was certainly makes this a "troll account". It's like you too a college course in stupid. But for the rest of you: Here's the entire sum of what the First Amendment says about religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Perhaps one of you turbo geniuses could explain how you've extrapolated that to "you can't have decorative crosses on a building."

Because the cross is supportive of a specific religion, and the government funding it is easily construed as establishing one religion over others, or none. Not that hard.

If you want to God it up, go for it. Just don't use my tax dollars to do so. You already get enough of them by your church being tax exempt.

Homicider: Assuming we both know the difference, then I'd politely point you to the part of the article that says the building was on PRIVATE land.

Private land, built with public funds, that was donated to the public school.

The public funds, and the donation of the tower to the public school is the problem.

It's amazing you've gone for days missing this. You've got some reading comprehension issues.

fluffy2097: Homicider: Assuming we both know the difference, then I'd politely point you to the part of the article that says the building was on PRIVATE land.

Private land, built with public funds, that was donated to the public school.

The public funds, and the donation of the tower to the public school is the problem.

It's amazing you've gone for days missing this. You've got some reading comprehension issues.

If he acknowledged it, he'd have no trolling material.

Homicider: Yes, when you run out of intelligent things to say, go for the moronic insult. That certainly proves the superiority of your argument.

It's always nice when you insult someone, then someone insults you in turn, and then you whine about how mean the moronic bad people are for insulting you. I like that.

fluffy2097: Homicider: Assuming we both know the difference, then I'd politely point you to the part of the article that says the building was on PRIVATE land.

Private land, built with public funds, that was donated to the public school.

The public funds, and the donation of the tower to the public school is the problem.

It's amazing you've gone for days missing this. You've got some reading comprehension issues.

See, we're on the same page(I think we had an issue earlier, too lazy to page/scroll back). That's a problem among some of us, we kind of follow the argument to technicalities in controverting specific points, even though the concept is the same. It's the wording or examples that sometimes gets the better of us, and the habitual tendencies kick into effect despite the topic at hand.( a common effect of being the underdog of Reason, conditioned to arguing with everyone...)

Atheists and sympathizers(yes, some christians are pretty damned respectable[as well as other religious peoples], you'd hardly know it from reading fark, though, unless you pay close attention), tend to get argumentative with one and other over specific points, even when they are in agreement.

That's part of why these threads are somewhat important. A bit of unification can go a long ways to lending credence to an argument.

/drunk... and everyone else crashed
// : (