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.

(Roanoke Times)   SCOTUS: "Nobody would actually try to ban non-Christians from leading legislative prayers before an official hearing." Roanoke, VA Board of Supervisors: "Challenge accepted"   (roanoke.com) divider line 143
    More: Asinine, challenge accepted, U.S. Supreme Court, Roanoke County, board of supervisors, supreme court ruling, prayers, Alliance Defense Fund, Freedom From Religion Foundation  
•       •       •

4564 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 8:28 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 08:16:21 PM  
What a bunch of assholes. Particularly this Bedrosian shiatbag.
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com
 
2014-05-06 08:20:42 PM  
 "The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard," said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. "If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

There IS no line, you f*cking idiot. That's the POINT

/why does this asswipe hate the Constitution?
 
2014-05-06 08:21:46 PM  

dr_blasto: What a bunch of assholes. Particularly this Bedrosian shiatbag.
[bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com image 522x760]


He oughta sue Hair Club, too

/looks like a old doll head the dog's been chewing on
 
2014-05-06 08:21:58 PM  
You're free to pray to Jesus just like everybody else!
 
2014-05-06 08:23:47 PM  
Take THAT, Jews
 
2014-05-06 08:27:28 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-06 08:31:04 PM  
I can't speak for other religions but I really wish Christians would take Mark 6:5-6 to heart.

damn hipocrites.
 
2014-05-06 08:33:07 PM  
"The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard,"

Actually that's almost exactly what Freedom of religion means. Or at least in the sense that you can't pick and choose which religions are allowed.
 
2014-05-06 08:33:35 PM  
It took this long?
 
2014-05-06 08:33:39 PM  
"If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

I don't know ... how about at 'everything'?
 
2014-05-06 08:34:56 PM  
"The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard," said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. "If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

Once again, a conservative cannot fathom an intermediary position between "mandatory" and "banned".  No, not every religion "has" to be heard.  Just every religion should "be able" to be heard.
 
2014-05-06 08:35:35 PM  
"The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard," said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. "If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

Um...Freedom of Religion means that every religion does not to be heard, believed in, or even respected by any other individual.

What it does mean is that no religion can be discriminated against, or given favor, by the government...WHICH IS FOR WHOM YOU WORK ASSHOLE!

On the plus side....two more years we may get a reversal of yesterdays ruling. Should be fun.
 
2014-05-06 08:37:07 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk:  "The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard," said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. "If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

There IS no line, you f*cking idiot. That's the POINT

/why does this asswipe hate the Constitution?


Someone correct me if I'm wrong. In the case just decided, the town council had no problem letting basically anyone who wanted to lead the prayer?

This dude is doing the exact opposite, and somebody is going to biatch slap him into next week.
 
2014-05-06 08:37:34 PM  
Once again the supreme court decides to live in the theoretical, completely ignoring the real world implications.
 
2014-05-06 08:38:27 PM  

Ambivalence: I can't speak for other religions but I really wish Christians would take Mark 6:5-6 to heart.

damn hipocrites.


Unless it's read to them in a sermon, I doubt many will read the actual text
 
2014-05-06 08:38:58 PM  
Ah, you fundies.

The Court pretty much gave you carte blanche to have your f*cking prayers in public if you must--just let other praying nutjobs have equal time if they wanted it--which likely they wouldn't--and you just couldn't let it rest, could you? No, you had to double down at the earliest possible opportunity; and now the Court will have to make the ruling they tried to avoid, the one that will do what you DON'T WANT IT TO DO: Namely, ban prayer in all public government functions.

And then you'll be able to cry about how persecuted Christians are becoming in America; and everyone will swallow it (your fundie brethren anyway) and nobody will notice it is YOUR OWN FAULT because if you'd just left it alone, you could have prayed your minds out at city council meetings and nobody would have cared.
 
2014-05-06 08:39:11 PM  
Yet one more reason to hate Christians. You jackoffs think you need to pray everywhere, all the time, and that everybody has to join you in your prayers. Do you think your group prayers make it easier for God to hear you? Your God is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and everywhere, it shouldn't matter whether you pray alone or in a group, your God should still hear you. And why are you asking things from this all powerful being you claim to worship? Don't you think this entity has better things to do than deal with your petty bullshiat? He's managing an entire farking universe for fark's sake. Deal with your own shiat, instead of expecting God to hold your farking hand. And why is it that you want non-Christians to pray along with you? Wouldn't our non-belief in your group prayer weaken its power?
 
2014-05-06 08:41:05 PM  
FTFA: "The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard," said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. "If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

So long as Conservatives never stop being retarded, this article will never stop being relevant.
 
2014-05-06 08:41:27 PM  

dr_blasto: What a bunch of assholes. Particularly this Bedrosian shiatbag.
[bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com image 522x760]


I read that as "Particularly this Bosnian shiatbag" at first and thought this might turn in a different kind of flamewar altogether...
 
2014-05-06 08:41:34 PM  

MFAWG: MaudlinMutantMollusk:  "The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard," said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. "If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

There IS no line, you f*cking idiot. That's the POINT

/why does this asswipe hate the Constitution?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. In the case just decided, the town council had no problem letting basically anyone who wanted to lead the prayer?

This dude is doing the exact opposite, and somebody is going to biatch slap him into next week.


Conservatives love to waste money by defending lawsuits their ridiculous behavior necessarily engenders.
 
2014-05-06 08:42:35 PM  
Kind of reminds me of the Citizens United ruling. The justices followed their ideology just assuming nobody was going to abuse that privilege. Later they're shocked when people abuse the privilege. This sort of thing seems to happen with ideologues for some reason. I can't imagine why.
 
2014-05-06 08:43:57 PM  
This is why we need to vote in every election, progressives. For the Democrats. Even when they don't "inspire" us. Control of the courts alone is enough reason to vote even for uninspiring Democrats.
 
2014-05-06 08:45:13 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Ah, you fundies.

The Court pretty much gave you carte blanche to have your f*cking prayers in public if you must--just let other praying nutjobs have equal time if they wanted it--which likely they wouldn't--and you just couldn't let it rest, could you? No, you had to double down at the earliest possible opportunity; and now the Court will have to make the ruling they tried to avoid, the one that will do what you DON'T WANT IT TO DO: Namely, ban prayer in all public government functions.

And then you'll be able to cry about how persecuted Christians are becoming in America; and everyone will swallow it (your fundie brethren anyway) and nobody will notice it is YOUR OWN FAULT because if you'd just left it alone, you could have prayed your minds out at city council meetings and nobody would have cared.


I figure someone has to quote you. You should be quoted more.
 
2014-05-06 08:45:30 PM  

Ambivalence: I can't speak for other religions but I really wish Christians would take Mark 6:5-6 to heart.

damn hipocrites.


5And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

?

/I'm guessing you meant Matt
 
2014-05-06 08:48:59 PM  
Well I am looking forward to when satanists decided to push this.  They already have that monument going in Oklahoma.

Personally though, I am still with Cthulhu.  You nonbelievers will pay.  Don't think you won't pay.

fc03.deviantart.net
/I found this cosplay while looking at cthulhu art and I know one of you at least has the weirdest boner right now.
 
2014-05-06 08:49:58 PM  

Baz744: This is why we need to vote in every election, progressives. For the Democrats. Even when they don't "inspire" us. Control of the courts alone is enough reason to vote even for uninspiring Democrats.


Why should I be worried about things like this? People doing public group prayer is stupid, and anybody who thinks it's some holy, spiritual, meaningful thing is an idiot. I really don't give a crap if something their mother should've swallowed demands that the only group prayer allowed is prayer to Jesus, or Satan, or Odin, or your grandma's gaping hungry asshole. It's all equally stupid. You do it, I'll just think you're an idiot, no matter what form your god takes.

Besides, democracy is dead, we're all owned by Wall Street, everything else is just distraction.
 
2014-05-06 08:50:01 PM  

Gergesa: Well I am looking forward to when satanists decided to push this.  They already have that monument going in Oklahoma.

Personally though, I am still with Cthulhu.  You nonbelievers will pay.  Don't think you won't pay.


/I found this cosplay while looking at cthulhu art and I know one of you at least has the weirdest boner right now.


Yes, yes, I do.
 
2014-05-06 08:50:44 PM  

pdieten: Kind of reminds me of the Citizens United ruling. The justices followed their ideology just assuming nobody was going to abuse that privilege. Later they're shocked when people abuse the privilege. This sort of thing seems to happen with ideologues for some reason. I can't imagine why.


They were shocked?
 
2014-05-06 08:52:36 PM  

Gergesa: Well I am looking forward to when satanists decided to push this.  They already have that monument going in Oklahoma.

Personally though, I am still with Cthulhu.  You nonbelievers will pay.  Don't think you won't pay.

[fc03.deviantart.net image 850x1275]
/I found this cosplay while looking at cthulhu art and I know one of you at least has the weirdest boner right now.


At least with Satanists and Wiccans, there's some debauchery and fun. Only the Catholics defeat you, and that only because of Catholic schoolgirls.
 
2014-05-06 08:53:19 PM  

Gergesa: pdieten: Kind of reminds me of the Citizens United ruling. The justices followed their ideology just assuming nobody was going to abuse that privilege. Later they're shocked when people abuse the privilege. This sort of thing seems to happen with ideologues for some reason. I can't imagine why.

They were shocked?


More likely they rolled around on a pile of money in a nine person orgy.
 
2014-05-06 08:53:43 PM  
Wait. I was ASSURED by FARK's favorite right wing shills that this kind of behavior would never happen in light of the SCOTUS ruling.
 
2014-05-06 08:54:42 PM  
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com
 "The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard," said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. "If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

How about across your thick empty skull with a truck tire, you Jeezoid Jackass.

This chunk of dung actually has the nerve to declare what faiths are and are not allowed, simply on his own personal whims. That right there is not just unconstitutional, but anti-Constitutional. Typical right wing fundamentalist horsesh*t! Acting like they are the only religion allowed to have rights.

You opened this door, fundies. You cannot turn around and claim any exclusivity over the matter.
 
2014-05-06 08:56:41 PM  

hardinparamedic: Wait. I was ASSURED by FARK's favorite right wing shills that this kind of behavior would never happen in light of the SCOTUS ruling.


To be fair, this is pretty clearly not allowed by the ruling.
 
2014-05-06 08:59:17 PM  
When asked if he would allow representatives from non-Christian faiths and non-faiths, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and others, the Hollins District supervisor said he likely would not.

stickerish.com
 
2014-05-06 08:59:23 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Ah, you fundies.

The Court pretty much gave you carte blanche to have your f*cking prayers in public if you must--just let other praying nutjobs have equal time if they wanted it--which likely they wouldn't--and you just couldn't let it rest, could you? No, you had to double down at the earliest possible opportunity; and now the Court will have to make the ruling they tried to avoid, the one that will do what you DON'T WANT IT TO DO: Namely, ban prayer in all public government functions.


Pretty much, but let's face it; I think they're long coasting on cruise RAGE control at this point. Something that's otherwise a "win" for them is blinded by the fact that, clearly, all of us are actively persecuting them, therefore they can't possibly accept it because there's strings attached or something.
 
2014-05-06 08:59:28 PM  
 
2014-05-06 08:59:48 PM  
Gaylor said Bedrosian's position is one of Christian entitlement, an attitude that can make believers of other faiths and nonbelievers uncomfortable. She questioned how he would persuade members of religious minorities to vote for him when he wouldn't allow them to deliver the invocation at local government meetings.

Christian entitlement. That is EXACTLY the phrase that everyone ought to be using to describe these Dominionist assholes and what they do. Christian entitlement. It fits them to a muther.farking.T.
 
2014-05-06 09:04:43 PM  

dr_blasto: MFAWG: MaudlinMutantMollusk:  "The freedom of religion doesn't mean that every religion has to be heard," said Bedrosian, who added that he is concerned about groups such as Wiccans and Satanists. "If we allow everything ... where do you draw the line?"

There IS no line, you f*cking idiot. That's the POINT

/why does this asswipe hate the Constitution?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. In the case just decided, the town council had no problem letting basically anyone who wanted to lead the prayer?

This dude is doing the exact opposite, and somebody is going to biatch slap him into next week.

Conservatives love to waste money by defending lawsuits their ridiculous behavior necessarily engenders.


Job creation.
 
2014-05-06 09:05:34 PM  
I think Christians in the US should take Princess Leia's advice to heart:  "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
 
2014-05-06 09:06:21 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Gyrfalcon: Ah, you fundies.

The Court pretty much gave you carte blanche to have your f*cking prayers in public if you must--just let other praying nutjobs have equal time if they wanted it--which likely they wouldn't--and you just couldn't let it rest, could you? No, you had to double down at the earliest possible opportunity; and now the Court will have to make the ruling they tried to avoid, the one that will do what you DON'T WANT IT TO DO: Namely, ban prayer in all public government functions.

And then you'll be able to cry about how persecuted Christians are becoming in America; and everyone will swallow it (your fundie brethren anyway) and nobody will notice it is YOUR OWN FAULT because if you'd just left it alone, you could have prayed your minds out at city council meetings and nobody would have cared.

I figure someone has to quote you. You should be quoted more.


Well you beat me to it.

But yeah.  The "its okay to have a prayer" decision was borderline but made sense specifically because it hinged on there being no discrimination or endorsement of any specific religion.  A bit of a slip, but it still made it clear that we can't have an official government religion, or require anyone to belong to a specific religion to engage in government business, or legislate observance of specific religious practices.  Apparently this town didn't understand the last one.
 
2014-05-06 09:06:58 PM  

Gergesa: Well I am looking forward to when satanists decided to push this.  They already have that monument going in Oklahoma.

Personally though, I am still with Cthulhu.  You nonbelievers will pay.  Don't think you won't pay.

[fc03.deviantart.net image 850x1275]
/I found this cosplay while looking at cthulhu art and I know one of you at least has the weirdest boner right now.


The problem with Cthulhu is that it doesn't matter whether I believe or not. In any case, I will perish in tentacle filled death.
 
2014-05-06 09:07:38 PM  

xria: I think Christians in the US should take Princess Leia's advice to heart:  "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."


I was gonna go with "You came in that?"
 
2014-05-06 09:10:17 PM  

actualhuman: hardinparamedic: Wait. I was ASSURED by FARK's favorite right wing shills that this kind of behavior would never happen in light of the SCOTUS ruling.

To be fair, this is pretty clearly not allowed by the ruling.


Not so fast. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion essentially validating exactly this sort of thing.

Give it a couple of years, a Republican president, and the death/retirement of a couple of the libs currently on the court and who knows what could happen.
 
2014-05-06 09:15:24 PM  

actualhuman: SCOTUSBlog post-ruling coverage


The Supreme Court's 1983 case on legislative prayer, Marsh v. Chambers, had said that legislative prayers could not "proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." Notice the differences between that and the majority opinion yesterday: "[T]he course and practice over time [must show] that the invocations denigrate nonbelievers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion." Notice the subtle changes there - the addition of the phrases "course and practice" and "over time," the use of words like "denigration" rather than "disparagement," "damnation" in place of "advancement," "preaching conversion" instead of "proselytizing."

So in other words... in providing a forum for religious expression at the beginning of a legislative meeting, the government must engage in viewpoint speech discrimination.

Fascinating. Fascinating that anyone could possibly think court mandated religious viewpoint discrimination comports with the Constitution.
 
2014-05-06 09:15:39 PM  

Baz744: This is why we need to vote in every election, progressives. For the Democrats. Even when they don't "inspire" us. Control of the courts alone is enough reason to vote even for uninspiring Democrats.


i232.photobucket.com

I'm not a democrat as lately they tend to be too conservative, but farking this.
 
2014-05-06 09:17:45 PM  

gilgigamesh: actualhuman: hardinparamedic: Wait. I was ASSURED by FARK's favorite right wing shills that this kind of behavior would never happen in light of the SCOTUS ruling.

To be fair, this is pretty clearly not allowed by the ruling.

Not so fast. Thomas wrote a concurring opinion essentially validating exactly this sort of thing.

Give it a couple of years, a Republican president, and the death/retirement of a couple of the libs currently on the court and who knows what could happen.


Sadly, I would not be surprised if this SCOTUS unincorporated the Establishment Clause just to allow towns like this to denigrate a bunch of religions.
 
2014-05-06 09:20:11 PM  

LectertheChef: Baz744: This is why we need to vote in every election, progressives. For the Democrats. Even when they don't "inspire" us. Control of the courts alone is enough reason to vote even for uninspiring Democrats.

Why should I be worried about things like this? People doing public group prayer is stupid, and anybody who thinks it's some holy, spiritual, meaningful thing is an idiot. I really don't give a crap if something their mother should've swallowed demands that the only group prayer allowed is prayer to Jesus, or Satan, or Odin, or your grandma's gaping hungry asshole. It's all equally stupid. You do it, I'll just think you're an idiot, no matter what form your god takes.

Besides, democracy is dead, we're all owned by Wall Street, everything else is just distraction.


You should be worried because they're not going to stop at this.
I have no faith in the current SCOTUS to rule in a way that doesn't unconstitutionally fark things up even more.
 
2014-05-06 09:20:55 PM  
Who saw this coming?

Oh, everyone? Really?

Jesus, even Donny has his hand up and he's completely out of his element.
 
2014-05-06 09:21:01 PM  

gilgigamesh: who knows what could happen.


Pretty much what's happened since at least Reagan. Stick a fork in that democratic republic...
 
2014-05-06 09:21:20 PM  

Krymson Tyde: I'm not a democrat as lately they tend to be too conservative, but farking this.


But I've read that Obama is the most liberal lib that ever libbed it up and is turning America into a socialist dictatorship.  With hookers and blackjack.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report