Wildmon: By electing Trump we avoided criminalizing Christianity
American Family Association Tim Wildmon was thisclose to becoming a criminal if Clinton had won.
Click here for reuse options!Speaking with his son Walker and AFA’s executive vice president Ed Vitagliano, Wildmon asserted that had Clinton won the presidential election, “the attacks on the Christian community would have gotten more intense.” Vitagliano agreed, saying that “President Hillary Clinton would have fully weaponized the federal government to come after Christians.”
“The secular progressive movement,” Wildmon said, “they have a contempt for especially conservative Christians and I think with the election of Donald Trump, we avoided catastrophe … I think that the secular progressive movement and the power of the federal government, especially the executive branch, was ready to really penalize and criminalize, who knows, Christianity in America, and we avoided that.”
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
1,460 responses to Wildmon: By electing Trump we avoided criminalizing Christianity
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 16:46
you’re trying to criminalize Islam and that’s ok right? hypocrite much? by the way, tRump is no Christian and neither are any of these asshats.
Charlie Seivard November 29th, 2016 at 17:03
By electing Trumps we destroyed anything moral or even loosely Christian about our country
whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 17:28
better believe it.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:24
No. It is likely that the Freedom of Religion Restoration Act will be preserved.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:04
That is a misnamed pile of religious interference crap. What it really is, is the Restoration of Christian Privilege Act.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:27
No, it is not that at all. It is just that atheist haters focus their animus and vitriol on Christians, of course.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:58
Nope, it is a blatant attempt to give Christians special privilege. Of course atheist “haters” are against bigotry and the use of lies, hate and fear-mongering which is the mainstay of religious extremists. The Christians you are speaking of are extremists and want their perverted of Christianity to be dominate and make everyone bow to their “laws”. That’s why there is so much animus against them, they are basically evil and damaging to our democracy.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:14
Our very heritage is Christian. It is apodictic.
Look at the upcoming holiday, and the one that just passed last week. Hey, they ain’t Buddhist or Muslim!
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:38
Yeah, the vast majority of Americans call themselves Christian, although over 20% of the population don’t follow any religion. The % of Christians is irrelevant. The Constitution was written to deliberately create a secular government where no religious group can legally dominate another. Christians should never had the privilege they have exercised over the year, just because they created the privilege for themselves doesn’t make it right.
The relation of Christmas to Christians is tenuous at best. It was banned, by Christians, in many places. It was illegal to celebrate Christmas in Scotland for nearly 400 years, the Massachusetts’ Puritans forbade the celebration of Christmas. Most of the trappings, the tree, the presents, the time of year, even Santa himself have their roots in pagan cultures. The Catholic Church simply co-opted the existing winter solstice celebrations and made in a mass to celebrate their Christ. Of course his alleged birth couldn’t have been in the depths of winter, shepherds don’t sit out in the fields with their sheep in the dead of winter.
Hell, the Bible even forbids cutting down trees and bringing them into the house.
You need to get a real education.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:17
The founders absolutely – repeat, absolutely – did NOT get together to create a SECULAR government. Not true, not in the least.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 02:00
They absolutely did. You have been reading the false history of the right. You firmly believe in lies.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:42
Nope. You show me where the Founders made any such reference – “we want to have a secular government” in the convention. In fact, it is EASY to prove you are wrong!
One simple proof is that the Founders created many state constitutions. I hope you know that.
Most of those state constitutions – that were NOT changed when our national constitution was ratified – have specific requirements that one had to be a CHRISTIAN to hold public office.
Another: Some of the states had ESTABLISHED CHURCHES, and there was no conflict with the national constitution. They kept them!
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:06
This is waht happens when you have a juvenile mind. We have a secular nation because the framers deliberately left out ANY damn reference to any god. Article 6 contains the “no religious test” clause. I no it’s hard for you, but see if you can imagine that it means no religion needed to be in the government. The 1st Amendment directs government to stay out of religion and vice versa. Since, by design, our government is NOT religious, it must be secular. QED.
The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights and made them the law in all states. After that none of the religious crap in the states constitution was valid. Eventually, all the states dropped the meaningless crap.
You really need to read some real history, not the fake history the right sells.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:19
You are wrong. The statement was that a SECULAR government was set up. The Founders did not have that in mind. You are not using logic here. If one is not promoting religion, it does not mean that they then ARE promoting “secularism!”
And answer the other questions about state constitutions and established churches. Why won’t you answer?
George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:14
RightThinkingOne: The 14th Amendment invalidated state level religious preference by applying The Establishment Clause and Religious Freedom Clause to all levels of government.
William December 1st, 2016 at 01:09
You know when the rube has lost the debate when his argument is knowing what the so called “founders”, who have been dead for two centuries were “thinking”.
Meepestos November 30th, 2016 at 02:53
Do you think they intended a theocratic-like government or something more like a secular society like that envisioned by the person that invented the term secularism?; also know as soft secularism – a society that recognizes the light and guidance from other religions even those without gods. But only the light and guidance (not only from the religious) that promotes good government and a social order separate from religious influences such as sharia law and halacha to name a few.
Secularism in most Western nations manages to promote religious faith and worship without having to actively dismiss or criticize it. Most have generous tax breaks for religious institutions and have constitutions that protect worship like the US’s First Amendment and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms for example; both secular in nature.
Western secularism ideally recognizes that the religious and non-religious elements of society are required (including those that are not Christian) to accomplish a secular pluralistic society, but not elements that justify discriminatory and draconian laws derived from the use of biblical or other religious interpretations as we see in places like El Salvador, some countries in Africa and less extreme in some countries in Europe.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:48
I am waiting for you to show me some statements from the Constitutional Convention where the Founders actually referenced creating a “secular” government.
Next, account for their creating state constitutions that had, as a requirement of holding any public office, one must be a Christian.
Next, please account for the FACT that when the 13 states became our nation, some had established churches, and not a SINGLE THING was mentioned about the ending of that being some kind of requirement to be a state!
I eagerly await your SPECIFIC response to each!
Meepestos November 30th, 2016 at 23:31
What’s with the deflecting?
Do you think they intended a theocratic-like government or something more like a secular society like that envisioned by the person that invented the term secularism? Yes or no would suffice.
Also anything to refute regarding my assertions on Western secularism?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:13
You are not reading what is written. It is a distortion to even put it in those terms. It is completely absurd – for anyone who reads even a bit about the founding era – to think that such a thing even BEGAN to enter their minds. The founders did not discuss whether the society and government should be “secular” or “religious.”
READ SOME HISTORY. Certain things were simply taken for granted!
Meepestos December 1st, 2016 at 00:38
“It is completely absurd – for anyone who reads even a bit about the founding era – to think that such a thing even BEGAN to enter their minds”
For you perhaps. Not for anyone that knows the founders were educated and familiar with Roman and Greek philosophers and that secularism drew its intellectual roots from them. After all, the US Constitution and US law was modelled after Roman law (which is it as three branches of government with the executive corresponding to consuls, and legislative with the senate being similar to the Roman, and the House of Representatives paralleling the Centuriate and Tribal Assemblies and a Judicial branch equivalent to the Praetors), right down to our citizenship laws; to think that secularism never entered their minds would be absurd.
Google: “Roman Greek influence on the US founders” as will Richard, Carl J., The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1995. This article seems very much on point, Garrett Lysford; 2013; Cicero and Adams: Architects of the Founding; Sunoikisis Undergraduate Research Journal. You might also find Aatif Rashid ;In What Ways Did Baron de Montesquieu Influence the Constitution of the United States?”; Demand Media helpful in connecting the French influence to their Greek and Roman roots.
You will notice that the US ended up as a Republic established on Roman lines.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:13
No, not for me. I challenge you to find such a discussion in the Constitutional Convention. You cannot. I have been asking a dozen atheists here who made the same assertion, and not a single one can find any such discussion. Nada.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:14
Actually, the source of our Constitution is largely from COMPACTS and COVENANTS.
Meepestos December 3rd, 2016 at 00:43
Thanks for elaborating further down the thread.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:52
Yes. I see the atheist Left denying the truth of our origins. The big question is – the one that they refuse to really consider or discuss – WHY are they so adamantly determined to create this new mythical history of our nation?
I think I know the reason, but would like to get one of them to be honest. But that is not possible. These Leftist atheists hide behind lies and subterfuge.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:18
It appears that I am going to get bounced because of my consistent disagreement with the establishment here.
Meepestos December 3rd, 2016 at 00:38
I hope not.
Obewon November 30th, 2016 at 23:58
Here is founder George Washington’s ratified treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by POTUS2 John Adams -my late relative who I am descended from. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55a3b46ca2f6c599aba7381a694aae43138c70093785c67e532e5dfd4dbe0338.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:16
Glad you put that up. It shows how atheist haters distort. The “Treaty of Tripoli” is misused to imply that it actually means some kind of denial of religious belief or “secularism” per se.
First of all, nobody ever said, as in that treaty, that America “founded on the Christian religion.” That is accurate. There is a huge and complete difference between being founded on something, and being culturally something and being influenced and guided by something. Our national government was not founded on any religion, otherwise we could be called a Theocracy, and would have a national church, laws requiring attendance, membership, taxes in support, etc.
The Muslims were suspicious of Christians – because of the Crusades and centuries of religious war.
That statement was written to assure them that there would be no religious war waged against them; the same paragraph of the “founding” statement ends with: “[I]t is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:18
But another treaty was signed with the same group when Jefferson was the president. It was referred to as The Treaty of Peace and Amity: Jefferson deliberately removed the word which said America was not a Christian nation!!!!
The treaties; READ IT!
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1805t.asp
Obewon December 1st, 2016 at 00:50
Compos mentis? This was no longer the founders 1787-9 congress you’ve been pretending to relish e.g. Presidential term: March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05c0eb3f467504cd0f0fcd5d276353b84f363ae9b89b2306353e29acc2e7258f.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:22
Yes. Two Liberals, one Marxist Left-winger, and two neo-cons.
rubellapox2 November 30th, 2016 at 11:47
Then why did they not mention Christ or any god in the constitution? I mean if you’re creating a nation based on christianity, why not spell it out from the get?
No rightthinking, this is most definitely a secular country with a secular government and secular laws which apply to everyone, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or non religious…what you’re complaining about is Christian privilege and sense of entitlement, which has gone on for too long..
Heck, I don’t even consider evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons religions anymore.. they’ve evolved into political parties…and as such should have their tax exempt statuses revoked… pay like the rest of us.. infrastructure and all the services such as police, firemen, and public roads that people use to get to church are not free and shouldn’t be put on the backs of citizens who don’t subscribe to your point of view…
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:04
The nation was not created on Christianity. That is not what I wrote. I wrote many other posts proving that the Founders did NOT get together to create a “secular” government.
Please refer to them and generate some responses.
Thank you.
rubellapox2 December 1st, 2016 at 05:56
Well, if they did not create a secular government, this would be a Theocracy right? And what is the official government religion?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:40
No, that is not logical. Put your assertion into a syllogism, and you will see how it is not logical.
rubellapox2 December 2nd, 2016 at 03:57
Not logical? Ok then, if this is not a secular government, what is it?
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:53
You are putting something into a rubric that is not logical.
rubellapox2 December 4th, 2016 at 20:15
I’m sorry but what the hell are you talking about?
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:21
It is not logical. Please get someone to look at it, and to explain how.
rubellapox2 December 5th, 2016 at 05:31
You explain it…..
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:24
No, please get someone.
Let me know and get back. Thank you.
Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:38
The law of the land says specifically that this nation was NOT founded on the christian religion.
ergo: secular. That, BTW, was ratified by Congress and signed by the President. Adams, IIRC.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:08
It absolutely does not. But you show me where the founders – in the Constitution or the Convention – said that.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 20:38
RightThinkingOne: Inaccurate assertion. Repeating your inaccurate assertion doesn’t make it true.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:21
No, it is accurate. You cannot show what you claim. You cannot. You only negate what you do not like.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:58
RightThinkingOne: I can. It’s clear in The US Constitution that no religion is given favored status or any special privilege. There are actually prohibitions against such actions. That *IS* the model for a secular governmental structure.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:09
No favored status for reasons that I should not have to explain. And RESPOND to the other points, the other questions! You cannot. And neither can anyone else on this thread!
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:14
RightThinkingOne:
I’ve already explained why Christianity doesn’t get a favored status.
What other points? Please enumerate what you’d like addressed. I’d be happy to help you to better understand (^_^)
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:20
Christianity DID get a favored status. It was particular sects that did not – at the national level. I shouldn’t have to tell you that.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:51
RightThinkingOne: Yes, for a time states were allowed to favor one religion or another. That option was rescinded by The 14th Amendment, which applies all government prohibitions in The Constitution and Bill of Rights to all levels of government.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:05
No, it was not. Read history.
And you did not answer it at all! We are referring to the Founding and the Constitution. Again (FIFTH! REPETITION!): Most states had requirements for one to be specifically a CHRISTIAN to hold public office, and the Founders participated in writing them! The Constitution did not forbid that – NOT A BIT. It did not forbid established churches in the states, either!
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:17
RightThinkingOne:
Incorrect. The 14th Amendment did modify these state and federal level issues.
I’ve indicated the operative word. Also, only *some* specified Christianity. Most indicate a religious/theistic belief of some kind.
Pointedly rejecting them on a national level, as expressed in The Constitution.
Incorrect. The *No Religious Test Clause* and *Establishment Clause* do address this, a bit.
Correct! Until The 14th Amendment invalidated that, states were permitted to endorse a religion. That’s no longer the case.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:26
Incorrect. Read history. Check when the states – on their own accord – did something about these things.
And you are dishonest, or not reading. I was clear. You changed the subject. Read.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:37
RightThinkingOne: This quality of state independence within the nation was rescinded by The 14th Amendment. I’ve been clear on this point. Read history. If you think I’ve changed the subject, then you’re either ignorant or being obtuse.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:11
Read the sequence of posts. You are wrong.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:16
RightThinkingOne: I just did. I have consistently stated correct information.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:21
I did enumerate them. About 3 times to you.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:50
RightThinkingOne: I don’t see them in the comments above. Can you please go back and copy them from whatever post you’re thinking of.
Larry Schmitt November 30th, 2016 at 07:05
Christmas is as much a secular holiday as it is religious. Non-Christians, including Jews and atheists, celebrate Christmas. And it’s a federal holiday. No other day with a religious connection is a federal holiday.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:56
Yes. Non-Christians celebrate it. It is a federal holiday.
Thanks for proving my point that our heritage is Christian.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:55
RightThinkingOne: You have inferred details that were not stated.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:08
It is a CHRISTIAN holiday, not a Buddhist, and we do not celebrate Muslim holidays or Hindu ones, either. There is an Easter break for most public schools, too. And that ain’t no Shinto holiday! LOL
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:11
RightThinkingOne: Actually it’s a holiday for multiple religions generally occurring in December.
Easter break? Are you referring to spring break?
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:17
Christmas: Birth of Jesus celebrated.
Easter: Celebrates the resurrection of Jesus from the dead
Christian holidays. Cannot be denied.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:48
RightThinkingOne: Other things can also be celebrated on December 25th that have no inherent Christian quality. Festivus for example. That day and month are not somehow reserved exclusively for one religion.
Again, Easter is in Spring. If you want to celebrate something religious during that time, you can worship Jesus or Eostre (the pagan goddess that Easter is named after).
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:02
It is Christmas. A Christmas holiday. It is so patently obvious. Sure, people can worship Satan on that holiday if they wish, but it is immature and lame to suggest that it is not based on Christianity.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:10
RightThinkingOne: It is so patently obvious that you’re assuming Christians are exclusively given privilege to reference December 25th as property of their religion. It has no inherent Christian quality or history, instead adopted to undermine Pagan rituals performed at the time to celebrate the winter solstice.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:24
No, I am not. READ! Simple language: The designating of that as a holiday came from a CHRISTIAN ORIGIN AND TRADITION! It cannot be denied by any rational adult!
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:34
RightThinkingOne: December 25th is a federal holiday with no specified religious connotations.
Christmas is a Christian holiday intended to subvert pagan celebrations of the day.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:11
You cannot deny what is patently obvious. It is childish, vapid, unreasonable and irrational to claim that there was not a religious source. Please do not respond to me any more.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:32
RightThinkingOne:
I’ve never denied the pagan religious source of the December Christian holiday.
I dismiss your plea. If you don’t want me to respond, then stop posting erroneous information and biased opinion.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:18
Yes, a Christian holiday, and set by the national government.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:08
RightThinkingOne: That’s one of the holidays recognized by national government during that time, but not the only one.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:30
That changes NOTHING. You are not logical: You are implying – somehow – that since there are other non-Christian based holidays, it means that the Christian basis of Christmas is somehow invalidated.
Makes no sense.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:38
RightThinkingOne: Like many Christians, you are ignoring the other holidays. The federal government is not on record as having set up this holiday exclusively for Christianity.
It makes sense that you would argue for that though. You’re hoping to use that erroneous point to justify some other logical leap or assumption of Christian privilege.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:40
I am not. I am focusing on Christmas. READ.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:53
RightThinkingOne: So what are you claiming is the significance of December 25th in the Christian tradition? …other than supplanting pagan holidays.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:40
{The federal government is not on record as having set up this holiday exclusively for Christianity.}
Not what I wrote. READ. R..e..a..d!
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:51
RightThinkingOne: Which part do you want me to read?
The part where you incorrectly claim that the holidays origin is Christian, when the real origin is pagan? Examples being the worship of an evergreen and the holiday coinciding with the winter solstice, which was a holiday in many pagan traditions.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:01
You are denying what cannot be denied. I already went over this five times. Last time: It does not matter what the supposed “origins” were. It was a CHRISTIAN holiday, even (as I said 3 times) if Dec 25 was not when Jesus was born, etc. It was based on it being CHRISTIAN, even if the “origins” were pagan.
It was the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. It cannot be denied. A rational adult cannot deny that.
Please do not respond.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:49
RightThinkingOne:
Your cognitive dissonance amuses me. Do you not realize how you’re contradicting yourself in the statement above? A married bachelor (^_^)
Take your own advice. Stop posting flawed and fallacious information. I will continue to correct your errors.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:12
No contradiction at all. You are illogical: You are saying that a national (and state) holiday was set up and those who decided it based it on paganism. Silly assertion. I will not deign to even try to refute something like that.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:50
RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. I’m saying the December 25th holiday was set up to honor multiple religions, not just Christianity.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:00
It was to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. It cannot be denied by a rational adult.
rubellapox2 November 30th, 2016 at 11:22
They should call it what it is.. the anarchy law… anyone will be able to turn down anyone they don’t like and claim it’s their religious freedom… gays can deny Christians and Muslims… muslims can deny women and Jews.. Christians will deny anyone, single moms, divorcees, gays… how is that making us the United States of America?… how does that ridiculous piece of legislation, which will be struck down anyway as unconstitutional, make this a better country?
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:02
No, it is for people of sincere religious faith, of course. And please read the act. It would not allow anything you are suggesting.
rubellapox2 December 1st, 2016 at 05:53
Ah, so a law that’s only for people of faith? So, special rights for religious people only?… I have read the act, it states anyone who holds a sincerely held religious belief… that could be anyone of any faith.. Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and satanist would have the right to deny service to anyone because of their beliefs… a clerk at city hall could deny a woman a drivers license, because according to his religious beliefs, women should not be driving.. An amendment like that would never make it thru, it would be Unconstitutional..
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:39
Yes, people of any faith.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:30
Who’s we?….;)
Suzanne McFly November 29th, 2016 at 17:20
Yeah sure and old white men will be able to walk down the street without fearing for their lives once President Obama leaves office.
Mike N. November 29th, 2016 at 17:30
If I were the praying type I’d pray for these feeble-minded folks…
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 22:16
If God were the existing type, He’d still just shrug His shoulders and do nothing.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 22:21
The old prayer vs “God’s Plan” dilemma. If their god is truly omniscient and knows, in fine detail, what is going to happen until the end of time, how can he allow prayer requests to change this intricate plan? Wouldn’t that be like the “time quake” roaring into the future?
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 22:39
SHHH! Do NOT yell in the psych ward!
KABoink_after_wingnut_hacker November 29th, 2016 at 17:50
Americas most privileged people are so delusional, they feign hardship whilst deliberately persecuting others with glee.
I believe the term is ‘self-righteous a$$holes’.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4b1de659fdb98bbd3c168c5e7e42542ddde8c1cf4714883aafefe1619083039e.jpg
Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 18:01
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/godisnotarepublican/files/2015/07/please-stop-featured-image.jpg
Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 18:03
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/11/fa/c5/11fac5ac17c887b99e48c04038d1a958.jpg
Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 18:04
https://selfuni.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/persecuted2.png?w=1075
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 19:58
Exactly~!
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 04:34
I admit, I am kinda partial to Our Lady of Perpetual Motion.
Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 17:59
Exactly what did Hillary say that indicated she would “come after christians?
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:24
Her and Obama’s policies are, in effect, doing just that.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:30
More lies….
Can you not think of an original thought?
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:31
Typical response from you. Just insult and label.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:36
Whats is typical is your comment…
Trowing out garbage based on nothing but religious zealots who make a living being persecuted, and wish to discriminate against anyone their “holy book” tells them it’s OK to do…
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:42
You need to be specific. What “discrimination?” How about radical atheist haters insulting and demeaning religious faith? Now, that is discrimination and INtolerance!
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 20:49
No, it’s not. You have the absolute freedom to follow any religion you chose. What you don’t have is any freedom from criticism and ridicule. You are talking about religious privilege, not religious freedom. Criticism and ridicule of asinine religious ideas is NOT discrimination, refusing to provide a service I am in business to provide because of your religious belief or refusing to hire you for the same reason, that’s discrimination. Criticizing your ridiculous belief is not intolerance, stopping you from expressing them by coercion would be intolerance.
You are a poorly educated person, but you have no constraint on blasting your ignorance to all and sundry, then get all upset because people call your nonsense what it is, nonsense.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:26
Typical: Transmogrify the statement into something of absolutely, utterly something unrelated – “rights.”
It IS “discrimination,” but not in the technically “legal” sense, of course.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:55
Can you translate that to English, my Gibberish is a little weak.
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 22:13
Him say “Me like hate, want hate different tribes. Big chief-to-be say it good.”
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/stills/G/gogo-gophers3.jpg
bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 16:09
Go Go Gophers, watch them go go go!
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:13
It is the difference between “rights” and social disapproval.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:27
So other people’s right are subject to your, or anyone’s approval/disapproval? That’s not how things work, the majority doesn’t get to sh!t all over a minority be simple force of numbers.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:35
No. There are real rights and made-up ones. Not in all cases, but one indication of a made-up “pretend” right is when the government has to pay for it. Take health care. It obviously is not a right. A state could choose to pay for some kind of hideous socialized medicine or whatever, but it is a fallacy to say it is a “right.”
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:40
Who decides which are the “real” rights and which are not, you? Why shouldn’t health care be a right or do you support the right to die because some can’t afford it? Typical self-centered, non-empathetic right winger.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:18
Look up “Natural Rights” and get back.
Human courts do not create rights, of course. That is the mentality of tyrants and despots.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 02:07
All rights come from humans, all laws come from humans, all morals come from humans and all gods come from humans. There is no such thing as “natural” rights, that was a concept of the 18th century like the “Noble Savage”. You really do need to get a real education, step out of the bubble you are living in and check out reality, it’s great.
Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:30
He obviously can’t grasp the truth that ‘Natural Rights’ have nothing what so ever to do with christianity.
The joining of the two was done some decades ago by right wing religious radicals to justify their quest for power and the say over our ‘Constitutional Rights’. Wasn’t true then, still no true now.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:43
Yes, that is the Leftist view: Man creates rights. It is heinous.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:17
No, it is reality view. There are only humans, no gods, no demons, no devil, no heaven, no hell, all of these things come from the mind of humans. Heinous is telling little children that some god is watching them and telling them they will burn in hell if they do exactly as they are told.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:20
It is a different view. The Natural Rights view respect humanity and bases law on what IS PATENTLY CLEAR in our Constitution: Our rights are SECURED.
Look at the Constitution! I am serious. Rights are SECURED.
DO YOU REALIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT WORD? It does not mean “created,” but SECURING what is already there!
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:18
Nothing to do with “affording.” Health care is not a right. That is apodictic.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:59
Everything to do with affording. People went bankrupt, people died because they couldn’t afford health care. People suffered because they couldn’t get coverage on a “pre-existing” condition. People died because insurance companies pulled coverage because it was too expensive. Apparently you think dying due to lack of care is a right. Such a good Christian attitude. You should read Matthew 25 verse 31 to the end.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:39
Yes. It can be about “affording,” but in most cases, it is about what one prioritizes. Many people want their cable TV, flat screen televisions, computers, iPad, pets, eating out, etc. After those things, THEN they start thinking about insurance.
And many wait until they have a problem, and scream about “rights” to health care which is actually demanding that the government confiscate the property of RESPONSIBLE people to pay for their negligence and selfishness.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:57
The endless RW lie about the poor, the vile spewings of selfish people. You assume these things without evidence, showing your abject lack of decency and humanity. You disgust me.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:16
Most poor are not selfish. They are lazy.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:58
So I going to guess, since you seem to be a bible thumping Christian fundamentalist, you are pro-slavey, against the mixing of the races, for killing other people who do not worship your god, or worship him in a different manner than described in (Your) holy book….
Care for me to continue?
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:25
I am not going to apply YOUR logic:
If a person supports homosexual marriage, then he has to be a homosexual.
YOUR logic. Applied.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:54
Fail, Christians DID support slavery using the Bible and “God’s Word” as justification. They supported segregation and miscegenation using the same reasoning. Hell, the last one didn’t change until 1967. Yes, the Christians did commit vile torture and murder using their god as justification. Christians claim that their god is unchanging, so how can you be against slavery etc now?
Support a positive thing is not the same as being willing to hate and fear. Decent people support equality for all, not just the ones that some god likes.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:11
Deflection off the topic. I APPLIED the “logic” of the post to which I responded. You are not.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:25
You have no idea what logic is and certainly don’t know how to apply it.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:32
I applied the logic presented. Take another look.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:40
No, you didn’t, you spouted some foolish BS and called it logic.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:19
I applied the “reasoning” and “logic” of what was presented to me.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:53
No, you didn’t, you just presented some garbled non-sequitur.
Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 20:59
And if there are “atheist haters etc., etc.” what does that have to do with President Obama or Hillary?
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:24
Think “Sisters of the Poor.” They take care of the impoverished who are abandoned and dying.
And Obama and his sick administration wanted to force them to…. Well, YOU look it up.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:48
OMFSM, the pathetic “Sisters of the Poor” refused to simply fill out forms, they were not being forced to go against their “sincerely held beliefs”, they were being a$$holes.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:09
Another PERFECT example. And the Department of Justice went after them. The NATIONAL GOVERNMENT tried to force them to capitulate to the demands of the CENTRAL AUTHORITY.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:19
Hardly, the gist is the Sisters refused to sign a standard form that they were opting out of providing birth control for the women that worked for them, nothing more. Somehow stating they don’t want to provide birth control is an attack on their faux religious freedom. What it was, was stupid. Refusing to allow their employees to get free birth control paid for by their insurance is detestable nonsense and foolish preening. They are the ones imposing their religious beliefs on others, hypocrites.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:23
Yes. They did not want to condone sin. Pretty basic, simple stuff.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:25
Bullsh!t, they wanted to be grandstanding hypocrites. How can saying you don’t want to have your employees get birth control under their insurance be condoning sin? Sin has no legal standing, it’s just a construct religion made up to control the flock.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:32
No, they did not want to condone sin. They are not trying to control. They do not want to condone sin. If employees went out and got birth control, it would be no problem. But it would be a sin to provide it.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:58
Of course they are controlling the health of their employees, pregnancies can be dangerous to women’s health and financial well being. The Catholics, and now the Protestants, prattle on about the “evils” of abortion, but block a means of avoiding having an abortion, that’s basically insane. Of course you know the real reason the Catholic Church has always been against birth control and abortion, don’t you? It was so they could have lots and lots of little Catholic babies to grow their church, sin had nothing to do with it, that was added as justification.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:20
Not logical. They are not “controlling” anything. Again: Apply your “logic” and “reasoning”: It would mean that NOT providing is “taking away” and violating rights.
Illogical.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:52
Your babbling again.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:37
It is obvious that they are not controlling anyone, of course.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:52
Yes they are, they are controlling the health and access to birth control of their employees based on some stupid notion of “sin”. They, like you, are ridiculous.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:16
Illogical. And I clearly and cogently articulated how it is illogical.
Larry Schmitt November 30th, 2016 at 07:12
They want them to provide birth control to their employees through their health insurance, the same as every other employer does.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:57
The sisters did not want to condone, or indirectly participate in, sin.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 20:42
Oh, you mean the horrible assaults that support equality for all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation or support a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, those policies? Or dear what an awful thing to keep extreme religious people from manipulating the government to support their narrow view of morality, based solely on their religion. Suggest you reread the 1st Amendment.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:47
To what “equality” are you referring?
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 22:31
The freedom to marry whomever they love, choosing whether or not they should have the baby they are carrying. You religious freaks have been attacking the LGBT community with egregious lies and hateful vitriol for years, attempting to get the law to enforce your hateful beliefs. The extremist religious keep trying to force women to carry to term regardless of the woman’s circumstances, health or emotional needs. Protestants were drawn into the anti-abortion camp by crass, right wing, politicians to get more votes for Republicans. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the anti-abortion crowd is also anti sex education and anti birth control, they also drop the fetus like a hot potato once it is born – “no welfare for you and your brat, slvt”.
This is simply a reflection of the patriarchal nature of religion, women must be controlled.
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 22:57
Is this a repeat post, Red?
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:03
The original shows waiting moderation because I used the word “s l u t” in it. I haven’t refreshed so I thought that it was still hung up.
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 23:19
I’ll delete it or you can…alan pays by the web inch, you know…:P
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:23
I can’t delete it because I still see it in moderation. I don’t refresh because it screws up the new comment function.
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 23:23
I got it.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:17
I will apply your logic to a real scenario. My brother and I mused that if our wives ever die and we are alone, we should live together. (No, nobody’s spouse is sick. It was just a casual conversation.)
I love my brother. Therefore, applying YOUR “logic,” we should be able to get married.
Or take it another step: Perhaps even now, even though our wives are both alive and well, we can get married.
Radical “rationale” applied.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:22
You wouldn’t understand logic if it walked into the room and kicked you in the a$$. As it stands, incest is illegal in many places and marrying someone else while you are still married is still not legal. Your “scenario” is ridiculous and wholly detached from reality.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:24
I applied YOUR logic!
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:59
No, you didn’t, you babbled some foolish nonsense.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:21
I applied what was presented.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:51
There’s your basic problem, lack of comprehension.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:37
No, I applied the “reasoning” presented. It is a way to demonstrate the fallacy of what is presented.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:54
No, you didn’t, you have no clue what you are talking about. You babble some idiotic nonsense about your brother and your wives and think you made some kind of valid point. You didn’t, you’re delusional.
Obewon November 30th, 2016 at 20:21
No Red Mann applied both Conservative Majority SCOTUS decisions upholding the 14th & 10th “equally”. The second stare decisis was for slow red state folks, unaware SCOTUS rules nationally citing only the 10th “equally”.
Goldstar family Khan will lend you a copy of the 1787-9 to present ratified Constitution for your alleged comprehension… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49fb30d3ea081585a87556b1b9326467dfca270f232b450ba281edbe642224e0.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/56efb58a0ef305e512d5371ac4585391a46aadc6219f841f45aa67427289390f.jpg
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:47
A right to “choose” what, exactly?
Jack E Raynbeau November 29th, 2016 at 22:33
Which policies? Please be specific.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:17
Look up “Little Sisters of the Poor,” for example.
Jack E Raynbeau November 29th, 2016 at 23:25
No, you tell me. I’m not going to chase your delusions.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:29
Not a delusion. Real situation. Department of Justice involved. Learn.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:59
You need to learn.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:21
Dept of Justice was involved. Truth. Fact.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:51
You understanding of the actual issue is not based on facts.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:36
It is. Look it up. Those sisters administer to the dying who are impoverished and without anyone to help them.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:50
So what, that has nothing to do with their pigheadedness in refusing to fill out a damn form that says they don’t want their employees to get birth control from their insurance. Stupid religious privilege in action.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:15
I see. Those sisters, who do the work that others won’t do, are “pigheaded.”
Jack E Raynbeau November 29th, 2016 at 23:59
Just a delusion. If any branch of government proposed criminalizing religion this atheist would take to the streets in support of the religious. No branch of government has done so.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 00:30
But the upcoming one could well try to attack the rights of many.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:21
No. Look it up.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:50
You look it up. Obviously you get all your “news” from the RightWingNoiseAndLyingMachine.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:36
I strongly suggest you look it up. It is easy to check.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:38
I have looked it, but on reliable sources, not the RWNALM.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:10
It is easy to check.
bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 16:03
If you can’t provide a link, then we can just discount your claim.
It’s not up to the reader to prove YOUR claims.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:05
Google is a great tool. Put in the “Little Sisters of the Poor” and add “contraception” or some variation of that.
Let me know what you discover!
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 02:49
No. If you cannot provide a link, or elucidate, you point is simply not valid.
What I KNOW about it is that the Little Sisters thought that the simple requirement of signing a paper STATING their position about birth control was an attack on their religion. Yeah, paperwork is JUST like the Spanish Inquisition!
If you can’t provide a source that categorically disproves that synopsis, then your point is moot.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:35
Google:
bpollen December 2nd, 2016 at 02:12
No link, so you point is invalid.
whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 18:30
https://twitter.com/splcenter/status/803615494267760641
i guess he would say they are just good “christians.”
Carla Akins November 29th, 2016 at 19:03
What fucking attacks????
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:25
Christmas, for one.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:28
Psycho Talk…
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:31
No. The House of Representatives actually put forth a resolution concerning this.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:38
Ha Ha Ha Ha….
And where did it go?
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:43
It was voted on and approved. Only a couple, out of HUNDREDS, either voted against it or abstained! It was, in essence, unanimous. I suppose the few that did not agree were radial haters of religion, or maybe they feared their constituency.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:49
Please name the resolution they passed, and a resolution does not make a law…
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:21
Sure. I “did my homework!”
“The House of Representatives (1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas; (2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and (3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.”
-House Resolution 579
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:44
Who wants ban references to Christmas? Just because retailers want to be inclusive and use “Seasons Greeting” and “Happy Holidays” because, hot flash, there are more than fundigelicals shopping for Christmas. There are moderate Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, “Nones”, agnostics and, yes, even atheists. Those two phrases have been associated with Christmas for generations but, all of a sudden, they’re practically Pagan. More childish nonsense from extremist Christians.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:06
“Inclusive” (along with “diversity”) means attacking Western civilization and Christianity. It is an excuse, a pretense, for an obvious agenda, of course.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 23:10
What in hell are you babbling about? If your idea of Western civilization is that distorted, it’s little wonder you spout so much nonsense. As to Christianity, who cares, it’s just one false belief out of thousands of false beliefs. Your Christianity is nothing special.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:21
It is true: How about “tolerance” and “diversity” for you radicals to accept that some people believe in Jesus? That some people know that real marriage is between male and female? Heck, you cannot even DISCUSS it rationally! When the Left uses those terms, it invariably means to “tolerate” what the Left-wingers think should be tolerated.
Our very culture and values are inextricable from Christianity. It was part of the foundation of the greatest nation and culture in the world. We have inherited it. It is part of you and me, even if you try to reject it.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 00:09
So much wrong in such a small space.
This makes no sense, we accept you have the right to believe in Jesus, but we also have the right to ridicule your belief.
Some people claim that marriage is between a man and a women, but that is simply what they believe, without any foundation. No one is going to force them to engage in SSM. It is you and your ilk that want to deny the right for certain people to marry because of your unfounded beliefs. This is intolerance. Criticizing your attempts to force your beliefs on others is NOT intolerance.
Totally false. The foundation of our nation, as expressed by the Constitution, was derived from Enlightenment philosophers, not the Bible. The framers fought of the religious extremists of the day who wanted to insert their Christian god into it. You have been listening to serial liar, David Barton. You know nothing of real history.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:23
There you go again, incorrectly transmogrifying a statement to “rights.” Not related to “rights,” of course. Maybe you are just in the Leftist habit of putting desires and personal wants in terms of “rights.”
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:49
More gibberish.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:35
No. It is a typical tactic: Claim something is a right when, in fact, it is merely a preference or a desire.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:48
Still gibberish.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:15
No, that is the tactic. “Right to a decent standard of living.” “Right to health care.”
Sound familiar? Do you DENY that those “rights” are bandied about? Do you?
Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:15
Still, even a bible thumper knows, or should know, that aside from the nativity myth, all the rituals, traditions and symbols of the so called ‘christmas’ season are of Pagan origin. The bible even forbids the ‘christmas tree’.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:07
I know that atheist haters like to try to malign Christianity by saying its “origins/symbols/celebrations are pagan.”
But that is not the point, of course. Christmas is OBVIOUSLY the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, even if there are some “pagan” symbols, and Christ was not born in December.
The point, again: It is a CHRISTIAN holiday!
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:22
I know it is not a law. That is why I wrote: r..e..s..o..l..u..t..i..o..n
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:39
Specify these “attacks” on Christmas, give details and explain how they are attacks.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:05
In December 2005, House Resolution 579 was created in response to the attacks of hateful atheists on one of America’s most celebrated traditions: Christmas. This resolution was set up to protect the symbols, traditions, and the national holiday of Christmas and to denounce attempts by these haters to ban references to it. This resolution was entitled: “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected.” 401 were in favor, and only 22 opposed it. Specifically:
The House of Representatives (1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas; (2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and (3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 00:24
There has never been any such “attack” by atheists, who are not hateful, just rational.
This “attack” is a myth made up by lying RW freaks.
It is not an attack on Christmas to keep the government from favoring one religion over others by placing Christian symbols, such as a nativity scene, on publicly owned property. This is a basic concept expressed in the 1st Amendment that you fools cannot grasp.
Hell, I’m an atheist and I put up all kinds of Christmas decorations, including a nativity, but it is on my, private, property. Churches, private organizations and private citizens are completely free to display whatever the want, but no, you want the government to endorse your religion as well and you think this meets (3) above.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:25
There is. It is consistent. Why would the House spend time to create such a resolution? It absolutely CANNOT be denied that it was in response to what was going on. A rational adult cannot deny that.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:47
Because the House is full of Republican idiots that think wasting time on this nonsense if a good idea, like voting to repeal ACA over 50 times. The GOP has become God’s Own Party, flooded with religious extremists.
Budda November 30th, 2016 at 06:30
Exactly!
Larry Schmitt November 30th, 2016 at 07:15
Because they watch Fox news, and believe in the annual “War on Christmas,” which should be in full swing by now.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:34
Not logical: Didn’t you see the numbers who agreed? Do you REALLY think that there were only 22 Democrats in the entire House?
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:41
So what, it was a stupid, meaningless bit of posturing. There is NO attack on Christmas, just on foolish Christians who believe they are privileged and everyone MUST agree with them. It has been explained to you over and over but you are to dense to get it. I’m not going to waste my time trying to teach a willfully ignorant fool.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:11
No, it brings out an obvious point that I will repeat for a THIRD (and last) time: It was almost unanimous!
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:14
Who cares, it was absolute, grandstanding bullsh!t, totally meaningless and a waste of taxpayers money.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:21
That is what you WANT to believe because it contradicts your set ideas. The FACT is that they did that, and for OBVIOUS reasons, of course.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:25
They did what, pass a stupid feel good meaningless resolution about a problem that doesn’t even exist.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:52
Not valid. They made the effort for a reason. It was not out of the blue. That is not logical or even a reasonable assumption. But I know why you declared something as definitive that you cannot know.
It is a consistent pattern.
I am still waiting for a response to the other.
Carla Akins November 30th, 2016 at 06:46
Citation, please. Name one actual instance of someone not being able to celebrate xmas.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:55
Look up the Pawtucket, RI case in which atheist haters tried to have a Christmas display made illegal!
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:07
RightThinkingOne: Which specific case? If the display was on public property, I think I know why it was disputed.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:14
Look it up.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:24
You’re talking about Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) where the court decided (5 – 4) that the display didn’t violate the Lemon Test.
Four years later in County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) the court split over the display of the creche in a courthouse and the display of a Menorah along with a Christmas tree on the grounds. The court decide 5 -4 that the creche violation the establishment clause and 6 – 3 that the Menorah and tree didn’t.
You seem to equate suing with destroying or some such nonsense.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:51
I know the cases. I know you looked them up. Now I know that you can do Google searches and have no excuse not to do so.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:06
RTO: If you make a claim, it’s your responsibility to cite material for others. If you want to validate your case, then muscle up and do your own homework.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:08
RightThinkingOne: Accurately referenced the issue you’re trying to address. There are many court cases in every state across the nation.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:11
I found and posted the citation about an hour ago.
Carla Akins December 1st, 2016 at 04:05
It wasn’t made illegal, nor was the attempt made. The first amendment is pretty clear – govt doesn’t show a religious prefences on govt property with tax dollars. This is not attack on Christianity, it a pr-Constitution case. If govt office placed only Islamic displays in govt office and public schools, your head would explode, and rightly so. Keep your religion out of my government. Period.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:39
The point is that the atheist haters WANT to rid the public of the joys of Christmas, of traditions and what almost everyone in our nation celebrates and in which they find some peace and inspiration.
It is hard to understand how hateful they must be to want to take it away, destroy that image by its removal, knowing that so many people find joy in it, see it as beautiful.
Carla Akins December 2nd, 2016 at 03:50
No, no they don’t. No, I don ‘t. I don’t want to be forced to participate in someone else’s religion, period. It doesn’t belong in schools and government. You are free to ccelebrate and whorsip the religion of your choice in your home, church and yes – in public but you have no right to expect me to participate and then penalize me if or when I don’t.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:53
But you obviously do. You think that having a creche is somehow “forcing” religion on you. If a community wants a creche in public display, only the most reprehensible and hateful people would go to the courts to try to get it removed.
Carla Akins December 5th, 2016 at 04:08
I’m not the one crying about persecution, and attacks on Christianity.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:23
I am a non-believer, so I cannot be whining, of course. I am speaking about freedom and human nature.
Carla Akins December 5th, 2016 at 18:57
Then what was this? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c25884c88e34298ccb916c234edaabce2c9fc91719bd3e100eb181f21479b8b.png
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:17
Explain. I have no idea what you mean, even though I was perfectly clear.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:55
Refer to County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:07
RightThinkingOne: That’s a religious display on public property. If it was sold or moved to private property there wouldn’t be an issue.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:25
Bakers, photographers, wedding planners, T-shirt designers… for others…
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:27
Liar…
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:30
Are you denying those cases? Really?
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:33
No ones “religion is under attack”…(unless you happen to be Muslim in the US after trumpf takes office)
Now in your mind and the mind of other fools, you may actually believe such nonsense…
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:41
It is. Look at what the House did. Prayers out of schools. Haters want to have church property taxed. Radical atheists want to have “in God We Trust” removed from coinage, and “under God” from the Pledge. And on and on.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:48
All of those sound like fantastic ideas….
Anyone can “pray” anywhere they wish, all they have to do is “pray” all long as it isn’t organized or disruptive…
School is for learning, Church is praying..
Radical Christian fear mongers had “IN God We Trust” added to our money just over 50 years ago…(1956)
And “Under God” was not in the original Pledge of Allegiance, it was added in 1954..
Do your homework.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:14
McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948:
Religious education provided by churches on public school grounds during the school day is declared unconstitutional, even though the State circuit court ruled in favor of the school district. McCollum, an atheist, said that his son felt ostracized. It affected 1,500,000 students nation-wide. It was voluntary education in the schools, but the radical hate-mongering malcontent atheist, McCollum, fought against schools’ having it.
whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 00:06
https://twitter.com/AlecMacGillis/status/803313898443116548
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:22
Same thing from you.
But I will give you this: You seem adept at Googlie Searchies.
whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 03:13
that wasn’t a google search:
Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:08
And yet this is a secular country under a secular Constitution, and the law of the land explicitly says that ‘this country is NOT based on the christian religion’.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:05
Please show me where you got that quote. It ain’t in the Constitution, and it ain’t from the Constitutional Convention.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:09
RightThinkingOne: You know what else isn’t mentioned in The Constitution? Any proper name of any religion or deity. The only mention of religion would be prohibitions placed upon our government to guarantee citizen religious rights.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:26
Atheist haters say the Constitution says nothing about God or religion. But there are hints at it. In timelines, “Sundays excepted,” “in the Year of our Lord,” and so on.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:35
OMFSM! “The Year of Our Lord” was simply the standard way of expressing dates and doesn’t mean any support of religion. Sundays then, as now, were generally days off and most people went to some sort of church, so that doesn’t have any direct religious meaning.
Stop reading David Barton, he is a liar. Virtually all historians, including evangelical historians, like John Fea, have called his work nonsense.
The Constitution IS “godless”, that is a simple fact. No matter how you dance around and distort, it is a fact.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:56
Yes. the biblical tradition was part of it. Proves my point exactly!
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:14
No, it wasn’t, another Barton lie.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:19
Not true, of course. I present facts, historical events, concepts and data.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:26
Show me your source for this ridiculous claim.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:03
RightThinkingOne: That doesn’t invalidate the aim of the national founders of a secular structure.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:13
Again, I asked you for proof. You cannot provide anything.
But I did.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:19
RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. I did explain how a secular structure is woven into The US Constitution, and you have shown that you’re refusing to recognize that quality. Don’t make yourself a fool by actively being obtuse.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:25
Nope. You cannot demonstrate what I asked. You cannot. You are implying what is not there. It simply is not. And our Declaration is actually part of our Constitution, and I suggest you read that, too.
And answer the other questions. Two others. I have asked you many, many times, and asked others. Nobody can answer them because an answer would contradict this puerile and superficial meme about a “secular” government being created. If one looks at the actions of the founders, it becomes perfectly clear that is nonsense.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:29
Nope. The DOI has nothing to do with how the government was formed, besides Jefferson was referring to the Deist god which was quite popular at the time.
You are 100% wrong, the Constitution did, on purpose, against religious opposition, create a secular government.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:53
It is actually the beginning statement of principle.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:53
Almost all of the Founders were Christians, not Deists, of course.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:54
Stop reading David Barton.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:59
RightThinkingOne:
Would you happen to be autistic, or are you wrestling with cognitive dissonance which is causing you to repeat your baseless denials of facts that I’ve provided?
Incorrect. The DoI is a founding document, but not part of The Constitution.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:23
“No religious test” The Constitution clearly implies this is not a Christian nation, but you guys like to get hung up because specific words, like “separation of church and state”, aren’t written there. Any intelligent, reasonable person would conclude that the USA is not a Christian Nation from the absolute lack of any religious language in the Constitution. If the Framers wanted a Christian Nation they would have put such language in the document.
Regardless of the lies you have read, and believe, the USA is NOT a Christian Nation, period.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:32
I never said we are a “Christian nation.” You have done it again: Distorted, deflected, and refused to answer several clear and pointed questions.
It is a consistent pattern with you.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:37
Bull, you have consistently claimed America is a Christian Nation.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:57
Nope. Never wrote that. But prove me wrong: Prove a quote of that from me. Go ahead and prove it. Just like the rest: You make assertions but cannot prove it.
I won’t forget and remind you of this.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:13
I am not wading through your hundreds of comments, besides I already answered this.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:19
You cannot because I never said that. Never.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:03
RTO: It’s from The Treaty of Tripoli. It’s the words of a founder. An a pivotal attendee of The Constitutional Convention.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:50
You did not read. You didn’t understand. You are completely wrong.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:54
RTO: I did read. I did understand. My disagreeing with your opinion, and narrowing of scope to only The Constitution, doesn’t mean that I’m wrong.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:00
But you are.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:08
RTO: Validate your assertion. Just saying it doesn’t make it so.
whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 00:09
yep. this is your party. if it’s good for Americans, then they are against it. so, tell me again, where in the hell does your party get the audacity to say out loud they are “christians?” they are anti-healthcare to the bone. they are the party of i’ve got my so fk you.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:01
RTO: I applaud McCollum! How dare the state impose on the religious rights of these young citizens.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:15
Engel v. Vitale, 1962 PRAYER:
This built on the Everson case and held that public school teachers could not open class with a prayer, even if nonsectarian, and even if a school did not compel a student to join in.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:00
RTO: Correct. The state was imposing a religious practice. That maligns the ability of citizens to freely choose and practice a faith.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:16
In Engel, the Court did not cite a SINGLE precedent to justify its prohibition of the VOLUNTARY prayers because there were none in the preceding 170 years! The Court had never struck down any prayer, in any form, in any location!
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:59
RTO: Yes. This case sets a precedent. It recognizes that the rights of citizens to freely practice, or freely avoid the practice of, a religion was being imposed upon by an agent of the state (a teacher or other school employee).
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:49
Yes. People should not be forced to participate in a religious ceremony. But only haters and egotists would demand that because they do not want to hear or see any such ceremony, NOBODY can participate. That is extremism with selfishness and hate.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:59
RTO: They didn’t need to participate in the ceremony. Just sell them the cake.
If they didn’t want to see the ceremony, they could hire temporary staff to deliver the cake.
Again, it’s the bakers self-imposed religiously motivated issue that is causing the conflict. It’s up to them to find a workaround.
whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 20:23
no one is forcing them to attend the wedding. we live by the law of the land not by your bible. it’s called discrimination and it will not be tolerated. you, your hate, your phony religion, your hateful party are exactly like those who use Islam in an extreme manner. you “christians” are no different than them. you too are extreme. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87532efb1e8906feb61d1c6a3b2eb79d9f3b1393cade0f181fae1cd3c4e0562e.jpg
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:16
Why do you tell us here what we already know about “under God” in the Pledge?
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:17
Most atheist haters think that the phrase, “under God” in the Pledge was arbitrarily added or taken from some religious proponent, etc. It was taken from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address!
“…resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom…”
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:57
RightThinkingOne: It was added with a religious intent and mindset. It is a religious imposition by our government.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:07
Yes, it was. There was atheistic Communism.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:27
RightThinkingOne:
Correct! Thank you for admitting that “under god” and “IN GOD WE TRUST” are violations of The Establishment Clause and should be removed to avoid government endorsement of a religion.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:29
Not violations at all. Thankfully, children across the nation say “under God” when reciting the Pledge.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:31
RightThinkingOne: Thankfully another religious denomination fought for the right to not participate in our national indoctrination pledge. So children across the nation have the right to not recite this religiously biased pledge that originally didn’t contain an reference to a god.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:07
If a person does not want to use the words “under God,” that actually is his right under the First Amendment.
It absolutely is NOT his right to demand that the schools and other institutions stop using it because his widdle fweelings might get hurted.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:29
RightThinkingOne:
Correct
Nobody has made such a demand. Where are you seeing this? Did you just make an assumption or inference?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:17
Yes, they have made that demand – and many more. That is the reason that 10 Commandments plaques, 10 Commandment monuments, creches, and such were either taken down by court order, or the atheist haters tried to have them removed.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:14
RightThinkingOne:
Validate your claim. Reference an article or other source of information.
You’re mixing up two different scenarios. The monuments and other religious displays were located on government property and equal treatment wasn’t being given or granted to other religions. Because it was exclusionary representation each of these was recognized by the courts as failing The Lemon Test, thus violating The Establishment Clause.
I’m honestly trying to explain the facts to you. You seem to want a special privilege for this religion. You’re like a kid trying to argue for getting candy, but not giving any to your brother or sister. It’s odd that you don’t realize, or are refusing to recognize, the bias and prejudice you’re displaying on this forum.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:35
Example: Stone v. Graham, 1980
It’s unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments on the walls of a public school (Kentucky). The Court held this, despite the fact that no student was required to read them! Students looked at them if they WANTED to. Why didn’t the Court refer to what James Madison had said: “We have staked the future….upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:18
RightThinkingOne:
Would you feel this was okay if Satanic Bible quotes were printed on school walls? What if they were quotes from The Koran? The students wouldn’t have to read them, but the school endorsing one of these religions.
Please, be honest.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:22
A “question-as-answer” non-answer. Quite immature, too.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:43
RightThinkingOne: I answered with a question to better understand your views and opinions. Should I assume from your reply that you’re incapable of expressing these thoughts as well?
This exclusive treatment being granted to Christianity in a government building (a public school is a government building) violates The Establishment Clause.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:36
Another: Harvey v. Cobb County, 1993
Removal of 10 Commandments monument from Georgia courthouse must be removed unless there is an “educational display” of other items with it.
http://leagle.com/decision/19931480811FSupp669_11368.xml/HARVEY%20v.%20COBB%20COUNTY,%20GA.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:20
RightThinkingOne: Yes. Without equal treatment being given to other religions it is technically an endorsement of that religion. It fails The Lemon Test. It is a violation of The Establishment Clause.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:23
Unreasonable. There are over 2,000 world religions. And our culture and heritage are Judeo-Christian. It cannot be denied. You cannot wipe it away because it is here, with us, part of what we inherited.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:40
RightThinkingOne: So deny access equally to all world religions. That’s perfectly reasonable and equitable.
Nothing is stopping you and others from respecting the Judeo-Christian heritage of many, but not all, US citizens using your own resources.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:36
Another: The execrable, vile, repugnant ACLU v. Mercer County, KY, 2001
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
A resident put up a display of the “Foundations of American Law and Government” in the courthouse. An ACLU member in the community sued because it contained the 10 Commandments.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:27
RightThinkingOne: US law isn’t founded on biblical commandments. So what are you confused about here?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:30
Off point. Off the target. You are doing it again: Declaiming that I am asserting something I never did. That stems either from 1) not reading what I posted, 2) impulsivity and emotionality, and/or 3) dishonesty.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:37
RightThinkingOne:
Incorrect. I addressed the focus of this court case. If that’s not what you wanted to discuss, then use your words. Say what you’re thinking.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:43
You are doing it again. You are wrong. Read or I will not respond. I do not want to repeat and repeat and break down and simplify, over and over.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:08
RightThinkingOne:
Whatever (^_^) Go ahead and sulk. Get back to me when you learn how to better express your thoughts. …or when you address your cognitive dissonance.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:37
Yet more: McCreary County v. the base, evil, anti-American ACLU, 2005
ACLU sued two Kentucky counties for displaying the 10 Commandments within larger displays of historical documents in courthouses and public schools.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:35
RightThinkingOne:
Your bias is showing.
The history of laws regarding murder pre-date Christianity. Drawing a conclusion that US law is based on these commandments is fallacious, and it seems they were right to address this effort to insert a religious artifact into a secular display.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:40
Not “bias.” The ACLU actually started with a Communist policy. Read what Baldwin said, specifically. Communism.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:07
RightThinkingOne: An opinion of communism being a viable structure isn’t inherently anti-American. It’s a flawed governmental structure, but it’s not anti-American.
So you’re going to ignore the other part of my earlier comment?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:15
Its purpose is not anti-American. But it is against our Founding principles and federalism. Therefore, when a Leftist supports or excuses it, he is supporting or excusing what goes directly against our form of government. He is supporting the overthrow of our government. He is therefore a traitor.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:43
RightThinkingOne: False dichotomy
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:58
No, it is accurate. One cannot – it is logically impossible – to want Communism and to want to preserve our republican form of government. They contradict each other.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:03
RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. This is a democratic republic. A mixture of democracy and representative structures. One can operate within this nation and government and still think that communism is a better option.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:06
Apparently you have no idea of what Communism is. I know that one can “legally” belong to the Communist Party, but that is not the issue. Read what I wrote. You fail to understand what it would mean for the Communist Party to fulfill its platforms. Heck, this can be applied to the Nazi Party also, and it is legal to be a member of that, too.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:11
RightThinkingOne: Did you know that the communist party was elected to power in the Nepal republic government?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:13
Unrelated. Not even in the ball park. Not even indirectly related.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:29
RightThinkingOne: No, it’s the same ball park. Are you trying to play a different game or change the rules?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:56
Nope. Completely different. Not even close.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02
RightThinkingOne: Baseless and infantile denial.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:09
It was added to the Pledge, which is mildly fascist, on June 14, 1954. The bill was signed by Dwight Eisenhower who allowed his religious beliefs to override his Constitutional duties. It was coerced by religious and patriotic extremists notably George MacPherson Docherty. By the way, Lincoln’s quote is not certain.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:11
Variations of “in God we trust” actually was temporarily on coinage over a century and a half ago!
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:19
I did my homework:
“Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land…
And this be our motto ‘In God is our Trust.’”
Part of a stanza from the Star-Spangled Banner, made our National Anthem by an ACT OF CONGRESS, 1931
StoneyCurtisll November 30th, 2016 at 19:18
Wow, 1931..
Women were granted the right to vote only 10 years earlier, Negros were still segregated in the Military civilian life, and Jim Crow laws were in fill effect..
still no “god on money” and Still no “god in the pledge of allegiance”‘..
The Volstead Act was still in full effect, (creating organized crime in America)
Is this the America you and Trump supporters is what is “going to make America great Again”?
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:08
Historical presentism. Please look it up.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:18
I did. It does not mean what you think it means.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:31
Look it up, please.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:40
You:
Stoney:
Please show how this discussion of historical facts fits Historical presentism. You have no idea what you are talking about.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:57
Historical presentism.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:12
Nope.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:19
It is, and it prevents your understanding the past. Look it up.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:30
It is you that has a fantasy view of the past. You keep spouting obvious historical misinformation. I have seen all this crap before and most of it comes from the liar for Jesus, David Barton.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:56
Red Mann: When do you think he’ll bring up *The Congressional Bibles* that David Barton loves to spread falsehoods and misinformation about?
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:03
I think that’s where he gets most of his ideas about the Constitution and the Christian culture/heritage BS.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:54
Who is David Barton? Please let me know more about this person and SPECIFICALLY how he supposedly “lied.”
I await your specific response to that, as well as to the other questions.
Red Mann December 1st, 2016 at 00:00
WrongUnthinkingOne – I am tired of your idiotic bullsh!t and your refusal to understand the simplest things and now you are demanding answers to your nonsense. As we used to say in the Navy “F*ck of and die”. I am done with you, you are a pathetic waste of time.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:19
“Nonsense?” The founders writing state constitutions are “nonsense?”
HERE IS SOME PROOF!
Delaware, Article 22: Every person serving had to take this oath – “I, …., do profess faith in God the Father, and in JESUS CHRIST….” (emphasis added)
Richard Basset and George Read, signers of the Constitution, helped to draft this state constitution.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:19
Another!
Pennsylvania, “I do believe in one God, the Creator…I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:20
Another!
Massachusetts, Chapter VI, Article I: “I, …., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion….” In 1780, Massachusetts authorized a special levy to support “public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.” New Hampshire adopted the same – verbatim.
Nathaniel Gorham, signer of the Constitution, helped to draft this state constitution.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:20
MORE!
North Carolina, Article XXXII, “No person, who shall deny the being of God….or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments,…shall be capable of holding any office.”
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:21
Here!
Maryland, 1776, Article XXXV: “No other test or qualification….than… a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” Maryland’s constitution also imposed a tax for supporting Christianity, decreeing “a general and equal tax for the support of the CHRISTIAN religion.”
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:21
Later Constitutions!!!
New Hampshire, 1784, Article I, Section VI: “And every denomination of CHRISTIANS… shall be equally under the protection of the laws.”
George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:40
RightThinkingOne: The 14th Amendment invalidates that.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:30
Not the point at all. Not close. Not in the ball park by miles. Read the sequence.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 18:59
RightThinkingOne: The state level was permitted to favor a religion. That was a mistake that was corrected by The 14th Amendment. If you’re trying to address something else, you’re being too vague. Use your words.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:23
Off target again. I explained precisely how, and I am not about to summarize the series of exchanges yet again. Nope. You are off target.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:34
RightThinkingOne: You’ve asserted that states were granted rights to be partial or preferential towards denominations or religions. You’ve cited several state constitutions to validate your claim. I’ve said that is correct… until The 14th Amendment. That has applied all rights and prohibitions from The Bill of Rights to all parts of government, including state level.
There have been several court cases where biased individuals, like yourself, have tried to use these exclusionary qualities of state constitutions to justify refusing access or office to atheists and other maligned groups. The courts have correctly referenced The 14th Amendment invalidating these exclusionary qualities of state level constitutions.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:39
Wrong. Never said that states were “granted” those rights. Never. READ!
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:55
RightThinkingOne: Please do a better job of expressing your position. The fact that you keep having to tell other people to re-read your comments should point to the fact that you’re doing a bad job of expressing your thoughts.
You are the common denominator in these comment exchanges. Stop blaming others for your failure to communicate.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:22
And a bit later!!!
South Carolina, 1778, “The Christian religion shall be deemed… the established religion of the state,” and Article XXXVIII: “All denominations of Christian[s]…shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges,” and “no person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”
Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 00:24
All of your examples are null and void since the SCOTUS decisions Red Mann linked to.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:25
I see. If it is the law, then it is right and moral. According to you, that is.
Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 00:32
The law is neither “right” or “moral”; it is a code of conduct a society operates under. In our republic, it is possible to implement laws that go against the Constitution, but it is also possible to have the Supreme Court examine those laws for their constitutionality.
That’s why we’ve survived for 240 years; we self-regulate, and slap down stupidity.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:08
Wrong! Ultimately laws are based on morals. Think about it.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:38
RightThinkingOne: Modern laws are based on ethical considerations.
Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 06:58
So, my having to drive on the right side of the road is a moral issue?
Who knew?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:40
Ultimately, it is. Please reflect on it.
Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 20:23
I have; it isn’t morality, it’s conformity…aka “religion”.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:29
I know that in other nations, people drive on the left, etc.
Not the point. I will respond with a question: What are the underlying premises that drove our nation to agree to have such a law? It may seem quite simple and obvious, but that is an important point: There are things on which all of us – except extremists and crazies – will agree. And we do not even have to debate it. It would seem silly to propose that we drive on any side we want or to remove the requirement, wouldn’t it? In fact, one will not even see signs that say, “Drive on the Right.” (I did see them in Ireland, but only at the airport exits – for OBVIOUS reasons.)
Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 20:36
You’re not just moving the goalposts, you’re replacing them with dancing ferrets!
Tell us what laws which restrict which side of the road one drives on have to do with morality, or else concede that laws do NOT equal morality.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:42
They do. The premise is the safety of others. That is a moral concept. And another – more of a value than morals – efficiency.
These seem commonsense, but that is the point.
We do not really base our decisions and laws on “reason” per se. We use reason to support values, beliefs, morals and principles. Ultimately, our choices and values are not rational.
Hirightnow December 1st, 2016 at 21:40
Proof? Proof that the direction of a vehicle plays a part in the shaping of laws as pertains to morals? Or that it affects fatality rates?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:57
Yes. Now you are getting it.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:09
Yes, unconstitutional laws can be created, and examined by the Court and struck down as unconstitutional. Hopefully, that is common knowledge.
But just because the Court said it is unconstitutional, it does not mean the decision was correct.
William December 1st, 2016 at 00:26
I believe you will find that a little impromptu meeting at a place called Appomattox settled the notion of states trying to usurp the Constitution. …but enjoy your own little fantasy world. It suits you.https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b55dda0845d302e3f512c1e8f6d656e2115185d80a2db071760ff6bb94fc83.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:27
Not a logical response. Read what was written. We are referring to the Founding. Stay on task.
William December 1st, 2016 at 00:32
It is completely logical. Your two century old bullshit did not then nor does it now usurp the Constitution and separation of State and Religion. . I am also convinced you simply spew inane crap at a level equal to or possibly exceeding the senile ramblings of your avatar namesake. It must be terribly lonely to resort to spewing nonsense on a liberal website just to have some sort of human interaction and response.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:10
The discussion was about religion and our founding. Keep up.
William December 1st, 2016 at 00:46
The founders also held slaves, didn’t permit women to vote, and Jefferson boffed his 14 year old servant. Welcome to the 21st century. Your argument is invalid. The founders and whatever they thought is irrelevant. The 1st amendment is very clear and it has been argued and adjudicated by the highest court in the land. Founders, Jefferson’s ink well, the price of rice in China, what some rube in S Carolina wrote…all completely irrelevant. You’ve failed at trolling and understanding the bill of rights. I have concluded you’re just some troll engaging in mental masturbation, unaffected by facts and logic.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:19
Unrelated to the topic, and an excuse to bash our origins.
William December 1st, 2016 at 01:34
Idiots like you who claim some sort of divine inspiration by using that tired old Glenn Beck shtick of trying to win arguments by claiming to know what the so called founding fathers were thinking just makes me laugh. You have no idea what they were thinking or what motivated them. They were for the most part rich slave owners.
Here are some more facts or as you call them, “bashing”
The founders owned slaves. The founders made no provision for women to vote. Jefferson had sex with his 14 year old servant. Jackson had countless native Americans slaughtered. The USS Maine was not sabotaged, it blew up on it’s own, coal bunker gases, but we started a war over it anyway. We put Japanese Americans in interment camps. You clearly don’t know anything about American History. Claiming to know what motivated people who have been dead for two hundred years simply makes you appear ignorant. Supporting your argument with your fantasy simply reinforces that.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:18
Please provide the rational you used to declare that I adhere to “divine inspiration.”
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:19
Please describe your reasoning process to declaim that I follow the “old Glenn Beck shtick.”
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:20
One does not go by the “thinking” of the Founders, of course. I never said that. Please look up Original Understanding. It will demonstrate how one can draw obvious conclusions about the Founding era. Please get back after you have done that. Thank you.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:22
“Facts” are not chosen out of thin air, or randomly. One has a goal in mind, and picks “facts” to support that. You have a goal. Why not have the clarity of thought to articulate the goal, the reason that you select specific “facts” to support what you want to conclude or think about our Founders? Please do not give the excuse that you are interested in “truth.” You have something in mind.
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 00:53
William told you!
StoneyCurtisll November 30th, 2016 at 23:16
No thanks..
I have a job, home and family to think about..
Move along now….
and get off my lawn…
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:11
OK, just remember that I am correct.
StoneyCurtisll December 1st, 2016 at 17:34
Wrong…
Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 18:05
In fact, that Pledge was written by a cleric.
Larry Schmitt November 29th, 2016 at 21:02
And why shouldn’t churches be taxed? They bring in billions of dollars without providing much in return.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:11
“All subjects over which the sovereign power of a State extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.”
-Supreme Court case of 1816, McCullough v. Maryland
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:11
The fact, in our First Amendment, that the government cannot make any law establishing religion OR prohibiting its free exercise is a perfectly clear statement that the power of government does not extend over the subject of religion. Therefore, religious institutions are exempt from taxation, not by some “tax codes,” but by self-evident, solid principles!
Larry Schmitt November 30th, 2016 at 07:17
Taxing churches in no way prohibits its free exercise. Most churches provide no public good, they only serve their own members.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:57
It is not about “free exercise.” Please read what I wrote.
Thank you.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:59
Yes, it is about free exercise. Churches have no Constitutional right to tax exemptions, it is just another religious privilege.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:12
Liberals say that tax exemptions actually get government involved with religion, typically arguing that it aids religion. These Leftist atheist haters will probably want to overturn another Supreme Court case that was more recent, Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York in 1970. Walz tried to use the “Free Exercise” clause but the Court used the Establishment Clause – whether a tax exemption is an “excessive entanglement” of government and religion. The Court rightly concluded that it was not.
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 21:52
So, you would be okay with the Adhan during school hours?
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:10
It is up to the community and school board. If we actually were concerned with REAL rights, it would only stipulate that no student can be coerced into participating.
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 23:18
And yet, there is peer pressure amongst juveniles. How many children would be taken to task for beating up that “Jewboy who killed Jesus”, if the principal were also of the same mind?
How many Jewish children would be punished for blackening the eye of that “Muslim kid who wants Israel destroyed”, especially if the principal were Jewish?
Best to separate churches and states.
Heretic.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:22
I see. Applying your “logic,” then schools should abstain from any policies or iterations or curriculum that could POSSIBLY result in some student, somewhere, being bullied.
Hirightnow November 29th, 2016 at 23:24
Well,yes.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:54
RTO: Incorrect. The state not endorsing or advancing a religion removes manipulation and impositions on citizen rights to religious freedoms. Having a monument or display for only one religion is a form of coercion.
The most respectful tactic is to leave spiritual and religious matters to a child’s parents. Not allowing manipulate children while entrusted to the care of agents of the state.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:48
It most certainly is not a form of coercion. If you see a 10 Commandments monument, just walk by. Don’t ruin it for the rest of the community. That would be what a narcissist or extreme hater would do. Only think of the self.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:03
RTO: I didn’t say coercion. Further evidence that you’re inferring instead of actually reading my comments.
If it’s on private property, I will and have in the past. If it’s on government property and equal access isn’t given to other faiths, I’ll call out The Establishment Clause violation.
Interesting. I’m thinking of the whole community. You seem to only be thinking of Christians.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:09
If you see a 10 Commandments monument or a creche, don’t try to destroy traditions and the happiness and cohesion of your community. Be decent. Have respect. Don’t give in to selfishness and egoism.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:21
RTO: You’re inferring that selfishness and egoism are the motivation. AGAIN, it’s a 1st Amendment violation that is being corrected.
Nothing is stopping the community from setting up a monument or creche on private property. I’m sure that there’s a church somewhere nearby that could host such displays.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:46
It is not a violation of the 1st amendment, of course. What do you know about this “separation” garbage, anyway?
George T December 4th, 2016 at 22:12
RTO:
Incorrect. If the government paid for the monument and rejected requests from other religions, then it’s an establishment of that religion by government. If it’s a privately funded monument and other privately funded monuments are rejected by government, then it’s an establishment of that religion by government. Either is a violation of The Establishment Clause of The 1st Amendment.
I know what I’ve read from multiple SCOTUS decisions and 1st Amendment papers written by constitutional scholars explaining the issues involved for laymen.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:37
In all of the cases, there was not any rejection of other religions.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 23:57
RTO: Incorrect. Several requests were made in various cases to install a statue of Baphomet to represent The Church of Satan. In most cases the local government removed all religious monuments to avoid having to host such a statue. The primary case was in Oklahoma.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:23
The church of satan should not be displayed, except on the private property of haters and degenerates. Try common sense. Grow the f…. up.
You show no maturity. I won’t be responding to many – if any – of your childish posts from now on.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 01:29
RTO:
Then Christianity gets equal treatment.
Have you considered taking your own advice?
Your choice. Fewer posts for me to correct.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:19
No, it is common sense. Note that after something as puerile and vapid as that, I response less to you.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 18:55
RTO: To which part of my comment are you responding with…
Again, if you choose to not respond then it’s less work for me. If you continue to post, I’ll happily correct your errors between tasks at work. It’s a great way to kill time while earning a buck (^_^)
whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 21:54
there are many differently religions, and you suggest they should pray to the “god” you believe in? and religion has no place in public schools. so answer me this, what in the hell happened when prayer left out of school. not a damn thing different than what was going on before.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:12
Schools have gone downhill since the Left forced its agenda in schools. The ending of prayers was by the radicals, but the curriculum of the New Left did incredible damage.
whatthe46 November 29th, 2016 at 23:38
i said, what changed?
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:17
Leftist curricula.
whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 03:15
it’s people like you and your ill thinking and people like this woman that screws up our educational system:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c17b92b304add2c8857e99d7d0953944a0a97b19b450bc615ec4133d5c86632.jpg
and it has nothing to do with prayer. just outright stupidity and ignorance.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:17
Lower achievement.
Violence in the schools.
Etc.
whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 03:10
you do realize that priest rape little boys right? you do realize that those that scream the loudest about being religious or “christian” are sexual perverts, i.e. the digging duggard, or hasert who worked to impeach Clinton is now a convicted pedo. they all call themselves “christians.” where’s your proof that absence of prayer resulted in lower achievement or violence in schools? or your etc.
bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 02:49
Freedom vs. privilege. You obviously don’t have the ability to differentiate between the two.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:45
Please read what I wrote. It is not “privilege.”
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:54
It is, you want your religion to have special treatment. Screw you and your religion if you insist that it be shoved down everyone’s throats.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:24
“My religion?” Please clearly articulate how you came to declare that. Provide a simple rationale.
Want me to apply what is obviously YOUR rationale?
I want to wait to see how you reasoned and came to that conclusion first.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:45
I reasonably assume that all your ranting about religion reflects your religion. You have done nothing but talk about “angry atheists”, “sin”, that the Constitution is not godless and how badly Christians are treated among many other arguments for religion. You have made hundreds of comments on these lines. It is crystal clear that you are extremely religious and that you want special privilege for your religion.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:59
OK, I will not apply your “reasoning” to same-sex marriage.
Your syllogism:
If a person adamantly supports X,
He must be one of group X.
THAT, SIR, IS WHAT YOU ARE ASSERTING. It is YOUR logic.
Apply that:
If a person adamantly supports homosexual marriage
He (or she) must be a homosexual.
YOUR reasoning – on display.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:11
No, that is not my reasoning, it’s your pathetic attempt at reasoning.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:18
I applied your reasoning. YOU declared I am a believer because I am supporting something. How could you possibly NOT understand this?
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:35
Someone who rants on and on about how following the law would make someone sin, that the Constitution is not secular, who falsely claims Christmas is under attack, the the government is attacking the Sisters of the Poor and dozens of other claims about religion would reasonably be considered religious and a believer. Your stupid argument to the contrary fails. If it walks like a duck and quacks like it duck, it is most likely a duck. You, like Peter, are denying your religion.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:56
I will apply your logic now:
Anyone who claims that the same sex can “marry,” and says those who want to preserve male-female marriage are bigots, denying rights, phobic, and hateful MUST – according to YOUR logic – be a homosexual.
Again: YOUR reasoning, not mine. I think otherwise, of course.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:15
RightThinkingOne: bpollen did read what you wrote. That’s why he’s letting you know that you’re mixing up the words or concepts.
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 02:40
Please read what *I* wrote: You can’t differentiate between the two.
You seem to have a problem with the removal of the Xtian Gawd from schools. So you’re cool with an Imam coming in every day to say Salat al-zuhr, the Muslim midday prayer?
Think that creches should be on public property? You down with a nice statue of Baphomet at the entrance to your local city hall?
You think it’s an attack on Christianity to remove Gawd from the Pledge? “Under Gawd” is an ADDITION to the pledge passed as a knee-jerk response to Gawdless Commies. So from 1931 until 1954, we had NO problem with that phrase missing. Now suddenly it’s an attack on Christianity to find it inappropriate to only list ONE Gawd?
You are persecuted because people want to take Gawd off of money? (Your bible says money is the root of all evil. Seems kinda hypocritical to place Gawd’s name on the tool of Mammon.) Then you should be fine with having “in the Flying Spaghetti Monster we trust,” right?
If you didn’t answer that you would be fine with OTHER deities in those same places you are whining about, then you are sniveling about PRIVILEGE and not Freedom. All those other religions have JUST AS MUCH freedom as Christianity. If they can’t do the same thing, then THEIR freedom is denied.
Have a Shiva-Blessed day! Don’t be Thor! I’m having a Baal, Vishnu were here!
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:48
bpollen, close your eyes and you will feel me giving you a hug! love ya!
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 03:54
Aw, shucks. Thank ya kindly, ma’am!
trees December 1st, 2016 at 03:00
It says, “For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.”
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 03:15
That’s ALL you got? Correcting an aside about Biblical hypocrisy?
Pfffft. Spitballs. How devastating. Bet it got your troll winkie to dance all over!
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:34
There was a school in Hawaii that celebrated Buddhist holidays.
There were schools in Brooklyn that had rabbis come in for graduation ceremonies.
Can’t you read? I said it was up to the community.
bpollen December 2nd, 2016 at 02:19
But is MY freedom and MY equality up for a vote? Some people with legitimate reason feel that secular functions of the government should be showing NO affiliation for any religion. Do you think minority faiths should NOT be represented just because MOST in the community are of a different faith? Is it limiting YOUR freedom to practice your faith without government involvement? Without preferences for specific belief systems and their particular bugaboos?
Freedom OF and FROM religion. Believe whatever fairy tale you want, but when you connect ANY religion to the exclusion of others with the government, you deny equal rights for those other faiths or lack thereof.
You claim you are about ALL faiths having the choice, as long as the MAJORITY think that it’s the RIGHT faith. The hypocrisy is deep.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:50
It is puerile and vapid to put this in terms of “rights.” Just an excuse for hate and repugnant behavior. It is the height of egoism and selfishness.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 18:54
See, BlightThinkingDumb, people who DON’T believe in your religious fantasies are possessors of every right you have. So yes, your “right to religious freedom” also involves the right of NON-BELIEVERS in your fairy tales.
Can’t rebut, so you just deride. Which is a tacit admission that you can’t refute my points.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:54
Yes, hateful atheist narcissists have the “right” to not participate. They do not have any “right” (except the made-up, pretend rights) to force others to stop their public displays of faith, of course.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:02
Can’t dispute, but you CAN attack the messenger.
Proof positive that you have no actual facts to dispute my point.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:07
Did you burn a flag? I am talking about the scum of the earth who would do such a vile, hateful, repulsive thing, even if it IS “legal” to do so. They are ungrateful reprobates. Beneath contempt. I sincerely hope you never did that.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:12
Can’t dispute, so you deride.
You don’t like THEIR speech, so they MUST be the scum of the earth by your lights.
Once again, ONLY your opinion. NOT truth, just your ass-inine opinion.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:20
No, it is only the scum of the earth that would do that. Not my opinion. It is a matter of respect, decency and manners.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:06
Prove it. You’ve expressed your opinion. If we are to consider it as something other than simply your opinion, you need to provide verifiable facts to support it. Saying “istooistooistooistoo” over and over again doesn’t make it true.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:43
How old are you? Using obscenities, for example, in front of, say, elderly ladies is uncouth, vulgar and unseemly. You are the kind of person who would demand that someone “prove it.”
LOL
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:45
Not pertinent to THIS discussion.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:54
Pertinent. The example is EXACTLY what you sound like. “Prove” what is patently obvious.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:55
Cursing in front of old ladies is JUST like burning a flag. More fact-free claims…. ARE you Kim Davis?
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:21
Both are hideous, disrespectful, ugly, disgusting, and reprehensible.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:25
Which is, again, repeatedly, your O-PIN-ION!!!
Your statements invariably assume facts not in evidence. I think YOU are hideous, disrespectful, ugly, disgusting, reprehensible, and flatulent. It’s the truth. Use Google, look it up.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:27
No, it is not an opinion. To desecrate a flag is the depth of degeneracy, ingratitude, vile, ugly and despicable. “Legal,” of course.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:28
If it is NOT an opinion, you could back it up. You DON’T, you NEVER have with ANY of your specious claims.
Truth has data to support it. Any hypothesis without corroborative evidence is STILL a hypothesis.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:17
It is a repugnant act, carried out by vile, base, disrespectful, malevolent reprobates.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:23
To quote LightBlinkingOne, “It’th twue, it’th twue! Beweeve me!”
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f55cf91bd79506b9026768dc998c60c0acd4f5cac119297280aa0c055f66457.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:31
No, it is vile, disrespectful, hateful, ugly.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:34
Yup, that TWUE! Just like your last TRUTH BOMB!
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f4dfc7d21b20325188f4c15e74bb747706795c2926134cc845df042c3a3c04cd.jpg
The wonders of Ziploc!
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:30
OPINION. Facts have data to back them up. No facts, no truth.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:19
It is depraved to desecrate the flag. Unseemly.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:20
Here’s some of your earlier fact-free work:
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bf0f6375ad9dd7dc69759c3e2befb436601f4ddad11807651f247a8249e536d6.png
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 00:13
Except for the fact that they are NOT analogous, they are almost identical – if you ignore reality. Hence, that’s what YOU think.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:24
It is EXACTLY what you sound like.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:25
Can’t refute, just attack the messenger. That is a tactic employed by those who have no facts to support them.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:27
It is exactly what you sound like. Ex-actly!
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:29
Just attack the messenger like all those who have nothing.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:35
Seen a fact anywhere? Unless or until provided, all of your claims are in the same realm as this, and at least they have a picture:
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e17047127ffa2ecb673a28f5dec829906e9baefa2af02fe84f6321729eb887d3.jpg
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:52
The stupid lie, prayers were not taken out of schools, kids can pray any time they want as long as they don’t disrupt the classroom, teachers can say prayers as well. The decision simply stopped schools from dictating prayers and Bible readings. I know how ignorant you are, but the main force behind that decision was Christians and Jews who didn’t want their kids to listen to prayers they didn’t agree with.
The churches should be taxed on all non-charitable related income. They’ve been getting, and abusing their tax breaks for no good reason. Once more religious privilege.
Rational people want to get that crap off our money and out of the Pledge, it was put there by the actions of religious extremists who wanted to show the Godless Commies the “God” was on our side. Childish BS.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:39
…
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 20:46
OK. It is obvious that you are denying it. Heck, look at what the anti-Christian hate-media did to lie about and distort the Pope’s meeting with Kim Davis.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 21:02
Actually it was Kim Davis’s people that distorted The meeting with the Pope and this crazy Davis woman..
Now I think you are just here to have fun,…
No one actually believes what you are pretending to believe…(but you are kind of funny)
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 21:13
No, the Pope met with her and spoke about the moral imperative to put one’s principles of faith before the STATE.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:46
The Pope was conned into meeting here and the guy who did was fired. It was a scam run of The Pontiff which blind sided him. Typical sleazy extremist Christian behavior.
BTW, the rule of law completely outweighs any religious “law”.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:07
No, the Pope met with the brave lady and encouraged her and others of faith.
bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 02:48
And I quote:
The Pope’s meeting with Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, was not intended as a show of support for her cause, the Vatican said Friday.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/
This leaves us with a quandary… do we believe the Vatican about what the Pope’s meeting is about, or the irrational claims of someone with a persecution complex. This is such a HARD choice!
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:25
The Vatican did not want to turn the Pope’s visit into that “issue.” The Liberal media would rant and go on and on about it, of course, obscuring his other reasons for coming to the United States of America.
But the Pope did support people of faith who made choices that aligned with their consciences. He was perfectly clear about that. The statement was unequivocal.
Kim Davis was a brave woman.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:46
Kim Davis is a disgusting religious bigot and she violated court orders. She is unfit to do her job because she allows her superstitions to prevent her from doing the job she was elected for. You are a fool to praise her.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/kim-davis-pope/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/europe/pope-vigano-resign/
The Pope was set up by religious zealots and wasn’t too happy about it. Even if he did support her, that would just make him as wrong as she is.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:23
Kim Davis is a courageous woman. She is highly respected by two kinds of people:
1. People of faith.
2. People who love liberty
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:46
No, she is respected by the anti-LGBT haters that put their superstitious beliefs ahead of the law. People who really love liberty would never support her since she wants to diminish people’s rights.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:01
Kim Davis is a brave woman.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:10
No, she is a hypocrite.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:16
Courageous and to be respected.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:35
Stupid and to be despised.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:56
Kim Davis is highly respected by people of faith and by people who believe in liberty.
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 02:24
Ahh… the Vatican is lying and only YOU are telling the truth.
What a load of BS.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:32
No, the words of the Pope were recorded. They were said to a reporter, not to Kim Davis. Please keep up.
bpollen December 2nd, 2016 at 02:24
Link or more bullshit. The Vatican made a statement that you claim is a lie, and outrageous claims require outrageous evidence. You’ve made the claim, do you have ANYTHING other than your fantasies to corroborate this ridiculous “the Vatican lied about the Pope” conspiracy theory?
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:51
No, it was recorded by a reporter. The Pope did not say it directly to the courageous Kim Davis.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 18:55
So then you have NO way of showing that he was talking to HER!
Which is your entire point. Sorry…
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:55
He spoke with that courageous woman briefly, and in a group as she was passing back and forth. I referred to his clear statement (SIX TIMES!) that was DOCUMENTED WITH A REPORTER ON THE AIRPLANE. D..o..c..u..m..e..n..t..e..d!
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:01
You said he spoke to HER and other’s of faith. Then you say he DIDN’T speak with her. Well, you MUST be right when you take BOTH sides of the position.
Show that he spoke DIRECTLY to her, or your point is BS. Plus, you need to provide TEXT of his statement to verify that he didn’t call her “misguided” or “intolerant.”
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:06
Read what is written!!! He made a statement in an airplane TO A REPORTER about people of faith in government jobs adhering to their faith and suffering legal punishments. How they are courageous and how he prays for them! READ!!!!
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:09
“Read what is written!!!”
I did. First you said the Pope DID talk to Kim Davis. Then you said he DIDN’T speak to her, the Pope was speaking to everybody. Then, just a second ago, you said he made the statement on an airplane.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:14
Again, and the last time. The Pope met with her in a group, said something as she passed. The statement about support for THOSE in government service and their faith was said to a reporter.
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO KIM AND PEOPLE LIKE HER! That cannot be denied by any mature, rational person. Are you going to claim that the Pope just made that statement from thin air? Are you really going to try to do that?
Un-freakin-believable!
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:31
He spoke to her, he didn’t speak to her, he spoke to the reporter on a friggin’ airplane.
When you get your story straight, feel free to submit your NEW REVISED version of your claim. Each position you have taken so far contradicts every OTHER position you’ve taken on the subject.
Was Kim Davis the reporter on the airplane?
No facts in evidence to support your point. Any hypothesis or statement of “fact” requires corroborating evidence to be considered “likely,” let alone correct. No evidence, not likely correct.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:46
I was clear. Read.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:02
Yes, you were clearly presenting ever-changing versions of the story, and very clearly provided NO evidence.
Facts not in evidence are not considered facts.
I don’t care if you READ or not, just provide actual links or quoted cites that AREN’T somebody else’s opinion.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:41
Google. Look at the boob tube. Read newspapers.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:42
No link, no truth.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:43
Linky for you or not, it is the truth.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:45
What do you call outrageous claims with NO evidence? Either “Bullshit” or “Alex Jones’ business model.”
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:53
Not outrageous at all. In fact, it was the SECOND case with the same program!
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:58
Not a lick of evidence. If you can’t provide any sort of substantiation for ONE, you think people should just believe ANOTHER unsubstantiated claim?
If you can’t provide even a scintilla of evidence to support your OUTRAGEOUS and UNTRUE claims. then there IS no proof. You know OF google, maybe, I don’t know, USE IT?
You won’t provide evidence because you HAVE no evidence.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:24
It is true. It can easily be verified. I will not run errands for you. Your pouting does not change what happened, no matter how much you stamp your feet and caterwaul.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:26
Facts not in evidence are not considered valid.
If it is TRUE, you can prove it. Since you don’t…
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:27
It is true. Your whining and ululating does not change the truth.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 01:29
Who’s whining? I’m just asking for facts. You have none. Ergo, not true.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:18
Better to check it out than pout.
bpollen December 5th, 2016 at 18:21
I like when you did this:
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/089f56fe95011a3a34ee64d76853e7a08358df5d98cd7976721504d13d549443.jpg
We need better security!
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:15
See? You ARE good at Goolgie Searchies!
rubellapox2 November 30th, 2016 at 07:44
No he did not.. she was in a room with a whole bunch of other people lined up to shake his hand… she did not speak with him, he did not “encourage” her..and that according to the pope himself… I believe the pope…
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:58
Read the Pope’s statement. It was clear. He supported her and encouraged people of faith to stick to their faith.
Kim Davis is a courageous woman!
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:16
You are deluded. Kim Davis is a travesty along with all the religious freaks that support her. You superstition do not allow you ignore that law. Just because you stupidly believe homosexuality is a “sin” doesn’t make it so and you don’t get to decide who can marry whom. You religious freaks think that you own the concept of marriage, you don’t and if a man and a man or a women and a woman want to marry you have no business stopping them. You don’t have to “gay” marry, no preacher will ever be forced to marry any couple they don’t want to, people may criticize them and ridicule them for their primitive beliefs, but they won’t be forced to officiate. SSM has zero effect on anyone else’s marriage. All the lies about the LGBT community are hateful and hurtful, you are nasty people.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:29
The Pope said “conscientious objection is a human right. And if a person does not allow others to be conscientious objectors, then they deny them a right.”
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:50
So what. That doesn’t mean you get to impose your beliefs on others like Davis did. If she truly was a conscientious objector, she would have taken no action against those seeking a marriage license instead of refusing to issue them and ordering her subordinates to refuse as well, she would have simply expressed her objection. Instead she refused to do her job.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:01
I am waiting for your response to the questions asked. Reminder: The founders and state constitutions and established religions.
I will continue to remind you.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 23:02
I already answered this but I’ll do it again.
The 14th Amendment had the effect of applying the Constitution to all states, not just Congress. This rendered any religious test in any state constitution null and void. The Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 81 S. Ct. 1680 (1961) held that states could not have any religious tests in their constitutions, upholding the 14th Amendment.
In 1997, a South Carolina religious test for public office provision was struck down in Silverman v. Campbell, 486 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. 1997). There are no establishments of any religion in any states even if they had existed after the Constitution was ratified.
This is another one of your specious arguments.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:08
Read my other post. It speaks to that specifically.
rubellapox2 December 1st, 2016 at 05:43
Those were the words of the pope… he did not talk to her… you are bearing false witness..
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:39
Yes, the words of the pope and it is obvious he was referring to Kim Davis and other courageous people like her.
rubellapox2 December 2nd, 2016 at 04:23
He did not have a sit down conversation with Kim Davis., nor did he say those things to her…. he walked down a line of people, shook hands that’s all.. why are you trying to make it into something else? Isn’t lying bad? Isn’t the admonishment against bearing false witness in the Ten Commandments? And no she was not being courageous… she was abusing her position to discriminate…she’s lucky she was elected into her position or she would have automatically lost her cushy job …
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:54
The Pope saw her in a small group. He made the statement of encouragement for public officials of faith to a reporters. It is a matter of record, not discussion.
RightThinkingOne November 29th, 2016 at 23:08
Your statement proves my point: {BTW, the rule of law completely outweighs any religious “law”.}
It proves that even today – to a lesser extent, of course – Christians are persecuted. You presented an excuse and nothing else.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 00:29
What Christians believe is not based on any actual reality, so how can “laws” with no actual basis outweigh laws made by real, actual humans. Once again you want to have religious privilege where your beliefs are more important than anything else.
There are tens of thousands of religions and religious sects, all claiming to have the one Real Truth and your religion has exactly the same evidence to support it all the rest, none.
Beliefs cannot be allowed to override reality, that is way we have a secular government. Christians in this country and most of Europe and some of Asia are not persecuted by any stretch of any imagination, it is in your fevered imagination.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 01:25
Religious freedom. You are obviously against it.
whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 01:39
when it’s used to discriminate, yes. you’re free to chose whatever religion you want to put your faith into, but that doesn’t give you the right to discriminate against others because they have a different faith, or because you don’t agree with who they are. it’s just a term used to discriminate against others period. NOT a single one of them are Christian. just bigots, racist and ignorant asses.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 18:08
It is not “discrimination,” of course, and that is patently easy to demonstrate: They baked cakes and did photographs for homosexuals! It was ONLY the “marriage” issue. And the reason was perfectly clear: They did not want to participate in sin.
Again: It is a myth that they “discriminated” against homosexuals. If they did, they would NOT have baked cakes and done photographs in the past.
It is perfectly clear.
whatthe46 November 30th, 2016 at 18:15
IT’S discrimination. if you don’t like gays getting married don’t marry someone gay. it is not for you to judge. they are human beings. you don’t get to decide if your personal beliefs trump (for lack of a better word) mine.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 01:49
No, I’m all for it, but I’m against religious privilege. You just don’t have any idea what religious freedom actually is.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 19:35
I know religious freedom does not mean freedom FROM seeing or hearing any religious displays or music. That is tyranny.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 19:47
You are so f*cking stupid, you have zero comprehension. It has nothing to do with seeing or hearing religious displays, for the last time, no agent of the government can show support of any particular religion or belief over another. Christian symbols on public property show such support. It is the basis of separation of church and state and this separation protects both the government AND the church.
Historically, the merging of church and state leads to tyranny and, often, bloodshed.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:14
It does. In fact, in one Supreme Court case in which a 10 Commandments monument was ordered torn down, the “rationale” was that someone who just happens to pass by might “feel” ostracized (I do not remember the exact word, but it was about someone who passes it and “fweels baddy” because he is a non-believer). And it happened in a school where the radical atheist haters took it to the Supreme Court: There was a 10 Commandments paper simply on the wall of the school, with no reference or requirement to teach it or refer to it, but the atheist haters managed to get it taken down.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:53
Bullsh!t you clown, you can’t understand the simplest concepts. It has nothing to do with hurt feeling, although by promoting a particular religion it does imply that those of other beliefs are inferior.
I’m going to yell at you now, so maybe you can understand.
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS ARE THE EXPRESSION OF A PARTICULAR RELIGION (actually 2 religions, Judaism and Christianity, but it is the Christians to make such a big deal over it.) THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT, BY THE 1ST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROMOTE ANY ONE RELIGION OVER ANY OTHERS, THIS WOULD VIOLATE THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
It is about the law, the real law, not your fantasy law,
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:06
It actually DOES! That was the Court’s rationale! I will look up the specific quote, the rationale, of the Court later, it is in my extensive notes. It was considered “passive” because the people are not required to participate in anything, but “passively” FEEL subjected to being ostracized or marginalized. It is a fact. The Court used that as a rationale!
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:10
It still gives a government imprimatur to a particular religion, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. There is no other argument.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:16
That is fine if it does, of course. Our heritage is Christian. Our culture is Christian. (Judeo-Christian to be precise.)
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:37
Nope. Just because most people are Christians does not make the culture or the heritage Christian. Since our heritage has some pretty awful things in it like slavery, genocide, segregation etc, I don’t think claiming it as Christian makes the point you want.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:58
Actually, it does. Many people think that our culture and society began with the ratification of the Constitution or thereabouts.
Not true. Our culture and society stems from centuries before. If one studies the colonial era, then one gets a deeper understanding.
It also helps to have lived – not merely “traveled” – abroad.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:48
RTO: So the just result occurred for the wrong reason. The real issue is a religion was given exclusive access to government property, which violates The Establishment Clause. Moving or removing the monument corrects the violation of national law.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:47
Not true. There are other places that have alternatives. And there is nothing in our Constitution about states not supporting religion in that way. It is up to the communities. This “separation” stuff is codswallop. It is only something atheist haters are using to destroy our heritage, our culture, and religious institutions. It is anti-freedom and anti-human nature.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:06
RTO:
Sure. Spend more money on other religious representation, or allow equal access, or deny access and representation to all religions.
A common refrain from those who are upset that they’re losing a privilege not granted to other religions and groups.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:10
People should then, petition for their Satan-Worship statues. See what happens. Maybe in some Liberal communities, they will go for it.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:19
RTO: But I, as a tax payer, have no interest in our government wasting money on multiple religious depictions when their are private institutions dedicated to such actions. Better to spend that money on services for the community.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:45
They are not wasting money.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 22:12
RTO: That can be voted on. If the community wishes for tax money to be spent on multiple religious displays, that’s up to them. I would vote against that as it’s something that surrounding religious institutions can take care of.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:37
I would vote for it. And that is how it should be decided, just as you said. That is the principle of self-government. Best!
George T December 4th, 2016 at 23:50
RTO: Whatever. Still a waste of tax dollars (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:54
Not for most people. Most people are glad to have a creche on display, of course.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 00:08
RTO: So you wont mind when a Satanist requests a display, paid for with tax dollars, to be added next to the creche? Then an atheist banner, paid for with tax dollars, on the other side of the creche?
You assume a lot for most people. My parents, for example, are Christian and would take issue with a government organization wasting their tax dollars on a display that should be set up at a church.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 20:03
RightThinkingOne: That’s not what’s being addressed. Nobody is fighting to take religious displays off private property, like your lawn or church property. A government building equally serves all citizens. If one religion is being given access, then all other religions are given equal access or all access is to be denied equally.
Theo November 30th, 2016 at 20:23
You got a small winky. When you expose it to little boys, they laugh.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 20:36
Theo: If you aren’t able to effectively rub two thoughts together to form a cogent defense or rebuttal, why publicly display the breadth of your ignorance and lack of prudence?
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:56
Are this Max and Theo nasty trolls that follow you around?
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:03
Red Mann: This is my first time posting on this website. This is my first time seeing responses like this so quickly.
I suspect that this is their first time seeing me.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:17
No. The community should be able to decide. It is hateful to have creches torn down. Reprehensible.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 21:59
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The community doesn’t get to decide to follow the law or not. It is the law. Religious symbols cannot be placed on public land. You are incredibly dense, all those years of religious brainwashing have rotted your mind.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:11
I know the laws. And they are wrong. But you do not know what you are talking about because in one of those cases I presented, the Court actually DID permit creches to be displayed on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!
You only spout feelings. I present facts and history and concepts.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:38
Yes, and I cited it already, but the court, not the community decided it.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:58
Yes. That is against self-government, a basic founding principle.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:54
RightThinkingOne: Was that display accompanied by displays from other religions? Was it made an open space available to all religions that wish to participate?
Those would be two options to comply with The Establishment Clause.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:06
I don’t think it was, and it does not matter. There are thousands of religions. And that does not matter, either. If the community decided, it should not be up to courts to give in to hateful atheists.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:25
RightThinkingOne:
Then it does violate The Establishment Clause if it involves government property or resources and other religions are excluded.
So hateful Christians are preferred? Incorrect. The government is neutral regarding religion. Thus, it’s better to not give access to any religion, or to give equal access to all religions.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:29
The Court decision in RI was great: It referred to preserving traditions. And our nation originated from Judeo-Christian sources. Even if you don’t like it. Can’t be changed.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:36
RightThinkingOne: Red Mann already addressed this. It was changed.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:01
RightThinkingOne: Nobody is advocating having a creche “torn down”. As long as it wasn’t purchased using public funds, it can be moved to private property.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:12
It should be allowed to be both purchased and set up on government property.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:17
RightThinkingOne: …alongside other religious displays. It’s only compliant with The Establishment Clause when other religions are given equal treatment and access.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:23
The community should decide. Only hateful people would go to the courts to get them taken down. People of the most spiteful, vindictive, and reprehensible natures.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:39
Again, the community doesn’t get to decide what laws to violate or what ones to follow.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 23:59
Actually, it does. This is basic politics 101. No, students study that at the middle and high school levels.
bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 02:45
You still beating that dead “poor persecuted Christian” horse?
Failure to comply with the law is the reason those cases you mentioned were brought. Those laws do not include a “I think my religion allows me to discriminate against you” exception.
What kinda jollies does this persecution complex get you? Must be something major because you are talking UNPROVABLE delusions.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:23
In those cases, the person of faith is presented with an extremely difficult choice:
1. Comply with the ridiculous laws and sin.
2. Avoid sin, and suffer unreasonable penalties.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:41
Sin, sin, sin! Can’t you realize that sin has no legal standing? It is a construct made up be religion to control the masses.
Sin is purely subjective and has no rational basis, the law is objective and has a rational basis. Your blind superstition does not override the law, ever.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:22
It is not “made up to control the masses.” I would like for you to trace the secret societies that created this. LOL
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:01
Yes, religion is used to control the masses and sin is one of the tools and religion was created by humans for the gods they invented. What “secret societies”?
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:11
Name the cabals! LOL
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:15
RightThinkingOne: I don’t think anyone would refer to the Christian denominations as cabals.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:21
Read what was written.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:45
You made some vague reference to “secret societies”, then answered with an even vaguer reference to “cabals”.
The usual suspects of the crazy conspiracy theorists are the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateralists and the New World Order. You talking about these or do you have some other, maybe the Skull and Bones club?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:00
Yes, because someone here claimed religion was CREATED to “control” people. I will not do this again. READ what is written and to what one responds.
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 02:26
Exactly.
It’s a choice. It’s NOT persecution. If you want to see what REAL persecution is, look up the Inquisition.
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:45
or look at what the so called “christians” are doing to Muslims. Islam & christianity are no different when they choose to use it to oppress or vilify or use it as an excuse to murder. people need not to be so gullible. if you believe in a higher power, great, there’s nothing wrong with it. but, you don’t have the right to harm others that don’t believe in what you believe in. and that’s the problem. i was raised both catholic and baptist. and even as a child, i didn’t believe in Adam & Eve. it made no sense. i didn’t believe in Noah’s Ark. it made no sense. but, stupid racist “christians” can’t believe in god, if they don’t respect all of god’s creatures. he made us the way we are, and i just happen to be different than you or you or you.
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 03:57
One of the worst features of religion as practiced by actual human beings is that any divergent viewpoint is evil, a threat, in need of suppression or eradication. As if a real Gawd was so picayune and petty that he wants people to be persecuted for saying “Ah-men” instead of “Ayyy-men.”
bpollen December 1st, 2016 at 04:32
I don’t really care who or what anybody believes is their higher power. “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” as Jefferson said. But that belief has no business impinging on MY beliefs.
And if a Gawd is worthy of his/her/its name, then Gawd don’t need no puny humans to defend the Gawdhead.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:33
Yes, it is a choice, and the STATE has persecuted. It should follow the RFRA, even though there should be no need for that in a civilized society. In fact, it was not needed for over TWO CENTURIES, and such codswallop does not exist in other nations.
bpollen December 2nd, 2016 at 02:24
Proof, not more bullshit. WHO has been persecuted, HOW have the been persecuted, WHAT indicates that their RELIGION is the reason they are persecuted, and PRECISELY how that differs than any OTHER person was treated.
You repeatedly make the claim, say “uh-huh” and “is too!!” and provide bupkes for actual facts. In the face of NO evidence, the only conclusion is you CANNOT prove your point. What other people say, what other people’s opinion is, how you interpret congressional pandering and LEGAL intent does NOT prove your point, but it DOES prove you have no actual facts.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:51
Happening all over. Look at the people on television with that home improvement channel just recently.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 18:56
List them with all the details I requested.
Unless or until you’ve done that, your point is false.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:55
Nope. Look it up. Just last week.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 19:59
Provide link or your post is BS.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:04
Look it up.
Home improvement channel. HGTV, I think.
Gay marriage.
Take a look. I don’t run errands for mentally lazy leftist haters.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:05
You post the link. If you are unable, then you’re full of it.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:09
LOL
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:10
Didn’t post the link, so the obvious conclusion? Full of it. If you can’t prove your “facts” all by your lonesome, then they aren’t facts.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:14
LOL!
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:28
Yeah, your being full of BS is very very LOL!
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 20:13
You failed again to show any truth to your arguments. If YOU make the claim, the onus is on YOU to provide the evidence.
You don’t DO that. You just make claims. Like Alex Jones.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:20
Use Google. Best search engine I think.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:05
No. If you can’t supply the corroboration, then it’s BS.
And, frankly, I don’t give a shite what your opinion of the efficacy of Google is. YOU use it and find actual links to support your contentions. If you can’t put up the effort, then *I* ain’t gonna do it for you.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:41
OK, don’t do it. What I wrote is the truth.
bpollen December 4th, 2016 at 23:42
No, it’s not. If it IS, you should be able to show evidence.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 19:24
RightThinkingOne: Render unto Caesar…
When you live in any country, adhere to and respect the laws of that land. If you wish to impose additional religious laws upon yourself, that’s your choice. If those laws conflict with each other, you must deal with the repercussions of any related actions.
Max November 30th, 2016 at 19:57
Pedophile ccksucker
oldfart December 1st, 2016 at 00:58
I borrowed from you. above.
all he will do is reply non- answer.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:22
oldfart: Well stated in your reply. It’s like that relative that you call an intervention for… and they feel like it makes sense to fight everyone instead of admitting that there might be a problem.
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 01:09
you know, i brought up the fact that priest rape boys, what i failed to ask you was, if religion was such an important aspect of moral growth, and if because it’s no longer practiced in school, i.e., prayer, how in the hell do you explain boys who were raised in catholic schooled, were raped by priest? obviously “good” “christian” and “family values” didn’t play in to account.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 19:21
RightThinkingOne: Are you denying that those businesses were making their goods and services publicly available and then refused service based on race or sexuality?
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:10
Yes, I am denying that. In fact, take the bakers and photographers: They PROVIDED cakes and did photographs for homosexuals. It was only the “marriage” issue!
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:13
RightThinkingOne: Then you’re just blathering at this point if you’re contradicting yourself.
These businesses are publicly available, and selectively refused their services based on discriminatory qualities. If they don’t want to run afoul of that, they need to set up a restrictive business model that allows them to limit their clientele.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:27
No. I am consistent. YOU claimed they denied homosexuals. They did not. Again (THIRD repetition): It was only about “marriage.”
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:05
RightThinkingOne: What kind of marriage were they refusing services?
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:13
Same-sex “marriage.” How can you NOT know that?
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:45
So, homosexual marriages then.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:01
RightThinkingOne: Correct. So they are discriminating based on sexual preference. Thank you for recognizing that.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:07
non-answer
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:29
RightThinkingOne: You don’t have an answer? Well no further answer is needed if you truly recognize that these were cases of religious and sexual discrimination. I sincerely hope that you do, and welcome you to a better understanding of equality and justice (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:05
It is not a case of “discrimination” on the part of the people of sincere faith, of course.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:27
RightThinkingOne:
Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.
If your faith based morals conflict with the law of the land, then be prepared for the consequences of your actions. That, or find a way to avoid such conflicts.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:16
Well, I suppose it is “discrimination.” Against people of faith. The radicals should have shut their mouths and gone to another photographer or baker, of course. But because the person would not capitulate to their personal desires, they decided to destroy his life.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:18
RightThinkingOne:
Only if you eschew all logic and any concept of equality.
I’ve already explained to you, I believe in another thread, why discrimination laws were needed. Your arguing for discrimination is charmingly backwards, but only serves to illustrate to others why it’s just and egalitarian to oppose your biased interests.
The baker destroyed his own business by not operating it fairly and in accordance with anti-discrimination laws.
oldfart December 1st, 2016 at 00:53
He got you there.
Your guilty of projection dude, plain and simple.
I get it, in YOUR mind you believe you’re right…fine.
But you have zero right to make anyone but yourself to believe it.
and, in case you haven’t noticed, you have zero ability to get anyone agree with you either.
Can you understand that ? Can you accept that ? Can you respect that ?
There is only one way to make people conform, in this country,
it’s called law, period. render unto Cesare, if you would prefer.
you will never get a (your) religious preference law passed in this country federally and federal law over rides state law.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:23
Yes, agreement is not expected from Leftist atheist haters.
oldfart December 1st, 2016 at 11:20
You consider yourself to be a Constitutionalist. You also consider yourself to be a christian… Yet these two things are not compatible. You choose to come here to comment and are shocked to find that peoples reaction does not conform to your point of view. You then proceed to overrule their comments and rebuttals because your point of view, in your mind, is the only true and logical reasoning. You claim moral high ground and absolute superiority to justify everything you espouse on.
When finally faced with logic, you reply with non-answer.
And finally, to bring it all back with your original entrance here, you wanted to buy a rug with Hillary’s picture on it to wipe your feet on…
Perhaps you feel that being “persecuted” here makes you worthier.
By all means stay here, in our house, it’s a free country.
Pontificate all you want and inherit the wind.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:42
Please provide your rationale for declaring that “You also consider yourself to be a christian.”
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:02
That’s idiotic. There is no justification for not providing the service they are providing to the public.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:12
Again (14th repetition): They did not want to participate in sin.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:46
Sin is not real and can’t be used to justify anything.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:01
Then, things like love, loyalty, honor, and such do not exist in your world. Heck, they are not “real” in any sense that you demonstrate.
Meepestos December 2nd, 2016 at 01:03
It is just a superfluous religious concept that originated in Eurasia. Did you know that the Huron did not recognize the concept of sin along with many other cultures throughout the globe?
Personal errors, wrongdoings, and injustices were recognized by the Huron, but they did not consider them spiritual crimes. Any grievances or wrongdoings were worked out within the tribe. This disconnect between mortal behavior and the fate of the soul meant that the Huron found the Christian concepts of sin, guilt, and eternal punishment inconceivable and superfluous. When the Jesuits asked about their sins, many claimed not to know how to sin. Even more confusing to the Huron was the notion that one could sin just by thinking. For them, it was unreasonable to be punished for an idea that was not put into action.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:02
RightThinkingOne: Then they shouldn’t run a business that people they think are sinners might want to use.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:08
Sorry, that is not logical or reasonable.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:11
Its actually completely logical. Where is the responsibility of the store owner in this. The store owner is ‘sinning’ by misrepresentation (bearing false witness)
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:22
RightThinkingOne: Projecting? Pot, you’ve just called the kettle *black*.
Red Mann November 29th, 2016 at 21:02
Here you go with your ignorance, if the law considers that discrimination against people simply because of their sexual orientation, which should be the law all over the country in a just, decent society, is illegal then the business person is required to provide the service. Refusing to sell to blacks, Jews, Irish, Italians etc has been a dark smear on America and your crowd wants to keep up this vile behavior because your Big Book of Stories says so.
If these precious little bigots can’t handle treating all people decently, then they should find something else to do.
Carla Akins November 30th, 2016 at 06:45
Those are not attacks. Calling out bigotry is not only our right but an obligation.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 20:53
It is not “bigotry.” Those people simply did not want to participate in sin.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 20:55
There is no such thing as sin, it is made up BS. It is bigotry.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:54
RightThinkingOne: They wouldn’t be participating. They’d simply be providing a cake or some service for a marriage.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:07
I spoke to this in another post.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:10
RightThinkingOne: I addressed it in another post.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:26
RightThinkingOne: You spoke, but you haven’t provided a logical basis for discriminating.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:56
I cannot provide a logical basis for something that did not happen.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:04
RightThinkingOne: This is the dissonance. You refuse to recognize that a discriminatory action is discrimination. Gotcha.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:07
No, it is not “discrimination.” The only “discrimination” is against the bakers and photographers, etc.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:09
RightThinkingOne: Yes, I get it. You refuse to recognize discriminatory actions of Christians. You’ve clearly expressed and shown your bias. Thanks (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:13
No, 20TH REPETITION: They provided services to homosexuals. It was only the “marriage.” They did not want to participate. How can you NOT get it? They wanted no part of it. That is all. The homosexual couple should have had respect for the bakers, shut their mouths, and gone elsewhere.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:32
RightThinkingOne:
Yes, knowingly or not, I am sure of this and have already recognized that in our discussion.
Yes, homosexual marriage. That is a more specific form of discrimination based on sexual orientation… but still discrimination.
Then they shouldn’t operate a business serving the public. Some members of that public are of the same sex and wish to get married.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:57
No. The bakers wanted to remove themselves from sin. They did not want to sin. They did not try to stop the people from “marrying.” You are illogical.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02
RightThinkingOne: From their view or opinion of what sin is. That opinion conflicts with anti-discrimination law. Knowing there was a potential conflict, they should’ve taken steps to avoid or address the conflict.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:47
It was sin. It is hard to understand how one can even begin to NOT comprehend that.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:12
RTO: Because sin is a made up illness that various religious denominations claim to cure. People who don’t follow those faiths and beliefs don’t care what you call a sin.
Just like you wouldn’t care if a hippie said your aura is a bad color and told you to stop eating your favorite food to correct it. You would obviously dismiss his or her assertion just like I dismiss your silly concept of sin.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:58
Sin is real for people of faith. You are intolerant. The extent of your close-mindedness and intolerance is beyond the pale.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:12
RTO:
Sure. If you’ve chosen to believe in this construct of sin, then you must remember that others aren’t obligated to follow or adhere to your beliefs. Just like you aren’t obligated to bow towards Mecca several times each day.
Tolerance is letting you make your own choices, not expecting others to adhere to your choices.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16f97916001f201a395afaa9d885fe3a2ea6e605c70cc8df313c0abb3808bd42.jpg
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:57
RTO: So you’ve never addressed which sin. I’m not aware of any sin mentioned anywhere in the Christian holy book that addresses same sex marriage or making cakes.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:18
Homosexual sex. “Marriage” between the same condones homosexual sex. A sin.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:03
RTO: Please cite or quote where this is specifically addressed. I’m not aware of any prohibitions regarding marriage and the prohibition regarding homosexual sex is debatable, possibly addressing something else.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 21:11
It is obvious. “Marriage” condones a sexual relationship. It is irrefutable. Undeniable.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:18
RTO: Is that stated clearly somewhere in this holy book?
whatthe46 December 2nd, 2016 at 01:10
why did the priest who raped boys continued their sins? clearly they enjoyed sinning right?
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:41
whatthe46: Apparently bakers have more self control than those who directly serve the biblical deity.
whatthe46 December 2nd, 2016 at 20:09
apparently.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:39
RTO: Now you’re coming around! As I’ve said before, knowing that same sex marriage is legal they should’ve sold their business to avoid having a conflict. If you know you might run afoul of discrimination laws because of limitations you place upon yourself, take steps to avoid the issue.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:29
Not applicable. It is only a cake.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:52
RTO: Yes! Just sell them the cake and there would’ve been no issue.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:09
Just saw a report that the LGBT mafia has ganged up on Chip and Joanna Gaines of the popular HGTV show Fixer Upper. Hate from the radicals against Christians.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:20
RightThinkingOne: Sure. That can happen. Please state clearly how you think this is directly applicable to discrimination law.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:21
An example of discrimination against people of faith.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:25
RightThinkingOne: Is someone refusing publicly available service to The Fixer Upper couple?
shocktreatment November 30th, 2016 at 09:15
Buffoon.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 19:20
RightThinkingOne: If they offer their services publicly, then it’s discrimination to refuse service based on a group quality like race or sexual preference.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:09
No. They did not want to participate in sin. It is that simple.
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:10
RightThinkingOne: Then they shouldn’t make their business publicly available. It is that simple.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 21:26
They did not want to sin.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:09
Apparently they DID want to sin.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:25
RightThinkingOne: I don’t see any place in the bible where it says two men or two women can’t marry.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:56
Actually it does. Becoming one flesh.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 22:58
RightThinkingOne: Actually it doesn’t. A modern marriage is a contractual arrangement. It no longer has a direct association with copulation.
For example, an asexual couple could marry for tax, visitation, or beneficiary rights.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:01
You did it again: You are writing about something else. Try reading.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:07
RightThinkingOne: No, you’re being obtuse. Trying to avoid recognizing what I’ve expressed.
The Christian bible seems to address (this is open to debate) same sex copulation. That is not strictly addressing or opposing same sex marriage. You are *assuming* that marriage is included in this biblical reference.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:11
Real marriage is between male and female. It is not only the Bible, but the entire world. And all human history.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:15
RightThinkingOne: Your opinion is that marriage is between male and female. It is not an opinion held by the entire world. The US is not the only country to make this change to marriage contracts.
Did you know that marriage was the only legal contract in The US that had a requirement regarding the sex of those agreeing to the contract?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:18
Not in the past few years, of course. But I refer to thousands of years of history, and the entire world.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:23
RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. There’s a long history of same sex actions and issues dating back thousands of years, among humans and other animals.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:56
You are doing it again. Not the topic. CAN’T YOU READ? It is about MARRIAGE. M..a..r..r..i..a..g..e!
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02
RightThinkingOne: Correct. They were discriminating based on a same sex marriage. If you’re trying to say that they were refusing to make cakes for all marriages, that’s simply not true.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:47
That is not “discrimination.” They homosexuals voluntarily chose certain behaviors.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:11
RTO: That’s debatable. Choice or not, it’s still legally recognized discrimination to refuse service based on that lifestyle. In a certain respect, refusing service based on a lifestyle choice is an act of judgment. As the bibble says, they were judged in kind.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:57
It is not discrimination. TWENTITH REPETITION – Read RFRA.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 20:16
RTO:
That’s your opinion, which conflicts with reality.
Why? It was deemed unconstitutional in 1997.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:21
Read the RFRA. Let me know when you do. It is not long.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 22:12
RTO: So I read that The RFRA is now limited in scope to certain federal level situations. States are free to enact local level RFRA if they wish. The state where this incident with the bakery occurred had no RFRA, so the primary applicable law is anti-discrimination. Again, the bakery should’ve considered this and found a work around given that no state level RFRA had been passed.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 22:16
Yes. Thanks for reading it. Now you hopefully understand.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 22:35
RTO: Yes, I’ve understood from the beginning. It’s a case of a bakery discriminating against a same sex couple trying to buy a cake for their wedding.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:40
No, it was not discrimination, of course. The homosexuals were hateful, vicious and narcissistic.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 00:04
RTO: Yes, again, they were refused service because the event they were buying a cake for was based around their lifestyle. The bakery was discriminatory in denying services based on race, religion, or sexual orientation involved.
I do see what you’re asserting. You think that non-Christians should coddle and acquiesce to Christian beliefs and practices. This is akin to a Muslim owned and operated business requiring any woman to wear a headscarf when entering their business. Would you agree with that religious imposition? Honestly curious.
Meepestos December 2nd, 2016 at 00:54
“There’s a long history of same sex actions and issues dating back thousands of years”
Indeed, same sex marriages existed throughout the globe and some of these marriages had other primary purposes. An interesting one is that of women marrying women in many societies. An example is in Sub-Saharan Africa where it was done consensually in order to have legal control over another woman and her children also to further social and economic positions in society, but these arrangements were not homosexual marriages nevertheless same sex marriages. Now it would be interesting if any lesbians took advantage of this type of marriage ; )
In North America, though rare, in some tribes, a berdache could and would marry a man, but were for reasons involving romance and love. Among the Crow, female berdaches often married women.
Then there was a time when same sex wasn’t illegal in parts of the Roman Empire, but only lasted for about a hundred years (SSM was officially outlawed by the laws of the Roman Empire under the Christian emperors) a century after the same sex marriage of Nero to Pythagoras, which was the only formal same sex wedding Nero had, but I suspect likely a forced marriage, which were not uncommon during those times considering marriage wasn’t usually for love or necessarily sexual desire more so for family alliances as we still see today is some cultures in the form of arranged marriages.
One could argue that the longer than unusual known pederastic relationship of Agathon and Pausanias over 2400 years ago was a type of unrecognized same sex union yet their relationship was formally recognized like a civil union. At least it appeared to be a consensual relationship, but still not a marriage.
Marriage has certainly come a long way for the better especially for women and homosexuals.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:00
Meepestos: Thanks for the info! I was vaguely aware of some situations you mentioned. You’ve detailed quite a bit more than I had ever heard of, and I think @RightThinkingOne:disqus should be made aware of these if he’s not reading all thread comments.
Meepestos December 3rd, 2016 at 00:38
Your welcome. Anthropology used to be my forte in the 90s. Still I have some brushing up to do.
oldfart December 2nd, 2016 at 01:24
George T:
Please stop addressing you replies in that manner
It’s creeping me out and we REALLY don’t stand on
that much tradition here.
We’re the Pus*y grabbing America now…it’s ok.
Rant over and have a great day !
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 01:34
Using the “name:” can help others to know more about deleted comments. In other forums it’s quite common for people I converse with to have their comments deleted, and people end up wondering who and what I was replying to.
oldfart December 2nd, 2016 at 09:45
Since you put it that way… this site has a rare problem with dropped comments, probably hiccup-ups from Disqus, but mostly, deletions are the result of commenters crossing the line and getting booted off the site. RTO has an obtuse benign blather quality, that while he can be an irritation, is not likely to get out of line. I dare say he probably enjoys seeing his name displayed in your fashion, IYNWIM.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:35
It’s just a habit at this point to help avoid confusion when someone might get the ban-hammer or have a comment deleted for some other reason. I’ll reference him as RTO to avoid his serf-aggrandizing.
oldfart December 2nd, 2016 at 01:16
WOW dude how old are you ?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:19
Yes, some states added amendments to define marriage because they saw what was coming.
It was not needed in the past because it was obvious that males marry females and vice-versa, of course.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 23:22
RightThinkingOne:
Fixed your error.
oldfart December 2nd, 2016 at 01:15
And everything else is an aberration ?
Tell me, exactly how many people also believe this ?
besides you…
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:48
Almost all of the world in the present. All of the world for thousands of years.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:31
RTO: Actually, this isn’t even consistent within the bible. Do you refuse to recognize the polygamy, sex slaves, incest, and rape all condoned by god?
whatthe46 December 2nd, 2016 at 19:42
ask him to explain Adam & Eve. he won’t respond to me. lol. if he really believes that Adam & Eve were the first, then surely incest was involved. if he believes in the great flood, then surely there was some incest going on there. considering everyone was wiped out except for Noah’s family.
Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 19:27
You seem to ignore the ancient Greek and Roman History– plenty of homossexual couples.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:59
You are not reading what was written. You are changing what was written and declaring it to be what was written. Either you did not read carefully, did not comprehend what was written, or you are deliberately distorting.
Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 20:06
You said”…the entire world. And all human history”. I read it, see? And it’s false.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 20:11
It is true. There has NEVER been a society in which the a man “marrying” another man was included in the concept of marriage.
Sure, there were a few emperors and rogue churches, but READ, READ, READ my specific statement. I really do not want to play this game of repeating. Read the clear and specific statement above. Most haters distort it. I suspect you will, even though it is PERFECTLY CLEAR.
Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 19:29
Your avatar, je suis quoi? Je peut pas le lire..
George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:49
Gina Bousquet: Please search for “Raif Badawi”
Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 20:02
Thank you George, I will. :)
George T November 30th, 2016 at 21:53
RightThinkingOne: Nobody is forcing them to be married to a member of the same sex, if that’s the sin you’re thinking of.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:04
They would be participating in sin. I hesitate to present an analogy because there are certain types that only look for a flaw in the analogy in order to deflect. No analogy is perfect, so these “types” USE that.
Suppose you have a married friend who asks you for a ride to a motel where he will commit adultery with a married woman. Of course, he can get a ride from others or use a taxi, but he asks you.
It is perfectly reasonable and understandable if you refused that on the grounds that you do not want to be part of his (and her) committing adultery.
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:07
This is a childish, foolish line of reasoning you keep repeating. Sin has no legal standing and cannot be used to justify breaking the law. Why is that so hard to understand?
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:14
I know it has no legal standing. But look up the RFRA. (16th)
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:47
Yeah, a very misguided action, given as a sop to the religious extremists. It is very bad legislation.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:01
Tell that to Bill Clinton who signed it. Betcha didn’t know that!
George T November 30th, 2016 at 22:09
RightThinkingOne: Now imagine that I was a taxi driver, offering a public service, and I refused to drive a gay couple to their wedding. I would be discriminating. Even if I drove gay couples to other places before, I would be discriminating.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:15
It would be up to your conscience and religious convictions, of course.
But why couldn’t the homosexual couple respect the driver and simply say nothing?
George T November 30th, 2016 at 23:06
RightThinkingOne:
Incorrect. If my religious convictions might cause a conflict then I shouldn’t work in a business that would run afoul of such an issue. For example, if I think it’s unclean to handle pigs or pork products then I shouldn’t work in a grocery store that sells pork.
But why couldn’t the driver do his or her job that’s being offered to the public at large?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:10
A person could buy a simple kitchen knife to kill someone. However, if the person buying the knife revealed that he wanted to buy it to harm someone, what is the moral (repeat, MORAL, MORAL, MORAL) thing, not LEGAL, thing to do?
George T December 1st, 2016 at 00:21
RightThinkingOne: To stop that person from harming another.
If your religion says gay marriage isn’t moral, then that’s between you and your religion. It is not universally understood to be a moral or ethical violation.
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 01:45
take you conscience and ….. what business is it of yours? are you going to die? are you going to turn gay? if a bi-racial couple wanted to catch a cab they don’t have to announce they are a bi-racial couple, it’s out in the open, and if the driver decides not to pick them up because he doesn’t believe “his kind should mix with their kind” how do you get around that? are you going to suggest that they take separate taxi’s to the same location as to not offend the racist/bigot?
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:03
Again, “sin” has no legal standing and is not an excuse for breaking the law or doing your job. This is religious privilege in action.
RightThinkingOne November 30th, 2016 at 22:13
They did not want to sin (15th repetition).
Red Mann November 30th, 2016 at 22:49
And sin is not a real thing (repeated repetitions). It is a groundless argument.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:03
It is real for those of faith.
Suzanne McFly December 1st, 2016 at 19:13
This faith?…..
Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:34
Yes. They did not tell the homosexuals not to “marry.” They merely wanted to remove themselves from participating in sin. Now, if they had begun the incident with condemning them from the start, from refusing to give any services before, and for telling them that they are sinning, etc., you could have a case.
But they simply did not want to provide the services to celebrate sin.
Suzanne McFly December 1st, 2016 at 21:23
Who are you to say what sin is? I know of the Ten Commandments and the Seven Deadly Sins and I have read nothing that has anything to do with homosexual marriage. Why are you so wrapped up in this one thing? Why is this upsetting you so much when the world is melting and animals are becoming extinct at a rate that we have never seen before? Is your life so wonderful that you can sit back and judge other people’s marriages? How many homosexuals do you even know? You need to get a hobby, you are a pathetic little human.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:55
I am not saying what sin is. How can you possibly conclude that?
Suzanne McFly December 2nd, 2016 at 07:36
Keep up sparky, these are YOUR words….
Yes. They did not tell the homosexuals not to “marry.” They merely wanted to remove themselves from participating in sin.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:54
I am only presenting the reason that they refrained from making the cake. They did not want to sin.
Suzanne McFly December 5th, 2016 at 22:43
That is some hell of a thread you are continuing to spin, boring as hell though.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 23:19
“Boring?” Really? Not based on the number of responses – many very, very heated and adamant – I am getting.
Suzanne McFly December 7th, 2016 at 12:55
Heated? You wish, we come out and smack you around like a punching bag then when we got rid of the bad energy we leave you alone and let you stew in your pile of hatred.
Suzanne McFly December 7th, 2016 at 12:57
Heated? Hardly so, but nice try. You are like a punching bag, we come out and knock you around for a bit just to get rid of the bad energy we are feeling. Once we are done, we go back to our sensible lives and leave you alone again to stew in your pile of hatred.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:33
No, I post facts. You do not like them.
Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 14:40
Spare me some time, I have a life and don’t have much to waste like you do. Cite one of the “facts” you have claimed and I will take back my accusation.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:41
Radicals try to revise the meaning of the Bible by asserting such nonsense as modern and ancient notions of “sexual orientation” are different. But the definition of marriage was grounded in the created order itself (Genesis 2:24 – they become one flesh), and Jesus spoke of man-woman marriage and its permanence (Mark 10:6). These revisionists try to say that the apostles did not know what we moderns know about sexual orientation! But when the Bible refers to sexual immorality, it ALWAYS views homosexual sex in a negative light. And the Bible is not based on the “expertise” of the apostles and prophets on matters of “sexual orientation” and such, but it is the revealed Word of God. So, the revisionist position is based not on the Words of Scripture but on the radicals just choosing who the author is. How convenient!
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:42
The problem is that human beings are not “non-bodily persons” inhabiting and using non-personal bodies. The body is not an INSTRUMENT; it is intrinsically part of the personal reality of a human being, so bodily union is personal union, and marital union is thus founded on this bodily union which is made uniquely possible by the SEXUAL COMPLEMENTARITY of a man and a woman! “Of one flesh” as the Bible puts it. It is this ONE-FLESH union that is the foundation for two persons to bind themselves; marriage – real marriage – is a one-flesh communion by acts that are procreative IN TYPE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE PROCREATIVE IN EFFECT. The partners form the PROCREATIVE PRINCIPLE, even if they do not produce children. Children who may be conceived are not JUST the ends EXTRINSIC to marriage but rather gifts of the unifying principle.
READ. IMPORTANT:
In homosexual couples, sex cannot be part of the uniting of flesh, the becoming one; it is only for affection, pleasure, fun or whatever.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:44
Two of the main reasons that there are such strong statements against homosexuality in the Bible is that: 1) It denies life; it denies God’s desire that the male and female cohabit; and it denies the root structure that the Bible prescribes for all mankind, the family. Right from the start, God said that “It is not good for man to be alone,” and He did not create another man, but He created a woman. Man becomes fully human by united with woman.
Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 18:48
You make these statements with a tone of truth. You speak from a place of hatred for another and you know nothing of the God I love.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:03
That is a typical rejoinder: If a person disagrees with the radical, then the person disagrees out of “hate.”
LOL!
Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 20:48
You are quoting from a book written by men who never met Jesus and were born thousands of years after him to prove your hatred is valid in God’s eyes. You are a sad person.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:05
You did it again. I merely showed what the Bible has. I am an atheist. My reasons for wanting to preserve real marriage are not based on religion.
Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 21:11
Then why do you make your argument using the Bible? You give your argument then you claim you don’t even believe your argument but you just wanted to throw it out there.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:03
Because some atheist hater said there is nothing about homosexual stuff in the Bible, of course.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:03
What do you mean, I don’t believe my argument? Some atheist hater referred to the Bible.
Suzanne McFly December 9th, 2016 at 17:03
Put the pipe down dude.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:09
Then they should only work in businesses that do not put them in this situation.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 00:23
Puerile. Anyone can sin. Heck, someone might buy perfume to give to his mistress when he commits adultery. Silly.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:46
Lets see if this is clear. When a business license is granted, I suspect there is some sort of clause around expectations and non discrimination. To get a restricted license (only serving a specific group) there would need to be some sort of arrangement. So the ‘Christian Business’ needed to sign that they would adhere by the law. Now unless lying is not a sin, they would be sinning by refusing service in that they would be breaking their oath (false witness)
Also , if you are selling perfume to a man who is committing adultery, are you not sinning?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 01:21
They did not want to sin. And read (6th repetition) the RFRA. It is clear. If it gave undue hardship by not providing a “cake,” then they would have a reasonable case. But since there were about 10 bakeries within a 2-mile radius (I checked), and not having a little cake from a specific bakery does not present an “undue hardship” by any mature, reasonable, normal view, well…..
George T December 1st, 2016 at 01:35
RightThinkingOne: Discrimination laws were put in place because all regional cake shops would conspire to refuse service to races, religions, and sexual orientations. Thus, those targeted groups would have no reasonable alternative.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:30
Not true. In one case, for example, the baker actually suggested another place! And I checked something: There were over 10 bakeries within a 2-mile radius of the place. Many, many others would be happy to get the money.
But no, no, no. Even though the bakers provided cakes and things to homosexuals before with no problem, the radical haters had to force them to accept their “marriage.”
That is hateful and base. Uncalled for, and deplorable.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:07
RightThinkingOne:
Incorrect. That is the history of discrimination law.
Super. So you admit that they were intending to discriminate. The baker was refusing services made publicly available. Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.
How does baking a cake force them to accept a marriage?
Agreed! It’s a clear and obvious case of discrimination. The baker should’ve just made the cake and taken the money. That, or set up a *club* or some other sales structure that allows them to exclude unwanted clients.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:24
No, it is not “discrimination.” Again (15th repetition!): They provided goods and services to homosexuals in the past. It was ONLY the marriage issue!
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:48
RightThinkingOne: Again, what kind of marriage did they have a problem with?
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:59
You are joking with that response, right?
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:07
RightThinkingOne: You’ve already admitted the discrimination quality when I asked this same question earlier. I’m not sure why you don’t understand after admitting the issue.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:21
Not true. I explained already. I won’t do it over and over.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:44
RightThinkingOne: You’re free to revel in misinformation and cognitive dissonance if you wish (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 20:48
Everyone else understands what I write. They do not agree, but they understand. It is clear by their responses. Have a look. Think about it.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:04
RightThinkingOne: Looking at other replies, I see that everyone else does understand how your expressed views conflict. It’s a form of cognitive dissonance to divide your response to two equal scenarios based on a quality you’re imposing as an excuse for different treatment.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:14
Glad you are seeing that everyone else understands the sentences I wrote, even though they disagree. You are the only one for whom it seems necessary to repeat and simplify, and even that does not help in most cases.
Unfortunate.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:45
RightThinkingOne: Whatever (^_^) Let me know when you deal with that logical conflict you’re wrestling with.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:29
To provide the cake is tacit acceptance of the sinning, of course. How can anyone NOT understand that? They are facilitating the celebration of sinning.
I do not like to provide analogies because no analogy is absolutely, 100%, perfection without any flaw at all, and there are certain types of people who only look for the flaw in order to avoid the concept.
But it would be like a Nazi asking a Jewish baker to make a cake to celebrate Hitler’s birthday. Or a member of a white power group asking a black photographer to take photos of the celebration in which they demand blacks be segregated or removed from the nation.
Yes, the Jew and the black might be required “legally” to provide those services, but any DECENT person would know that the customers should go elsewhere, and any reasonable adult would side with the Jew and black guy for refusing.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 19:47
RightThinkingOne:
Then they should stop offering cakes if they might be used for something they think is a sin.
…
I’ve worked for people I disagree with. It’s part of being an adult.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 19:58
“Disagree with?” A Nazi wanting to celebrate Hitler’s birthday is merely someone who “disagrees” with you, especially if you are a Jew?
Please do not respond to my posts. I presented something and you refuse to honestly respond to the obvious.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 20:53
RightThinkingOne:
If they aren’t breaking a law like assault or harassment, then yes. Doing otherwise would be a case of discrimination.
I will continue to correct errors in posts. If yours contain errors, then I will correct them.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:13
Interesting response. It reveals a lot about you.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:49
RightThinkingOne: Yes, that I’m able to work with people who I strongly disagree with. If you’re saying that you’re unable to do so, that reveals a lot about you.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 23:00
Again, it reveals a tremendous amount about you.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:24
RTO: …and you. I am able to function in a diverse, egalitarian society while you seem inclined to an imposing dictatorship or nanny-state that caters to only your wishes while maligning others.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:29
On the contrary. You want to persecute people of sincere faith. The radicals should have just gone to another bakery and had the decency to respect the faith of the bakers. They presented the height of intolerance and totalitarianism. They were willing to DESTROY the lives and families of people who do not capitulate to their personal desires.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:44
RTO:
On the contrary. My parents are people of sincere faith who have never done anything like this baker. They politely respect the choices of others, regardless of motivation, and only advise regarding their faith and belief when asked. I know there are people of sincere faith who aren’t hypocrites because they’re members of my family, and I would never advocate anything that would impact their respectful practice of their beliefs.
Again, the baker knew there was a potential conflict and should’ve taken steps to avoid discrimination issues. They didn’t. They got 15 minutes of publicity and a hefty chunk of money from suckers who donated money to them.
The bakers did so by refusing service to paying customers based on their lifestyle choice.
The bakers knew they could have a conflict given that same sex marriage had been ruled legal. As mentioned above, they did a great job taking advantage of a polemic issue, got some fame, and cashed out. Don’t cry for them.
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 01:38
“They did not want to sin.” so, i guess a priest raping a child gets a pass? you see why people don’t (well me) take you seriously when you consider yourselves to be “christians?” because you’re the biggest hypocrites to face this planet. all that “love thy neighbor” crap, goes straight out the window if it doesn’t pass your smell test of what’s moral. if you believe that all are sinners, then don’t cast stones.
oh wait, now you’re going to suggest if the bakery 5 mins away won’t service them because they are bigots and homophobes who own it, then surely they can find one 30 mins away that would. remember when black people had to go to the back of a restaurant to purchase a meal? their money was good but be damned the skin color, they were not worthy enough to walk through the front door.
remember when “loving” had to go to court to fight for marriage? if people can use the excuse of religion to discriminate, then we are right back where we started from. you can make up sh!t if it would further your hate agenda. damn dude, why, and i’m serious, why are you such a bigot and racist?
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 01:56
I’m not suggesting that there was not some political posturing on the part of the couple. However, the concept of sinning doesn’t fly as an excuse as they were already sinning (as I described above). Thus the store owners were hypocritical in their position.
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:29
for crying out loud, kim davis was one of the biggest hypocrites to come out of the anti-gay marriage rights. a threat to family values my ass. married cheat, divorced, remarried, cheated again, children by both fathers while cheating and remarrying. talk about a soap opera. but, gay marriage is a threat to “conventional” marriage, while they are committing adultery, and praying to jesus. WTF ever.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 02:32
Yup
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:37
so, you see my dilemma about my not giving a flying monkey’s fk about them and their holier than thou, i’m a “christian” and i’m being persecuted b.s.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 02:38
This is true. However, it can be fun to watch the gymnastics
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 02:48
lol
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:31
It is not an “excuse.” The owners of the bakery, photography studio, wedding planners establishment, etc. simply did not want to commit sin.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 18:48
But they did commit sin (according to the Biblical definition)
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 18:50
If they provided the services, they would have committed sin. I cannot judge them, and radical atheist haters certainly cannot.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:01
RightThinkingOne: Radical and normal atheists are able to judge them. Their concept of sin is not a universal concept. It’s specific to their beliefs. Since it’s self-imposed, others are free to consider their views and pass judgment.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 21:13
That is illogical.
George T December 1st, 2016 at 21:48
RightThinkingOne: Incorrect. Do you expect others to accept Islamic *sins*? Christian *sins* equally fail to apply to all people, and are not recognized by law. They are self-imposed limitations based on personal belief.
If you place these limitations on yourself, then it’s up to you to address any conflicts or issues stemming from that decision.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:59
I know that different people have different ideas about what sin is. Every rational adult knows that, of course.
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 20:22
RTO: So are you saying that you’re not rational, given that you’re showing a failure to recognize those who disagree with the concept of sin entirely?
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:51
You are demonstrating intolerance to the highest degree.
George T December 4th, 2016 at 19:56
RTO: You are crying intolerance and persecution to deflect and avoid recognizing my point.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:56
Not really.
It’s simple:
Are they following the rules they seek to enforce upon others?
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:27
Yes. They provided services to homosexuals for decades. They only did not want to participate in sin.
whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 19:48
they themselves are sinning. and where in your bible does it say that it’s a sin to provide services to married gay couples? i’ve got all day.
john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 21:25
So instead they committed at least 3 sins:
▪They did not love their neighbor as themselves.
▪The sat in judgement rather than looking to the plank in their own eyes.
▪They disobeyed the law of the land in which they live – in contravention of Bible law.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:47
They did. They supplied services to homosexuals for years. (19th repetition)
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:48
No, you are referring to Islam in the last “point.”
john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 22:34
Do I really need to cite chapter and verse? I thought you were familiar with the Bible.
Matthew ◄ 5:41 ► NLT
If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles instead.
◄ Romans 13:5 ► NIV
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to
the authorities, not only because of
possible punishment but also as a
matter of conscience.
I cited the 2nd passage because it specifically addresses conscience, but there are many others throughout the Bible which address obedience to worldly authority.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:39
Hey, Jesus did not “submit.” The Jews didn’t.
LOL
john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 09:10
How … quaint.
Now you’re not only wrong you’re arguing against bible law – inspired of God.
You do realize those aren’t the only 2 passsges right?
◄ Romans 13:1 ► NIV
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 21:51
As Christians where Jesus did not judge who are they to do so?
The Centurion’s Faith
Luke 7 and Mathew 8:5 -13
The bible records that as he entered onto Capernaum Jesus met a Centurion pleading that Jesus heal his servant.
In Koine Greek Luke and Mathew use duolos and pais respectively. Duolos does mean servant but it is preceded by a word meaning honored. No Roman of rank would ever refer to a simple servant as honored. Thus we have a suggestion that the youth was something more than is clearly stated.
Mathew clarifies it when he uses the word pais, which in context means either a male servant kept primarily for sexual purposes, or the younger partner in a same-sex couple.
Given the NT usage, to denote someone who willingly gives himself into the power of another, we have reinforcement of the second meaning.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 22:15
SEVENTH repetition! Again (and again and again): They served the homosexuals, FOR YEARS!
They were not judging! How can you NOT get that? They simply did not want to participate – directly or indirectly – in facilitating a “wedding.”
THEY SIMPLY DID NOT – THEY THEMSELVES – WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.
That is all. To participate would have been a sin – FOR THEY THEMSELVES.
What is so freakin’ hard to understand? They did not want to participate FOR THEMSELVES!
john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 22:41
You can deny it all you like. But at the core of their decision was the judgement that the couple were living in sin. That they were not worthy to marry.
And it is doubtful they ever read any of the clobber passages for themselves, much less in context.
So they relied upon their own understanding. Something else the Bible prohibits.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:40
No, it was that they did not want to participate in sin, of course. Otherwise, they would not have given them services for YEARS before that. HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?
john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 09:20
I understand that they JUDGED that the couple were engaging in sin. And so they committed 3 sins rather than do something they believed to be a sin.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:30
No. They did not judge in the sense of criticizing or pointing fingers. It would be as if your married friend asked you to give him a ride so he could meet a married woman at a hotel and commit adultery. It is likely you would refuse to give him a ride to such a place because you do not want to facilitate his adultery. (It is not about you but the CONCEPT that there are many people who would not for that reason.) And most of us have been in such situations as kids (or adults): Someone wants to cheat on an exam, shoplift, etc. If you are in a store and your friend decides to try to steal, say, a CD (it does not matter what), you might remove yourself from the scene so to have no part of it. (I know, I know, I know that you may think it is none of your business, or report it, or stop him, etc., but that is not the point.)
It is just that simple.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 21:42
By not providing a service they have committed sin. They can be judged legally and (if they want to play the religious card) Biblical.
RightThinkingOne December 1st, 2016 at 22:57
No, according to their faith, homosexual sex is a sin. To facilitate others’ sinning would be immoral.
Ken Campbell December 2nd, 2016 at 01:02
I understand that their faith states that homosexuality is a sin. However they are committing a sin (false witness) by refusing to honor the promise they made when they started their business. They made a promise to obey the laws defining business practice. Thus, to refuse service to a homosexual couple, they would have to stop doing business altogether. It would be the only possible outcome.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:46
No, the sin would be to participate in the celebration of sin, the “marriage.”
Ken Campbell December 4th, 2016 at 20:32
You really don’t understand this? If the business breaks their promise to uphold business standards, they are committing a biblical sin. Christians are hypocrites to pick and chose their sins. Oh wait…..Christians ARE hypocrites
whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 20:50
and i asked him where in the bible does it say it’s a sin to bake a cake for gay couples who are getting married. furthermore, they weren’t asked to participate in the marriage by attending. and it’s the law of the land we are governed by, not his damn bible.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:46
No, they did not want to sin.
Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 00:33
You keep repeating the same words. It is apparent that you do not actually want to think about the implications of your position.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 01:26
I know the “implications.” They did not want to facilitate sin. Facilitating sin is participating in it, albeit indirectly. If I make a cake that celebrates a murder or child molestation, I am obliquely both condoning that and participating in it.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 01:39
RTO: That’s your opinion. Other people are capable of taking money and providing a service without supporting the subject in any way. It’s called being an adult and operating a fair and responsible business.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:21
Not opinion. Fact. Again (23rd! repetition): They served homosexuals for years. They did not want to participate in the “marriage.” That would be facilitating the sin and condoning it.
A rational adult should be able to understand that. I gave clear analogies to make it simple enough.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 18:50
RTO:
Then they should’ve been fine making the cake, since the only mention in the bible of anything remotely prohibiting same sex relationships (arguably) involves fornication. There is nothing about same sex marriage being a sin.
So, again, they chose to impose this view of same sex marriage as a sin in their beliefs upon themselves. It is not a widely held view. It contradicts national law. They should’ve prepared for this, taking steps like hiring outside labor to deliver the cake if they didn’t want to go near the event.
A rational adult should be able to understand that. I’ve clearly explained this before.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:17
You are now a mind reader? Did you learn through correspondence school? Or did you attend classes or have a guru?
It is amazing that you were able to look into the minds and hearts of the bakers and all of the others and know exactly the tenets of their faith, their beliefs, their consciences. Amazing!
George T December 5th, 2016 at 20:00
RTO:
It’s amazing that you’ve been making these assertions regarding their thoughts and mentality, and now accuse me of operating under your assumptions regarding the tenets of their faith, their belief, their consciences.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:03
Wrong. I don’t know. All I do know, and can know, is that they knew homosexual sex is a sin. Are you actually going to say that many Christians don’t ascribe to that? Are you? Note the word “MANY.” READ WHAT IS WRITTEN! Again, many.
And they publicly stated that they know that homosexual sex is a sin.
I cannot call them liars, or people who are just making it up. They gave services to the homosexuals, up until this “marriage” issue. It is obvious.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 20:13
RTO:
Correct! That doesn’t change the quality of your previous comments asserting the views and intent of the people at this bakery.
Last time I checked, marriage ceremonies don’t involve sex of any kind. So what would be the issue here?
And there were businesses that provided services to minorities until those minorities planned a wedding to a white man or woman. That is also a case of discrimination, regardless of services rendered in the past. Your referencing past work by this bakery doesn’t somehow justify or invalidate this discrimination case.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:30
No. They gave the reasons. They were clear. No doubt.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 21:22
RTO:
Clear as mud. You are equally clear. I’m not even sure which part of my comment you’re responding to.
Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 02:05
It is a hypocritical position. I suggest that Christians do not go into business as they clearly cannot understand the expectations of working in a law-based society
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:23
It was an exception. They did not want to participate in sin. That is all. The homosexual radical-haters should have shut their mouths, respected the person who gave them services for years, and gone someplace else. But they were too selfish and willing to destroy anyone who resisted participating in any aspect of their “preferences.”
Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 20:11
I’m not suggesting that the people launching this action were not targeting the store owners. However, the bottom line is that the store owners broke the law.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:12
Not true. Did you look up the RFRA yet?
Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 21:09
Yup. I know about the act. Its basically permission to discriminate. It is developed by Christians and for Christians. It is a very bad bit of legislation
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 21:25
It was signed into law by President Clinton. You have contradicted yourself.
Ken Campbell December 5th, 2016 at 22:01
How have I contradicted myself?
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 23:18
You did. One of yours put it into law.
Ken Campbell December 6th, 2016 at 00:36
One of my what?
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:53
Their faith is founded upon shifting sands. There are seven clever passages in the Old and New Testaments combined.
Most are situation or cannot be read as modern Christians would like.
Ezekiel, and the other prophets, have decreed that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality and failure to care for the poor, in the midst of great wealth.
Not one of the prophets mentions homosexual behavior in relation to the Cities of the Plains.
Nor are believers to rely on their own judgement.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:27
I am not here to engage in biblical exegesis, of course. Rather, I refer to their faith, courage, and the importance of religious freedom.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:43
Of a certainty anyone can hold them to the tenets of their faith, as laid out in the Bible.
Did they adhere to Bible law? No.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:26
They apparently did.
john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 20:25
Actually – no. They didn’t.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Love does no harm. Therfore is love the whole of the law.
Judge not lest by whatsoever measure you judge you be judged.
You are to obey the law not only for fear of punishment but as a matter of conscience.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:46
They did not want to sin. That is obvious.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:40
it’s covered in the Articles of Incorporation. The company is either licensed as a public accommodation (serving the public), or as a private (club or organization) related enterprise.
If the latter its customer base is restricted to members of such clubs, or organizationspeaks, as it is associated with.
Ken Campbell December 2nd, 2016 at 14:49
So if the business in question wants to be a Christian Club, they can determine that they will only serve Christians. Mind you, the gay person could be a Christian so would still be able to belong.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 18:14
Sorry, no.
The business can affiliate with one or more Christian clubs/organizations. As many as will agree, and the owner feels necessaryou. The members will be the company’s only customers.
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 03:21
to NOT love your neighbor as you love yourself IS A SIN! if the only way to respect others different, then throw out your phony religious mindset and stand on the moral ground. i don’t need to belong to a religion to know it’s a good thing to care and respect others. if you need religion to tell you that, then you’re lost. it’s human decency. it’s common sense. it’s NOT that damn difficult.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:34
Define civil law that defy God – and in THAT they SIN!
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 03:18
you participate in sin every time you decide you won’t love your neighbor. i.e., black people, brown people, gay people, etc., or respect them. yes, you are a hypocrite and a sinner of the worst kind. pray to god and then say FK everyone else.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:33
What is simple is their thinking.
They are licensed to run a business in the public interest. fair business exists to accommodate some perceived need on the part of the public. Hence the name public accommodation.
And in defying the law they are defying God. The Bible says repeatedly that Believers are to be in submission to civil Authority.
If a soldier requires that you carry his pack a mile, carry it 2 instead.
And you are to obey those in authority over you: “Not merely for fear of punishment, but for conscience sake.”
Or should I site chapter and vetse?
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:56
Read the RFRA
Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 19:34
Participate in sin?! Were they asked to? lololololo
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 19:59
Yes, they actually were.
whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 21:24
he’s so stupid.
Gina Bousquet December 4th, 2016 at 21:38
He made me laugh with that one! :)
whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 22:29
thing is the idiot is serious. that’s what make people like him dangerous. they are weak minded and as long as you throw god in the mix and degrade people he’s fine with it. look at the evilgelicals. that’s one crazy group. just like WBC. crazy.
Gina Bousquet December 7th, 2016 at 10:37
He is a laughable kind, but you’re right, they are dangerous enough to put the orange one in the WH.
Ken Campbell December 1st, 2016 at 00:08
Ah….so you are asking for new rules that permit Christians to break the law?
whatthe46 December 1st, 2016 at 00:59
re: phony “christians” who claim to be “christians” did any of them die? where they tied to a stake? were they tortured? what suffering can you attest to that was put upon them? oh wait, human being not subscribing to their idea of “morals” right? well, i can, if you want, link a site for you, where so called “christians” did some sick sh!t to people in the name of their twisted “god.” would you like that?
do you not see the disgust and hypocrisy in your thought process? poor put upon “christians” have to be kind to someone. WTF ever.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:26
Any businessman running a public accommodation (walk-in business) is required under law to serve any customer who walks in. With certain exceptions they are not allowed to restrict whom they will serve.
If a business man wishes to discriminate as to whom he will or will not serve he should incorporate as a private club, or organization, related Enterprise. He will then be prohibited from serving walk-in customers.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 18:56
You are wrong. It has to pose an “undue hardship.” If a hospital refuses to treat a man who is having a heart attack because he is homosexual, that fits it, of course. But when a person wants a CAKE, and there are TEN bakeries within a 2-mile radius? ARE YOU FREAKIN’ KIDDING ME? THAT IS AN UNDUE HARDSHIP?
Read the RFRA!
john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 20:12
I am familiar with the RFRAs. They are unconstitutional in that they were intended to deprive a recognizable minority of a right enjoyed by the majority. Namely the right to seek legal redress.
An open door business is licensed as a public accommodation. That is licensed to accommodate some perceived need on the part of the public. NOT whatever fraction of the public they like.
If they want to do that they need to incorporate as a private club or organization related enterprise.
And the framers of the RFRAs openly said that their legislation would allow an EMT to refuse to treat a gay man.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:19
It is constitutional and it protects people of faith from persecution by hateful atheist radicals.
whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 21:23
your religion sucks.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:47
LOL!
whatthe46 December 4th, 2016 at 21:23
not constitutional idiot. why do you insist on this outright lie and stupidity?
john Johnson December 4th, 2016 at 22:24
The equal protection clause says otherwise. As does the section laying out the conditions necessary for the government to deprive a recognizable minority of rights enjoyed by the majority.
The states have repeatedly failed to show clear and compelling reason for depriving LGBT people of their right to seek legal redress.
The courts will decide on a case by case basis the legal merit of any suit. Namely whether seeking an alternative source for any services creates undo hardship.
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 23:39
Read the RFRA. They are not “deprived.” If a homosexual had a heart attack, and a hospital refused to admit him because he was a homosexual, of course that would be undue hardship.
But a cake? And where there are 10 bakers in the vicinity? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
George T December 5th, 2016 at 01:33
RTO: 10 or 100. Discrimination is not somehow negated by alternate options.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:20
You are wrong. You spout opinions without thought. If you read the RFRA, it would be clear. But you will not even make the effort.
George T December 5th, 2016 at 18:52
RTO:
You fail to give a valid justification for this assertion.
Incorrect. I post summations of legal precedent and how it impacts what you’re discussing.
john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 07:38
The likelihood that there are 10 bakers in a 2 mile area (as you specified) is exceedingly low. And the man who drafted one state’s RFRA specifically said it would allow a Christian EMT Tech to deny services.
And again, that’s what the courts are for – to decide if a case has merit. Contrary to your suggestion there are very few frivolous cases. Primarily because the losing party must pay the court costs and the attorney’s fees of the winner.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:25
No, there are. I checked. One can go to Google and check for most kinds of services and stores with the Google Maps. Check it out. I did. You just want to believe something, despite facts and reason.
john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 19:09
I said it is unlikely – not impossible. And it is irrelevant to this discussion.
It is for the courts to decide if the case has Merit. It is not for the Legislature to seek to block any minority from the legal rights enjoyed by the majority.
And for the owners of the bakery to release the couples personal information was criminal. Perhaps had they acted in a civilized manner the case would not have gone against them.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:24
I was wrong. I just checked in relation to the “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” case. There are actually TWENTY bakeries in the area!!!!! TWENTY!
Make an effort, pal! I write the TRUTH. If the bakeries do not show up, go to the right, and click the “Nearby” and type in “bakery.” LEARN THE TRUTH
Here it is, but you dream up some excuse to reject the TRUTH, go right ahead:
https://www.google.com/maps/search/bakery/@45.5101434,-122.502919,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m8!2m7!3m6!1sbakery!2sGresham,+OR!3s0x549575e85d2e60bb:0x9fc30a18adce5d2f!4m2!1d-122.4302013!2d45.5001357
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:30
It wouldn’t matter if there were 20 bakeries in every building in that 2 mile area. EVERYONE living under US authority is guaranteed certain rights by the United States Constitution. Among those is the right to seek legal redress for a perceived wrong committed against them.
The government CANNOT strip that right from a recognizable minority without showing a clear and compelling reason for doing so.
And it is for the courts to decide if any case has merit. If a case lacks merit, the court will invariably either dismissed the case or summarily rule in favor of the defendant.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 21:59
It DOES matter. You do not deal with facts and reason. Read the RFRA. It is clear. You are wrong – it DOES matter.
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 22:45
I deal with, and have stuck to, 2 classes of facts. Business Law, and Constitutional Law.
The number of alternative sources for a service in a given area matters only after suit has been brought. And it matters primarily in determining if the suit has merit.
The RFRAs are an attempt at an end run around the courts.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:52
TWENTY bakeries in the area. And “undue hardship.”
Oh, my God! They have to go to a DIFFERENT bakery! The trauma! The hardship!
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 23:15
The case went against them because they further violated contract law by publishing the couples contact information, including their address.
That information was provided to facilitate contractual obligations on the part of the bakery. When did they decide to violate the contract and disseminate private information?
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:25
The narcissist couple started the selfish and vicious lawsuit. THEN the brave people of faith fought back. The couple should have respected the baker’s faith, shut their mouths, and gone to one of the TWENTY other bakeries in the area!
whatthe46 December 6th, 2016 at 23:31
they don’t have to do what you want them to do just because you disagree with their lifestyle. i disagree with everything you have to say about anything, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to say it. take your “christian” sharia law and shove it. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/87532efb1e8906feb61d1c6a3b2eb79d9f3b1393cade0f181fae1cd3c4e0562e.jpg
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:16
The bakers violated not only US law but BIBLICAL LAW.
Clearly they are unfamiliar with the book you seem to think they live by.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 00:58
No, they did not. They adhered to their sincere faith. They were courageous and to be admired. I am an atheist, and I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for such people.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 09:28
A sincerely held religious belief supposedly based on the Bible.
Yet they violated Biblical law:
◄ Romans 13:1 ► NIV
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”
◄ Romans 13:5 ► NIV
“Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”
◄ Matthew 5:41 ► NIV
“If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.”
Had they followed Mathew they would have baked 2 cakes.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:19
Yes. The law God has established. All of those people followed that.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:53
No. They violated it.
The Bible repeatedly says to obey the law of the land in which you live.
I quoted you 3 citations – chapter and verse.
And, just to point out the patently obvious – Mathew 5:41 would have been contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the Israelites.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:18
No, God’s law is followed first. And Christians have been persecuted for centuries for following God’s law. Jesus Christ was executed for it.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:29
It IS relevant! Did you read RFRA yet? Did you? I am not going to tutor you here. It only takes a couple of minutes to read. Try a summary on Wiki!!!
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:43
The day you can tutor me in business law is the day I tear up my degree.
The various RFRAs have been rewritten multiple times. Each creating a worse mess.
In trying to make them constitutional they have been broadened to the point of giving any business owner* the right to discriminate against ANYONE, provided they claim a sincerely held religious belief as the basis.
And the RFRAs remain unconstitutional.
* and many others
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 21:59
Not true. Read the RFRA. It is about freedom. Those opposed to it are intolerant and despotic. They are against liberty.
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 22:37
I have read several, including re-drafts of some. I have also listened to those who framed many of them.
Those citing an RFRA in their defence are trying to sidestep the courts.
If there is no substantive case against them the suit will be thrown out and they will be compensated. So not only is the legislation unconstitutional it is unnecessary.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:49
You must know about “undue hardship.” There were almost TWENTY other bakeries in the area. TWENTY!
Now, if a hospital emergency room refused to take a person having a heart attack, or there was an isolated gas station that refused to give the person gas, then there would be a case.
But a freakin’ CAKE? With TWENTY other bakeries around? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 23:10
Undo hardship is one factors in determining whether a case has merit. And hence whether a lawyer will take it.
The RFRAs were written to eliminate the possibility of suit even if there is only one provider in the state.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:22
There was no “undue hardship” with the narcissists who would not even walk down the street because the baker of faith would not capitulate to their selfish demands.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:13
32nd verse – same as the first.
Undue hardship is for the courts to decide.
And the author of one state’s RFRA acknowledges his intention in drafting the legislation was to shift the issue to one of Religion rather than business law, or hardship.
I’m pulling my notes together
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 00:57
No, it is patently obvious. The homosexual couple was selfish. They were willing to destroy the lives of people. Reprehensible.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 09:12
You are trying to make this about a single case.
So let’s restore the proper scope. This legislation has the potential to undo all non-discrimination legislation. Business ownes could decide that their beliefs prohibit them from serving people of other races, or religions/creeds. They could decide not to serve people with tattoos, or people who have divorced.
Or frankly any criteria you can think of. Is a woman out alone? Does she teach? Or is she in a position of authority?
Does she follow Paul’s instruction to women to dress chastely, and forego perfumes and jewelry? Or does she ignore it?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:15
No. Multiple cases. Elane Photography v. Willock, 2006: Refusal to photograph a “commitment ceremony.” It would require them to express a message via their photos and that conflicted with their religious beliefs. They had to pay $6,637.94 in attorney fees and court costs. The homosexual couple immediately found another photographer who charged $1,200 less.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 18:36
Business law does not allow a public accommodation to refuse patronage except under certain clearly delineated circumstances.
The business exists to accommodate some perceived need on the part of the public.
And the proprietor profits from filling the need
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:43
RFRA
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:15
A printer in Lexington, Kentucky, refused to print T-shirts for a gay rights event, because he explicated disagreed with the message he was asked to print. He is being investigated, even though he has gay employees and regularly serves gay customers.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 18:40
If you do not want legal difficulties obey the law.
If you want to limit your clientele do not incorporate as a public accommodation
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:45
The homosexual couples were selfish, disrespectful, vicious. That is perfectly clear. They were willing to DESTROY the livelihood of the business owners, even though they were never refused any other product or service.
So I ask you: Do you support what they did to the business owners?
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:09
There would have been FAR less difficulty if the bakers had shown ANY ethics.
Instead they deliberately published published information they had no right to.
Why?
Why did they publish the couple’s phone number and address?
Because they WANTED the couple harassed! And they frankly didn’t consider that they might be endangering the couple.
THAT is wanton disregard
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:20
Why don’t you answer the question? HUH??? And I posted a plethora of other cases! And they went on public media AFTER they were attacked.
Carla Akins December 7th, 2016 at 19:12
The bakery owners shared the couple’s personal contact information – which led to death threats that nearly caused them to lose custody of their foster children. The Kleins “brought the case to the media’s attention and kept it there by repeatedly appearing in public to make statements deriding” the couple who filed the complaint. They were not fined for refusing service but required to pay damages because of their action. Oregon’s public accomodation law is very clear and the bakery owners were fully aware that what they where doing was in violation of the state regulation and their business license.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:25
Yes. They fought back. I applaud them for bringing it to public attention: The fact that a self-centered couple, after receiving services from them for YEARS, wanted to DESTROY their livelihood – and their lives – because they did not capitulate to their demands.
The couple could have walked down the street and respected the sensibilities of the bakers, but they decided to force them to acquiesce to their personal demands.
And look at the other cases I presented: Same pattern of vicious, egotistical couples who were willing to DESTROY the lives of others who did not give in to their demands, when they simply could have gone someplace else with ease.
Carla Akins December 8th, 2016 at 11:06
Fight back? They initiated the public, inflamed supporters and these women received death threats – and they had broken no violation. This couple did not attack the bakers, in fact the bakers had previously done a wedding cake for them (for a family member) all they did was report a violation. They did not go public – the Kleins did. If the Klein’s are unhappy with rules for owning a business they can close, work to change the law or take the business online (which is what they did) but violating the couples rights is simply wrong, definitely not Christian. Why on earth would you think it was right for them to behave in such a manner but not others?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:36
Yes, fought back. The narcissistic couple demanded capitulation. Sweet Cakes by Melissa and Aaron Klein in Oregon was found “guilty” of discrimination because they refused to bake a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowmen. Radicals protested outside of the bakery, and the family’s children were targets of death threats. The Labor Commissioner said they, and others like them, were to be “rehabilitated,” not shut down. Nice choice. On April 24, 2015, Alan McCullough of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, ordered the Kleins to pay $135,000 in fines.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:15
In Salon, Brian Beutler says that churches that refuse to marry gays should lose their tax-exempt status.
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/confusion_plagues_the_right_why_it_doesnt_understand_liberal_views_of_the_hobby_lobby_case/
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:24
There is ZERO chance of that happening. Now why not stop pretending that Christians are poor little innocents?
And in 2015 a California lawyer started a petition for a ballot initiative granting believers the right to:
Execute gays by a bullet to the head. Or by any means convenient.
He had some 5,000 signatures before the court shut him down.
And the RFRAs were phrased as a religious issue because the authors thought it would make the legislation unassailable. Guess what?
No one’s religious rights supercede others civil rights!
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:28
Not the point. Look at the total picture, and remember that this is the MENTALITY. This is what the atheist haters want.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17
Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville, Vermont, 2005: The owners were Catholics. They simply told the gay couple they believed marriage was between male and female, even though they would host them because of the law. In 2012, the wedding coordinator of the Inn turned down a request to host a wedding reception for a same-sex couple. The Inn had to pay fine of $30,000 to settle.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17
Robert and Cynthia Gifford own and operate Liberty Ridge Farm in Scaghtocke, New York. The public can buy produce, pick blueberries and raspberries, and get lost in a corn maze in the Halloween season. They also host weddings, receptions, corporate functions, and so on. In 2012, Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin contacted them to rent spaces for a “wedding” and a reception. They Giffords POLITELY declined because they are Roman Catholics. The radical couple filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, and they had to pay attorney fees, a civil penalty of $10,000 and over $3,000 to the lesbians because of “mental anguish.” It is the ultimate irony that the Division of “Human Rights” is empowered, in Kafkaesque-fashion, to take away “human rights,” REAL HUMAN RIGHTS.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:41
Roman Catholics who allow the celebration of a pagan feast day on their land?
Seems they’re rather selective in their theology.
They’re also particularly ignorant of catholicism. You’d think they’d know the hagiographies of the saints. At a minimum they should know the Martyrs.
Sergius and Bacchus were both.
One Catholic theologian said of them:
“Let us not strive to separate in our thoughts those who were United in life.”
While another described Bacchus as:
“The sweet lover and companion of Serge.”
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:17
Christmas is a CHRISTIAN holiday.
It cannot be denied. No rational adult can possibly deny that.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17
In 2013 in Washington State, a florist refused to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding, and the STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE got involved!
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 19:44
A florist refused to make a cake?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:17
No. I have a plethora of examples to point out something that is PATENTLY OBVIOUS.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17
In 2013, a bakery in Gresham, Oregon was investigated because it declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Because of death threats to them and threats against their five children, they decided to close the shop.
Here they speak:
http://cnsnews.com/node/839431
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:17
This is a story of a wonderful person, a florist in Washington, who has been taken to court by homosexual activists. She has been defended by Alliance for Freedom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDETkcCw63c
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:18
Elane Photography v. Willock, 2006: Refusal to photograph a “commitment ceremony.” It would require them to express a message via their photos and that conflicted with their religious beliefs. They had to pay $6,637.94 in attorney fees and court costs. The homosexual couple immediately found another photographer who charged $1,200 less.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 18:26
There are many cases. There have been the bakers. Heck, photographers, too. Then there were the wedding planners. Hear about the one in Vermont? And even T-Shirt designers! The hateful radicals want to destroy the lives of so many people who do not completely capitulate to their agenda and personal desires.
john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 19:15
If you have been following my posts on this thread you will have seen that I have provided the basics of business law. The owners of the businesses incorporated as public accommodations.
if they wanted the right to restrict their clientele they should have Incorporated as a private (club or organization related) enterprise.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 19:30
It is a simple business. Maybe they did not anticipate hateful narcissists who would, after providing them with friendly services for YEARS, just turn on them and try to destroy them.
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:50
They applied for, and were granted, a business license. In doing so they agreed to comply with United States business law.
End of story.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:00
Read the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Thank you for your cooperation.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:12
RTO: The thing that doesn’t apply at state level. That RFRA?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:22
RFRA.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:26
RTO: Right. We’re talking about the same thing (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 4th, 2016 at 21:19
The bakers and other provided services to homosexuals without a problem. They simply did not want to participate in sin – the “marriage.”
Harglide December 5th, 2016 at 21:44
B.S.!
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:59
Try for a cogent rebuttal.
Your bs is passe.
Mensa Member December 2nd, 2016 at 20:07
>> What fucking attacks????
Do you get to use that word, if you’re a moderator?
Carla Akins December 3rd, 2016 at 06:02
You can use that word too (in context) you just don’t have the ability to approve your own post. One of us would have to come along and approve it.
Jack E Raynbeau November 29th, 2016 at 19:20
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If these morons spent a few moments to read the 1st Amendment instead of their mythology they would know that you cannot outlaw religion.
Dwendt44 November 30th, 2016 at 17:55
Not letting them ‘run the show’ is persecution.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e6ae27c42cad7a1f9481fcae392c36a582f8ec16aec6d4eadfb56ed21aa5a3fd.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:10
..
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:12
Isn’t the meme that it is those who have the power who can oppress? In other words, look at how some use it with racism, one of their favorite areas in which to obsess and caterwaul: They say that, for example, blacks cannot be “racists” or “oppress” because they do not have the power. (Critical theory – right out of Marxism, by the way.) So, in this case, it is hateful atheist who have the power: Hollywood, the “chattering professions” (lawyers, the hideous ACLU, “professors,” actors, journalists, etc.).
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:11
RTO:
Only by fair legal recognition of egalitarian religious rights.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:21
Trump has already established a “religious council” to ensure that the voice of the far right is heard in his cabinet. And he promised a meeting of Televangelists that he will make America:
“One nation under one God.”
George T December 2nd, 2016 at 19:18
john Johnson: Do you think religious freedom via government neutrality is yet another thing that humanity isn’t able to appreciate until it’s gone?
john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 23:39
We just may find out.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:08
Bravo for President-Elect Donald J. Trump.
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 11:57
His action is an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over all others.
The Oath of Office requires that he defend the Constitution!
So by his own words, and actions, he has rendered himself unfit to swear the oath.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:02
Show me his endorsement of the establishment of a religion. Which one? Catholic? Pentacostal? Episcopalian? Which one will Donald J. Trump, president in ONE month and 13 days from now, ESTABLISH as the national religion? Please provide the quote.
Thank you!
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 22:54
The creation of a “Religious Council” to be composed entirely of adherents to a single religion is an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion very all others.
Further he told a meeting of Televangelists that he will keep America:
“One nation under one god.”
And he has expressed his opinion that “Freedom of Religion was intended only to apply to Christians… Because if there were any Muslims around they were slaves.”
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:57
You did not answer my question.
I did not think you would.
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 23:22
I answered your question. Christianity is not the only religion in America so your question was phrased overly narrowly.
It is Christianity he is favoring over all other religions.
And FYI:
Some 32% of Americans do not identify as Christian.
Nor is Trump correct in assuming that any Muslims in America at the time were slaves. Several of the names on the crew rosters for Columbus’ ships were middle eastern.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:28
He used the past tense. And of course you did not answer my question. I will ask it yet AGAIN:
Articulate what Donald J. Trump – next president of the greatest nation in the world – said about establishing a specific Christian sect as the national religion.
Thank you.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:22
You’re endless repetition is getting boring.
Regardless of what Trump believes America is not a Christian nation and the US Constitution prohibits any use of governmental authority to try to make it one.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 00:59
Wrong, of course. There are chaplains, for example, in the military. Paid holidays that celebrate Jesus Christ. Our Founders used government money. Congress pays to have a prayer said EVERY SINGLE day of its opening.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 09:41
Your argument is a non-starter.
The military also has Rabbis and priests of most other religions.
And our money originally bore the motto “E Pluribus Unum”(From Many One). “In God We Trust” was added in the mid 20th century.
And the only way the Supreme Court of the United States could find to allow the government to continue celebrating Christmas was to acknowledge that it has essentially been a secular Holliday for many decades.
As to Congress they do a great deal which is unconstitutional. Including exempting themselves from many of the laws they write.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:20
Yes. The OBVIOUS point is that the GOVERNMENT pays for religious services. And I showed other examples of the GOVERNMENT paying for religious, or religious-related, services!
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 20:04
And I have addressed each of your examples.
Your argument still doesn’t hold water.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:20
It does. The GOVERNMENT paid for religious services and materials. Until atheist haters started the distortion of Jefferson’s letter, it was for Christian services and materials.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 17:11
RTO: So what’s your point? If they were trying to impose Christianity via the government they had just build (flying in the face of the very reason they separated from England) what is your assertion in relation to this?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:00
Never said that. Try READING.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:28
RTO: So what is your point? Government paid for religious services and materials. Is there anything else that you’re trying to express or assert related to this?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:46
Of course. Read what was written!
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:52
RTO: I did. So your point is that our government paid for religious services? Full stop? You’re not trying to draw any further conclusions?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:55
Now you got it! You are reading!
George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:06
RTO: I and @disqus_bx04n9XdVU:disqus acknowledged that multiple times. Do you have a reason for bringing this up?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:12
Yes. Read what I wrote to you, over and over and over and over and over and over.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:23
RTO: You’ve asserted twenty or thirty assertions, creating multiple branching conversations. Related to the subject of chaplains being hired, which of the twenty or thirty assertions are you referencing?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:56
I will not repeat about the chaplains. SEVEN times is enough.
This is something on which atheist hater-deniers get stuck: One can find isolated statements from the DIARIES and LETTERS of the Founders that can be presented to make them look atheist, Deist, or anti-religion, of course.
But that is deceitful and dishonest. To find out TRUTH, one must look at 1) actions taken, and 2) formal declarations to Congress and/or the nation.
Examples, and with NATIONAL monies:
Paying missionaries for converting Indians to Christianity.
Buying Bibles.
Paying chaplains to say prayers at EVERY session of Congress (including today)
Using federal buildings for CHRISTIAN masses and worship.
And simple things like this:
“[T]he commanding officers of each regiment are direct to procure Chaplains accordingly.”
-George Washington, orders issued by him to the Continental Army
AN ORDER THAT RESULTED IN AN ACTION, not just some musing in a letter or diary. AN OFFICIAL ORDER.
I could go on and on for pages.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:17
RTO: Okay. Your point is?
If this is tied to one of your other multiple posts based off of my last one in this thread, you should really consider consolidating multiple postings into one. You end up fracturing the conversation by making multiple responding posts.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:04
7 times is plenty
George T December 9th, 2016 at 00:26
RTO: 7 times posted where? Is it in this direct thread or one of the threads you created by responding to the same post multiple times?
Hirightnow December 9th, 2016 at 01:34
Friend, I’m afraid you’ve hit upon that internet denizen known as the “Just won’t get it”.
This common but rather vocal species of commenter can have a fact repeated to it numerous times, and yet will fail to respond to it in any way except to re-assert its own viewpoint. Often, when presented with a query, it will either fly away, or change its song.
Favoring short, tersely worded posts, it has been known to post several hundreds of times in a forum, doing nothing more than repeating its song, and claiming that its song is enough, while totally ignoring the songs of others. Many times, it will claim to have actually answered others’ songs, when in fact it simply repeated itself. It appears to find comfort in seeing its own avatar at least a dozen times in a forum, but moderators and site hosts find the revenue from its clicks tend to outweigh the annoyance of its song, and only chase it away when it starts to drown out the song of other poster.
Highly paid internet scientists have dubbed this the “Don’t waste your time; you’re talking to a brick wall” phenomenon, and then went on to browse Reddit, claiming that if people want to try interacting with these creatures, that’s their problem.
George T December 9th, 2016 at 01:56
Hirightnow: I’m sure. Just using him to kill time at work (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 01:03
Just an estimate. No more games.
George T December 11th, 2016 at 05:36
RTO: In which of the many fracture threads that you’ve created by posting multiple replies?
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 17:48
I was foolish enough to repeat and repeat and repeat, to break down, and to simplify – over and over and over and over.
George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:45
RTO: But you kept…
George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:45
RTO: …posting like this…
George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:45
RTO: …instead of collecting all of your information in one post.
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 19:55
Nope. If you READ as you respond, this would not be happening.
Note I am not responding to many of your posts. The reason should be obvious.
George T December 11th, 2016 at 20:14
RTO: Practice what you preach. You yourself are the one typing all of this and you admit that you don’t know how many times you’ve repeated something…
Regarding your failure to respond, I see that as frustration at the situation you’ve created by fracturing your replies.
George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:45
RTO: When you collect everything into one comment it avoids fracturing the linear track of the conversation.
UPDATE: Then you can edit the post if you need to add more information instead of fracturing the conversation into multiple thread lines.
You are the source of your own frustrations.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:58
An OFFICIAL, PUBLIC statement to be heard (read) by the citizens of the entire nation (not some sentence taken from a diary):
“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits….. That great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good what was, that is, or that ever will be….”
-George Washington, on proclaiming a national day of prayer and thanks
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:59
OFFICIAL STATEMENT, IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD:
“The use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great…you Committee recommend[s] that Congress will order the Committee of Congress to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland….”
-Request to Congress, 1777
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:00
OFFICIAL STATEMENT, NOT FROM A DIARY OR IN A PERSONAL LETTER!!!
“It may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ….to prosper the means of religion.”
-Congress, calling for a national day of thanksgiving on November 1, 1777
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:00
In the historical record:
“[I]t is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
-John Jay, first chief justice of the Supreme Court
George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:11
RTO: What are you asserting by mentioning this quote?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:01
More OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS by the Congress of the United States!!!!
“[I]t has pleased Almighty God… to bestow blessings on the people of these States… a day of public thanksgiving and prayer… to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread all over the earth.”
-Proclamation for giving thanks, approved by Congress, October 18, 1780
George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:09
RTO: Congress is a collection of citizen representatives.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:02
Yes. Who supported and endorsed CHRISTIAN holidays and national monies being used for CHRISTIAN stuff and celebrations.
LOL
George T December 9th, 2016 at 00:28
RTO: What Christian stuff did they fund using tax dollars?
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 01:03
Plenty. I outlined some. READ!
George T December 11th, 2016 at 05:35
RTO: In which of the thread lines that you fractured with multiple posts?
Pro Tip – If you’d collect everything in one post instead of posting multiple replies you wouldn’t have people trying to figure out whatever you’re trying to reference.
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 17:47
I did.
bpollen December 11th, 2016 at 17:49
Here’s some OTHER things you did provide info about, back when you were fledgling troll:
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/977bafed28239aaf8f8463256d817d4c2d1af937d4c17b49c06dba6aa6fc4b9f.jpg
George T December 11th, 2016 at 18:46
RTO: You did… what? You did in which of the thread lines? Your reply doesn’t match the request that I’ve made.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:03
How can any RATIONAL ADULT see these declarations and expenditures and deny that our origins were heavily influenced and driven by CHRISTIANITY? How can any mature person who is not insane not understand these cultural roots and history?
George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:09
RTO: Is that all? Yes, the culture when our nation was founded was comprised of several bickering Christian denominations.
Was that all? No other point? I’m pretty sure you’ve alluded to other things.
Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 20:34
I believe he is proving the local funny farm lost their most demented patient.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:23
Suzanne McFly: It think he’s operating under the assumption that his multiple posts in response to one comment are somehow showing up to others in a linear fashion. Then, when I respond to each individually he gets frustrated that I’m not reading multiple postings all at once.
All in all, he’s not considering the possibility that he’s doing something to sabotage himself… which amuses me (^_^)
Suzanne McFly December 8th, 2016 at 21:34
Its fun to poke them every once in a while, I know I enjoy it lol.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:08
RTO: Chaplains in the military follow multiple faiths and minister to all faiths and beliefs without proselytizing, thus satisfying 1st Amendment prohibitions and providing religious assistance to those is other lands dealing with hardship situations.
Congress is a collection of citizen representatives. If they were government representatives there would be an issue.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:19
THIRD REPETITION! The government is paying for a religious service!
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:22
RTO: That’s not being denied. I’m addressing the fact that they pay for services to multiple religions to satisfy The Establishment Clause prohibition.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:27
The OBVIOUS point here is that the national government paid for religious services. Until recently, it was primarily – if not exclusively – for CHRISTIAN services and materials!
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:33
RTO: So you’re asserting that these services were not fair and egalitarian, which violates The Establishment Clause. I know (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:10
READ! I am “asserting” that the national government paid for religious services and materials, and it was virtually all CHRISTIAN. Please READ!
George T December 8th, 2016 at 17:08
RTO: Again, the military chaplains are not exclusively catering to or providing services for Christians.
Congress hiring a chaplain is not a case of government sourced religious services. The members are citizen representatives, not representatives of our government.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:59
WHAT? The government pays the chaplains!
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:29
RTO: Yes. Go on. What’s your point?
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 22:59
Yes, Trump is right in that freedom of religion did apply primarily to belief (or non-belief) in Christianity. Look at the state constitutions of the time: Most required one be a Christian to hold public office. And the Founders were concerned with Christian SECTS, not Christianity v. Buddhism.
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 23:30
How strange.
More than one of America’s Founding Fathers wrote in their personal papers that they foresaw the day Muslim would be full citizens.
And as they were quite precise in their framing of the United States Constitution why did they not say:
“Freedom of Sectarian Belief” rather than the more general term Freedom of Religion?
FYI
Many of the framers of the Constitution were deist in their beliefs. And the Treaty of Tripoli specifically says that this nation was in no sense founded upon Christianity, but upon the principles of the Enlightenment. A philosophy which question pretty much all of Christian doctrine..
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:40
Yes, exactly: S..E..C..T..A..R..I..A..N. That means the various CHRISTIAN sects.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:26
Did you even scan my statement?
You won’t find the word Sectarian in the Constitution because the framers meant freedom of religion – NOT freedom of denomination!
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 01:01
Yes, freedom to worship. Not freedom FROM religion, of course.
You are unable to explain why they helped to write state constitutions that required people to be CHRISTIAN to hold public office. And that states had established churches and there was no conflict with that, either.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 09:48
You would first have to support your statement that there was no conflict.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:20
“Undue hardship.” 17TH REPETITION of the truth!
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 20:00
17th repetition of the truth:
Undue hardship is for the courts to decide.
The Legislature has no business interfering in the powers and authorities rendered to the Judiciary by the Constitution.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:19
It is not “undue hardship” to walk down the street. Would take 3-5 minutes.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:05
RTO: Which state constitutions are you referring to? I know that several exclude non-theists. All of those were, of course, invalidated by The 14th Amendment. Simply vestigial remnants of a time when states were allowed to exert religious bias and prejudice.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:19
READ! I was perfectly clear, and you are starting THAT again!
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:21
RTO: ANSWER! You made a vague reference to state constitutions. I’m asking you to name specific constitutions that specify Christianity.
Ultimately it doesn’t matter as The 14th Amendment invalidates religious tests, but I’m still curious.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:26
It was in the context of our Founding. READ!
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:37
RTO: Actually the founders were forward thinking in the way they wrote most things. Carefully considering the different ways every quality of their writings could be interpreted. If it wasn’t explicitly stated, there was probably a good reason.
I again request that you cite cases where Christianity was specifically addressed in state constitutions. All that I know of are theism vice non-theism.
ANSWER!!!
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:12
OK, one at a time:
Delaware, Article 22: Every person serving had to take this oath – “I, …., do profess faith in God the Father, and in JESUS CHRIST….” (emphasis added)
Richard Basset and George Read, signers of the Constitution, helped to draft this state constitution.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 17:04
RTO: After that time we’ve corrected this religiously biased practice. What’s your point?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:59
Not true. Read history!
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:31
RTO: Incorrect. The 14th Amendment has invalidated this religious test by applying The No Religious Test Clause to all parts of US Government.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:46
Not related. Read.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:01
RTO: It’s related. States were allowed to exert religious bias. I’ve said that your assertion regarding that is correct.
At a later date that was rescinded by The 14th Amendment. This is pertinent if one is discussing modern situations involving religion and government.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:11
NT (not true) NP (Not the point)
George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:27
RTO: So what’s the point?
Don’t bother saying “READ”.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:12
Pennsylvania, “I do believe in one God, the Creator…I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
whatthe46 December 7th, 2016 at 20:15
why do you think that everyone else should believe what you believe in? what makes you think you’re right and everyone else is wrong? show me evidence.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:21
I did not say anything about my beliefs in that post, of course. You know that. I stated what was fact, historical fact, a quote from a document. Plus many others.
That is why I almost never respond to you. No point.
whatthe46 December 7th, 2016 at 21:31
your whole rant, starting days ago is about “christianity” and how it’s more important and we should all adhere to its tenant. while at the same time, you, are a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe, etc., etc., so you can take your religion and shove it, you’re nothing more than a mouth breathing hypocrite. YES you do believe everyone should accept your idea of what religion means and don’t deal with them or service them if they offend you and your beliefs. frankly it’s you and people like you that offend me.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:12
Massachusetts, Chapter VI, Article I: “I, …., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion….” In 1780, Massachusetts authorized a special levy to support “public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality.” New Hampshire adopted the same – verbatim.
Nathaniel Gorham, signer of the Constitution, helped to draft this state constitution.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:14
RTO: Rendered invalid by The 14th Amendment.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:13
North Carolina, Article XXXII, “No person, who shall deny the being of God….or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments,…shall be capable of holding any office.”
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:13
RTO: Another religious test rendered invalid by The 14th Amendment.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:13
New Jersey, 1776, “no PROTESTANT inhabitant of this colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right.”
NOTE: Not Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Hindu.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:12
RTO: Religious test, rendered invalid by The 14th Amendment.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 21:30
Read what was written. I will not repeat.
When you notice that I do not respond, it is because of that.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:39
RTO: I suggest you take your own advice, and read what was written in response. I’ll repeat if you fail to comprehend or reject the reality of these statements (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:13
Maryland, 1776, Article XXXV: “No other test or qualification….than… a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” Maryland’s constitution also imposed a tax for supporting Christianity, decreeing “a general and equal tax for the support of the CHRISTIAN religion.”
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:11
RTO: Interesting. Rendered invalid by The 14th Amendment.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:14
Pennsylvania Constitution, 1790: “No person who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall… be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this commonwealth.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:11
RTO: Are you asserting that this is only referring to the biblical god?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:14
Vermont, 1786, Section 9: “Each member [of the legislature]….shall make…the following declaration: ‘I do acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:10
RTO: Gotcha. Also rendered invalid by The 14th Amendment.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:15
In addition to these, the various state constitutions also referred to religious freedom – SPECIFICALLY FOR CHRISTIANS!
Massachusetts, 1780, Article III: “And every denomination of CHRISTIANS… shall be equally under the protection of the law.”
New Hampshire, 1784, Article I, Section VI: “And every denomination of CHRISTIANS… shall be equally under the protection of the laws.”
South Carolina, 1778, “The Christian religion shall be deemed… the established religion of the state,” and Article XXXVIII: “All denominations of Christian[s]…shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges,” and “no person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:09
RTO: Good to know.
All of those are rendered invalid via The 14th Amendment.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 21:12
Off subject. Not the point, of course.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:16
RTO: Yes, thank you for answering the question.
On a different note, these religious tests are invalidated by The 14th Amendment.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:15
More!
Tennessee, 1796, Article VIII, Section II: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”
Georgia’s constitution in 1777 provided religious freedom provided the religion was not “repugnant to the peace and safety” of the state.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:07
RTO: Are you asserting that this reference to God is specifying the deity of the Christian holy book?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 21:12
Read all of those I took the trouble to put up. It is patently obvious. In 1796, I don’t think that there were too many Muslims or Hindus in Tennessee! LOL
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:17
RTO: So we can then also associate the god referenced in our national motto as only being Christian?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 01:03
Congress (House Judiciary Committee) wrote on March 27, 1854: “Had the people [the Founders], during the Revolution, a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle…. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and its amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect… In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the Founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:19
RTO: Is that why they specifically addressed “in this age” not excluding the possibility of other religious dynamics later on?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:26
No. That is historical presentism, which thwarts a person’s understanding of the past.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:41
RTO: Incorrect. It’s a recognition of a statement made in the past which pointedly avoids ruling out future changes.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:16
Yes, the amendment process. Most atheist haters do not know that there have been over 2,000 proposals for amendments. That is how hard it is to get one.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:00
RTO: No, I’m referring to the tapestry of this nations population shiftir and changing.
You’ve confused this discussion with another conversational thread addressing constitutional amendments. READ!
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 21:10
No, it is about the myth of a “living document.” Blatherskite.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 21:19
RTO: Again, you’ve confused this conversational thread with another.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 01:04
Joseph Story wrote in his “Commentaries”:
“The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among CHRISTIAN sects” (emphasis added).
Joseph Story was an American lawyer and jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1845.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:41
That is a myth. They were virtually ALL Christians. Atheist haters like to point to the more famous founders and their probable Deism. But the TRUTH is that the Founders were almost ALL Christians!
Obewon December 6th, 2016 at 23:53
“The USA is in no way founded as a Christian nation.”-The founders were not Christians sans one loony tuner.
USA’s founders were Diest. Your Xenophobic pathological lying is exactly why most young people bolted from any U.S. regular church attendance. Stop lying azzhole.
Exhibit A: “Stop lying”-POTUS01 GW’s Treaty of Tripoli, Ratified by congress as Law & signed into law by POTUS02 Adams! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55a3b46ca2f6c599aba7381a694aae43138c70093785c67e532e5dfd4dbe0338.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:57
The “Treaty of Tripoli” is misused to imply that it actually means some kind of denial of religious belief or “secularism” per se.
First of all, nobody ever said, as in that treaty, that America “founded on the Christian religion.” That is accurate. There is a huge and complete difference between being founded on something, and being culturally something and being influenced and guided by something. Our national government was not founded on any religion, otherwise we could be called a Theocracy, and would have a national church, laws requiring attendance, membership, taxes in support, etc.
The Muslims were suspicious of Christians – because of the Crusades and centuries of religious war.
That statement was written to assure them that there would be no religious war waged against them; the same paragraph of the “founding” statement ends with: “[I]t is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
But another treaty was signed with the same group when Jefferson was the president. It was referred to as The Treaty of Peace and Amity: Jefferson deliberately removed the word which said America was not a Christian nation!
The treaties:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1805t.asp
Obewon December 6th, 2016 at 23:58
Debunked. Now deal with your well proven pathological dishonesty e.g. Exhibit A: “Stop lying” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1b02488f607c4b3478f038ed20fcd78e866ae824908e7469a7af3dbeb5f2559a.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:58
I posted facts. You post cartoons.
Obewon December 7th, 2016 at 00:01
I posted Founder George Washington’s Ratified Treaty of Tripoli. Ratified & signed into law by John Adams. My Direct Great-Great-Great Grandfather.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:30
How …. quaint.
Benjamin Franklin wrote the Franklin Bible – by deleting all mention of divinity and miracles from the KJV.
He also wrote that he considered. Paul and the Apostles to be “unreliable correspondent.”
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 01:05
Yes, I said that.
whatthe46 December 7th, 2016 at 01:34
here’s why you and your religion don’t matter and why you are such a phony “christian.” you voted for a POS that was accused of raping a child and who admitted to sexual assault of many women, but, you also voted for a racist and bigot. therefore, not a damn thing you say about your god or your religion has any meaning. it’s just words that pass by your lips after rolling off your tongue. i don’t even understand how you have the gull to call someones “sin” out when just by the mere fact that you are supportive of tRump, who is living a life of and built his life out of sin. conning the elderly and the poor in a university scheme to the tune of fraud which he paid out 25 mil for, and you have the audacity to talk about 2 people who love each other as not being worthy of respect. that’s why no one gives a damn about your religion. you’re nothing but a hypocrite. surely if there’s a hell, you will go there to meet your maker.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 16:39
You said what?
I haven’t seen you reference Franklin or his expurgated Bible.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:33
I did. You are not reading what was written. I will indulge you and write the facts yet again, for the fourth time:
Atheist haters cherry-pick quotes from the very, very few founders who were purportedly “Deists,” and they try to make it look like they represent most of the Founders.
They do not, and neither do their quotes. The overwhelming majority of the Founders were Christians, and it is easy to prove, of course.
The bigger question is: WHY are people like you so adamant about wanting to make it look like that? Heck, I am an atheist and cannot deny our history. Nor do I want to. WHY do you? Don’t say you want to post the “truth.”
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 21:50
39 men signed the Constitution.
We’ve addressed Jefferson.
Thomas Paine called Christianity: “A fable.” And denied that God ever communicated with anyone.
And due to its popularity of the time Deism influenced the thinking of many who did not popularly identify as Deist.
So, we have 3 so far.
I’ll add others later I need to recharge this thing
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 22:58
Yes, Paine did.
Atheist haters like to put up Paine as though he spoke for all of the Founders, putting up his statement “I disbelieve all holy men and holy books.” But the real story is the REACTION from our Founder to Paine.
READ!
Franklin to Paine
“[Y]ou strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence…. there is no motive to worship a Deity…. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles… I shall only give you my opinion that…. were you to succeed, do you imagine any good could come of it?”
Adams:
“The Christian religion is… the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.”
Samuel Adams:
“[H]ave you hopes of converting a few of them [our citizens] to assist you in so bad a cause?”
George T December 8th, 2016 at 17:00
RTO: It is recognized that various founders were classified as Deists at various points in their lives, and some followed specific denominations of Christianity. How does this invalidate the separation of religion and federal government built into the structure of the nation they built?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:58
I explained that. How could you NOT know that some of it – repeat, SOME of that idea – refers to the NATIONAL government.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:32
RTO: Because the structure of our national government is based on keeping religion and government separated in various ways. Our founders were trying to correct the mistakes of the church/state marriage in their country of origin.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:51
NT
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:55
RTO: OK (^_^)
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 19:10
In no way did I suggest Paine represented them all.
I addressed the 3 you put forward, 2 other founding fathers and the general attitude in intellectual circles of the period.
Even many non-Deists accepted as self-evident the Plurality of Worlds.
Now you’re getting boring. You cannot have it both ways. Either you are arguing that America was founded as a Christian nation, or you are not.
Your current post suggests that you are.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:21
Of course you implied that. And so did two others on this very thread.
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 19:32
As i already said, in his autobiography Franklin says that the Deist argument was stronger. And declared himself a Deist. Hence I doubt Franklin referred to Christianity as the religion of truth.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:47
Check the quote. It is accurate.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:47
Benjamin Franklin helped to found the University of Pennsylvania in 1740; its declared purpose was to instruct youth in the knowledge of Christianity.
Franklin wanted to see the teaching of Christianity in the PUBLIC schools:
“History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Publick Religion , from its Usefulness to the Publick; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c . and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others ancient or modern”
ORIGINAL SOURCE:
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=franklin_youth&PagePosition=20
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 20:34
Doubtless he wanted HIS idea of Christianity taught. That Jesus was a teacher and role model. NOT that Jesus was the Son.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:04
Read some of what I just posted to GEORGE T.
I do not want to put it up all over again. A sane adult cannot deny the meaning of the documents that I posted.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:48
95% of the Founders were orthodox Christians. Franklin and Jefferson are considered the least religious, but Franklin worked to teach Christianity in schools and tried to raise church attendance. Franklin called for chaplains and daily prayer at the Constitutional Convention. Franklin said “God governs the affairs of men.”
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 20:51
Try again we’ve already established the number of signers of the declaration. And we’ve established that 6 of the 56 weren’t Orthodox Christians.
That’s roughly 9%, and we haven’t discussed the other 50.
So you’re at 91% and dropping.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:49
Congress appointed Adams, Jefferson and Franklin to draft a seal to characterize the spirit of the new nation. Franklin proposed “Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the Red Sea.”
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:49
Franklin, in describing America to the French:
“Atheism is unknown there…persons may live to a great age in that country [America] without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel.”
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 20:53
Politics
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:06
Truth.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:49
“He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.”
– Benjamin Franklin
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 20:58
“primitive Christianity”
He was referring to early Christianity. Pre-Constantine. A VERY different religion.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:50
Franklin wanted to see the teaching of Christianity in the PUBLIC schools:
“History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Publick Religion , from its Usefulness to the Publick; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c . and the Excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION above all others ancient or modern”
ORIGINAL SOURCE:
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=franklin_youth&PagePosition=20
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:50
There was a sticking point in the Constitutional Convention when delegates went to revise the Articles of Confederation. It seemed like a new constitution would not be created. A specific incident occurred, and afterward, things changed. The 81-year old Ben Franklin spoke:
“In the beginning….we had daily prayer in this room…the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God Governs in the affairs of men….I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning.”
-Ben Franklin, June 28, 1787
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 22:59
Benjamin Rush wrote that Paine’s writings were “absurd and impious.”
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration, described Paine’s writings as “blasphemous writings.”
John Witherspoon said Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith.”
Patrick Henry wrote a refutation
Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, condemned his writing.
Zepaniah Swift, author of America’s first law book: “[W]e cannot sufficiently reprobate the beliefs of Thomas Paine in his attack on Christianity.”
George T December 8th, 2016 at 16:57
RTO: As if impiety invalidated Paine’s writings. Yet another example of Christians persecuting those who don’t agree with them.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:58
Historical presentism. Renders the proponent of it unable to understand history.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:36
RTO: Is there any reason I shouldn’t consider the possibility that your interpretation suffers from historical presentism? It’s possible that you’re unaware of your own skewed interpretation of history.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:51
No. YOURS obvious is. You condemned the court decisions related to blasphemy. Historical presentism.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:54
RTO: So are you trying to justify blasphemy law?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:56
Read.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:05
RTO: Type. What’s the point of bringing up blasphemy laws that have been rescinded in light of free speech? I’ve acknowledged that there was religious bias in the earlier years of our nation. Does that somehow invalidate modern efforts to correct that in support of our religious plurality?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:11
NT
NP
George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:25
RTO: Truth
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 19:46
a letter to Benjamin Rush dated April 21, 1803 Jefferson wrote, “To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:54
Yes, there were corruptions in the various sects. “I am a Christian.”
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 21:07
Great the you took those 4 words out of context.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 23:00
“When Paine returned to America in 1802, he was attacked for his criticism of Washington and his denunciation of traditional Christianity. He was ostracized by former friends such as Sam Adams and Benjamin Rush, harassed by children in New Rochelle, N.Y., deprived of the right to vote by that city, and even refused accommodations in taverns and on stages. Even his wish to be buried in a Quaker cemetery was denied.”
SOURCE!!!!
Thomas Paine.” Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed., 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 16:55
RTO: Further evidence of Christians persecuting those who don’t agree with them.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:53
The nation was overwhelmingly Christian. Blasphemy was held – by the Supreme Court – to be a criminal offense. Not for religious reasons per se, but because it disturbed the peace.
The People v. Ruggles, 1811, blasphemy conviction with a fine and 3 months in jail:
“The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity… [W]e are a Christian people.”
“Nothing could be more offensive…than to declare such profanity lawful.”
“The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religion…. Is granted and secured; but to revile… the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right… [W]e are a Christian people.”
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:05
RTO: Yes, evidence that blasphemy laws are antithetical to free speech. Are you asserting that you oppose free speech?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:09
I posted Supreme Court decisions. How is it that certain types of people applaud Supreme Court decisions that legalize men “marrying” men and killing innocent unborn babies, and say that “well, it is constitutional because the Court said so,” but when I show you other Court decisions, you take the opposite stand?
Hypocrisy much?
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:20
RTO: Because you’re not accounting for the more recent court cases that invalidates these.
Seriously, have you suffered from head trauma recently? …or are you killing time playing at Devil’s Advocate?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:23
You contradicted yourself.
I will not be responding when you contradict yourself, set up straw men, or totally distort what I wrote.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:40
RTO:
Incorrect. More recent court cases do overrule past cases ruled on the same or similar subject. Just as later constitutional amendments apply to and modify earlier amendments.
If you fail to understand this, I feel obligated to question your faculties.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:52
No, you contradicted yourself. Read.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:53
RTO: Baseless accusation. Validate your claim.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:54
Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824, blasphemy case in which Updegraph was found guilty. The court defined blasphemy and explained its decision:
“Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying His being or Providence or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land.”
“[W]hen spoken in a Christian land and to a Christian audience, [it is] the highest offence contra bonos mores [against proper standards].”
“[T]he laws and institutions of this State are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity.”
“[Christianity] is the purest system of morality… and only stable support of all human laws.”
ISN’T LEARNING FUN???
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:07
RTO: Isn’t suppression of dissenting opinions horrifying? I hope you understand that you’re just providing more evidence of Christians persecuting, not persecution of Christians.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:09
No, it is disturbing the peace. Simple.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:18
RTO: Sure. There are many ways you can spin a case of persecution to justify your hypocrisy (^_^)
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:22
READ! R..e..a..d!
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:42
RTO: I did. Blasphemy laws allow religious persecution. It’s the justification in Saudi Arabia for Raif Badawi being punished for openly stating his non-religious beliefs.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:53
Wrong. It was disturbing the public peace. (FOURTH repetition)
I am an atheist, and would not dream of reviling Jesus or mocking the faith of others. I suppose in your mind that is some kind of “free speech,” but communities can have standards. The people who did that were vile, debased and repugnant.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 20:18
RTO:
What your asserting is a sacred quality of certain subjects. I disagree with that. Jefferson did too. Question with boldness even the existence of a god. Nothing is sacred. People can earn respect, but religion isn’t a person so it’s incapable of earning my respect.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 20:49
You did it again!
George T December 8th, 2016 at 21:18
RTO: Yes, I responded.
Are you addressing something else?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:55
Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 1838, blasphemy conviction.
The Massachusetts court cited numerous statues in other states that prohibited blasphemy:
“In New Hampshire… the open denial of the being and existence of God… is prohibited by statute and declared to be a blasphemy.”
“In Vermont… if any person shall publicly deny the being and existence of God… he shall be deemed a disturber of the peace and tranquility of the State and an offender against the good morals and manners of society and shall be punishable by fine…”
“Maine…reenacted the Massachusetts statute against blasphemy.”
“In New York… the courts have decided that blasphemy was a crime.”
NOW YOU KNOW MORE ABOUT OUR ORIGINS! BETCHA DIDN’T KNOW THIS, DID YA?
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:09
RTO: Yes, I did know about these cases in general. There are wonderful examples of why blasphemy laws absolutely conflict with the concept of free speech.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:56
HERE’S SOME MORE HISTORY FOR YA. YOU….BETCHA!
City of Charleston v. S. A. Benjamin, 1846, South Carolina Supreme Court
Blue Laws. A person was selling stuff on Sunday and found guilty.
Exerpts:
“On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord–its decent observance, in a Christian community, is that which ought to be expected.”
“What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it nor Christianity’ There certainly is none other… [W]e daily acknowledge Christianity as the most solemn part of our administration.”
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:12
RTO: Are you trying to figuratively cut your own throat? What other religiously motivated practices are you advocating for imposing? I oppose blue laws, just as you should oppose halal requirements being imposed on all citizens because a few have a self-imposed religious restriction…
Bringing us around to your bakery again, where some people are imposing a restriction on themselves, and extending that restriction to customers in a way that violated discrimination laws.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:22
You are doing it yet AGAIN. Look at what you wrote. Total distortion.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:44
RTO: How is it a distortion? I’ve expressed the logic. You’ve consistently failed to support your assertion.
Please, I’ve been waiting to hear a cogent and logical argument from you.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 23:01
“After his death, Paine’s reputation continued to languish. While other leaders of the Revolution–Washington, Jefferson, Franklin–were venerated as Revolutionary heroes, Paine was relegated to a relatively minor place. To many he was “irreligious” and “radical” and, therefore, not worth reading.”
SOURCE!!
“Thomas Paine.” Concise Dictionary of American Literary Biography: Colonization to the American Renaissance, 1640-1865. Gale Research, 1988.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 16:54
RTO: I’d like to point out that you’ve given a prime example of Christians persecuting those who don’t agree with them.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:50
No. He was a radical. He ran to France for that revolution. Then to England to try to start one there.
Read history.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:03
RTO: Elaborate. How does this invalidate the religiously tinged character assassination quotes you posted earlier?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:07
It shows how CHRISTIAN our nation was.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:24
RTO: Paine trying to start revolutions in France and England shows how Christian our nation was? I understand that you were addressing that earlier, and it seems you’re trying to return to that point. Was this comment about Thomas Paine a non-sequitur?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:46
READ! I was CLEAR! The RESPONSE to him shows that. I wrote that precisely. Why do you respond without reading? Tell me.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:50
RTO: No, it’s not clear why you went off on a tangent regarding Paine trying to start revolutions in other countries. How is that related to your assertions regarding Christianity in the colonies and early part of our national history?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 23:01
In 1888, Teddy Roosevelt described Paine in 1888 as “a filthy little atheist.”
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 12:23
No one cares what Roosevelt thought. And of the 3 men you cite as being venerated (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin)
I’ve already addressed Jefferson.
And now Franklin who wrote in his autobiography:
“Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”
As to Washington his religious life was full of contradictions. An apparently devout Anglican he nonetheless found it difficult to sit through church services and was in the habit of leaving early.
And he is known to have referred to his conception of God by a number of titles, most commonly: Providence. Nor did he ever neutron the name Jesus Christ in personal correspondence.
That’s two and a question mark on the 3rd. So it seems the Christian influence was far from being as overwhelming as you believe.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:38
I provided a list of responses to Paine, along with how he was treated upon his return to the greatest nation in the world.
Besides, he is one man, and your attempt to make just a few atheist or “deist” founders look like the majority is not valid, of course.
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 19:52
You are showing yourself… dishonest. I never said, or implied, that Deists were the majority.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:55
So, then. You agree that almost all of the Founders were Christians. Great. I misunderstood you.
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 21:03
Almost all is an overstatement.
We’re at 90% and dropping. Shall we try for 80%?
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 21:06
They were overwhelmingly Christian, of course. It cannot be denied by any sane adult.
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 21:14
You are dismissing the fact that Deism’s influence extended beyond affirmed Deists.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 22:04
No, YOU are denying the OVERWHELMING culture of Christianity. It was so overwhelming, in fact, that those in government who supported Jefferson’s bid for the presidency DENIED he was a Deist. They knew how the public would look at THAT.
john Johnson December 8th, 2016 at 22:35
The gossips in Washington would have been intrigued. And there would have been 20 contradictory rumors. Some affronted. And some intrigued/fascinated.
The Christianity of the time was rather different than today.
In the US it was subdued as compared to Europe. Every sect feared that one of the others would gain ascendancy and squash all the others.
And many people had come here to escape the rigid dogma of Europe.
The people outside of Washington and the cities wouldn’t have known what being a Deist meant, and again rumors would have flown. And FYI many towns didn’t even have a church until after they’d been around for awhile. Many shared a preacher who rode circuit and preached in the square or town hall.
As the country grew many couples might not marry for years if something delayed the priest getting to their town.
Nor was confession quite as common. Many confessed on only two occasions:
Before marrying, and
On their deathbed.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 16:52
RTO: Stay on target. Roosevelt isn’t a founding father.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:49
It is the accumulation of responses. Try to read and keep up.
Thank you.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:00
RTO: I am keeping up. You’re throwing in frivolous information, possibly hoping to distract from the discussion. Try to stay on target.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 19:03
Keep trying! That’s the spirit!
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:25
RTO: Whatever (^_^)
john Johnson December 6th, 2016 at 23:32
Any such requirement would be contrary to the federal Constitution which takes precedence over state Constitutions.
RightThinkingOne December 6th, 2016 at 23:43
No. Look at the state constitutions at the time our Constitution was ratified. Most had requirements that a person had to be Christian to hold public office. What’s more – the Founders helped to write them!
There was no conflict with the national Constitution. In fact, some of the states had established churches!
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 00:36
the United States Constitution specifically declares that there shall be no religious test to hold public office. And the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution clearly states that the Federal Constitution takes precedence over state constitutions and laws.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 01:08
I know. Why are you telling me what everyone knows?
Again (SEVENTH REPETITION):
FACT – the founders helped to write the state constitutions
FACT – many of the state constitutions had requirements that one had to be a CHRISTIAN to hold public office.
FACT – a few states had ESTABLISHED churches (Christian, of course)
MOST IMPORTANT FACT – There was no conflict with the ratified Constitution. The states that formed the union were NOT – repeat, NOT, NOT – required to change the above!
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 10:14
It almost seems you are deliberately setting your argument up to be knocked down.
FACT – There is no war on Christianity. And America’s Founding Fathers would have laughed at the idea that your religion should exempt you from the law.
FACT – Most people at the time went to church one or twice a year, if that often. And the churches agreed with the separation of church and state.
FACT – I didn’t say ALL of America’s Founding Fathers were Deists. Many were devout Christians. But most Christians today would find their Christianity strange indeed. Many of them espoused the Deist belief about the Plurality of Worlds. The belief that the creator would obviously have populated all the spheres of the heavens.
AND FYI
The Constitution is a living instrument intended to adapt to a changing society rather than constrain that society to outmoded codes and mores.
For more than a century freedom of religion has been recognized to refer to all religions.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:20
“Assault” would be a better word than “war.”
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 20:15
Christians have been LITERALLY assaulting those who didn’t cowtow to them since 337. And many of your poor little innocents are fully in favor of forcible conversion therapy. One televangelist is facing charges before the world court for his encouraging the leader of a 3rd world country to institute the death penalty for BEING gay!
Now drop the victim card. It won’t fly.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:22
No. Christians have been persecuted. When is the last time you saw someone holding a human head who WASN’T a Muslim?
George T December 8th, 2016 at 16:49
RTO:
So have others, including homosexuals and atheists. Your confirmation bias is only allowing you to see cases of Christian persecution. And I’m sure that your religions ingrained persecution complex is helping you to see cases of persecution where there isn’t any.
RightThinkingOne December 8th, 2016 at 18:49
So, stop persecuting homosexuals as well as CHRISTIANS.
George T December 8th, 2016 at 19:02
RTO: Stop looking for persecution and incorrectly attributing it to religious animosity.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:22
“Separation?” It was to help promote worship!
Compare Christian America with atheist Europe. In Europe, people STILL have to pay the STATE to maintain churches. And what happened?
In the greatest nation in the world, that did not happen much – and for a short time in a couple of states – and what is the result? (Rhetorical question.)
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:24
Yes, I believe it was nine of the states (no real matter). 8 (or 9) of 13 = 60% to 70% (rounded).
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 20:19
Try Google.
Or some library research .
The number your looking for is 7.
You can also Google:
Lighthouses are of more use than churches.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:23
I posted the quotes from the state constitutions. You are in a state of denial!
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:23
Even if you are correct – which you are not – it proves my point, doesn’t it? Those 7 states were admitted and their constitutions were not changed when they were admitted.
LOL!
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:25
“A living document” translated: The Constitution means what I want it to mean, and when I want it to mean what I want.
Yes, there is the amendment process, but we all know that is not what you mean.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 18:57
RTO: Incorrect. I’m reading his statements as a reference to the amendment process and SCOTUS power to interpret The Constitution.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 19:18
I know what is meant by RESPONSIBLE people who want to maintain Rule of Law. But in the hands of activists, it undermines our Constitution. “Penumbras,” for example: Ridiculous.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:24
RTO: Agreed! Those Dominionist Christian activists really should stop trying to impose their faith and beliefs on other citizens using government power and authority.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 20:24
Try again.
That is exactly what I was referring to. That and the court’s role in interpreting the Constitution.
And it is you trying to reinterpret the Constitution by limiting freedom of religion to Christians.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 20:29
Not true. Read what I wrote. I will not keep repeating and explaining what has been written already.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 16:34
Because you keep ignoring it.
SOME of the founding fathers helped right a religious requirement into their home state’s Constitution.
Currently only 8 states have such a requirement. The original 7 plus Texas. And even the state courts would not continence such a requirement today.
And ALL signed the Treaty of Tripoli.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:29
Sorry the facts disturbed you. You did not refute a single one.
You are wrong about the Treaty of Tripoli. I explained the obvious reason cogently.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 21:23
The facts don’t disturb me.
Besides you haven’t any.
And your obvious reason as regards the Treaty is irrelevant.
My history professor would have called it trite.
If you want a more in depth analysis you’ll have to repost.
Perhaps you could add quotes from 2 or 3 of the founding fathers repudiating that particular section of the treaty?
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 21:31
I did. It is incontrovertible. You and your atheist hater congeries made a straw man. I proved it.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 22:32
It is far from incontrovertible. I have shown that Deist influence extend beyond those who actually considered themselves Deists
And you’re back to arguing that America was founded as a Christian nation. Thus refuting your suggestion that I set up a straw man argument.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 23:02
No. The Christian influence was OVERWHELMING. Incontrovertible.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:30
You start from a straw man. It is dishonest. Nobody is saying our nation was founded on Christianity, of course. But you know that. You twisted it so you could refute your straw man.
john Johnson December 7th, 2016 at 21:37
Sorry, wrong again.
I did not set up a straw man argument. Despite your denial of your intent many of your posts have argued that America was founded as a Christian country. Including your denial of the relevance of the Treaty of Tripoli.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 22:56
You did. AGAIN! (27th repetition): Nobody is saying we were FOUNDED – read the word, “founded” – on Christianity. Nobody!
You just made that up and attacked it. S..T..R..A..W M..A..N
whatthe46 December 5th, 2016 at 21:28
praise Allah!
john Johnson December 5th, 2016 at 23:39
Trump has no respect for the Constitution. Indeed he told his constituents repeatedly that he will rewrite it so as to “rein in the press”.
He seems oblivious to the fact that the President doesn’t have that authority. And with his love of dictators he likely thinks that’s what he’ll be.
Jack E Raynbeau December 6th, 2016 at 00:30
He has no idea what the president does. We can coach him every day. It’s going to be fun.
George T December 7th, 2016 at 18:55
Jack E Raynbeau: Apparently you and I have radically different definitions for the word “fun”.
Jack E Raynbeau December 7th, 2016 at 19:12
If you’re sparring with RightThinkingOne I’m pretty sure we’re on the same page. ;)
George T December 7th, 2016 at 19:14
Jack E Raynbeau: Touche ;-)
Foundryman November 29th, 2016 at 20:21
Dammit, now I hate Trump even more for winning. Does he mean there was a plan to abolish all the cults? How come I never heard of it before? I would have given much more heavily to Hillary.
fahvel November 30th, 2016 at 04:05
once in, a la religion, rumple might surprise the idiot religious right.
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:07
Left-wingers are still in denial. You displayed one symptom. The silly “recount” hope they had – an utter failure – was another display of Leftist Denial. Liberals have been traumatized.
In one month and 14 days, they are going to be traumatized again and suffer emotional and psychological disorientation and depression because it will be REAL: Donald J. Trump will be sworn into the office of the President of the United States of America.
StoneyCurtisll November 29th, 2016 at 20:26
Any religion who uses an ancient torture devise as religious symbolism..
Has serious persuction issues..
http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/026/130/original/crucifixion-120405.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1000
bpollen November 30th, 2016 at 02:38
Christ on a stick, now at your state fair!
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:04
You do not understand human nature or human history.
StoneyCurtisll December 5th, 2016 at 20:17
derp…
RightThinkingOne December 5th, 2016 at 20:32
No, it is a reflection of deep human nature. It is unfortunate that many people do not understand it. I think part of the reason lies in the superficiality and political correctness of what some people think of as “science”: Psychology.
fahvel November 30th, 2016 at 04:05
aside from not being anything remotely xian, what is this empty shell babbling about?
Foundryman November 30th, 2016 at 10:47
And his flock says ” Hallelujah” then gives him their kids lunch money.
Bunya November 30th, 2016 at 14:00
Is this guy f*cking kidding me??? The U.S. bends over backwards to cater to religious organizations (probably because, growing up, they were threatened with eternal damnation if they didn’t). I say tax the churches. They want forced birth, they can pay to support all those babies they “saved”.
Ken Campbell November 30th, 2016 at 23:51
What indication did you have that Christianity was about to be criminalized?
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 14:17
I will simply say:
The man is woefully misinformed regarding the history of Christianity.
Many Popes were homosexual. And in the middle ages a knight might marry another knight.
Many of the barons at the signing of the Magna Carta had a well known reputation for same-sex love that was “a vexation to the church.” And King Richard the Lion Heart is known for his relationship with the King of France.
Mensa Member December 2nd, 2016 at 20:03
I’ve studied this issue fairly extensively. Jews and Christians have radically changed their “definition” of marriage over the centuries. And it’s not just them — society has changed its definition of marriage. The nuclear family,. as we practice it now, is relatively new.
While it’s true that gay marriage was not (or rarely) part of that definition, homosexuality was often tolerated if it did not interfere with procreational obligations.
john Johnson December 2nd, 2016 at 20:48
The early Christian Church had ceremonies for the consecration of same-sex couples nearly identical with its ceremonies for straight couples. And same-sex marriage in Europe continued until relatively recently. In the middle ages a knight could marry another knight.
Mensa Member December 12th, 2016 at 10:03
I’ve heard that about same-sex Christian marriages but never seen it documented.
What I have seen documented is a tolerance of same-sex partnerships — especially among the lower classes, in the military, between slaves and masters, etc.
If a relationship did not threaten procreational duties, early Christians didn’t care that much.
There is an example in the bible, itself — Jesus healing the Roman Centurion’s “boy.”
It’s hotly debated, of course, if that specific relationship was sexual. We can’t know. What’s harder to debate is the possibility that it was sexual. This was a well-known homosexual practice yet the writers of Matthew and Luke weren’t concerned enough to clarify.
john Johnson December 12th, 2016 at 13:09
The two passages collectively are called:
The Centurion’s Faith
Luke 7 and Mathew 8:5 -13
The bible records that as he entered onto Capernaum Jesus met a Centurion pleading that Jesus heal his servant.
In Koine Greek Luke and Mathew use duolos and pais respectively. Duolos does mean servant but it is preceded by a word meaning honored. No Roman of rank would ever refer to a simple servant as honored. Thus we have a suggestion that the youth was something more than is clearly stated.
Mathew clarifies it when he uses the word pais, which in context means either a male servant kept primarily for sexual purposes, or the younger partner in a same-sex couple.
Given the NT usage, to denote someone who willingly gives himself into the power of another, we have reinforcement of the second meaning.
The only way to debate Mathew’s meaning is to disregard Luke. If the boy was servant, Mathew tells us what kind of servant.
Mensa Member December 2nd, 2016 at 19:43
I have had the unusual experience of having lived with three types of fundamentalists — Christian, Hindu and Muslim.
They all have a persecution complex — while persecuting others.
Liberal Hindus, Christians and Muslims are fine with pluralism and religious disagreement.
Meepestos December 3rd, 2016 at 01:01
“Liberal Hindus, Christians and Muslims are fine with pluralism and religious disagreement.”
Brings to mind the secularist Muslims of the now defunct Muslim Canadian Congress that opposed a proposal years ago by The Canadian Islamic Congress to permit sharia tribunals “to which Muslims could voluntarily submit civil disputes and whose findings would then have legal weight under the Arbitration Act” in Ontario. The government rejected the proposal. The good outcome of this past process was the scrapping of existing religious arbitration tribunals for Jews and Christians thanks to religious folk fine with pluralism.
Mensa Member December 8th, 2016 at 22:49
I don’t know that story but I am aware of some non-governmental religious “courts.”
I have mixed feelings about this. I mean, binding arbitration is used all the time. I guess I have no problem with that, as long as all parties agree to it. If a couple of Jews have an argument and want a Rabbit to settle it, what do I care?
But, I’m also aware that these religious groups and be quite abusive. The child abuse in the Catholic church, for example. Instead of going to the police, they dealt with it internally. This was a horror.
RightThinkingOne December 7th, 2016 at 18:35
What some people do not know is that Islam refuses to be secularized. Christians, Shintoists, Hindus, Jews, and others welcome the freedom of secularization, but not Islam.
Mensa Member December 8th, 2016 at 22:44
>>Christians, Shintoists, Hindus, Jews, and others welcome the freedom of secularization
Not all Christians — there are many who want America to be a Christian nation. There are Jews who want Israel to be a religious nation, as well.
RightThinkingOne December 9th, 2016 at 00:09
I disagree. Nobody reasonable wants a theocracy.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 9th, 2016 at 13:59
Yes, the operative term is “Nobody reasonable…”
But make no mistake, Christian Nationalists VERY MUCH want a theocracy, and with Betsy DeVos heading up Department of Education–who champions diverting public tax dollars to religious schools–you can expect significant moves in that direction.
If you want to learn more about how these people believe and operate–especially when it comes to converting ALL children aged 4 to 14 (those they correctly see and target as most vulnerable) to their brand of Christianity, using public schools as the medium, check out:
Catherine Stewart’s book: “The Goodnews Club: The Christian RIght’s Stealth Assault on American’s Children.”
http://thegoodnewsclub.com/
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 01:07
Betsy would want prayers in schools, and that is not establishing a theocracy.
You will not be able to tell me of any person of importance in the government who wants to establish a church, etc. Prayer in the schools is most certainly NOT setting up a theocracy. If it were, then you ARE COMPELLED to say that we were a theocracy since our beginning and for the next CENTURY AND A HALF!
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 11th, 2016 at 08:30
First, you ignore the fact that Betsy is BIG on diverting public tax funds to private schools–including religious schools–which is itself a violation of separation of church ans state.
Second, you are playing the classic loose-wording game when you say “prayers in schools” –or maybe you really don’t know. So to clarify….
Children and school employees (e.g. teachers, administrators) are always free to pray privately in public schools. Plus, the children can even form their own extracurricular religious / spiritual clubs, such as Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Muslim and Freethinker / secular student groups (although on the secular ones, schools routinely deny students, and an org like FFRF.org has to step in and correct them so that they will facilitate equality for the freethinking students).
While private schools can, from the top, integrate religion into their own schools maximally and to their heart’s content, public schools CANNOT lead ANY type of prayer–nor can they take anti-religious standpoints (e.g. a teacher cannot profess to his/her students that there is no god). As public schools serve children of all religious faiths and none, public schools–and indeed ALL of our public institutions–must maintain religious neutrality, as our U.S. Constitution mandates, and has been consistently ruled by the courts.
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 17:49
Yes. The government should not “discriminate” against schools that have religion.
Clarify? If we abide by our Constitution, the local schools can make the choice about whether or not to have prayers in the schools. What would go against our Constitution would be forcing children to pray or participate in them.
Carla Akins December 11th, 2016 at 18:22
Now you’re just being obtuse. Exactly whose religion would this be – that the local school can decide to push on students regardless of their existing religious persuasion.
Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another.
Public schools are an extension of the government. If you want your child to have a religious education, send them to private school. Public tax dollars go to public schools. Period.
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 18:30
No, I was perfectly clear: The local school (board), made up of ELECTED people, makes the decision. Prayers are generally non-sectarian. The Lord’s Prayer, for example, can be said for anyone, wanting peace and giving thanks. And recommending that we forgive anyone who are harmed us. 19 seconds to say it. Only a hater, a malcontent, a radical would go to the Supreme Court to try to stop something so beautiful as that to be taken out of the schools.
As I said before -FIVE TIMES – of course no student should be forced to participate. That is patently obvious.
Carla Akins December 12th, 2016 at 03:55
But a student in a minority religion would be singled out, coerced and demonized. We know this – regardless, the Constitution. If you want the 1st amendment changed, get it changed otherwise there should NEVER be pressure from adults and those in authoritarian roles should lead a religious prayer/thing/feeling/whateever in a public school funded with tax dollars. Get it?
Mensa Member December 12th, 2016 at 10:12
>> But a student in a minority religion would be singled out, coerced and demonized.
What these Christian dominionists don’t understand is that it won’t end with non-Christians. You will have to be the right kind of Christian.
… and, as a liberal Christian, don’t I know it. There are times when I get it worse from conservative Christians than do the pagans. ;-)
Carla Akins December 12th, 2016 at 11:44
Exactly!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 18:13
That is the problem: There are people who want to – as you are implicitly recommending – that think an entire group or even society of people should have something taken away from them because someone just might get “picked on” or feel left out. So, 99.9% of the people are innocent of doing anything wrong, but they have to pay the penalty to POTENTIALLY avoid the rare case in which someone might get bullied or poked fun at.
In this case, the First Amendment would preclude forcing someone to pray or otherwise join a religious group or celebration. It does not require entire communities to try to avoid making someone feel bad.
Carla Akins December 12th, 2016 at 20:09
I’ll say this once more. If someone in the government (school teacher) “suggests” his or her students pray, they have violated the first amendment. It’s not rocket science. No one is intereferring with the teacher’s right to practice the religion of their choice. A person in a role of authority coercing children to paticipate in a religion of the teacher’s choice is simply wrong even if it weren’t part of the Constitution. Since teachers, school administration, authoritarian figures that hold sway over a child’s success it is imperative that this not be tolerated. My interpretation of the 1st amendment – is the interpretation of the 1st amendment. Ask SCOTUS.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:23
Yes. If there is clear pressure, not some “institutionalized blah, blah,” which is an excuse to say something exists which one cannot demonstrate exists.
Why are you creating straw men? I was very, very clear about nobody being “coerced.” I repeated that. But you present it as if I condone that, directly or indirectly.
Carla Akins December 13th, 2016 at 03:50
Again, teachers and school officials pressure on children is clear – children will say and/or do anything to please the authoratarian adults in their life. Done. Period. Fact. Do you want your local school to practice following Scientology? Let’s say daily, with just a little mantra, prayer, pledge – from the time your child is 4 or 5 years old essentially brainwashing them? Are you serious with this bullshit?
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 17:52
First, it is not “brainwashing” to say, for example, the Lord’s Prayer. I measured it: It takes about 20 SECONDS. THAT’S IT!
Next. Teachers should not pressure any student to participate in prayers. If they do, the administration will stop them.
Next: You are advocating that an entire school district – or really the entire NATION – should not have 1) the freedom to make decisions by elected representatives, and 2) every school in the nation should have it taken away JUST IN CASE some child, some where, JUST MIGHT feel “pressure” for 20 SECONDS or so.
Finally, you should apply your reasoning to see it clearly: Let’s give up sports because some children are clumsy and will be bullied and teased. Let’s give up art classes because some children have fine motor weaknesses. And on and on.
Carla Akins December 13th, 2016 at 18:51
I did not realize that playing sports was a constitutional right. And repeating the same mantra day on and day out – is what exactly?
And again – who says folks can’t practice the faith of their choice? Every day, in their home, at work, church….ghey do not get to lead others in the religion of their, or your choice while holding a public government position.
No is being denied anything except not to be indoctrinized every fucking day 180 days a year for 12 years. That is brainwashing.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 19:12
That is not the point. The POINT is about the mentality that we should take away any possibility that somewhere, some person JUST MIGHT have his feelings hurt or feel different. That is the thinking: Deprive the entire nation of self-governance “just in case” someone could get bullied or teased or feel different. JUST IN CASE some teacher, somewhere, pressures a student and the administration is irresponsible and ignores it.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 19:16
“who says folks can’t practice the faith of their choice?”
Straw man again. Unrelated. I can teach my kids some kind of advanced math at home, so it does not mean that schools should dilute their math programs because little Johnny somewhere might feel “left out” or “incapable.”
Read the words to the Lord’s Prayer. (It is merely an example.) Explain how that is INDOCTRINATION. How are kids “indoctrinated” by this 20 SECONDS of something that does not even refer to any specific denomination, not to Jesus, etc. But it DOES say to “forgive” and to try to make our earthly life more like heaven. But I suppose you think that because “heaven” is there, the ENTIRE NATION should not let such shocking things be iterated in a public setting.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:25
I know the Court decisions. They undermine the very founding principles. A school should be able to have prayers, have a moment of silence, or chant some non-sectarian Buddhist hymns. In one school in Hawaii, they actually celebrate some Buddhist festivals. But I will bet atheist haters (they really only hate Christianity) would not caterwaul, have demonstrations, and call in the ACLU about THAT.
whatthe46 December 12th, 2016 at 04:28
” ..wanting peace and giving thanks.” ahem, says the racist and bigot.”
“…we forgive anyone who are harmed us.” says the bigot that voted for a racist and bigot that wants to put Muslims in a registry.
you are definitely NOT a Christian. but, you definitely are a “christian.”
then you don’t have prayer in school. and whose lords prayer? yours? what makes your prayer the go to of prayers. stop trying to shove your religious beliefs down others throats. and i’m telling you right now, you are an absolute hypocrite in the worst order.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 12th, 2016 at 09:49
While I get the “nice intent” of one praying for good things (e.g. peace, happiness), in a nutshell you are arguing for religious majoritarianism.
Not cool.
Religious majoritarianism is exactly the reason the Puritans set sail to a new land in the first place–they didn’t want to be forced to pay into and support a state / government-backed religion they didn’t believe in.
Your “FIVE TIMES” / “patently obvious” bit has been specifically addressed by the courts. Just telling children that they don’t have to participate in group prayers is a no-go. Anyone placed in that situation at once becomes a public outcast, and it is even more damaging for children (and I know–I’ve lived it, starting with my first day of 1st grade!).
Mensa Member December 12th, 2016 at 09:53
He thinks the Lord’s Prayer is non-sectarian! That is seriously deluded.
If the Muslim principal of his child’s school started the day with the Adhan, his head would explode!
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 12th, 2016 at 09:59
Yes, that’s why I posited that scenario–and I note that he didn’t answer. Maybe I got through to a sense of reason, even if just a little bit.
Mensa Member December 12th, 2016 at 10:08
He seems like a person who lives in a bubble of self-affirming “truth.”
I mean, how can he seriously claim that he doesn’t know anybody who wants a theocracy? Like I said, Evangelicals say this ALL THE TIME.
I have heard some variation of this said literally thousands of times. “Get America back to God.” “America is a Christian country.” “God has a special blessing for America.” “America needs to repent and worship the true God again.” “America was founded on the Bible.” and on and on. And then there is the whole attempt to make the Ten Commandments official.
Surely, he has seen and heard this as much as me.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 12th, 2016 at 10:32
Yes, I concur, though I was wondering to what extent he actually believes what he says, or if it has more to do with the way he wants things to be (the latter being consistent with your “self-affirming ‘truth’ ” characterization).
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 18:28
If a child is being picked on because he is not participating in the school prayers, the solution is not to take away the prayers. It is to deal with the students who are picking on him. When we were in school, I remember there were Witnesses (I think) did not say the Pledge. Our teacher, probably the first week of school, said that there are some people whose sincere beliefs preclude them from the Pledge. That was the end of it.
Should the school have then stopped the entire student body from saying the Pledge because – just because – some student, somewhere just might feel “left out?”
It is punishing the innocent to remove what is only potentially harmful – and potentially harmful not in itself, but because of bullies who should be dealt with directly.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 12th, 2016 at 19:03
You are being a bully, sir, if you insist on foisting your religious views–even if you consider them “generic”–upon a secular institution full of impressionable school children, many of whom do not share your zest for your brand of religion, or religion at all.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:20
I am an atheist. It reveals your character to simply DECLAIM I have “religious views.”
I will apply your reasoning to something else: According to you, then, if a person supports same-sex marriage, he HAS TO BE a homosexual!
YOUR reasoning, not mine!
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 07:35
Okay, then, let me rephrase:
“You are a bully, sir, if you insist on making it so that others are allowed to foist their religious views–even if they consider them to be ‘generic’…”
Verbiage problem solved.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 17:59
You are just making up stuff again. I have REPEATEDLY said that no body should ever be forced or pressured into participating in any religious activity.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 14th, 2016 at 11:02
No, I’m not making anything up. Repeating myself, courts have ruled–and with good reason–children “opting out” of a school sponsored religious exercise is unacceptable. Peer pressure and bullying are at near epidemic levels these days, and that is exactly how “opt out” scenarious play out.
As I alluded to earlier, I have LIVED this myself. My 1st grade teacher–when she found out my father requested she stop (unlawfully) leading us in prayer before lunch–sent me to the lunchroom BY MYSELF, ahead of all the other children in the classroom! My, a school is an awfully BIG place for a 6 year old. It was the second day of school, and I got lost! Eventually I found my way to the lunchroom, and from that day forward, I was harassed by my classmates. “You don’t believe in God?! Why not? You’re weird!”
RightThinkingOne December 14th, 2016 at 18:08
The children should not be forced to participate in religious events in schools that their own religion or personal beliefs preclude. (Seventh repetition)
Kids get “peer pressure” to take dope, drink, break windows, have sex, beat up someone, and on and on. Not participating in some prayer that lasts 20 seconds is low on the “peer pressure” list, of course.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 15th, 2016 at 05:39
Amazing! Even when I share with you MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE as a FIRST GRADER, involving religion unlawfully and illegally promulgated by by school staff, you dismiss it as “low on the list.” Not for me buddy! Now that’s just downright RUDE!
And believe you me, the harassment I received from the Christian kids lasted a helluva lot longer that 20 seconds! (I hasten to note that the 1st Grade experience I shared is only one of many bad experiences I ahead, either directly at the behest of mean-spirited Christians on a mission, or fallout from “low pressure” / “low on the list” Christian activities”; this at both at public schools and at t workplaces, over decades.)
You can repeat your view / beliefs as much as you like, but it doesn’t change reality.
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 18:55
Well, I had exactly the opposite experience in school. And just because you had a bad experience, you are saying that the ENTIRE NATION should change. I take the position that the administration should have controlled the teacher and set the right environment. But you want courts to take away everything from everyone.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 15th, 2016 at 20:03
What you miss is that what I experienced (and I know many others in similar circumstances) is a direct consequence of failure to follow the model set forth by the founders. Your position constitutes a departure–a change–from separation of church and state. Mine is consistent with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Do I want “…courts to take away everything from everyone”, as you allege? OF COURSE NOT! That is absurd on its face. Even though I am a freethinker, I am fine with everyone having the right to believe and practice–as private citizens–whatever they want (i.e. any religion, or none).
But we clearly disagree as to whether school boards and possibly other government agencies should be able to vote in sponsored prayers (you are FOR and I am AGAINST). I have no reason to believe that you and I will ever reach the same position on that, regardless of discussion.
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 20:21
Yes. If any teacher either tried to force you to participate, or if she didn’t do something about other students pressing or bullying you, it was her fault and the administration’s fault. Just because there are some irresponsible and unethical people like that, it does not mean that something should be taken away from the entire nation. In my school, I clearly remember a student who was, I believe, a Witness, and would not stand for the Pledge. The teacher simply told us that some people have religious beliefs that preclude their standing for the Pledge, and put it in a context of how important God was for such people, etc. I remember thinking it a bit “odd,” but something to be respected and somewhat admired.
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 20:25
Question, and please feel no obligation to answer: Did you grow up in the South (or maybe the midwest)? I ask that because I have noticed that people from those areas who decided not to believe or go along with the primary religion of the area are the ones who have the most resentment toward organized religion. I grew up in New England, near New York City, and there was no real pressure. I even went to a Catholic High School and none of us felt pressure to conform.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 17th, 2016 at 12:11
“Well, I had exactly the opposite experience in school.”
Sorry, but you don’t get to negate my second day of public school experience simply by stating that you had “the opposite experience.” What the heck would constitute “the opposite experience” to mine, anyway?
“And just because you had a bad experience…”
As I said before, I have had NUMEROUS bad experiences at the behest of mean-spirited religionists–Christians, to be crystal clear. That is a BIG reason I am so adamant about the need to maintain separation of church and state, which is a good segue into…
“… you are saying that the ENTIRE NATION should
change.”
Exactly the opposite: The entire nation needs to STAY THE SAME. That is, with clear cut, legal separation between church and state.
RightThinkingOne December 26th, 2016 at 23:31
Both of our experiences are just that – anecdotes and personal experiences. School districts should decide about saying a prayer, or having a moment of silence, of course. The only constitutional issue is that they cannot force a student to participate. If the darling has his widdle fweelings hurted, that is no excuse to deny self-government across the entire nation.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 27th, 2016 at 08:26
Let’s carry your buzzword “self-government”, in the context of religion and public schools, to the level it belongs: With the student. That means that it remains EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE STUDENT–it is not and shall not be up to any teacher, principal, school board, or any other public employee or body to craft any particular prayer that students can opt in or out of.
Your downplaying of children’s negative experiences when they ARE excluded–or coerced, either way–by public school-led prayer, is shameful. It often leads to bullying, whether you believe it or not, which is one reason that the U.S. Courts have consistently ruled against it. You just don’t get the full impact, but I have an idea: Contact FFRF.org, and they will send you a monthly “Freethought Now” magazine for FREE.
Every month, Freethought Now features student essays, where students recount their experiences, and often they include bullying they dealt with related to the very thing you push. You’ve said you’re an atheist, so much of “Freethought Now” ought to be of interest to you anyway.
Happy reading!
RightThinkingOne January 2nd, 2017 at 19:10
No, it means the representatives of the citizens – the school board members.
RightThinkingOne December 26th, 2016 at 23:32
Wrong. I wrote about Brooklyn and Hawaii. Read.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 18:01
It is not “state-sponsored religion,” of course. Why don’t you read what I write before responding to it with cliches?
I will write it yet AGAIN: It is up to the community to decide via ELECTED school board members. In Brooklyn, NY, there were rabbis conducting graduation ceremonies until some atheist haters got the ACLU involved and stopped it. Nobody had a problem except some malcontent hater who started the lawsuit.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 18:02
You wrote, “So, for example, with your system proposal from earlier post, a Muslim majority school board could vote in Muslim prayers at public schools.”
Now you’re getting it! Bravo!
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 21:21
You are being 100% disingenuous here. You pretend that there is inherent fairness in setting up local boards to “vote” so they would select a varying religion that they would then instill in the public schools.
But I see right through you–you know damn well that Christians work doggedly to overtake school boards (their tenacity on that score is truly remarkable), so you know that 99.9% of the time the vote would be for Christian prayers.
Again, voting on which prayer(s) will be led in public schools is a no-go.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 21:28
It is not about “fairness”; it is about self-government. That is what our democracy is: Not forcing entire populations to capitulate to court orders, but to have the people decide via their representatives! You are against Liberty. You are against self-government. You want Rule by Five Justices for the entire nation.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 21:45
I like the sound of “self-government” too. But when it comes to religion, I don’t relish my tax dollars supporting any religion, or non-religion (and by that I mean like an official government position outlawing churches or religious beliefs). Self-governance means government butts out of religion, and let you and me–as private citizens–believe and worship if and as we wish and as our conscience dictates.
But again, if you go after my kids with your religion (or school board majority’s) while they are at public school and/or with tax dollars, we are going to have problems.
And just so you’ll know, all members of the “entire population” don’t have the same view on religion, which is PRECISELY why having a religious-neutral government has worked SO well for us, and continues to do so.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:10
Then it is up to you to try to persuade your representative to not spend a few dollars on celebrating Christmas.
Notice contentious Supreme Court decisions: Invariably, they are the ones that were taken out of the hands of the people in the respective states and put in the hands of only five people on the Court.
It is perfectly fine to have creches on public property. Anyone who disagrees with it should appeal to the public and his representatives or city council, or shut up and let people enjoy this great holiday!
Mensa Member December 13th, 2016 at 22:17
>> It is perfectly fine to have creches on public property.
Not if it costs tax dollars. Not if if implies endorsement of Christianity. Not if other religions are not represented on public property.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:27
I disagree. History shows it, for example. It is up to states and communities to decide. We cannot have “equal religious representation.” That is illogical.
Mensa Member December 13th, 2016 at 22:39
Disagree all you want.
It’s settled law.
I’ll do your homework for you:
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:44
I know the court decisions. I know them. I am referring to our Constitution. I am referring to our Founding principles. Those decisions are against our Constitution.
Mensa Member December 13th, 2016 at 22:49
You can have your personal opinion — but that’s not how our Constitution works.
I personally disagree on the recent rulings about the Second Amendment. I think the Constitution has nothing to do with personal gun ownership. I think it’s about well-regulated militias.
But the Supreme Court, whose Constitutional duty is to decide what the Constitution means, disagrees with me. And they most certainly disagree with you on the separation of church and state.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:59
It is not a “personal opinion.” The court made a travesty of our founding principles, self-governance, our very history and origins.
The Second Amendment IS also about personal gun ownership.
Obewon December 13th, 2016 at 22:48
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District proved otherwise, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design as Public school illegal creationism. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/judge-rejects-teaching-intelligent-design.html?_r=0
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:58
I know the court decisions.
Obewon December 13th, 2016 at 23:02
Then you realize worshipping one comic book requires worshipping all comic books. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5eec713a763bd987008e98228e504d7186d7f6300d63681d77f58924d0b0593f.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 23:59
I know the court decisions.
Mensa Member December 13th, 2016 at 22:19
>> Not forcing entire populations to capitulate to court orders,
You just threw the Constitution under the bus!
And law and order, too!
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:29
No, it is supporting the Constitution. Don’t you know that for almost TWO CENTURIES, from the beginning of our nation, that the Bible was used in PUBLIC schools, for example? Even today, Congress starts every single session with a prayer. 9 of the 13 original states had requirements that one had to be a CHRISTIAN to hold public office and there was no problem, no conflict.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 21:29
“you know damn well that Christians work doggedly to overtake school boards”
LOL! Then why are there rabbis in Brooklyn and other places who used to say prayers at graduation ceremonies? Why did some schools in Hawaii celebrate Buddhist holidays?
LOL!
Mensa Member December 13th, 2016 at 21:48
Oh, c’mon, RTO,
You know perfectly well that there has been a widespread, deliberate effort by conservative Christians to control school boards.
It happened in my community. It’s happened all over America. Did it happen absolutely everywhere? No. Of course not.
A quick Google search proves I’m right.
Here is an article from twenty years ago: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1994/03/right-fight
During the 1992-1993 school year, religious-right candidates ran in 140
school-board races in New York and San Diego alone. Though he won’t
offer names or locations, Simonds claims that between 1989 and 1992, CEE
helped 5,472 members attain school-board positions. In 1993, he claims,
more than 6,000 members were elected–out of 15,500 school boards
nationwide.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:13
Yes, there will be the back-and-forth of ALL SORTS OF agendas. That is what self-governance is all about! If one believes he has a case, then appeal to the legislature, have marches, write to one’s local newspaper, call the radio, and on and on.
But there are atheist haters that assert that if it is a CHRISTIAN who is trying to get some simple Christmas celebrations and decorations, then it is some kind of CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE, and we must get the Courts to STOP IT!
I am an atheist, and welcome probably 0.0001% of my tax dollars being spent on a creche that will bring joy to the community!!!
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 18:03
You wrote, “Every atheist I know appreciates the value of keeping government (including public schools) out of the religion business–and vice versa.”
In your circles, that is probably true. But it is not about religion per se. It is about self-governance. It is about our Constitution. It is about limiting national government as our founders intended and is best for liberty.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 12th, 2016 at 09:31
Doh! Just wrote a novel to RightThinkingOne and then I saw your reply to him. You basically conveyed my intent, but in a lot less space!
Carla Akins December 12th, 2016 at 10:00
I was just short on time.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 11th, 2016 at 19:25
Your interpretation of “abiding by our Constitution” differs considerably from our courts, thank goodness! They have ruled time and again that public schools CANNOT decide to have (and I mean conduct, lead) prayers in public schools. Even though you seem to be unaware of this, let me give you a reason you can understand as to why letting local schools “decide” isn’t such a good idea:
Suppose the Principal of a particular school is Muslim. Maybe he (or she) was always so, or is a recent convert. This Principal decides to conduct school-sponsored Muslim prayers. Don’t worry–students can opt out if they want to. Would you really be on board with that?
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 19:57
That means that our government was in violation of the Constitution during the era of our Founders – who wrote the Constitution – and for over a century and a half. According to YOU, it took “enlightened” people of the latter half of the 20th century to understand what the Founders and all of the courts and congresses and presidents did not understand for about 170 years.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 12th, 2016 at 09:23
Nonsense!
The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution is precisely what mandates separation of church and state, and is what protects ALL of us every day from-majority religion-rules (or from power-wielding minority) mode and mindset. If you want to talk about “enlightened” folks, I’d point to James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as shining examples–they were keenly aware of religious intrusion into workings of government, and took steps to protect against it.
That fact that you completely dodged my question is telling. Since you didn’t answer it, I’ll posit that you would NOT be alright with a public school setting up non-Christian prayers such as Muslim–or to extend, how about Satanism, or Wiccan?
Setting aside for the moment the US Constitution and last 150 years, we might simply consider what is just and fair: Should it be up to public school staff whether to lead students in prayer–any prayer, as chosen by one or more staff members, or only prayer limited to a particular persuasion (e.g. Christian or Muslim)? And if the latter, how do we decide which persuasion is the “correct” one?
It should be clear to anyone with critical thinking skills and a sense of fairness that public schools, where children of ALL persuasions and are impressionable and captive, should NOT be religiously steered by any of the publicly-hired staff, in any particular religious direction. In a pluralistic society, an official government position (including public schools) of religious neutrality is the best way to go. Yes, historically there were disputes and violations surrounding this issue (which continue to this day), but the founders were astute in making government religious neutrality the law of the land. Indeed, this is what has allowed religions to flourish and grow, unfettered by government meddling.
There are plenty of private, religious schools available for parents who feel the need to have their children religiously steered by hired education staff. But again, public schools are not the place for that.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 18:16
Not true, of course. That is at the national level. In fact, when our nation was formed, some states had established churches! And there were no conditions of their having to relinquish that.
In addition, 9 of the 13 states also required one to be a Christian to hold public office, and there was no requirement that they give that up to be part of our nation. On top of that, our Founders helped to write those very state constitutions!
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 12th, 2016 at 18:58
You are arguing from a States Rights’ position, that state laws trump federal law. That’s a separatist view that most Americans don’t support.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:19
You are wrong. Read our history. I even have saved parts of the state constitutions that were part of our nation – the greatest nation in the world – AFTER the Constitution was ratified!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 18:19
Interesting you mention Jefferson, because I hope you know that it was his letter to a group in Connecticut that atheist haters started using for this “separation” idea. But what these haters do not know is that two days after Jefferson wrote that letter, he attended a mass. The mass was in a FEDERAL building, held by a minister who was paid by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
I guess it took some “enlightened” people – over a century and a half later – to explain and interpret what the very writer of that “separation” letter, Thomas Jefferson, did not himself understand about his letter!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 18:21
As I wrote, the ELECTED people on the school board decide what, if any, the prayer should be. And of course it can change.
And remember, it was people of Christian faith and culture who CREATED a nation out of wilderness.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 12th, 2016 at 18:55
Yes, I saw your school board proposal AFTER my previous reply, but it’s still a bad idea for the reasons we’ve already been through.
Setting aside the first Americans (I’m talking native, American Indians), sure , there were Christians around at the nation’s (re-)formation. But most of the founders were non-Christians; many deists. It is you who needs to review history here. I’ll give you a link and quote that might help jog your memory:
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
—John Adams
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:16
No, it is a good idea – one that is supported by our Founding principles, of course – for the school board of ELECTED people, to decide!
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 07:38
Fortunately, our founding fathers recognized that there are certain rights, like freedom of religion, that are NOT up to majority vote.
Sorry Charlie!
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 18:03
Yes, they did. And that is the reason I post what I do.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:17
There were not Christians “around” at our nation’s formation: The people were overwhelmingly Christian. Almost all of the Founders were obviously Christians, too!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:18
Correct. The government was not “founded on” the Christian religion. Nobody ever said it was! LOL
Obewon December 12th, 2016 at 20:28
Most of USA’s Founders were Diest. You were Busted again as a well proven LIAR! That’s why so few young adults want anything to do with your liars religiosity & your dissembling.
You’re already burn’n in Hell as a self-described Blasphemer!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:37
Most, overwhelmingly, were Christians. It is incontrovertible.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:40
“This is a Christian nation.”
– Harry Truman
“The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.”
-Harry Truman
“The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights come from the teachings.”
-Harry Truman, February 15, 1950
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:41
“I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses.”
– Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1954
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:41
“Without God, there could be no form of government nor American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first – and most basic – expression of Americanism.”
-Eisenhower
“A democracy cannot exist without a religious base.”
-Eisenhower
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 15th, 2016 at 06:49
Oof! Now I like Eisenhower even less!
Everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs, but there are many millions of Americans (and growing) who not only disagree with the message in those quotes, but find them INSULTING and OFFENSIVE.
Who are you going to quote next? Donald Trump?
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 18:56
They are not offensive. Those people sound like they need medication or therapy.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 15th, 2016 at 20:08
“They are not offensive.”
To YOU and many others, perhaps. But you DO NOT speak for everyone; that view is by no means universal. More importantly, it simply isn’t true. Which leads me to…
One of my coworkers once declared “Atheists cannot be moral.” (We were talking about events in the middle east, but in any case…) Such a statement is not just patently WRONG, it is INSULTING! You might believe the premise, but if so hopefully at some point you will learn that it isn’t true.
BTW, I could argue the same thing: Anyone who subscribes to that viewpoint needs medication or therapy.
Touche!
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 20:26
No, by any reasonable, objective standards, they are not offensive, of course.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 16th, 2016 at 08:30
“Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first – and most basic – expression of Americanism.”
If that claim were true, then atheists couldn’t be Americans, or at best, second class ones (which brings to mind GWB’s infamous quote “I’m not sure atheists are Americans.”)
I’ve got news for you: Many atheists / freethinkers ARE Americans, proud to be, and have ALL the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by fellow religious citizens.
Whether Eisenhower’s quote was crafted to gain political points, or he really believed that, I don’t know, but in any case it is untrue, unreasonable (by objective standards), offensive, and inappropriate for politicians–especially U.S. Presidents–to utter.
Here are better quotes (snippets):
“…one nation, indivisible [as originally written; divisive “Under God” was added decades later]”, and “…with liberty and justice for all [not just the religious]”.
Those are brilliant words, and ones we ALL can–and SHOULD– stand behind.
RightThinkingOne December 26th, 2016 at 23:26
You did not read what was written – AGAIN! I chose my words carefully. (Hint: Note the “ism” attached to the key word.)
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 27th, 2016 at 10:33
You chose Eisenhower’s words. They aren’t yours.
You obviously want to play word-mincing games, so I’ll entertain it for a moment:
I looked up Americanism online. Here’s the definition:
“A word or phrase peculiar to or originating in the US. The qualities regarded as definitive of America or Americans.”
Eisenhower’s words fail to deliver on TWO counts: There have been plenty of countries where recognition of “the” supreme being has been (and is today) an expression of said countries’ state theocratic nationalism. But second and more importantly, it does NOT define ALL Americans–only mono-theistic ones.
The irony is that Eisenhower’s words are really ANTI-American at their core, because they are NOT all-inclusive, insulting to millions, and such sappy religious statements should not be made by acting presidents in the seat of government. I have no problem with anyone, acting as a private citizen, praying to their god and feeling like doing so making them a better country citizen, but claiming that it is the “most basic expression of Americanism” belies the secular governance spirit of America that the founding fathers worked so hard to craft.
RightThinkingOne January 2nd, 2017 at 19:13
No, they are pro-American. We have religious freedom within a nation that has virtually all founders as Christian, a culture that was Christian, colonized primarily by Christians, and even state constitutions that required one to be a Christian to hold public office.
Can’t be denied. Our Christian heritage, values, civilization and history are incontrovertible.
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 3rd, 2017 at 05:53
Article Six of the U. S. Constitution can’t be denied either. It reads:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.”
The fact that the U.S. Constitution specifically says “no religious Test” for office means this:
1) The authors (some Christian, most not) were FAIR-MINDED, and were careful to make sure that the government be PROHIBITED from religious discrimination,
2) You stretch the truth again. Nine State Constitutions DO discriminate against atheists, but ONLY ONE specifically requires that officeholders be Christian (Massachusetts). Those are NINE corrupted state constitutions out of 50, with corrupting articles written in bigoted state lawmakers (yes, Christians),
3) The most important point is that the nine states’ constitutions completely run afoul of Article Six of the U.S. Constitution, so the bigoted / discriminatory articles are therefore ripe to be legally challenged and eliminated at the federal level.
(Link for 9 offending state constitutions here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm)
The difference between those Christians who were involved in building the U.S. Constitution and today’s Christianists like you is that they were FAIR-MINDED and didn’t WANT government to be in the religion business.
Your technique of habitually skewing and coloring history and events in order to trumpet Christianity descends to the level of fake news. Yes, we have seen that fake news CAN sway people, but I’m optimistic that people will get better at identifying and rejecting it.
RightThinkingOne January 3rd, 2017 at 19:17
{they were shrewd, FAIR-MINDED, and did NOT WANT government to play religious favorites or otherwise be in the religion business.}
Wrong! They promoted CHRISTIANITY. They were against any SECT of Christianity being a national religion, an “established” religion. They had CHRISTIAN prayers EVERY DAY Congress was in session, for example. And they helped to develop state constitutions, and 9 of the 13 stated that one had to be a CHRISTIAN to hold public office.
RightThinkingOne January 3rd, 2017 at 19:17
{he total of NINE, discriminatory pro-monotheist state constitutions out of 50 }
Read some history. We originally had THIRTEEN states!
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 4th, 2017 at 09:13
What does that have to do with the statistic I pointed out?
RightThinkingOne January 4th, 2017 at 20:22
I referred to our very founding principles, our Constitution as written by the Framers.
RightThinkingOne January 3rd, 2017 at 19:19
{The MOST IMPORTANT POINT is that the nine states’ constitutions completely RUN AFOUL of Article Six of the U.S. Constitution}
WRONG AGAIN! I know the subsequent court rulings, so don’t bother. The FACT is, the INCONTROVERTIBLE FACT is, that there was absolutely no problem having state constitutions with CHRISTIAN requirements, or even states having ESTABLISHED CHURCHES! NONE!
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 4th, 2017 at 09:19
“…there was absolutely no problem having state constitutions with
CHRISTIAN requirements, or even states having ESTABLISHED CHURCHES!
NONE!”
We’ll never agree on that, but that noted, does your position that it “was” okay back then to you justify that it “is” okay now? If so, then you are a Christianist theocrat.
RightThinkingOne January 4th, 2017 at 20:23
It is not a matter of “agreement.”
It is a matter of FACT. There were established churches. Read the state constitutions of the time of the ratification of our Constitution: 9 had requirements for a person to be a CHRISTIAN to hold public office!
IT CANNOT BE DENIED. YOU CANNOT DENY DOCUMENTED HISTORY!
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 6th, 2017 at 08:59
Let’s say that your claim is true that nine state constitutions originally required that a person be Christian to hold public office, which is, by ANY standard, discriminatory (since you are so passionate about that snippet of history, why didn’t you provide a link?).
Then the critical facts that you ignore are the facts that remain: There IS ONLY ONE (left) TODAY, Massachusetts (I DID provide a link), and that the other eight were subsequently either fully or partially cleaned up (i.e. Christian “litmus test” for office removed), bringing them fully in or closer to compliance with the U.S. Constitution. To use your words…
IT CANNOT BE DENIED. YOU CANNOT DENY DOCUMENTED HISTORY!
You didn’t answer the question from my last post, so that further solidifies that you are a Christianist theocrat, and you know it.
RightThinkingOne January 8th, 2017 at 18:55
Pay attention! Again (7th repetition): It is about our Founding. It is about the Constitution. When it was written, it was clear. I do not want to write or explain the 1st Amendment because you should have known it by 5th or 6th grade.
So, I will assume any adult posting here has read THE SINGLE SENTENCE dealing with this. If he does not, I do not even want to deign to respond, and I will not explain it.
So: The respective states having CHRISTIAN requirements to hold office (9 states) and 3 having established churches, posed no conflict with the Constitution.
No, I will not provide a “link.” YOU search for state constitutions at the time of the ratification.
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 8th, 2017 at 19:41
Funny! You act like you are right about something, but post no proof. That’s because, wait for it… YOU CAN’T!
Any adults–or children, for that matter–can check the links I DID provide, or do their own searches.
Frankly, I don’t care what religious skew 9 state constitutions had at U.S. Constitution signing. I am far more interested in what the U.S. Constitution laid out, and the way things are NOW. In any case…
You clearly want the U.S. to be a Christian theocracy. I’m glad it’s not now, and I sure hope our government keeps out of the religion biz, so that it can serve ALL Americans EQUALLY–NO religious favorites.
RightThinkingOne January 8th, 2017 at 20:03
You wrote, “I don’t care what religious skew 9 state constitutions had at U.S. Constitution signing.”
Now, see why I did not bother to provide “linkies” for you? It would not have mattered.
I am an atheist, so of course I would not want a theocracy. As I wrote, I support the Constitution, and it would prevent that.
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 8th, 2017 at 23:46
“Now, see why I did not bother to provide ‘linkies’ for you? It would not have mattered.”
Lame excuse. Besides, I normally explore links posted by others, always open to the idea I might gain additional insights.
Your claim to be atheist is not credible: No atheist in his / her right mind would lobby for local school boards to vote on religious prayers to be sponsored in public schools, regardless of whether said person supported the Constitution or not.
RightThinkingOne January 9th, 2017 at 17:53
You already decided that you would not accept any FACTS about how the states had Christian requirements and established churches – before and AFTER the Constitution was ratified – so there is absolutely no reason to “prove” what can be easily verified to such a person.
RightThinkingOne January 9th, 2017 at 17:54
It has nothing to do with atheism. You are suffering from cognitive dissonance: For you, an atheist has to be a certain way. It is illogical. I can post a dozen analogies to prove – without doubt – how illogical it is, but you would only do the usual.
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 9th, 2017 at 20:56
Okay, Doc, here’s the def:
“Cognitive dissonance: The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes,
especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.”
So you want to claim that I have inconsistent thoughts?! Project on, dude.
An atheist who lobbies for public schools to conduct prayers, subjecting captive schoolchildren with diverse backgrounds, with ONE religion to be selected by local school board “vote” (which we all know would be overwhelmingly Christian ) is inconsistent on its face, never mind that it would also violate the Establishment Clause.
Your position is akin to a thief who wants a police officer to be posted at every entrance of each place he wants to rob. Not seeing inconsistency? Then…
How about apply your rationale to race? Why not let the school board vote on the preferred race, and post signs and banners like “White people are trustworthy and dependable.” ?
” I can post a dozen analogies to prove – without doubt – how illogical it is, but you would only do the usual.”
Go for it! I dare you!
RightThinkingOne January 9th, 2017 at 21:28
The “inconsistent thoughts” cause stress and discomfort in cognitive dissonance. The person naturally tries to lessen the discomfort, so uses rationalizations, denies truth, or puts his hands over his ears and eyes.
In your case, you are suffering from CD because you have a mistaken conception about what atheists should be doing and thinking. You are wrong.
I explained my position, but it upsets you. Yes, I am a non-believer, and am for Liberty. That Liberty necessitates local decision-making to the greatest extent possible. If a school district decides on a moment of silence or a prayer – based on the decisions made by elected members of a school board – they should go for it. The only conflict would be if any students were forced to participate.
Otherwise, it is an exercise in self-government.
I do not care if you continue to suffer from CD. I have told you the truth.
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 10th, 2017 at 14:18
“The ‘inconsistent thoughts’ cause stress and discomfort in cognitive dissonance. The person naturally tries to lessen the discomfort, so uses rationalizations, denies truth, or puts his hands “over his ears and eyes.”
Yes, that is how I see you!
“In your case, you are suffering from CD…”
Are you a psychologist? What are your credentials?
“…because you have a mistaken conception about what atheists should be doing and thinking.”
What you are basing your (unqualified) medical assessment on is a faulty premise. I am always careful to avoid stereotyping groups of people. However, groups of people–by virtue of being in said groups–do in general exhibit meaningful and characterizable traits and trends.
To the point at hand, for most people religion is a personal and potentially sensitive issue. Atheists–as a rule–don’t want their children proselytized at by Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group, any more than Christians want their children proselytized by Muslims, Wiccans, or Muslims want their children proselytized by Christians, and so on. Is it possible that some people don’t mind their children being led in prayers by others, where their beliefs don’t align? I would grant that it is possible, though expect that to be exceedingly unusual.
“You are wrong.”
No, YOU are wrong! Touche!
“I explained my position, but it upsets you.”
Now you are making an assumption. I’m not upset. Actually, I find it stimulating to engage in discussions. Up to a point, at least…
Putting psychology aside for a moment, the bottom line is that there are certain fundamental rights that our laws protect, concerning sensitive areas like religion, race, and gender. Our governments are not allowed to discriminate against and/or show favoritism in these domains. You believe it’s okay for government agents / officials to promote particular religion(s) at the local level. I could say “I disagree with you,” but what the heck–running with your style…
You are wrong!
Don’t worry about me; I’m not suffering from CD, as you believe.
I don’t see that either of us are being productive in this thread anymore (I’m amazed that it’s still open!) so this is likely my last post here with you on this thread.
RightThinkingOne January 10th, 2017 at 18:11
Your CD is obvious. You think that atheists are supposed to act and think in a specific way. If one comes along who does not align with your thinking, you claim he is lying.
That is to force your pre-conceived notion, of course. Relieve CD stress.
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 11th, 2017 at 11:26
Not sure you even read my last post. You didn’t respond to my effort to clarify for you how most people feel about being led in prayers that aren’t congruent with their own beliefs, so let me ask you directly:
Do you disagree that most people–be they atheists, Christians, Muslims, or whatever religion–do NOT want to be led in a prayer that doesn’t match their ideology? And same–likely even more strongly against–for their children?
You say that you are an atheist and yet you champion local government-sponsored prayer, which I find stunning (and to use one of your buzzwords, “inconsistent”). That said, I’ll admit that I can’t prove you aren’t telling the truth about yourself.
The bottom line is, though, the way you feel personally about this issue does NOT match mainstream sentiment, so beyond the “government should remain neutral on religion” point that I champion (and I argue is set in the U.S. Constitution), the local government-sanctioned prayers you are in favor of and apparently would warm your heart would invariably cause conflict–not just for me and fellow freethinkers, but for a lot of people, including those of “non-selected” religious faiths. That is why majoritarianism on matters of religion (…and race, gender, etc.) is a bad idea; neutrality is a far better way to go.
RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 18:16
I don’t agree. For example, my wife and I are non-believers, but we will say prayers at our Christian friends’ houses before meals.
And we have traveled all over the world. When we were in Shinto or Hindu or Buddhist temples – in their CULTURE, in their NATION – we followed the ritual that included prayers or something similar.
Only a hater, a closed and intolerant person, or a narcissist who thinks the world should revolve around HIS personal desires would not either participate or actually enjoy.
It is stupid to think it is some kind of matter of “principle” to not be around others who are praying or enjoying something similar. What the….. does it hurt to just participate or remain silent? Only a selfish, hating reprobate would demand that they all give it up because he – the narcissist – feels uncomfortable for those 25-30 SECONDS.
whatthe46 January 11th, 2017 at 18:23
what is this hard on you have for an article from last year? you made no sense then, did you think remarking on it the following year you’d be clearer? LOLOLOL lets talk about your golden shower PEEOTUS. you fake “christian” thing.
RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 19:10
Not from any “article.” It is from truth. I am an atheist, and know plenty more non-believers. They have no problem saying a prayer at someone’s meal, a gathering, or following the prayers and even participating in the rituals at Hindu or Shinto temples, either.
Only a hateful, spiteful narcissist would demand that all sight and sound of such things that have been with us for centuries and bring joy to many people be eliminated because HE does not like them. What utter selfishness!
whatthe46 January 11th, 2017 at 22:22
liar
RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 22:48
I told the truth. You are like the reporters who perpetuate hatred.
whatthe46 January 11th, 2017 at 22:56
liar
RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 23:04
That is what close-minded people who are incapable of mature and cogent rejoinders write.
whatthe46 January 11th, 2017 at 23:50
lol. you’re ok with tRump calling everyone else a liar. does that mean he’s immature?
RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 00:35
I am glad that Donald J. Trump, next president of the greatest nation in the world, is going directly to the people and has the guts to stand up to these Leftist reporters.
whatthe46 January 12th, 2017 at 03:23
https://twitter.com/cat803/status/819429842298908672
you and vets i’m sure feel that way too. also, those ignorant racist red necks who voted against their own best interest as well, well, the majority believed that Obamacare & the ACA were different, will wake up to find, they don’t have healthcare anymore. also, women who voted for tRump lost a LOT of benefits. oh and they also voted against healthcare for CHILDREN! your S.S. & Mediare, Medicaid is next. well, that is if you even worked for it.
RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 18:06
“You and vets?” I am a veteran. In what branch did you serve?
whatthe46 January 12th, 2017 at 18:43
liar.
RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 20:10
OK, you did not serve in the military.
I did.
RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 18:07
ObamaCare is doomed. Even before Donald J. Trump becomes president of the greatest nation in the world, the GOP is already dismantling it. Bravo!
whatthe46 January 12th, 2017 at 18:43
well, i’m sure parents who have children with cancer appreciate your “christian” heart. oh and while you’re jumping for joy, they also took away CHIP. you know, healthcare for children. Amen.
RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 20:11
ObamaCare will be trashed. That is a good thing. There is no doubt, it is apodictic.
whatthe46 January 12th, 2017 at 20:34
tell her that asshole. and by the way, why is it so important to you that our American citizens not receive affordable healthcare? how is their deaths such a prize for you? answer the fk’n question or just STFU! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/480c0b33d34390fdac70350f8ce48e81555b3c54f6fe881d2c63056dc2dde676.jpg
RightThinkingOne January 12th, 2017 at 20:49
Irrational post by you. That is the reason that I rarely post to you and usually regret it when I do.
RightThinkingOne January 10th, 2017 at 18:13
Yes, it is fine for local school boards to decide schools have a moment of silence or something like the Lord’s Prayer. Ever look at the words? Only a hater and radical could rail out against spending 25 SECONDS (try timing it, pal) on that at the beginning of the day.
FreethinkingWorldGuy January 11th, 2017 at 11:05
“Yes, it is fine for local school boards to decide schools have a moment of silence…”
Right on! Agreed! What’s nice about a moment of silence is that it can be UNIVERSALLY embraced and enjoyed, whether your are religious or not. You can pray silently during that time if you like, meditate, or ponder whatever you like. Truly ALL-inclusive.
“…or something like the Lord’s Prayer.”
Oops! That we disagree on.
“Only a hater and radical…”
Those are mightily charged words there. In spite of your insinuations, I am neither of those. Hate is a particularly strong word, and one I’d suggest you use with care. For the record, I don’t hate anyone–not even those who disagree with me. And I don’t hate the Lord’s Prayer either. But if anyone tries to get my kids to recite it (or any other religious prayer, for that matter), then I AM going to be annoyed, and I WILL speak up.
RightThinkingOne January 11th, 2017 at 18:11
Read the words to the Lord’s Prayer. Show me where it specifies a religion.
Even if it did – which it does not, of course – it is up to the local community.
RightThinkingOne December 26th, 2016 at 23:27
It does not matter that “Under God” was added later. Our very beginnings were primarily “under God,” of course. Read what the colonists and founders wrote and did and said.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 27th, 2016 at 08:46
I just realized you’ve been caught in a LIE! You claimed in an earlier post that you’re
an atheist. But you said this just now: “Our very beginnings were primarily
‘under God,’ of course.”
Your credibility is GONE.
That noted, I’ll go ahead and address fallacies from your post once more:
“It does not matter that ‘Under God’ was added later.”
Oh yeah? Tens of millions of Americans disagree with you. They include freethinkers, agnostics, humanists, Hindus–basically ALL non-monotheists. Bellamy’s ORIGINAL words were GENIUS–they constituted words ALL Americans could proudly stand behind, regardless of religious persuasion. The “Under God” bit was interjected by a Christian Congress majority during the communist “red scare” period, converting the pledge from all-inclusive to DIVISIVE! (… so much for “one nation, indivisible…” It just got DIVIDED by “under God”!).
You know, there’s a basic principle of fairness that you ignore here. We could have the school kids recite something like “We all love chocolate!” every day–perhaps right after the Pledge. True, it would make 90% of the kids feel warm and fuzzy, and put a smile on their faces. And maybe the teacher has a practical reason to do that: She has a chocolate treat to give to the best-behaved child for the day, so the children have an extra incentive to behave.
But you know what? Not everyone likes chocolate (I like vanilla more, myself). So coming back to the pledge, we don’t NEED the adulterating interjected phrase “under God”, even if, your claim that our beginnings were primary so were true.
RightThinkingOne January 2nd, 2017 at 19:10
That was the concept. It was the concept – that is the fact of history.
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 20:31
As far as atheism and being moral, there is another version that I am convinced is valid: Morals evolved in societies. There are some basics common to all societies, and a lot of variation.
Now, each single generation cannot get together and decide what is moral and what is not. The morals get passed down. Of course, they start modifying depending on a lot of things, but the fundamental things are passed down, not created on the spot.
This is where “religion” comes in: Religions CODIFY those morals. It gives them a rationale, a reason for them. Religion thus helps preserve morals that developed over centuries. Therefore, even an atheist in a culture that was predominately Christian does not suddenly change his moral structure just because he stopped – or chose not to – believe any longer. No. Those morals pretty much stay the same.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 16th, 2016 at 18:22
“Now, each single generation cannot get together and decide what is moral and what is not.”
Poppycock! Of course they could!
“The morals get passed down. Of course, they start modifying depending on a lot of things…”
Yes, both true in general.
“…but the fundamental things are passed down, not created on the spot.”
What you don’t seem to be aware of is that morals come fundamentally from NATURE, not SUPERNATURE. One cool way to see this is via recent studies of monkeys in which we directly observe moral behavior (what religion are the monkeys, LOL!?). Here is a link on this from TED Talks (video):
https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals
“This is where ‘religion’ comes in: Religions CODIFY those morals.”
Yes, religions do codify morals–which may work for it’s followers, and maybe for some others too (I hasten to point out that SOME morals codified by religions are nearly universal; “Love they neighbor”, and “Thou shalt not kill”–good stuff!!!).
But religions are not necessary for establishment of good moral code.
“Therefore, even an atheist in a culture that was predominately Christian does not suddenly change his moral structure just because he stopped – or chose not to – believe any longer”
First of all, we are ALL born atheist. Secondly, you are overlooking that some atheists–like me–NEVER was indoctrinated. So I didn’t “just stop” or choose not to “believe any longer.”
In spite of what you may believe, and certainly what many preachers will claim, one does not have to be–or have ever been–religious, to be moral.
RightThinkingOne December 26th, 2016 at 23:29
Yes, like natural rights.
whatthe46 December 15th, 2016 at 06:56
and guess what? he was wrong and so are you. and stop pretending to be “christian.”
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:41
“We have a responsibility to try to shape the government so that it does exemplify the will of God.
– Jimmy Carter
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:42
FDR: “(America was) founded on the principles of Christianity.”
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:42
“Today the whole world is divided between human slavery and human freedom – between pagan brutality and the Christian ideal.”
-FDR radio address, 1940, referring to England and the Nazis
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:42
“Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land…
And this be our motto ‘In God is our Trust.’”
Part of a stanza from the Star-Spangled Banner, made our National Anthem by an ACT OF CONGRESS, 1931
Obewon December 12th, 2016 at 20:45
You’re so well proven full of sh!t by our Diest Founders. BLASPHEMER!!!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:45
ACT OF CONGRESS, 1931
Obewon December 12th, 2016 at 20:47
You lied and were busted. Our Founders were Diest. They did not believe in your comic book fairytale. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55a3b46ca2f6c599aba7381a694aae43138c70093785c67e532e5dfd4dbe0338.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:48
“For the Americans, the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of one without the other; it is not a question with them of sterile beliefs bequeathed by the past.”
-Alexis de Tocqueville
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:49
The “Treaty of Tripoli” is misused to imply that it actually means some kind of denial of religious belief or “secularism” per se.
First of all, nobody ever said, as in that treaty, that America “founded on the Christian religion.” That is accurate. There is a huge and complete difference between being founded on something, and being culturally something and being influenced and guided by something. Our national government was not founded on any religion, otherwise we could be called a Theocracy, and would have a national church, laws requiring attendance, membership, taxes in support, etc.
The Muslims were suspicious of Christians – because of the Crusades and centuries of religious war.
That statement was written to assure them that there would be no religious war waged against them; the same paragraph of the “founding” statement ends with: “[I]t is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Obewon December 12th, 2016 at 20:50
You lie, were busted. Now GTFO!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:51
Fact are difficult for some people. Sorry.
Obewon December 12th, 2016 at 20:55
Founder George Washington’s USA Treaty of Tripoli is U.S. Law, as ratified by by the Congress and signed into law by POTUS02 John Adams. Busted again as a VERY Well proven LIAR. Go to Hell in a hurry. Russian Roulette!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 21:17
No, it was to relax the Musslemen.
Obewon December 12th, 2016 at 21:06
I posted facts that most of our founders were Diest, not Christians. You lie constantly. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/55a3b46ca2f6c599aba7381a694aae43138c70093785c67e532e5dfd4dbe0338.jpg
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 21:18
Read what I wrote. You are wrong in your conclusions. You have created a straw man. Very dishonest.
whatthe46 December 12th, 2016 at 21:09
the FACT that you refuse to say out loud what we already know about you is difficult, considering you’re a lying ass. you are about as “christian” as the pope is an atheist. you are a racist, a bigot and a huge homophobe. you are a pathetic little meaningless speck. and no one really give a damn about you.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:50
But another treaty was signed with the same group when Jefferson was the president. It was referred to as The Treaty of Peace and Amity: Jefferson deliberately removed the word which said America was not a Christian nation!
The treaties:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1805t.asp
Obewon December 12th, 2016 at 20:52
5 of many reasons why you were so easily proven full of crap. http://www.alternet.org/story/155985/5_reasons_america_is_not_–_and_has_never_been_–_a_christian_nation
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 21:16
You are wrong. You are dishonest. I never said or implied we are a “Christian nation.” Try reading. We are a Christian culture. Our roots are heavily influenced by Christianity. We are not a theocracy.
READ what I write instead of distorting and going to extremist sites to find out anything that remotely seems to support what you WANT.
A bigger question would be – and I know you will not answer it – is WHY are you, and people like you, so determined to attack Christianity, to promote the myth that our founders were primarily Deists? You KNOW – if you will be honest about it – that this “Deism” codswallop is promoted only so you can say that they were not Christians.
Now the verbal games, the obfuscation, and the denials will come from you.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:46
FDR: “(America was) founded on the principles of Christianity.”
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:47
“At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged.”
-March 27, 1854, House Committee on the Judiciary
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:47
“The recognition of the CHRISTIAN Sabbath [by the Constitution] is complete and perfect.”
-Senate Judiciary Committee, January 18, 1853, commenting on the “Sundays excepted” provision in Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution
Obewon December 12th, 2016 at 20:48
Dope! We’ve debunked that faux news before. Azzhole!
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:49
History. Facts. Verifiable facts and quotes.
Checkmate.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:42
“We are a Christian people.”
-United States v. Macintosh, United States Supreme Court, 1931
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:43
“The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that…”
-Calvin Coolidge
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:43
“America was born a Christian nation.”
– Woodrow Wilson, 1911
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:43
“This is a religious people….this is a Christian nation.”
-Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, United States Supreme Court, 1892
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:43
“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and CHRISTIAN countries.” (emphasis added)
-Davis v. Beason, United States Supreme Court, 1889
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:44
“The proposition that the United States of America [is] a Christian….nation, is….the statement of fact.”
-Charles Hodge, President of Princeton, 1871
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 20:44
As early as the mid-1850s, there were petitions to Congress to separate church and state – remove chaplains from the Congressional halls and the military. The Judiciary Committee of Congress responded as follows, on January 19, 1853:
“The ground on which the petitioners found [their demand is that] the provisions of the law….are in violation of the first amendment…It thus becomes necessary to inquire whether the position of the petitioners be correct.”
They concluded: “We are a CHRISTIAN people…not because the law demands it, but from choice and education; and in a land thus UNIVERSALLY CHRISTIAN, what is to be expected, what is desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to CHRISTIANITY?”
Another response later, March 27, 1854: “Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect….In this age there can be no substitute for CHRISTIANITY…That was the religion of the FOUNDERS of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”
RightThinkingOne December 11th, 2016 at 19:59
The “principal?” Note that it is the school board, made up of elected people, who decide. And where in the Lord’s Prayer is Jesus mentioned? Why should any Muslim object? Or even an atheist like me? (Of course, even as a non-believer, I would not object, and I hope prayers like that would be in the schools.)
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 08:36
Like I mentioned elsewhere, when it comes to public institutions, we cannot have committees, school boards or the like voting on which prayer(s) will be conducted. Freedom of religion is a precious right, and one that is not subject to vote by a governing majority.
whatthe46 December 13th, 2016 at 08:41
he’s a hypocrite from the likes of hell that even satan believes is to hot venture.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 15th, 2016 at 06:33
A little harsh, but I’m getting your point!
whatthe46 December 15th, 2016 at 07:19
he works my nerves. i can’t help it.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 18:05
Yes, it is a “precious individual right,” and that is what I advocate. I advocate Liberty, not a perversion of our founding principles to placate atheist haters and malcontents.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 19:38
Your language demonstrates–across multiple posts–that you equate defenders of the Constitution (including amendments)–as “haters and malcontents.” There’s a job waiting for you at Faux News. I suggest you apply today.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 20:35
No, trying to exclude religion from the sight and sound of people by undermining states’ powers and attacking Christianity from every conceivable angle, is what haters and malcontents do, of course. Heck, how can a person be considered “tolerant” if he can’t just walk by a 10 Commandments monument without wanting to take it down by going to the Supreme Court? If that ain’t HATE, I have no idea what the word means!
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 21:51
I–and nearly all of the freethinkers I know–have NO PROBLEM with ten commandment monuments on private property. But installing them on public property–unless other views / monuments / displays can share the public space–is what is crosses the line and is unacceptable.
Would you be tolerant of a satanic display on public property, alongside–or in place of–a ten commandments display?
Mensa Member December 13th, 2016 at 22:03
Exactly,
While there are some atheists who are as eliminationist as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, most I know believe in freedom of religion — as long as it remains in the private sphere.
And I, as a Christian, could not agree more. A very high wall between church and state is good for both the church and the state.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:14
Maybe you don’t. But the atheist haters managed to get the SUPREME COURT involved to get it TORN DOWN!
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:15
No, it is silly to think that one can get around 2,000 other religions displayed, or one cannot put up a creche in a nation that has origins in Christianity.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 15th, 2016 at 06:10
“No, it is silly to think that one can get around 2,000 other religions
displayed…”
Agreed! See there is common ground.
“… or one cannot put up a creche in a nation that has origins in
Christianity.”
DOH! So it’s YOUR favorite religion, or NONE?! Sorry, but even if your “origins in Christianity” claim reflected the whole picture (which it doesn’t), using history as an excuse to promote EXCLUSIVELY ONE religion on public property and/or via public institutions with public tax dollars is WRONG!
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 18:56
No, it is chaos. It is juvenile.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 18:47
Another attack on our culture:
“ACLU suing Indiana town over cross display as part of Christmas decorations”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/aclu-suing-knightstown-indiana-cross-display-christmas-decorations/
Mensa Member December 12th, 2016 at 22:39
This is an affirmation of American culture. We are not a theocracy that officially endorses one religion.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 23:22
It is a denial of our very heritage, our roots. It is hateful.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 10:23
First, the U.S. Constitution, which establishes separation of church and state, IS a part of our heritage, which you deny.
Second, government NEUTRALITY on matters of religion does NOT constitute hate, in spite of your belief that it does. Co-opting public resources to forward ANY religion is not just unconstitutional, it is myopic and selfish.
Moreover, religious organizations–many of which are multi-million dollar enterprises–already enjoy tax exemption status. They don’t need to co-opt public resources.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 18:08
You wrote, “the U.S. Constitution, which establishes separation of church and state….”
I am always amazed when I find that there are people who actually think that is in our Constitution. I always ask them to show me where.
I EAGERLY await you to show me.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 19:25
You’re mincing words here. Of course, as you well know, I am referring to the First Amendment to the Constitution. You are playing a silly game to act as if the amendments aren’t part of the Constitution.
To round out your understanding from a legal perspective, this is from uscourts.gov:
“First Amendment and Religion
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from “establishing” a religion. The precise definition of “establishment” is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
Today, what constitutes an “establishment of religion” is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the “Lemon” test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.”
Full link here:
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/first-amendment-and-religion
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 19:37
I know the decision. I know about that and many more. I know you referred to the Constitution and that you are wrong. I know that many people think it is in the Constitution.
I know who wrote the letter to which the atheist haters and activists on the Court distorted. Do YOU know who? If you do, I have some interesting FACTS to tell you about that person whose letter was distorted, perverted and twisted by atheist haters.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 07:54
No, this is a DEFENSE of our culture.
Why is it not enough for some religious people to sport religious symbols on PRIVATE properties, like their homes, their churches, and bodies? They feel that they MUST place THEIR CHOSEN religious symbols on public property! Sorry, but that is unconstitutional and leads to conflicts. Which is a good segue into…
Sometimes, when those in charge at public institutions refuse to remove (always Christian) religious symbols and displays, groups like FFRF.org petition for allowance to place other-view displays, like “The Season for Reason” banners, or displays featuring our founding fathers. The city/county/state eventually allows equity (called “fairness”; usually requires legal actions), but you know what routinely happens? Vandals DESTROY the secular display, usually within days of install!
Piety- and religiously-driven selfishness for exclusively placing only “chosen” (e.g. Christian, Latin crosses) on public properties, as well as destruction of other-view displays, are attacks on fairness and our culture.
whatthe46 December 13th, 2016 at 08:02
you’re talking to a brick wall there. i applaud your effort though.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 08:29
Yeah, but with his moniker “RightThinkingOne” complete with smiling Ronald Reagan and American flag backdrop, he has instant cred, right? LOL!
Seriously, it has become an exercise in writing. My typing fingers are getting raw! In truth, at this point my posts probably have more potential value for other readers than the “RightThinkingOne.”
whatthe46 December 13th, 2016 at 08:40
“…my posts probably have more potential value for other readers…” you’re exactly right.
Carla Akins December 13th, 2016 at 09:01
This ^^^^^^
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 18:04
It is what the people want, and it does incredible good. Christmas is a season of joy, of promoting love, of family. But atheist haters want to destroy it.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 21:16
“It is what the people want…”
So you now speak for [all] the people?
“… and it does incredible good.”
Such as?
“Christmas is a
season of joy, of promoting love, of family.”
Hey, if that’s how you celebrate December 25th, more power to you! Actually, speaking for myself and many freethinkers I know, we celebrate too at this time of year. We exchange gifts, think of each other, share food, time, love– it’s all good.
“But atheist haters want to
destroy it.”
Borrowing from a soon-to-be-famous (or infamous, as we will find out soon enough) U.S. President Elect, “WRONG!”
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 21:26
Atheist haters want Christmas carols out of schools. They want creches torn down. They try to stop the “Merry Christmas” greeting and have “Happy Holidays” instead. They mock Christmas and say it is “pagan.” They want to stop any celebration of Christmas in schools.
The hate is incredible. Overwhelming. It drove the Congress of the United States to make a proclamation to preserve our Christmas holiday against the onslaught of the atheist haters, and it was agreed to virtually unanimously!
Mensa Member December 12th, 2016 at 09:47
>> I disagree. Nobody reasonable wants a theocracy.
I’ve heard my fellow Evangelical Christians say “American is a Christian country” said literally thousands of times.
I think you have, too. Why would you disagree?
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 18:23
I used the word “culture.” Our nation was created, out of the wilderness, by primarily Christian people. By people of a Christian culture. Our Constitution was essentially based on former state constitutions, and those, in turn, came primarily from covenants and compacts.
Mensa Member December 12th, 2016 at 22:37
You said that nobody wants a theocracy.
Seriously? You have never heard Christians say that America has to worship God again? Or “get back to God” Or “put God first” (or one of a zillion ways to describe theocracy?
As for America coming from a Christian culture — that’s a bit of history revisionism. Yes, some, like the Puritans were Christian. Others were deists. Many were motivated by profit. Many by nationalism.
Democracy clearly comes from Greek and Roman paganism, not the Bible. Native American self-governance was also highly influential.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 23:29
Yes. It is imperative for not only America, but for Western civilization.
Why don’t we listen to the warnings of Solzhenitsyn? He won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature. He made a speech at Harvard in 1978 in which he talked about “the decline of courage in the West” and the consequences of appeasement of the Soviets. Some did not like that he defended liberty “under God” and criticized the “tilt of freedom toward evil” in the culture.
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 23:29
“The western world has lost its civil courage… Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among… the intellectual elite, causing an impression of loss of courage by the entire society.”
-Solzhenitsyn, 1978
RightThinkingOne December 12th, 2016 at 23:30
Solzhenitsyn referred to God, and the “intelligentsia” turning against Him, and said, “When external rights are completely unrestricted, why should one make an inner effort to restrain oneself from ignoble acts?”
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 09:14
Extending beyond an “our nation” view for a moment, my hope is that, in the face of planetary threats like global warming, people of ALL persuasions, including Christian, Muslim and freethinkers, will not leave the fate of the planet up to beliefs, and will come together and pro-actively tackle such issues.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 18:07
It is about “our nation.” The post was not some kind of invitation for totally unrelated, meaningless pompous platitudes.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 19:35
You are naive if you don’t think that religion is linked to world problems, but that finding common ground can lead to attacking them. Religion does–for some people–give them an excuse to blow off concerns about planetary scale problems, because they believe that “God will take care of everything (including the planet)”, and/or Earch is just a stepping stone to Heavn, so not that big of a deal. (That said, some religious people envision “God’s green earth” or equivalent, and that motivates them to care–that’s great!)
I was attempting to broaden scope to a world perspective for a moment, recognizing that there is common ground to be had, in spite of differences. If you are capable of following a tangent, but aren’t interested, then don’t follow it. If you’re not capable of doing so, then that’s your limitation.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 20:30
No. Religion would encourage taking care of the body and the environment.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 14th, 2016 at 10:54
That’s great that you see things that way! Problem is, not all religious people hold that view.
RightThinkingOne December 14th, 2016 at 17:42
Non sequitor used by haters of religion: They find that 100% of the people adhering to a Christian sect are not absolutely sinless and perfect, 100% of the time, and in 100% of the situations, so they actually assert that the religion is therefore invalid or mock it in some other ways.
It demonstrates a complete inability to understand not only religion but humankind.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 15th, 2016 at 16:15
It may be non sequitur for you. But I have met a number of people who don’t give a flip about the environment, but who are very religious, running on the belief that their God will take care of everything, including planet Earth.
I was actually complementing you that you are NOT such a person. Sad that you not only can’t even take that, but feel compelled to act like you are think King of universal truths and wisdom–which you are NOT.
From this and other posts, you obviously love to use terms like “haters of religion.” While there are some who probably do fit that description, you are off the mark: The truth is that many–if not most–freethinkers recognize diversity and are interested in peaceful co-existence. They might be open to philosophical and/or theological discussions, or the may not want to discuss religion at all, feeling that to be a private matter, and less important than concrete realities–people and things they KNOW, as opposed to believing (such as helping your fellow man, woman or child, because it’s simply the right thing to do).
However, what freethinkers almost universally DO HATE–with you excepted, as you say you are one–is when religious people, in their piousness and zeal, try to force-feed their beliefs on them and their children, whether it is one-on-one, multi-on-one, or by abusing public resources to do so.
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 19:01
Not valid: Being a person of religious faith does not equate to not wanting to support environmental wacko-extremists who want to “protect” ANWR in Alaska (a barren and useless place), or stop pipelines from Canada, or control how we heat and cool our houses.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 15th, 2016 at 20:12
Your phrase “environmental wacko-extremists” seethes with contempt and disrespect. You might want to check that.
We (and I mean Christians, Muslims, Freethinkers, Hindus–all human beings) need to pay attention to what we are, collectively, doing to the planet. If how we “… heat and cool our houses…” is wrecking the planet, then let’s set religious differences aside and figure out how to do better.
Are you IN or OUT?
RightThinkingOne December 15th, 2016 at 20:33
Yes. I have contempt for the extremist environmentalists. That is because of their political agenda.
Two examples:
In California, they tried to control the color one’s car would be. That is because some colors absorb more heat, etc.
In Vermont, they tried to stop builders from including fireplaces. Don’t want more trees cut down or whatever.
And their agenda DOES require international government. That is heinous, execrable.
whatthe46 December 15th, 2016 at 21:09
liar. you’re a traitor to your country. you’re proud of putin and the fact that your racist-in-chief is being played by a communist, which makes him a pu&&y, and you have the audacity to have contempt for “extremist environmentalist?” give me a break. hypocrite.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 16th, 2016 at 08:07
Your “extreme-or-nothing” position is not valid. Recycling should be common sense basic environmentalism, but isn’t. My observational experience is that the more religious people are, the LESS they recycle.
RightThinkingOne December 26th, 2016 at 23:25
Please show me data on that.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 27th, 2016 at 08:53
I suggest you do what I just did: Do a search on “does recycling help”. You’ll have lots to read, but to help you along this popped up first:
“As more waste is put into landfills, the bigger the problem gets. Products that are not biodegradable or are slow to decompose can
remain in landfill sites for centuries, often emitting gases that could
be harmful to the environment. Keeping paper out of landfills is just
one way that recycling helps the environment.”
Aluminum is 99% recyclable. Mountains and ecosystems are destroyed to get metals of all sorts. So reusing and recycling materials slows those kinds of damage down. I could go on all day on this, but I’m sure you yourself can find data of the type you asked me for.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 20:32
“Common ground?” Reminds me of the Obama-style of thinking in which we should just tell Muslims how much their religion is one of “peace” and open our borders to millions of “refugees” to prove how “tolerant” we are. Then, we will all get together in a multicultural, diverse nation and sing Kumbaya.
FreethinkingWorldGuy December 13th, 2016 at 22:20
You might be surprised that I partially agree with you on Obama’s position on Islam: I agree that it is not a U.S. President’s place to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. The fundamental problem is that ANY religion is open to interpretation, typically derived from their respective “holy books”. That is why some imams DO preach peace, but others preach violence, each justifying their position on THEIR INTERPRETATION of Islam. (As an aside, the same can be said with Christianity; however, my impression is that the vast majority of both Christians–and Muslims–are peaceful, for which I am grateful.) That said, anyone who operates from a position of peace and mutual respect–regardless of their religion–is positioned for harmonious coexistence with others. Speaking of common ground, peace and mutual respect are good aspects to reach for, which leads me to…
I cannot get on board with shooting down a search for common ground. In my book, it’s always a good thing to strive for, even if there are aggravating differences. It may not always be possible to find common ground, but in general it’s worthy of pursuit.
Mensa Member December 13th, 2016 at 22:27
I got curious and checked Obama’s quote. He is a very careful speaker and gets intentionally misquoted a lot.
Is this the quote you are referring to?
>> Islam is a religion that preaches peace and the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/09/28/obama_islam_is_a_religion_that_preaches_peace.html
This is a factual statement. They do preach peace. Muslims are overwhelmingly peaceful.
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:32
The problem with Islam is that it refuses to be “secularized.” That is, it demands a theocracy, unlike Judaism (see Israel), Hinduism, and Christianity.
Yes, there can be common ground on some things, and not on others. It is illogical and immature to think that “we can all come to some common ground.” Sometimes that is not possible.
whatthe46 December 13th, 2016 at 22:39
“…it demands a theocracy, unlike Judaism (see Israel), Hinduism, and Christianity.” bullfuckingshit!
RightThinkingOne December 13th, 2016 at 22:43
It does.
whatthe46 December 13th, 2016 at 22:46
i SAID: bullfuckingshit!