Atheists VS American Legion

[red states rule]

Once again, the majority suffers as the "offended" minority throws a temper tantrum

How the hell can reasonable person be offended over a memorial for fallen Police officers?

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTKOFqLsgHs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTKOFqLsgHs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

The more I read about this story the more pissed off I get. Why would athiests care about crosses? Do they care simply to be a pain in the ass?

The crosses are a expression of faith and honoring the dead. It is not a state sponsored religion

[fj1200]

The more I read about this story the more pissed off I get. Why would athiests care about crosses? Do they care simply to be a pain in the ass?

The crosses are a expression of faith and honoring the dead. It is not a state sponsored religion

People prefer to confuse "separation of church and state" with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's a difference.

[red states rule]

People prefer to confuse "separation of church and state" with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's a difference.

The God hating lefties and the ACLU are always wanting to remove all public references to God

Why, I will never know

Next up the lefts annual War on Christmas

[maineman]

The God hating lefties and the ACLU are always wanting to remove all public references to God

Why, I will never know

Next up the lefts annual War on Christmas

and again, real Christians don't need to have their tax dollars spent on nativity scenes on public. We can go to our churches and our homes can be decorated to celebrate the season. Christmas in America has become a commercial enterprise and the message of Jesus has long been lost in the process.

[red states rule]

and again, real Christians don't need to have their tax dollars spent on nativity scenes on public. We can go to our churches and our homes can be decorated to celebrate the season. Christmas in America has become a commercial enterprise and the message of Jesus has long been lost in the process.

You talking about God, church, and the message is like Bill Clinton lecturing others on the importance of fidelity in a marriage

You are the last person I would listen to when it comes to matters of religon and what God expects from us

[maineman]

You talking about God, church, and the message is like Bill Clinton lecturing others on the importance of fidelity in a marriage

You are the last person I would listen to when it comes to matters of religon and what God expects from us

You would never listen to me about anything... and I would be the same. I know my faith, and I know my church, and I feel confident that we have the right idea when it comes to Christmas. Christmas, to you and your ilk, is about buying THINGS and I feel pretty sure that Jesus would not want his birthday trivialized like that.

[red states rule]

You would never listen to me about anything... and I would be the same. I know my faith, and I know my church, and I feel confident that we have the right idea when it comes to Christmas. Christmas, to you and your ilk, is about buying THINGS and I feel pretty sure that Jesus would not want his birthday trivialized like that.

You are right opn that

You are a liar, a dirtbag, a schemer, and you remind me a piece of decaying dog shit on the sidewalk

It is libs like you that are destroying this nation by constantly wanting to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of us and making us live our lives the way you dem we should

So spare me and the rest of us your usal pity party Virgil. I just want you out of here and let you crawl back into the sewers of your town in Maine

[maineman]

You are right opn that

You are a liar, a dirtbag, a schemer, and you remind me a piece of decaying dog shit on the sidewalk

It is libs like you that are destroying this nation by constantly wanting to impose YOUR beliefs on the rest of us and making us live our lives the way you dem we should

So spare me and the rest of us your usal pity party Virgil. I just want you out of here and let you crawl back into the sewers of your town in Maine

I would suggest that, by using city tax dollars that come from Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Atheists to erect a shrine to Christ's birth on public property, it is the Religious Right who are imposing their beliefs on everyone else and expecting them to pay for it as well.

[red states rule]

I would suggest that, by using city tax dollars that come from Christians and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Atheists to erect a shrine to Christ's birth on public property, it is the Religious Right who are imposing their beliefs on everyone else and expecting them to pay for it as well.

Look stupid, the crosses are NOT a symbol conveying a religion

They are a memorial to policemen who died in the line of duty. Some where the cross was put up

Now do you get it?

[maineman]

Look stupid, the crosses are NOT a symbol conveying a religion

They are a memorial to policemen who died in the line of duty. Some where the cross was put up

Now do you get it?

I was responding to you comment about the upcoming "war against Christmas"

sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[jimnyc]

You would never listen to me about anything... and I would be the same. I know my faith, and I know my church, and I feel confident that we have the right idea when it comes to Christmas. Christmas, to you and your ilk, is about buying THINGS and I feel pretty sure that Jesus would not want his birthday trivialized like that.

How do you reconcile your faith and your relationship with Jesus - and your ability to use the "C" word when speaking to women?

[maineman]

How do you reconcile your faith and your relationship with Jesus - and your ability to use the "C" word when speaking to women?

I am a sinner... as are you. Sometimes I fail. Sometimes I let my anger overtake my faith. I guess I wasn't aware that you had achieved perfection.

[jimnyc]

and again, real Christians don't need to have their tax dollars spent on nativity scenes on public. We can go to our churches and our homes can be decorated to celebrate the season. Christmas in America has become a commercial enterprise and the message of Jesus has long been lost in the process.


You would never listen to me about anything... and I would be the same. I know my faith, and I know my church, and I feel confident that we have the right idea when it comes to Christmas. Christmas, to you and your ilk, is about buying THINGS and I feel pretty sure that Jesus would not want his birthday trivialized like that.


I am a sinner... as are you. Sometimes I fail. Sometimes I let my anger overtake my faith. I guess I wasn't aware that you had achieved perfection.

No perfection here, but I also don't try and lecture others, or proclaim to have been a minister, nor try to have an aura of superiority when speaking of my faith. Those who run around using the "C" word, and non-stop using other cuss words, probably shouldn't be lecturing in the slightest bit.

[maineman]

No perfection here, but I also don't try and lecture others, or proclaim to have been a minister, nor try to have an aura of superiority when speaking of my faith. Those who run around using the "C" word, and non-stop using other cuss words, probably shouldn't be lecturing in the slightest bit.

I am not lecturing anyone about anything. I DO have an opinion about this whole faux "war on Christmas" stuff.... Christmas is a holiday that Christians celebrate... it ought not to require that non-Christians be forced to spend their tax dollars to erect nativity scenes on public property to mark a season that really has become nothing but an excuse to shop for stuff.

[jimnyc]

I am not lecturing anyone about anything. I DO have an opinion about this whole faux "war on Christmas" stuff.... Christmas is a holiday that Christians celebrate... it ought not to require that non-Christians be forced to spend their tax dollars to erect nativity scenes on public property to mark a season that really has become nothing but an excuse to shop for stuff.

A nativity scene in front of city hall has WHAT to do with some people perverting the holiday for money?

[maineman]

A nativity scene in front of city hall has WHAT to do with some people perverting the holiday for money?

it has to do with CHristians forcing non-Christians to subsidize their religion.

the fact that the holiday is more about shopping that about Christ is just a related issue.

[jimnyc]

it has to do with CHristians forcing non-Christians to subsidize their religion.

the fact that the holiday is more about shopping that about Christ is just a related issue.

At probably 99% of these places the scenes are donated by happy Christians and paid for by happy Christians. The complaining idiots complain about having to see it. Towns generally spend more money on paperwork detailing the problems than it costs to just leave things be. Take a guess at what it costs to generate all the paperwork to be mailed out, then the postage to do so to everyone within a town. Now take a guess at how much it costs to display the scene with donated money from those who like it.

[maineman]

At probably 99% of these places the scenes are donated by happy Christians and paid for by happy Christians. The complaining idiots complain about having to see it. Towns generally spend more money on paperwork detailing the problems than it costs to just leave things be. Take a guess at what it costs to generate all the paperwork to be mailed out, then the postage to do so to everyone within a town. Now take a guess at how much it costs to display the scene with donated money from those who like it.

any money spent to erect a religious shrine for the holidays that comes from the tax coffers is wrong, imho.

[jimnyc]

any money spent to erect a religious shrine for the holidays that comes from the tax coffers is wrong, imho.

If you read what I wrote, I spelled it out that the majority of these scenes are put up and completely paid for by donations. EVERY year in EVERY town I have ever lived in - there were fund drives near or at city hall looking for donations for just these scenes, for Christmas parties and other Christian events - SOLELY so that people like you wouldn't complain that they were paid for by the city.

[red states rule]

any money spent to erect a religious shrine for the holidays that comes from the tax coffers is wrong, imho.

the left is showing their contempt for anyone who disagrees with them




Christians Ruining Christmas for Everyone
The folks here at Seattle Hemp Products are all in a titter over the holidays. There will be no tittering in my cubicle this year, though. As chairman of the company's morale committee, I've been charged with the dreaded task of planning an office "holiday party" that is both festive, and inclusive of all people of all faiths.

Except Christians. In past years, we've had problems with Christian extremists going nuts and wishing people a "Merry Christmas" despite being strictly warned not to, so we decided to exclude them entirely from this year's event. I had a cunning and quite hilarious plan to issue bogus invitations with phony dates and locations to any suspected Christian employees, but CEO Tony "Sherm" Sherman nixed it. Too risky, he said. Some clever Jesus freak might get wise to the scheme and crash the party. They might start singing "Christmas Carols" or mention Christ - a clear violation of the Separation of Church and State. So we all agreed it would be best to simply fire the Christians rather than risk them ruining anybody's Christmas.


I put human resources diva Christina Draper in charge of refreshments, provided she change her first name to something less offensive. Teena suggested we go potluck, but that never works because everyone always brings corn chips and twinkies. A few bad apples might even bring religiously-themed food, such as christmas tree cookies or egg nog, and then all hell would break loose. So after weighing the risks and costs, I decided to scrap the food this year. If anyone is hungry, there's a Denny's right across the street.


Entertainment posed another problem. We hired a lounge singer one year, but he freaked out in the middle of Bob Seger's "Hollywood Nights" and spontaneously segued into "O Holy Night". Several non-Christian employees were seriously offended before we were able to tackle the bastard to the ground and toss him out of the building. So no entertainment, either. Thanks, biblethumpers, for sucking even more joy out of the hoilidays!

Gone also is the traditional, yet highly offensive, arrival of Santa Claus and gift exchange portion of the evening. I can't begin to list all the religious connotations regarding jolly ol' "Saint Nick". So instead of Santa arriving on his "sleigh" and passing out presents to all the employees' children, I thought it would be neat to have a homeless person stagger in, lay a guilt trip on everybody, and then pass out. The boss put a kibosh on that one as well, unfortunately. What if the bum turned out to be a Christian? In his drunkeness, he might start proselytzing to the kiddies. They might get weird ideas into their heads. They might start voting Republican and beating up gays. So with heavy heart, we agreed to ban children from the party altogether for their own safety.

Lastly, and most importantly, was what to name the event. "Christmas Party" was out of the question for obvious reasons. "Holiday Party" implied that there was a holiday to celebrate, which pointed a gnarled finger right back at Christmas. So after much deliberation, we all agreed on "Mandatory Staff Meeting". It's simple, politically correct, and has the ACLU's seal of approval.

Seattle Hemp Product's first annual Mandatory Staff Metting will be held tomorrow, Thursday the 16th of December at 11:17 am. In the spirit of the season, all employees will be required to gather in the break room and jab forks into their thighs in pennance for 2000 years of white male hegemony.

Now before you start sending me hate mail, let me assure you that they're all specially made biodegradable forks crafted from fine hemp.

Complimentary, of course. What do you think I am, some sort of Scrooge?

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/12/christians_ruin.html

[red states rule]

A nativity scene in front of city hall has WHAT to do with some people perverting the holiday for money?

Jim, how about those folks who are so offended over htose damn Christmas trees everywhere you go?





Jingo Bell Crock
Shiver me timbers and jigger me with a yule log, the Holiday Season is upon us once again and the whole city is aglow with decorations. It seems like only yesterday that Peaceblossom and I bundled ourselves up in our matching hemp sweaters and took a long, romantic stroll through the neighborhood, singing "Jingo Bell Crock" at the top of our lungs and kicking over nativity scenes. Ah, the memories! I can still recall the delicious, teary-eyed look of dumbstruck horror on that crazy geezer's face as I punted Baby Jeezus across her front lawn.


"STOP RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE NOW!" I shouted at the shriveled old zealot.

"GO BACK TO JESUS LAND, YOU DOGMA-SPEWING FASCIST!" Peaceblossom chimed in as she merrily stomped the three wise men into the dirt.

"Lawrence Engels Chomstein, you little BASTARD!" Gramma cried. "I'm calling the police!"

Goddess, I miss her. It's so hard to get into the holiday spirit without her around. Peaceblossom, that is. I long for the good ol' days when we were still a team, standing up to religious fanaticism wherever we found it. I sure could have used Peace by my side Saturday, when I ran smack into the very same sort of ugly, blind hatred that Gramma displayed for her very own grandson last Christmas.

With the Blog Awards less than a week away, I had planned to spend all weekend at the public library, frantically voting. But when I walked in the main entrance, all my hopes and dreams were brutally shattered by the great, big, aluminum baseball bat of reality. Before me, in all it's obscene splendor, stood what I will one day describe to my grandchildren as a "Christmas Tree". Decked out in crudely crafted ornaments, stringed popcorn garnish, and sneering gingerbread men, it was as if my all worst nightmares had somehow come to life. The final kick in the crotch was perched daintily atop the vile monstrosity: a single yellow construction-paper star signifying the horrific event that led to 2000 years of genocide and opression in the name of religion.

I couldn't breathe. The room spun around me. How could this be? Had the whole world gone mad? I thought the King County Master Librarian issued a Fatwah banning Christmas trees from the libraries. I thought he was one of the good guys! Didn't he care at all about the feelings of non-Christians who might walk in and see that horrific fungus staring back at them?

For a long time I just stood there, gazing with disbelief and disgust at its sheer naked depravity. Then, the floodgates burst wide open and out poured years of pent-up rage over religious opression in the form of a high-pitched, girlish scream. I screamed and screamed and screamed some more. I screamed for a good five minutes, yet drew only looks of mild annoyance. When I realized that no one was going to come running over in truckling response to my feminine hysterics, I screamed even louder. Finally, a bespectacled little rat-faced librarian idled over and tugged at my sleeve.


"Sir," she wheezed. "The P.E.S.T. group therapy session is being held in the library auditorium, through the double-doors and past the big pile of spent kleenex."

I stopped screaming and jabbed a finger furiously at the giant Tree of Hate.

"What is THAT?" I demanded.

"It's a Christmas tree," she answered hesitantly.

"In a public building? HAVEN'T YOU EVER HEARD OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT?""Yes, but it's sort of a library tradition," she explained. "Local cub scouts decorate it every year with ornaments they made by hand. People can bid on the decorations and the proceeds goes to charity. It's really a nice thing."

I didn't know what was more infuriating: The way she proudly admitted that the Hitler Youth were responsible for this obscenity, or how she actually believed that offending people in the name of some bogus charity actually justifies the crime.

"A nice thing?" I spat. "A NICE THING? What about the Jewish kid who saunters in, suddenly discovers that we're celebrating a Christian holiday, and becomes so offended that he claws his own eyes out in shame? Is that a 'nice thing'? What about the poor homeless man who comes in out of the cold to surf child porn in a warm, welcoming environment, but is instead accosted by a 10-foot icon of exclusion? Is a that a 'nice thing'? And what about the gay couple who visits the library to check out Eminem's latest CD, but is greeted at the door by the scowling symbol of a religious faith that doesn't accept or celebrate their lifestyle? Is it a 'nice thing' that they become targets of physical violence because a group of knot-tying nazi larvae want to maintain their tax exempt status? Don't you have any regard for the feelings of others? HAVE YOU NO COMPASSION?"

"Well, actually, we haven't received any complaints from..."

"Oh, but of course not," I cut her off. "Who's going to lodge a complaint about the burning cross on their front lawn when all the cops are in the Klan? People are too terrified to complain."

"Terrified of a tree?"

"Absolutely! It may appear to be just a harmless plant, but if you give these evangelical's an inch, they'll take a mile. Today, it's a Christmas Tree in the library lobby. Tomorrow, Santa Claus will be burning heretics on your front steps. That's why George Jefferson wrote the wall between church and state right into the Constitution - so that no one should ever have to feel insulted or threatened by large, brightly festooned conifers. Libraries especially should be places where people of all faiths can go without fear of being offended or excluded, except for Christians but they'll just have to learn to live with it. The biblethumping Whos down in Whoville can whine all they want, but Christmas Trees serve only to divide America and turn us against one another, creating conditions ripe for the very same sort of religious dictatorship that our forefathers came here to escape."



She seemed to let it sink in for a moment, then slowly shook her head.

"I disgree, sir," she said. "While it has roots in Christian and Pagan beliefs, the American tradition of Christmas is not so much a religious holiday as a celebration of the human spirit and love for our fellow man. During the Christmas season, Americans are more tolerant of one another, they go out of their way to be nicer to their neighbors, they smile more and spread good cheer. Yes, it IS a "nice thing", and it's a shame that some small-minded jerks want to destroy the only day of the year that people actually try to get along!"

It was then that I realized that the broad was mentally ill, perhaps dangerous. "Human spirit?" Obviously, this lunatic had never been in the mall on December the 24th. I'd like to see how much "good cheer" she'd have left after being beat up by her "fellow man" for the last copy of Halo 2.

I started to slowly back away when I suddenly remembered why I was there in the first place.


"Where are your computers?" I demanded.

"Second floor," she said. "But they're all taken by homeless people surfing child pornography. I can put you on the waiting list..."

"Forget it," I growled, and turned to leave.

"Merry Christmas!" she said to my back.

"Seig Hiel," I replied, and marched out the door.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/12/jingo_bell_croc.html

[darin]

Thing is, Nobody can really know or care about Christ and be such and asshole to people with whom he disagrees, Mainman. That's the problem -that's why most of us think you're full of crap. You don't just 'fail' or 'sin' - because it's "from the abundance of the heart your mouth speaks". Sin isn't an 'occasional' thing. it's a pattern - a system - a method? Habit? of being a jerk.

[maineman]

If you read what I wrote, I spelled it out that the majority of these scenes are put up and completely paid for by donations. EVERY year in EVERY town I have ever lived in - there were fund drives near or at city hall looking for donations for just these scenes, for Christmas parties and other Christian events - SOLELY so that people like you wouldn't complain that they were paid for by the city.

and if the displays are paid for by private funds and erected on private land, then no Jew or Muslim of Hindu or Atheist taxpayer has anything to complain about. absolutely.


Thing is, Nobody can really know or care about Christ and be such and asshole to people with whom he disagrees, Mainman. That's the problem -that's why most of us think you're full of crap. You don't just 'fail' or 'sin' - because it's "from the abundance of the heart your mouth speaks". Sin isn't an 'occasional' thing. it's a pattern - a system - a method? Habit? of being a jerk.

when I am insulted, I respond. I defy you to find one thread in which I cast the first stone.

But please know that I appreciate your opinion and wonder if you would be so kind and Christlike if i spent entire posts questioning YOUR faith or calling YOU a jerk. just sayin'

[darin]

you're so full of shit Mr. "I didn't cast the first stone!!"

Dude, you are broken on the inside.

[maineman]

you're so full of shit Mr. "I didn't cast the first stone!!"

Dude, you are broken on the inside.

I guess you couldn't find that thread, eh?

I understand. keep tossing those stones.

I mean, really... I understand all you tattoo laden, macho guys who hang out here don't like me. I don't like most of you either. That doesn't change the fact that you cannot fine ONE SINGLE SOLITARY MOTHERFUCKING THREAD since my return where I insulted anyone who had not insulted me first. That's cool. I understand that, as soon as I EVER respond to anybody's insults, the rest of you gather like wolves to attack me...

you need to know that this is all just a form of amusement for me as I watch Jeopardy... as if I could give a FLYING FUCK what your pompous loser ass thought about me.:dance:

[jimnyc]

when I am insulted, I respond. I defy you to find one thread in which I cast the first stone.

Tell ya what, put MONEY where your loudmouth is?

If I find a post where YOU started the shit - you donate $50 to our site here. If I can't find a post where you "cast the first stone", I will either Paypal $50 directly to you or to any charity of your choosing.

This will be the easiest money I have ever made! :coffee:

C'mon, show Darin you aren't just talking shit!

[maineman]

Tell ya what, put MONEY where your loudmouth is?

If I find a post where YOU started the shit - you donate $50 to our site here. If I can't find a post where you "cast the first stone", I will either Paypal $50 directly to you or to any charity of your choosing.

This will be the easiest money I have ever made! :coffee:

C'mon, show Darin you aren't just talking shit!

sure Jim... find a thread here since I returned where i was not insulted first and I will donate to your site.

but I will imagine that statements about my faith or my weight or my service won't count.

go for it.

and I'll bet that you'll consider my calm response to the trig thread as an insult to you....

that's why you banned me from that one, I guess.

lol

[jimnyc]

sure Jim... find a thread here since I returned where i was not insulted first and I will donate to your site.

but I will imagine that statements about my faith or my weight or my service won't count.

go for it.

Right off the top of my head:

We had a thread about "waterboarding" going on for quite some time before you returned. You popped your butt ugly head in yesterday yammerin right off the bat about how those of us that supported the technique would also allow it to be done to bank robbers, check forgers and jaywalkers no less. Obviously trying to stir shit in a thread that was dormant and you were never a part of. In your very next post in that thread, you went on about the "according to the constitution that you clearly don't know fuck all about"

Seemed to me like you cast out the first stones right there, in a thread that was 8 pages long without you, and on your second post you are telling me how I don't know "fuck all" about the constitution.

You can click on the Paypal donate button at the top of the board.

[jimnyc]

and I'll bet that you'll consider my calm response to the trig thread as an insult to you....

that's why you banned me from that one, I guess.

lol

We don't discuss staff decisions and how you have no self control on the board. PM a staff member if you like. Thanks!

[maineman]

Right off the top of my head:

We had a thread about "waterboarding" going on for quite some time before you returned. You popped your butt ugly head in yesterday yammerin right off the bat about how those of us that supported the technique would also allow it to be done to bank robbers, check forgers and jaywalkers no less. Obviously trying to stir shit in a thread that was dormant and you were never a part of. In your very next post in that thread, you went on about the "according to the constitution that you clearly don't know fuck all about"

Seemed to me like you cast out the first stones right there, in a thread that was 8 pages long without you, and on your second post you are telling me how I don't know "fuck all" about the constitution.

You can click on the Paypal donate button at the top of the board.

the constitution clearly states that treaties signed are the supreme law of the land. Clearly, you don't understand what that means. It is not an "insult" if it is true.

if you feel as if my pointing out your ignorance of the constitution is an INSULT, I would suggest that, just maybe, you might read it and understand it first.

got anything else, big boy?

[jimnyc]

the constitution clearly states that treaties signed are the supreme law of the land. Clearly, you don't understand what that means. It is not an "insult" if it is true.

if you feel as if my pointing out your ignorance of the constitution is an INSULT, I would suggest that, just maybe, you might read it and understand it first.

got anything else, big boy?

Like I figured, a no good blowhard who can't stand by his own words.

[jimnyc]

Fwiw - MM honored his word and sent $50 via Paypal to the board. I issued a refund within minutes. I want no part of his money. I'd rather be homeless and eating dog crap for breakfast, lunch & dinner than accept anything from him.

Nonetheless, I thought it fair to at least announce that he stood by his word.

[SassyLady]

and again, real Christians don't need to have their tax dollars spent on nativity scenes on public. We can go to our churches and our homes can be decorated to celebrate the season. Christmas in America has become a commercial enterprise and the message of Jesus has long been lost in the process.

Yes it has ... and the assault on public displays has contributed to the message being lost. In the next generation or two people will have to hide symbols of their faith...especially if the atheists continue to make progress.

[SassyLady]

I am not lecturing anyone about anything. I DO have an opinion about this whole faux "war on Christmas" stuff.... Christmas is a holiday that Christians celebrate... it ought not to require that non-Christians be forced to spend their tax dollars to erect nativity scenes on public property to mark a season that really has become nothing but an excuse to shop for stuff.

I am not aware of being forced to spend my tax dollars on a nativity scene. And even if tax dollars are not spent, the anti-Christians would still put up a stink because the scene offends them in general. It isn't because of tax dollars being spent.

[LuvRPgrl]

I am not lecturing anyone about anything. I DO have an opinion about this whole faux "war on Christmas" stuff.... Christmas is a holiday that Christians celebrate... it ought not to require that non-Christians be forced to spend their tax dollars to erect nativity scenes on public property to mark a season that really has become nothing but an excuse to shop for stuff.

Yea, but Ill bet you loved it as a kid

[red states rule]

Yes it has ... and the assault on public displays has contributed to the message being lost. In the next generation or two people will have to hide symbols of their faith...especially if the atheists continue to make progress.

and we have this example from last Christmas. The "offended" seems to be a growing class of assholes coming together for the express purpose of spreading their misery around to as many other people as possible.

If I was in charge and some left wing loon was offended over the word Christmas being used I would lok them in the eye and say

"So you are offended. I don't give a shit. Merry Christmas. Goodby."




City Removes "Christmas" From Christmas Village

Philadelphia's Christmas Village was just a village, at least temporarily.

Officials decided a name change was in order after receiving complaints about the use of the word Christmas in the name for the temporary merchandise stalls set up on a plaza next to City Hall.

Workers removed "Christmas" from the arching signs at two entrances on Monday. It would be replaced with the word “Holiday” instead.

City spokesman Mark McDonald said that officials received complaints about the name of the collection of booths set up by German American Marketing Inc.

"As a city of great diversity, one shouldn't be surprised that there's a difference of views when it comes to symbols and words," McDonald told the Daily News.

Thomas Bauer of the German American Marketing Inc. said he was happy to make the change and no offense was intended.

"It's been very successful the last two years. People like the name. We built it like a German Christmas market. We did not think a lot about it," Bauer told the Daily News.

The word "Christmas" would remain on the village posters and fliers, Bauer said.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/City-Officials-Remove-Christmas--111032004.html

[KSigMason]

People prefer to confuse "separation of church and state" with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's a difference.
I also like to point out that the 1st Amendment says "of religion" not "from".

[LuvRPgrl]

I mean, really... I understand all you tattoo laden, macho guys who hang out here don't like me. I don't like most of you either. That doesn't change the fact that you cannot fine ONE SINGLE SOLITARY MOTHERFUCKING THREAD since my return where I insulted anyone who had not insulted me first. That's cool. I understand that, as soon as I EVER respond to anybody's insults, the rest of you gather like wolves to attack me...

you need to know that this is all just a form of amusement for me as I watch Jeopardy... as if I could give a FLYING FUCK what your pompous loser ass thought about me.:dance:

'since my return"? So, all your words previous to your conversion and return are meaningless?

[fj1200]

I also like to point out that the 1st Amendment says "of religion" not "from".

Graci. Woodstock HS near Atlanta has been having graduation in the Woodstock Baptist Church because it's the only place large enough and the rent is very low. They were sent a letter by the ADL/ACLU/??? stating that if the venue wasn't changed they could expect to be sued to have the venue changed; the school board did the smart thing IMO and went ahead as planned.

[LuvRPgrl]

it has to do with CHristians forcing non-Christians to subsidize their religion.

the fact that the holiday is more about shopping that about Christ is just a related issue.

If its mostly about shopping, then why would you claim it is subsidizing a Christian religion?

Not to mention all of the subsidizing that goes on that doesnt directly benefit me in any way, shape or form. So, the concept, which I support by the way, of the feds not subsidizing anything that is special interest, That has for a long tiime been obsolete.
That would be like claiming Jimny C is a bad Christian because he broke the law when he spit in the gutter in Mass. because spitting is illegal there (an antiquated law from the 19th century)

[red states rule]

If its mostly about shopping, then why would you claim it is subsidizing a Christian religion?

Not to mention all of the subsidizing that goes on that doesnt directly benefit me in any way, shape or form. So, the concept, which I support by the way, of the feds not subsidizing anything that is special interest, That has for a long tiime been obsolete.
That would be like claiming Jimny C is a bad Christian because he broke the law when he spit in the gutter in Mass. because spitting is illegal there (an antiquated law from the 19th century)

Given the sorry ass state of the economy thanks to Obamanomics, Pres Botch himself is praying that the 2011 Christmas shopping season set an all time record

[Missileman]

At probably 99% of these places the scenes are donated by happy Christians and paid for by happy Christians. The complaining idiots complain about having to see it. Towns generally spend more money on paperwork detailing the problems than it costs to just leave things be. Take a guess at what it costs to generate all the paperwork to be mailed out, then the postage to do so to everyone within a town. Now take a guess at how much it costs to display the scene with donated money from those who like it.

I have no problem with religious holiday displays, but I'll ask you this: If the nativity scene is being bought and paid for by these happy Christians, why aren't they simply erecting the display in front of their church?

[KSigMason]

Graci. Woodstock HS near Atlanta has been having graduation in the Woodstock Baptist Church because it's the only place large enough and the rent is very low. They were sent a letter by the ADL/ACLU/??? stating that if the venue wasn't changed they could expect to be sued to have the venue changed; the school board did the smart thing IMO and went ahead as planned.
I had my graduation at Northwest Nazarene University (Idaho) and from what I know no one bitched. I thank God I grew up in a somewhat sane State. Plus the ACLU in Idaho doesn't have a strong presence.


I have no problem with religious holiday displays, but I'll ask you this: If the nativity scene is being bought and paid for by these happy Christians, why aren't they simply erecting the display in front of their church?
Many of them do have a nativity scene in front of their church.

[jimnyc]

I have no problem with religious holiday displays, but I'll ask you this: If the nativity scene is being bought and paid for by these happy Christians, why aren't they simply erecting the display in front of their church?

I always see a scene in front of the churches too. Is there a problem with more than one display? I seem to see Christmas trees in more than one place too.

[Missileman]

I always see a scene in front of the churches too. Is there a problem with more than one display? I seem to see Christmas trees in more than one place too.

I look at this argument in the same way I look at the "moment of silence" in schools argument. There's no need for a moment of silence in school, the kids who want to offer a morning prayer can do so anytime between when they wake up and school starts. There's a certain segment of Christians who aren't content unless they're rubbing everyone's nose in their piety. It's the same with the nativity scenes. The ones in front of the churches are sufficient.

[jimnyc]

I look at this argument in the same way I look at the "moment of silence" in schools argument. There's no need for a moment of silence in school, the kids who want to offer a morning prayer can do so anytime between when they wake up and school starts. There's a certain segment of Christians who aren't content unless they're rubbing everyone's nose in their piety. It's the same with the nativity scenes. The ones in front of the churches are sufficient.


I look at your argument as the same as someone who complains about what is on the radio when they can just change the station. If the Christians pay to have a scene up somewhere, they aren't harming anyone. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

Funny, a couple of posts ago you were saying you don't have a problem with the scenes, then a post later you are complaining that it's being rubbed into your face.

Don't like them, tough shit. Avoid all roads that have churches too then.

[Missileman]

I look at your argument as the same as someone who complains about what is on the radio when they can just change the station. If the Christians pay to have a scene up somewhere, they aren't harming anyone. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

Funny, a couple of posts ago you were saying you don't have a problem with the scenes, then a post later you are complaining that it's being rubbed into your face.

Don't like them, tough shit. Avoid all roads that have churches too then.

Remember your side of things when the Muslims or even better, the gays start putting up their displays on public property. I imagine that will be a totally different scenario in YOUR eyes.

And I truly could really give a shit about the displays, but was only speaking to what might motivate a group to find it necessary to get one set up on public property.

[jimnyc]

Remember your side of things when the Muslims or even better, the gays start putting up their displays on public property. I imagine that will be a totally different scenario in YOUR eyes.

And I truly could really give a shit about the displays, but was only speaking to what might motivate a group to find it necessary to get one set up on public property.

The muslims already put up crap I have to deal with for about a month every year for ramadan, especially for the feast when it ends. I also see tons of large and small menorahs for the Jewish. I see TONS if I head out to PA for the Amish. Believe it or not, we are starting to see things for kwanzaa more and more. Basically, I see displays for all the religions and I couldn't care less for them. But I also don't whine because they are celebrating.

Sorry to disappoint you and your friends, but gayness is not a religion.

[LuvRPgrl]

Remember your side of things when the Muslims or even better, the gays start putting up their displays on public property. I imagine that will be a totally different scenario in YOUR eyes.

And I truly could really give a shit about the displays, but was only speaking to what might motivate a group to find it necessary to get one set up on public property.

I always respect the displays of any religion, but particularly one should when it is a religion that has the most influence on the countries people and culture than any other religion.
I sure as heck wouldnt be such a pompous, perposterous ass as to move to a muslim country and then start demanding all public scenes of muslim religion be removed, and from the schools.
If people are offended by a religous symbol, its simply a lack of confidence in their own beliefs. Just ask any vampire about the cross

[Missileman]

The muslims already put up crap I have to deal with for about a month every year for ramadan, especially for the feast when it ends. I also see tons of large and small menorahs for the Jewish. I see TONS if I head out to PA for the Amish. Believe it or not, we are starting to see things for kwanzaa more and more. Basically, I see displays for all the religions and I couldn't care less for them. But I also don't whine because they are celebrating.

Sorry to disappoint you and your friends, but gayness is not a religion.

You show me a law that says these displays are limited to religious displays and you have a point.

[Missileman]

If people are offended by a religous symbol, its simply a lack of confidence in their own beliefs. Just ask any vampire about the cross

I'm more of the opinion that a lot of religious people are scared of competing beliefs for that very reason. Information is hazardous to religion's health.

There's no way to prove it, but I'd wager that if you filled a book with a synopsis of every ideology ever held by human beings and gave it to someone who had never been exposed to religion, that person would find all of them equally absurd.

[jimnyc]

You show me a law that says these displays are limited to religious displays and you have a point.

Look at the title of this thread and all the posts, we are discussing religion here, and religious displays - not displays of ones sexuality.

[Missileman]

Look at the title of this thread and all the posts, we are discussing religion here, and religious displays - not displays of ones sexuality.

You're the one who made the argument that no one should have a problem with the display if it's paid for by the group putting it up. It is after all public property and if the only qualification is paying for it...

[jimnyc]

You're the one who made the argument that no one should have a problem with the display if it's paid for by the group putting it up. It is after all public property and if the only qualification is paying for it...

Yes, for religious displays, as per the title and content of this thread.

[Missileman]

Yes, for religious displays, as per the title and content of this thread.

The thread actually started with a memorial to fallen troopers that some idiots objected to, not a religious display. It soon morphed into a "war on Christmas" thing. I further morphed it to include non-religious displays on public property as per the content of the thread.

[LuvRPgrl]

The thread actually started with a memorial to fallen troopers that some idiots objected to, not a religious display. It soon morphed into a "war on Christmas" thing. I further morphed it to include non-religious displays on public property as per the content of the thread.

The objection was that the memorial was a religous display

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm more of the opinion that a lot of religious people are scared of competing beliefs for that very reason. Information is hazardous to religion's health..

I don't experience that at all.



There's no way to prove it, but I'd wager that if you filled a book with a synopsis of every ideology ever held by human beings and gave it to someone who had never been exposed to religion, that person would find all of them equally absurd.

U R right, there is no way to prove it because its absurd prima facia, its more like a wish thought for you.

[LuvRPgrl]

I am not aware of being forced to spend my tax dollars on a nativity scene. And even if tax dollars are not spent, the anti-Christians would still put up a stink because the scene offends them in general. It isn't because of tax dollars being spent.

Sassy is absolutely right on this, they use the spending tax dollars as an excuse to get what they want, a culture void of anything religous

[red states rule]

The bottom line is, athiests have little conviction of their beliefs therefore how can they be offended by something they insist does not exist?

[jimnyc]

The thread actually started with a memorial to fallen troopers that some idiots objected to, not a religious display. It soon morphed into a "war on Christmas" thing. I further morphed it to include non-religious displays on public property as per the content of the thread.

Fine, have it your way then, we'll add the abnormal queers. They already fly their fruity flags in front of "special" bars and have special parades in their honor. Let them and the muslims fly their abnormal crap anywhere they want, even on public property for all I care. It won't make the queers less abnormal or more accepted and it won't make the filthy cockroaches any less of terror supporters - and I certainly won't be complaining down at city hall or to news stations to have them bring down what they believe in.

So again, if YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE NATIVITY SCENE like you said yourself, why do you change your mind a post later and complain it's being forced upon you? You don't even mention "public" in your post, only that " they're rubbing everyone's nose in their piety". Have you been to city hall lately to complain about the abundance of Christmas trees and lights in every city in America? And the thousands of houses in every city that place nativity scenes and other religious themes as decorations on their lawns and houses?

You should have just tossed out your anti-Christianity to begin with instead of tip toeing around the issue.

[Missileman]

Fine, have it your way then, we'll add the abnormal queers. They already fly their fruity flags in front of "special" bars and have special parades in their honor. Let them and the muslims fly their abnormal crap anywhere they want, even on public property for all I care. It won't make the queers less abnormal or more accepted and it won't make the filthy cockroaches any less of terror supporters - and I certainly won't be complaining down at city hall or to news stations to have them bring down what they believe in.

So again, if YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE NATIVITY SCENE like you said yourself, why do you change your mind a post later and complain it's being forced upon you? You don't even mention "public" in your post, only that " they're rubbing everyone's nose in their piety". Have you been to city hall lately to complain about the abundance of Christmas trees and lights in every city in America? And the thousands of houses in every city that place nativity scenes and other religious themes as decorations on their lawns and houses?

You should have just tossed out your anti-Christianity to begin with instead of tip toeing around the issue.

Let me repeat, I personally have no problem with religious displays. I ignore them. I did not complain that it was being forced on me. I was offering my opinion as to why some Christians feel compelled to extend their religious displays beyond what any normal person would consider their normal place, i.e. in front of their churches or in their front yards.

FYI, the Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol, it's a secular one, despite it's association with a religious holiday...same as the Easter Bunny.

My anti-Christianity, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, anti-(insert the religion of your choice) is reserved for those who aren't content to wallow in their own ignorance but seek to make us all share in it.

[jimnyc]

Let me repeat, I personally have no problem with religious displays. I ignore them. I did not complain that it was being forced on me. I was offering my opinion as to why some Christians feel compelled to extend their religious displays beyond what any normal person would consider their normal place, i.e. in front of their churches or in their front yards.

FYI, the Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol, it's a secular one, despite it's association with a religious holiday...same as the Easter Bunny.

My anti-Christianity, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, anti-(insert the religion of your choice) is reserved for those who aren't content to wallow in their own ignorance but seek to make us all share in it.

Can you please explain how someone "makes" you share in anything? If putting up a nativity scene is forcing you to share in Christianity - then you gots lots of complaining to do! I guess every commercial on TV is forcing you to share in their beliefs, every billboard, every newspaper....

Then there are some of us that just go about our daily lives and take no interest in something we have no interest in.

[Missileman]

The bottom line is, athiests have little conviction of their beliefs therefore how can they be offended by something they insist does not exist?

I don't know what atheists you've been talking to, but I'm as certain that there are no gods as any who believes there is. And when some dickhead is being offensive, in the name of his religion, I reserve the right to be offended. However, there is no reason for being offended simply by their existence or their displays.

[Missileman]

Can you please explain how someone "makes" you share in anything? If putting up a nativity scene is forcing you to share in Christianity - then you gots lots of complaining to do! I guess every commercial on TV is forcing you to share in their beliefs, every billboard, every newspaper....

Then there are some of us that just go about our daily lives and take no interest in something we have no interest in.

Do you have a reading disorder? I've clearly stated on several occasions now, that I have NO PROBLEM with the nativity scene.

[jimnyc]

Do you have a reading disorder? I've clearly stated on several occasions now, that I have NO PROBLEM with the nativity scene.

I apparently only have a reading disorder when you write. We are discussing a specific subject here, and you toss in:


My anti-Christianity, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, anti-(insert the religion of your choice) is reserved for those who aren't content to wallow in their own ignorance but seek to make us all share in it.

Anyone reasonable would conclude that you were referring to placing the scene on public property.

If not, eat shit and move on.

[Missileman]

I apparently only have a reading disorder when you write. We are discussing a specific subject here, and you toss in:



Anyone reasonable would conclude that you were referring to placing the scene on public property.

If not, eat shit and move on.

The more reasonable person could clearly see that my statement was an answer to your anti-Christian accusation and didn't have anything to do with the nativity scene.

[jimnyc]

The more reasonable person could clearly see that my statement was an answer to your anti-Christian accusation and didn't have anything to do with the nativity scene.

Well, wait for that more reasonable person then. In the mean time, you're stuck with my unedumecated unreasonable responses. :coffee:

[Abbey Marie]

and again, real Christians don't need to have their tax dollars spent on nativity scenes on public. We can go to our churches and our homes can be decorated to celebrate the season. Christmas in America has become a commercial enterprise and the message of Jesus has long been lost in the process.

We also don't need to see them spent on crappy art and condoms. Yet I'll bet you support using tax dollars for both.

[SassyLady]

Let me repeat, I personally have no problem with religious displays. I ignore them. I did not complain that it was being forced on me. I was offering my opinion as to why some Christians feel compelled to extend their religious displays beyond what any normal person would consider their normal place, i.e. in front of their churches or in their front yards.

FYI, the Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol, it's a secular one, despite it's association with a religious holiday...same as the Easter Bunny.

My anti-Christianity, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, anti-(insert the religion of your choice) is reserved for those who aren't content to wallow in their own ignorance but seek to make us all share in it.

I sure hope a group of people don't up and decide that me smiling all the time offends them because they can't understand why I'm smiling. They might complain that I'm forcing my cheeriness upon them and infringing upon their right to be grumpy.

People are too easily offended these days.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't know what atheists you've been talking to, but I'm as certain that there are no gods as any who believes there is. And when some dickhead is being offensive, in the name of his religion, I reserve the right to be offended. However, there is no reason for being offended simply by their existence or their displays.

You have a right to be offended,,,,now thats funny

[red states rule]

I don't know what atheists you've been talking to, but I'm as certain that there are no gods as any who believes there is. And when some dickhead is being offensive, in the name of his religion, I reserve the right to be offended. However, there is no reason for being offended simply by their existence or their displays.

There are part of the society that goes thru life looking for things to be offended over

Christmas time and memorials bring out their worst

[Missileman]

You have a right to be offended,,,,now thats funny

If there's no right to be offended, then NOTHING can be offensive.

[red states rule]

If there's no right to be offended, then NOTHING can be offensive.

and atheists excerise that "right" big time and they get offended over something they say does not exist

[Missileman]

and atheists excerise that "right" big time and they get offended over something they say does not exist

It's a tiny percentage of atheists causing problems.

[red states rule]

It's a tiny percentage of atheists causing problems.

Like with liberals, it is 99% of all atheists that give the rest a bad name

[Gaffer]

It's a tiny percentage of atheists causing problems.

I don't believe they are even atheists. I think they are just liberal shitheads trying to stir up trouble and use the atheists to get their way. And they want every one to believe that all atheists are liberals, which is another falsehood.

[red states rule]

I don't believe they are even atheists. I think they are just liberal shitheads trying to stir up trouble and use the atheists to get their way. And they want every one to believe that all atheists are liberals, which is another falsehood.

Vaild point Gaffer. Because most liberals I know do beleive in God.

and their God is Obama

[Noir]

Have to say if I was driving past them I'd assume they were a Christian thing, cus they just look that way, and their would be nothing wrong if this is ruled unconstitutional in honouring the dead in a different way. Though I don't have a problem with it, and it's pretty clear in listening to the guys in the video talking their intention is not to have something promoting christainity,

[Missileman]

U R right, there is no way to prove it because its absurd prima facia, its more like a wish thought for you.

I'm curious how you think such an experiment might turn out.

[red states rule]

Have to say if I was driving past them I'd assume they were a Christian thing, cus they just look that way, and their would be nothing wrong if this is ruled unconstitutional in honouring the dead in a different way. Though I don't have a problem with it, and it's pretty clear in listening to the guys in the video talking their intention is not to have something promoting christainity,

You are correct Noir. The crosses are a memorial to fallen law enforcement officers, killed in the line of duity - some where the cross stands

[LuvRPgrl]

[QUOTE=Missileman;471810]If there's no right to be offended, then NOTHING can be offensive.[/QUOTE

Im not saying its wrong, what you said, just that it sounds funny

[LuvRPgrl]

and atheists excerise that "right" big time and they get offended over something they say does not exist

People MIGHT have the right to be offended, but that doesnt mean they have a right to an offensive free life.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's a tiny percentage of atheists causing problems.

Im wondering if you consider the complacent muslims a part of the problem with terrorism,,,,

[LuvRPgrl]

Have to say if I was driving past them I'd assume they were a Christian thing, cus they just look that way, and their would be nothing wrong if this is ruled unconstitutional in honouring the dead in a different way. Though I don't have a problem with it, and it's pretty clear in listening to the guys in the video talking their intention is not to have something promoting christainity,

Sounds like you are firmly of the opinion that it is/isnt right....

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gaffer again.

And, on another point, folks, errr MM, I think how the person would react who had never been exposed to religion before if he read all the versions at once, depends entirely upon the type of person they are, at that time. I have met some people who have some pretty kooky notions of things, but it wasnt so much what they believed, it was WHY they believed what they do, sometimes downright scary.
Many atheists are so due to alot of anger in them.

[Missileman]

Sounds like you are firmly of the opinion that it is/isnt right....

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gaffer again.

And, on another point, folks, errr MM, I think how the person would react who had never been exposed to religion before if he read all the versions at once, depends entirely upon the type of person they are, at that time. I have met some people who have some pretty kooky notions of things, but it wasnt so much what they believed, it was WHY they believed what they do, sometimes downright scary.
Many atheists are so due to alot of anger in them.

My point is that Christianity is no more plausible than any other ideology. It appears you might agree.

[Missileman]

Im wondering if you consider the complacent muslims a part of the problem with terrorism,,,,

No more than I consider all Christians a part of the Westboro problem.

[red states rule]

My point is that Christianity is no more plausible than any other ideology. It appears you might agree.

Well MM, I will add you to my prayers

When you leave this world it will be bad enough when you are shocked to see how wrong you are

But with the kind words I will say on your behalf perhaps the penalty for your mistake will not be as severe

[Missileman]

Well MM, I will add you to my prayers

When you leave this world it will be bad enough when you are shocked to see how wrong you are

But with the kind words I will say on your behalf perhaps the penalty for your mistake will not be as severe

Waste your time as you see fit...you are as destined to oblivion as everyone else.

[red states rule]

Waste your time as you see fit...you are as destined to oblivion as everyone else.

As Jesus said MM

forgive them, for they know not what they do

[LuvRPgrl]

My point is that Christianity is no more plausible than any other ideology. It appears you might agree.

No, I believe some have more plausability than others. Course, I would need a list of what are considered "religions" or "creation ideas", and of course, I have learned over time, that often, things might seem plausable at first, or unplausable at first, but upon further review, just the opposite turns out to be true. Take evilution for example.....

[LuvRPgrl]

No more than I consider all Christians a part of the Westboro problem.

ALL CHRISTIANS? Sheesh, I didnt even say ALL muslims.....only the complacent ones......so, I submit the question to you again

[Missileman]

ALL CHRISTIANS? Sheesh, I didnt even say ALL muslims.....only the complacent ones......so, I submit the question to you again

Then susbstitute "complacent" for "all" in my previous answer if you think it makes any difference.

[Missileman]

No, I believe some have more plausability than others. Course, I would need a list of what are considered "religions" or "creation ideas", and of course, I have learned over time, that often, things might seem plausable at first, or unplausable at first, but upon further review, just the opposite turns out to be true. Take evilution for example.....

Evolution is NOT an ideology, so let's not stray away from the point.

[LuvRPgrl]

Then susbstitute "complacent" for "all" in my previous answer if you think it makes any difference.

It makes all the difference in the world

[LuvRPgrl]

Then susbstitute "complacent" for "all" in my previous answer if you think it makes any difference.

Then wouldnt it follow that you would agree that the complacent atheists who do not say anything against the "trouble making" few, are just as guilty? Shouldn't they be speaking out against the "few" troublemakers and telling them to basically shut up, or, they become part of the problem?

[Missileman]

Then wouldnt it follow that you would agree that the complacent atheists who do not say anything against the "trouble making" few, are just as guilty? Shouldn't they be speaking out against the "few" troublemakers and telling them to basically shut up, or, they become part of the problem?

Using that logic, you're responsible for criminals because you aren't standing on your roof top every day screaming for them to obey the law. It's enough that these "complacent" atheists aren't joining in with the idiotic protestations of the few.

[Gaffer]

Then wouldnt it follow that you would agree that the complacent atheists who do not say anything against the "trouble making" few, are just as guilty? Shouldn't they be speaking out against the "few" troublemakers and telling them to basically shut up, or, they become part of the problem?

I'm not complacent. I see a few assholes using the courts to demand others do as they say. And I see the courts going along with them. Not much I can do expect to express my feelings in forums like this. Now if they come to my neighborhood and start making their demands I'll be one of the first to throw rocks and bricks at them.

[Abbey Marie]

The average person can't do much to object and be heard. A high-profile atheist could do so, however.

[Kathianne]

The average person can't do much to object and be heard. A high-profile atheist could do so, however.

Can you think of one, that would do such? Seems to me that atheists pretty much are singular. The nutjobs just use religion inverted in constitution to push their will.

Now could reasonable folks write good letters or start a blog to get out that most atheists just wish to be left alone, are good people, and don't want to be harassed by those of 'the cloth?' Sure. But why should they?

[Abbey Marie]

Can you think of one, that would do such? Seems to me that atheists pretty much are singular. The nutjobs just use religion inverted in constitution to push their will.

Now could reasonable folks write good letters or start a blog to get out that most atheists just wish to be left alone, are good people, and don't want to be harassed by those of 'the cloth?' Sure. But why should they?

The question wasn't would they. It was how can they. And they surely can if they wanted to. There is no shortage of actors speaking out on liberal/green causes.

[LuvRPgrl]

Using that logic, you're responsible for criminals because you aren't standing on your roof top every day screaming for them to obey the law. It's enough that these "complacent" atheists aren't joining in with the idiotic protestations of the few.

Its pretty much a given that law abiding citizens are opposed to law breakers,,,,whilst, we are not sure where the atheists who are not involved in the court cases stand, hence the analogy doesnt stand.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not complacent. I see a few assholes using the courts to demand others do as they say. And I see the courts going along with them. Not much I can do expect to express my feelings in forums like this. Now if they come to my neighborhood and start making their demands I'll be one of the first to throw rocks and bricks at them.

The judgement is being placed on the group, so your group needs ALOT more like you in order to gain credibility, in fact, to the point that they would actively, and openly oppose the activist atheists getting their way in court.

Because if they do get their way in court, and a large majority of atheists oppose the activist atheists, then the activists are actually getting court decisions in their favor based on the bogus notion that most atheists are offended, when in fact, they wouldnt be, under that hypothethical.

[LuvRPgrl]

The average person can't do much to object and be heard. A high-profile atheist could do so, however.

Or large groups of atheists getting together and protesting.

I dont think its a smalll group of bad apples wanting these court cases won by the atheists.

Most atheists, not agnostics, in my opinion, have some serious issues against religion, and are atheists for strong emotional reasons, and would never be opposed to anything that will stifle any religion at any time.

[LuvRPgrl]

The question wasn't would they. It was how can they. And they surly can if they wanted to. There is no shortage of actors speaking out on liberal/green causes.

Could, would, should, you two gals are getting me quite confused on who is saying what, but like two girls getting me confused?? LIKE THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE !!

[Abbey Marie]

Could, would, should, you two gals are getting me quite confused on who is saying what, but like two girls getting me confused?? LIKE THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE !!

LuvRP, with that post, you may be about to bring out the long-dormant feminist in me.

[Kathianne]

The question wasn't would they. It was how can they. And they surely can if they wanted to. There is no shortage of actors speaking out on liberal/green causes.

If they thought it important, of course they could. I just think that attacks on atheists are a lost cause, since they are hardly organized with the exception of some in the military that want atheist chaplains. :laugh2:

For most of us, including atheists and agnostics, religious beliefs or lack of them are personal; though the morals or ethics are not.

[Abbey Marie]

Let me repeat, I personally have no problem with religious displays. I ignore them. I did not complain that it was being forced on me. I was offering my opinion as to why some Christians feel compelled to extend their religious displays beyond what any normal person would consider their normal place, i.e. in front of their churches or in their front yards.

FYI, the Christmas tree is NOT a religious symbol, it's a secular one, despite it's association with a religious holiday...same as the Easter Bunny.

My anti-Christianity, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu, anti-(insert the religion of your choice) is reserved for those who aren't content to wallow in their own ignorance but seek to make us all share in it.

Given that tax dollars are not used for public property displays, it's a short walk from being offended by these displays, to being offended by your neighbors' or a church's public display on their own property. After all, the delicate eyes of the non-believers will be attacked in either case, no?

[Abbey Marie]

If they thought it important, of course they could. I just think that attacks on atheists are a lost cause, since they are hardly organized with the exception of some in the military that want atheist chaplains. :laugh2:

For most of us, including atheists and agnostics, religious beliefs or lack of them are personal; though the morals or ethics are not.

Atheist chaplains? A new oxymoron!

[Kathianne]

Atheist chaplains? A new oxymoron!

Would I kid you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html

[Abbey Marie]

Would I kid you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html

Never! :salute:

[Abbey Marie]

This so reminds me of the demand for gay marriage rights.
It is not enough to have an equal adviser, say a Counselor, for atheists. They must use the same title (Chaplain) and thereby dilute/pervert it's traditional meaning and function. The article does explain the real reasons behind the request for atheist chaplains.

[LuvRPgrl]

This so reminds me of the demand for gay marriage rights.
It is not enough to have an equal adviser, say a Counselor, for atheists. They must use the same title (Chaplain) and thereby dilute/pervert it's traditional meaning and function. The article does explain the real reasons behind the request for atheist chaplains.

Hey, I RADICALLLY support feminism.

Isnt it odd that those who continually attack religion for its being stupid, controlling, biased, racist, mysoginistic, homo hating, violence supporting, etc, etc,. want so much of what it has given our society?

[Missileman]

Its pretty much a given that law abiding citizens are opposed to law breakers,,,,whilst, we are not sure where the atheists who are not involved in the court cases stand, hence the analogy doesnt stand.

Sorry, but it's as much a given that the atheists who aren't involved in the complaining are against the complainers. The only thing not standing up is your double standard.

[Missileman]

Or large groups of atheists getting together and protesting.

I dont think its a smalll group of bad apples wanting these court cases won by the atheists.

Most atheists, not agnostics, in my opinion, have some serious issues against religion, and are atheists for strong emotional reasons, and would never be opposed to anything that will stifle any religion at any time.

You need to look at who these suits are being brought by...mostly INDIVIDUALS!

[Missileman]

Would I kid you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html

That's just plain stupid!

[Missileman]

Given that tax dollars are not used for public property displays, it's a short walk from being offended by these displays, to being offended by your neighbors' or a church's public display on their own property. After all, the delicate eyes of the non-believers will be attacked in either case, no?

And as I said to Jim, if paying for it makes it totally unoffensive under any circumstances, I expect no complaints whatsoever from the Christians when the Islamic or gay displays are erected in front of a town hall, or across the street from a school.

[Abbey Marie]

And as I said to Jim, if paying for it makes it totally unoffensive under any circumstances, I expect no complaints whatsoever from the Christians when the Islamic or gay displays are erected in front of a town hall, or across the street from a school.

I shudder to think what a "gay display" would look like, if their parades are any indication. :puke:

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry, but it's as much a given that the atheists who aren't involved in the complaining are against the complainers. The only thing not standing up is your double standard.

You are joking, right?

[LuvRPgrl]

You need to look at who these suits are being brought by...mostly INDIVIDUALS!

irrelevant

[LuvRPgrl]

I shudder to think what a "gay display" would look like, if their parades are any indication. :puke:

Kinda difficult to think of something they could display without any wordage that would indicate it is a homo display without it being inappropriate to kids.
But hey, it wouldnt be surprising for the homo community to want to expose sex to homo sex at as young an age as possible.

[Missileman]

You are joking, right?

Not at all.

[Missileman]

irrelevant

Not in the least. You're trying to group all atheists based on the actions of a few individuals. You don't see me saying all Christians are bad based on the actions of Phelps and co.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not in the least. You're trying to group all atheists based on the actions of a few individuals. You don't see me saying all Christians are bad based on the actions of Phelps and co.

No Im not, and its still irrelevant who files the suit. Often suits are filed on behalf of groups by an individual. Ever hear of Roe v Wade?

[Missileman]

No Im not, and its still irrelevant who files the suit. Often suits are filed on behalf of groups by an individual. Ever hear of Roe v Wade?

Roe vs Wade is NOT an atheist's lawsuit. Name off a few relevant suits that were brought by an atheist organization.

[LuvRPgrl]

Roe vs Wade is NOT an atheist's lawsuit. Name off a few relevant suits that were brought by an atheist organization.

Let me connect the dots. You said it was a suit by an individual, I said it was irrelevant because often suits are filed on behalf of an individual, but that is merely formalities as anyone knows often it is for the benefit of a larger group of people, take roe v wade for example.

[Missileman]

Let me connect the dots. You said it was a suit by an individual, I said it was irrelevant because often suits are filed on behalf of an individual, but that is merely formalities as anyone knows often it is for the benefit of a larger group of people, take roe v wade for example.

Ahh, well then, Islamic terrorism is for the benefit of all non-atheists...guess you're to blame for it after all.

[LuvRPgrl]

Ahh, well then, Islamic terrorism is for the benefit of all non-atheists...guess you're to blame for it after all.

Note I used the word "often"......

[Missileman]

Note I used the word "often"......

And yet, you didn't post a single suit. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to establish "benefit". Tell me how I or any other atheist benefits from a lawsuit to remove a prayer from a graduation ceremony.

[red states rule]

Seems the offended are still offended

[LuvRPgrl]

And yet, you didn't post a single suit. Not to mention the fact that you'd have to establish "benefit". Tell me how I or any other atheist benefits from a lawsuit to remove a prayer from a graduation ceremony.

Sometimes you post the silliest stuff.

If it is of no benefit, then why do they file the suit?

[Missileman]

Sometimes you post the silliest stuff.

If it is of no benefit, then why do they file the suit?

You were the one who claimed lawsuits benefit people other than those who bring the suit. All I'm asking is how all these "others", including myself benefit from these lawsuits brought by misguided individuals.

[LuvRPgrl]

You were the one who claimed lawsuits benefit people other than those who bring the suit. All I'm asking is how all these "others", including myself benefit from these lawsuits brought by misguided individuals.

You said "ANY OTHER ATHEIST", but anyways, I guess you meant anyone other than the one filing the suit.
Ok, I know sometimes the simplest stuff goes over your head. Surprising cuz sometimes you put up a tough arguement.

Many other atheists get the same benefit the one filing the suit does, or are you going to tell me only ONE person of millions of atheists is offended? And if so, then why would people have to take down such displays if they are in places the one filing the suit will never be or see?

[LuvRPgrl]

Roe vs Wade is NOT an atheist's lawsuit. Name off a few relevant suits that were brought by an atheist organization.

I swear sometimes you are such an idiot, and do put words in others mouths. I never said roe v wade was filed by an atheist, but it is showing how "suits" can be filed by one for the benefit of the many, which is the case whenever the ACLU works on a suit in behalf of an individual.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not in the least. You're trying to group all atheists based on the actions of a few individuals. You don't see me saying all Christians are bad based on the actions of Phelps and co.

Nope, and I'm not trying to group ALL atheists into anything. Im not stupid enough to think atheists, like ANY other group, will ALL think the same thing on any topic.

But that doesnt negate the fact that MANY other atheists besides the one who filed the suit, will benefit.

[Missileman]

You said "ANY OTHER ATHEIST", but anyways, I guess you meant anyone other than the one filing the suit.
Ok, I know sometimes the simplest stuff goes over your head. Surprising cuz sometimes you put up a tough arguement.

Many other atheists get the same benefit the one filing the suit does, or are you going to tell me only ONE person of millions of atheists is offended? And if so, then why would people have to take down such displays if they are in places the one filing the suit will never be or see?

AND ALL I'M ASKING YOU TO POST IS THIS SHARED BENEFIT, BECAUSE THESE LAWSUITS DON"T BENEFIT ME IN THE LEAST. You must be privy to some benefit that I'm unaware of.

[Missileman]

Nope, and I'm not trying to group ALL atheists into anything. Im not stupid enough to think atheists, like ANY other group, will ALL think the same thing on any topic.

But that doesnt negate the fact that MANY other atheists besides the one who filed the suit, will benefit.

See my previous post...

[LuvRPgrl]

Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl
Its pretty much a given that law abiding citizens are opposed to law breakers,,,,whilst, we are not sure where the atheists who are not involved in the court cases stand, hence the analogy doesnt stand.



Sorry, but it's as much a given that the atheists who aren't involved in the complaining are against the complainers. The only thing not standing up is your double standard.

THAT SIMPLY ISNT TRUE. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SHOW THEIR OPPOSITION TO LAW BREAKERS several ways. One, by obeying the law, two by voting in, BY MAJORITIES usually, people who enact those laws and enforce them.

I have no doubt if you went up to ten people in a public place and asked, "do you support sending someone who commits a felony to prisonl? That 9 or 10 of 10 would say yes, W/O hesitation.
NOw, if you went to ten atheists, and asked them if they oppose religous symbols on public property, alot of them would have to pause and think about it, it is not a given they oppose that.
And if you think they are about the same, you just lose credibility over it, I think if you asked all the members of this board if they are equal, they would laugh,

[Missileman]

Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl
Its pretty much a given that law abiding citizens are opposed to law breakers,,,,whilst, we are not sure where the atheists who are not involved in the court cases stand, hence the analogy doesnt stand.




THAT SIMPLY ISNT TRUE. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SHOW THEIR OPPOSITION TO LAW BREAKERS several ways. One, by obeying the law, two by voting in, BY MAJORITIES usually, people who enact those laws and enforce them.

I have no doubt if you went up to ten people in a public place and asked, "do you support sending someone who commits a felony to prisonl? That 9 or 10 of 10 would say yes, W/O hesitation.
NOw, if you went to ten atheists, and asked them if they oppose religous symbols on public property, alot of them would have to pause and think about it, it is not a given they oppose that.
And if you think they are about the same, you just lose credibility over it, I think if you asked all the members of this board if they are equal, they would laugh,

You're offering nothing more than your fucking opinion and FYI, since you can't possibly back it up with even a shred of evidence, my opinoin carries the same weight as yours.

[LuvRPgrl]

AND ALL I'M ASKING YOU TO POST IS THIS SHARED BENEFIT, BECAUSE THESE LAWSUITS DON"T BENEFIT ME IN THE LEAST. You must be privy to some benefit that I'm unaware of.

The suit doesn't benefit ALL atheists, just a high percentage of them.

The suit that RSR's post was about has been filed by "American Atheists", not the plural of atheist. It wasn't even filed by an individual. I'm quite certain that other suits that are filed by individuals, are supported either by the ACLU or the American Atheists, or both.

I visited an atheist web site, this is one of their statements,:
The number of Atheists exceeds the number of followers of all of the organized religions in the U.S., except for Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism


That is so funny.....

[LuvRPgrl]

You're offering nothing more than your fucking opinion and FYI, since you can't possibly back it up with even a shred of evidence, my opinoin carries the same weight as yours.

so, you have an opinion, and I have a "fucking' opinion?

You totally ignored the points I brought up to support my posistion, people VOTE in by a majority, those who write the laws and enforce them, hence demonstrating their support of enforcing the laws, by a majority.

And I would be willing to bet $200 to your $20 that a poll would show my "fucking" opinion to be more accurate than your "blessed" opinion.

[Missileman]

The suit doesn't benefit ALL atheists, just a high percentage of them.


How many times do I have to ask you to describe this benefit? You keep alleging there is a benefit enjoyed by a "high percentage of them". How exactly does any atheist benefit from one of these suits?

[Missileman]

You totally ignored the points I brought up to support my posistion, people VOTE in by a majority, those who write the laws and enforce them, hence demonstrating their support of enforcing the laws, by a majority.

BFD...the majority of atheists aren't members of any atheist organization and the majority of atheists refrain from frivolous lawsuits about religious displays. You're position is bullshit!

I went to the website you posted about American Atheists and I found a link about their national convention...a whopping 750 people attended. Out of the millions of atheists in the US, 750. That's an infinitesimal subset that you'd paint a majority with.

[LuvRPgrl]

BFD...the majority of atheists aren't members of any atheist organization.

So what, there are many organizations I dont belong to, but I support.



and the majority of atheists refrain from frivolous lawsuits about religious displays. You're position is bullshit!.

Irrelevant. Thats like saying a majority of Americans refrain from lawsuits about anything, its impossible for any group of any size to have a majority of its members file lawsuits.



I went to the website you posted about American Atheists and I found a link about their national convention...a whopping 750 people attended. Out of the millions of atheists in the US, 750. That's an infinitesimal subset that you'd paint a majority with.

WRONG again, wrong website.

On top of your many, many debating flaws, it appears we need to add that you are expert in bringing up irrelevant statements.

Did you actually find the number of atheists who belong to American Atheists, or are you basing the numbers ONLY on how many attended the meeting? Their next meeting is in some Des Moines, a large majority of atheists simply wouldn't be able to make the meeting, I think they are too busy finding something to be offended by.,

[LuvRPgrl]

How many times do I have to ask you to describe this benefit? You keep alleging there is a benefit enjoyed by a "high percentage of them". How exactly does any atheist benefit from one of these suits?

I have repeatedly answered it, their desire to have religous symbols and displays removed form public is their benefit.

and "a high percentage" doesnt mean a majority, but it certainly means many more than the person filing a suit.

[Abbey Marie]

How many times do I have to ask you to describe this benefit? You keep alleging there is a benefit enjoyed by a "high percentage of them". How exactly does any atheist benefit from one of these suits?

I wish you could tell us the benefit to anyone. I have a hard time understanding why anyone feels the need to be shielded from images such as nativities, crosses, etc. Unless someone is possessed...

[Missileman]

So what, there are many organizations I dont belong to, but I support.




Irrelevant. Thats like saying a majority of Americans refrain from lawsuits about anything, its impossible for any group of any size to have a majority of its members file lawsuits.




WRONG again, wrong website.

On top of your many, many debating flaws, it appears we need to add that you are expert in bringing up irrelevant statements.

Did you actually find the number of atheists who belong to American Atheists, or are you basing the numbers ONLY on how many attended the meeting? Their next meeting is in some Des Moines, a large majority of atheists simply wouldn't be able to make the meeting, I think they are too busy finding something to be offended by.,

The 750 figure was from the Des Moines national convention. I could find no mention of their total membership...do you know what it is?

[Missileman]

I wish you could tell us the benefit to anyone. I have a hard time understanding why anyone feels the need to be shielded from images such as nativities, crosses, etc. Unless someone is possessed...

I'm not the one claiming that atheists are getting a benefit from these lawsuits...LRP is and my fingers are going numb trying to get HIM to cite exactly what these benefits are. IOW, you're asking the wrong person.

[Missileman]

I have repeatedly answered it, their desire to have religous symbols and displays removed form public is their benefit.


I think you mean the removal of religious symbols and displays and not the "desire", but you still haven't established that outcome as a desire for anything other than a tiny fraction of atheists and NO, your opinion doesn't establish it.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm not the one claiming that atheists are getting a benefit from these lawsuits...LRP is and my fingers are going numb trying to get HIM to cite exactly what these benefits are. IOW, you're asking the wrong person.

Gotcha.

If you are atheist, can you explain to me what benefit anyone has, even the person bringing suit? (Aside from monetary damages which are self-explanatory).

[Missileman]

Gotcha.

If you are atheist, can you explain to me what benefit anyone has, even the person bringing suit? (Aside from monetary damages which are self-explanatory).

I think the vast majority of the lawsuits are BS, so again, I'm probably not the right person to ask.

There have been a couple, like when some school district wanted to teach biblical creation in science class, and moment of silence to kick off school days...I thought both of those suits had merit. But these other suits like the grad ceremony prayer and the like are posed by misguided attention whores.

[red states rule]

Gotcha.

If you are atheist, can you explain to me what benefit anyone has, even the person bringing suit? (Aside from monetary damages which are self-explanatory).

Why would any atheist want money with "In God WE Trust" on it?

Or could it be they really do NOT believe what they say, and just want attention?

[Missileman]

Why would any atheist want money with "In God WE Trust" on it?

Or could it be they really do NOT believe what they say, and just want attention?

The vast, vast majority of us are capable of ignoring it in the exact same way that the vast, vast majority of us drive past nativity scenes without batting an eye.

[red states rule]

The vast, vast majority of us are capable of ignoring it in the exact same way that the vast, vast majority of us drive past nativity scenes without batting an eye.

Like the enviro wackos MM, you people talk the talk, but do not walk the walk

I guess consistency is not one the atheists strong points

[Missileman]

Like the enviro wackos MM, you people talk the talk, but do not walk the walk

I guess consistency is not one the atheists strong points

You're full of shit! How many atheists have sued to have "In God We Trust" removed from currency? Of the millions of atheists in the US, how many have filed a religious lawsuit?

[Gunny]

Once again, the majority suffers as the "offended" minority throws a temper tantrum

How the hell can reasonable person be offended over a memorial for fallen Police officers?

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTKOFqLsgHs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JTKOFqLsgHs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

The smokescreen of the left: "tyranny of the majority". Yet anyone with an eyeball can see that time after time, the tyranny of the minority rules.

Defies the definition of "democracy" but symbolizes the definition of fascist doctrine.

[red states rule]

The smokescreen of the left: "tyranny of the majority". Yet anyone with an eyeball can see that time after time, the tyranny of the minority rules.

Defies the definition of "democracy" but symbolizes the definition of fascist doctrine.

In about 5 months the "offended" will start their annual war on Christmas, and because a few assholes hate the Christmas season, the rest of us will have to cower and show tolerance

Just as they expect in this case

So what if they want to remove a MEMORIAL to fallen Policemen? They are offended and that is reason enough to remove them

Again, just as the signs of Christmas offend them every year - they have to go

[LuvRPgrl]

The 750 figure was from the Des Moines national convention. I could find no mention of their total membership...do you know what it is?

Nope.

But U ignored my other points, like WRONG website on the other quotes

How I support many groups I dont officially belong to

The number of people who file a lawsuit is meaningless, like I said, there are NOT a large number of any group that files suits.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not the one claiming that atheists are getting a benefit from these lawsuits...LRP is and my fingers are going numb trying to get HIM to cite exactly what these benefits are. IOW, you're asking the wrong person.

You need to pay attention to details and try remembering what you post. You said "OTHER THAN THE PERSON FILING THE SUIT" who benefits.

Abbey is questioning how even the person filing the suit benefits. Get it?
And I have repeatedly stated that many other atheists get the same benefit, and in fact, I stated that one of the suits was brought by a groups, GROUP, MEANING MORE THAN ONE, the American Atheists.
GET IT? Or do you want me to repeat it in second grade language, or, in "the shadow knows talk"

[LuvRPgrl]

I think you mean the removal of religious symbols and displays and not the "desire", but you still haven't established that outcome as a desire for anything other than a tiny fraction of atheists and NO, your opinion doesn't establish it.

You say its a desire for only a tiny fraction of atheists, YOU PROVE IT.
And claiming that only a tiny fraction have filed suits is not proof, as it is IMPOSSILBLE for only a tiny fraction to file suits.

[Missileman]

you need to pay attention to details and try remembering what you post. You said "other than the person filing the suit" who benefits.

Abbey is questioning how even the person filing the suit benefits. Get it?
And i have repeatedly stated that many other atheists get the same benefit, and in fact, i stated that one of the suits was brought by a groups, group, meaning more than one, the american atheists.
Get it? Or do you want me to repeat it in second grade language, or, in "the shadow knows talk"

You're the person who is claiming there is a benefit to be had and shared by people other than those who file these lawsuits. It's up to you to explain these benefits, it"s your claim.

[Missileman]

You say its a desire for only a tiny fraction of atheists, YOU PROVE IT.

The burden of proof is on you...you're the one who made the claim to start with. Besides, everyone knows you can't prove a negative.


And claiming that only a tiny fraction have filed suits is not proof, as it is IMPOSSILBLE for only a tiny fraction to file suits.

You need to explain this one, because it makes absolutely no sense.

[Missileman]

You need to pay attention to details and try remembering what you post. You said "OTHER THAN THE PERSON FILING THE SUIT" who benefits.

Abbey is questioning how even the person filing the suit benefits. Get it?
And I have repeatedly stated that many other atheists get the same benefit, and in fact, I stated that one of the suits was brought by a groups, GROUP, MEANING MORE THAN ONE, the American Atheists.
GET IT? Or do you want me to repeat it in second grade language, or, in "the shadow knows talk"

Yeah...American Atheists...the same group who had a massive 750 attendees at their NATIONAL convention. There are MILLIONS of atheists in the US. These few American Atheists no more represent a significant number of atheists than the Westboro Baptist church represents a significant number of Christians.

[LuvRPgrl]

You're the person who is claiming there is a benefit to be had and shared by people other than those who file these lawsuits. It's up to you to explain these benefits, it"s your claim.


AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, try rereading your own posts. #75 in particular. You brought it up first, you made the claim so its up to U to PROVE it.

[LuvRPgrl]

The burden of proof is on you...you're the one who made the claim to start with. Besides, everyone knows you can't prove a negative..

WRONG AGAIN. Read your post # 75. You made the first claim. and you aren't asked to prove a negative, just show us the numbers. If you can't find statistics on how many atheists do or don't support the lawsuits, then you can't make the claim as a fact, but only as your unsubstantiated opinion.





You need to explain this one, because it makes absolutely no sense.

Yea, you are correct this time. I meant to say its IMPOSSIBLE for a majority of any group to file lawsuits, unless its a group suit, which is what the American Atheists did, but you keep refusing to acknowledge that or address it.

But you continue to make statements, then when I refute them, you ignore the refutation. It is well established that the ordinary citizen supports putting law breakers in jail, it is evident by our voting patterns, and general discussions amongst the public. But regardless, the masses arent' crying out against the criminals being put in prison. As is the case with most atheists are not crying out against the frivolous lawsuits some are bringing.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yeah...American Atheists...the same group who had a massive 750 attendees at their NATIONAL convention. There are MILLIONS of atheists in the US. These few American Atheists no more represent a significant number of atheists than the Westboro Baptist church represents a significant number of Christians.

YOU SAID YOURSELF, WE DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF ATHEISTS WHO BELONG TO THE ORGANIZATION, AND/OR SUPPORT IT.

To claim its only 750 based on the number of attendees is downright a lie.
About 60,000 attended the National convention of Alcoholics Anonymous, but yet tens of millions belong to the group.
You are simply being dishonest and are a liar.
Now, again, its your turn to prove the numbers, YOU made the claim.

Not to mention we don't even know if there are other organizations representing atheists. I'm willing to bet there are.

[Missileman]

AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN, try rereading your own posts. #75 in particular. You brought it up first, you made the claim so its up to U to PROVE it.

I said it's a small percentage of atheists who are causing problems...and you implied your concurrence with my statement when you asked if I thought the complacent muslims(the vast majority) contributed to the terrorism problem.

The only evidence I need to prove my statement is the tiny number of atheists who involve themselves in these lawsuits.

[Missileman]

WRONG AGAIN. Read your post # 75. You made the first claim. and you aren't asked to prove a negative, just show us the numbers. If you can't find statistics on how many atheists do or don't support the lawsuits, then you can't make the claim as a fact, but only as your unsubstantiated opinion.

Are you dense? Of the MILLIONS of atheists in the US, only a few have filed suit, and that's a fact you can't contradict. Your allegation that a significant percentage of atheists benefit from these lawsuits is bullshit also, you can't even coherently explain how people who aren't a part of the suit derive any benefit whatsoever. But you'd have us believe that you KNOW all these atheists support the lawsuits.







As is the case with most atheists are not crying out against the frivolous lawsuits some are bringing.

PROVE IT!

[Missileman]

YOU SAID YOURSELF, WE DON'T KNOW THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF ATHEISTS WHO BELONG TO THE ORGANIZATION, AND/OR SUPPORT IT.

To claim its only 750 based on the number of attendees is downright a lie.
About 60,000 attended the National convention of Alcoholics Anonymous, but yet tens of millions belong to the group.
You are simply being dishonest and are a liar.
Now, again, its your turn to prove the numbers, YOU made the claim.

Not to mention we don't even know if there are other organizations representing atheists. I'm willing to bet there are.

Firstly, you just attributed a statement to me that I didn't make and then called me a liar for making it. So let's clear the air...go fuck yourself!

We can resume the debate when you correct that error.

[LuvRPgrl]

r...go fuck yourself!
.

Yep, bout sums up your whole arguement.

[Missileman]

Yep, bout sums up your whole arguement.

I assume that means there's no correction forthcoming.

BTW, I just called the head office of American Atheists in NJ...their membership at present is between 3500 and 4000 members(they're redoing their database)...as I said, a tiny fraction of the atheists in the US.

[LuvRPgrl]

I assume that means there's no correction forthcoming.

BTW, I just called the head office of American Atheists in NJ...their membership at present is between 3500 and 4000 members(they're redoing their database)...as I said, a tiny fraction of the atheists in the US.

Do you know how long the org has been in existence? Or at what point in time, if ever, they actually actively worked on getting membership, and/or making people aware they exist.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THERE ARE MANY ATHEISTS WHO HAVE THE SAME BASIC VALUES AS THE ORG BUT DONT EVEN KNOW THEY EXIST. I DIDNT KNOW THEY EXIST UNTIL YESTERDAY.

Now, for once, try actuallyl answering some of the questions and points that show you are wrong.

Your arguement came before that knowledge, and like I said, and you ignore, there are other factors, like other athist org. and those who support them but arent members.

I showed the post where you made the first statement about how many atheists are joining in the issue,,,,still your burden of proof.

[Missileman]

Do you know how long the org has been in existence? Or at what point in time, if ever, they actually actively worked on getting membership, and/or making people aware they exist.

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THERE ARE MANY ATHEISTS WHO HAVE THE SAME BASIC VALUES AS THE ORG BUT DONT EVEN KNOW THEY EXIST. I DIDNT KNOW THEY EXIST UNTIL YESTERDAY.

Now, for once, try actuallyl answering some of the questions and points that show you are wrong.

Your arguement came before that knowledge, and like I said, and you ignore, there are other factors, like other athist org. and those who support them but arent members.

I showed the post where you made the first statement about how many atheists are joining in the issue,,,,still your burden of proof.

Sorry bub, but you lose this one. I extrapolated a small membership based on national convention attendance and I hit a dead center bullseye(I actually totally obliterated the target) with my opinion.

I've posted my PROOF that the number of atheists involved in these suits is a tiny fraction of the atheists in the US. It's now time for you to post any info you might have that refutes it if you can.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry bub, but you lose this one. I extrapolated a small membership based on national convention attendance and I hit a dead center bullseye(I actually totally obliterated the target) with my opinion.

I've posted my PROOF that the number of atheists involved in these suits is a tiny fraction of the atheists in the US. It's now time for you to post any info you might have that refutes it if you can.

Claiming you won doesn't make you right,

[Missileman]

Claiming you won doesn't make you right,

It does up until such time that you post proof that I'm wrong.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry bub, but you lose this one. I extrapolated a small membership based on national convention attendance and I hit a dead center bullseye(I actually totally obliterated the target) with my opinion.

I've posted my PROOF that the number of atheists involved in these suits is a tiny fraction of the atheists in the US. It's now time for you to post any info you might have that refutes it if you can.


Yawn, you dodge the issue again. Its not the number involved in the suits that matters, The issue is how many atheists over all support the suits, even those not directly involved. As I SAID BEFORE AND CONTINUE TO REPEAT TO YOUR DRONE DEAD BRAIN, ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF ATHEISTS, OR ANY OTHER GROUP TO BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT.

Even the class action suits, that involve millions of people, MOST of those people dont even know about the lawsuit until its over and they are told they are being refunded a postage stamp amount on the defective overpriced cameras they bought 5 years ago.

Now, try answering the fucking question and quit playing dodgeball by bringing up irrelvant facts.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's a tiny percentage of atheists causing problems.

NOT involved in lawsuits.

so now, prove it.

PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.

[Missileman]

Yawn, you dodge the issue again. Its not the number involved in the suits that matters, The issue is how many atheists over all support the suits, even those not directly involved. As I SAID BEFORE AND CONTINUE TO REPEAT TO YOUR DRONE DEAD BRAIN, ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF ATHEISTS, OR ANY OTHER GROUP TO BE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT.

Again, the evidence that supports my position (and does nothing to bolster yours BTW) is the small number of atheists involved in these lawsuits. The impetus is on you to prove that a significant percentage of atheists support the suits, that's YOUR allegation. Let's see if we can get it into your pea-brain that these few atheists who file suit are the only ones causing a problem as I said, BECAUSE, whether the majority of atheists agree with the suit or not, is IRRELEVANT. If the suit wasn't filed, there wouldn't be anything to agree with.

[Missileman]

NOT involved in lawsuits.

so now, prove it.

PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.
PROVE IT.

Already proven

[LuvRPgrl]

Already proven

Evasion continued. Answer the question or admit you're wrong.