Atheists are Monstrous, Evil, Bloodthirsty Tyrants

[Dr.Drock]

Someone's got their panties in wayyyyyyyyyy to tight of a knot over Campbell.


Just ignore him, I share his religious views for the most part, doesn't mean I can't think he's a total idiot.

 

[Truthmatters]

It seems Christians are fairly confident in their beliefs and have little need to reinforce their spirituality by dismissing the beliefs of others.

Then why did so many states have religious tests for office or to serve on juries? Why are so many Christians intent that the Government has to support Christianity?

We don't want the government to support Christianity. We want the government to leave us the hell alone. The 1st amendment guaranties or freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, got it?

If you were really for freedom of religion then you would undertand if you can put a bible statue in front of a court house then you also have to have a Koran statue and a dianetics statue and on and on and on and on.

This is why NO ONE religion is allowed to be picked out and honored by our government at any level.

Now if the fight was people were always trying to put up koran statues or Muhamed statues then you would be fighting that one too.

But its YOUR religion so you think its fine.


Remember how you reacted to a mosque in down town NY?

 

[Si modo]

Ahh but we must be more vocal, there are so few of us.
Kind of like the Tea Party?

And we WILL take back our midwinter festival from those holiday stealing Christians!


ps.
We also want back our spring fertility festival!

You are free to celebrate what you want, I have no problem with that. When either you or I try to impede the free exercise of religion (or lack of) is where we run afoul of the Constitution.
You see, I have no problem with your choice to be an atheist. I feel sad for you, but I keep that to myself, and don't start endless threads to ridicule your belief system.

No problem with atheists?

Your starting this thread and it's wording kinda conflicts with that.

Meh. It obviously has more to do with Campbell's obsession and the title of Dragon's thread telling the believers what their God is.

Campbell is an asshat. And, if I were a believer, I would be peeved at someone telling me what I believe. Some seem to think they are more qualified to know what is in one's head than the individual. I guess I need to develop my mind-reading skills.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You are free to celebrate what you want, I have no problem with that. When either you or I try to impede the free exercise of religion (or lack of) is where we run afoul of the Constitution.
You see, I have no problem with your choice to be an atheist. I feel sad for you, but I keep that to myself, and don't start endless threads to ridicule your belief system.

No problem with atheists?

Your starting this thread and it's wording kinda conflicts with that.

I paraphrased the title from a thread started by Dragon as an absurd example of the hate atheist have for religion.
My only problem is all the energy they spend denying my right to practice my spirituality. Believe as you will and give me the same respect.

I can see why you'd emotionally take a big issue with what Dragon said. I can see why you'd hate and disagree with every word in the post.

But i'm going to need you to point me to a quote of his that shows "all the energy spent to deny your right to practice your spirituality."

I'll need proof of that, just sounds like the world's smallest violin victim talk to me.

 

[pinqy]

It seems Christians are fairly confident in their beliefs and have little need to reinforce their spirituality by dismissing the beliefs of others.

Then why did so many states have religious tests for office or to serve on juries? Why are so many Christians intent that the Government has to support Christianity?

We don't want the government to support Christianity.

You do not support prayer in schools?
You do not support government sponsored displays of religion?
You do not support "Under God" in the pledge?
You do not support "In God we Trust" as the National motto?
Good, neither do I, the government should stay silent and neither give support to religions or support for anti-religious statements.

I don't want the schools telling kids there is no God.
I don't want the goverrnement displaying signs or statements against religion.
I don't want "without any gods" in the pledge.
I don't want "we don't believe in God" as a motto.

Government should stay silent and let people pray or not pray as they want, practice their religion as they want without help or hindrance.

We want the government to leave us the hell alone.

And what has the government done to curtail your private expression or practice?

 

[amrchaos]

Yes, Yes

We Atheists" are blood drinking monsters that seek to convert theists into A-theism!

You Christians are just jealous because the blood we drink has alcohol in it, while the "Blood of Jesus" is just cheap grape juice being passed off as "Holy Wine"!

No go back to the coal pits, you opressed peasant, We tyrants have more important things to do than be bother by you. Like playing Monopoly(hey guys, next time let me be the shoe!!)

 

[G.T.]

We don't want the government to support Christianity. We want the government to leave us the hell alone. The 1st amendment guaranties or freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, got it?

No it guarantees Freedom from religion as well.

Link?

1st amendment text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

[Si modo]

No it guarantees Freedom from religion as well.

Link?

1st amendment text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I'd like to know how that grants freedom from religion.

 

[Dragon]

I'd like to know how that grants freedom from religion.

By forbidding the government from imposing religion, it grants freedom from religion to anyone who desires religion's absence from his/her life. Or in other words, it guarantees the freedom to be an atheist or irreligious, as well as the freedom to follow any religion one chooses.

 

[Si modo]

I'd like to know how that grants freedom from religion.

By forbidding the government from imposing religion, it grants freedom from religion to anyone who desires religion's absence from his/her life. Or in other words, it guarantees the freedom to be an atheist or irreligious, as well as the freedom to follow any religion one chooses.

I understand that.

But, it does NOT grant citizens freedom from anyone else's religion. If they are offended when they hear about religion from another, too bad for them.

So, no - it does not grant freedom FROM religion. It grants exactly what it says.

 

[Dragon]

"Freedom from religion" could mean more than one thing. It could be interpreted to mean, as you say, freedom from being exposed to other people's religions, i.e. the privilege of suppressing religions one disagrees with. But the way the phrase is normally used (generally by Christians objecting to the lack of official Christian expression by the government), it means instead freedom from having someone else's religion imposed on one by the government.

And the First Amendment most definitely DOES guarantee freedom from religion in that sense.

 

[Si modo]

"Freedom from religion" could mean more than one thing. It could be interpreted to mean, as you say, freedom from being exposed to other people's religions, i.e. the privilege of suppressing religions one disagrees with. But the way the phrase is normally used (generally by Christians objecting to the lack of official Christian expression by the government), it means instead freedom from having someone else's religion imposed on one by the government.

And the First Amendment most definitely DOES guarantee freedom from religion in that sense.

Hmmm. I think you misunderstand folks when they say quite accurately, that the First Amendment does not say freedom from religion. Most know what the 1st says, and it does not say "freedom from religion' for exactly that reason - to guard the rights of those who choose to believe and practice their chosen religions and to be crystal clear in what it means. No ambiguity, as you described.

 

[koshergrl]

"Freedom from religion" could mean more than one thing. It could be interpreted to mean, as you say, freedom from being exposed to other people's religions, i.e. the privilege of suppressing religions one disagrees with. But the way the phrase is normally used (generally by Christians objecting to the lack of official Christian expression by the government), it means instead freedom from having someone else's religion imposed on one by the government.

And the First Amendment most definitely DOES guarantee freedom from religion in that sense.

You're an idiot.

"Freedom from being exposed" isn't freedom..it's RESTRICTION, you fucking idiot. If you PREVENT people from openly speaking of/adhering to their religion, you are restricting their religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Fascist piece of shit.

 

[jillian]

Atheists are there own worst enemy.

one could say that about anyone who is a zealot...

 

[koshergrl]

I would like to grant people freedom from being exposed to Dragon's inane bullcrap.
Of course, that would require shutting him down, taking his computer, penalizing him for speaking.

And of course, that's a violation of his civil rights...

 

[Sallow]

Link?

1st amendment text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I'd like to know how that grants freedom from religion.

That was hard for you to read, eh?

 

[Sallow]

"Freedom from religion" could mean more than one thing. It could be interpreted to mean, as you say, freedom from being exposed to other people's religions, i.e. the privilege of suppressing religions one disagrees with. But the way the phrase is normally used (generally by Christians objecting to the lack of official Christian expression by the government), it means instead freedom from having someone else's religion imposed on one by the government.

And the First Amendment most definitely DOES guarantee freedom from religion in that sense.

You're an idiot.

"Freedom from being exposed" isn't freedom..it's RESTRICTION, you fucking idiot. If you PREVENT people from openly speaking of/adhering to their religion, you are restricting their religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Fascist piece of shit.

Not "exposed".

Forced into.

As in Freedom from religion.

Nothing in the Constitution forces religion upon it's citizens. Quite the contrary.

You don't have to be religious.

 

[koshergrl]

That's not what Dragon said. He said exposed to.

Nobody has proposed that anyone be forced into any religion.

He proposes that freedom of religion can be interpreted as freedom FROM religion.

Talk about not being able to read...sheesh.

 

[Si modo]

1st amendment text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I'd like to know how that grants freedom from religion.

That was hard for you to read, eh?

So, show me where in the Constitution it says we are granted "freedom from religion".

The Founders knew what they were saying when they wrote it.

 

[koshergrl]

Also, I suggest Sallow and Dragon take a refresher course in English, to get a really clear idea what "from" and "of" mean. They are not interchangeable.