Atheists are Monstrous, Evil, Bloodthirsty Tyrants

[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.

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.

But, Dragon seems to think that the First grants folks the right not to be "exposed" to religion. Sure, it does mean that the GOVERNMENT can't be doing that, but it certainly does NOT mean anyone has the right not to be 'exposed' to religion.

Obviously.

 

[Sallow]

Well, Stalin was a monstrous, evil, bloodthirsty tyrant, and he was an atheist. One hit out of hundreds of millions of misses is not too . . . well, actually it is pretty bad.

It's also obvious from the title that Ernie confuses me with an atheist. Guess he has some trouble with reading comprehension.

By the way, Christians put down the beliefs of others more than followers of any other religion in the world. By that measure, they are extremely INsecure in their beliefs.

Here's the funny part. Stalin wanted to become a priest..

 

[koshergrl]

of/əv/


Preposition:

• Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole: "the sleeve of his coat".
• Expressing the relationship between a scale or measure and a value: "an increase of 5 percent".

from/frəm/


Preposition:

• Indicating the point in space at which a journey, motion, or action starts: "she began to walk away from him".
• Indicating the distance between a particular place and another place used as a point of reference: "50 yards from a checkpoint".

Yes, they are both prepositions. With meanings that are pretty close to "opposite".

 

[Sallow]

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.

But, Dragon seems to think that the First grants folks the right not to be "exposed" to religion. Sure, it does mean that the GOVERNMENT can't be doing that, but it certainly does NOT mean anyone has the right not to be 'exposed' to religion.

Obviously.

Ah.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee you won't be exposed to ideas and things you don't like. Quite the contrary.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

But, Dragon seems to think that the First grants folks the right not to be "exposed" to religion. Sure, it does mean that the GOVERNMENT can't be doing that, but it certainly does NOT mean anyone has the right not to be 'exposed' to religion.

Obviously.

Dragon wants to grant people freedom from freedom. I'm sure he thinks it's much too complicated and overwhelming for the ordinary Joe.

He probably sees killing people as liberation from life, as well. His type are easy to figure.

 

[Dragon]

Hmmm. I think you misunderstand folks

Actually, going by the context in which the phrase is always used, I am quite certain I don't misunderstand them. That context is always a discussion about some official government endorsement of Christianity that is not allowed by the 1A. Prayer in schools, displaying the 10 Commandments in court, a nativity display on public property, things like that. It's clear that what is meant by "freedom from religion" is a ban on this sort of thing -- a ban on official religion, or endorsement of their religious beliefs by the government.

But let me put it another way. The First Amendment guarantees freedom from religion, but it does not impose freedom from religion. That is, if you want to be free from religion, you can be (in your own home, and in your interactions with the government). But if you don't WANT to be free from religion, you don't HAVE to be. You can practice a faith in your own home, or in a church or other place meant for the purpose, or in public as long as you are not interfering with other people's rights or endorsing religion in some official government capacity.

 

[Si modo]

Hmmm. I think you misunderstand folks

Actually, going by the context in which the phrase is always used, I am quite certain I don't misunderstand them. That context is always a discussion about some official government endorsement of Christianity that is not allowed by the 1A. Prayer in schools, displaying the 10 Commandments in court, a nativity display on public property, things like that. It's clear that what is meant by "freedom from religion" is a ban on this sort of thing -- a ban on official religion, or endorsement of their religious beliefs by the government.

....

Which is what I said, and you did not quote.



You are needy, aren't you?

.... But let me put it another way. The First Amendment guarantees freedom from religion, but it does not impose freedom from religion. That is, if you want to be free from religion, you can be (in your own home, and in your interactions with the government). But if you don't WANT to be free from religion, you don't HAVE to be. You can practice a faith in your own home, or in a church or other place meant for the purpose, or in public as long as you are not interfering with other people's rights or endorsing religion in some official government capacity.

Uh huh. That's what I said.

 

[Si modo]

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.

But, Dragon seems to think that the First grants folks the right not to be "exposed" to religion. Sure, it does mean that the GOVERNMENT can't be doing that, but it certainly does NOT mean anyone has the right not to be 'exposed' to religion.

Obviously.

Dragon wants to grant people freedom from freedom. I'm sure he thinks it's much too complicated and overwhelming for the ordinary Joe.

He probably sees killing people as liberation from life, as well. His type are easy to figure.

Actually, that is not what Dragon wants.

Give him enough time and he will correct his errors (without ever admitting one, that is ).

 

[koshergrl]

I think it's exactly what he wants.

 

[Luissa]

It seems Christians are fairly confident in their beliefs and have little need to reinforce their spirituality by dismissing the beliefs of others.
It would further seem that atheists are not all that comfortable and need to attack believers in order to reinforce their spiritual lack.

SOrry I just have to laugh at this hypocritical post.

Plus many so called Christians on this board feel the need to judge many any chance they get.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh yawn.

 

[amrchaos]

Have you noticed--that atheists seem to be more focused on attacking Christianity versus Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc...?

Why do you think that? I mean, even Scientology gets a pass!! And let us not talk about Pastafarinism!!

 

[Luissa]

The OP does exactly what he is bitching about, which I find hilarious. With many christians in this thread backing him up.
You don't like them attacking their beliefs, but turn around and do the very thing you are bitching about. Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[Dr.Drock]

For everyone of every belief if you're offended by ppl attacking your beliefs, I would advise leaving a message board where everyone of every belief can voice their opinion.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Because no religion could ever, by law, infringe on you.......that's how.....which is what I take "Freedom from Religion" to mean EXACTLY.

 

[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.

Because no religion could ever, by law, infringe on you.......that's how.....which is what I take "Freedom from Religion" to mean EXACTLY.

And, as "freedom from religion" is ambiguous in its meaning, that is EXACTLY why the Founders did not say it and said something else specific to government.

 

[koshergrl]

THERE IS NO FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. Who the hell taught people that garbage?

 

[jillian]

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.

actually, the way the caselaw construes the amendment is that religion can't be fostered by government. that means that government can't encourage religion. it's not that complicated, because the reality is that if you are free to believe or not believe anything you want, then government can't play favorites whether you are religious or atheist.

 

[Si modo]

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.

actually, the way the caselaw construes the amendment is that religion can't be fostered by government. that means that government can't encourage religion. it's not that complicated, because the reality is that if you are free to believe or not believe anything you want, then government can't play favorites whether you are religious or atheist.

Exactly. And it does not mean that an atheist does not have to hear a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, etc. talking about their faith unofficially.

 

[jillian]

THERE IS NO FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. Who the hell taught people that garbage?

yes, there is... because i have the right not to have someone else's beliefs imposed upon me or my family BY THE GOVERNMENT.

Now, if a jehova's witness wants to try to hand me a copy of Watchtower, then that's their right... as it is my right to say no thank you.