Atheists are Monstrous, Evil, Bloodthirsty Tyrants

[G.T.]

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.

In reference to THE GOVERNMENT, which is what most people are talking about when they're discussing the subject, it most definitely does grant freedom from Religion.

And with that comes any basic public institution funded by tax payer money.

I think it's pretty simple what people mean when they say it, and I also feel it's indeed what the 1st says.

 

[jillian]

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.

All correct. But it does mean that my son's public school can't put up a creche.... or have prayer time...

there is nothing in the first amendment, however, that gives me the right *not* to be offended by what a private person says.

 

[Si modo]

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.

In reference to THE GOVERNMENT, which is what most people are talking about when they're discussing the subject, it most definitely does grant freedom from Religion.

And with that comes any basic public institution funded by tax payer money.
....

Of course.

....

I think it's pretty simple what people mean when they say it, and I also feel it's indeed what the 1st says.

If the 1st says "freedom from religion", which it does not, then those Jehovah's witnesses who have knocked on my door need to be arrested. The Muslims at the mosque down the road need to be arrested every day at 5 PM. Those hasidic Jews I see on the Metro and the Christians who wear crosses around their necks need to be arrested because I am seeing their religion and, dammit, I have a right to be free FROM religion! And, why the hell is the government allowing those freaky preachers to be on the tube on Sunday mornings?????

So, if the 1st ever said "freedom FROM religion", we would have a hell of a lot of folks in jail. And, that is why the Founders never said "freedom FROM religion" and rather said exactly what they said.

 

[Si modo]

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.

All correct. But it does mean that my son's public school can't put up a creche.... or have prayer time...

there is nothing in the first amendment, however, that gives me the right *not* to be offended by what a private person says.

Exactly again.

 

[Luissa]

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.

All correct. But it does mean that my son's public school can't put up a creche.... or have prayer time...

there is nothing in the first amendment, however, that gives me the right *not* to be offended by what a private person says.

You are evil if you get offended.

 

[jillian]

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.

All correct. But it does mean that my son's public school can't put up a creche.... or have prayer time...

there is nothing in the first amendment, however, that gives me the right *not* to be offended by what a private person says.

You are evil if you get offended.

oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[G.T.]

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.

In reference to THE GOVERNMENT, which is what most people are talking about when they're discussing the subject, it most definitely does grant freedom from Religion.

And with that comes any basic public institution funded by tax payer money.
....

Of course.

....

I think it's pretty simple what people mean when they say it, and I also feel it's indeed what the 1st says.

If the 1st says "freedom from religion", which it does not, then those Jehovah's witnesses who have knocked on my door need to be arrested. The Muslims at the mosque down the road need to be arrested every day at 5 PM. Those hasidic Jews I see on the Metro and the Christians who wear crosses around their necks need to be arrested because I am seeing their religion and, dammit, I have a right to be free FROM religion! And, why the hell is the government allowing those freaky preachers to be on the tube on Sunday mornings?????

So, if the 1st ever said "freedom FROM religion", we would have a hell of a lot of folks in jail. And, that is why the Founders never said "freedom FROM religion" and rather said exactly what they said.

Semantics though.

If you're personally talking about "the Government," then the 1st grants "freedom from Religion," but usually in such obviously-geared conversations you don't need to throw the little qualifier in because it's common sense that they're not talking about "I'm free to NEVER see it no matter WHAT!"

That's just stupidity.

 

[jillian]

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.

All correct. But it does mean that my son's public school can put up a creche.... or have prayer time...

there is nothing in the first amendment, however, that gives me the right *not* to be offended by what a private person says.

Exactly again.

i edited... lol.. it should have said *can*

or... more clearly.. my son's school CAN'T put up a creche or have prayer time...

there... i got that out. *sigh*

 

[Si modo]

All correct. But it does mean that my son's public school can put up a creche.... or have prayer time...

there is nothing in the first amendment, however, that gives me the right *not* to be offended by what a private person says.

Exactly again.

i edited... lol.. it should have said *can*

'sOK. I knew we were on the same page.

 

[Si modo]

In reference to THE GOVERNMENT, which is what most people are talking about when they're discussing the subject, it most definitely does grant freedom from Religion.

And with that comes any basic public institution funded by tax payer money.
....

Of course.

....

I think it's pretty simple what people mean when they say it, and I also feel it's indeed what the 1st says.

If the 1st says "freedom from religion", which it does not, then those Jehovah's witnesses who have knocked on my door need to be arrested. The Muslims at the mosque down the road need to be arrested every day at 5 PM. Those hasidic Jews I see on the Metro and the Christians who wear crosses around their necks need to be arrested because I am seeing their religion and, dammit, I have a right to be free FROM religion! And, why the hell is the government allowing those freaky preachers to be on the tube on Sunday mornings?????

So, if the 1st ever said "freedom FROM religion", we would have a hell of a lot of folks in jail. And, that is why the Founders never said "freedom FROM religion" and rather said exactly what they said.

Semantics though.

If you're personally talking about "the Government," then the 1st grants "freedom from Religion," but usually in such obviously-geared conversations you don't need to throw the little qualifier in because it's common sense that they're not talking about "I'm free to NEVER see it no matter WHAT!"

That's just stupidity.

So, the Founders were stupid, huh?

 

[koshergrl]

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.

All correct. But it does mean that my son's public school can't put up a creche.... or have prayer time...

there is nothing in the first amendment, however, that gives me the right *not* to be offended by what a private person says.

Actually, it doesn't mean that the public school can't put up a creche, any more than it means that there can't be a nativity scene on the lawn of city hall.

 

[G.T.]

Of course.

If the 1st says "freedom from religion", which it does not, then those Jehovah's witnesses who have knocked on my door need to be arrested. The Muslims at the mosque down the road need to be arrested every day at 5 PM. Those hasidic Jews I see on the Metro and the Christians who wear crosses around their necks need to be arrested because I am seeing their religion and, dammit, I have a right to be free FROM religion! And, why the hell is the government allowing those freaky preachers to be on the tube on Sunday mornings?????

So, if the 1st ever said "freedom FROM religion", we would have a hell of a lot of folks in jail. And, that is why the Founders never said "freedom FROM religion" and rather said exactly what they said.

Semantics though.

If you're personally talking about "the Government," then the 1st grants "freedom from Religion," but usually in such obviously-geared conversations you don't need to throw the little qualifier in because it's common sense that they're not talking about "I'm free to NEVER see it no matter WHAT!"

That's just stupidity.

So, the Founders were stupid, huh?

Well, they weren't infallible but their smarts have nothing to do with what I mean.

When people come into threads about stopping Religious shit in Public schools, etc (i.e. where this whole discussion usually branches out of), and say "the first grants freedom from Religion," then in the context of the discussion(In public schools) what they're saying is correct and to make them qualify the comment when (for all intents and purposes) anyone with a brain knows what they mean - you're just being snide: or as I'd say in real life: "don't be such a dick."

 

[Si modo]

Semantics though.

If you're personally talking about "the Government," then the 1st grants "freedom from Religion," but usually in such obviously-geared conversations you don't need to throw the little qualifier in because it's common sense that they're not talking about "I'm free to NEVER see it no matter WHAT!"

That's just stupidity.

So, the Founders were stupid, huh?

Well, they weren't infallible but their smarts have nothing to do with what I mean.

When people come into threads about stopping Religious shit in Public schools, etc (i.e. where this whole discussion usually branches out of), and say "the first grants freedom from Religion," then in the context of the discussion(In public schools) what they're saying is correct and to make them qualify the comment when (for all intents and purposes) anyone with a brain knows what they mean - you're just being snide: or as I'd say in real life: "don't be such a dick."

I'm just being exact. If that makes me snide and a dick to you, I have to laugh.

 

[G.T.]

So, the Founders were stupid, huh?

Well, they weren't infallible but their smarts have nothing to do with what I mean.

When people come into threads about stopping Religious shit in Public schools, etc (i.e. where this whole discussion usually branches out of), and say "the first grants freedom from Religion," then in the context of the discussion(In public schools) what they're saying is correct and to make them qualify the comment when (for all intents and purposes) anyone with a brain knows what they mean - you're just being snide: or as I'd say in real life: "don't be such a dick."

I'm just being exact. If that makes me snide and a dick to you, I have to laugh.

you say exact


i say nit picky

 

[Si modo]

Well, they weren't infallible but their smarts have nothing to do with what I mean.

When people come into threads about stopping Religious shit in Public schools, etc (i.e. where this whole discussion usually branches out of), and say "the first grants freedom from Religion," then in the context of the discussion(In public schools) what they're saying is correct and to make them qualify the comment when (for all intents and purposes) anyone with a brain knows what they mean - you're just being snide: or as I'd say in real life: "don't be such a dick."

I'm just being exact. If that makes me snide and a dick to you, I have to laugh.

you say exact


i say nit picky

OK.

Yet, the First still does not say "freedom FROM religion". I am pretty sure there is a reason why it does not, too.

 

[G.T.]

Right sawwy, freedom from "Government" Religion......which, like I said, is already implied in the context of the discussion. Dick. Nit picker. ; ) j/p

 

[Si modo]

Right sawwy, freedom from "Government" Religion......which, like I said, is already implied in the context of the discussion. Dick. Nit picker. ; ) j/p

Well, as I said, if being exact makes me a dick, what can I do?

My intent certainly wasn't to be a dick (never heard a woman called a dick before, either, but there are many firsts here for me).

Supreme laws are exact for a reason, thank God .

 

[G.T.]

Right sawwy, freedom from "Government" Religion......which, like I said, is already implied in the context of the discussion. Dick. Nit picker. ; ) j/p

Well, as I said, if being exact makes me a dick, what can I do?

My intent certainly wasn't to be a dick (never heard a woman called a dick before, either, but there are many firsts here for me).

Supreme laws are exact for a reason, thank God .

You don't always have to talk like a Lawyer in a casual discussion, especially if you know the intent of the other's words despite them lacking their qualifier. That is kind of being a dick.

But yea, I call girls dicks all the time (in 3d) because it gives everyone a giggle for effect because you're right: Nobody calls girls dicks really. C'ept me. #/swag

 

[Si modo]

Right sawwy, freedom from "Government" Religion......which, like I said, is already implied in the context of the discussion. Dick. Nit picker. ; ) j/p

Well, as I said, if being exact makes me a dick, what can I do?

My intent certainly wasn't to be a dick (never heard a woman called a dick before, either, but there are many firsts here for me).

Supreme laws are exact for a reason, thank God .

You don't always have to talk like a Lawyer in a casual discussion, especially if you know the intent of the other's words despite them lacking their qualifier. That is kind of being a dick.

But yea, I call girls dicks all the time (in 3d) because it gives everyone a giggle for effect because you're right: Nobody calls girls dicks really. C'ept me. #/swag

You ASSumed I know the intent of posters.

I only know what I read. I haven't yet mastered reading minds. I'm working on that, though.

 

[Sky Dancer]

They have no God other than themselves, think all they see around them is an accident of nature and want to force everyone into their warped way of thinking.
Look through the religion and ethics thread list. It seems that atheist are a whole lot more evangelical than the Christians they constantly complain about.

This is a flame thread. IMO, it belongs in the flame zone.