It's a Public School-Sponsored Baptism Party!

[Shogun]

meh.. the farcical nature of your posts are enough, dude. No snappy comeback necessary. Feel free to give your opinion of this tripoli HISTORIC FACT to my stenographer... Just direct your input strait to the trash can and speak.


The More You Know

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The declaration is not the CONSTITUTION. Tell me. what rights and liberties does the declaration grant? How does it define out laws or amendment process?

The US Declaration is the Charter on which the US Constitution founded.... Charters lay out principles, which the entity pledges to be at its core... Constitutions do not discuss principle, they enumerate regulatory guidelines which designate rules which reflect the principles of the charter.

Now what's more, you imply that the US Constitution 'grants rights'... It does not. It enumerates protections for rights which pre-existed the US Constitution and which specifically limits the power of Government from infringing upon the individuals rightful means to exercise those rights...

state preambles, again, are not the CONSTITUTION. State buildings also have Hamurabi and a host of Greeks. what, exactly, do you want to go on the record suggesting that this means? Do you want me to literally SHOW YOU images of the pegan Hamurabi on the fucking supreme court?

The Constitution seems to be the focus of all reason and power for you.

Perhaps we should simply ask you to show us where it is declared, in the US Constitution, that Religious principle shall not influence US Governance...

And be specific here Sis... You have now twice come to dismiss any other source of governance writing; implying that anything BUT the US Constitution is relevant to governance... so again: CITE THE SPECIFIC REGULATION IN THE US CONSTITUTION, WHEREIN IT PRECLUDES RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE FROM GOVERNANCE IN THE US.

I can show you where the US Constitution specifically states otherwise... where the US CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFLUENCING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, with regard to what, where, how and when they may practice their religion; where the US CONSTITUTION PREVENTS THE POWER OF GOVERNEMNT FROM FORMING A RELIGION OF ITS OWN< WHICH WOULD PREVENT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION...

Try this>

From the US Constitution; the very FIRST amendment to that Constitution reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So there MUST be some conflict within the US Constitution; wherein someone managed to ratify an amendment to the Coonstitution, which nullifies this amendment, but failed to strip this rule, which ESTABLISHES THAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS BARRED FROM MAKING ANY LAW WHICH INFRINGES UPON THE MEANS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION...; OR from INFRINGING UPON THE MEANS OF THOSE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO SPEAK FREELY OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; AND OTHERISE PREVENTS THEM FROM REDRESSING THEIR GOVERNMENT, THUS INFLUENCING THAT GOVERNMENT, SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS THE PRINCIPLES OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS... from the document...

So help us out here... where in the US Constitution do we find such that you're representing?

Speaking of actual FOUNDING FATHERS, instead of some silly fucking dogma junkie a hundred years later, I can unequivicably show you the Treaty of Tripoli which conveys that the US is not, in fact, any more of a CHRISTIAN nation than it is hindi or muslim. Those are FOUNDING FATHER words, silly guy. Not some ironic bastard from 50 years ago trying to insert Jesus into anything that walked.

Could you cite the individual post wherein a member asserted that the US is a Christian theocracy; in which the Governance of the United States rests within the doctrinal tenets of a given Church of Christianity?

It seems to me that you've succumbed to the common misnomer that PRINCIPLES common to and inherent in the Christian religion... which incontrovertibly influence not only the structure of the US DECLARATIVE CHARTER and the framing of the US Constitution; but represent the very fabric of the whole of Western Jurisprudence... are the equivilent of the respective and often contradicting TENENTS of the numerous Christian Churches...

But again: CITE THE SPECIFIC POST wherein a member has declared that the US is founded upon and governed through a Christian Theocracy...

seriously.. the shit you people try to believe is really no wonder given the range of goofy religious shit you'll fall for.

ROFLMNAO... Oh that is a deliciously sweet irony... Imagine an anti-theist coming to lament goofy 'beliefs' even as she implies that the US Constitution is wholly distinct from the charter on which it rests and from all other thought which was intrinsic in it's creation... which leads her to conlude that within that Constitution is presented law which simply is not present...

LOL...


Funny stuff...

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahh... yes... John Adams, a devout, unapologetic, lifelong Christian who left us a lifetime of writing, by which to study his thoughts and reasoning...

Not the least of which was that regarding his comments in the treaty with the Barbary Coast of Africa... the location of a long standing conflict which the MUSLIM PIRATES of that region... Muslim Pirates who could not bring themselves to treat with "Infidels"... or those whose governance was the antithesis to their Muslim Theocracy... and thus resulted in Adams penning the above treaty wherein the merely stated the fact that the US is NOT a Chrisitan theocracy...
thus would never make war with that population based upon the religious distinctions of the two cultures.

Again... That's hardly news... It's not an issue at contest with anyone on this board; and in my 30 years of hyper-active political debate, has never been presented in contest by any of the tens of thousands of particpants to which I have been privy to hear.

Begging the question: WHO IS ASSERTING THAT THE US IS GOVERNED THROUGH SPECIFIC TENETS OF A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY?

Naturally, as always; your failure to produce such an assertion; which would be the only appropriate basis for your above discredited screed... will result in your Conceding to the proposition that your argument is a baseless litanny of inane irrelevance... thus FAILS as a result... and such will be the case, purely by default.

Best of luck...

meh.. the farcical nature of your posts are enough, dude. No snappy comeback necessary. Feel free to give your opinion of this tripoli HISTORIC FACT to my stenographer... Just direct your input strait to the trash can and speak.


The More You Know

And there ya have it kids...

And THAT is all there is to throughly refuting, discrediting and otherwise defeating the impotence common to Left-think and their flaccid attempts to revise the conceptual underpinnings of America.

What ya see in the response from the above anti-theist is her CONCESSION, if only by default... but hey... let's be honest... as pathetic as it is... it was the only play she had... that her entire perspective is little more than a string of empty conjectures.

But the good news here is that she didn't drag out Jefferson's letter to the Church of Danbury; and demand that through that letter, Jefferson was informing those 'Flat-earthers' that they have no means to project their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE US... due to the now obligatory 'wall of separation...'

With the good news being that what used to be almost a DAILY habit in such debates... has been beaten back, by our having made a dent in educating of these idiots, and now is quite rare... and when such is attempted its usually by children who've stumbled in and dug it up from some anti-theist disinformation website...

Great concession there Shogum... ya done thebest ya could... God blessya!

 

[Shogun]

hey, if you want to consider that a concession, despite which of us posted evidence, then so be it. Like I said above, your forum input rests on it's own farcical nature.





get on down the road, clown. Enjoy prayer in public schools... WHOOPSY! NEVERMIND!

 

[manifold]

Maybe for the guy in the OP it is a privately owned company that runs the buses paid for by tax dollars, but from the article I read, he took the bus, paid for the gas, and transported the students to a baptism. That isn't something I would want my tax dollars to support...no matter what the religion.

I agree that it's not clear from the article whether tax payer money, directly or indirectly funded any part of this religious pilgrimage. And if I understand you correctly, I also agree that this makes all the difference. I don't place any merit on the argument that peer pressure can constitute a violation of any of the Bill of Rights, let alone the establishment clause.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The US Declaration is the Charter on which the US Constitution founded.... Charters lay out principles, which the entity pledges to be at its core... Constitutions do not discuss principle, they enumerate regulatory guidelines which designate rules which reflect the principles of the charter.

Now what's more, you imply that the US Constitution 'grants rights'... It does not. It enumerates protections for rights which pre-existed the US Constitution and which specifically limits the power of Government from infringing upon the individuals rightful means to exercise those rights...




The Constitution seems to be the focus of all reason and power for you.

Perhaps we should simply ask you to show us where it is declared, in the US Constitution, that Religious principle shall not influence US Governance...

And be specific here Sis... You have now twice come to dismiss any other source of governance writing; implying that anything BUT the US Constitution is relevant to governance... so again: CITE THE SPECIFIC REGULATION IN THE US CONSTITUTION, WHEREIN IT PRECLUDES RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE FROM GOVERNANCE IN THE US.

I can show you where the US Constitution specifically states otherwise... where the US CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY PREVENTS THE GOVERNMENT FROM INFLUENCING RELIGIOUS PEOPLE, with regard to what, where, how and when they may practice their religion; where the US CONSTITUTION PREVENTS THE POWER OF GOVERNEMNT FROM FORMING A RELIGION OF ITS OWN< WHICH WOULD PREVENT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE FROM PRACTICING THEIR RELIGION...

Try this>

From the US Constitution; the very FIRST amendment to that Constitution reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So there MUST be some conflict within the US Constitution; wherein someone managed to ratify an amendment to the Coonstitution, which nullifies this amendment, but failed to strip this rule, which ESTABLISHES THAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS BARRED FROM MAKING ANY LAW WHICH INFRINGES UPON THE MEANS OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION...; OR from INFRINGING UPON THE MEANS OF THOSE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TO SPEAK FREELY OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; AND OTHERISE PREVENTS THEM FROM REDRESSING THEIR GOVERNMENT, THUS INFLUENCING THAT GOVERNMENT, SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS THE PRINCIPLES OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS... from the document...

So help us out here... where in the US Constitution do we find such that you're representing?



Could you cite the individual post wherein a member asserted that the US is a Christian theocracy; in which the Governance of the United States rests within the doctrinal tenets of a given Church of Christianity?

It seems to me that you've succumbed to the common misnomer that PRINCIPLES common to and inherent in the Christian religion... which incontrovertibly influence not only the structure of the US DECLARATIVE CHARTER and the framing of the US Constitution; but represent the very fabric of the whole of Western Jurisprudence... are the equivilent of the respective and often contradicting TENENTS of the numerous Christian Churches...

But again: CITE THE SPECIFIC POST wherein a member has declared that the US is founded upon and governed through a Christian Theocracy...



ROFLMNAO... Oh that is a deliciously sweet irony... Imagine an anti-theist coming to lament goofy 'beliefs' even as she implies that the US Constitution is wholly distinct from the charter on which it rests and from all other thought which was intrinsic in it's creation... which leads her to conlude that within that Constitution is presented law which simply is not present...

LOL...


Funny stuff...



Ahh... yes... John Adams, a devout, unapologetic, lifelong Christian who left us a lifetime of writing, by which to study his thoughts and reasoning...

Not the least of which was that regarding his comments in the treaty with the Barbary Coast of Africa... the location of a long standing conflict which the MUSLIM PIRATES of that region... Muslim Pirates who could not bring themselves to treat with "Infidels"... or those whose governance was the antithesis to their Muslim Theocracy... and thus resulted in Adams penning the above treaty wherein the merely stated the fact that the US is NOT a Chrisitan theocracy...
thus would never make war with that population based upon the religious distinctions of the two cultures.

Again... That's hardly news... It's not an issue at contest with anyone on this board; and in my 30 years of hyper-active political debate, has never been presented in contest by any of the tens of thousands of particpants to which I have been privy to hear.

Begging the question: WHO IS ASSERTING THAT THE US IS GOVERNED THROUGH SPECIFIC TENETS OF A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY?

Naturally, as always; your failure to produce such an assertion; which would be the only appropriate basis for your above discredited screed... will result in your Conceding to the proposition that your argument is a baseless litanny of inane irrelevance... thus FAILS as a result... and such will be the case, purely by default.

Best of luck...

meh.. the farcical nature of your posts are enough, dude. No snappy comeback necessary. Feel free to give your opinion of this tripoli HISTORIC FACT to my stenographer... Just direct your input strait to the trash can and speak.


The More You Know

And there ya have it kids...

And THAT is all there is to throughly refuting, discrediting and otherwise defeating the impotence common to Left-think and their flaccid attempts to revise the conceptual underpinnings of America.

What ya see in the response from the above anti-theist is her CONCESSION, if only by default... but hey... let's be honest... as pathetic as it is... it was the only play she had... that her entire perspective is little more than a string of empty conjectures.

But the good news here is that she didn't drag out Jefferson's letter to the Church of Danbury; and demand that through that letter, Jefferson was informing those 'Flat-earthers' that they have no means to project their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE US... due to the now obligatory 'wall of separation...'

With the good news being that what used to be almost a DAILY habit in such debates... has been beaten back, by our having made a dent in educating of these idiots, and now is quite rare... and when such is attempted its usually by children who've stumbled in and dug it up from some anti-theist disinformation website...

Great concession there Shogum... ya done thebest ya could... God blessya!

hey, if you want to consider that a concession, despite which of us posted evidence, then so be it. Like I said above, your forum input rests on it's own farcical nature.





get on down the road, clown. Enjoy prayer in public schools... WHOOPSY! NEVERMIND!

ROFLMNAO

Oh that's cute... It's not how I would handle it, but to each is own I suppose.


Sis, I could consider it to be a 'BLT on Rye...' but without regard to whatever I want to believe it is... WHAT IT IS, is your failure to sustain your ARGUMENT... thus it is YOU CONCEDING BY DEFAULT THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS UNTENABLE... Ergo... it is what it is... and what it is, IS A CONCESSION.

Of course that principle applies to whatever delusion YOU want to slap on it as well...

Clearly you prefer to 'believe' that you just are interested in defending it... and that's fine... the fact remains that it's your argument; its been hit with numerous direct and unambiguous challenges and to this point those chellenges are the only thing standing...

And let's at least be honest with one another... can't we at least do that? And towards that end... we both know how these things end.

You make a lot of noise... throw around dubious assertions; cite irrelevant references, duplicitous inanity regarding this or that vacuous conjecture; when brings my response that inevitably results in your humiliation; which sends you into a brief period of reticence where you wisely choose to avoid 'making things worse'... only to return a week or so later, working under the reinforced delusuion that 'it never happened... and even if it DID... you carried the day...'

So come on, brother-man... don't poke the bear... The bear kinda enjoys it and it usually starts something which you can't stop.

Meaning either respond to the numerous challenges or shut the fuck up...

 

[Shogun]

My argument has been sustained with historic facts. It's why your direct reply to the treaty of Tripoli is standard issue shit talking that is neither profound or insightful; a regular pubic infernum post, if you will. Again, you can call a mouse fart in a tornado "a concession" if that is what keeps you rolling out of bed every morning. I'm just not in the business of giving a damn about one of our lamest USMB members who can't seem to fathom what vocabulary words actually mean. Nor evidence.

the only thing that has been brought up is... the Declaration of Independence and a bunch of state preambles. None of which are a First Amendment from the Constitution OR specific quote by a founding father specifically commenting on the non-dogmatic nature of America. But hey, if some goofy bastard from 1930 convinces you then so be it. Again, Your deficiency is what makes your forum input kinda cute like a down syndrome athlete at the special olympics.




still enjoying prayer in school? No, of course you are not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PubliusInfinitum again*

I tried!

 

[Ravi]

Maybe for the guy in the OP it is a privately owned company that runs the buses paid for by tax dollars, but from the article I read, he took the bus, paid for the gas, and transported the students to a baptism. That isn't something I would want my tax dollars to support...no matter what the religion.

I agree that it's not clear from the article whether tax payer money, directly or indirectly funded any part of this religious pilgrimage. And if I understand you correctly, I also agree that this makes all the difference. I don't place any merit on the argument that peer pressure can constitute a violation of any of the Bill of Rights, let alone the establishment clause.

Do you consider the coach a peer?

 

[manifold]

Maybe for the guy in the OP it is a privately owned company that runs the buses paid for by tax dollars, but from the article I read, he took the bus, paid for the gas, and transported the students to a baptism. That isn't something I would want my tax dollars to support...no matter what the religion.

I agree that it's not clear from the article whether tax payer money, directly or indirectly funded any part of this religious pilgrimage. And if I understand you correctly, I also agree that this makes all the difference. I don't place any merit on the argument that peer pressure can constitute a violation of any of the Bill of Rights, let alone the establishment clause.

Do you consider the coach a peer?

No.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

KY school district official ok with baptizing footballers, but students forced to 'opt-in' for Obama speech

I had a hunch.

As I was writing up a little story this morning about a Kentucky high school football coach who took his players to a Baptist revival where several were baptized -- at least one without parental consent -- I said to myself, I bet they didn't play Obama's speech today.

A quick phone call to the high school got me transferred to the school district's main offices, where a friendly woman answered but did not want to give her name when I identified myself as a reporter.

"Mam'," I began, "I just have one question that's not even related to the baptism thing and the coach. I just want to know if the district's schools played President Obama's speech on education today."

She responded by putting me on hold. Upon returning, she claimed to have no first-hand knowledge but had been told by someone else in the office that ...

"The students who watched the president's speech today had to get a note signed by their parents that said they could watch it."

In other words, students at the school district where a top official -- the superintendent -- does not see anything wrong with taking football players to be baptized at a Christian revival, were forced to get a parent's signature to "opt-in" (instead of out) for the president's speech.

As Johnny Carson used to say, "Weird, wild, wacky stuff."

What's wierd about it? BE specific...

God is after all, the source of and the authority on which your human rights rest. Given that, what could possibly be wrong with guiding one's charges to come to god, overtly accept him into your life and dedicate one's self to loving, respecting and fellowship worship with God?

Source?????

BTW, The bible is not proof of GAWD's existence, any more than Star Wars proves the existence of a real "***** Vader."

Believers in the christian god are a minority in the world, slightly less than one third.....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

KY school district official ok with baptizing footballers, but students forced to 'opt-in' for Obama speech

I had a hunch.

As I was writing up a little story this morning about a Kentucky high school football coach who took his players to a Baptist revival where several were baptized -- at least one without parental consent -- I said to myself, I bet they didn't play Obama's speech today.

A quick phone call to the high school got me transferred to the school district's main offices, where a friendly woman answered but did not want to give her name when I identified myself as a reporter.

"Mam'," I began, "I just have one question that's not even related to the baptism thing and the coach. I just want to know if the district's schools played President Obama's speech on education today."

She responded by putting me on hold. Upon returning, she claimed to have no first-hand knowledge but had been told by someone else in the office that ...

"The students who watched the president's speech today had to get a note signed by their parents that said they could watch it."

In other words, students at the school district where a top official -- the superintendent -- does not see anything wrong with taking football players to be baptized at a Christian revival, were forced to get a parent's signature to "opt-in" (instead of out) for the president's speech.

As Johnny Carson used to say, "Weird, wild, wacky stuff."

What's wierd about it? BE specific...

God is after all, the source of and the authority on which your human rights rest. Given that, what could possibly be wrong with guiding one's charges to come to god, overtly accept him into your life and dedicate one's self to loving, respecting and fellowship worship with God?

Source?????

BTW, The bible is not proof of GAWD's existence, any more than Star Wars proves the existence of a real "***** Vader."

Believers in the christian god are a minority in the world, slightly less than one third.....

One-third is not the minority, doofus!

 

[Shogun]

What's wierd about it? BE specific...

God is after all, the source of and the authority on which your human rights rest. Given that, what could possibly be wrong with guiding one's charges to come to god, overtly accept him into your life and dedicate one's self to loving, respecting and fellowship worship with God?

Source?????

BTW, The bible is not proof of GAWD's existence, any more than Star Wars proves the existence of a real "***** Vader."

Believers in the christian god are a minority in the world, slightly less than one third.....

One-third is not the minority, doofus!

66% might disagree. Now, let's work on heliocentrism before we get to Gravity and Evolution....

 

[CryGlennCry]

66% might disagree. Now, let's work on heliocentrism before we get to Gravity and Evolution....

So true. And it's really besides the point. The foundation of our country is the separation.

 

[AllieBaba]

The schools ARE state controlled which is why they have no fucking business denying children the right to be baptised if they want to, and why they have no fucking business teaching children that religion doesn't have a place in our government, in our schools, or in public.

 

[Ravi]

The schools ARE state controlled which is why they have no fucking business denying children the right to be baptised if they want to, and why they have no fucking business teaching children that religion doesn't have a place in our government, in our schools, or in public.

What are you smoking? They aren't denying anyone anything...they don't have the right to use taxpayer money to get children baptised anymore than they can use it to initiate them in a voodoo ceremony.

 

[Shogun]

The schools ARE state controlled which is why they have no fucking business denying children the right to be baptised if they want to, and why they have no fucking business teaching children that religion doesn't have a place in our government, in our schools, or in public.

Public school have no business facilitating the desire to get baptized. In other breaking news, I don't take a shit in the cafeteria either. Your faith doesn't have a place in our COLLECTIVE government. You'll understand that point the day muslims start decorating court houses and offering your child the option to try praying to mecca.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

And there ya have it kids...

And THAT is all there is to throughly refuting, discrediting and otherwise defeating the impotence common to Left-think and their flaccid attempts to revise the conceptual underpinnings of America.

What ya see in the response from the above anti-theist is her CONCESSION, if only by default... but hey... let's be honest... as pathetic as it is... it was the only play she had... that her entire perspective is little more than a string of empty conjectures.

But the good news here is that she didn't drag out Jefferson's letter to the Church of Danbury; and demand that through that letter, Jefferson was informing those 'Flat-earthers' that they have no means to project their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE US... due to the now obligatory 'wall of separation...'

With the good news being that what used to be almost a DAILY habit in such debates... has been beaten back, by our having made a dent in educating of these idiots, and now is quite rare... and when such is attempted its usually by children who've stumbled in and dug it up from some anti-theist disinformation website...

Great concession there Shogum... ya done thebest ya could... God blessya!

hey, if you want to consider that a concession, despite which of us posted evidence, then so be it. Like I said above, your forum input rests on it's own farcical nature.





get on down the road, clown. Enjoy prayer in public schools... WHOOPSY! NEVERMIND!

ROFLMNAO

Oh that's cute... It's not how I would handle it, but to each is own I suppose.


Sis, I could consider it to be a 'BLT on Rye...' but without regard to whatever I want to believe it is... WHAT IT IS, is your failure to sustain your ARGUMENT... thus it is YOU CONCEDING BY DEFAULT THAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS UNTENABLE... Ergo... it is what it is... and what it is, IS A CONCESSION.

Of course that principle applies to whatever delusion YOU want to slap on it as well...

Clearly you prefer to 'believe' that you just are interested in defending it... and that's fine... the fact remains that it's your argument; its been hit with numerous direct and unambiguous challenges and to this point those chellenges are the only thing standing...

And let's at least be honest with one another... can't we at least do that? And towards that end... we both know how these things end.

You make a lot of noise... throw around dubious assertions; cite irrelevant references, duplicitous inanity regarding this or that vacuous conjecture; when brings my response that inevitably results in your humiliation; which sends you into a brief period of reticence where you wisely choose to avoid 'making things worse'... only to return a week or so later, working under the reinforced delusuion that 'it never happened... and even if it DID... you carried the day...'

So come on, brother-man... don't poke the bear... The bear kinda enjoys it and it usually starts something which you can't stop.

Meaning either respond to the numerous challenges or shut the fuck up...

My argument has been sustained with historic facts.

ROFLMNAO... Golly... Was it REALLY?

Well that sounds just lovely... except your argument was not an argument; as much as it was a fallacious response to anothers stated position; which, sadly for you; your response was to an argument which was never advanced by anyone on this forum; your response amounted to little more than the fallacious drivel common to the sub-intellect; your response was an intentional misrepresentation of your oppositions argument... otherwise known as a Straw man... which is a rhetorical device used for the purposes of avoiding the argument and represents little more than deception, which hopes to conceal weak reasoning.

Now Sis, where one demonstrates their desire to VOID THE ARGUMENT; MAKES UP ANOTHER ARGUMENT WHICH THEY THEN PRETEND TO ENGAGE... there is simply no basis for any contest against the certainty that through such actions you conceded to the points of the argument, through intentionally seeking to avoid that argument...

DUMBASS!

But... as is noted above... we all see that you're doing the best ya can, God bless ya.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

KY school district official ok with baptizing footballers, but students forced to 'opt-in' for Obama speech

I had a hunch.

As I was writing up a little story this morning about a Kentucky high school football coach who took his players to a Baptist revival where several were baptized -- at least one without parental consent -- I said to myself, I bet they didn't play Obama's speech today.

A quick phone call to the high school got me transferred to the school district's main offices, where a friendly woman answered but did not want to give her name when I identified myself as a reporter.

"Mam'," I began, "I just have one question that's not even related to the baptism thing and the coach. I just want to know if the district's schools played President Obama's speech on education today."

She responded by putting me on hold. Upon returning, she claimed to have no first-hand knowledge but had been told by someone else in the office that ...

"The students who watched the president's speech today had to get a note signed by their parents that said they could watch it."

In other words, students at the school district where a top official -- the superintendent -- does not see anything wrong with taking football players to be baptized at a Christian revival, were forced to get a parent's signature to "opt-in" (instead of out) for the president's speech.

As Johnny Carson used to say, "Weird, wild, wacky stuff."

What's wierd about it? BE specific...

God is after all, the source of and the authority on which your human rights rest. Given that, what could possibly be wrong with guiding one's charges to come to god, overtly accept him into your life and dedicate one's self to loving, respecting and fellowship worship with God?

Source?????

Well I will stand as a source... That is my reasoning... which is drawn from decades of consideration, emperical observation and the study of others who have considered the same... If you need to see someone who is better known that I; ya might consider that this concept is laid out as the founding principle on which America rests and was advanced in nothing less than the US Declaration of Independence.

BTW, The bible is not proof of GAWD's existence, any more than Star Wars proves the existence of a real "***** Vader."

Believers in the christian god are a minority in the world, slightly less than one third.....

Sadly for you, if believers in gravity were limited to myself and an 87 year old Fishery retiree in Fairbanks, Alaska.. a minority... that wouldn't actually effect gravity's real status... ya see Einstein... there is no potential correlation between the popularity of a given concept and the validity of the concept.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

What's wierd about it? BE specific...

God is after all, the source of and the authority on which your human rights rest. Given that, what could possibly be wrong with guiding one's charges to come to god, overtly accept him into your life and dedicate one's self to loving, respecting and fellowship worship with God?

Source?????

Well I will stand as a source... That is my reasoning... which is drawn from decades of consideration, emperical observation and the study of others who have considered the same... If you need to see someone who is better known that I; ya might consider that this concept is laid out as the founding principle on which America rests and was advanced in nothing less than the US Declaration of Independence.

And since it is faith, not fact, believe what you will, does not make it so.

Flat earth was once believed, even considered to be fact, and was also popular, but still untrue.......

Our gov also once considered some of our citizens (and they were that) as two/thirds of a person but with no rights-consedered at the same time as chattel, that was believed in by many, and also popular.... in some quarters...... but somethiong invalid from an ethical point of view!

Also that Declaration said all MEN were created Equal, and left out all WOMEN and MINORITIES..... SO, not a reliable source about "fact".......

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Source?????

Well I will stand as a source... That is my reasoning... which is drawn from decades of consideration, emperical observation and the study of others who have considered the same... If you need to see someone who is better known that I; ya might consider that this concept is laid out as the founding principle on which America rests and was advanced in nothing less than the US Declaration of Independence.

And since it is faith, not fact, believe what you will, does not make it so.

Oh it's so... and it is demonstrably so...

The American system of governance; as with western jurisprudence; the principles of liberty on which America was founded... ALL are based upon the natural rights of man; and the natural rights of man are founded directly upon the certainty that man was endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights...

Flat earth was once believed, even considered to be fact, and was also popular, but still untrue.......

Thank you for sharing, I once bought a Bronze Nissan... and what a ridiculous piece of crap that was...

Now I offer that only to compliment the irrelevant point which you were good enough to provide... there's really no need to add to it, unless you just have some obsession that needs satisfied.

Our gov also once considered some of our citizens (and they were that) as two/thirds of a person but with no rights-consedered at the same time as chattel, that was believed in by many, and also popular.... in some quarters...... but somethiong invalid from an ethical point of view!

Yes, the founding US Government was subject to the cultural norms of their day... Imperfect but nonetheless recognized and respected the aforementioned divine rights; thus those principles on which the US was founded inevitably overcame those flaws in those mores; due in large measure to the Christian Church... and solely to Christian principles. Meaning that the freedoms which you presently enjoy; you owe to those men who stood up and counted themselves as Christians; demanded that the principles on which they believed were the ones by which they would be governed and risked there very lives towards bring such to fruition.

The simple fact is that Americans have known the most profound extent of freedom and prosperity ever witnessed by humanity; and the anti-theist humanism which you so clearly embrace is a force of regression; pulling the culture back towards those tyrannies which you've so vociferously lamented; back in the other direction, so to speak.

Also that Declaration said all MEN were created Equal, and left out all WOMEN and MINORITIES.....

Well, that's true, but this is due to the men who expressed those thoughts, not being intellectual dullards... such as yourself and those common to your ilk.

The term "men" spoke to all humanity; and it stated without equivocation that all of humanity is CREATED equal... meaning that the divine rights endowed to each of the species were at equity throughout the species... which is to say that one person does not enjoy rights superior to those of another.

Which is NOT to say that these equal rights result in all things being distributed equally; that all outcomes will measure equally and/or that all people will rise to equal stations...

But in every case, each man; I.e.: HuMAN... is endowed with the same rights as that which preceded them and that which follows... but not ALL huMENs will choose to exercise those rights to the same degree; not every huMAN will rise to maintain the same respect and recognition of the RESPONSIBILITIES inherent in those rights...

What the founders spoke to was the root understanding that the EQUALITY present where one man, one sum of men OKA: one people... are NOT rightfully entitled to infringe upon the equal rights of other men... despite circumstances where those huMENS... may have previously conceded their rights, for whatever reason.

For instance, you're an unbridled imbecile. Your words betray a limitation of intellect which demonstrate a lack of cognitive means sufficient to remain free beyond the confines of the culture which provides such for you. Which in this case, would necessarily mean the culture wherein the scope of understanding rests upon the laws and mores established upon the aforementioned natural rights... which while in a state of runaway decadence, as previously noted, those principles remain at the basis of all western cultures.

Now understand that given to your own devices; without a highway system, retail market, job market, currency by which you are able to trade in measured denominations... you'd perish in short order... OR you'd quickly subscribe yourself to the care of another who would provide for you. Were the culture to suddenly crumble, were you to find yourself present in a state of anarchy... with no other cultural protections... you would, assuming you survived long enough, soon concede your responsibilities to another who you believed would provide you security, food, shelter and so on...

Now you 'feel' otherwise to be sure... the trappings of the culture which was provided for you through the aforementioned principles, have provided you with the luxury of the delusion that 'rights' are whatever the state says they are... You believe that Rights are a function of a 'social contract' wherein a parent government dictates that to which you are entitled... and this is due to the certainty that the freedoms which those aforementioned principles provided, have flourished to such an extent that such is your perceived reality; which has rendered you blissfully ignorant of reality itself as you exist within the illusion that what you believe is true... At present and through the extent of your life, the state has always provided for you... in it's present demeanor; the state remains benevolent... but such, despite your ignorance of; or even your overt rejection of the natural rights with which you've been endowed, rests directly upon the very principles which you so adamantly reject.

But I suspect that this is not uncommon or even unreasonable; while the reality to which your mindset must thrust upon the culture is unenviable, it representative of the natural decadence which results from the bounty of unprecedented liberty which was produced through generations of people who recognized and respected those principles... they provided for a culture where such was the norm... thus, inevitably must come the generations who must reject those sustaining responsibilities and render the culture into its present state of decay; and back into bondage.

Thus within the parlance the relevant day, "Men" were those who understood the unenviable aspects of reality; embraced their divine endowment; respected and jealously maintained the intrinsic responsibilities inherent in those rights... and who overtly considered the distinction between themselves and those of lesser intellectual means...

Such was not a function of denigration; but the result of an understanding which I doubt is within your means... but I'll trot it out and give you a demonstration...

It is the nature of the woman, to find a man to care for her; as the slave needs his master... the employee, the employer and so on...

Individuals such as yourself do not meet the definition of 'men;' but in point of fact, are less than men. You are endowed with the same rights as men... you simply lack that which is necessary to maintain those rights. Given the right to be free, you reject the responsibility which provides the MEANS to be free...

Where you're free to pursue the bounty of a freedom which exists at your time... to gather whatever you feel you need at whatever level your desire permits... during a time when more information is readily available to ANYONE who cares to simply examine it... what do we find a majority of people doing?

Are they taking responsibility for themselves? Where they see a critical need to secure the means for medical care, do they busy themselves toiling to store sufficient means to secure that care? Or do they clamber for someone to provide them with such?

Where they seek to not be saddled with the mind-bending responsibility of raising a child? Do they recognize and maintain their freedom sustaining RESPONSIBILITY; seeking out the readily available information so as to educate themselves on what one can and should do to avoid conceiving a child? Or do they concede their responsibility; ignore the responsibility and when such unenviable, but HIGHLY PREDICTABLE circumstances come to pass... they concede their freedom sustaining responsibility to the State, which provides that they are entitled to murder their own child to avoid that responsibility...

The delusion which you're advancing is not 'Progress' friend... it is REGRESS... you feel that your mindset is one of enlightenment; but it is one of stunning bigotry and ignorance; and such is the source by which the culture upon which you depend, is regressing right back to the very sort of social mores which you come to this board to lament.

You consider yourself open-minded, even as you refuse to thoroughly read the response for which you begged... and reject the facts of nature for which there is NO END to the proof that such exists; and that everything you claim to hold dear, rests directly upon.

SO, not a reliable source about "fact".......

Oh I hear ya...

ROFLMNAO.... Sweet mother that's funny...