Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Phil Plait, "Don't be a dick". That is still the best speech.
About twenty years ago there were massive discussions on line that were inclusive with participants from all faiths and none. These discussions consisted of similarities in passages, spirituality (or none), legal boundaries, etc. Those don't exist anymore. Later we had productive discussions on people, like David Barton, that were making up lies about American history. Those don't exist anymore.
Long time atheists are fed up with what amounts to trolling and some news sources making attempts to round up some folks for a political party via opining. It's an issue. It's counterproductive.
It would be awesome if everybody said, "We have more religious freedom than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Followed by, "We have more freedom from religion than anywhere in the world due to the First Amendment." Then we all worked to keep it that way.
There is no "freedom from religion". That would mean any religious displays would be behind closed doors, away from the fainting eyes of those offended by them.
Absolutely not. That isn't what it means at all. England had a state religion. That is our history. Bloodshed over Catholicism and Protestantism.
And we don't. and that was the meaning of the 1st when it banned establishment of religion. it was to prevent government tithes, religious tests for government office, and mandatory membership in a church, as well as banning state support for any church.
I doubt the founders thought it would be used to stop religious displays in common areas, or force a common area to cater t all religions, even the ones made purely to spite others.
Actually, it was all about the ability to cater to all religions. There are ample sources that support this. That history was much closer to them than to us. It was their recent history. Further, they were not limited to knowing only of Christianity. Almost 240 years later and the US has forgotten how important it is.
Those religions "made purely to spite others" rose in response to those religious zealots that made attempts by word and deed and promised to make attempts if elected to create a theocracy.
They can attempt all they want, but the only way they will get it is if a super-majority of people want it, and if that is the case Atheists have bigger problems than the government.
And nowadays most religious people just want to be left in peace, they tried the whole Moral Majority thing, and rightly got smacked down. It's now the Secular Left trying that tactic to crush the other side.
There is no "freedom from religion". That would mean any religious displays would be behind closed doors, away from the fainting eyes of those offended by them.
Absolutely not. That isn't what it means at all. England had a state religion. That is our history. Bloodshed over Catholicism and Protestantism.
And we don't. and that was the meaning of the 1st when it banned establishment of religion. it was to prevent government tithes, religious tests for government office, and mandatory membership in a church, as well as banning state support for any church.
I doubt the founders thought it would be used to stop religious displays in common areas, or force a common area to cater t all religions, even the ones made purely to spite others.
Actually, it was all about the ability to cater to all religions. There are ample sources that support this. That history was much closer to them than to us. It was their recent history. Further, they were not limited to knowing only of Christianity. Almost 240 years later and the US has forgotten how important it is.
Those religions "made purely to spite others" rose in response to those religious zealots that made attempts by word and deed and promised to make attempts if elected to create a theocracy.
They can attempt all they want, but the only way they will get it is if a super-majority of people want it, and if that is the case Atheists have bigger problems than the government.
And nowadays most religious people just want to be left in peace, they tried the whole Moral Majority thing, and rightly got smacked down. It's now the Secular Left trying that tactic to crush the other side.
Most atheists just want to be left in peace. They are no more louder than say Jeremiah or Sil. The internet makes them seem much more loud than what they are. You are no more a nutter because you are a lapsed Catholic than I am as an atheist. Neither of us is representative of the whole. It's a division tactic.
Absolutely not. That isn't what it means at all. England had a state religion. That is our history. Bloodshed over Catholicism and Protestantism.
And we don't. and that was the meaning of the 1st when it banned establishment of religion. it was to prevent government tithes, religious tests for government office, and mandatory membership in a church, as well as banning state support for any church.
I doubt the founders thought it would be used to stop religious displays in common areas, or force a common area to cater t all religions, even the ones made purely to spite others.
Actually, it was all about the ability to cater to all religions. There are ample sources that support this. That history was much closer to them than to us. It was their recent history. Further, they were not limited to knowing only of Christianity. Almost 240 years later and the US has forgotten how important it is.
Those religions "made purely to spite others" rose in response to those religious zealots that made attempts by word and deed and promised to make attempts if elected to create a theocracy.
They can attempt all they want, but the only way they will get it is if a super-majority of people want it, and if that is the case Atheists have bigger problems than the government.
And nowadays most religious people just want to be left in peace, they tried the whole Moral Majority thing, and rightly got smacked down. It's now the Secular Left trying that tactic to crush the other side.
Most atheists just want to be left in peace. They are no more louder than say Jeremiah or Sil. The internet makes them seem much more loud than what they are. You are no more a nutter because you are a lapsed Catholic than I am as an atheist. Neither of us is representative of the whole. It's a division tactic.
Agreed, however the ones that don't want to be left in peace seem to love suing to get their point across.
And we don't. and that was the meaning of the 1st when it banned establishment of religion. it was to prevent government tithes, religious tests for government office, and mandatory membership in a church, as well as banning state support for any church.
I doubt the founders thought it would be used to stop religious displays in common areas, or force a common area to cater t all religions, even the ones made purely to spite others.
Actually, it was all about the ability to cater to all religions. There are ample sources that support this. That history was much closer to them than to us. It was their recent history. Further, they were not limited to knowing only of Christianity. Almost 240 years later and the US has forgotten how important it is.
Those religions "made purely to spite others" rose in response to those religious zealots that made attempts by word and deed and promised to make attempts if elected to create a theocracy.
They can attempt all they want, but the only way they will get it is if a super-majority of people want it, and if that is the case Atheists have bigger problems than the government.
And nowadays most religious people just want to be left in peace, they tried the whole Moral Majority thing, and rightly got smacked down. It's now the Secular Left trying that tactic to crush the other side.
Most atheists just want to be left in peace. They are no more louder than say Jeremiah or Sil. The internet makes them seem much more loud than what they are. You are no more a nutter because you are a lapsed Catholic than I am as an atheist. Neither of us is representative of the whole. It's a division tactic.
Agreed, however the ones that don't want to be left in peace seem to love suing to get their point across.
The flip side is that Christians can no longer complain that atheists are afraid of going after other religions like head coverings for Muslims and Sikhs on state IDs.
