Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do. Everytime someone professes some religious belief such as being christian they say "separation of church and state" and blah blah balh. The first sentence of that amendment says 'congress shall pass no law...' which means it is a limitation on the congress itself and not on individuals, politicians, or anyone else so the first amendment can't be used to silence by expression of my own religion or anyone elses.
Liberals haven't gotten that yet and seem to think they can just closet people who profess their belief in God.
"The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do."
The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do. Everytime someone professes some religious belief such as being christian they say "separation of church and state" and blah blah balh. The first sentence of that amendment says 'congress shall pass no law...' which means it is a limitation on the congress itself and not on individuals, politicians, or anyone else so the first amendment can't be used to silence by expression of my own religion or anyone elses.
Liberals haven't gotten that yet and seem to think they can just closet people who profess their belief in God.
"The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do."
I tried to follow you scattergun approach, my friend, and found some things with which I agree, and much that was total nonsense.
But let me focus on this section:
"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."
The "...DANGEROUS nonsense ..." reference to religion is misplaced and shows an unforgivable lacunae that must be corrected.
You see, you are not anti-religion, just pro-statist religion.
And as for dangerous, the last two centuries or so have seen immense swaths of murder, maiming, slavery and misery due to the religion to which you subscribe.
Starting with the French Revolution, and the replacing of Christianity with a belief in the collective and the state, progressivism, fascism, communism, and every permutation of totalism, millions have suffered.
For your edification:
The French Revolution, the first fascist movement(The political terms "Right" and "Left" were born in the French Revolution, when two different revolutionary factions took seats in the French National Assembly's hall: the Girondins on the right wing and the Jacobins on the left wing.)
1. It was totalitarian, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist, the origin of the revolutionary tradition of the left.
a. While the American Revolution, essentially conservative, and served as a paradigm for the American right and classical liberals, the left sees its model in the Jacobins.
2. Produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon.
3. Based on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who represented the general will.
4. Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some 50,000 died in the Terror (1793-1794)
5. [Robespierre] is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first. Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006
6. Robespierre: "We must exterminate all our enemies."
7. Robespierre: The people is always worth more than individuals The people is sublime, but individuals are weak or expendable. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf, p. 20
Dangerous?
"The whole point of the first amendment was to protect the free expression of religion and not to destroy as so many liberals keep attempting to do."
I tried to follow you scattergun approach, my friend, and found some things with which I agree, and much that was total nonsense.
But let me focus on this section:
"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."
The "...DANGEROUS nonsense ..." reference to religion is misplaced and shows an unforgivable lacunae that must be corrected.
You see, you are not anti-religion, just pro-statist religion.
And as for dangerous, the last two centuries or so have seen immense swaths of murder, maiming, slavery and misery due to the religion to which you subscribe.
Starting with the French Revolution, and the replacing of Christianity with a belief in the collective and the state, progressivism, fascism, communism, and every permutation of totalism, millions have suffered.
For your edification:
The French Revolution, the first fascist movement(The political terms "Right" and "Left" were born in the French Revolution, when two different revolutionary factions took seats in the French National Assembly's hall: the Girondins on the right wing and the Jacobins on the left wing.)
1. It was totalitarian, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist, the origin of the revolutionary tradition of the left.
a. While the American Revolution, essentially conservative, and served as a paradigm for the American right and classical liberals, the left sees its model in the Jacobins.
2. Produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon.
3. Based on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who represented the general will.
4. Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some 50,000 died in the Terror (1793-1794)
5. [Robespierre] is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first. Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006
6. Robespierre: "We must exterminate all our enemies."
7. Robespierre: The people is always worth more than individuals The people is sublime, but individuals are weak or expendable. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf, p. 20
Dangerous?
9/11
The Crusades
Pee-pee Touchers
Judging of human beings, in General, as some sort of seperate entity from others (less than equal) -->homosexuals.
Yes, Religion can be Dangerous. Also, you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting. It makes you seem like a pompass bee-hotch, and not a scholar in the least. You're arguing from a position of arrogance in that you're arguing against what you "perceive" him to be, aka building a strawman, knocking it down, and patting yourself on your arrogant back. Strong work.
dUMBASS, I read his quote. You told him that he worships the State. Is that the exact opposite of thinking that Religion is "Dangerous nonsense?" If not, show me the quote he made which caused you to "ascribe" the view unto him that he "worships the State", ya ninny. "you can't be that dumb."I tried to follow you scattergun approach, my friend, and found some things with which I agree, and much that was total nonsense.
But let me focus on this section:
"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."
The "...DANGEROUS nonsense ..." reference to religion is misplaced and shows an unforgivable lacunae that must be corrected.
You see, you are not anti-religion, just pro-statist religion.
And as for dangerous, the last two centuries or so have seen immense swaths of murder, maiming, slavery and misery due to the religion to which you subscribe.
Starting with the French Revolution, and the replacing of Christianity with a belief in the collective and the state, progressivism, fascism, communism, and every permutation of totalism, millions have suffered.
For your edification:
The French Revolution, the first fascist movement(The political terms "Right" and "Left" were born in the French Revolution, when two different revolutionary factions took seats in the French National Assembly's hall: the Girondins on the right wing and the Jacobins on the left wing.)
1. It was totalitarian, nationalist, conspiratorial, and populist, the origin of the revolutionary tradition of the left.
a. While the American Revolution, essentially conservative, and served as a paradigm for the American right and classical liberals, the left sees its model in the Jacobins.
2. Produced the first modern dictators, Robespierre and Napoleon.
3. Based on the premise that the nation had to be ruled by an enlightened avant-garde who represented the ‘general will.’
4. Jacobin mentality made the revolutionaries more savage and cruel than the king they replaced. Some 50,000 died in the Terror (1793-1794)
5. [Robespierre] “is the prototype of a particularly odious kind of evildoer: the ideologue who believes that reason and morality are on the side of his butcheries. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot are of the same mold. They are the characteristic scourges of humanity in modern times, but Robespierre has a good claim to being the first.” Why Robespierre Chose Terror by John Kekes, City Journal Spring 2006
6. Robespierre: "We must exterminate all our enemies."
7. Robespierre: “The people is always worth more than individuals…The people is sublime, but individuals are weak” or expendable. http://www.nationalaffairs.com/docl...hvsthefrenchenlightmentgertrudehimmelfarb.pdf, p. 20
Dangerous?
9/11
The Crusades
Pee-pee Touchers
Judging of human beings, in General, as some sort of seperate entity from others (less than equal) -->homosexuals.
Yes, Religion can be Dangerous. Also, you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting. It makes you seem like a pompass bee-hotch, and not a scholar in the least. You're arguing from a position of arrogance in that you're arguing against what you "perceive" him to be, aka building a strawman, knocking it down, and patting yourself on your arrogant back. Strong work.
It seems that your attempted arguments with me are on a personal level, not with the points expressed. I understand that technique, as your ability and knowledge are sorely limited.
But I worry about your dimunition of visual acuity, since you claim "...you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting."
You can't be that dumb, so you must have missed the quote of his that I provided:
"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."
Did you miss the quotation marks? Do you understand what quotation marks mean?
It seems that an optometrist is in your future.
Now, let's see if you can rise above your demonstated ability, and challenge any of the points that I made, as opposed to challenging me...since, in doing so you represent the type that Guicciardini described in "Dialogue on the Government of Florence"
“The fact that others dislike any one being superior to themselves ensures that whenever this happens, these men are destroyed.”
dUMBASS, I read his quote. You told him that he worships the State. Is that the exact opposite of thinking that Religion is "Dangerous nonsense?" If not, show me the quote he made which caused you to "ascribe" the view unto him that he "worships the State", ya ninny. "you can't be that dumb."9/11
The Crusades
Pee-pee Touchers
Judging of human beings, in General, as some sort of seperate entity from others (less than equal) -->homosexuals.
Yes, Religion can be Dangerous. Also, you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting. It makes you seem like a pompass bee-hotch, and not a scholar in the least. You're arguing from a position of arrogance in that you're arguing against what you "perceive" him to be, aka building a strawman, knocking it down, and patting yourself on your arrogant back. Strong work.
It seems that your attempted arguments with me are on a personal level, not with the points expressed. I understand that technique, as your ability and knowledge are sorely limited.
But I worry about your dimunition of visual acuity, since you claim "...you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting."
You can't be that dumb, so you must have missed the quote of his that I provided:
"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."
Did you miss the quotation marks? Do you understand what quotation marks mean?
It seems that an optometrist is in your future.
Now, let's see if you can rise above your demonstated ability, and challenge any of the points that I made, as opposed to challenging me...since, in doing so you represent the type that Guicciardini described in "Dialogue on the Government of Florence"
The fact that others dislike any one being superior to themselves ensures that whenever this happens, these men are destroyed.
And B: you made no points to argue against. You showed how the State can be Dangerous, but didn't either A: prove that Religion Can't be.............or B: Argue counter to a point he actually made, which worship of the State wasn't one of them(his points)
dUMBASS, I read his quote. You told him that he worships the State. Is that the exact opposite of thinking that Religion is "Dangerous nonsense?" If not, show me the quote he made which caused you to "ascribe" the view unto him that he "worships the State", ya ninny. "you can't be that dumb."It seems that your attempted arguments with me are on a personal level, not with the points expressed. I understand that technique, as your ability and knowledge are sorely limited.
But I worry about your dimunition of visual acuity, since you claim "...you're ascribing views onto him.......... why don't you let him speak to his own beliefs and stop projecting."
You can't be that dumb, so you must have missed the quote of his that I provided:
"YOU can defend religion all you want to
and I can mock and ridicule it for the DANGEROUS nonsense that I truely believe it is....."
Did you miss the quotation marks? Do you understand what quotation marks mean?
It seems that an optometrist is in your future.
Now, let's see if you can rise above your demonstated ability, and challenge any of the points that I made, as opposed to challenging me...since, in doing so you represent the type that Guicciardini described in "Dialogue on the Government of Florence"
“The fact that others dislike any one being superior to themselves ensures that whenever this happens, these men are destroyed.”
And B: you made no points to argue against. You showed how the State can be Dangerous, but didn't either A: prove that Religion Can't be.............or B: Argue counter to a point he actually made, which worship of the State wasn't one of them(his points)
So, let's see what you have proven by this post. Did you " see if you can rise above your demonstated ability,..." and, sadly, you were unable.
At times one finds knowledgeable folks on the board, worthy of engagement...
and then there is you.
There are the folks who know, and the folks who don’t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don’t know, and don’t know they don’t know.
Be gone.