Looking for a well reasoned definition...

[Quantum Windbag]

Link?



Patently false


As an alleged Christian, I'd expect you to understand that you go to the same place for lying that you do for stealing.

Actually, he is pretty accurate, even if you miss his point. There is an organization that dedicates itself to eliminating all public displays of religion, and has sued many communities over private displays that have been going on for years.

Legal Challenges - Legal

There are actually people out there who want to eliminate all mention of religion.

You use public and private as if they're interchangeable. They're not.

I would expect you to know the difference, as well as be honest enough to acknowledge that this statement is pure fabrication:

celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities

Unless you're just another disingenuous partisan hack...

I did not use public and private interchangeably, you ignored the link I posted. When you actually read my link, look at the lawsuits they filed against private displays simply because they are on public land, which SCOTUS has, at least on occasion, ruled to be Constitutional, we will talk. Believe me when I say I know what I am talking about.

Nativity Scenes and Christmas Carols in Public Places

 

[manifold]

QW,

I checked your link. In now way does it support the false claim made by code1211.

If you cannot acknowledge that this statement...

celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities

...is false, then clearly you are not capable of an intellectually honest discussion on the subject.

Let's start there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW,

I checked your link. In now way does it support the false claim made by code1211.

If you cannot acknowledge that this statement...

celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities

...is false, then clearly you are not capable of an intellectually honest discussion on the subject.

Let's start there.

I guess that depends on what state you live in.

Why is religious display deemed OK in one state but not another? | PennLive.com

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a person living in one state to think the policy he experiences extends to every state. You certainly seem to believe that your experience is universal. I have no idea what state code1211 is from, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that statement. Personally, I do not, but I do know that there are people that want to make it true. You need to admit that yourself, or you are just as foolish as you think I am.

 

[manifold]

QW,

I checked your link. In now way does it support the false claim made by code1211.

If you cannot acknowledge that this statement...

celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities

...is false, then clearly you are not capable of an intellectually honest discussion on the subject.

Let's start there.

I guess that depends on what state you live in.

Why is religious display deemed OK in one state but not another? | PennLive.com

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a person living in one state to think the policy he experiences extends to every state. You certainly seem to believe that your experience is universal. I have no idea what state code1211 is from, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that statement. Personally, I do not, but I do know that there are people that want to make it true. You need to admit that yourself, or you are just as foolish as you think I am.

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

 

[jillian]

QW,

I checked your link. In now way does it support the false claim made by code1211.

If you cannot acknowledge that this statement...

...is false, then clearly you are not capable of an intellectually honest discussion on the subject.

Let's start there.

I guess that depends on what state you live in.

Why is religious display deemed OK in one state but not another? | PennLive.com

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a person living in one state to think the policy he experiences extends to every state. You certainly seem to believe that your experience is universal. I have no idea what state code1211 is from, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that statement. Personally, I do not, but I do know that there are people that want to make it true. You need to admit that yourself, or you are just as foolish as you think I am.

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

but...but.... but... Patriot Op-Ed News said it, so it must be true.

 

[manifold]

I guess that depends on what state you live in.

Why is religious display deemed OK in one state but not another? | PennLive.com

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a person living in one state to think the policy he experiences extends to every state. You certainly seem to believe that your experience is universal. I have no idea what state code1211 is from, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that statement. Personally, I do not, but I do know that there are people that want to make it true. You need to admit that yourself, or you are just as foolish as you think I am.

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

but...but.... but... Patriot Op-Ed News said it, so it must be true.

If any community passed any law making religious Christmas signs 'illegal' there would be a huge uproar and it would rightly be struck down by the first court to hear the case. It would be a blatant violation of religious freedom.

 

[Intense]

I'm looking for a well reasoned definition of 'Freedom FROM religion'.

I often hear the same talking point repeated over and over, that the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. I honestly do not see a well reasoned difference. I've made this request in the past, but nobody has ever been able to supply a reasonable definition of 'freedom FROM religion' that actually qualifies as an individual 'freedom'. Most would agree that the 1st Amendment protects one's right not to practice any religion. And isn't that freedom from religion?

You have every Right to Believe or Not Believe what you want. You don't want to listen to other people or hear them, buy more acreage and stay there until you feel more social. You might want to avoid Message Boards, Radio, TV, Movies, when you are in one of those moods.

 

[jillian]

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

but...but.... but... Patriot Op-Ed News said it, so it must be true.

If any community passed any law making religious Christmas signs 'illegal' there would be a huge uproar and it would rightly be struck down by the first court to hear the case. It would be a blatant violation of religious freedom.

exactly. it's simply untrue. i think they're confusing what private individuals can do versus what government can do.

 

[manifold]

but...but.... but... Patriot Op-Ed News said it, so it must be true.

If any community passed any law making religious Christmas signs 'illegal' there would be a huge uproar and it would rightly be struck down by the first court to hear the case. It would be a blatant violation of religious freedom.

exactly. it's simply untrue. i think they're confusing what private individuals can do versus what government can do.

I don't think they're confusing it as much as trying to be deliberately deceptive.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm looking for a well reasoned definition of 'Freedom FROM religion'.

I often hear the same talking point repeated over and over, that the 1st Amendment provides for freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion. I honestly do not see a well reasoned difference. I've made this request in the past, but nobody has ever been able to supply a reasonable definition of 'freedom FROM religion' that actually qualifies as an individual 'freedom'. Most would agree that the 1st Amendment protects one's right not to practice any religion. And isn't that freedom from religion?

Without reading any of the responses so far, the 10 commandments in the Alabama court house controversy comes to mind.

Very simply, there should be no promotion of religion on government property.

And if you allow Christian displays, you must allow Jewish displays, you must allow Muslim displays, you must allow Hindu, Scientology, and Mormon displays. That is, if someone wants to challenge it. Because they will win, Constitutionally. And I don't want to see a plethora of religious symbolism, do you?

Supreme Court rejects Ten Commandments monument appeal

Decision lets stand Alabama decision to remove statue

From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, November 4, 2003 Posted: 10:52 AM EST (1552 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Monday rejected appeals to allow a granite monument of the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in an Alabama courthouse, a blow to the state's highest judge, who made the issue a personal crusade.

The case centered on whether displaying the biblical verses in a government building amounted to state promotion or endorsement of religion.

The justices without comment denied the appeal from Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was suspended by a federal court over his refusal to remove the display. He faces a trial before a state ethics board later this month.

Moore had argued the monument was a public acknowledgment of the role the Ten Commandments has played in the American legal system, and of the moral authority God has over society. He also claimed federal courts had no authority over his role as the state's chief justice.​

More at the link.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW,

I checked your link. In now way does it support the false claim made by code1211.

If you cannot acknowledge that this statement...

...is false, then clearly you are not capable of an intellectually honest discussion on the subject.

Let's start there.

I guess that depends on what state you live in.

Why is religious display deemed OK in one state but not another? | PennLive.com

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a person living in one state to think the policy he experiences extends to every state. You certainly seem to believe that your experience is universal. I have no idea what state code1211 is from, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that statement. Personally, I do not, but I do know that there are people that want to make it true. You need to admit that yourself, or you are just as foolish as you think I am.

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

Move the goal posts much?

You really do have trouble comprehending English, don't you. I never said that any state has made Christmas illegal, I pointed out that some states are more likely to crack down on any religious displays than others. If you want to actually debate the points I am making, feel free, otherwise, shut up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess that depends on what state you live in.

Why is religious display deemed OK in one state but not another? | PennLive.com

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a person living in one state to think the policy he experiences extends to every state. You certainly seem to believe that your experience is universal. I have no idea what state code1211 is from, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that statement. Personally, I do not, but I do know that there are people that want to make it true. You need to admit that yourself, or you are just as foolish as you think I am.

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

but...but.... but... Patriot Op-Ed News said it, so it must be true.

You have something against news papers in Pennsylvania?

 

[Ravi]

look at the lawsuits they filed against private displays simply because they are on public land,

You're a fucking retard...no offense.

 

[jillian]

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

but...but.... but... Patriot Op-Ed News said it, so it must be true.

You have something against news papers in Pennsylvania?

no. i have a problem with your mistaking an op-ed FOR news.

i had an op-ed published in the new york post where i got to chastise pat buchanan. it was great fun.

but it wasn't news.

 

[manifold]

I guess that depends on what state you live in.

Why is religious display deemed OK in one state but not another? | PennLive.com

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a person living in one state to think the policy he experiences extends to every state. You certainly seem to believe that your experience is universal. I have no idea what state code1211 is from, so it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that statement. Personally, I do not, but I do know that there are people that want to make it true. You need to admit that yourself, or you are just as foolish as you think I am.

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

Move the goal posts much?

You really do have trouble comprehending English, don't you. I never said that any state has made Christmas illegal, I pointed out that some states are more likely to crack down on any religious displays than others. If you want to actually debate the points I am making, feel free, otherwise, shut up.

The goal posts are exactly where they've always been.

That is, code1211's post that I've quoted multiple times is completely false.

Your failure to acknowledge its falseness proves that you are either an ignorant ass or a lying twat.

 

[manifold]

Here are the goal posts for you once again QW.

They haven't moved a millimeter.

...celebratory religious signs of Christmas are now illegal in most communities.

Now go ahead and acknowledge that this statement is completely false or prove to everyone watching that you are a disengenuous partisan hack.

The choice is yours.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

look at the lawsuits they filed against private displays simply because they are on public land,

You're a fucking retard...no offense.

How can I possibly be offended? You saying something like that tells me I am a genius.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but...but.... but... Patriot Op-Ed News said it, so it must be true.

You have something against news papers in Pennsylvania?

no. i have a problem with your mistaking an op-ed FOR news.

i had an op-ed published in the new york post where i got to chastise pat buchanan. it was great fun.

but it wasn't news.

Since I was talking about how people might erroneously jump to a wrong conclusion I see nothing wrong with quoting an op ed, editorial, or even a work of fiction. If I had been trying to make a factual point there you might actually have a point, as it is you just look as foolish as manifold as he continuously moves the goal posts in order to make me look stupid. Unfortunately for him, I am still making my same point, and unfortunately for you, you did not even bother to understand the point I was making.

In other words, you are being foolish.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How about you provide evidence of one single state for which celebratory religious signs of Christmas are ILLEGAL.

I'll bet my membership here against yours that you can't.

The statement is 100% false and we both know it.

Your tap dance is more than telling.

Move the goal posts much?

You really do have trouble comprehending English, don't you. I never said that any state has made Christmas illegal, I pointed out that some states are more likely to crack down on any religious displays than others. If you want to actually debate the points I am making, feel free, otherwise, shut up.

The goal posts are exactly where they've always been.

That is, code1211's post that I've quoted multiple times is completely false.

Your failure to acknowledge its falseness proves that you are either an ignorant ass or a lying twat.

And, as I pointed out originally, it might be perfectly reasonable for him to believe that most such displays are illegal, even if I do not. Since you have moved the goal posts from most, which is what he said, to all, the point has obviously moved.

Try again.

 

[del]

You have something against news papers in Pennsylvania?

no. i have a problem with your mistaking an op-ed FOR news.

i had an op-ed published in the new york post where i got to chastise pat buchanan. it was great fun.

but it wasn't news.

Since I was talking about how people might erroneously jump to a wrong conclusion I see nothing wrong with quoting an op ed, editorial, or even a work of fiction. If I had been trying to make a factual point there you might actually have a point, as it is you just look as foolish as manifold as he continuously moves the goal posts in order to make me look stupid. Unfortunately for him, I am still making my same point, and unfortunately for you, you did not even bother to understand the point I was making.

In other words, you are being foolish.

the goal posts haven't moved an inch.

as for looking stupid, like hamburger helper, you're doing just fine all by yourself.