Religious Freedom Reestablished!

[Agent.Tom]

Can I get an "Amen"!!!

You most certainly can! AMEN, Sister!

I live in Texas and I consider this state to be the last bastion of freedom and Conservatism in the country. It's no wonder so many Conservatives are flocking to Texas in record numbers.

However, my excitement over Rick Perry's efforts is tempered by the fact that it's not going to spawn some kind of revival across the country. It will likely stay limited to the boundaries of this wonderful state. In fact, what he did will almost certainly result in the Secular Progressives marginalizing and shaming Texas as a backward state full of bigots and ignorant rednecks. But I don't care. I'm proud to live here.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Can I get an "Amen"!!!

You most certainly can! AMEN, Sister!

I live in Texas and I consider this state to be the last bastion of freedom and Conservatism in the country. It's no wonder so many Conservatives are flocking to Texas in record numbers.

However, my excitement over Rick Perry's efforts is tempered by the fact that it's not going to spawn some kind of revival across the country. It will likely stay limited to the boundaries of this wonderful state. In fact, what he did will almost certainly result in the Secular Progressives marginalizing and shaming Texas as a backward state full of bigots and ignorant rednecks. But I don't care. I'm proud to live here.

Not sure exactly how diverse the population of Texas actually is but it will only take a single Moslem in any school and all of the children will have to celebrate Ramadan. Going to be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences plays out.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can I get an "Amen"!!!

You most certainly can! AMEN, Sister!

I live in Texas and I consider this state to be the last bastion of freedom and Conservatism in the country. It's no wonder so many Conservatives are flocking to Texas in record numbers.

However, my excitement over Rick Perry's efforts is tempered by the fact that it's not going to spawn some kind of revival across the country. It will likely stay limited to the boundaries of this wonderful state. In fact, what he did will almost certainly result in the Secular Progressives marginalizing and shaming Texas as a backward state full of bigots and ignorant rednecks. But I don't care. I'm proud to live here.

Not sure exactly how diverse the population of Texas actually is but it will only take a single Moslem in any school and all of the children will have to celebrate Ramadan. Going to be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences plays out.

Depends what you mean by 'celebrate.'

Cupcakes and a few decorations.....I don't see the problem.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You most certainly can! AMEN, Sister!

I live in Texas and I consider this state to be the last bastion of freedom and Conservatism in the country. It's no wonder so many Conservatives are flocking to Texas in record numbers.

However, my excitement over Rick Perry's efforts is tempered by the fact that it's not going to spawn some kind of revival across the country. It will likely stay limited to the boundaries of this wonderful state. In fact, what he did will almost certainly result in the Secular Progressives marginalizing and shaming Texas as a backward state full of bigots and ignorant rednecks. But I don't care. I'm proud to live here.

Not sure exactly how diverse the population of Texas actually is but it will only take a single Moslem in any school and all of the children will have to celebrate Ramadan. Going to be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences plays out.

Depends what you mean by 'celebrate.'

Cupcakes and a few decorations.....I don't see the problem.

FYI one of the rituals of Ramadan is fasting. But that is only overnight so it probably won't be an issue. What is more likely to be an issue is when the kids get home and tell their parents that they "celebrated Ramadan" in school today. Given how much angst is vented over children being taught about Heather has 2 Mommies and sex education are you seriously suggesting that the usual suspects aren't going to raise a fuss when they find out that their kids were just taught about one of the most sacred Muslim rituals in school?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Not sure exactly how diverse the population of Texas actually is but it will only take a single Moslem in any school and all of the children will have to celebrate Ramadan. Going to be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences plays out.

Depends what you mean by 'celebrate.'

Cupcakes and a few decorations.....I don't see the problem.

FYI one of the rituals of Ramadan is fasting. But that is only overnight so it probably won't be an issue. What is more likely to be an issue is when the kids get home and tell their parents that they "celebrated Ramadan" in school today. Given how much angst is vented over children being taught about Heather has 2 Mommies and sex education are you seriously suggesting that the usual suspects aren't going to raise a fuss when they find out that their kids were just taught about one of the most sacred Muslim rituals in school?

1. Ramadan fasting is only during daylight hours. You know the black thread/ white thread test?

2.".... the kids get home and tell their parents that they "celebrated Ramadan" in school..."
Nonsense.
They don't celebrate the various holidays....the adherents simply explain them.

3. "Given how much angst is vented over children being taught about Heather has 2 Mommies and sex education are you seriously suggesting that the usual suspects aren't going to raise a fuss when they find out that their kids were just taught about one of the most sacred Muslim rituals in school?"

Same with this. We live in a secular society, and it will up to parents to explain how the various differences pertain to their family.
I do.

 

[Hollie]

Not sure exactly how diverse the population of Texas actually is but it will only take a single Moslem in any school and all of the children will have to celebrate Ramadan. Going to be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences plays out.

Depends what you mean by 'celebrate.'

Cupcakes and a few decorations.....I don't see the problem.

FYI one of the rituals of Ramadan is fasting. But that is only overnight so it probably won't be an issue. What is more likely to be an issue is when the kids get home and tell their parents that they "celebrated Ramadan" in school today. Given how much angst is vented over children being taught about Heather has 2 Mommies and sex education are you seriously suggesting that the usual suspects aren't going to raise a fuss when they find out that their kids were just taught about one of the most sacred Muslim rituals in school?

What? Are you suggesting that the good Christian folk won’t be accommodating of the other religious folk who will want equal time for their religious rituals?

I’m aghast at such a thought. Aghast I tell you!

Otherwise, I found it curious that the OP linked an article that is actually highly critical of the “nonpreferentialism” that is staining the credibility of the high court. It's almost as though the OP was waste of time.


http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/vol18no1/documents/18-1TerryArticle.pdf

The adoption of nonpreferentialism would effect sweeping and dramatic
changes in the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. It would reverse
sixty years of Establishment Clause precedent and permit the government to
endorse and promote religion over nonreligion. It would greatly increase the
role of religion in public schools. It would finally demolish Everson’s wall of
separation once and for all.

Supporters of nonpreferentialism base their arguments on history, arguing
that this doctrine is the Establishment Clause interpretation that the Framers
intended. Regardless of the historical accuracy of their view, they overlook, or
perhaps even consciously disregard, the insidious side effect of nonpreferentialism—
the divisiveness that it engenders. As Professor Laycock has explained,
[n]o aid is nonpreferential. Differences among Baptists, Quakers, Congregationalists,
and Anglicans made nonpreferential aid unworkable in the
eighteenth century. The vastly greater religious differences today make it
vastly more unworkable.

For the issues that are most controversial, nonpreferential aid is plainly
impossible. No prayer is neutral among all faiths, even if one makes the
mistake of excluding atheists and agnostics from consideration. . . . Government-
sponsored religious symbols or ceremonies, whether in schools,
legislatures, courthouses, or parks, are inherently preferential. They nearly
always support Christianity, and when implemented by their most ardent
supporters, they support a particular strain of evangelical Christianity]
SHIFTING OUT OF NEUTRAL 117

In a country already polarized religiously and politically, the adoption of an
Establishment Clause standard that will generate even more divisiveness seems
at best imprudent and at worst reckless. Nonetheless, a majority of the Supreme
Court appears prepared to turn in that direction.

361 Laycock, supra note 110, at 920. Similarly, Professor Gey points out that
[t]here is no such thing as a generic God whose preeminence all believers and nonbelievers
accept. Once members of the political majority are allowed to introduce some
version of God into government and some version of God’s commandments into law, it
will become impossible to limit those sacred decrees and divine endorsements to benevolent
and universally acceptable truisms.

Gey, supra note 9, at 797. See also Colby, supra note 200, at 1134 (because religious
diversity is greater today than in the eighteenth century, “governmental acknowledgment or
endorsement of religion is no longer possible without alienating and dismissing the views of
millions of Americans”).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Depends what you mean by 'celebrate.'

Cupcakes and a few decorations.....I don't see the problem.

FYI one of the rituals of Ramadan is fasting. But that is only overnight so it probably won't be an issue. What is more likely to be an issue is when the kids get home and tell their parents that they "celebrated Ramadan" in school today. Given how much angst is vented over children being taught about Heather has 2 Mommies and sex education are you seriously suggesting that the usual suspects aren't going to raise a fuss when they find out that their kids were just taught about one of the most sacred Muslim rituals in school?

What? Are you suggesting that the good Christian folk won’t be accommodating of the other religious folk who will want equal time for their religious rituals?

I’m aghast at such a thought. Aghast I tell you!

Otherwise, I found it curious that the OP linked an article that is actually highly critical of the “nonpreferentialism” that is staining the credibility of the high court. It's almost as though the OP was waste of time.


http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/vol18no1/documents/18-1TerryArticle.pdf

The adoption of nonpreferentialism would effect sweeping and dramatic
changes in the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. It would reverse
sixty years of Establishment Clause precedent and permit the government to
endorse and promote religion over nonreligion. It would greatly increase the
role of religion in public schools. It would finally demolish Everson’s wall of
separation once and for all.

Supporters of nonpreferentialism base their arguments on history, arguing
that this doctrine is the Establishment Clause interpretation that the Framers
intended. Regardless of the historical accuracy of their view, they overlook, or
perhaps even consciously disregard, the insidious side effect of nonpreferentialism—
the divisiveness that it engenders. As Professor Laycock has explained,
[n]o aid is nonpreferential. Differences among Baptists, Quakers, Congregationalists,
and Anglicans made nonpreferential aid unworkable in the
eighteenth century. The vastly greater religious differences today make it
vastly more unworkable.

For the issues that are most controversial, nonpreferential aid is plainly
impossible. No prayer is neutral among all faiths, even if one makes the
mistake of excluding atheists and agnostics from consideration. . . . Government-
sponsored religious symbols or ceremonies, whether in schools,
legislatures, courthouses, or parks, are inherently preferential. They nearly
always support Christianity, and when implemented by their most ardent
supporters, they support a particular strain of evangelical Christianity]
SHIFTING OUT OF NEUTRAL 117

In a country already polarized religiously and politically, the adoption of an
Establishment Clause standard that will generate even more divisiveness seems
at best imprudent and at worst reckless. Nonetheless, a majority of the Supreme
Court appears prepared to turn in that direction.

361 Laycock, supra note 110, at 920. Similarly, Professor Gey points out that
[t]here is no such thing as a generic God whose preeminence all believers and nonbelievers
accept. Once members of the political majority are allowed to introduce some
version of God into government and some version of God’s commandments into law, it
will become impossible to limit those sacred decrees and divine endorsements to benevolent
and universally acceptable truisms.

Gey, supra note 9, at 797. See also Colby, supra note 200, at 1134 (because religious
diversity is greater today than in the eighteenth century, “governmental acknowledgment or
endorsement of religion is no longer possible without alienating and dismissing the views of
millions of Americans”).

Hey, Hollie!

Who turned the rock over and let you out?


In a bit, I'm going to put up an OP that scientists....and I remembered this:

Remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”




Just wondered if you've seen the light since?

 

[Hollie]

FYI one of the rituals of Ramadan is fasting. But that is only overnight so it probably won't be an issue. What is more likely to be an issue is when the kids get home and tell their parents that they "celebrated Ramadan" in school today. Given how much angst is vented over children being taught about Heather has 2 Mommies and sex education are you seriously suggesting that the usual suspects aren't going to raise a fuss when they find out that their kids were just taught about one of the most sacred Muslim rituals in school?

What? Are you suggesting that the good Christian folk won’t be accommodating of the other religious folk who will want equal time for their religious rituals?

I’m aghast at such a thought. Aghast I tell you!

Otherwise, I found it curious that the OP linked an article that is actually highly critical of the “nonpreferentialism” that is staining the credibility of the high court. It's almost as though the OP was waste of time.


http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/vol18no1/documents/18-1TerryArticle.pdf

The adoption of nonpreferentialism would effect sweeping and dramatic
changes in the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. It would reverse
sixty years of Establishment Clause precedent and permit the government to
endorse and promote religion over nonreligion. It would greatly increase the
role of religion in public schools. It would finally demolish Everson’s wall of
separation once and for all.

Supporters of nonpreferentialism base their arguments on history, arguing
that this doctrine is the Establishment Clause interpretation that the Framers
intended. Regardless of the historical accuracy of their view, they overlook, or
perhaps even consciously disregard, the insidious side effect of nonpreferentialism—
the divisiveness that it engenders. As Professor Laycock has explained,
[n]o aid is nonpreferential. Differences among Baptists, Quakers, Congregationalists,
and Anglicans made nonpreferential aid unworkable in the
eighteenth century. The vastly greater religious differences today make it
vastly more unworkable.

For the issues that are most controversial, nonpreferential aid is plainly
impossible. No prayer is neutral among all faiths, even if one makes the
mistake of excluding atheists and agnostics from consideration. . . . Government-
sponsored religious symbols or ceremonies, whether in schools,
legislatures, courthouses, or parks, are inherently preferential. They nearly
always support Christianity, and when implemented by their most ardent
supporters, they support a particular strain of evangelical Christianity]
SHIFTING OUT OF NEUTRAL 117

In a country already polarized religiously and politically, the adoption of an
Establishment Clause standard that will generate even more divisiveness seems
at best imprudent and at worst reckless. Nonetheless, a majority of the Supreme
Court appears prepared to turn in that direction.

361 Laycock, supra note 110, at 920. Similarly, Professor Gey points out that
[t]here is no such thing as a generic God whose preeminence all believers and nonbelievers
accept. Once members of the political majority are allowed to introduce some
version of God into government and some version of God’s commandments into law, it
will become impossible to limit those sacred decrees and divine endorsements to benevolent
and universally acceptable truisms.

Gey, supra note 9, at 797. See also Colby, supra note 200, at 1134 (because religious
diversity is greater today than in the eighteenth century, “governmental acknowledgment or
endorsement of religion is no longer possible without alienating and dismissing the views of
millions of Americans&#8221.

Hey, Hollie!

Who turned the rock over and let you out?


In a bit, I'm going to put up an OP that scientists....and I remembered this:

Remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”




Just wondered if you've seen the light since?

Gee whiz. You're just as crude and juvenile as always. What a shame that the hyper-religious can't be medicated.

You neglected to:

1. Address that fact that your linked article is critical of the very cause your flailing your pom poms for.

2. Let’s look at yet another gap in your knowledge… I guess you never heard that quantum physics makes no appeals to magical gawds or supernatural entities.

3. Why don’t you identify for us those peer reviewed science journals that support the proposals of Berlinski.

4. Did you know that Berlinski is not a physicist?

5. Did you know that Berlinski shills for the Discovery Institute? They’re frauds and charlatans who press a Christian creationist agenda.

What an embarrassment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What? Are you suggesting that the good Christian folk won’t be accommodating of the other religious folk who will want equal time for their religious rituals?

I’m aghast at such a thought. Aghast I tell you!

Otherwise, I found it curious that the OP linked an article that is actually highly critical of the “nonpreferentialism” that is staining the credibility of the high court. It's almost as though the OP was waste of time.


http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/vol18no1/documents/18-1TerryArticle.pdf

Hey, Hollie!

Who turned the rock over and let you out?


In a bit, I'm going to put up an OP that scientists....and I remembered this:

Remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”




Just wondered if you've seen the light since?

Gee whiz. You're just as crude and juvenile as always. What a shame that the hyper-religious can't be medicated.

You neglected to:

1. Address that fact that your linked article is critical of the very cause your flailing your pom poms for.

2. Let’s look at yet another gap in your knowledge… I guess you never heard that quantum physics makes no appeals to magical gawds or supernatural entities.

3. Why don’t you identify for us those peer reviewed science journals that support the proposals of Berlinski.

4. Did you know that Berlinski is not a physicist?

5. Did you know that Berlinski shills for the Discovery Institute? They’re frauds and charlatans who press a Christian creationist agenda.

What an embarrassment.

My ol'pal Hollie....the anti-Mensa.

So....still hate religion and religious folks.
Is that why the OP brought you out of your sewer?


Rumor has it that you wore a Hazmat suit to a church picnic....any truth to that rumor?


But, enough chit chat...
...I'm still waiting for the answer why, when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’

Wanna answer the question now?


I'm sure you believe we all sprang from apes,...
....but you didn't spring far enough.


If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be glad to do so for you.

 

[Hollie]

Hey, Hollie!

Who turned the rock over and let you out?


In a bit, I'm going to put up an OP that scientists....and I remembered this:

Remember when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’ You seem to have a great deal of trouble focusing…and sticking to the subject.

a. Let’s point out another gap in your knowledge….you said “Science is based on theory that is backed up by facts and mountains of data.” I guess you never heard of quantum physics.

b. “As is true of so many ideas of quantum mechanics, such as the wave function of the universe, it cannot be seen, measured, assessed, or tested. Physicists have found it remarkably easy to pass from speculation to the conviction that said theories actually is. An endearing human weakness, that one can frequently assign to religion, as well. The use of higher mathematics combined with words such as ‘imaginary’ and ‘probabilistic processes,’ is what gives the air of pontifical mystification.” Berlinski, “The Devil’s Delusion.”




Just wondered if you've seen the light since?

Gee whiz. You're just as crude and juvenile as always. What a shame that the hyper-religious can't be medicated.

You neglected to:

1. Address that fact that your linked article is critical of the very cause your flailing your pom poms for.

2. Let’s look at yet another gap in your knowledge… I guess you never heard that quantum physics makes no appeals to magical gawds or supernatural entities.

3. Why don’t you identify for us those peer reviewed science journals that support the proposals of Berlinski.

4. Did you know that Berlinski is not a physicist?

5. Did you know that Berlinski shills for the Discovery Institute? They’re frauds and charlatans who press a Christian creationist agenda.

What an embarrassment.

My ol'pal Hollie....the anti-Mensa.

So....still hate religion and religious folks.
Is that why the OP brought you out of your sewer?


Rumor has it that you wore a Hazmat suit to a church picnic....any truth to that rumor?


But, enough chit chat...
...I'm still waiting for the answer why, when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’

Wanna answer the question now?


I'm sure you believe we all sprang from apes,...
....but you didn't spring far enough.


If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be glad to do so for you.

1. Still dodging the tough questions, I see. Worse than that, you make the profoundly stupid "sprang from apes" comments. Fairly typical for those lacking even a rudimentary science vocabulary.

2. Stick with what you read on fundie websites such as the Disco'tute. They cater to people with your limitations.

 

[theword]

As long as religion exists, there won't be freedom in this world. All religion, cities, governments and their laws came from the "beast", which is God's plan to deceive His people while teaching them to build His created things that He needed to explain His invisible Kingdom. Only the saints understand this.

Could you repeat that in English?

Jeremiah 15:
15: Behold, I am bringing upon you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, says the LORD. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gee whiz. You're just as crude and juvenile as always. What a shame that the hyper-religious can't be medicated.

You neglected to:

1. Address that fact that your linked article is critical of the very cause your flailing your pom poms for.

2. Let’s look at yet another gap in your knowledge… I guess you never heard that quantum physics makes no appeals to magical gawds or supernatural entities.

3. Why don’t you identify for us those peer reviewed science journals that support the proposals of Berlinski.

4. Did you know that Berlinski is not a physicist?

5. Did you know that Berlinski shills for the Discovery Institute? They’re frauds and charlatans who press a Christian creationist agenda.

What an embarrassment.

My ol'pal Hollie....the anti-Mensa.

So....still hate religion and religious folks.
Is that why the OP brought you out of your sewer?


Rumor has it that you wore a Hazmat suit to a church picnic....any truth to that rumor?


But, enough chit chat...
...I'm still waiting for the answer why, when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’

Wanna answer the question now?


I'm sure you believe we all sprang from apes,...
....but you didn't spring far enough.


If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be glad to do so for you.

1. Still dodging the tough questions, I see. Worse than that, you make the profoundly stupid "sprang from apes" comments. Fairly typical for those lacking even a rudimentary science vocabulary.

2. Stick with what you read on fundie websites such as the Disco'tute. They cater to people with your limitations.

Look at you!

So serious....no sense of humor.
Maybe you're just resting....after all, Sunday is the day of rest, isn't it.


OK....serious:

I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!


But you never thanked me for teaching you that stuff....

Wanna thank me now?

 

[Hollie]

My ol'pal Hollie....the anti-Mensa.

So....still hate religion and religious folks.
Is that why the OP brought you out of your sewer?


Rumor has it that you wore a Hazmat suit to a church picnic....any truth to that rumor?


But, enough chit chat...
...I'm still waiting for the answer why, when I posted a quote from the LATimes, ‘“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power…”…and then you tried to rebut same by going on a long rant that could be summarized as “most scientists aren’t creationists!!!” Heck…no part of my quote referred to ‘creationists.’

Wanna answer the question now?


I'm sure you believe we all sprang from apes,...
....but you didn't spring far enough.


If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be glad to do so for you.

1. Still dodging the tough questions, I see. Worse than that, you make the profoundly stupid "sprang from apes" comments. Fairly typical for those lacking even a rudimentary science vocabulary.

2. Stick with what you read on fundie websites such as the Disco'tute. They cater to people with your limitations.

Look at you!

So serious....no sense of humor.
Maybe you're just resting....after all, Sunday is the day of rest, isn't it.


OK....serious:

I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!


But you never thanked me for teaching you that stuff....

Wanna thank me now?

How strange that with your babbling, you missed the part of Christianity not being mentioned in the constitution. How did you miss that? Or, does your stupor prevent you from proof reading what you write.

1. OK, seriously. You have abandoned any attempt at supporting your previous claims as both nonsensical and vacuous. That’s understandable as ignorance is difficult to defend.

2. Remember, we’re laughing at you, not with you.

3. Even you “man from ape”, idiocy has been abandoned. Did you do a bit of research as I instructed you to do?

Unfortunately, that entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently coming from those who have never passed a 7th grade biology class. Biology wasn’t a subject stredded at your madrassah, right?. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to embrace ignornce in lieu of hard facts.

Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the science of evolution. Man was never an ape. Man was never descended from apes. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

4. Your homework assignment is to quiz your madrassah prayer leader on the basics of “evilutionary” biology.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Still dodging the tough questions, I see. Worse than that, you make the profoundly stupid "sprang from apes" comments. Fairly typical for those lacking even a rudimentary science vocabulary.

2. Stick with what you read on fundie websites such as the Disco'tute. They cater to people with your limitations.

Look at you!

So serious....no sense of humor.
Maybe you're just resting....after all, Sunday is the day of rest, isn't it.


OK....serious:

I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!


But you never thanked me for teaching you that stuff....

Wanna thank me now?

How strange that with your babbling, you missed the part of Christianity not being mentioned in the constitution. How did you miss that? Or, does your stupor prevent you from proof reading what you write.

1. OK, seriously. You have abandoned any attempt at supporting your previous claims as both nonsensical and vacuous. That’s understandable as ignorance is difficult to defend.

2. Remember, we’re laughing at you, not with you.

3. Even you “man from ape”, idiocy has been abandoned. Did you do a bit of research as I instructed you to do?

Unfortunately, that entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently coming from those who have never passed a 7th grade biology class. Biology wasn’t a subject stredded at your madrassah, right?. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to embrace ignornce in lieu of hard facts.

Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the science of evolution. Man was never an ape. Man was never descended from apes. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

4. Your homework assignment is to quiz your madrassah prayer leader on the basics of “evilutionary” biology.

....wait a moment, while I put down my guns and religious texts….

1. "....you missed the part of Christianity not being mentioned in the constitution."
You know Jesus is referenced at the close of Article VII.
So...I've reduced you to fibbing?

2. " we’re laughing at you, not with you."

"We"?

You have a tapeworm?



3. " Man was never an ape."

Look at that! I've got you moving in the right direction!
Don't stop now!


4. I can be even more helpful....here's a style hint:
Your clichés were old when you were a kid! Next, you’ll tell me to ‘look before you leap!’

a. I was puzzled when you wrote "...“evilutionary” biology."
Is it that you don't now how to spell....or was there some joke implied with the 'evil' part?

Oh....right...you're not smart enough to have a sense of humor....so you can't spell.
Maybe I'm just making you nervous.
Relax.


5. OK....can I call you Folly?.....Folly-

Remember, my posts: Pay-per-view!

Your posts: Pay-per-weight.



Write soon, y'hear?

 

[bodecea]

Those who respect the Constitution understand the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."
Governor Perry of Texas certainly does...


1. "Texas Gov. Rick Perry signs ‘Merry Christmas bill’ into law

2.Schools will now be able to display religious symbols as long as at least one secular or other religion’s symbol is also displayed.

3. ....allows schools to display religious symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees ...

4. In addition, the new law allows staff members and students at the state’s public schools to exchange traditional holiday greetings, such as “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Hanukkah” and “happy holidays” without fear of reprisal.




5. ....I'm proud that we're standing up for religious freedom in this state,” Perry said at a “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.”

6. “We will be monitoring this very closely,” Tom Hargins, director of communications for the ACLU of Texas, told the Daily News.

7. In May, a Texas judge ruled that the cheerleaders could continue to display signs at football games emblazoned with Bible verses.

8. Perry cited the case as “an example of the pressure on our public schools in particular to push down any reflections of religious thought or words,”..."
Texas Gov. Rick Perry signs ?Merry Christmas bill? into law - NY Daily News



Can I get an "Amen"!!!

The Santa Claus's were a nice touch.

 

[Hollie]

Look at you!

So serious....no sense of humor.
Maybe you're just resting....after all, Sunday is the day of rest, isn't it.


OK....serious:

I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!


But you never thanked me for teaching you that stuff....

Wanna thank me now?

How strange that with your babbling, you missed the part of Christianity not being mentioned in the constitution. How did you miss that? Or, does your stupor prevent you from proof reading what you write.

1. OK, seriously. You have abandoned any attempt at supporting your previous claims as both nonsensical and vacuous. That’s understandable as ignorance is difficult to defend.

2. Remember, we’re laughing at you, not with you.

3. Even you “man from ape”, idiocy has been abandoned. Did you do a bit of research as I instructed you to do?

Unfortunately, that entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently coming from those who have never passed a 7th grade biology class. Biology wasn’t a subject stredded at your madrassah, right?. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to embrace ignornce in lieu of hard facts.

Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the science of evolution. Man was never an ape. Man was never descended from apes. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

4. Your homework assignment is to quiz your madrassah prayer leader on the basics of “evilutionary” biology.

....wait a moment, while I put down my guns and religious texts….

1. "....you missed the part of Christianity not being mentioned in the constitution."
You know Jesus is referenced at the close of Article VII.
So...I've reduced you to fibbing?

2. " we’re laughing at you, not with you."

"We"?

You have a tapeworm?



3. " Man was never an ape."

Look at that! I've got you moving in the right direction!
Don't stop now!


4. I can be even more helpful....here's a style hint:
Your clichés were old when you were a kid! Next, you’ll tell me to ‘look before you leap!’

a. I was puzzled when you wrote "...“evilutionary” biology."
Is it that you don't now how to spell....or was there some joke implied with the 'evil' part?

Oh....right...you're not smart enough to have a sense of humor....so you can't spell.
Maybe I'm just making you nervous.
Relax.


5. OK....can I call you Folly?.....Folly-

Remember, my posts: Pay-per-view!

Your posts: Pay-per-weight.



Write soon, y'hear?

I'm glad I was able to assist you regarding your ignorant (but quaint), view of evolutionary biology. Yes, much of science will conflict with what was taught at your madrasah but remember I'm here to help.

Speaking of helping you, did you realize you high jacked your own thread in desperate attempts to avoid addressing your false and ignorant claims, bad analogies and incorrect assumptions?

You should try out for the U.S. Olympic swim team - the Backstroke.

 

[Immanuel]

Can I get an "Amen"!!!

You most certainly can! AMEN, Sister!

I live in Texas and I consider this state to be the last bastion of freedom and Conservatism in the country. It's no wonder so many Conservatives are flocking to Texas in record numbers.

However, my excitement over Rick Perry's efforts is tempered by the fact that it's not going to spawn some kind of revival across the country. It will likely stay limited to the boundaries of this wonderful state. In fact, what he did will almost certainly result in the Secular Progressives marginalizing and shaming Texas as a backward state full of bigots and ignorant rednecks. But I don't care. I'm proud to live here.

Not sure exactly how diverse the population of Texas actually is but it will only take a single Moslem in any school and all of the children will have to celebrate Ramadan. Going to be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences plays out.

I'm not sure I agree with you in this regard. From what I read, basically, the bill states that schools can allow religious symbols and that staff could not be punished for saying "Merry Christmas". No where did it state that students would be required to celebrate any holiday of any faith. Jewish and Muslim students would not be forced to celebrate Christmas nor would Christians be forced to observe Ramadan.

That being said, I wonder what the Supreme Court will have to say about this.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

How strange that with your babbling, you missed the part of Christianity not being mentioned in the constitution. How did you miss that? Or, does your stupor prevent you from proof reading what you write.

1. OK, seriously. You have abandoned any attempt at supporting your previous claims as both nonsensical and vacuous. That’s understandable as ignorance is difficult to defend.

2. Remember, we’re laughing at you, not with you.

3. Even you “man from ape”, idiocy has been abandoned. Did you do a bit of research as I instructed you to do?

Unfortunately, that entire premise is terribly flawed. I see this frequently coming from those who have never passed a 7th grade biology class. Biology wasn’t a subject stredded at your madrassah, right?. My suspicion is that you have been coached by religious entities who certainly have a vested interest in placating your desire to embrace ignornce in lieu of hard facts.

Meaning, of course that the apes into human beings nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the science of evolution. Man was never an ape. Man was never descended from apes. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

4. Your homework assignment is to quiz your madrassah prayer leader on the basics of “evilutionary” biology.

....wait a moment, while I put down my guns and religious texts….

1. "....you missed the part of Christianity not being mentioned in the constitution."
You know Jesus is referenced at the close of Article VII.
So...I've reduced you to fibbing?

2. " we’re laughing at you, not with you."

"We"?

You have a tapeworm?



3. " Man was never an ape."

Look at that! I've got you moving in the right direction!
Don't stop now!


4. I can be even more helpful....here's a style hint:
Your clichés were old when you were a kid! Next, you’ll tell me to ‘look before you leap!’

a. I was puzzled when you wrote "...“evilutionary” biology."
Is it that you don't now how to spell....or was there some joke implied with the 'evil' part?

Oh....right...you're not smart enough to have a sense of humor....so you can't spell.
Maybe I'm just making you nervous.
Relax.


5. OK....can I call you Folly?.....Folly-

Remember, my posts: Pay-per-view!

Your posts: Pay-per-weight.



Write soon, y'hear?

I'm glad I was able to assist you regarding your ignorant (but quaint), view of evolutionary biology. Yes, much of science will conflict with what was taught at your madrasah but remember I'm here to help.

Speaking of helping you, did you realize you high jacked your own thread in desperate attempts to avoid addressing your false and ignorant claims, bad analogies and incorrect assumptions?

You should try out for the U.S. Olympic swim team - the Backstroke.

Let's be honest....and I mean this in only the kindest way.....you're a clown.

And, in reality you are a great help.....in the area of comic relief!


I know I'm taking advantage....but, I get such a kick out of making you jump through hoops just by mentioning anything related to religion.

I say 'watch this...." and make you sputter and try to smear religion and religious folk....
I know I shouldn't....but I can't resist.


Would you like me to say a prayer for you?
(Jump, Folly, Jump!)



I can see you have the destiny to be a Geraldo Special.
I sure hope you don't forget us little folk when the sympathy bucks come rolling in!
It'll be a real tear-jerker.



OK...I don't want to keep you....you probably have to get back to that high-stress job at Dairy Queen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You most certainly can! AMEN, Sister!

I live in Texas and I consider this state to be the last bastion of freedom and Conservatism in the country. It's no wonder so many Conservatives are flocking to Texas in record numbers.

However, my excitement over Rick Perry's efforts is tempered by the fact that it's not going to spawn some kind of revival across the country. It will likely stay limited to the boundaries of this wonderful state. In fact, what he did will almost certainly result in the Secular Progressives marginalizing and shaming Texas as a backward state full of bigots and ignorant rednecks. But I don't care. I'm proud to live here.

Not sure exactly how diverse the population of Texas actually is but it will only take a single Moslem in any school and all of the children will have to celebrate Ramadan. Going to be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences plays out.

I'm not sure I agree with you in this regard. From what I read, basically, the bill states that schools can allow religious symbols and that staff could not be punished for saying "Merry Christmas". No where did it state that students would be required to celebrate any holiday of any faith. Jewish and Muslim students would not be forced to celebrate Christmas nor would Christians be forced to observe Ramadan.

That being said, I wonder what the Supreme Court will have to say about this.

Immie

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this, as noted in the Oklahoma license plate thread. Teachers were never prohibited from saying ‘Merry Christmas’ as long as it’s done in a secular context, recognizing the cultural and social aspects of the holiday, not its religious aspects.

That’s why this legislation is pointless and unnecessary, and nothing more than a partisan stunt.

If local ISDs however, cross the line and reference religion as religion absent its secular context, then a court challenge is likely and will likely be successful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not sure exactly how diverse the population of Texas actually is but it will only take a single Moslem in any school and all of the children will have to celebrate Ramadan. Going to be interesting to see how the law of unintended consequences plays out.

Depends what you mean by 'celebrate.'

Cupcakes and a few decorations.....I don't see the problem.

FYI one of the rituals of Ramadan is fasting. But that is only overnight so it probably won't be an issue. What is more likely to be an issue is when the kids get home and tell their parents that they "celebrated Ramadan" in school today. Given how much angst is vented over children being taught about Heather has 2 Mommies and sex education are you seriously suggesting that the usual suspects aren't going to raise a fuss when they find out that their kids were just taught about one of the most sacred Muslim rituals in school?

You have that backwards, Ramadan involves fasting during daylight hours. They get to eat at night though, so I never got the point.