The Intelligence Of The Anti-Faith Secular Humanists Will Vanish.

[Crepitus]

JAG Writes:
I recently wrote a letter to my grandson that said:
Happy Birthday. You will want many more Happy Birthdays and the path
to get them is to feed your mind and heart daily on the truths in the Bible
the word of God and then stay far away from the pseudo-intellectual God-haters
[Romans 1:28-32] who bad-mouth God and Christianity -- vultures they are,
and they sit perched, waiting hungry, throughout secularized academia
hoping to gobble down young Christians who are not solidly and strongly
grounded in the truths of the Holy Bible the word of God.

You'll run into 'em. They have the smell of death and unbelief on them. You
will soon be entering the house of so-called "higher education" aka the University
where your mind will be exposed to the sinful evil unbelief of the Secular Humanists
who are a self-worshiping gaggle of Academic Pseudo-intellectual Philosophical
Talking Heads who do not have enough wisdom to escape the perish of
John 3:16. Don't listen to their anti-faith gobbledygook. Tune out their
anti-Christian balderdash. They have not earned the right to your ear. Ignore
them as being 00.00.

Yes of course memorize their intellectualized bovine excreta long enough to
ace-out [A+} their tests, then forget their anti-Christian blather with a glad
heart as it reverberates happily on out of your mind into oblivion. Remember,
these anti-faith anti-Christian pseudo-intellectuals with Ph.D's, at say age
40 [who live to be say age 100] have only 720 months before they will become
either worm feces or ashes [if they are cremated], or animal feces if they are
eaten by animals [for example lost in Yellowstone National Park -- it does happen],
or oceanic creatures feces [think Titanic]. One of these 4 ends awaits them
all -- unless they make arrangements, prior to their croaking, with a taxidermist
to have their carcasses stuffed and mounted on a wall or perhaps placed in a
spare chair in Uncle Voltaire's spare bedroom --otherwise its either an Ashes
or Future Feces end for them all. So? So don't listen to Future Feces tell you
that Christianity is not true. Ignore them and get away from them and their
Boiled-Egg-Rotten-Egg-Bad-Breath Unbelief. They belong to their father the
devil [John 8:44] and they want you to join them in Hell because misery loves
company,.

Remember to remember when you are sitting in the university classroom and
that anti-faith anti-Christian professor with a Ph.D is telling you that faith is not
a valid path to truth -- remember that you are listening to Future Feces blathering
on and on -- Future Worm Feces.

And remember that Christianity, unlike Secular Humanism, has a bright cheerful
Happy Ending:
"I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me will live, even
though they die, and whoever lives by believing in Me will never die."__The Lord
Jesus [John 11:25-26].

And keep this always in your mind as well.
"I have told you these things so that in Me you may have peace. In this world you will
have trouble. But take heart. I have overcome the world. __The Lord Jesus
{John 16:33].

And regarding the anti-faith anti-Christian Secular Humanists Academic Philosophical
Pseudo-Intellectual Talking Heads, remember this:
God says,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
__The Apostle Paul quoting Isaiah 29:14

God Bless.
Granddaddy
April 1, 2021
"Have Faith in God"__The Lord Jesus [Mark 11:22] . . . .

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

PS
To be precise regarding the certain end of the anti-faith anti-Christian
Secular Humanists Academic Philosophical Pseudo-Intellectual Talking
Heads: There is a 5th possibility for the end of their carcasses:
{1} Worm Feces [AKA Annelida Defecation]
{2} Animal Feces
{3} Oceanic Creatures Feces
{4} Ashes [if cremated]
{5} Cryonics
LOL. Here on #5 they become the Ultimate Freezer Burn.
How so?
Well, try keeping a rib-eye steak in the freezer for 50 years.
What would that look like!

[][]

So, you bought the good weed this time?

 

[Oddball]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
above all else, true atheist are who believe life ends when their physiology ceases to function. no more a reliable belief than any of the others.

 

[BreezeWood]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

.
the amendment is specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
freedom from religion is the default setting written in the amendment.

 

[Oddball]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

.
the amendment is specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
freedom from religion is the default setting written in the amendment.

"...or prohibiting free exercise thereof...." reads that there's no freedom from religion.

if you don't like a prayer at the ball game, you're always free to not participate, but you have no right to prevent those participating in said prayer from doing so.

I personally don't participate in the quasi-religious ritual known as the "national anthem" at ball games, by removing myself to the concourse or the men's can while it's going on....I'd do the same thing during any prayer or tribute to any given deity...But I am neither threatened nor offended by the religious.

 

[BreezeWood]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

.
the amendment is specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
freedom from religion is the default setting written in the amendment.

"...or prohibiting free exercise thereof...." reads that there's no freedom from religion.

if you don't like a prayer at the ball game, you're always free to not participate, but you have no right to prevent those participating in said prayer from doing so.

I personally don't participate in the quasi-religious ritual known as the "national anthem" at ball games, by removing myself to the concourse or the men's can while it's going on....I'd do the same thing during any prayer or tribute to any given deity...But I am neither threatened nor offended by the religious.

.

if you don't like a prayer at the ball game, you're always free to not participate ...

.
you ignore first that religion may not be established but is allowed in their religious institutions - separate from secular society.

forced prayer at a sporting event is prohibited by the constitution. do so in your own section, quietly.

 

[Oddball]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

.
the amendment is specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
freedom from religion is the default setting written in the amendment.

"...or prohibiting free exercise thereof...." reads that there's no freedom from religion.

if you don't like a prayer at the ball game, you're always free to not participate, but you have no right to prevent those participating in said prayer from doing so.

I personally don't participate in the quasi-religious ritual known as the "national anthem" at ball games, by removing myself to the concourse or the men's can while it's going on....I'd do the same thing during any prayer or tribute to any given deity...But I am neither threatened nor offended by the religious.

.

if you don't like a prayer at the ball game, you're always free to not participate ...

.
you ignore first that religion may not be established but is allowed in their religious institutions - separate from secular society.

forced prayer at a sporting event is prohibited by the constitution. do so in your own section, quietly.

Nobody is forced to pray, just like I'm not forced to go through the national anthem ritual....You don't like it, don't follow along.

 

[JAG]

JAG Writes:
I recently wrote a letter to my grandson that said:
Happy Birthday. You will want many more Happy Birthdays and the path
to get them is to feed your mind and heart daily on the truths in the Bible
the word of God and then stay far away from the pseudo-intellectual God-haters
[Romans 1:28-32] who bad-mouth God and Christianity -- vultures they are,
and they sit perched, waiting hungry, throughout secularized academia
hoping to gobble down young Christians who are not solidly and strongly
grounded in the truths of the Holy Bible the word of God.

You'll run into 'em. They have the smell of death and unbelief on them. You
will soon be entering the house of so-called "higher education" aka the University
where your mind will be exposed to the sinful evil unbelief of the Secular Humanists
who are a self-worshiping gaggle of Academic Pseudo-intellectual Philosophical
Talking Heads who do not have enough wisdom to escape the perish of
John 3:16. Don't listen to their anti-faith gobbledygook. Tune out their
anti-Christian balderdash. They have not earned the right to your ear. Ignore
them as being 00.00.

Yes of course memorize their intellectualized bovine excreta long enough to
ace-out [A+} their tests, then forget their anti-Christian blather with a glad
heart as it reverberates happily on out of your mind into oblivion. Remember,
these anti-faith anti-Christian pseudo-intellectuals with Ph.D's, at say age
40 [who live to be say age 100] have only 720 months before they will become
either worm feces or ashes [if they are cremated], or animal feces if they are
eaten by animals [for example lost in Yellowstone National Park -- it does happen],
or oceanic creatures feces [think Titanic]. One of these 4 ends awaits them
all -- unless they make arrangements, prior to their croaking, with a taxidermist
to have their carcasses stuffed and mounted on a wall or perhaps placed in a
spare chair in Uncle Voltaire's spare bedroom --otherwise its either an Ashes
or Future Feces end for them all. So? So don't listen to Future Feces tell you
that Christianity is not true. Ignore them and get away from them and their
Boiled-Egg-Rotten-Egg-Bad-Breath Unbelief. They belong to their father the
devil [John 8:44] and they want you to join them in Hell because misery loves
company,.

Remember to remember when you are sitting in the university classroom and
that anti-faith anti-Christian professor with a Ph.D is telling you that faith is not
a valid path to truth -- remember that you are listening to Future Feces blathering
on and on -- Future Worm Feces.

And remember that Christianity, unlike Secular Humanism, has a bright cheerful
Happy Ending:
"I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me will live, even
though they die, and whoever lives by believing in Me will never die."__The Lord
Jesus [John 11:25-26].

And keep this always in your mind as well.
"I have told you these things so that in Me you may have peace. In this world you will
have trouble. But take heart. I have overcome the world. __The Lord Jesus
{John 16:33].

And regarding the anti-faith anti-Christian Secular Humanists Academic Philosophical
Pseudo-Intellectual Talking Heads, remember this:
God says,
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
__The Apostle Paul quoting Isaiah 29:14

God Bless.
Granddaddy
April 1, 2021
"Have Faith in God"__The Lord Jesus [Mark 11:22] . . . .

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son that whoever
believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

PS
To be precise regarding the certain end of the anti-faith anti-Christian
Secular Humanists Academic Philosophical Pseudo-Intellectual Talking
Heads: There is a 5th possibility for the end of their carcasses:
{1} Worm Feces [AKA Annelida Defecation]
{2} Animal Feces
{3} Oceanic Creatures Feces
{4} Ashes [if cremated]
{5} Cryonics
LOL. Here on #5 they become the Ultimate Freezer Burn.
How so?
Well, try keeping a rib-eye steak in the freezer for 50 years.
What would that look like!

[][]

So, you bought the good weed this time?

"So you bought the good weed this time"___Crepitus
Charming.

Try this vein:
Make an effort to appreciate the humor , , , dry humor , , , in the piece:
For example:
Start quote:
"{5} Cryonics
LOL. Here on #5 they become the Ultimate Freezer Burn.
How so?
Well, try keeping a rib-eye steak in the freezer for 50 years.
What would that look like! "
End quote.

Then this one:
Start quote.
" {1} Worm Feces [AKA Annelida Defecation]"
End quote.


Best.


JAG


[]

 

[JAG]

Then there was some amateur wordsmith-ing in the piece:
Here is an example:
Start quote:
"So? So don't listen to Future Feces tell you
that Christianity is not true. Ignore them and get away from them and their
Boiled-Egg-Rotten-Egg-Bad-Breath Unbelief. They belong to their father the
devil [John 8:44] and they want you to join them in Hell because misery loves
company,. "
End quote

JAG


[]

 

[ding]

IMO, if you worship yourself or The State you're not an atheist, strictly defined.....Though atheism itself is as dogmatic as any religion, so there's also that.

That's a good point. You can know what something is by what it does.

Atheism is no more dogmatic than theism. Atheism is not a religion - it is a political doctrine that opposes theist-based doctrine for the basis of public policy.

Atheists have some dogmatic beliefs, but they are not what theists can detect.

Atheists' belief that "atheism is the non-belief in gods," is incorrect. Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist-based doctrine as the basis for public policy.

Atheists also dogmatically believe in the almighty United States Constitution, which is an erroneous organization for republic government of for a society as diverse and sophisticated that the nation has evolved to.

Atheists also dogmatically believe that religion is belief and worship of god." It is not. Religion is the practice of exercises that maintain dignty.

The behaviors of atheists seem pretty dogmatic to me. Cause I hear the exact same arguments over and over again against the belief in God. And your defense of atheism sort of resembles a religious person defending his religion from an attack from a rival religion. And let's not forget the fact that you are in a religion forum discussing your beliefs. So there's that.

I am not saying that I do not have a religion, nor am I confirming that other atheists do not have a religion. In more simpler terms I am explaining that atheism is not a religion, just as theism is not a religion.

I believe you are splitting hairs. It is for good reason that David Foster Wallace said that we all worship something and the only choice in the matter is what we choose to worship. We are literally hardwired for it.

 

[John T. Ford]

"Intelligence" and "secular humanism" are mutually exclusive.

That has nothing to do with religion or the Judeo-Christion God...It's that they're nihilists, and nihilism is one of the most anti-intellectual things I can think of.

LMAO ....

Perfect comment.

Nothing left to be said.

Thread closed.

 

[ding]

IMO, if you worship yourself or The State you're not an atheist, strictly defined.....Though atheism itself is as dogmatic as any religion, so there's also that.

That's a good point. You can know what something is by what it does.

Atheism is no more dogmatic than theism. Atheism is not a religion - it is a political doctrine that opposes theist-based doctrine for the basis of public policy.

Atheists have some dogmatic beliefs, but they are not what theists can detect.

Atheists' belief that "atheism is the non-belief in gods," is incorrect. Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist-based doctrine as the basis for public policy.

Atheists also dogmatically believe in the almighty United States Constitution, which is an erroneous organization for republic government of for a society as diverse and sophisticated that the nation has evolved to.

Atheists also dogmatically believe that religion is belief and worship of god." It is not. Religion is the practice of exercises that maintain dignty.

Atheists approach it as though it's a religion, as evidenced by your admission that it is dogmatic.....Something they have in common with SH dogmatists.

Atheists DON'T believe in the US Constitution, as it was created by deists....It is they who are the ones who are dogmatically chasing all forms of Judaism and Christianity out of the public square, disingenuously claiming that acknowledgement equals establishment.

That's just it.. Atheists support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.. They don't try to make either subject to religious dogma .. Not all religious people are like that, but the Scofield heretics, Dispensationists and Dominionists certainly do.

No they don't....I've encountered enough atheists to know better.

It's almost always "I support the Constitution BUT (reason that they don't support it here)"....It's that or they come up with some semantic gymnastics to twist its meaning in ways that would make Orwell blush.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are secular, jackass and even the title of this thread mocks both.

Who derived their authority - to rebel against the Crown - from the Creator as explained in the DOI.

 

[ding]

Atheists approach it as though it's a religion, as evidenced by your admission that it is dogmatic.....Something they have in common with SH dogmatists.

Atheists DON'T believe in the US Constitution, as it was created by deists....It is they who are the ones who are dogmatically chasing all forms of Judaism and Christianity out of the public square, disingenuously claiming that acknowledgement equals establishment.

That is because atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist-based doctrine as the basis for public policy. Atheism is not a religion, just as theism is not a religion.

There you have it...Atheists don't believe in the Constitution.

You should join the Lord's Resistance Army.. They want a government based on the Ten Commandments.

They operate in northern Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The founding fathers believed that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures. But - like Locke - believed that we have a duty and an obligation to the Creator to keep those rights. Inalienable does not mean unconditional.

 

[JoeB131]

es! Jonah didn't want the people to repent; he wanted the city to be destroyed; he wanted his "I told you so!" moment. Jonah, one of the people most like so many of us. No wonder I relate to it so well. I can get my middle school students going with this. First I tell them we're going to the middle school across town and tell them to repent. The reaction, "No way!!!!" And, of course, they think the school deserves what it gets, even if they heeded warnings to do better. Then, the last part of class we read the story of Jonah, with people taking parts. It is all great fun, and the kids always leave with something to think about that relates to their lives today.

Of course, the almighty sky pixie could have just not threatened that city to start with, by why does it fall to poor Jonah to warn them? Jonah actually seems like a decent guy, especially when he offers to get thrown overboard to appease the Almighty Sky Pixie during the storm. Then God kills the tree that gives poor Jonah some shade to teach him a lesson.

The problem is, Yahweh comes off as having the morality of a Batman villain, giving his characters awful choices and randomly inflicting misery on them.

 

[ding]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

.
the amendment is specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
freedom from religion is the default setting written in the amendment.

No, the amendment was not specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law. The establishment clause was specifically written to prevent the federal government from interfering with STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS of which half of the states had at the time of ratification.

 

[Oddball]

IMO, if you worship yourself or The State you're not an atheist, strictly defined.....Though atheism itself is as dogmatic as any religion, so there's also that.

That's a good point. You can know what something is by what it does.

Atheism is no more dogmatic than theism. Atheism is not a religion - it is a political doctrine that opposes theist-based doctrine for the basis of public policy.

Atheists have some dogmatic beliefs, but they are not what theists can detect.

Atheists' belief that "atheism is the non-belief in gods," is incorrect. Atheism is a political doctrine that opposes theist-based doctrine as the basis for public policy.

Atheists also dogmatically believe in the almighty United States Constitution, which is an erroneous organization for republic government of for a society as diverse and sophisticated that the nation has evolved to.

Atheists also dogmatically believe that religion is belief and worship of god." It is not. Religion is the practice of exercises that maintain dignty.

Atheists approach it as though it's a religion, as evidenced by your admission that it is dogmatic.....Something they have in common with SH dogmatists.

Atheists DON'T believe in the US Constitution, as it was created by deists....It is they who are the ones who are dogmatically chasing all forms of Judaism and Christianity out of the public square, disingenuously claiming that acknowledgement equals establishment.

That's just it.. Atheists support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.. They don't try to make either subject to religious dogma .. Not all religious people are like that, but the Scofield heretics, Dispensationists and Dominionists certainly do.

No they don't....I've encountered enough atheists to know better.

It's almost always "I support the Constitution BUT (reason that they don't support it here)"....It's that or they come up with some semantic gymnastics to twist its meaning in ways that would make Orwell blush.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are secular, jackass and even the title of this thread mocks both.

Who derived their authority - to rebel against the Crown - from the Creator as explained in the DOI.

"Nature's God" I believe is an oblique nod to Locke, presuming that our rights exist as a force of nature from birth.

 

[ding]

es! Jonah didn't want the people to repent; he wanted the city to be destroyed; he wanted his "I told you so!" moment. Jonah, one of the people most like so many of us. No wonder I relate to it so well. I can get my middle school students going with this. First I tell them we're going to the middle school across town and tell them to repent. The reaction, "No way!!!!" And, of course, they think the school deserves what it gets, even if they heeded warnings to do better. Then, the last part of class we read the story of Jonah, with people taking parts. It is all great fun, and the kids always leave with something to think about that relates to their lives today.

Of course, the almighty sky pixie could have just not threatened that city to start with, by why does it fall to poor Jonah to warn them? Jonah actually seems like a decent guy, especially when he offers to get thrown overboard to appease the Almighty Sky Pixie during the storm. Then God kills the tree that gives poor Jonah some shade to teach him a lesson.

The problem is, Yahweh comes off as having the morality of a Batman villain, giving his characters awful choices and randomly inflicting misery on them.

I wouldn't believe in a magic sky pixie either. Of course, I wouldn't read allegorical accounts literally or read them to confirm my biases either.

 

[BreezeWood]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

.
the amendment is specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
freedom from religion is the default setting written in the amendment.

No, the amendment was not specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law. The establishment clause was specifically written to prevent the federal government from interfering with STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS of which half of the states had at the time of ratification.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

No, the amendment was not specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law. The establishment clause was specifically written to prevent the federal government from interfering with STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS of which half of the states had at the time of ratification.

.
again, no one cares for your interpretation for what is actually written in the constitution - a secular humanist document.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
no where is it stated there is freedom of religion, that is not what is written - what is written is a clarification, first, religion is not permissible for interpreting or instituting secular law and second is otherwise permitted in its own quarters.

 

[Oddball]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

.
the amendment is specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
freedom from religion is the default setting written in the amendment.

No, the amendment was not specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law. The establishment clause was specifically written to prevent the federal government from interfering with STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS of which half of the states had at the time of ratification.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

No, the amendment was not specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law. The establishment clause was specifically written to prevent the federal government from interfering with STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS of which half of the states had at the time of ratification.

.
again, no one cares for your interpretation for what is actually written in the constitution - a secular humanist document.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
no where is it stated there is freedom of religion, that is not what is written - what is written is a clarification, first, religion is not permissible for interpreting or instituting secular law and second is otherwise permitted in its own quarters.

"...free exercise thereof..." obviates your baseless argument that you have freedom from religion.

Nobody is forcing you to participate if some people want to have a public prayer or display of their faith.

 

[ding]

Totally secular, I tell you!!

Where Was God in the Constitutional Convention?

If you’re reading this article, then you’re probably already familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s famous request that the Constitutional Convention begin each day with prayer, but did you know that there […]

thefederalistpapers.org

So why didn't they just compose a passage that read that belief in god is mandatory. There are some state constitutions that are fairly plain language forbidding atheists from participating in the government.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

The framers were vary explicit, in both the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, that the Constitution was only going to work with a moral and, dare I say, "godly" people....IOW, there had to be an underpinning of a fixed sense of morality, which is ever shifting and transient in the world of the SH types.

SHs are all bout "living rules", which is a duplicitous way of saying that they're really for no rules at all.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

.
the amendment is specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
freedom from religion is the default setting written in the amendment.

No, the amendment was not specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law. The establishment clause was specifically written to prevent the federal government from interfering with STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS of which half of the states had at the time of ratification.

.

Mandating that no religion be established ≠ freedom from religious references and/or observances.

No, the amendment was not specifically written with religion being subordinate to secular law. The establishment clause was specifically written to prevent the federal government from interfering with STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS of which half of the states had at the time of ratification.

.
again, no one cares for your interpretation for what is actually written in the constitution - a secular humanist document.
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
.
no where is it stated there is freedom of religion, that is not what is written - what is written is a clarification, first, religion is not permissible for interpreting or instituting secular law and second is otherwise permitted in its own quarters.

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State

The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.

www.forbes.com

Incorporating the Establishment Clause, Wrongly - James R. Rogers

The structural guarantee of the Establishment Clause can be preserved even with protections that prevent restricting individuals' religious liberty.

lawliberty.org

.

The Establishment Clause serves two purposes: it both prohibits Congress from Establishing a religion but it also prohibits Congress from meddling with state religious establishments.