Re: We say, "Merry Christmas"
Heidi Graw
>"Dave U. Random" <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote in message
>news:87c5b025e347b789...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net...
> We say "Merry Christmas"
>
> Jesus is the "Reason for the Season"
>
> "It's not the "Holiday Season" it's the "Christmas Season". If you
> don't believe in Jesus you shouldn't be celebrating."
>
>
> These are just a few of the things I've seen and heard in the last few
> weeks that are really starting to hit a nerve. My wife tells me I
> shouldn't let the opinions of others bother me and I try not to but it
> does at times.
>
> Why do Christians in particular seem so threatened by other religions?
Christians feel threatened because they see their own church
attendance dropping and other religious faiths around them
rising. In some places where Christianity was the majority,
it is now in a minority. This change scares them.
But, Christians only have themselves to blame. Over the past
few decades a mean-spirited and intolerant fundamentalism
gained ground which drove moderate and liberal Christians out
of the church.
The Reverend John Shelby Spong describes these displaced
people as "believers in exile" in his book "Why Christianity
must Change or Die." He also wrote another worthwhile
book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism."
>
> Why is Happy Holidays so offensive?
It shouldn't be offensive. The word Holidays comes from
Holy Days. For a Christian this Holy Day can be a
celebration of Christ's birth. For other religions it is
a celebration of the lengthening day, the rebirth of
the sun.
As for those who wish to put the Christ back into Christmas,
I answer with, "Put the Yule back into Yuletide and the Weih
back into Weihnachten." ;-)
Happy Yuletide, Fr�hliche Weihnachten, Season's Greetings
and all that jazz... Whatever your celebrate this time of
year, have a good one!
Take care,
Heidi
krp
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:7LDXm.58497$PH1.34278@edtnps82...
>> Why do Christians in particular seem so threatened by other religions?
> Christians feel threatened because they see their own church
> attendance dropping and other religious faiths around them
> rising. In some places where Christianity was the majority,
> it is now in a minority. This change scares them.
In the US? Where? Okay, in Turkey you are right. Once it had a solid
Christian majority, now there are only a few thousand left. How? 2 Million
deported 4X that many killed. Churches siezed and turned into museums.
> But, Christians only have themselves to blame. Over the past
> few decades a mean-spirited and intolerant fundamentalism
> gained ground which drove moderate and liberal Christians out
> of the church.
Yes Fundamentalist Christians have had on occasion a nasty voice. But
not anywhere near as bad as fundamentalists of other religions (such as
islam). But I must agree that it is abberant Christianity.
> The Reverend John Shelby Spong describes these displaced
> people as "believers in exile" in his book "Why Christianity
> must Change or Die." He also wrote another worthwhile
> book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism."
Fundamentalists have always twisted the bible to suit whatever social
beliefs they also hold. Hard shell Baptists in the South attempted to use
the Bible to justify slavery and the brutal treatment of the African slaves
at their hands. But then I am NOT a fundie.
>> Why is Happy Holidays so offensive?
> It shouldn't be offensive. The word Holidays comes from
> Holy Days. For a Christian this Holy Day can be a
> celebration of Christ's birth. For other religions it is
> a celebration of the lengthening day, the rebirth of
> the sun.
The words themselves are not offensive. It is the ATTEMPT to FORCE
people to NOT be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" that sets off many
Christians even those who are not fundamentalists. It is just ONE act in a
broader anti-Christian movement to try to outlaw it. By attacking it on many
legal fronts. Going so far as demanding that groups who want to sing
Christmas Carols be banned from public parks or the sidewalks of the town.
People who want to ban religious education. People who want to remove all
references to God from our society.
> As for those who wish to put the Christ back into Christmas,
> I answer with, "Put the Yule back into Yuletide and the Weih
> back into Weihnachten." ;-)
Certainly commercialization of Christmas is AS bad as the desire of
radical Atheists to BAN it altogether. Hence legal efforts against schools
to eliminate Christmas and Easter vacations. Or specific examples of
lawsuits in Wisconsin to force schools to not allow absences for obligatory
church activities. (Holy Days.)
We have even seen from the lunatic fringe of Atheism, arguments that
parents should NOT be "ALLOWED" to impart any form of religious education to
their children. One would think such a law would be meaningless unless it
were enacted with some legal "penalty" if the parents defied the law.
I oppose, personally, any time ANY group wants to IMPOSE their beliefs
on others. Even Atheists.
Lord Vetinari
news:4b2f4c17$0$5088$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
<slap> You smell of pigshit, Kenny.
> I oppose, personally, any time ANY group wants to IMPOSE their beliefs on
> others. Even Atheists.
Stick your finger in a bowl of water. Now, remove your finger. See what an
impression you've made?
Deadrat
news:4b2f4c17$0$5088$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:7LDXm.58497$PH1.34278@edtnps82...
>
<snip/>
>>> Why is Happy Holidays so offensive?
>
>> It shouldn't be offensive. The word Holidays comes from
>> Holy Days. For a Christian this Holy Day can be a
>> celebration of Christ's birth. For other religions it is
>> a celebration of the lengthening day, the rebirth of
>> the sun.
>
> The words themselves are not offensive. It is the ATTEMPT to FORCE
> people to NOT be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" that sets off many
> Christians even those who are not fundamentalists.
You can cite no such attempts *by the state* to force peple not say
"Merry Christmas." It may be the policy of private retailers to have
their employees greet customers with "Happy Holidays" instead, but you
can have no complaint about that. At least no reasonable comoplaint.
> It is just ONE act
> in a broader anti-Christian movement to try to outlaw it.
You can cite not one attempt to outlaw Christianity in this country.
> By attacking
> it on many legal fronts. Going so far as demanding that groups who
> want to sing Christmas Carols be banned from public parks or the
> sidewalks of the town.
No doubt many people are sick of Christians forcing their religious
practices on others, but you can name no legal attempts to stop private
citizens from practicing in public whatever nonsense they want. State
sponsorship of such religious practice is another thing altogether.
> People who want to ban religious education.
You can cite not one attempt to ban religious education not carried out
by the state.
> People who want to remove all references to God from our society.
There are certianly such people, but you can cite not one case in which
they removed "all references to God."
>> As for those who wish to put the Christ back into Christmas,
>> I answer with, "Put the Yule back into Yuletide and the Weih
>> back into Weihnachten." ;-)
>
> Certainly commercialization of Christmas is AS bad as the desire
> of
> radical Atheists to BAN it altogether. Hence legal efforts against
> schools to eliminate Christmas and Easter vacations. Or specific
> examples of lawsuits in Wisconsin to force schools to not allow
> absences for obligatory church activities. (Holy Days.)
>
> We have even seen from the lunatic fringe of Atheism, arguments
> that
> parents should NOT be "ALLOWED" to impart any form of religious
> education to their children. One would think such a law would be
> meaningless unless it were enacted with some legal "penalty" if the
> parents defied the law.
You can cite no law or bill that requires parents not to inculcate in
their children the superstitions that they were inculcated in them by
their own parents. "Lunatic fringe" arguments don't count as they fall
under the rubric of free speech.
>
> I oppose, personally, any time ANY group wants to IMPOSE their
> beliefs on others. Even Atheists.
Well, Sparky, I suppose I'll have to take your word for that, but it
means you're opposed to most of your co-religionists. Atheists don't
have religious beliefs, and for the most part, just don't want to be
annoyed (or worse) by yours. Let me know when an atheist knocks on your
door early Saturday morning and tries to convince you to give up your
religion.
womanGoddess
Oh good one! I need to remember that one!
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
krp
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:KPCdnS2TuaoYNrLW...@giganews.com...
>>> You can cite not one attempt to outlaw Christianity in this country.
>
>> I can make a reasonable case of a "piecemeal" strategy to do that by
>> inches.Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit it is the
>> long term aganda. Remember there IS the "Freedom FROM religion
>> Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes and intents aimed SOLELY
>> at the CHRISIAN faith.
>
>>>> By attacking it on many legal fronts. Going so far as demanding that
>>>> groups who
>>>> want to sing Christmas Carols be banned from public parks or the
>>>> sidewalks of the town.
>
>>> No doubt many people are sick of Christians forcing their religious
>>> practices on others, but you can name no legal attempts to stop private
>>> citizens from practicing in public whatever nonsense they want. State
>>> sponsorship of such religious practice is another thing altogether.
>
> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20091125_Appeals_Court__School_district_can_ban_Christmas_carols.html
>
> "The federal appeals court in Philadelphia has upheld a New Jersey school
> district's ban on religious songs during the Christman holiday season."
>
>> Yes there have been efforts to STOP private citizens from caroling in
>> public parks. People with NO connection to the State at all. Sometimes
>> even KIDS wanting to walk doown sidewalks singing Christmas carols.
>
>>>> People who want to ban religious education.
>
>>> You can cite not one attempt to ban religious education not carried out
>>> by the state.
>
>> Sure I can. The attempt to BAN programs to send kids from broken
>> schools in Milwaukee's inner city to Catholic high schools willing to
>> accept them. A LAWSUIT to block allowing the children to attend schools
>> like ST. John Cathedral High school. A lawsuit to BAN the Milwaukee
>> public schools from giving excused absences for children attending
>> mandatory religious events. (Such as Catholic Holy Days of Obligation.)
I can also point to the appearance of FFRF President Annie Laurie Gaylor
with Laura Ingraham last night where SHE SAID exactly that. That parents
have
NO RIGHT to provide a religious education to their children and it should
be
PROHIBITED.
Deadrat
news:4b30a21c$0$4950$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:KPCdnS2TuaoYNrLW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>>>> You can cite not one attempt to outlaw Christianity in this
>>>> country.
>>
>>> I can make a reasonable case of a "piecemeal" strategy to do that
>>> by
>>> inches.Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit it is
>>> the long term aganda. Remember there IS the "Freedom FROM religion
>>> Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes and intents aimed
>>> SOLELY at the CHRISIAN faith.
>>
>>>>> By attacking it on many legal fronts. Going so far as demanding
>>>>> that groups who
>>>>> want to sing Christmas Carols be banned from public parks or the
>>>>> sidewalks of the town.
>>
>>>> No doubt many people are sick of Christians forcing their religious
>>>> practices on others, but you can name no legal attempts to stop
>>>> private citizens from practicing in public whatever nonsense they
>>>> want. State sponsorship of such religious practice is another
>>>> thing altogether.
>>
>> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20091125_Appeals_Court__Sch
>> ool_district_can_ban_Christmas_carols.html
>>
>> "The federal appeals court in Philadelphia has upheld a New Jersey
>> school district's ban on religious songs during the Christman holiday
>> season."
What don't you understand about this? A public school district, an
instrument of the state, has decided that it is inappropriate for it to
sponsor religious songs, that is, religious practice.
>>> Yes there have been efforts to STOP private citizens from
>>> caroling in
>>> public parks. People with NO connection to the State at all.
>>> Sometimes even KIDS wanting to walk doown sidewalks singing
>>> Christmas carols.
>>
>>>>> People who want to ban religious education.
>>
>>>> You can cite not one attempt to ban religious education not carried
>>>> out by the state.
>>
>>> Sure I can. The attempt to BAN programs to send kids from broken
>>> schools in Milwaukee's inner city to Catholic high schools willing
>>> to accept them. A LAWSUIT to block allowing the children to attend
>>> schools like ST. John Cathedral High school. A lawsuit to BAN the
>>> Milwaukee public schools from giving excused absences for children
>>> attending mandatory religious events. (Such as Catholic Holy Days of
>>> Obligation.)
>
> I can also point to the appearance of FFRF President Annie Laurie
> Gaylor with Laura Ingraham last night where SHE SAID exactly that.
> That parents have
> NO RIGHT to provide a religious education to their children and it
> should be PROHIBITED.
You're lying. Again. And what did I tell you about the Baby Jesus?
I listened to the 12/21/09 interview. Gaylor said she thought it was a
bad idea to indoctrinate little children in abstract ideas that they
couldn't understand, especially when these ideas are associated with
fearful concepts like hell. At no point did Gaylor say that parents
don't have the right to do just that.
krp
>>>>>>> Why is Happy Holidays so offensive?
>>>>>
>>>>>> It shouldn't be offensive. The word Holidays comes from
>>>>>> Holy Days. For a Christian this Holy Day can be a
>>>>>> celebration of Christ's birth. For other religions it is
>>>>>> a celebration of the lengthening day, the rebirth of
>>>>>> the sun.
>>>>>
>>>>> The words themselves are not offensive. It is the ATTEMPT to
>>>>> FORCE
>>>>> people to NOT be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" that sets off many
>>>>> Christians even those who are not fundamentalists.
>>>
>>>> You can cite no such attempts *by the state* to force peple not say
>>>> "Merry Christmas."
>>>
>>> Not the state but the ACLU and individual Atheists via lawsuits or
>>> threats of lawsuits.
>
>> The ACLU files lawsuits against the *state* to limit *state* sponsorship
>> of
>> religious practice. The same goes for individual atheists (no need to
>> capitalize the word).
>
> They also threaten lawsuits against private business to make them stop
> practices that somebody finds "offensive." Or prohibit asinine things,
> like suits over a CROSS at a war memorial out in the middle of a desert
> where almost nobody sees it.
>
>> You cannot name a single instance in which any organization or any person
>> sued an individual to stop him from saying "Merry Christmas."
>
> It's the THREAT of a lawsuit that has the desired "chilling effect."
> How could "Bob's Bakery" withstand a lawsuit from the ACLU because he
> greets his customers with Merry Christmas? The lasuit would likely not
> succeed, but poor Bob would have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars
> and have insane assholes picketing his store. It's the world of the
> ideological BULLY!
>
>>>> It may be the policy of private retailers to have
>>>> their employees greet customers with "Happy Holidays" instead, but
>>>> you can have no complaint about that. At least no reasonable
>>>> complaint.
>
>>> Sure Christians can complain at a store telling its employees NOT
>>> to say
>>> Merry Christmas at the same time it is trying to "exploit" the
>>> holiday. Did they repeal the 1st Amendment while I was off doing other
>>> things today?
>
>> The 1st Amendment applies to the *state*. Private enterprises are free
>> to
>> "exploit" the holiday any legal way they see fit, and that may include
>> instructing their employees to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry
>> Christmas." to customers in their stores.
>
> And Christians have the right to PPROTEST that and BOYCOTT the store.
> Just like Atheists do. If you had a business and you had to make a choice
> of turning off over 80% of the people and .00002% of the people who would
> you choose? Taking out of the equation the ACLU and threats of lawsuits.
>
>> Live with it.
>
> WHY? Only Atheists have rights?
>
>>> Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit it is
>>> the long term agenda. Remember there IS the "Freedom FROM religion
>>> Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes and intents aimed
>>> SOLELY at the CHRISIAN faith.
>
>> Bullshit. You need to quit lying like this. Don't you know it makes the
>> Baby Jesus cry?
Maybe you missed Annie Laurie Gaylor the president of the Freedom FROM
Religion Foundation on TV last night. Perhaps because she was on with
Laura
Ingraham on Fox News that YOU never watch. She was quite candid in her
remarks as Annie Laurie usually is. (Not to be confused with her mother
Annie Gaylor). Including her statement that parents have "NO RIGHT" to
"impose religious education on their children."
FFRF has fought many of the issues I have spoken about. Such as
demanding an end to the "CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY" Thanksgiving and Easter. Also
of
fighting school vouchers that would allow inner city children in broken
schools to attend private religious schools. Specifically a lawsuit against
St. John Cathedral High School in Milwaukee, who took failing students and
raised their test scores ABOVE the national average. Saying that the
PARENTS
had "NO RIGHT" to send their children to that school. Complained that it
was
an issue of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Like all Atheists you can't
read the whole statement.
Here is what the CONSTITUTION actually says versus your contorted version
of
it:
" 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. "
The part your mind will NOT allow you to deal with is this statement in
it. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You HATE that part of it
Ratbrain. You see Ratbrain, allowing children to go to the school of their
PARENT'S choosing is that "FREE EXERCISE" thingie. If you allow vouchers
for ANY private school, then you must allow ALL of them. If there was a
Islamic school (there ARE and oddly NO lawsuits against them) or a Hebrew
School (those also exist) and no lawsuits against those either. Now if
Atheists want an ANTI-GOD school - why shouldn't Atheist parents be allowed
to send THEIR kids there? Or Wiccans? You shitferbrains MIGHT have a point
*IF* the state was FORCING kids to go to the Catholic School instead of
merely ALLOWING it as a PARENTAL OPTION. As you have pointed out on other
issues, it is a PRIVATE matter versus STATE action.. Except in THIS case.
And, of course, we cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that it is an
ANTI-Christian thing because ONLY Christian schools are targeted.
krp
RATBRAIN I generally consider you to be in the SLOW FREIGHT part of the
class, but on this you outdo yourself. I know the ACLU wants to change this,
but Christmas is a federally recognized HOLIDAY, isn't it? Are schools IN
SESSION during the Christmas Holiday? The article says nothing about
"SPONSORING" the songs. It is a BAN on the studenst taking part OFF CAMPUS
in the carols.
>>>> Yes there have been efforts to STOP private citizens from
>>>> caroling in
>>>> public parks. People with NO connection to the State at all.
>>>> Sometimes even KIDS wanting to walk doown sidewalks singing
>>>> Christmas carols.
>>>
>>>>>> People who want to ban religious education.
>>>
>>>>> You can cite not one attempt to ban religious education not carried
>>>>> out by the state.
>>>
>>>> Sure I can. The attempt to BAN programs to send kids from broken
>>>> schools in Milwaukee's inner city to Catholic high schools willing
>>>> to accept them. A LAWSUIT to block allowing the children to attend
>>>> schools like ST. John Cathedral High school. A lawsuit to BAN the
>>>> Milwaukee public schools from giving excused absences for children
>>>> attending mandatory religious events. (Such as Catholic Holy Days of
>>>> Obligation.)
>>
>> I can also point to the appearance of FFRF President Annie Laurie
>> Gaylor with Laura Ingraham last night where SHE SAID exactly that.
>> That parents have
>> NO RIGHT to provide a religious education to their children and it
>> should be PROHIBITED.
> You're lying. Again. And what did I tell you about the Baby Jesus?
Which changes what about parents giving their children a religious
education?
> I listened to the 12/21/09 interview. Gaylor said she thought it was a
> bad idea to indoctrinate little children in abstract ideas that they
> couldn't understand, especially when these ideas are associated with
> fearful concepts like hell. At no point did Gaylor say that parents
> don't have the right to do just that.
That's NOT accurate. She said they did not have the right. Read the
transcript.
krp
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:53885921-5729-48b3...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 21, 11:19 pm, Brian E. Clark
<brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <4b300285$0$5115
> $9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, kr...@tampabay.rr.com
> says...
>
> > MOE> Its the BS of " war on Christmas" that runs around this time,
> > revved
> > MOE> up by such " intellectuals" as Bill O' Reiley. Urban dictionary has
> > a
> > MOE> name for these people; " Christmas Nazis".
>
> > Hmm... O'Reilly has a degree with honors from Harvard,
Um, no, actually, he doesn't.
After graduating from high school in 1967, O'Reilly attended Marist
College, his father's choice.[18]
O'Reilly received his B.A. in history in 1971.[21]
O'Reilly returned to school in 1973[24] and earned an M.A. in
Broadcast Journalism from Boston University.[21]
O'Reilly also earned a Master of Public Administration from
Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
No honors, and not the Harvard that most people mean when they say
"Harvard".
Oh it was the Harvard Shoe company?
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:53885921-5729-48b3...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 11:19 pm, Brian E. Clark
>
> <brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <4b300285$0$5115
> > $9a6e1...@unlimited.newshosting.com>, kr...@tampabay.rr.com
> > says...
>
> > > MOE> Its the BS of " war on Christmas" that runs around this time,
> > > revved
> > > MOE> up by such " intellectuals" as Bill O' Reiley. Urban dictionary
>
> > > Hmm... O'Reilly has a degree with honors from Harvard,
>
> Um, no, actually, he doesn't.
>
> After graduating from high school in 1967, O'Reilly attended Marist
> College, his father's choice.[18]
> O'Reilly received his B.A. in history in 1971.[21]
> O'Reilly returned to school in 1973[24] and earned an M.A. in
> Broadcast Journalism from Boston University.[21]
> O'Reilly also earned a Master of Public Administration from
> Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
>
> No honors, and not the Harvard that most people mean when they say
> "Harvard".
>
> Oh it was the Harvard Shoe company?
1) Learn to format a correct Usenet post. Your INability to do so
makes you appear a 4 year old moron.
2) Your claims were proven wrong; Deal with it.
3) Bill O'Reilly IS a big fat lying moron. If you like him, you are
the same. QED, dumbass.
Andre
Deadrat
news:4b30feb1$0$4873$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:MaqdnQm_jsPwkq3W...@giganews.com...
>
>>>>>>>> Why is Happy Holidays so offensive?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It shouldn't be offensive. The word Holidays comes from
>>>>>>> Holy Days. For a Christian this Holy Day can be a
>>>>>>> celebration of Christ's birth. For other religions it is
>>>>>>> a celebration of the lengthening day, the rebirth of
>>>>>>> the sun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The words themselves are not offensive. It is the ATTEMPT to
>>>>>> FORCE
>>>>>> people to NOT be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" that sets off
>>>>>> many Christians even those who are not fundamentalists.
>>>>
>>>>> You can cite no such attempts *by the state* to force peple not
>>>>> say "Merry Christmas."
>>>>
>>>> Not the state but the ACLU and individual Atheists via lawsuits
>>>> or
>>>> threats of lawsuits.
>>
>>> The ACLU files lawsuits against the *state* to limit *state*
>>> sponsorship of
>>> religious practice. The same goes for individual atheists (no need
>>> to capitalize the word).
>>
>> They also threaten lawsuits against private business to make them
>> stop practices that somebody finds "offensive."
They do not. You cannot cite one such suit against a private business or
individual, and I challenge you to find one.
>> Or prohibit asinine
>> things, like suits over a CROSS at a war memorial out in the middle
>> of a desert where almost nobody sees it.
You think it's asinine because it's a cross, which is your symbol.
Of course. Who says otherwise?
>> If you had a business and you had to make a
>> choice of turning off over 80% of the people and .00002% of the
>> people who would you choose? Taking out of the equation the ACLU and
>> threats of lawsuits.
First of all, "80% of the people" aren't offended by "Happy Holidays."
It's just you and the rest of the Christmas goons. Secondly, who cares
what I think? It's a private business. It's their choice, even if it
turns out to be a bad choice.
>>> Live with it.
>>
>> WHY? Only Atheists have rights?
No, but they have rights. One of them is not to have their tax dollars
go to support your religion. That's what you have to live with.
>>>> Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit it is
>>>> the long term agenda. Remember there IS the "Freedom FROM religion
>>>> Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes and intents aimed
>>>> SOLELY at the CHRISIAN faith.
>>
>>> Bullshit. You need to quit lying like this. Don't you know it
>>> makes the Baby Jesus cry?
>
> Maybe you missed Annie Laurie Gaylor the president of the Freedom
> FROM
> Religion Foundation on TV last night. Perhaps because she was on
> with
> Laura
> Ingraham on Fox News that YOU never watch. She was quite candid in
> her remarks as Annie Laurie usually is. (Not to be confused with her
> mother Annie Gaylor). Including her statement that parents have "NO
> RIGHT" to "impose religious education on their children."
You're lying. Again. And the Baby Jesus is very upset with you. I
don't get cable, so I had to find an online video of last night's
interview. Gaylor never said that parents have no right to indoctrinate
children. She said she thought it was a bad idea.
> FFRF has fought many of the issues I have spoken about. Such as
> demanding an end to the "CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY" Thanksgiving and Easter.
Did you read the FFRF's charter? They are for separation of church and
state. They don't care what you do in your private life, including which
holidays you celebrate.
> Also of
> fighting school vouchers that would allow inner city children in
> broken schools to attend private religious schools. Specifically a
> lawsuit against St. John Cathedral High School in Milwaukee, who took
> failing students and raised their test scores ABOVE the national
> average. Saying that the PARENTS
> had "NO RIGHT" to send their children to that school. Complained that
> it was
> an issue of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Like all Atheists you
> can't read the whole statement.
School vouchers are state monies. They may not be used for religious
instruction, no matter how much it raises children's test scores. You'd
howl bloody murder, if state money went to fund satanist institutions
that also raised children's math scores.
How do you know I'm an atheist, by the way?
> Here is what the CONSTITUTION actually says versus your contorted
> version of it:
>
> " 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.
> "
>
> The part your mind will NOT allow you to deal with is this
> statement in
> it. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You HATE that part of
> it Ratbrain.
Quit lying. The Baby Jesus hates that. I am against the state
interfering in people's religious practices. But I don't want my tax
money supporting yours. Or mine, for that matter.
> You see Ratbrain, allowing children to go to the school
> of their PARENT'S choosing is that "FREE EXERCISE" thingie.
That's right. And nobody, and I mean nobody, is trying to stop parents
from sending their children to the schools they choose. They just can't
use state money to fund religious education.
> If you
> allow vouchers for ANY private school, then you must allow ALL of
> them.
You are wrong. Because of the 1st Amendment (and state constitutional
prohibitions, as well), funding religious institutions is prohibited.
It's not an equal playing field: the state may fund secular instruction
but not religious instruction.
> If there was a Islamic school (there ARE and oddly NO lawsuits
> against them) or a Hebrew School (those also exist) and no lawsuits
> against those either.
I know of no Muslims trying to get the state to fund madrassahs. And
there was an unending spate of lawsuits against a school district in New
York that has only Orthodox Jews.
> Now if Atheists want an ANTI-GOD school - why
> shouldn't Atheist parents be allowed to send THEIR kids there? Or
> Wiccans? You shitferbrains MIGHT have a point *IF* the state was
> FORCING kids to go to the Catholic School instead of merely ALLOWING
> it as a PARENTAL OPTION. As you have pointed out on other issues, it
> is a PRIVATE matter versus STATE action.. Except in THIS case.
Atheist parents don't send their kids to anti-god schools, because
atheists don't think arguments for or against god belong in schools. If
there were such things as anti-god schools, atheists couldn't use public
money to enroll their children. It is not a "PRIVATE" matter when you
want to use my tax dollars to pay for your religious eduction.
> And, of course, we cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that it
> is an
> ANTI-Christian thing because ONLY Christian schools are targeted.
You're lying. Again. Check out Board of Education of Kiryas Joel
Village School District v. Grumet, 512US687 (1994).
This mostly happens with Christians because Christians are not only the
most numerous sect but they insist on demanding the use of public funds
for religious purposes.
Deadrat
news:4b310287$0$4889$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:tfudnc1ASN66QK3W...@giganews.com...
>
>>>>>> You can cite not one attempt to outlaw Christianity in this
>>>>>> country.
>>>>
>>>>> I can make a reasonable case of a "piecemeal" strategy to do
>>>>> that by
>>>>> inches.Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit it
>>>>> is the long term aganda. Remember there IS the "Freedom FROM
>>>>> religion Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes and
>>>>> intents aimed SOLELY at the CHRISIAN faith.
>>>>
>>>>>>> By attacking it on many legal fronts. Going so far as demanding
>>>>>>> that groups who
>>>>>>> want to sing Christmas Carols be banned from public parks or the
>>>>>>> sidewalks of the town.
>>>>
>>>>>> No doubt many people are sick of Christians forcing their
>>>>>> religious practices on others, but you can name no legal attempts
>>>>>> to stop private citizens from practicing in public whatever
>>>>>> nonsense they want. State sponsorship of such religious practice
>>>>>> is another thing altogether.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20091125_Appeals_Court__S
>>>> ch ool_district_can_ban_Christmas_carols.html
>>>>
>>>> "The federal appeals court in Philadelphia has upheld a New Jersey
>>>> school district's ban on religious songs during the Christman
>>>> holiday season."
>
>> What don't you understand about this? A public school district, an
>> instrument of the state, has decided that it is inappropriate for it
>> to sponsor religious songs, that is, religious practice.
>
> RATBRAIN I generally consider you to be in the SLOW FREIGHT part
> of the class,
Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me slow.
> but on this you outdo yourself. I know the ACLU wants to change
> this, but Christmas is a federally recognized HOLIDAY, isn't it? Are
> schools IN SESSION during the Christmas Holiday?
Christmas is a federal holiday because most people in this country
celebrate it. As long as there are work holidays, they might as well
coincide with the days that everyone is going to take off anyway.
> The article says
> nothing about "SPONSORING" the songs. It is a BAN on the studenst
> taking part OFF CAMPUS in the carols.
You're lying. Again. Why do you do that when you know it hurts the Baby
Jesus? Your own url talks about only what happens *in school*
>
>>>>> Yes there have been efforts to STOP private citizens from
>>>>> caroling in
>>>>> public parks. People with NO connection to the State at all.
>>>>> Sometimes even KIDS wanting to walk doown sidewalks singing
>>>>> Christmas carols.
>>>>
>>>>>>> People who want to ban religious education.
>>>>
>>>>>> You can cite not one attempt to ban religious education not
>>>>>> carried out by the state.
>>>>
>>>>> Sure I can. The attempt to BAN programs to send kids from
>>>>> broken
>>>>> schools in Milwaukee's inner city to Catholic high schools
>>>>> willing to accept them. A LAWSUIT to block allowing the children
>>>>> to attend schools like ST. John Cathedral High school. A lawsuit
>>>>> to BAN the Milwaukee public schools from giving excused absences
>>>>> for children attending mandatory religious events. (Such as
>>>>> Catholic Holy Days of Obligation.)
>>>
>>> I can also point to the appearance of FFRF President Annie Laurie
>>> Gaylor with Laura Ingraham last night where SHE SAID exactly that.
>>> That parents have
>
>>> NO RIGHT to provide a religious education to their children and it
>>> should be PROHIBITED.
>
>> You're lying. Again. And what did I tell you about the Baby Jesus?
>
> Which changes what about parents giving their children a religious
> education?
Parents may inflict their religious views on their children. No one says
otherwise, and that includes Gaylor in the interview.
>
>> I listened to the 12/21/09 interview. Gaylor said she thought it was
>> a bad idea to indoctrinate little children in abstract ideas that
>> they couldn't understand, especially when these ideas are associated
>> with fearful concepts like hell. At no point did Gaylor say that
>> parents don't have the right to do just that.
>
> That's NOT accurate. She said they did not have the right. Read
> the transcript.
I watched the freakin' interview. Twice. You're lying. She said
"children should not be indoctrinated." That's it. Nothing about
parents lacking the rights to do what she herself thinks is best.
tirebiter
>
> Maybe you missed Annie Laurie Gaylor the president of the Freedom FROM
> Religion Foundation on TV last night. Perhaps because she was on with
> Laura
> Ingraham on Fox News that YOU never watch. She was quite candid in her
> remarks as Annie Laurie usually is. (Not to be confused with her mother
> Annie Gaylor). Including her statement that parents have "NO RIGHT" to
> "impose religious education on their children."
>
I just watched this interview online, and Gaylor never said the
statement you attribute to her in quotes (which implies a verbatim
statement). In fact, Ingraham was so ungracious, condescending and
snide from the start, she made a point of interrupting Gaylor in every
one of her responses, you probably can't even find a single statement
with that many uninterrupted words in it. Most of the interruptions
were off topic references and under the breath attacks, intended to
keep Gaylor from sticking to any singular topic.
I can't see why a christian would want to point to this interview in
an attempt to show the interviewer in any sort of positive light.
---
a.a. #2273
FreeThink
He is not interested in the facts. He watches Fox news
tirebiter
>
> > I listened to the 12/21/09 interview. Gaylor said she thought it was a
> > bad idea to indoctrinate little children in abstract ideas that they
> > couldn't understand, especially when these ideas are associated with
> > fearful concepts like hell. At no point did Gaylor say that parents
> > don't have the right to do just that.
>
> That's NOT accurate. She said they did not have the right. Read the
> transcript.
I don't know who wrote the transcript you're referring to, but I just
watched that part of the interview again, and in no place does Gaylor
say that parents have "NO RIGHT" to "impose religious education on
their children.". Your claim that she said that is false, and could
be considered libel since you put it in quotes.
---
a.a. #2273
Deadrat
b274-576...@g12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com:
No, it can't. Let's calm down. Not every false statement is defamatory.
This one is pretty tame, and as Gaylor is being interviewed for broadcast,
she will no doubt be a public figure. This means actual malice must be
proven, and that will be tough to show in krp's case. He could easily make
the case that his perception has been addled as a result of years of
religious indoctrination.
By the way, the quotes don't matter.
> ---
> a.a. #2273
krp
>>>>>>>>> Why is Happy Holidays so offensive?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It shouldn't be offensive. The word Holidays comes from
>>>>>>>> Holy Days. For a Christian this Holy Day can be a
>>>>>>>> celebration of Christ's birth. For other religions it is
>>>>>>>> a celebration of the lengthening day, the rebirth of
>>>>>>>> the sun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The words themselves are not offensive. It is the ATTEMPT to
>>>>>>> FORCE
>>>>>>> people to NOT be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" that sets off
>>>>>>> many Christians even those who are not fundamentalists.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can cite no such attempts *by the state* to force peple not
>>>>>> say "Merry Christmas."
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the state but the ACLU and individual Atheists via lawsuits
>>>>> or
>>>>> threats of lawsuits.
>>>
>>>> The ACLU files lawsuits against the *state* to limit *state*
>>>> sponsorship of
>>>> religious practice. The same goes for individual atheists (no need
>>>> to capitalize the word).
>>>
>>> They also threaten lawsuits against private business to make them
>>> stop practices that somebody finds "offensive."
> They do not. You cannot cite one such suit against a private business or
> individual, and I challenge you to find one.
Another Usenet MORON who can't read. You failed to understand the word
"THREATEN." Or to understand the "chilling effect" such a Threat it would
have on the owner of "Bob's Bakery" or even a local food chain. The THREAT
alone is enough to make a small business cavein.
>>> Or prohibit asinine
>>> things, like suits over a CROSS at a war memorial out in the middle
>>> of a desert where almost nobody sees it.
> You think it's asinine because it's a cross, which is your symbol.
OMG, if the mere sight of a cross traumatizes you, what of the sight of
all those churches with their siigns with Godly messages? It must put you on
life support, Ratbrain.
Good then we agree on something. BUT you call the people who DO protest
"Christmas Nazis" don't you Ratbrain?
>>> If you had a business and you had to make a
>>> choice of turning off over 80% of the people and .00002% of the
>>> people who would you choose? Taking out of the equation the ACLU and
>>> threats of lawsuits.
> First of all, "80% of the people" aren't offended by "Happy Holidays."
> It's just you and the rest of the Christmas goons. Secondly, who cares
> what I think? It's a private business. It's their choice, even if it
> turns out to be a bad choice.
Yes, then WHY have the ACLU threaten lawsuits?
>>>> Live with it.
>>> WHY? Only Atheists have rights?
> No, but they have rights. One of them is not to have their tax dollars
> go to support your religion. That's what you have to live with.
How does a greeter at Wal-Mart saying "Merry Christmas" to customers
THREATEN to the core the rights of Atheists? Tell me Ratbrain just HOW, and
please be precise, does a greeter at Wal-Mart saying "MERRY CHRISTMAS"
misuse YOUR "tax dollars to support a religion?" Please exp[lain how that
process arrives at your conclusion of YOUR TAX DOLLARS being misued if a
greeter at Wal Mart would DARE to say "Merry Christmas" to customers during
a CHRISTMAS SALE. Explain how that works, Ratboi!
>>>>> Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit it is
>>>>> the long term agenda. Remember there IS the "Freedom FROM religion
>>>>> Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes and intents aimed
>>>>> SOLELY at the CHRISIAN faith.
>>>> Bullshit. You need to quit lying like this. Don't you know it
>>>> makes the Baby Jesus cry?
>> Maybe you missed Annie Laurie Gaylor the president of the Freedom
>> FROM
>> Religion Foundation on TV last night. Perhaps because she was on with
>> Laura Ingraham on Fox News that YOU never watch. She was quite candid in
>> her remarks as Annie Laurie usually is. (Not to be confused with her
>> mother Annie Gaylor). Including her statement that parents have "NO
>> RIGHT" to "impose religious education on their children."
> You're lying. Again. And the Baby Jesus is very upset with you. I
> don't get cable, so I had to find an online video of last night's
> interview. Gaylor never said that parents have no right to indoctrinate
> children. She said she thought it was a bad idea.
And to YOU this "BAD IDEA" means what? She said far more than that in
context.
>> FFRF has fought many of the issues I have spoken about. Such as
>> demanding an end to the "CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY" Thanksgiving and Easter.
> Did you read the FFRF's charter? They are for separation of church and
> state. They don't care what you do in your private life, including which
> holidays you celebrate.
They are for the "Freedom FROM Religion." The TOTAL freedom from
religion. As in prohibiting it. Read on McDuff!
>> Also of fighting school vouchers that would allow inner city children
>> in
>> broken schools to attend private religious schools. Specifically a
>> lawsuit against St. John Cathedral High School in Milwaukee, who took
>> failing students and raised their test scores ABOVE the national
>> average. Saying that the PARENTS had "NO RIGHT" to send their children
>> to that school. Complained that
>> it was an issue of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Like all Atheists
>> you
>> can't read the whole statement.
> School vouchers are state monies. They may not be used for religious
> instruction, no matter how much it raises children's test scores. You'd
> howl bloody murder, if state money went to fund satanist institutions
> that also raised children's math scores.
They can be used for ANY private school. No I would NOT howl if there
were a Satanist school if the parents of the children wanted to send their
kids there, just like I don't HOWL at the moon like you folks do, about
schools of other faiths. I am NOT at all upset at Islamic schools. I don't
break out at all about Hebrew Schools. If the people of Wisconsin VOTE to
allow vouchers go to church schools just like any other private school, what
skin is it off YOUR ASS? So you'd rather have the kids drop out, become
street criminals, die young and be a burden on society?
> How do you know I'm an atheist, by the way?
If it waddles like a duck, and especially if it QUACKS like a duck, and
has feathers like a duck, most likely it IS a duck! Are you saying you are
NOT?
>> Here is what the CONSTITUTION actually says versus your contorted
>> version of it:
>
>> " 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. "
>> The part your mind will NOT allow you to deal with is thisstatement
>> in
>> it. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You HATE that part of
>> it Ratbrain.
> Quit lying. The Baby Jesus hates that. I am against the state
> interfering in people's religious practices. But I don't want my tax
> money supporting yours. Or mine, for that matter.
Nobody is supporting the religion must less the "ESTABLISHMENT" of a
state religion.
>> You see Ratbrain, allowing children to go to the school
>> of their PARENT'S choosing is that "FREE EXERCISE" thingie.
> That's right. And nobody, and I mean nobody, is trying to stop parents
> from sending their children to the schools they choose. They just can't
> use state money to fund religious education.
But it isn't a religious education. It is EDUCATION period. The schools
have to agree that NO part of the school day is to be used for religious
education. The objection is to the parochial school itself. Some Atheists
want church schools closed. But only CHRISTIAN church schools.
>> If you allow vouchers for ANY private school, then you must allow ALL
>> of
>> them.
> You are wrong. Because of the 1st Amendment (and state constitutional
> prohibitions, as well), funding religious institutions is prohibited.
> It's not an equal playing field: the state may fund secular instruction
> but not religious instruction.
No the first Amendment does NOT say that at all.It is clear that the
purpose is to prohibit the "ESTABLISHMENT" of *A* state religion.
>> If there was a Islamic school (there ARE and oddly NO lawsuits
>> against them) or a Hebrew School (those also exist) and no lawsuits
>> against those either.
> I know of no Muslims trying to get the state to fund madrassahs. And
> there was an unending spate of lawsuits against a school district in New
> York that has only Orthodox Jews.
Not familiar with who sued the Hebrew schools in New York, got a cite on
that? And YES silly boy, state money HAS gone to Medrassahs in Virginia and
other places. And I am VERY okay with that so long as they are not teaching
terrorism.
>> Now if Atheists want an ANTI-GOD school - why
>> shouldn't Atheist parents be allowed to send THEIR kids there? Or
>> Wiccans? You shitferbrains MIGHT have a point *IF* the state was
>> FORCING kids to go to the Catholic School instead of merely ALLOWING
>> it as a PARENTAL OPTION. As you have pointed out on other issues, it
>> is a PRIVATE matter versus STATE action.. Except in THIS case.
> Atheist parents don't send their kids to anti-god schools, because
> atheists don't think arguments for or against god belong in schools. If
> there were such things as anti-god schools, atheists couldn't use public
> money to enroll their children. It is not a "PRIVATE" matter when you
> want to use my tax dollars to pay for your religious eduction.
Well then why not have an Atheist school where mention of God is
prohibited, pro or con? I'd be okay with that.
>> And, of course, we cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that it
>> is an ANTI-Christian thing because ONLY Christian schools are
>> targeted.
> You're lying. Again. Check out Board of Education of Kiryas Joel
> Village School District v. Grumet, 512US687 (1994).
Not just *A* school but an entire School DISTRICT created for an extreme
branch of Judaism. I am not so sure, even there, that *I* agree with the
Supremes on that. When you have a contiguous community why can't they have
their own schools? Now if that town had people other than Hassidic jews you
might have a point.
> This mostly happens with Christians because Christians are not only the
> most numerous sect but they insist on demanding the use of public funds
> for religious purposes.
Horse shit!
krp
It is a Federal Holiday because Congress created a LAW establishing it as a
Federal Holiday.
krp
"FreeThink" <zeno7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5601eb82-7eda-4a65...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
FT> He is not interested in the facts. He watches Fox news
Generally I don't watch Fox. I happened to watch THAT interview because
I KNOW Annie Laurie. usually I watch either CNN or the BBC.
Deadrat
news:4b315fdf$0$4968$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me a moron.
Boo hoo. In this country you may "threaten" law suits all you wish.
It's called freedom of speech. Don't like it? Maybe you'd be happier
in a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.
But, OK, you cannot cite one such threatened suit against a private
business or individual, and I challenge you to find one.
>>>> Or prohibit asinine
>>>> things, like suits over a CROSS at a war memorial out in the middle
>>>> of a desert where almost nobody sees it.
>
>> You think it's asinine because it's a cross, which is your symbol.
>
> OMG, if the mere sight of a cross traumatizes you, what of the
> sight of
> all those churches with their siigns with Godly messages? It must put
> you on life support, Ratbrain.
Why would it do that? The churches are private property. They may put
any signs or symbols they wish on them. Consistent with local zoning
laws, of coure. The cross in question was on public land, until the gov
gave it away. That's different. Really, is it that hard for you to
figure this out.
Churches: private. No problem. Put up crosses to your heart's content.
Public land: not private. Problem.
See how that works?
No, I think the term "Nazis" should be reserved for Nazis. I called
them Christmas goons. Too stupid to understand the objections of
others, but boorish enough to make a fuss.
>>>> If you had a business and you had to make a
>>>> choice of turning off over 80% of the people and .00002% of the
>>>> people who would you choose? Taking out of the equation the ACLU
>>>> and threats of lawsuits.
>
>> First of all, "80% of the people" aren't offended by "Happy
>> Holidays." It's just you and the rest of the Christmas goons.
>> Secondly, who cares what I think? It's a private business. It's
>> their choice, even if it turns out to be a bad choice.
>
> Yes, then WHY have the ACLU threaten lawsuits?
The ACLU never threatens lawsuits against private companies or private
individuals, and you can't name a single time they have.
>>>>> Live with it.
>
>>>> WHY? Only Atheists have rights?
>
>> No, but they have rights. One of them is not to have their tax
>> dollars go to support your religion. That's what you have to live
>> with.
>
> How does a greeter at Wal-Mart saying "Merry Christmas" to
> customers THREATEN to the core the rights of Atheists?
It doesn't, and no one says it does. Wal-Mart is a private corporation,
and it gets to decide what its greeters will say.
> Tell me Ratbrain just
> HOW, and please be precise, does a greeter at Wal-Mart saying "MERRY
> CHRISTMAS" misuse YOUR "tax dollars to support a religion?" Please
> exp[lain how that process arrives at your conclusion of YOUR TAX
> DOLLARS being misued if a greeter at Wal Mart would DARE to say "Merry
> Christmas" to customers during a CHRISTMAS SALE. Explain how that
> works, Ratboi!
Are you really this ignorant? There's no law that says that Wal-Mart
greeters must say "HH" instead of "MC." Tax dollars aren't involved at
all. It's a decision that a private individual made. That individual
is a legal fiction called the Wal-Mart corporation. It's their
decision; the ACLU was uninvolved; atheists were uninvolved.
Live with it.
>>>>>> Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit it is
>>>>>> the long term agenda. Remember there IS the "Freedom FROM
>>>>>> religion Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes and
>>>>>> intents aimed SOLELY at the CHRISIAN faith.
>
>>>>> Bullshit. You need to quit lying like this. Don't you know it
>>>>> makes the Baby Jesus cry?
>
>>> Maybe you missed Annie Laurie Gaylor the president of the
>>> Freedom
>>> FROM
>>> Religion Foundation on TV last night. Perhaps because she was on
>>> with
>>> Laura Ingraham on Fox News that YOU never watch. She was quite
>>> candid in
>>> her remarks as Annie Laurie usually is. (Not to be confused with
>>> her mother Annie Gaylor). Including her statement that parents have
>>> "NO RIGHT" to "impose religious education on their children."
>
>> You're lying. Again. And the Baby Jesus is very upset with you. I
>> don't get cable, so I had to find an online video of last night's
>> interview. Gaylor never said that parents have no right to
>> indoctrinate children. She said she thought it was a bad idea.
>
> And to YOU this "BAD IDEA" means what? She said far more than
> that in context.
It means she thinks it's bad child rearing to confront children with
abstractions they don't understand and couple them with frightening
concepts like hell. Seems sensible to me. But, really, does anyone
much care what Gaylor thinks? Except you, for some reason. It's her
opinion. So what?
>>> FFRF has fought many of the issues I have spoken about. Such as
>>> demanding an end to the "CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY" Thanksgiving and
>>> Easter.
>
>> Did you read the FFRF's charter? They are for separation of church
>> and state. They don't care what you do in your private life,
>> including which holidays you celebrate.
>
> They are for the "Freedom FROM Religion." The TOTAL freedom from
> religion. As in prohibiting it. Read on McDuff!
You're lying. This is just something you're making up. And you can't
quote a single thing from FFRF that says they mean to prohibit the
private practice of religion.
>>> Also of fighting school vouchers that would allow inner city
>>> children in
>>> broken schools to attend private religious schools. Specifically a
>>> lawsuit against St. John Cathedral High School in Milwaukee, who
>>> took failing students and raised their test scores ABOVE the
>>> national average. Saying that the PARENTS had "NO RIGHT" to send
>>> their children to that school. Complained that
>>> it was an issue of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Like all
>>> Atheists you can't read the whole statement.
>
>> School vouchers are state monies. They may not be used for religious
>> instruction, no matter how much it raises children's test scores.
>> You'd howl bloody murder, if state money went to fund satanist
>> institutions that also raised children's math scores.
>
> They can be used for ANY private school. No I would NOT howl if
> there
> were a Satanist school if the parents of the children wanted to send
> their kids there, just like I don't HOWL at the moon like you folks
> do, about schools of other faiths. I am NOT at all upset at Islamic
> schools. I don't break out at all about Hebrew Schools. If the people
> of Wisconsin VOTE to allow vouchers go to church schools just like any
> other private school, what skin is it off YOUR ASS?
It's a breach of the separation of church and state. That's a no-no.
Do you have tickets to Riyadh yet?
> So you'd rather
> have the kids drop out, become street criminals, die young and be a
> burden on society?
False dichotomy.
>> How do you know I'm an atheist, by the way?
>
> If it waddles like a duck, and especially if it QUACKS like a
duck, and has feathers like a duck, most likely it IS a duck! Are
you saying you are NOT?
I'm saying that you can't tell by my stand on the separation of church
and state or my contempt for whiners like you who insist that it's OK to
use my tax money to further religion, mostly their own.
I don't say whether I'm an atheist or not because 1) how could you really
know from what I claim in a post, and 2) what difference could it make to
my argument?
>>> Here is what the CONSTITUTION actually says versus your contorted
>>> version of it:
>>
>>> " 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. "
>
>>> The part your mind will NOT allow you to deal with is
>>> thisstatement in
>>> it. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You HATE that part
>>> of it Ratbrain.
>
>> Quit lying. The Baby Jesus hates that. I am against the state
>> interfering in people's religious practices. But I don't want my tax
>> money supporting yours. Or mine, for that matter.
>
> Nobody is supporting the religion must less the "ESTABLISHMENT" of
> a state religion.
Sorry, but when public money goes to religious training that's
establishment of religion according to the Supreme Court.
>>> You see Ratbrain, allowing children to go to the school
>>> of their PARENT'S choosing is that "FREE EXERCISE" thingie.
>
>> That's right. And nobody, and I mean nobody, is trying to stop
>> parents from sending their children to the schools they choose. They
>> just can't use state money to fund religious education.
>
> But it isn't a religious education. It is EDUCATION period. The
> schools
> have to agree that NO part of the school day is to be used for
> religious education. The objection is to the parochial school itself.
> Some Atheists want church schools closed. But only CHRISTIAN church
> schools.
Sorry, but the gov is not allowed to become overly involved in dictating
how parochial schools are run. It's called "excessive entanglement," and
it's the third prong of the so-called Lemon test, from Lemon v Kurzman
403 US602 (1971).
No doubt some atheists would like to see church schools closed. I doubt
you can name any. But, really, who cares? Except you, for some reason.
And atheists don't distinguish between your superstition and say, Greek
mythology.
>>> If you allow vouchers for ANY private school, then you must allow
>>> ALL of them.
>
>> You are wrong. Because of the 1st Amendment (and state
>> constitutional prohibitions, as well), funding religious institutions
>> is prohibited. It's not an equal playing field: the state may fund
>> secular instruction but not religious instruction.
>
> No the first Amendment does NOT say that at all.It is clear that
> the
> purpose is to prohibit the "ESTABLISHMENT" of *A* state religion.
Oops! Too bad. You lose. The 1st Amendment says "respecting an
establishment of religion." Not "a" religion; not "A" religion; not
"*A*" religion; not "state religion." Just religion.
>>> If there was a Islamic school (there ARE and oddly NO lawsuits
>>> against them) or a Hebrew School (those also exist) and no lawsuits
>>> against those either.
>
>> I know of no Muslims trying to get the state to fund madrassahs. And
>> there was an unending spate of lawsuits against a school district in
>> New York that has only Orthodox Jews.
>
> Not familiar with who sued the Hebrew schools in New York, got a
> cite on that?
The cite is to the Kiryas Joel case. I give it below. It belongs here
at the first mention of the topic. Sorry about that.
> And YES silly boy, state money HAS gone to Medrassahs in
> Virginia and other places.
You're right on this. I didn't know about any, and I should have. The
irony? The ACLU has filed suit to stop public funds going to these
schools in Minnesota.
> And I am VERY okay with that so long as
> they are not teaching terrorism.
Then you're a fool. The state should not be using public money for
religious education. Not your religion; not mine (if any), and not
theirs.
>>> Now if Atheists want an ANTI-GOD school - why
>>> shouldn't Atheist parents be allowed to send THEIR kids there? Or
>>> Wiccans? You shitferbrains MIGHT have a point *IF* the state was
>>> FORCING kids to go to the Catholic School instead of merely
>>> ALLOWING it as a PARENTAL OPTION. As you have pointed out on other
>>> issues, it is a PRIVATE matter versus STATE action.. Except in THIS
>>> case.
>
>> Atheist parents don't send their kids to anti-god schools, because
>> atheists don't think arguments for or against god belong in schools.
>> If there were such things as anti-god schools, atheists couldn't use
>> public money to enroll their children. It is not a "PRIVATE" matter
>> when you want to use my tax dollars to pay for your religious
>> eduction.
>
> Well then why not have an Atheist school where mention of God is
> prohibited, pro or con? I'd be okay with that.
I'd be OK with that too. Because those are the public schools we're
supposed to have.
>>> And, of course, we cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that it
>>> is an ANTI-Christian thing because ONLY Christian schools are
>>> targeted.
>
>> You're lying. Again. Check out Board of Education of Kiryas Joel
>> Village School District v. Grumet, 512US687 (1994).
>
> Not just *A* school but an entire School DISTRICT created for an
> extreme
> branch of Judaism. I am not so sure, even there, that *I* agree with
> the Supremes on that. When you have a contiguous community why can't
> they have their own schools?
They may. They just don't get my money to set them up.
> Now if that town had people other than
> Hassidic jews you might have a point.
Hey, how come you capitalize "Atheist," but not "jews"?
>> This mostly happens with Christians because Christians are not only
>> the most numerous sect but they insist on demanding the use of public
>> funds for religious purposes.
>
> Horse shit!
... he explained.
Deadrat
news:4b316020$0$4947$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:gaydnavYII-5qqzW...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>> You can cite not one attempt to outlaw Christianity in this
>>>>>>>> country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can make a reasonable case of a "piecemeal" strategy to do
>>>>>>> that by
>>>>>>> inches.Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit
>>>>>>> it is the long term aganda. Remember there IS the "Freedom FROM
>>>>>>> religion Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes and
>>>>>>> intents aimed SOLELY at the CHRISIAN faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> By attacking it on many legal fronts. Going so far as
>>>>>>>>> demanding that groups who
>>>>>>>>> want to sing Christmas Carols be banned from public parks or
>>>>>>>>> the sidewalks of the town.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No doubt many people are sick of Christians forcing their
>>>>>>>> religious practices on others, but you can name no legal
>>>>>>>> attempts to stop private citizens from practicing in public
>>>>>>>> whatever nonsense they want. State sponsorship of such
>>>>>>>> religious practice is another thing altogether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20091125_Appeals_Court_
>>>>>> _S ch ool_district_can_ban_Christmas_carols.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The federal appeals court in Philadelphia has upheld a New
>>>>>> Jersey school district's ban on religious songs during the
>>>>>> Christman holiday season."
>>>
>>>> What don't you understand about this? A public school district, an
>>>> instrument of the state, has decided that it is inappropriate for
>>>> it to sponsor religious songs, that is, religious practice.
>>>
>>> RATBRAIN I generally consider you to be in the SLOW FREIGHT part
>>> of the class,
>>
>> Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me slow.
>>
>>> but on this you outdo yourself. I know the ACLU wants to change
>>> this, but Christmas is a federally recognized HOLIDAY, isn't it? Are
>>> schools IN SESSION during the Christmas Holiday?
>>
>> Christmas is a federal holiday because most people in this country
>> celebrate it. As long as there are work holidays, they might as well
>> coincide with the days that everyone is going to take off anyway.
>
>
> It is a Federal Holiday because Congress created a LAW establishing it
> as a Federal Holiday.
Some are students of the obvious, but you are a master.
The question is why, and the answer isn't religious; it's pragmatic.
The Chief Instigator
...which has nothing to do with forcing anyone to worship or preventing anyone
from worshiping, which makes your infantile rant irrelevant.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Grand Rapids 3 (December 20)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, December 26 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
krp
> Boo hoo. In this country you may "threaten" law suits all you wish.
> It's called freedom of speech. Don't like it? Maybe you'd be happier
> in a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.
> But, OK, you cannot cite one such threatened suit against a private
> business or individual, and I challenge you to find one.
Ask the folks at Wal-Mart. They are a big company, but don't wish to
engage in lawsuits and their expense. It's a PR thing they couldn't win even
if they won the lawsuits.
>>>>> Or prohibit asinine
>>>>> things, like suits over a CROSS at a war memorial out in the middle
>>>>> of a desert where almost nobody sees it.
>>
>>> You think it's asinine because it's a cross, which is your symbol.
>> OMG, if the mere sight of a cross traumatizes you, what of the sight
>> of
>> all those churches with their signs with Godly messages? It must put
>> you on life support, Ratbrain.
> Why would it do that? The churches are private property. They may put
> any signs or symbols they wish on them. Consistent with local zoning
> laws, of coure. The cross in question was on public land, until the gov
> gave it away. That's different. Really, is it that hard for you to
> figure this out.
The cross in question was 60 MILES from the nearest building. It was in
the middle of a frigging DESERT! It had been a WAR MEMORIAL for 50 YEARS.
Who was it "GIVEN" to Ratbrain?
> Churches: private. No problem. Put up crosses to your heart's content.
> Public land: not private. Problem.
> See how that works?
Oh but some folks say they ARE tramatized by those churches. They just
havm't figured a way to SUE them out of existence YET!
krp
READ the law that created Christmas as Federal Holiday. Better still, get a
copy of the DEBATE over its creation. It was 100% RELIGIOUS.
Deadrat
news:4b31eabc$0$5118$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
This isn't my claim. It's yours. So the burden falls on you to call
Wal-Mart and find out whether they were afraid of lawsuits. Since
they're a private company, the threat of a successful lawsuit is zero,
and since they have with legal staff on payroll, I the threat of a
lawsuit is negligible. But call them and ask. My bet is that they did
because they thought it would be good for sales.
>
>>>>>> Or prohibit asinine
>>>>>> things, like suits over a CROSS at a war memorial out in the
>>>>>> middle of a desert where almost nobody sees it.
>>>
>>>> You think it's asinine because it's a cross, which is your symbol.
>
>>> OMG, if the mere sight of a cross traumatizes you, what of the
>>> sight
>>> of
>>> all those churches with their signs with Godly messages? It must put
>>> you on life support, Ratbrain.
>
>> Why would it do that? The churches are private property. They may
>> put any signs or symbols they wish on them. Consistent with local
>> zoning laws, of coure. The cross in question was on public land,
>> until the gov gave it away. That's different. Really, is it that
>> hard for you to figure this out.
>
> The cross in question was 60 MILES from the nearest building. It
> was in the middle of a frigging DESERT! It had been a WAR MEMORIAL
> for 50 YEARS.
I built a fence on what I thought was my property. Turns out it's on my
neighbor's property by less than a measly foot! He making me move it.
What a jerk!
What don't you understand about principle? Maybe I'd choose my battles
differently, but so what?
> Who was it "GIVEN" to Ratbrain?
I don't remember. The gov tried to get around the problem by giving the
site to a private organization.
>> Churches: private. No problem. Put up crosses to your heart's
>> content. Public land: not private. Problem.
>> See how that works?
>
> Oh but some folks say they ARE tramatized by those churches. They
> just havm't figured a way to SUE them out of existence YET!
You can't name a single person who says they are "traumatized" by these
churches. And there's no way for any such fictitious person to sue. Is
that what you're worked up about, nonexistent lawsuits from nonexistent
plaintiffs?
You must have a lotta time on your hands.
Deadrat
news:4b31eb29$0$5105$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:_-idnfZ1eZst7qzW...@giganews.com...
>> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
>> news:4b316020$0$4947$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>>
>>>
>>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gaydnavYII-5qqzW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You can cite not one attempt to outlaw Christianity in this
>>>>>>>>>> country.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can make a reasonable case of a "piecemeal" strategy to
>>>>>>>>> do that by
>>>>>>>>> inches.Occasionally you can get an individual Atheist to admit
>>>>>>>>> it is the long term aganda. Remember there IS the "Freedom
>>>>>>>>> FROM religion Foundation" and it is for all practical purposes
>>>>>>>>> and intents aimed SOLELY at the CHRISIAN faith.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By attacking it on many legal fronts. Going so far as
>>>>>>>>>>> demanding that groups who
>>>>>>>>>>> want to sing Christmas Carols be banned from public parks or
>>>>>>>>>>> the sidewalks of the town.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No doubt many people are sick of Christians forcing their
>>>>>>>>>> religious practices on others, but you can name no legal
>>>>>>>>>> attempts to stop private citizens from practicing in public
>>>>>>>>>> whatever nonsense they want. State sponsorship of such
>>>>>>>>>> religious practice is another thing altogether.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20091125_Appeals_Cour
>>>>>>>> t_ _S ch ool_district_can_ban_Christmas_carols.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The federal appeals court in Philadelphia has upheld a New
>>>>>>>> Jersey school district's ban on religious songs during the
>>>>>>>> Christman holiday season."
>>>>>
>>>>>> What don't you understand about this? A public school district,
>>>>>> an instrument of the state, has decided that it is inappropriate
>>>>>> for it to sponsor religious songs, that is, religious practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> RATBRAIN I generally consider you to be in the SLOW FREIGHT
>>>>> part of the class,
>>>>
>>>> Oh, look! An ignoramus calls me slow.
>>>>
>>>>> but on this you outdo yourself. I know the ACLU wants to change
>>>>> this, but Christmas is a federally recognized HOLIDAY, isn't it?
>>>>> Are schools IN SESSION during the Christmas Holiday?
>>>>
>>>> Christmas is a federal holiday because most people in this country
>>>> celebrate it. As long as there are work holidays, they might as
>>>> well coincide with the days that everyone is going to take off
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is a Federal Holiday because Congress created a LAW establishing
>>> it as a Federal Holiday.
>>
>> Some are students of the obvious, but you are a master.
>>
>> The question is why, and the answer isn't religious; it's pragmatic.
>
> READ the law that created Christmas as Federal Holiday. Better still,
> get a copy of the DEBATE over its creation. It was 100% RELIGIOUS.
The law must have a secular purpose. It does: it gives federal workers
days off that most would take anyway. As long as the gov is going to
give people holidays, it makes sense to choose days that people will be
gone. The law can't have any religious effect. It doesn't. People take
the day off without any federal mandates to celebrate the holiday.
What's your point here anyway?
krp
>>> The question is why, and the answer isn't religious; it's pragmatic.
>> READ the law that created Christmas as Federal Holiday. Better still,
>> get a copy of the DEBATE over its creation. It was 100% RELIGIOUS.
> The law must have a secular purpose. It does: it gives federal workers
> days off that most would take anyway. As long as the gov is going to
> give people holidays, it makes sense to choose days that people will be
> gone. The law can't have any religious effect. It doesn't. People take
> the day off without any federal mandates to celebrate the holiday.
> What's your point here anyway?
It's not SECULAR at all, it is a SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS event. The birth of
Jesus Christ, the guy who is at the center of Christianity. It's named after
him. It's not only a RELIGIOUS event, it is a SPECIFIC RELIGION -- the
Christianity you hate so much. It is called "CHRIST - MAS" Or CHRIST MASS"
meaning celebration of Christ. Not the Ayatollah, not the Rabbi, not the
Maharishi, and not the guy from Festivus. Live with it. And was meant to
celebrate a CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY nothing "SECULAR" about it.
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
But they borrowed a pagan holy day and the day now is just an excuse for
a potlatch of gift giving. Christmas is now the holy day of retail.
Christianity doesn't have much to do with it.
krp
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:k4u4j55aom8t71lq3...@4ax.com...
>>>>> The question is why, and the answer isn't religious; it's pragmatic.
>>
>>>> READ the law that created Christmas as Federal Holiday. Better still,
>>>> get a copy of the DEBATE over its creation. It was 100% RELIGIOUS.
>>
>>> The law must have a secular purpose. It does: it gives federal workers
>>> days off that most would take anyway. As long as the gov is going to
>>> give people holidays, it makes sense to choose days that people will be
>>> gone. The law can't have any religious effect. It doesn't. People
>>> take
>>> the day off without any federal mandates to celebrate the holiday.
>>> What's your point here anyway?
>>
>>
>> It's not SECULAR at all, it is a SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS event. The birth
>> of
>>Jesus Christ, the guy who is at the center of Christianity. It's named
>>after
>>him. It's not only a RELIGIOUS event, it is a SPECIFIC RELIGION -- the
>>Christianity you hate so much. It is called "CHRIST - MAS" Or CHRIST
>>MASS"
>>meaning celebration of Christ. Not the Ayatollah, not the Rabbi, not the
>>Maharishi, and not the guy from Festivus. Live with it. And was meant to
>>celebrate a CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY nothing "SECULAR" about it.
> But they borrowed a pagan holy day and the day now is just an excuse for
> a potlatch of gift giving. Christmas is now the holy day of retail.
> Christianity doesn't have much to do with it.
That's a popular urban myth.
FreeThink
Your religion is a myth.
Deadrat
news:4b327872$0$5086$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
The holiday is quasi-religious in this country. The time off was given
because it would be silly to do otherwise. The intent and effect is
secular -- people aren't at work when they wouldn't have been at work
anyway. It would be forbidden for the government to say, require church
attendance on the day off.
I don't hate Christianity. Celebrate your nonsense all you want, with my
blessing.
krp
FT> Your religion is a myth.
So's yours!
Free Lunch
in alt.atheism:
>
I don't have a religion.
Deadrat
news:4b32d230$0$5113$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
>
> "FreeThink" <zeno7...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e19e6562-44cf-4fce...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.
So you're agreed. Your religions are myths.
Now, isn't it a good idea that the state isn't supposed to be supporting
anyone's myths?
The Chief Instigator
Your refusal to deal with reality is what's made you frequent target
practice, Pangboring.
Christopher Brunson
> "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote innews:4b30feb1$0$4873$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Except, of course, that all other beliefs choke Christians out for
saying and displaying Christian things--almost as if they are trying
to hide something....
Andre Lieven
>
> > You're lying. Again. Check out Board of Education of Kiryas Joel
> > Village School District v. Grumet, 512US687 (1994).
>
> > This mostly happens with Christians because Christians are not only the
> > most numerous sect but they insist on demanding the use of public funds
> > for religious purposes.
>
> Except, of course, that all other beliefs choke Christians out for
> saying and displaying Christian things--almost as if they are trying
> to hide something....
Other than that being a *total lie*...
get over yourselves, you godsmacked gits: Those of us who refuse
to share your loony delusions AREN'T "oppressing" you other than
in your mad rush for global theocracy.
That just shows that the ONLY difference between you and the 9/11
terrorists is... method.
Now, please die last year. And, stop trying to pollute alt.atheism.
Andre
Yap
> "Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7LDXm.58497$PH1.34278@edtnps82...
>
> >> Why do Christians in particular seem so threatened by other religions?
> > Christians feel threatened because they see their own church
> > attendance dropping and other religious faiths around them
> > rising. In some places where Christianity was the majority,
> > it is now in a minority. This change scares them.
>
> In the US? Where? Okay, in Turkey you are right. Once it had a solid
> Christian majority, now there are only a few thousand left. How? 2 Million
> deported 4X that many killed. Churches siezed and turned into museums.
>
> > But, Christians only have themselves to blame. Over the past
> > few decades a mean-spirited and intolerant fundamentalism
> > gained ground which drove moderate and liberal Christians out
> > of the church.
>
> Yes Fundamentalist Christians have had on occasion a nasty voice. But
> not anywhere near as bad as fundamentalists of other religions (such as
> islam). But I must agree that it is abberant Christianity.
>
> > The Reverend John Shelby Spong describes these displaced
> > people as "believers in exile" in his book "Why Christianity
> > must Change or Die." He also wrote another worthwhile
> > book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism."
>
> Fundamentalists have always twisted the bible to suit whatever social
> beliefs they also hold. Hard shell Baptists in the South attempted to use
> the Bible to justify slavery and the brutal treatment of the African slaves
> at their hands. But then I am NOT a fundie.
>
> >> Why is Happy Holidays so offensive?
> > It shouldn't be offensive. The word Holidays comes from
> > Holy Days. For a Christian this Holy Day can be a
> > celebration of Christ's birth. For other religions it is
> > a celebration of the lengthening day, the rebirth of
> > the sun.
>
> The words themselves are not offensive. It is the ATTEMPT to FORCE
> people to NOT be allowed to say "Merry Christmas" that sets off many
> broader anti-Christian movement to try to outlaw it. By attacking it on many
> legal fronts. Going so far as demanding that groups who want to sing
> Christmas Carols be banned from public parks or the sidewalks of the town.
> references to God from our society.
>
> > As for those who wish to put the Christ back into Christmas,
> > I answer with, "Put the Yule back into Yuletide and the Weih
> > back into Weihnachten." ;-)
>
> Certainly commercialization of Christmas is AS bad as the desire of
> radical Atheists to BAN it altogether. Hence legal efforts against schools
> to eliminate Christmas and Easter vacations. Or specific examples of
> lawsuits in Wisconsin to force schools to not allow absences for obligatory
> church activities. (Holy Days.)
>
> We have even seen from the lunatic fringe of Atheism, arguments that
> parents should NOT be "ALLOWED" to impart any form of religious education to
> their children. One would think such a law would be meaningless unless it
> were enacted with some legal "penalty" if the parents defied the law.
>
> I oppose, personally, any time ANY group wants to IMPOSE their beliefs
> on others. Even Atheists.
Best still, why don't the fundamentalists gang up to pressure
legislation to ban medical studies in all universities so that all the
sick can turn to your god, as if it exists.
If successful, US can save so much in terms of doctor consultation
fees, drugs, and the pain and time in treatment.
PolishKnight
"Heidi Graw" <hg...@telus.net> wrote:
> >"Dave U. Random" <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote in message
> >news:87c5b025e347b789...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net...
> > We say "Merry Christmas"
> >
> > Jesus is the "Reason for the Season"
> >
> > "It's not the "Holiday Season" it's the "Christmas Season". If you
> > don't believe in Jesus you shouldn't be celebrating."
> >
> >
> > These are just a few of the things I've seen and heard in the last few
> > weeks that are really starting to hit a nerve. My wife tells me I
> > shouldn't let the opinions of others bother me and I try not to but it
> > does at times.
> >
> > Why do Christians in particular seem so threatened by other religions?
>
> Christians feel threatened because they see their own church
> attendance dropping and other religious faiths around them
> rising. In some places where Christianity was the majority,
> it is now in a minority. This change scares them.
>
> But, Christians only have themselves to blame. Over the past
> few decades a mean-spirited and intolerant fundamentalism
> gained ground which drove moderate and liberal Christians out
> of the church.
I have noticed that Finland is now trying to crack down on immigration
because so many non-whites are coming in. It's strange, isn't it, how
France and Denmark aren't entirely happy with the great diversity of new
religions, including Muslim, and new ideas for women's rights? :-)
Of course, Heidi, it's just the opposite: newspapers in Canada and even
in the United States are terrified of offending Muslims for fears that
their employees will be attacked or killed and THAT is the religion
gaining new converts, especially among women daily. Women really don't
like equality, you see. :-)
> The Reverend John Shelby Spong describes these displaced
> people as "believers in exile" in his book "Why Christianity
> must Change or Die." He also wrote another worthwhile
> book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism."
>
> >
> > Why is Happy Holidays so offensive?
>
> It shouldn't be offensive. The word Holidays comes from
> Holy Days. For a Christian this Holy Day can be a
> celebration of Christ's birth. For other religions it is
> a celebration of the lengthening day, the rebirth of
> the sun.
>
> As for those who wish to put the Christ back into Christmas,
> I answer with, "Put the Yule back into Yuletide and the Weih
> back into Weihnachten." ;-)
>
> Happy Yuletide, Fr�hliche Weihnachten, Season's Greetings
> and all that jazz... Whatever your celebrate this time of
> year, have a good one!
>
> Take care,
> Heidi
regards,
PolishKnight
krp
"PolishKnight" <mare...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:marek1965-227A9...@news.giganews.com...
Of course it is possible that the DEMAND by Muslim immigrants that
Denmark alter its legal system to Sharia law and that only MULLAHS serve as
judges MIGHT have a little to do with the Danes re-thinking the immigration
issue. England is a bit further along with its Muslim population DEMANDING
that the Queen either CONVERT or GET THE F***K OUT of the country! Somehow
the though of Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Allred, Nancy Pelosi and the other
Feminazis in Burka DOES have a certain appeal to it.
PolishKnight
"krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
Feminism and white middle class liberalism has always relied upon the
"limosine liberalism" model: They want the peasants or some guy behind
the tree to do the real work while they live in the nice suburbs or
farmhouses rather than the inner cities that their policies have made
into office parks or take private jets to chicken-little global warming
conferences to preach about the evils of international travel.
I remember during the 80's when the left was having a field day with
hypocritical televangelists caught with their pants down (literally) in
sex scandals. Then their own good ol' boy Bill Clinton was nailed for
sexual harassment and when their policies finally got a hearing, they
showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his A/C's
running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might come
home.
So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
regards,
PolishKnight
tirebiter
> "FreeThink" <zeno7772...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
And after claiming to having had watched that interview, you still
haven't retracted the quotes that you falsely attributed to Gaylor,
which she NEVER SAID. Why is that?
---
a.a. #2273
Deadrat
news:marek1965-B1D12...@news.giganews.com:
Bill Clinton was neither accused of nor found liable for sexual
harassment.
> and when their policies finally got a hearing,
> they showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his
> A/C's running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might
> come home.
You know that because you've been to Al Gore's house lately, loser? Or
are you just repeating what your manipulators told you?
>
> So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
> Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
Get back to us when you can spell "limousine" and "paganism."
> regards,
> PolishKnight
>
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
LOL! How many mansions do you think he has?
Do you really think he keeps the AC running in the winter---or are
you just trying to be funny?
> So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
> Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
>
Better to not preach at all.
Mark Borgerson
Alan Ford
>> Of course it is possible that the DEMAND by Muslim immigrants that
>> Denmark alter its legal system to Sharia law and that only MULLAHS serve as
>> judges MIGHT have a little to do with the Danes re-thinking the immigration
>> issue. England is a bit further along with its Muslim population DEMANDING
>> that the Queen either CONVERT or GET THE F***K OUT of the country! Somehow
>> the though of Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Allred, Nancy Pelosi and the other
>> Feminazis in Burka DOES have a certain appeal to it.
What is this, the International Bullshit From Your Ass Day?
>
> Feminism and white middle class liberalism has always relied upon the
> "limosine liberalism" model: They want the peasants or some guy behind
> the tree to do the real work while they live in the nice suburbs or
> farmhouses rather than the inner cities that their policies have made
> into office parks or take private jets to chicken-little global warming
> conferences to preach about the evils of international travel.
Really? So, a woman is not allowed to be a feminist unless she is
washing laundry down on the riverbanks or rummaging through garbage for
food?
Likewise, a man is not allowed to be a liberal unless he works as a
farmhand for $5 an hour?
These are your "arguments" against feminism and liberalism?
> I remember during the 80's when the left was having a field day with
> hypocritical televangelists caught with their pants down (literally) in
> sex scandals. Then their own good ol' boy Bill Clinton was nailed for
> sexual harassment
No, he wasn't. And even if he was, what has that got to do with
feminism, liberalism or the topic of this thread?
Oh, you just need a feel to vent after listening to Limbaugh? Just open
a window and take a shit from it - it has the same effect, while your
idols like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity make shitloads of money off
cretins like you.
and when their policies finally got a hearing, they
> showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his A/C's
> running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might come
> home.
And this, you think, somehow invalidates the global warming theory?
>
> So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
> Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
For this, you first need to tell us what pageanism is. I've never heard
of it.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Mark Borgerson
comp...@gmail.com says...
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:30:32 -0800, Mark Borgerson
> <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> I remember during the 80's when the left was having a field day with
> >> hypocritical televangelists caught with their pants down (literally) in
> >> sex scandals. Then their own good ol' boy Bill Clinton was nailed for
> >> sexual harassment and when their policies finally got a hearing, they
> >> showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his A/C's
> >> running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might come
> >> home.
> >
> >LOL! How many mansions do you think he has?
> >
> >Do you really think he keeps the AC running in the winter---or are
> >you just trying to be funny?
> >
>
> For some reason I'm thinking he has a place (I don't know if it's
> a mansion) in central or southern Florida. I don't know from where I
> got this, and I'm too lazy to verify it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. It
> happens (far more often than I like to admit).
>
I don't know of any residences in Florida. He has a mansion in
Nashville, TN, and a condo in San Francisco. Today's high in Nashville
will be about 40 and the low about 25. San Francisco is a bit
more moderate at 52 and 45. I doubt anyone is keeping the air
conditioning on in either of those places.
I think PK was trying to make a point about Al Gore's energy
usage by twisting some facts or rumors. He does that a lot--
sometimes it's funny sometimes not.
> >
> >> So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
> >> Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
> >>
> >Better to not preach at all.
>
> At least when the one being preached to makes it clear there is
> no interest in hearing it.
>
Good point.
Mark Borgerson
PolishKnight
Alan Ford <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote:
> PolishKnight proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> >> Of course it is possible that the DEMAND by Muslim immigrants that
> >> Denmark alter its legal system to Sharia law and that only MULLAHS serve
> >> as
> >> judges MIGHT have a little to do with the Danes re-thinking the
> >> immigration
> >> issue. England is a bit further along with its Muslim population DEMANDING
> >> that the Queen either CONVERT or GET THE F***K OUT of the country! Somehow
> >> the though of Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Allred, Nancy Pelosi and the other
> >> Feminazis in Burka DOES have a certain appeal to it.
>
> What is this, the International Bullshit From Your Ass Day?
Oh, that's a real mature retort. Looks like I really pushed your
buttons!
Beep beep!
> > Feminism and white middle class liberalism has always relied upon the
> > "limosine liberalism" model: They want the peasants or some guy behind
> > the tree to do the real work while they live in the nice suburbs or
> > farmhouses rather than the inner cities that their policies have made
> > into office parks or take private jets to chicken-little global warming
> > conferences to preach about the evils of international travel.
>
> Really? So, a woman is not allowed to be a feminist unless she is
> washing laundry down on the riverbanks or rummaging through garbage for
> food?
If they could just pay their own bills from time to time rather than go
on welfare or have their conservative hubbies prop up their faux
equality, that would be sufficient.
Yes yes, I know: You have a friend of a friend who knows someone's
hairdresser who earned her living on ability and then paid her way
without her hubby for a whole week or so because she had no other choice
that day. Walking the walk means doing so as the rule, not the
exception. Which leads us later to Bill Clinton:
> Likewise, a man is not allowed to be a liberal unless he works as a
> farmhand for $5 an hour?
> These are your "arguments" against feminism and liberalism?
Liberals are supposed to be for the common working man and yes, indeed,
if most are either high paid policy wonks or welfare recipients burning
cars in North Paris, France as "merci" to the taxpayers, then they
really aren't liberals as they portray themselves. It's just a fantasy
which hasn't been put into a formal bible yet... Hmmm, maybe there
ought to be a bible of liberalism! :-) (Oh, wait, Ann Coulter already
wrote one! :-)
> > I remember during the 80's when the left was having a field day with
> > hypocritical televangelists caught with their pants down (literally) in
> > sex scandals. Then their own good ol' boy Bill Clinton was nailed for
> > sexual harassment
>
> No, he wasn't.
He had to pay off the settlement for the full amount which only legally
got him out of admitting guilt openly because of a technicality. It's
like someone paying their massive speeding ticket and pleading no
contest.
He fought the case for years and had to pay in full. He could have done
that earlier if he was innocent.
> And even if he was,
So he wasn't but even if he was. Sounds like you're wavering in your
faith there. :-)
> what has that got to do with
> feminism, liberalism or the topic of this thread?
Look up what the word hypocrite means sometime. The left has always
prided themselves on being more superior, kind, caring, honest, etc.
than the evil religious right. Today, the religious right is more
RATIONAL than the left while the left is afraid of chicken little sky is
falling nonsense and hugging trees to power their homes rather than evil
nuclear power. (oh, wait, we'll build windmills. That's high tech for
the left!)
Sheesh, science really has gone back a bit wouldn't you say? :-)
> Oh, you just need a feel to vent after listening to Limbaugh? Just open
> a window and take a shit from it - it has the same effect, while your
> idols like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity make shitloads of money off
> cretins like you.
Hahahaha!
Indeed, poor leftist propogandists now are seeing their revenues fall as
more and more of their new electorate can't even read or just twitter
all day long. :-)
> and when their policies finally got a hearing, they
> > showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his A/C's
> > running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might come
> > home.
>
> And this, you think, somehow invalidates the global warming theory?
If the proponents of such a belief don't take it seriously in their own
life, then it's really not that much of a priority, is it?
I'm reminded of the ol' 70's cults where the true faithful would live in
bars and eat hay while the leaders would eat off of gold plates and
lecture them about humility.
> > So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
> > Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
>
> For this, you first need to tell us what pageanism is. I've never heard
> of it.
Perhaps you're referring to my lousy spelling of paganism. I guess it's
possible to make a theory about global warming work when it's getting
colder provided you forge emails through a spelling checker first. :-)
regards,
PolishKnight
Deadrat
news:marek1965-85D9D...@news.giganews.com:
<snip/>
Sorry for the snippage, but most of what you write is barely coherent
English.
> Perhaps you're referring to my lousy spelling of paganism. I guess
> it's possible to make a theory about global warming work when it's
> getting colder provided you forge emails through a spelling checker
> first. :-)
It's not getting colder. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have
occurred since 2001. The linear trend over the past 50 years is .13
degress centigrade (+/- .03) increase per decade. This is a trend. The
measurements are neither monotonic nor uniform. Some parts of the US have
actually cooled a bit. The overall warming can be seen directly in the
calving of Antarctic ice, shrinking glaciers, and changing ecosystems.
Future projections are unreliable because models must incorporate the
inherent non-linear feedback of the climate. The temperature changes
correlate well with man-made mechanisms like greenhouse gases, but science,
by its nature, can't give you proof.
But it's not getting colder.
> regards,
> PolishKnight
Alan Ford
>>>> Of course it is possible that the DEMAND by Muslim immigrants that
>>>> Denmark alter its legal system to Sharia law and that only MULLAHS serve
>>>> as
>>>> judges MIGHT have a little to do with the Danes re-thinking the
>>>> immigration
>>>> issue. England is a bit further along with its Muslim population DEMANDING
>>>> that the Queen either CONVERT or GET THE F***K OUT of the country! Somehow
>>>> the though of Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Allred, Nancy Pelosi and the other
>>>> Feminazis in Burka DOES have a certain appeal to it.
>> What is this, the International Bullshit From Your Ass Day?
>
> Oh, that's a real mature retort.
You expect a mature "retort" to the verbal diarrhea you vomited above?
Looks like I really pushed your
> buttons!
>
> Beep beep!
No, that was your sister's clit.
>
>>> Feminism and white middle class liberalism has always relied upon the
>>> "limosine liberalism" model: They want the peasants or some guy behind
>>> the tree to do the real work while they live in the nice suburbs or
>>> farmhouses rather than the inner cities that their policies have made
>>> into office parks or take private jets to chicken-little global warming
>>> conferences to preach about the evils of international travel.
>> Really? So, a woman is not allowed to be a feminist unless she is
>> washing laundry down on the riverbanks or rummaging through garbage for
>> food?
>
> If they could just pay their own bills from time to time rather than go
> on welfare or have their conservative hubbies prop up their faux
> equality, that would be sufficient.
Ah, why didn't you say so? So now we know that:
a) you have no fucking clue what feminism and liberalism is
b) your gripe is due to some divorce case where you got gypped
>
> Yes yes, I know: You have a friend of a friend who knows someone's
> hairdresser who earned her living on ability and then paid her way
> without her hubby for a whole week or so because she had no other choice
> that day. Walking the walk means doing so as the rule, not the
> exception. Which leads us later to Bill Clinton:
Once more, you actually expect a non-mocking response to the shit you
just banged up on the keyboard above?
>
>> Likewise, a man is not allowed to be a liberal unless he works as a
>> farmhand for $5 an hour?
>> These are your "arguments" against feminism and liberalism?
>
> Liberals are supposed to be for the common working man
Like I sad, you have no fucking clue what liberalism is. What you do
instead is build a straw man liberal, cobbled together from what you
overheard on Limbaugh and Beck comedy shows, then proceed to burn it in
the flames of your manufactured outrage.
and yes, indeed,
> if most are either high paid policy wonks or welfare recipients burning
> cars in North Paris, France as "merci" to the taxpayers, then they
> really aren't liberals as they portray themselves. It's just a fantasy
> which hasn't been put into a formal bible yet... Hmmm, maybe there
> ought to be a bible of liberalism! :-) (Oh, wait, Ann Coulter already
> wrote one! :-)
No, she didn't. "Writing" implies a mental process whereby the author
puts down on paper rational, reasonable and logical arguments for the
system of ideas (s)he is presenting. Simply recording hysterical fascist
garbage popping up in someone's schizophrenic psyche can't be called
writing by any standard. Calling Coulter a writer is the same as calling
Jeffrey Dahmer a chef.
>
>>> I remember during the 80's when the left was having a field day with
>>> hypocritical televangelists caught with their pants down (literally) in
>>> sex scandals. Then their own good ol' boy Bill Clinton was nailed for
>>> sexual harassment
>> No, he wasn't.
>
> He had to pay off the settlement for the full amount which only legally
> got him out of admitting guilt openly because of a technicality. It's
> like someone paying their massive speeding ticket and pleading no
> contest.
>
> He fought the case for years and had to pay in full. He could have done
> that earlier if he was innocent.
>
>> And even if he was,
>
> So he wasn't but even if he was. Sounds like you're wavering in your
> faith there. :-)
It's called "for the sake of the argument" sentence. Look it up, you
might learn something.
>
>> what has that got to do with
>> feminism, liberalism or the topic of this thread?
>
> Look up what the word hypocrite means sometime. The left has always
> prided themselves on being more superior, kind, caring, honest, etc.
> than the evil religious right.
Yes, that is true, if for example civil rights are taken as a measure of
the characteristics you name above. From abolition of slavery, to
suffrage, to desegregation, to voter registration, to civil rights for
blacks, to defending the secular state, to gay rights, to sexual
freedoms, to labor laws and so on, social liberals have always been on
the front lines in the fight for them, while the religious conservatives
have always been defending the status quo of repression, persecution,
murder, poverty, discrimination and superstition.
Today, the religious right is more
> RATIONAL than the left while the left is afraid of chicken little sky is
> falling nonsense and hugging trees to power their homes rather than evil
> nuclear power. (oh, wait, we'll build windmills. That's high tech for
> the left!)
I am waiting for you to support your statement how the "religious right
is more rational than the left". Let's see it here:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
>
> Sheesh, science really has gone back a bit wouldn't you say? :-)
Sweet, you tell yourself a joke only you are amused by and proceed to
emoticon yourself to sleep.
>
>> Oh, you just need a feel to vent after listening to Limbaugh? Just open
>> a window and take a shit from it - it has the same effect, while your
>> idols like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity make shitloads of money off
>> cretins like you.
>
> Hahahaha!
>
> Indeed, poor leftist propogandists now are seeing their revenues fall as
> more and more of their new electorate can't even read or just twitter
> all day long. :-)
How is this the leftist phenomenon?
>
>> and when their policies finally got a hearing, they
>>> showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his A/C's
>>> running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might come
>>> home.
>> And this, you think, somehow invalidates the global warming theory?
>
> If the proponents of such a belief don't take it seriously in their own
> life, then it's really not that much of a priority, is it?
So you think that finding one physician who smokes invalidates the
"smoking causes cancer" theory, do you?
>
> I'm reminded of the ol' 70's cults where the true faithful would live in
> bars and eat hay while the leaders would eat off of gold plates and
> lecture them about humility.
Yes, I too am reminded of that every single time I see those
"spontaneous" teabagger protests on FoxNews.
>
>>> So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
>>> Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
>> For this, you first need to tell us what pageanism is. I've never heard
>> of it.
>
> Perhaps you're referring to my lousy spelling of paganism. I guess it's
> possible to make a theory about global warming work when it's getting
> colder provided you forge emails through a spelling checker first. :-)
Just because it gets colder when you open your fridge, doesn't mean the
whole planet is getting colder, you know...
Amazing how easily manipulated you rightards are into voting against
your own interests.
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
Hey, didn't you say in another thread that the people rioting and
burning cars in Paris were muslim immigrants? They hardly match
the normal definition of 'liberal'.
>
> > > I remember during the 80's when the left was having a field day with
> > > hypocritical televangelists caught with their pants down (literally) in
> > > sex scandals. Then their own good ol' boy Bill Clinton was nailed for
> > > sexual harassment
> >
> > No, he wasn't.
>
> He had to pay off the settlement for the full amount which only legally
> got him out of admitting guilt openly because of a technicality. It's
> like someone paying their massive speeding ticket and pleading no
> contest.
Are you aware that speeding tickets are neither felonies nor
misdemeanors---but infractions---like driving without
a seat belt. Not a very valid comparison.
>
> He fought the case for years and had to pay in full. He could have done
> that earlier if he was innocent.
>
> > And even if he was,
>
> So he wasn't but even if he was. Sounds like you're wavering in your
> faith there. :-)
>
> > what has that got to do with
> > feminism, liberalism or the topic of this thread?
>
> Look up what the word hypocrite means sometime. The left has always
> prided themselves on being more superior, kind, caring, honest, etc.
> than the evil religious right. Today, the religious right is more
> RATIONAL than the left while the left is afraid of chicken little sky is
> falling nonsense and hugging trees to power their homes rather than evil
> nuclear power. (oh, wait, we'll build windmills. That's high tech for
> the left!)
Hmmm---I seem to remember an icon of the right who preached the evils
of the drug trade while using forged prescriptions for oxycontin. It
seems that there are lots of hypocrites on all sides of the political
spectrum.
>
> Sheesh, science really has gone back a bit wouldn't you say? :-)
Are you qualified to speak on the state of science today?
>
> > Oh, you just need a feel to vent after listening to Limbaugh? Just open
> > a window and take a shit from it - it has the same effect, while your
> > idols like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity make shitloads of money off
> > cretins like you.
>
> Hahahaha!
>
> Indeed, poor leftist propogandists now are seeing their revenues fall as
> more and more of their new electorate can't even read or just twitter
> all day long. :-)
LOL! Perhaps twitter----which requires a modicum of literacy, will
re-educate the electorate! ;-)
>
> > and when their policies finally got a hearing, they
> > > showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his A/C's
> > > running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might come
> > > home.
> >
> > And this, you think, somehow invalidates the global warming theory?
>
> If the proponents of such a belief don't take it seriously in their own
> life, then it's really not that much of a priority, is it?
>
> I'm reminded of the ol' 70's cults where the true faithful would live in
> bars and eat hay while the leaders would eat off of gold plates and
> lecture them about humility.
Hey----I want to join that cult! The living in bars would be fine with
me---as long as someone processed the grain into potable form.
Actually, the part about gold plates sounds more like the Vatican to
me.
>
> > > So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
> > > Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
> >
> > For this, you first need to tell us what pageanism is. I've never heard
> > of it.
>
> Perhaps you're referring to my lousy spelling of paganism. I guess it's
> possible to make a theory about global warming work when it's getting
> colder provided you forge emails through a spelling checker first. :-)
>
That's the first I've heard of forging emails. I have heard of emails
that were stolen and released without the consent of the authors.
Mark Borgerson
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <marek1965-85D9D...@news.giganews.com>,
> mare...@comcast.net says...
> > Liberals are supposed to be for the common working man and yes, indeed,
> > if most are either high paid policy wonks or welfare recipients burning
> > cars in North Paris, France as "merci" to the taxpayers, then they
> > really aren't liberals as they portray themselves. It's just a fantasy
> > which hasn't been put into a formal bible yet... Hmmm, maybe there
> > ought to be a bible of liberalism! :-) (Oh, wait, Ann Coulter already
> > wrote one! :-)
>
> Hey, didn't you say in another thread that the people rioting and
> burning cars in Paris were muslim immigrants? They hardly match
> the normal definition of 'liberal'.
Are you going to get out the special MarkB dictionary again? :-)
Indeed, the term "liberal" is now quaint since the left/liberals
discarded the label when it both was no longer cool and they were
alienating the naive moderate voters. They then used the term
"progressive" or even "independent" (and sometimes even pretend to be
alienated Republicans!) It's rather amazing that marxism which started
out labeling the conservatives as "reactionary" now have the left more
or less defined in the states as simply anti-Bush and scapegoating white
males.
That said, muslim immigrants burning cars in Paris, France ARE
'liberal': they fully support diversity and transferring wealth from the
"rich" or other people to themselves. The French made themselves into
their own bourgeois!
> > > > I remember during the 80's when the left was having a field day with
> > > > hypocritical televangelists caught with their pants down (literally) in
> > > > sex scandals. Then their own good ol' boy Bill Clinton was nailed for
> > > > sexual harassment
> > >
> > > No, he wasn't.
> >
> > He had to pay off the settlement for the full amount which only legally
> > got him out of admitting guilt openly because of a technicality. It's
> > like someone paying their massive speeding ticket and pleading no
> > contest.
>
> Are you aware that speeding tickets are neither felonies nor
> misdemeanors---but infractions---like driving without
> a seat belt. Not a very valid comparison.
If you're going to nitpick at the analogy, do it right. Driving a car
involves using a steering wheel while sexual harassment involves
grabbing at women's breasts and saying: "You're smart. Be quiet about
this."
You may want to look up what analogies and comparisons are. If they are
the same, they are called equivalencies.
e"�quiv"�a"�lence
/j�kwjvYlYns or, for 3, �ikwY�vejlYns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation
[i-kwiv-uh-luhns or, for 3, ee-kwuh-vey-luhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the state or fact of being equivalent; equality in value, force,
significance, etc.
2. an instance of this; an equivalent.
3. Chemistry. the quality of having equal valence.
4. Logic, Mathematics.
a. Also called material implication. the relation between two
propositions such that the second is not false when the first is true.
b. Also called material equivalence. the relation between two
propositions such that they are either both true or both false.
c. the relation between two propositions such that each logically
implies the other.
> > He fought the case for years and had to pay in full. He could have done
> > that earlier if he was innocent.
> >
> > > And even if he was,
> >
> > So he wasn't but even if he was. Sounds like you're wavering in your
> > faith there. :-)
> >
> > > what has that got to do with
> > > feminism, liberalism or the topic of this thread?
> >
> > Look up what the word hypocrite means sometime. The left has always
> > prided themselves on being more superior, kind, caring, honest, etc.
> > than the evil religious right. Today, the religious right is more
> > RATIONAL than the left while the left is afraid of chicken little sky is
> > falling nonsense and hugging trees to power their homes rather than evil
> > nuclear power. (oh, wait, we'll build windmills. That's high tech for
> > the left!)
>
> Hmmm---I seem to remember an icon of the right who preached the evils
> of the drug trade while using forged prescriptions for oxycontin.
Great, considering the many on the left who looked up every snippet of
what he said against illegal drug use, you'll easily be able to produce
a quote from him AT THE EXACT SAME TIME PERIOD he was using illegal
drugs.
Good luck.
That said, whether he condemned illegal drug use before or during him
actually using it, he still changed his ways when caught. He didn't
openly continue to use oxycontin and preach the opposite. At least with
the right, their hypocrisy is at least somewhat more plausible. :-)
> It
> seems that there are lots of hypocrites on all sides of the political
> spectrum.
Absolutely. Just as you have something in common with Charles Manson in
that you both broke the law at some point...
> > Sheesh, science really has gone back a bit wouldn't you say? :-)
>
> Are you qualified to speak on the state of science today?
I think I can read a mail header where a scientist said openly about
using "trash data" to get the result he needed. Does someone need to be
especially qualified to figure out that is not good science?
> > > Oh, you just need a feel to vent after listening to Limbaugh? Just open
> > > a window and take a shit from it - it has the same effect, while your
> > > idols like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity make shitloads of money off
> > > cretins like you.
> >
> > Hahahaha!
> >
> > Indeed, poor leftist propogandists now are seeing their revenues fall as
> > more and more of their new electorate can't even read or just twitter
> > all day long. :-)
>
>
> LOL! Perhaps twitter----which requires a modicum of literacy, will
> re-educate the electorate! ;-)
> >
> > > and when their policies finally got a hearing, they
> > > > showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his A/C's
> > > > running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might come
> > > > home.
> > >
> > > And this, you think, somehow invalidates the global warming theory?
> >
> > If the proponents of such a belief don't take it seriously in their own
> > life, then it's really not that much of a priority, is it?
> >
> > I'm reminded of the ol' 70's cults where the true faithful would live in
> > bars and eat hay while the leaders would eat off of gold plates and
> > lecture them about humility.
>
> Hey----I want to join that cult! The living in bars would be fine with
> me---as long as someone processed the grain into potable form.
> Actually, the part about gold plates sounds more like the Vatican to
> me.
Oops, I meant barns.
And really? He eats off of gold plates? Got a picture or cite for that?
> > > > So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
> > > > Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
> > >
> > > For this, you first need to tell us what pageanism is. I've never heard
> > > of it.
> >
> > Perhaps you're referring to my lousy spelling of paganism. I guess it's
> > possible to make a theory about global warming work when it's getting
> > colder provided you forge emails through a spelling checker first. :-)
> >
>
> That's the first I've heard of forging emails. I have heard of emails
> that were stolen and released without the consent of the authors.
>
> Mark Borgerson
Yeah, it reminds me of the Watergate era when reporters took down
Richard Nixon using an anonymous informant leaking secrect government
information. Did you ever hear about that?
It happened during the early 70's. You might have heard of it.
regards,
PolishKnight
PolishKnight
Alan Ford <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote:
> PolishKnight proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> >>>> Of course it is possible that the DEMAND by Muslim immigrants that
> >>>> Denmark alter its legal system to Sharia law and that only MULLAHS serve
> >>>> as
> >>>> judges MIGHT have a little to do with the Danes re-thinking the
> >>>> immigration
> >>>> issue. England is a bit further along with its Muslim population
> >>>> DEMANDING
> >>>> that the Queen either CONVERT or GET THE F***K OUT of the country!
> >>>> Somehow
> >>>> the though of Eleanor Smeal, Gloria Allred, Nancy Pelosi and the other
> >>>> Feminazis in Burka DOES have a certain appeal to it.
> >> What is this, the International Bullshit From Your Ass Day?
> >
> > Oh, that's a real mature retort.
>
> You expect a mature "retort" to the verbal diarrhea you vomited above?
Granted, you're not in a position to deliver one of those. :-)
> Looks like I really pushed your
> > buttons!
> >
> > Beep beep!
>
> No, that was your sister's clit.
I really did push your buttons.
> >>> Feminism and white middle class liberalism has always relied upon the
> >>> "limosine liberalism" model: They want the peasants or some guy behind
> >>> the tree to do the real work while they live in the nice suburbs or
> >>> farmhouses rather than the inner cities that their policies have made
> >>> into office parks or take private jets to chicken-little global warming
> >>> conferences to preach about the evils of international travel.
> >> Really? So, a woman is not allowed to be a feminist unless she is
> >> washing laundry down on the riverbanks or rummaging through garbage for
> >> food?
> >
> > If they could just pay their own bills from time to time rather than go
> > on welfare or have their conservative hubbies prop up their faux
> > equality, that would be sufficient.
>
> Ah, why didn't you say so? So now we know that:
>
> a) you have no fucking clue what feminism and liberalism is
> b) your gripe is due to some divorce case where you got gypped
I wonder. If a PC group had a gripe due to some grievance, would you be
so uncaring and belitting towards them?
> > Yes yes, I know: You have a friend of a friend who knows someone's
> > hairdresser who earned her living on ability and then paid her way
> > without her hubby for a whole week or so because she had no other choice
> > that day. Walking the walk means doing so as the rule, not the
> > exception. Which leads us later to Bill Clinton:
>
> Once more, you actually expect a non-mocking response to the shit you
> just banged up on the keyboard above?
As I said, you live in a universe where you like to mock those who
disagree with you while projecting your own bigotry upon them. It's
medieval religion squared.
> >> Likewise, a man is not allowed to be a liberal unless he works as a
> >> farmhand for $5 an hour?
> >> These are your "arguments" against feminism and liberalism?
> >
> > Liberals are supposed to be for the common working man
>
> Like I sad, you have no fucking clue what liberalism is. What you do
> instead is build a straw man liberal, cobbled together from what you
> overheard on Limbaugh and Beck comedy shows, then proceed to burn it in
> the flames of your manufactured outrage.
No need. You're building one for me that's easy to shoot down. You
even admit that you refuse to do a decent job of it.
> and yes, indeed,
> > if most are either high paid policy wonks or welfare recipients burning
> > cars in North Paris, France as "merci" to the taxpayers, then they
> > really aren't liberals as they portray themselves. It's just a fantasy
> > which hasn't been put into a formal bible yet... Hmmm, maybe there
> > ought to be a bible of liberalism! :-) (Oh, wait, Ann Coulter already
> > wrote one! :-)
>
> No, she didn't. "Writing" implies a mental process whereby the author
> puts down on paper rational, reasonable and logical arguments for the
> system of ideas (s)he is presenting. Simply recording hysterical fascist
> garbage popping up in someone's schizophrenic psyche can't be called
> writing by any standard. Calling Coulter a writer is the same as calling
> Jeffrey Dahmer a chef.
Coulter is a millionare who makes a legal living selling books and being
far more influencial than you could ever hope to be.
You're just like the lower class whites you sneer at and sold out on
except you're delusional to think you're any different.
> >>> I remember during the 80's when the left was having a field day with
> >>> hypocritical televangelists caught with their pants down (literally) in
> >>> sex scandals. Then their own good ol' boy Bill Clinton was nailed for
> >>> sexual harassment
> >> No, he wasn't.
> >
> > He had to pay off the settlement for the full amount which only legally
> > got him out of admitting guilt openly because of a technicality. It's
> > like someone paying their massive speeding ticket and pleading no
> > contest.
> >
> > He fought the case for years and had to pay in full. He could have done
> > that earlier if he was innocent.
> >
> >> And even if he was,
> >
> > So he wasn't but even if he was. Sounds like you're wavering in your
> > faith there. :-)
>
> It's called "for the sake of the argument" sentence. Look it up, you
> might learn something.
> >
> >> what has that got to do with
> >> feminism, liberalism or the topic of this thread?
> >
> > Look up what the word hypocrite means sometime. The left has always
> > prided themselves on being more superior, kind, caring, honest, etc.
> > than the evil religious right.
>
> Yes, that is true, if for example civil rights are taken as a measure of
> the characteristics you name above. From abolition of slavery,
Actually, slavery isn't abolished. It's perfectly legal to force men to
work in order to pay child-support and throw them in jail if they refuse
or are unable to under normal working hours. More black men have been
thrown into jail since so-called civil rights than by Jim Crow.
> to
> suffrage,
"�The old antislavery school says that women must stand back, that they
must wait until male Negroes are voters. But we say, if you will not
give the whole loaf of justice to an entire people, give it to the most
intelligent first. If intelligence, justice, and morality are to be
placed in the government, then let the question of woman be brought up
first and that of the Negro last.� -- Susan B Anthony
>to desegregation,
White flight to suburban sprawl, and Georgetown 97% white all with Obama
bumper stickers...
> to voter registration,
Vote early, vote often! Let's register Mickey Mouse along with illegal
immigrants!
> to civil rights for
> blacks,
How about civil rights for everyone including non-wise non-latina white
males? Oh, wait, that would be TOO much civil rights! :-)
> to defending the secular state
Muslim teachings in public schools. (cluck cluck cluck. Please don't
hurt us! You're not like those Christians! You fight back!)
>, to gay rights, to sexual
> freedoms,
Yeah, like feminists making it a crime to say a woman looks pretty in
the workplace which Bill Clinton then broke and tried to say the law
didn't apply to him. Tee hee. You're like the puritans but less honest
about it.
> to labor laws
Yeah, like letting illegals put working class Americans out of work to
harness their votes.
> and so on, social liberals have always been on
> the front lines in the fight for them
Er, I hate to break it to you, but all of this is yesterday's news and
much of the above (such as abolition of slavery) were REPUBLICAN
initiatives!
All you have now is chicken little "the sky is falling" and just taxing
health benefits of middle class voters.
>, while the religious conservatives
> have always been defending the status quo of repression, persecution,
> murder, poverty, discrimination and superstition.
Actually, it's Joseph Stalin and National Socialists in Germany who
murdered over 100 million human beings in the name of socialism and
"leveling the playing field" and "settling accounts."
Oh, the sky is falling! Drink the cool aid and get on that comet!
Quick! :-)
> Today, the religious right is more
> > RATIONAL than the left while the left is afraid of chicken little sky is
> > falling nonsense and hugging trees to power their homes rather than evil
> > nuclear power. (oh, wait, we'll build windmills. That's high tech for
> > the left!)
>
> I am waiting for you to support your statement how the "religious right
> is more rational than the left". Let's see it here:
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
Er, lessee: We aren't afraid of evil atomic power. We don't think the
world is warming up because it's getting colder. We don't think that
American can be like socialist Europe by making it more "diverse" (code
for more non-whites) when most of Socialist Europe IS white! (Didja
know that there are lots of white males in Sweden? :-)
Enough for ya?
> > Sheesh, science really has gone back a bit wouldn't you say? :-)
>
> Sweet, you tell yourself a joke only you are amused by and proceed to
> emoticon yourself to sleep.
Projection.
> >> Oh, you just need a feel to vent after listening to Limbaugh? Just open
> >> a window and take a shit from it - it has the same effect, while your
> >> idols like Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity make shitloads of money off
> >> cretins like you.
> >
> > Hahahaha!
> >
> > Indeed, poor leftist propogandists now are seeing their revenues fall as
> > more and more of their new electorate can't even read or just twitter
> > all day long. :-)
>
> How is this the leftist phenomenon?
Lessee: Right wing publications, books, and media? Doing great. NYT?
Fishwrap! :-)
> >> and when their policies finally got a hearing, they
> >>> showed that they didn't want to live under them. Al Gore has his A/C's
> >>> running full blast in all of his mansions just in case he might come
> >>> home.
> >> And this, you think, somehow invalidates the global warming theory?
> >
> > If the proponents of such a belief don't take it seriously in their own
> > life, then it's really not that much of a priority, is it?
>
> So you think that finding one physician who smokes invalidates the
> "smoking causes cancer" theory, do you?
If he's delivering a lecture about the evils of smoking and necessity to
make smoking illegal WHILE PUFFING AWAY, yes, I would say it would.
> > I'm reminded of the ol' 70's cults where the true faithful would live in
> > bars and eat hay while the leaders would eat off of gold plates and
> > lecture them about humility.
>
> Yes, I too am reminded of that every single time I see those
> "spontaneous" teabagger protests on FoxNews.
A yes, the "teabagger" slur. A true example of leftist hypocrisy: Bash
the right by calling them fags. Makes a lot of sense. Such macaca! :-)
> >>> So there you have it: leftist pageanism really is inferior to
> >>> Christianity at least when it comes to practicing what you preach!
> >> For this, you first need to tell us what pageanism is. I've never heard
> >> of it.
> >
> > Perhaps you're referring to my lousy spelling of paganism. I guess it's
> > possible to make a theory about global warming work when it's getting
> > colder provided you forge emails through a spelling checker first. :-)
>
> Just because it gets colder when you open your fridge, doesn't mean the
> whole planet is getting colder, you know...
Generally speaking, it's hard to get non-true believers in a mad rush to
drink cool aid because the earth is melting when it's getting colder
OUTSIDE!
> Amazing how easily manipulated you rightards are into voting against
> your own interests.
Yeah, here's an example of Martin Luther King's "dream"
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Kreager.shtml
and
http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=6172583
The first recipient of leftist "peace" was a white woman and the other
an autistic student.
No civil rights violated there!
regards,
PolishKnight
Deadrat
news:marek1965-DDB4A...@news.giganews.com:
<snipped>
A long string of garbage, including a howler about Republican policy
positions and a misunderstanding of the slang term "teabagging."
</snipped>
>
> No civil rights violated there!
>
> regards,
> PolishKnight
Wow! It really does suck to be you, doesn't it?
Alan Ford
[snip a load of infantile mind-bending drivel]
>>> which hasn't been put into a formal bible yet... Hmmm, maybe there
>>> ought to be a bible of liberalism! :-) (Oh, wait, Ann Coulter already
>>> wrote one! :-)
>> No, she didn't. "Writing" implies a mental process whereby the author
>> puts down on paper rational, reasonable and logical arguments for the
>> system of ideas (s)he is presenting. Simply recording hysterical fascist
>> garbage popping up in someone's schizophrenic psyche can't be called
>> writing by any standard. Calling Coulter a writer is the same as calling
>> Jeffrey Dahmer a chef.
>
> Coulter is a millionare who makes a legal living selling books and being
> far more influencial than you could ever hope to be.
So were the following people:
Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Duvalier, Marcos, Trujillo, Suharto,
Pinochet, Somoza and dozens of other fascists.
[snip another load of infantile mind-bending drivel]
I feel sorry for fascists and their apologists like you. Here you are a
seemingly functional human being, yet you consciously and deliberately
choose to be stupid and let other people do the thinking for you.
So long.
PolishKnight
Alan Ford <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote:
> PolishKnight proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> [snip a load of infantile mind-bending drivel]
>
> >>> which hasn't been put into a formal bible yet... Hmmm, maybe there
> >>> ought to be a bible of liberalism! :-) (Oh, wait, Ann Coulter already
> >>> wrote one! :-)
> >> No, she didn't. "Writing" implies a mental process whereby the author
> >> puts down on paper rational, reasonable and logical arguments for the
> >> system of ideas (s)he is presenting. Simply recording hysterical fascist
> >> garbage popping up in someone's schizophrenic psyche can't be called
> >> writing by any standard. Calling Coulter a writer is the same as calling
> >> Jeffrey Dahmer a chef.
> >
> > Coulter is a millionare who makes a legal living selling books and being
> > far more influencial than you could ever hope to be.
>
> So were the following people:
>
> Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Duvalier, Marcos, Trujillo, Suharto,
> Pinochet, Somoza and dozens of other fascists.
I guess that means JK Rowling, Stephen King, and Michael Crichton were
all closet fascists then. :-)
> [snip another load of infantile mind-bending drivel]
[typical hypocritical leftist namecalling in leau of argument above]
> I feel sorry for fascists and their apologists like you.
Hahaha!
Naw, you don't. But you like to CLAIM to care as you call others
fascists when you want a big government to murder and steal on your
behalf.
I laughed when one leftist was griping that, gasp, HER tax money was
being taken to go to GW's buddies at Halliburton. I told her that was
how government worked but she naively believed it was only supposed to
rob on HER behalf. Tee hee. She quickly dropped the subject. Oh,
wait, that's coming up:
> Here you are a
> seemingly functional human being, yet you consciously and deliberately
> choose to be stupid and let other people do the thinking for you.
Versus you doing my thinking for me? Yeah, all the people who disagree
with you are comformist robots. Actually, it's the opposite.
I don't think you allow others to do your thinking for you. You like
feeling important and superior and this is a decision you clearly made
for yourself. I'm only pointing out that these are feelings that
everyone else has especially the worst "fascists" (except for Castro
and Stalin. Their killing is ok or to be ignored.)
> So long.
Ah yes, one never gets someone to admit they've been wrong. They admit
it to themselves when they run away from the truth. Go ahead, see how
far you can go!
regards,
PolishKnight
Alan Ford
[shitsnip]
>>> Coulter is a millionare who makes a legal living selling books and being
>>> far more influencial than you could ever hope to be.
>> So were the following people:
>>
>> Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Duvalier, Marcos, Trujillo, Suharto,
>> Pinochet, Somoza and dozens of other fascists.
>
> I guess that means JK Rowling, Stephen King, and Michael Crichton were
> all closet fascists then. :-)
Yes, to a cretin who thinks that the statement "Some dogs are small"
means that anything that's small is therefore a dog.
[shitsnip]
Deadrat
news:marek1965-18FE6...@news.giganews.com:
> In article <hheror$a4f$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Alan Ford <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote:
>
<snip/>
>> Here you are a
>> seemingly functional human being, yet you consciously and
>> deliberately choose to be stupid and let other people do the thinking
>> for you.
>
> Versus you doing my thinking for me?
No, versus you doing some thinking for yourself, but I see *that* didn't
occur to you.
<snip/>
>
> regards,
> PolishKnight
>
PolishKnight
Alan Ford <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote:
> PolishKnight proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> [shitsnip]
>
> >>> Coulter is a millionare who makes a legal living selling books and being
> >>> far more influencial than you could ever hope to be.
>
> >> So were the following people:
> >>
> >> Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Duvalier, Marcos, Trujillo, Suharto,
> >> Pinochet, Somoza and dozens of other fascists.
> >
> > I guess that means JK Rowling, Stephen King, and Michael Crichton were
> > all closet fascists then. :-)
>
> Yes, to a cretin who thinks that the statement "Some dogs are small"
> means that anything that's small is therefore a dog.
>
> [shitsnip]
Could you please explain what "so long" means?
The immediate impression seems to be that you aren't very confident in
your arguments and want to pull hit-and-runs but at the same time don't
have the maturity or personal honesty to at least ponder your own
reactions and feelings for acting in such a manner.
I've already addressed the numerous examples of hypocrisy and projection
in the language and histrionic techniques you continue to use but can't
seem to get away from. I'll allow the reader, and your subconscious, to
go back and refer to my posts as written.
Enjoy and "so long". (chuckle)
PolishKnight