State Atheism

[Joe Bruno]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 10:43:00 AM UTC+8, Joe Bruno wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Do you know why Karl Marx had encouraged states to be free of religion?

[John Locke]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
<ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>
...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government and
into the public school system.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Once again, Mad Joe demonstrates what a psychopath he is.

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-5, John Locke wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> >

Here's what I like about the First Amendment: people are free
to believe or not.

[quote]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

[/quote]


The "make no law respecting an establishment.." clause means there
can be no national, Federally sanctioned religion, on the model
of The Church of England at the time of the framing. "prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;..." means there can be no Federal bans
on any or all religious sects, and no meddling in how these groups
are run. Equivalent clauses in state constitutions, and the extension
of the suite of rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to the states,
under the incorporation doctrine (See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights )

means the several states have to keep their hands off churches, and
respect the individuals right of conscience.

Additionally, the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was
passed, forbids religious tests for office. This has also,
either explicitly or de facto, been adopted by the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

> ...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
> religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
> constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government

Which should be combated. I'd fire all the chaplains at government
institutions, knock off the invocations and prayers at government
meetings, and other stuff on the taxpayers' dime.

> and into the public school system.

I'm not in favor of that, either, but I'd privatize the government
schools and colleges. Then, if people wanted to send their kids
to religious schools, they could. I've no problem with a vet
spending his GI Bill at Notre Dame or Southern Methodist, and I
have no objection to a voucher system that includes religious schools
as a transitional measure while the government out of the schooling
business. The Framers should have included "no government schools"
in the First Amendment, but those hardly existed at the time, so
they didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

Kevin R

[Jørgen Farum Jensen]

Den 03-03-2016 kl. 03:42 skrev Joe Bruno:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>
Do you have any comment?

--

Jørgen Farum Jensen
"Science has proof without any certainty.
Creationists have certainty without any proof."
— Ashley Montagu

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:59:28 +0100, Jørgen Farum Jensen
<atei...@733.dk> wrote:

>Den 03-03-2016 kl. 03:42 skrev Joe Bruno:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>>
>Do you have any comment?

Not without demonstrating that he is an even bigger bigot.

[Kevrob]

There's no need for that.

http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:joebruno

Kevin R

[JTEM]

hhya...@gmail.com wrote:

> Do you know why Karl Marx had encouraged states to be free of religion?

The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
new one.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/140396005808

[Les Hellawell]

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
<ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

"State atheism was an official policy of anti-clericalism in the
Soviet Union and other Marxist-Leninist states."

Note this is "anti-clericalism" not anti-religion and specifically
the Russia Orthodox Church which was closely allied and actually
led by the former Czar and which supported the religious-Imperialist
White terror civil war that was waged against the Soviet Union

In the Easterm muslim republics the communist leaders were
actually muslim. There were many Roman catholics in Western
Russia and provided the churches registered they were also allowed
to to carry out their religious life unharmed. The Lutherans refused
to register and they were supress

Communist states are dicatorships which must control the lives
of others and not permit independant organisations such as
trade unions and religuious groups theny have to control
everything to stop them becoming possible rebels

THe orthodox church decided to oppose the SU when it introduced
state education stripping relgion of its control of education which
indoctrinated children into religion and deliberatly gave them limited
education. Russia gave all children high quality education expanding
university education which was available to all if they achieved
Academic qualifications

I cannot imagine many athiest who are communist we tend to be
supporter of democracy and the right to free speecch so I doubt
there were many real atheist running Russia especially given that
the overwhelming number of Russians were Christians anyway at
that time So most of the communst running Russia would actually
have been Christians not athiest

Of course the people who write articles about Communism are probably
US Christians in particular who like to link Communism with atheisms
when there is absolutely no link between us but that is what is suits
them when expressing their hatred of us. Religion and the truth
are contradictions in terms. Bruno is one such hater
hence his frequent posting of these links simply just to cause
annoyance

He many be able to post into this newsgroup but that does not
make him a member of our atheist community here. I personally
do not admit him to our group and generally ignore his posts and
don't talk about him. I have no interest in doing either. Why allow
him to disrupt our posts, just keep him out of them by ignoring him
aftere all he says nothing of interest anyway

Les Hellawell
Grreting from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote::
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sense

[Joe Bruno]

I never said I was a lawyer. In fact, I said I was not.

[Joe Bruno]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:07:02 AM UTC-8, Kevrob wrote:

Joe Bruno

2/11/15


On Saturday, April 26, 2014 6:15:37 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> "This is the point where I'd like to say it's just
>
> opinion and I used to be a lawyer."
>
> Art Tandy/Joe Bruno, May 19 2012
>
>



That is one of Mike Painter's lies

What I actually said, in original post, was:

No. Matter of fact, I specifically said I never was one.

Here it is:

Joe Bruno Post reply

7/18/12

<deletia>

> &gt;
> &gt; Relevance??????????????????????????????????????????I was never a
> &gt; lawyer as the Navy does not require you to be one to act as a
> &gt; prosecutor under military law. I just realized that you are unable to
> &gt; read and understand the English language.To be a lawyer, you must
> &gt; Finish law school and pass the bar exam. I never did either one.

[Jefferson Was A Slave Molester]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:43:00 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

>The United States and other secular states have used international treaties like the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights to campaign for freedom of religion within politically repressive >governments.[2]


The United State areligious Government is worse than the Soviet State atheism. It is a covert enemy of monotheism.
Our God beat Caesar and conquered everything in his dominion for us to enjoy except for polytheism and Idol worship and man made Laws. Hence the NEW COVENANT which the United States Constitution and the United Nations declaration are trying to undo.
I prefer an enemy who comes to me without dissimulation. Then again the SERPENT was never dead yet.

[Davej]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:43:00 PM UTC-6, Joe Bruno wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

[Black Nazi]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:43:00 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Christianity is a very secular system, like the Roman Sacred SENATE and the Roman Temple which were separated but connected, Saint Paul structured his system the same way: The Church and the Altar in keeping with the Roman republican system of government should be run separate yet connected under the authority of the same state.
It was only in later date that popes blended the SENATE(Church) and the Temple(Altar) together. Then again the papal system could easily be converted back to Saint Paul original system to prevent the priests from running the government(SENATE OR THE CHURCH) and confine them to the Altar.
This is why we just don't understand all the hoopla about Church and State supposed separation which we owe to the American founding fathers....
WE OWE THEM NOTHING BUT CONFUSION.
Please If you are a Jew, stay out of our bisiness, will you?

[Cloud Hobbit]

I applaud the sentiment and share it, but it is very low on my list of things about religion to bitch about.

> > and into the public school system.
>

The public school system, especially in places like Texas are doing immeasurable harm. Not to forget what gave rise to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the state of Kansas.

> I'm not in favor of that, either, but I'd privatize the government
> schools and colleges.

Obviously the best move, but the least likely to happen unfortunately.
Government should have nothing to do with education.

Then, if people wanted to send their kids
> to religious schools, they could. I've no problem with a vet
> spending his GI Bill at Notre Dame or Southern Methodist, and I
> have no objection to a voucher system that includes religious schools
> as a transitional measure while the government out of the schooling
> business. The Framers should have included "no government schools"
> in the First Amendment, but those hardly existed at the time, so
> they didn't.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
>
> Kevin R

I doubt they ever figured the Federal government would get in so deep into education, when they have no Constitutional authority to do so. They have no Constitutional authority to do much of what has got us into shit up to our necks.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:25:33 AM UTC-8, JTEM wrote:
> hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Do you know why Karl Marx had encouraged states to be free of religion?
>
> The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
> It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
> new one.
>
>
>
>

The liar strikes again. Atheism is not a religion. Religions have magic people in the sky. Religion runs on faith. Atheists have no such faith.
You already know all this, so you knew you were lying. Why are all the theists who post here such liars? Why can't you make your case honestly? Could it be that your faith is not strong? Or could it be that it is impossible to prove that something exists when it doesn't.

[Cloud Hobbit]

You lying sack of shit. If you said you weren't a lawyer, it was only after a bit of research caught you lying again. You said you were a prosecutor in the Navy. That sure sounds like a lawyer to most people. Or do they let the Quartermasters prosecute cases?

[Cloud Hobbit]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/6819dfcdd9ec8a9d

I attended Law school at the University of Illinois in Champaign. You can check their records if you don't believe me.I also practiced criminal law as a prosecutor in the Navy for 4 years.

[Cloud Hobbit]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/a0koAhjGiAk/xad9wDLKeKcJ

No I DEMAND evidence from other people, I never actually provide it.

This is the point where I'd like to say it's just opinion and I used to be a lawyer. When I said "there is archaeological evidence" I actually meant "it is my opinion that I believe there is"

[Cloud Hobbit]

More foil for your hat?

[Kevrob]

Actually, in the Communist countries, it wasn't atheism that was the
"official religion," but Marxism or its variants: Marxism/Leninism,
Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism, Marxism/Leninism/Maoism, etc.

Similarly for Nazi totalitarianism.

I replied to Anarcissie nearly 10 years ago:

[quote]

From:

Message-ID: <1164252249.1...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>

> That applies to
> certain political ideologies as well, like
> Communism and Naziism, which is why
> some people see them as religions. They
> too are belief systems which violently
> reject reason and evidence and demand
> submission.

Oh, certainly. They have a founding myth, messianic figures, worship
services [Nurenberg, May Day in Red Square] confession (self-criticism
sessions), devil figures, a utopian teleology - the whole kit and
kaboodle.

[/quote]

Still seems apt.

Kevin R

[Joe Bruno]

Legal officers.

[rantingri...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:43:00 PM UTC-6, Joe Bruno wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

############################################################
# From The Article... #
############################################################
# Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights #
# is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, #
# conscience, and religion. #
############################################################

Well that's a contradiction in terms! How can anyone have
"freedom of thought" once the "god virus" starts influencing
their thoughts? The concepts of "free-thought" and
"religion" are mutually exclusive! Perhaps these "altruist"
should consider the consequences of the "freedoms" they are
supposedly protecting.

Would any sane society protect the right of an infected
person to spread biological disease to unwitting hosts?
OF COURSE NOT! Religion is no different than any viral agent,
and "this idea", that religion is beyond reproach, must be
destroyed along with it.

[Kevrob]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:51:31 PM UTC-5, rantingri...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:43:00 PM UTC-6, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>
> ############################################################
> # From The Article... #
> ############################################################
> # Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights #
> # is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, #
> # conscience, and religion. #
> ############################################################
>
> Well that's a contradiction in terms! How can anyone have
> "freedom of thought" once the "god virus" starts influencing
> their thoughts?

Religious belief isn't a "virus," anymore than some obnoxious
political philosophy is, or any other stupid societal meme.
Stretching metaphors like that is sloppy thinking.

> The concepts of "free-thought" and
> "religion" are mutually exclusive! Perhaps these "altruist"
> should consider the consequences of the "freedoms" they are
> supposedly protecting.

What is your alternative? State action to prevent parents from
teaching children to believe? That's been tried. Not only is
it tyrannical, it doesn;t work.

> Would any sane society protect the right of an infected
> person to spread biological disease to unwitting hosts?
> OF COURSE NOT! Religion is no different than any viral agent,
> and "this idea", that religion is beyond reproach, must be
> destroyed along with it.

And when some idea you hold near and dear is identified as
a "virus," what then?

Religion isn't above reproach, at least not in the First World
societies that still allow freedom of speech. I am worried
that some who think they are descended from the liberal*
tradition are beginning to develop an ethic that forbids
criticism of certain religions based on cultural relativism
and a fear of being seen as racist or otherwise culturally biased.
I think this is the basis of Christian complaints that their
religion is fair game for criticism, while others need to be
understood. Any such double standard ought to be quashed.
All theistic religion should be criticized, especially if its
adherents are restricting the rights of non-believers or
members of other sects. Any religion that doesn't necessarily
rely on a god or gods (ex: Buddhism) should be able to be
criticized if its tenets don't comport with the real universe
(or multiverse, or whatever.) If that hurts anyone's feelings,
well, boo-hoo, I have a tissue for you.

Once that debate becomes regulated by the state, we are done for.
Fighting bad ideas with good ones, that I can get behind.

Kevin R

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <547eab89-dea6-49df...@googlegroups.com>,

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:51:31 PM UTC-5, rantingri...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:43:00 PM UTC-6, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> >
> > ############################################################
> > # From The Article... #
> > ############################################################
> > # Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights #
> > # is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, #
> > # conscience, and religion. #
> > ############################################################
> >
> > Well that's a contradiction in terms! How can anyone have
> > "freedom of thought" once the "god virus" starts influencing
> > their thoughts?
>
> Religious belief isn't a "virus," anymore than some obnoxious
> political philosophy is, or any other stupid societal meme.
> Stretching metaphors like that is sloppy thinking.
>
> > The concepts of "free-thought" and
> > "religion" are mutually exclusive! Perhaps these "altruist"
> > should consider the consequences of the "freedoms" they are
> > supposedly protecting.
>
> What is your alternative? State action to prevent parents from
> teaching children to believe? That's been tried. Not only is
> it tyrannical, it doesn;t work.

You teach children how to think critically in every school, starting in
1st grade.

--

JD

"If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:

He didn't say that atheism is a religion. He said that the State was.
That is what the Nazis and Communists did. People worshipped the State
as a whole and believed that people were only cogs who existed only for
the state. That is what religion does, whatever its form. It creates a mythology, whether it be State or Church, that humans become dehumanized
cogs in. Atheism doesn't do this. Atheists are individuals who, if they
don't live under a Church or State religion, learn to think for themselves.

People who vote Republican want a religious government that would force everyone to think one way only. And, since they belong to many different religions, it probably won't be the way they want. They don't understand
that under such a government, they would be the peasants with even less
control over their lives than they now have - if they survived the change.

[hypatiab7]

How do you define who is or isn't a Jew? And please learn how to spell.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 1:25:33 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Do you know why Karl Marx had encouraged states to be free of religion?
>
> The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
> It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
> new one.

At least the government is based on human and no one had to kneel before it. It also did not milk all the money for its own use....
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/140396005808

[hhya...@gmail.com]

No. Mike as an atheist would never lie...in fact you had told us that you were Navy prosecutor for 4 years. How did that not make you a lawyer?

[Joe Bruno]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 2:04:46 AM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:25:33 AM UTC-8, JTEM wrote:
> > > hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > Do you know why Karl Marx had encouraged states to be free of religion?
> > >
> > > The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
> > > It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
> > > new one.
>
> > >
> > The liar strikes again. Atheism is not a religion. Religions have magic people in the sky. Religion runs on faith. Atheists have no such faith.
> > You already know all this, so you knew you were lying. Why are all the theists who post here such liars? Why can't you make your case honestly? Could it be that your faith is not strong? Or could it be that it is impossible to prove that something exists when it doesn't.
>
>
>
> He didn't say that atheism is a religion. He said that the State was.
> That is what the Nazis and Communists did. People worshipped the State
> as a whole and believed that people were only cogs who existed only for
> the state. That is what religion does, whatever its form. It creates a mythology, whether it be State or Church, that humans become dehumanized
> cogs in. Atheism doesn't do this. Atheists are individuals who, if they
> don't live under a Church or State religion, learn to think for themselves.

Is that why you all sound alike?

>
> People who vote Republican want a religious government that would force everyone to think one way only.

You mean they want to eliminate the first amendment? Which ones say that?

And, since they belong to many different religions,

Actually, only 3.

it probably won't be the way they want. They don't understand
> that under such a government, they would be the peasants with even less
> control over their lives than they now have - if they survived the change.

This country never had peasants.

[Joe Bruno]

The Navy only requires lawyers at court martials, not at NJP.

[Joe Bruno]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:39:14 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:11:23 -0800, John Locke
> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> ><ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> >>

> >...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
> >religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with

> >constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government and

> >into the public school system.
>

> Once again, Mad Joe demonstrates what a psychopath he is.

By posting a link to wikipedia?????

[Joe Bruno]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:11:32 AM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> >
> ...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
> religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
> constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government and
> into the public school system.

That's why we have courts.

[John Locke]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 05:08:46 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno

<ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:11:32 AM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>> <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>> >
>> ...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
>> religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
>> constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government and
>> into the public school system.
>
>That's why we have courts.
>

..and the courts are filled with religiously biased morons who think
this country was founded on Christian "values".

[Joe Bruno]

Name 6.

[John Locke]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 15:44:04 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno

<ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 2:43:41 PM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2016 05:08:46 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>> <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:11:32 AM UTC-8, John Locke wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>> >> <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>> >> >
>> >> ...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
>> >> religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
>> >> constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government and
>> >> into the public school system.
>> >
>> >That's why we have courts.
>> >
>> ..and the courts are filled with religiously biased morons who think
>> this country was founded on Christian "values".
>
>Name 6.
>

..how about 99.98 %. How about you naming more then 5 atheists.
Pete Stark, Barney Frank and possibly Kyrsten Sinema
and Bernie Sanders are the only ones I know of although I highly
suspect Donald Trump of being a non believer.

[Joe Bruno]

They are not judges. We were talking about courts.

[hypatiab7]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:39:00 AM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 2:04:46 AM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:25:33 AM UTC-8, JTEM wrote:
> > > > hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Do you know why Karl Marx had encouraged states to be free of religion?
> > > >
> > > > The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
> > > > It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
> > > > new one.
> >
> > > >
> > > The liar strikes again. Atheism is not a religion. Religions have magic people in the sky. Religion runs on faith. Atheists have no such faith.
> > > You already know all this, so you knew you were lying. Why are all the theists who post here such liars? Why can't you make your case honestly? Could it be that your faith is not strong? Or could it be that it is impossible to prove that something exists when it doesn't.
> >
> >
> >
> > He didn't say that atheism is a religion. He said that the State was.
> > That is what the Nazis and Communists did. People worshipped the State
> > as a whole and believed that people were only cogs who existed only for
> > the state. That is what religion does, whatever its form. It creates a mythology, whether it be State or Church, that humans become dehumanized
> > cogs in. Atheism doesn't do this. Atheists are individuals who, if they
> > don't live under a Church or State religion, learn to think for themselves.
>
> Is that why you all sound alike?

That's what you get for reading your own stuff over and over.

> >
> > People who vote Republican want a religious government that would force everyone to think one way only.
>
> You mean they want to eliminate the first amendment? Which ones say that?

I didn't mention the first Amendment, ArtieJoe. But, since you mention it, it seems to me that the Tea Partly Rethuglicans won't be happy until they get rid of the entire Bill of Rights.

>
> And, since they belong to many different religions,
>
> Actually, only 3.

There are countless 'Christian' religions, several Jewish religions and
several Muslim religions. Plus, many American citizens are Hindus and
Buddhists. Plus, the number of atheists and agnostics seems to double
every ten years.

>
>
> it probably won't be the way they want. They don't understand
> > that under such a government, they would be the peasants with even less
> > control over their lives than they now have - if they survived the change.
>
> This country never had peasants.

Are you really this dumb or do you work at it?

[Joe Bruno]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:27:26 AM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 7:39:00 AM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 2:04:46 AM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:25:33 AM UTC-8, JTEM wrote:
> > > > > hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Do you know why Karl Marx had encouraged states to be free of religion?
> > > > >
> > > > > The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
> > > > > It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
> > > > > new one.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > The liar strikes again. Atheism is not a religion. Religions have magic people in the sky. Religion runs on faith. Atheists have no such faith.
> > > > You already know all this, so you knew you were lying. Why are all the theists who post here such liars? Why can't you make your case honestly? Could it be that your faith is not strong? Or could it be that it is impossible to prove that something exists when it doesn't.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > He didn't say that atheism is a religion. He said that the State was.
> > > That is what the Nazis and Communists did. People worshipped the State
> > > as a whole and believed that people were only cogs who existed only for
> > > the state. That is what religion does, whatever its form. It creates a mythology, whether it be State or Church, that humans become dehumanized
> > > cogs in. Atheism doesn't do this. Atheists are individuals who, if they
> > > don't live under a Church or State religion, learn to think for themselves.
> >
> > Is that why you all sound alike?
>
> That's what you get for reading your own stuff over and over.
> > >
> > > People who vote Republican want a religious government that would force everyone to think one way only.
> >
> > You mean they want to eliminate the first amendment? Which ones say that?
>
> I didn't mention the first Amendment, ArtieJoe. But, since you mention it, it seems to me that the Tea Partly Rethuglicans won't be happy until they get rid of the entire Bill of Rights.

Show us where they say that.

> >
> > And, since they belong to many different religions,
> >
> > Actually, only 3.
>
> There are countless 'Christian' religions, several Jewish religions and
> several Muslim religions. Plus, many American citizens are Hindus and
> Buddhists. Plus, the number of atheists and agnostics seems to double
> every ten years.

Denominations are not religions.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Without having an agenda, would any sane person post a link to AA for fun?
No wonder you are a psychopath....

[Christopher A. Lee]

Both. He keeps in practice.

[The Chief Castrator Of The Jews]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 5:10:39 AM UTC-5, hypatiab7 wrote:

>
> How do you define who is or isn't a Jew? And please learn how to spell.

"If" you are a Jew. "If": Conjunction meaning in case that, on condition that...
Example: Hey Ms. Malsaine, call your fellow Jew "If" you need a male companion.

This doesn't mean all the males think they are all Jews.

[Syd M.]

Yeah, like that'll ever happen. The republicans want them stupid and pliable.

PDW

[rantingri...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:23:50 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
> Religious belief isn't a "virus," anymore than some
> obnoxious political philosophy is, or any other stupid
> societal meme. Stretching metaphors like that is sloppy
> thinking.

Oh really? How about i bring this into the realms of cold
*HARD* reality for ya, hmm. Have you ever spent any time in
the company of deeply religious people? Have you ever
observed people "speaking in tongues", or bobbing their
heads while reading scripture, or chanting like psychotics?
Have you ever looked into the "dead eyes" of someone who is
convinced that god has put them on this earth to deliver
"justice to sinners" -- people who will rationalize:
torture, murder, and worse, in the name of "god"?

> > The concepts of "free-thought" and "religion" are
> > mutually exclusive! Perhaps these "altruist" should
> > consider the consequences of the "freedoms" they are
> > supposedly protecting.
>
> What is your alternative? State action to prevent parents
> from teaching children to believe?

Have you ever been forced to *LIVE* with deeply religious
people? Have you ever been exposed to the death threats,
both implicit and explicit, from family members, "friends",
or the general public, for not believing in a God, much
less, *THEIR* specific brand of Sky Daddy? Did you grow up
in an "paranoid environment", were adults were constantly
telling you that "god is *ALWAYS* watching". Have you ever
lived with a crazy aunt that constantly warned of an
impending war between the forces of good and evil, and a
rapture that would cause the "good people" to be immediately
removed from this earth? Nutters who saw "works of the
devil" in every tragedy or misfortune, no matter how
insignificant. Have you ever been forced to attend church
services, in which you were given hallucinogens without your
knowledge or consent? I have personally experienced *EVERY*
one of these things, and all while i was a very young child,
who was unable to escape from the madness of this situation.
And i spent many years recovering from the damage it caused.
But forget about me, are you going to tell me that these
experiences do not cause serious psychological damage to a
person, *ESPECIALLY* a child? If so, then apparently, YOU
DON"T KNOW SHIT!

> That's been tried. Not only is it tyrannical,

No, what's "tyrannical" is organizations that market
themselves as "altruistic", when, in reality, are nothing less
than wolves in sheep's clothing. What's that famous line
those christer's always parrot...? Oh yeah: "The greatest
trick the devil ever played was to convince man that he did
not exist" -- Why, what an ironic thing to say! ಠ_ಠ

> it doesn't work.

Sorry, but past events have no effect on the outcome of
future events. Let me take a crack at it, I'm sure i can do
a better job of convincing them to keep their private
matters private. Ha, I'm not the type of person that judges
my self-worth by counting the attendees at my birthday
party. I really don't give a monkey's toss regarding
people's opinions of me.

> > Would any sane society protect the right of an infected
> > person to spread biological disease to unwitting hosts?
> > OF COURSE NOT! Religion is no different than any viral agent,
> > and "this idea", that religion is beyond reproach, must be
> > destroyed along with it.
>
> And when some idea you hold near and dear is identified as
> a "virus," what then?

You cannot defeat my argument simply by: "reducing it to the
absurd". Yes, you make a fair point about the dangers of
"thought policing", and that, "generally", it would be easy
to abuse such a power. But *ANY* power can be abused -- so
what's the point? My judgment of religion has not come
without *SERIOUS* consideration. Heck, i've spent most of my
*LIFE* making a judgment regarding religion. And i have
seen both the "good" and "bad" aspects of these
"organizations", and i can tell you from experience, the
good *DOES NOT* outweigh the bad. And i don't make my
judgement purely from *MY* personal experience alone, no,
that would be foolish of me, because emotion does not
provide a clear path to the truth. I have come to my
judgement by *OBSERVING* the manner in which these
organizations operate, and i can tell you with *ABSOLUTE*
certainty, more certainty than i've ever had in my *ENTIRE*
life, that they are corrupt to the fucking core!. What you
and the other "religious protectionist" don't seem to
understand, is that, i don't want to prevent a grown adult
from believing, or practicing their religion. "Policing
minds" is an impractical goal. All i want, is for them to
stop indoctrinating *ANYONE*. Stop talking about it in
public, and keep it to themselves. In other words, SHUT THE
FUCK UP! The problem is, they won't, no, they are hell-bent
on spreading this disease, and they know that if they stop
the propagation, it's history in a generation or two. My
argument is simple: if your religion is *SO* damn great,
then why must you brainwash children of it's greatness? Do
you really believe that children have the mental fortitude
to handle such abstract ideas such as "the supernatural"? Do
you really think presenting them with your anthropomorphized
dichotomy of "gods vs devils" won't disturb their
psychology? Do you *REALLY* believe, that it is healthy for
a child to be told he/she is being watched 24 hours a day,
and that not "repenting for sins", will cause them to suffer
terribly in the "afterlife". So yes, i *DO* believe religion
is a virus, and i won't apologize for saying that!. It's a
"mental virus", a "communicable infection of the mind", and
one that is not easily cured once it takes hold! I feel that
it is my duty, as a compassionate human being, to do
everything within my power to undermine the influence of
*ALL* religions, and if i ever do, hold, within my hands,
the "reins of absolute *POWER*", they'd be wise to listen to
the advice of my good friend Roger Waters, and RUN LIKE
HELL! You see, that's the thing about casting out mind
spooks, sometimes, a celestial body will get trapped in an
elliptical orbit, one that leads directly back to the
asshole, or assholes, who originally endowed it with
momentum.

> Religion isn't above reproach, at least not in the First
> World societies that still allow freedom of speech. I am
> worried that some who think they are descended from the
> liberal* tradition are beginning to develop an ethic that
> forbids criticism of certain religions based on cultural
> relativism and a fear of being seen as racist or otherwise
> culturally biased.

Anyone that knows me, would *NEVER* accuse me of being
liberal, at least, not in the "strict political sense" anyway.
But everything is retaliative you know. Heck, if some of my
old "theist friends" met me today, they might call me a
liberal, but coming from them, ha, i would consider it a
complement! O:-)

> I think this is the basis of Christian complaints that
> their religion is fair game for criticism, while others
> need to be understood. Any such double standard ought to
> be quashed.

Believe it or not, because this is true... i get *VERY*
offended when i observe people bashing Christianity out of
"one side of their face", and then, catch them brown-nosing
other religions from "the other side of their face". Of
course, i don't get offended because i think Christianity is
any less innocent than the others, no, but because i loath
hypocrisy. Even people who claim to be Atheist do this
regularly. I understand they are "more directly" victims of
Christianity, than of other religions, i just wish they
would see the parallels between *ALL* religions. But perhaps
that's because i'm more than just a *MERE* Atheist, i'm also
a proud anti-theist.

> All theistic religion should be criticized, especially if
> its adherents are restricting the rights of non-believers
> or members of other sects.

The problem is, "restriction" is the default behavior of
*ALL* religions. Anytime you brainwash other people, you are
restricting their right to be free. Freedom begins and ends,
in the mind. Since i was a preteen, i have been an Atheist,
although, i've never admitted that fact to anyone up until
about one year ago. I became anti-theist when i realized
that everything they do, *EVERYTHING*, is a means to a
brainwashing end. I would be both a fool, and a heartless
self-centered *JERK*, to not pro-actively attempt to
undermine this plague of mental illness, that has enslaved a
majority of my fellow species.

> Any religion that doesn't necessarily rely on a god or
> gods (ex: Buddhism) should be able to be criticized if its
> tenets don't comport with the real universe (or
> multiverse, or whatever.)

Exactly. If anyone thinks their religion will be damaged by
dissenting opinions, then apparently, they don't have much
faith after-all.

> If that hurts anyone's feelings, well, boo-hoo, I have a
> tissue for you.

If it's any constellation, i detest them all :-)

> Once that debate becomes regulated by the state, we are
> done for.

Unlike most of my fellow atheist, i distrust government as
much as i distrust religion. Gods are a figment of people's
imaginations, and can do you no harm -- so long as you avoid
the delusional followers, you're mostly safe. But government
is a *REAL* entity, with *REAL* power, and it can cause you some
*REAL* harm. To be honest, i don't know which is more
dangerous: "devout religious people" or "devout Stateist".
It's a coin toss at best...

> Fighting bad ideas with good ones, that I can get behind.

Hey pal, now you're speaking my language! ;-)

[hypatiab7]

Their voting records and behavior. Of course, they wouldn't say it out loud.

> > >
> > > And, since they belong to many different religions,
> > >
> > > Actually, only 3.

No, as I said each religion breaks down into many smaller versions. Or do you
call Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc., sects or cults.

> >
> > There are countless 'Christian' religions, several Jewish religions and
> > several Muslim religions. Plus, many American citizens are Hindus and
> > Buddhists. Plus, the number of atheists and agnostics seems to double
> > every ten years.
>
> Denominations are not religions.

When you are asked what religion you belong to, do you say that you belong
to the Roman Catholic denomination? Don't be ridiculous.

[Wexford Eire]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:50:23 AM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:

> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-5, John Locke wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> > <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> > >
>

> Here's what I like about the First Amendment: people are free
> to believe or not.
>
> [quote]
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
>
> [/quote]
>
>
> The "make no law respecting an establishment.." clause means there
> can be no national, Federally sanctioned religion, on the model
> of The Church of England at the time of the framing.

It also means that congress won't recognize in any way, religions officially adopted by states. Mass and some other states had state religions. With the passage of the 14th amendment, the first was applied to all states and localities, so any place wth an official religion had to abandon it. That's didn't keep some protestant sects from imposing their peculiar beliefs on localities, however. The Dutch Reformed and Baptists certainly did.

"prohibiting
> the free exercise thereof;..." means there can be no Federal bans
> on any or all religious sects, and no meddling in how these groups
> are run.

No. There are restraints on religion and religious activities. In most jurisdictions, for example, poison drinking and poison snake handling, as part of religious ceremony, are outlawed. One can't refuse medical treatment for a child and simply try to pray the child to health. Animal sacrifices can be banned. Sacred prostitution might be prosecuted. Other, illegal activities might be prohibited (dope usage, etc.)

Equivalent clauses in state constitutions, and the extension
> of the suite of rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to the states,
> under the incorporation doctrine (See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights )
>
> means the several states have to keep their hands off churches,

As long as they operate legally.

and
> respect the individuals right of conscience.
>
> Additionally, the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was
> passed, forbids religious tests for office. This has also,
> either explicitly or de facto, been adopted by the states.

The states have no choice at this point.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause

>
>
> > ...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
> > religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
> > constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government
>

> Which should be combated. I'd fire all the chaplains at government
> institutions, knock off the invocations and prayers at government
> meetings, and other stuff on the taxpayers' dime.


In principle I agree with you, but most of these things have a minimal effect on anything. All you'd do is create ill feeling with theist morons and vindicate the persecution myths of theist psychotics. I would like to see military chaplains all reduced to the rank of private, however. I wonder how many would volunteer for chaplain assignments who were not given direct commissions as Captains and had to live in the barracks and endure the crap and pay that common soldiers are made to endue.

> > and into the public school system.
>

> I'm not in favor of that, either, but I'd privatize the government
> schools and colleges.

Good. Then you'd have an abysmally ignorant, illiterate general public. What to create a nation of serfs and masters? Abolish public schools. What economic stagnation and superstition in the place of science and engineering? Abolish pubic schools.

Then, if people wanted to send their kids
> to religious schools, they could.

That can do that right now, and have been able to do that for the past 200 years.

I've no problem with a vet
> spending his GI Bill at Notre Dame or Southern Methodist, and I
> have no objection to a voucher system that includes religious schools
> as a transitional measure while the government out of the schooling
> business.

And you have no problem with destroying the public school system, either. Moron. Schools, incidentally, are the business of LOCAL government, not the federal government. The Feds have little say about schools or what is taught in them. Even the current hobgoblin "Common Core" bubbled up from the states, although the morons running for office on the right blame it on the feds. The grossest imposition of the fed government on public education happened when Bush and the CONSERVATIVES imposed No Child Left Behind, threatening to withhold education grants if the states didn't play along.

The Framers should have included "no government schools"
> in the First Amendment, but those hardly existed at the time, so
> they didn't.

They didn't because they knew it would be stupid and destructive to do so.


>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
>
> Kevin R

[WeHang FagZ]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 5:11:00 AM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote:

> >
> > Denominations are not religions.
>
> When you are asked what religion you belong to, do you say that you belong
> to the Roman Catholic denomination? Don't be ridiculous.

The term CATHOLIC in the sense used in the CREED means UNIVERSAL, and the Church in the same phrase refers to the LITURGY or the mass.
Here is the excerpt of the CREED:
"And we Believe in ONE Holy CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC Church"

Since Church is NOT a non-governmental organization, and as used by the Lord Himself in the Gospel meant the equivalent of the Roman Sacred Senate or Law House, it can only mean Liturgy when used in connection to the Altar.

SO WE BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY, APOSTOLIC AND UNIVERSAL LITURGY(MASS) should have been the proper formulation.
------
Dear Lord, what's Israel that you waste our time for them, and the smelling Jews yet their smell bothers you not. Yet they smell so bad.

[Kevrob]

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 10:49:37 PM UTC-4, rantingri...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:23:50 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
> > Religious belief isn't a "virus," anymore than some
> > obnoxious political philosophy is, or any other stupid
> > societal meme. Stretching metaphors like that is sloppy
> > thinking.
>
> Oh really? How about i bring this into the realms of cold
> *HARD* reality for ya, hmm. Have you ever spent any time in
> the company of deeply religious people?

Would 12 years of Catholic elementary and secondary education,
and a degree from a Jesuit university count? How about coming
from a large Irish-American Catholic family, with some relatives
who entered the clergy, with years spent as an altar boy, choir
boy and lay reader, before I smartened up and quit it all? My
childhood was full of churchgoing and praying.

> Have you ever
> observed people "speaking in tongues",

No. There are Catholic charismatics who do some of that, but
it is more a Protestant thing in the US.

> or bobbing their
> heads while reading scripture, or chanting like psychotics?

Repetitive prayer, with the specific instruction to not think
while praying was something I encountered. Even when still
a believing child I hated my Mother's attempts to establish
a family custom of praying the rosary, aloud, on our knees.
It felt positively medieval.

> Have you ever looked into the "dead eyes" of someone who is
> convinced that god has put them on this earth to deliver
> "justice to sinners" -- people who will rationalize:
> torture, murder, and worse, in the name of "god"?
>

Yes, I've encountered the rabidly devout. IMNSHO, the eyes
were often wild with their intensity, rather than dead.

> > > The concepts of "free-thought" and "religion" are
> > > mutually exclusive! Perhaps these "altruist" should
> > > consider the consequences of the "freedoms" they are
> > > supposedly protecting.
> >
> > What is your alternative? State action to prevent parents
> > from teaching children to believe?
>
> Have you ever been forced to *LIVE* with deeply religious
> people? Have you ever been exposed to the death threats,
> both implicit and explicit, from family members, "friends",
> or the general public, for not believing in a God, much
> less, *THEIR* specific brand of Sky Daddy?

Yes. Corporal punishment was sometimes meted out for "misbehaving
in church" or otherwise not showing the "proper respect." There
weren't any credible threats to end me. They wanted you alive,
and subservient.

> Did you grow up
> in an "paranoid environment", were adults were constantly
> telling you that "god is *ALWAYS* watching".

Of course.

> Have you ever
> lived with a crazy aunt that constantly warned of an
> impending war between the forces of good and evil, and a
> rapture that would cause the "good people" to be immediately
> removed from this earth?

Millennialism (post- or pre-) isn't a big deal in Catholicism.

> Nutters who saw "works of the
> devil" in every tragedy or misfortune, no matter how
> insignificant.

Yup.

> Have you ever been forced to attend church
> services,

Many of them.

> in which you were given hallucinogens without your
> knowledge or consent?

Not that I am aware of.

> I have personally experienced *EVERY*
> one of these things, and all while i was a very young child,
> who was unable to escape from the madness of this situation.
> And i spent many years recovering from the damage it caused.
> But forget about me, are you going to tell me that these
> experiences do not cause serious psychological damage to a
> person, *ESPECIALLY* a child?

I am sorry you were so maltreated. There's a good case that can
be made that parents can and do cross the line between indoctrination
and child abuse. It still remains that a virus is a physical phenomenon,
and the transmission of religious ideas is only a "virus" metaphorically.

It might be more accurate to call them memes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

> If so, then apparently, YOU DON"T KNOW SHIT!
>

You do realize you experience is almost certainly an outlier,
and the great majority of kids in religious families in the
US don't experience anything near as bad as being drugged.

> > That's been tried. Not only is it tyrannical,
>
> No, what's "tyrannical" is organizations that market
> themselves as "altruistic", when, in reality, are nothing less
> than wolves in sheep's clothing. What's that famous line
> those christer's always parrot...? Oh yeah: "The greatest
> trick the devil ever played was to convince man that he did
> not exist" -- Why, what an ironic thing to say! ಠ_ಠ
>

I think religion is on net harmful, but there are parts of those
structures that do some good. The Church I grew up in educated
children and young adults, and in earlier eras provided that
education when the dominant culture limited their access to that.
You know about quotas on Jews and Catholics at our universities
in the past, right? Not minimums - maximums. The various churches
also built and ran hospitals. A local church can be a nexus for
mutual aid for its community. Those are good things, though
I don't see why those functions couldn't be transferred to non-faith-
based groups.

> > it doesn't work.
>
> Sorry, but past events have no effect on the outcome of
> future events.

Sorry, I have a history degree. I don't think the future is
determined, but the past has influence.

There have been societies that tried to suppress the dominant
religion their people followed, to little avail. Soviet Russia
and revolutionary France come to mind.

> Let me take a crack at it, I'm sure i can do
> a better job of convincing them to keep their private
> matters private. Ha, I'm not the type of person that judges
> my self-worth by counting the attendees at my birthday
> party. I really don't give a monkey's toss regarding
> people's opinions of me.
>
> > > Would any sane society protect the right of an infected
> > > person to spread biological disease to unwitting hosts?
> > > OF COURSE NOT! Religion is no different than any viral agent,
> > > and "this idea", that religion is beyond reproach, must be
> > > destroyed along with it.
> >

You are asserting a "fact" not in evidence. Religion is an
idea. I never said it was above reproach. Reproach away.

> > And when some idea you hold near and dear is identified as
> > a "virus," what then?
>
> You cannot defeat my argument simply by: "reducing it to the
> absurd". Yes, you make a fair point about the dangers of
> "thought policing", and that, "generally", it would be easy
> to abuse such a power. But *ANY* power can be abused -- so
> what's the point?

I'm a political. I don't trust state power at all.

> My judgment of religion has not come
> without *SERIOUS* consideration. Heck, i've spent most of my
> *LIFE* making a judgment regarding religion. And i have
> seen both the "good" and "bad" aspects of these
> "organizations", and i can tell you from experience, the
> good *DOES NOT* outweigh the bad.

I agreed with that, above.

> And i don't make my
> judgement purely from *MY* personal experience alone, no,
> that would be foolish of me, because emotion does not
> provide a clear path to the truth. I have come to my
> judgement by *OBSERVING* the manner in which these
> organizations operate, and i can tell you with *ABSOLUTE*
> certainty, more certainty than i've ever had in my *ENTIRE*
> life, that they are corrupt to the fucking core!.

There is a lot of corruption.

You are dangerously close to the old Soviet practice of labeling
your political adversaries as mentally ill. That's sloppy
thinking, with horrible real world effects.

> > Religion isn't above reproach, at least not in the First
> > World societies that still allow freedom of speech. I am
> > worried that some who think they are descended from the
> > liberal* tradition are beginning to develop an ethic that
> > forbids criticism of certain religions based on cultural
> > relativism and a fear of being seen as racist or otherwise
> > culturally biased.
>
> Anyone that knows me, would *NEVER* accuse me of being
> liberal, at least, not in the "strict political sense" anyway.
> But everything is retaliative you know. Heck, if some of my
> old "theist friends" met me today, they might call me a
> liberal, but coming from them, ha, i would consider it a
> complement! O:-)
>

I would have been called a "liberal," at least before progressives
and socialists hijacked the term.

OK, you are in the white heat of your "de-conversion experience."
I probably was as excitable 35 years ago.

> I became anti-theist when i realized
> that everything they do, *EVERYTHING*, is a means to a
> brainwashing end. I would be both a fool, and a heartless
> self-centered *JERK*, to not pro-actively attempt to
> undermine this plague of mental illness, that has enslaved a
> majority of my fellow species.
>

There it is. "Mental illness." That is loaded language,
and isn't helpful. "everyone who disagrees with me is nuts"
won't win many arguments.

> > Any religion that doesn't necessarily rely on a god or
> > gods (ex: Buddhism) should be able to be criticized if its
> > tenets don't comport with the real universe (or
> > multiverse, or whatever.)
>
> Exactly. If anyone thinks their religion will be damaged by
> dissenting opinions, then apparently, they don't have much
> faith after-all.
>
> > If that hurts anyone's feelings, well, boo-hoo, I have a
> > tissue for you.
>
> If it's any constellation, i detest them all :-)
>
> > Once that debate becomes regulated by the state, we are
> > done for.
>
> Unlike most of my fellow atheist, i distrust government as
> much as i distrust religion. Gods are a figment of people's
> imaginations, and can do you no harm -- so long as you avoid
> the delusional followers, you're mostly safe. But government
> is a *REAL* entity, with *REAL* power, and it can cause you some
> *REAL* harm. To be honest, i don't know which is more
> dangerous: "devout religious people" or "devout Stateist".
> It's a coin toss at best...
>

The worst, of course, are those who commandeer the State to
enforce their opinions about religion.

FOR or AGAINST.

> > Fighting bad ideas with good ones, that I can get behind.
>
> Hey pal, now you're speaking my language! ;-)

Back atcha.

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Wexford Eire wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:50:23 AM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-5, John Locke wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> > > <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> > > >
> >
> > Here's what I like about the First Amendment: people are free
> > to believe or not.
> >
> > [quote]
> >
> > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
> >
> > [/quote]
> >
> >
> > The "make no law respecting an establishment.." clause means there
> > can be no national, Federally sanctioned religion, on the model
> > of The Church of England at the time of the framing.
>
> It also means that congress won't recognize in any way, religions officially adopted by states. Mass and some other states had state religions. With the passage of the 14th amendment, the first was applied to all states and localities, so any place wth an official religion had to abandon it. That's didn't keep some protestant sects from imposing their peculiar beliefs on localities, however. The Dutch Reformed and Baptists certainly did.

Mass and the other states disestablished before the Civil War.

[quote]


The end of religious taxes in Massachusetts was finalized in 1833 (McLoughlin, p. 1259) through enactment of the eleventh amendment to the state constitution (McLoughlin, pp. 1205-1206; 1253-1260).

[/quote]

http://preview.tinyurl.com/MAchurchtax1833 OR

http://tinyurl.com/MAchurchtax1833 which is

http://uscivilliberties.org/historical-overview/3703-disestablishment-of-state-churches-in-the-late-eighteenth-century-and-early-nineteenth-century.html

>
> "prohibiting
> > the free exercise thereof;..." means there can be no Federal bans
> > on any or all religious sects, and no meddling in how these groups
> > are run.
>
> No. There are restraints on religion and religious activities. In most jurisdictions, for example, poison drinking and poison snake handling, as part of religious ceremony, are outlawed. One can't refuse medical treatment for a child and simply try to pray the child to health. Animal sacrifices can be banned. Sacred prostitution might be prosecuted. Other, illegal activities might be prohibited (dope usage, etc.)
>

Which is to say, actions that are otherwise illegal aren't made legal by
making them part of your religion. Some of that is BS. I see no reason
why animal sacrifice has to be banned. It doesn't have to be any
bloodier than butchering a hog.

> Equivalent clauses in state constitutions, and the extension
> > of the suite of rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to the states,
> > under the incorporation doctrine (See:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights )
> >
> > means the several states have to keep their hands off churches,
>
> As long as they operate legally.
>
> and
> > respect the individuals right of conscience.
> >
> > Additionally, the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was
> > passed, forbids religious tests for office. This has also,
> > either explicitly or de facto, been adopted by the states.
>
> The states have no choice at this point.
>

A good thing, too, but preceded by disestablishment by the states.

> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
> >
> >
> > > ...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
> > > religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
> > > constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government
> >
> > Which should be combated. I'd fire all the chaplains at government
> > institutions, knock off the invocations and prayers at government
> > meetings, and other stuff on the taxpayers' dime.
>
>
> In principle I agree with you, but most of these things have a minimal effect on anything. All you'd do is create ill feeling with theist morons and vindicate the persecution myths of theist psychotics. I would like to see military chaplains all reduced to the rank of private, however. I wonder how many would volunteer for chaplain assignments who were not given direct commissions as Captains and had to live in the barracks and endure the crap and pay that common soldiers are made to endue.
>

I'd let the chaplains ride with the troops. I'd just treat them like war
co-respondents: employees of their churches, paid for by their churches.

> > > and into the public school system.
> >
> > I'm not in favor of that, either, but I'd privatize the government
> > schools and colleges.
>
> Good. Then you'd have an abysmally ignorant, illiterate general public. What to create a nation of serfs and masters? Abolish public schools. What economic stagnation and superstition in the place of science and engineering? Abolish pubic schools.
>

Our publik skools aren't doing such a swell job, especially among
our poorest and most messed up families.

> Then, if people wanted to send their kids
> > to religious schools, they could.
>
> That can do that right now, and have been able to do that for the past 200 years.
>
> I've no problem with a vet
> > spending his GI Bill at Notre Dame or Southern Methodist, and I
> > have no objection to a voucher system that includes religious schools
> > as a transitional measure while the government out of the schooling
> > business.
>
> And you have no problem with destroying the public school system, either. Moron.

So, here it comes. Abandon argument, and resort to insult.

>Schools, incidentally, are the business of LOCAL government, not the
> federal government.

I well know this, and didn't say otherwise.

> The Feds have little say about schools or what is taught in them.

Actually, Federal Aid to public education is a tail that wags the dog.
If you don't follow Title this or Title that, the district can be
shut out of grants.

> Even the current hobgoblin "Common Core" bubbled up from the states,
> although the morons running for office on the right blame it on the
> feds. The grossest imposition of the fed government on public education
> happened when Bush and the CONSERVATIVES imposed No Child Left Behind,
> threatening to withhold education grants if the states didn't play along.
>

I won't carry water for the conservatives/Republicans. I'm a Libertarian,
not a Bushie. I can't tell you how much I loathe a hypocritical clown
like William Bennett.

> The Framers should have included "no government schools"
> > in the First Amendment, but those hardly existed at the time, so
> > they didn't.
>
> They didn't because they knew it would be stupid and destructive to do so.

Actually, that would have taken amazing foresight, `cause the critters
didn't exist back then.

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 8:12:57 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:

> I'm a political. I don't trust state power at all.

Oops. Typo. That should have read:

"I'm a political Libertarian. I don't trust state power at all."

Kevin R

[Wexford Eire]

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 4:38:40 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 8:34:55 AM UTC-4, Wexford Eire wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:50:23 AM UTC-5, Kevrob wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-5, John Locke wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> > > > <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Here's what I like about the First Amendment: people are free
> > > to believe or not.
> > >
> > > [quote]
> > >
> > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
> > >
> > > [/quote]
> > >
> > >
> > > The "make no law respecting an establishment.." clause means there
> > > can be no national, Federally sanctioned religion, on the model
> > > of The Church of England at the time of the framing.
> >
> > It also means that congress won't recognize in any way, religions officially adopted by states. Mass and some other states had state religions. With the passage of the 14th amendment, the first was applied to all states and localities, so any place wth an official religion had to abandon it. That's didn't keep some protestant sects from imposing their peculiar beliefs on localities, however. The Dutch Reformed and Baptists certainly did.
>
> Mass and the other states disestablished before the Civil War.

I didn't say they didn't. At the time the constitution was drafted there were still state churches. The Congregationalists just about ran a good chunk of New England. There are still dry towns in New Jersey because of municipal code restrictions inserted by the Dutch Reformed church.

>
> [quote]
>
>
> The end of religious taxes in Massachusetts was finalized in 1833 (McLoughlin, p. 1259) through enactment of the eleventh amendment to the state constitution (McLoughlin, pp. 1205-1206; 1253-1260).
>
> [/quote]
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/MAchurchtax1833 OR
>
> http://tinyurl.com/MAchurchtax1833 which is
>
> http://uscivilliberties.org/historical-overview/3703-disestablishment-of-state-churches-in-the-late-eighteenth-century-and-early-nineteenth-century.html

What's your point??? 1833 wasn't 1789.

> >
> > "prohibiting
> > > the free exercise thereof;..." means there can be no Federal bans
> > > on any or all religious sects, and no meddling in how these groups
> > > are run.
> >
> > No. There are restraints on religion and religious activities. In most jurisdictions, for example, poison drinking and poison snake handling, as part of religious ceremony, are outlawed. One can't refuse medical treatment for a child and simply try to pray the child to health. Animal sacrifices can be banned. Sacred prostitution might be prosecuted. Other, illegal activities might be prohibited (dope usage, etc.)
> >
>
> Which is to say, actions that are otherwise illegal aren't made legal by
> making them part of your religion. Some of that is BS. I see no reason
> why animal sacrifice has to be banned. It doesn't have to be any
> bloodier than butchering a hog.

Any moron who wants to kill animals for God can go do it somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.

[Wexford Eire]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 2:01:02 AM UTC-5, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <547eab89-dea6-49df...@googlegroups.com>,
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:51:31 PM UTC-5, rantingri...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:43:00 PM UTC-6, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> > >
> > > ############################################################
> > > # From The Article... #
> > > ############################################################
> > > # Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights #
> > > # is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, #
> > > # conscience, and religion. #
> > > ############################################################
> > >
> > > Well that's a contradiction in terms! How can anyone have
> > > "freedom of thought" once the "god virus" starts influencing
> > > their thoughts?
> >

> > Religious belief isn't a "virus," anymore than some obnoxious
> > political philosophy is, or any other stupid societal meme.
> > Stretching metaphors like that is sloppy thinking.
> >

> > > The concepts of "free-thought" and
> > > "religion" are mutually exclusive! Perhaps these "altruist"
> > > should consider the consequences of the "freedoms" they are
> > > supposedly protecting.
> >
> > What is your alternative? State action to prevent parents from

> > teaching children to believe? That's been tried. Not only is
> > it tyrannical, it doesn;t work.
>
>
> You teach children how to think critically in every school, starting in
> 1st grade.
>

The pubic schools actually do that. One of things the fundies hate about common core is its emphasis on thinking. The fundies and the rightaloons (who are the most gullible morons in this country) are fed a constant stream of negative propaganda about public schools, mostly by people who (1) hate the teachers' unions and (2) want to privatize the schools and make money off them. Actually, depending on the neighborhood, public education in the US isn't badly done. Inner city schools and some rural schools are problematical but much of that derives not from the school or teachers or curriculum but from societal pressures, poverty and family issues. My children all attended JF Kennedy public high school in Paterson, NJ. The typical student in the school wasn't very good and wasn't very well educated, but the school did an excellent job with the college bound kids. The distinction in learning and knowledge between those in general studies and those in college prep was immense. The United States has had more Nobel Laureates than any other county. I remember reading that of them, over 90% had attended public grade and high schools. That same percentage holds for our doctors, engineers, scientists and thinkers.
>
> JD
>
> "If ANYONE will not welcome you or listen to
> your words, LEAVE that home or town and shake
> the dust off your feet." Matthew 10:14

[Wexford Eire]

What do you trust, lynch law and vigilantism?

[Kevrob]

Some of our LEOs in the US seem to be able to provide
summary execution just fine as things are.

Kevin R

[hypatiab7]

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 1:23:30 PM UTC-5, The Chief Castrator Of The Jews wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 5:10:39 AM UTC-5, hypatiab7 wrote:
>
> >
> > How do you define who is or isn't a Jew? And please learn how to spell.
>
>
> "If" you are a Jew. "If": Conjunction meaning in case that, on condition that...
> Example: Hey Ms. Malsaine, call your fellow Jew "If" you need a male companion.

IOW, you can't define who is a Jew. That's what I thought, Mr. Nothing But
Hot Air.

[JTEM]

Cloud Hobbit wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
> > It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
> > new one.

> The liar strikes again. Atheism is

You're fucked up.

Once again, everything I said is fact. It's not
a matter open to debate. You either know the
facts or you're a fucking douche bag on another
emotional rant.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149348284603

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 2:09:35 PM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
> > > It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
> > > new one.
>
> > The liar strikes again. Atheism is
>

> I am fucked up.

Yes, you are.

>
> Once again, everything I said is fact. It's not
> a matter open to debate. You either know the
> facts or you're a fucking douche bag on another
> emotional rant.

There is no fact presented or what you have are not true.
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149348284603

[JTEM]

hhya...@gmail.com wrote:

> There is

I could post the contents of the phone books and
the collective, thirsty for some JTEM, would be
compelled to "Disagree" in the most infantile
manner feasible.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149399465173

[maldona...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 6:43:00 PM UTC-8, Joe Bruno wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

Very nice. You found a definition of something that does not exist here or in the former soviet union. What about it?

[maldona...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:50:23 AM UTC-8, Kevrob wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:11:32 AM UTC-5, John Locke wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> > <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> > >
>
> Here's what I like about the First Amendment: people are free
> to believe or not.
>
> [quote]
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
>
> [/quote]
>
>
> The "make no law respecting an establishment.." clause means there
> can be no national, Federally sanctioned religion, on the model

> of The Church of England at the time of the framing. "prohibiting

> the free exercise thereof;..." means there can be no Federal bans
> on any or all religious sects, and no meddling in how these groups

> are run. Equivalent clauses in state constitutions, and the extension

> of the suite of rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to the states,
> under the incorporation doctrine (See:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights )
>

> means the several states have to keep their hands off churches, and

> respect the individuals right of conscience.
>
> Additionally, the Constitution, even before the Bill of Rights was
> passed, forbids religious tests for office. This has also,
> either explicitly or de facto, been adopted by the states.
>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
>
>
> > ...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
> > religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
> > constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government
>
> Which should be combated. I'd fire all the chaplains at government
> institutions, knock off the invocations and prayers at government
> meetings, and other stuff on the taxpayers' dime.
>

> > and into the public school system.
>
> I'm not in favor of that, either, but I'd privatize the government

> schools and colleges. Then, if people wanted to send their kids
> to religious schools, they could. I've no problem with a vet

> spending his GI Bill at Notre Dame or Southern Methodist, and I
> have no objection to a voucher system that includes religious schools
> as a transitional measure while the government out of the schooling

> business. The Framers should have included "no government schools"

> in the First Amendment, but those hardly existed at the time, so
> they didn't.
>

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
>
> Kevin R

Education falls under the 10th amendment.
The feds are not allowed to meddle in education that is a state issue.
What the feds do is offer money for things and also place strings on the money, which usually translates to more paperwork, and some control.

I don't understand why the states don't just look at who has he most successful schools and model themselves on that. There should not be a great disparity between schools in one state over another, until you come to states like California, Texas, Arizona and so on, who have large populations of Spanish speaking people.

Vouchers would have to come from each individual state, which means each state wold have to pass laws allowing them. I don't see that happening en mass, until a few states try it and find that it works.

Any school that charged more than a voucher would pay for would have parents that take a bigger role in their kids education.

I've seen the results for myself, when my own son attended a decent private school, he was at least a year ahead of the kids in public school when he switched.

[maldona...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 2:26:59 PM UTC-8, Jefferson Was A Slave Molester wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:43:00 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>
>

> >The United States and other secular states have used international treaties like the Universal >Declaration of Human Rights to campaign for freedom of religion within politically repressive >governments.[2]
>
>
> The United State areligious Government is worse than the Soviet State atheism. It is a covert enemy of monotheism.
> Our God beat Caesar and conquered everything in his dominion for us to enjoy except for polytheism and Idol worship and man made Laws. Hence the NEW COVENANT which the United States Constitution and the United Nations declaration are trying to undo.
> I prefer an enemy who comes to me without dissimulation. Then again the SERPENT was never dead yet.

Man you are funny.

Your god beat Caesar and conquered his dominion?
There are only man made laws.
Your god is about as real as your bible, and it's a mess.
Nobody is trying to undo your religion, they are just trying to prevent state sponsored religious indoctrination which would be immoral and illegal.
The enemy is your imagination. The cure is in another part of your brain, but it probably isn't working.
There is no serpent.

[maldona...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:12:16 PM UTC-8, WeHang FagZ And Jews Too wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:43:00 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>
>

> Christianity is a very secular system, like the Roman Sacred SENATE and the Roman Temple which were separated but connected, Saint Paul structured his system the same way: The Church and the Altar in keeping with the Roman republican system of government should be run separate yet connected under the authority of the same state.
> It was only in later date that popes blended the SENATE(Church) and the Temple(Altar) together. Then again the papal system could easily be converted back to Saint Paul original system to prevent the priests from running the government(SENATE OR THE CHURCH) and confine them to the Altar.
> This is why we just don't understand all the hoopla about Church and State supposed separation which we owe to the American founding fathers....
> WE OWE THEM NOTHING BUT CONFUSION.
> Please If you are a Jew, stay out of our bisiness, will you?

Oh fuck you, you ignoramus. you have no business for anybody to stay out of. If your are talking about the country, then Jews have as much right to bitch about as anyone else.

What you owe is your recognition that without the right to religious freedom, there's a very good chance you might have been killed in a religious war.

One of the reasons for including religious freedom is because when people came here to escape religious persecution, they ban right away persecution each other. Not what a country based on freedom for the individual needs in it's make up is a way to build in religious intolerance. By making them all irrelevant to government, it helps to keep religion somewhat competitive.
It's part of the reason along with the internet, that religion is dying, except for those fucking Muslims.

[maldona...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:51:31 PM UTC-8, Rick Johnson wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 8:43:00 PM UTC-6, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>

> ############################################################
> # From The Article... #
> ############################################################
> # Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights #
> # is designed to protect the right to freedom of thought, #
> # conscience, and religion. #
> ############################################################
>
> Well that's a contradiction in terms! How can anyone have
> "freedom of thought" once the "god virus" starts influencing

> their thoughts? The concepts of "free-thought" and

> "religion" are mutually exclusive! Perhaps these "altruist"
> should consider the consequences of the "freedoms" they are
> supposedly protecting.
>

> Would any sane society protect the right of an infected
> person to spread biological disease to unwitting hosts?
> OF COURSE NOT! Religion is no different than any viral agent,
> and "this idea", that religion is beyond reproach, must be
> destroyed along with it.

Religion is voluntary and nobody HAS to go to church. You have no choice about a virus. It certainly is not beyond reproach, it practically invites it.
Religion is based on a lot of very bad ideas. they only way to fight a bad idea is with a better idea. We need a better way to sell people on the idea that everything they believe is false. Especially when there are so many people who believe in this nonsense. People practically need to be deprogrammed. They need a steady barrage of questions that the only answers possible lead to admitting god is imaginary, and nothing in the universe needs a god to make sure it happens. The universe does just fine without him/her/it.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 2:26:45 PM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > There is
>
> I could post the contents of the phone books and
> the collective, thirsty for some JTEM, would be
> compelled to "Disagree" in the most infantile
> manner feasible.

And you think your posts are not unlike the contents of phone book?
At least phone book has most of their facts right, not yours.....
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149399465173

[Africa-Has-No-Boss]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:39:20 AM UTC-4, maldona...@gmail.com

>
> Religion is voluntary and nobody HAS to go to church.

I intended to clear up a trap set up by the clergy and you walked right into it. When Jesus spoke about building His Church He didn't mean the Altar or Shrine, so your contention that religion is voluntary is a result of a misunderstanding of the issue. And yes the Temple is the 4th branch of the government as it was under the pagan order, so privatizing it is an error.
That doesn't mean that the state has power to coerce people to pay visit to shrines.

[Africa-Has-No-Boss]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 7:39:20 AM UTC-4, maldona...@gmail.com wrot

They need a steady barrage of questions that the only answers possible lead to admitting god is imaginary, and nothing in the universe needs a god to make sure it happens. The universe does just fine without him/her/it.

Your opinion is not the truth. We have 2000 years of history and archives which contradict your Neo-Paganism

[Africa-Has-No-Boss]

Everything is in the definition and yours is in error. They erred... I mean your founding fathers didn't even get the definition of religion right. Why should we entrust them with our destiny?

[Africa-Has-No-Boss]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:47:26 AM UTC-4, maldona...@gmail.com
>

> Your god beat Caesar and conquered his dominion?
> There are only man made laws.

You mean the United States Constitution and all Laws derived from it?
As Christianity Even the 7 Sacraments might be men made but they are still CANONICAL meaning they meet the DIVINE standard under the NEW COVENANT.

[Africa-Has-No-Boss]

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 6:57:49 AM UTC-4, maldona...@gmail.com By

>making them all irrelevant to government, it helps to keep religion somewhat >competitive.

O Dear! there is but ONE religion:Monotheism, it can't compete against itself...

[JTEM]

https://youtu.be/mtdTRArHfNI

hhya...@gmail.com wrote:

> And you think

Yes I do, and I highly recommend that you try
it some time.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149427263885

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 11:06:09 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> https://youtu.be/mtdTRArHfNI
>
> hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And you think
>
> Yes I do, and I highly recommend that you try
> it some time.

See, JTEM is so predictable.....
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149427263885

[WeHang FagZ And Jews Too]

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:43:00 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

The United States is Atheistic by its Constitution.....The United States Constitution is NOT CANONICAL by that I mean that it is not consistent with the NEW COVENANT which makes JESUS into our NEW MOSES from generations to generations.....

[JTEM]

WeHang FagZ And Jews Too wrote:

> The United States is Atheistic by its Constitution

No it isn't.

Atheism is a religion. Period.

Legally atheism is a religion.

Effectively, atheism has always been a religion.

You can't teach "Atheism" in school. The government
can't endorse atheism any more than Islam or
Catholicism.

Legally. Constitutionally.

What's so shocking is NOT that the above is true,
but that, in the past, the collective has stupidly
equated science to atheism, and claimed that the
state DOES teach atheism.

...so the collective no more knows the definition
for "Science" than it does "Atheism".







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149844940934

[Kevrob]

Atheism is NOT a religion. It is an OPINION about religion,
that is to say, those based on theism aren't true.

It is a philosophical position that may be functionally treated as
equivalent to a religious belief in certain aspects of law, such
as judicial opinions that agents of the government can't discriminate
between religion or irreligion, but that is as far as it goes.

As Lincoln once cracked, calling an arm a leg doesn't make it one.

Kevin R

[JTEM]

I'm so sorry if your mental illness does not allow
you to cope with reality, but atheism is a religion.

Kevrob wrote:

> Atheism is NOT a religion.

Great. Another fucked-in-the-head fake atheists who
thinks he's God...

YOU don't get to decide. Know who does? The courts.
And the courts have ruled -- past tense -- that
atheism is a religion.

Know who brought it to court?

Atheists. Sometimes individuals, sometimes acting
as groups, it was always ATHEISTS marching into
court and demanding that, yes, atheism is a religion
and should be treated as such.

You? Who cares? Certainly not me. Certainly not
the government, nor the legal system.

Atheism is a religion.

Accept it & move on.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149848759418

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 5:13:05 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> WeHang FagZ And Jews Too wrote:
>
> > The United States is Atheistic by its Constitution
>
> No it isn't.

See how insane people see what they think.

>
> Atheism is a religion. Period.

Only moron says that.

>
> Legally atheism is a religion.

Oh, JTEM is a Federal Judge???

>
> Effectively, atheism has always been a religion.

Effectively, JTEM is no body.

>
> You can't teach "Atheism" in school. The government
> can't endorse atheism any more than Islam or
> Catholicism.

US constitution demands separation of religion from government.
But, atheism is a human value inherited naturally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>
> Legally. Constitutionally.
>
> What's so shocking is NOT that the above is true,
> but that, in the past, the collective has stupidly
> equated science to atheism, and claimed that the
> state DOES teach atheism.

JTEM is a moron and a emotional person, not wanted in our AA.

>
> ...so the collective no more knows the definition
> for "Science" than it does "Atheism".

Science supports atheism to be the only sane path for all human.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149844940934

[JTEM]

hhya...@gmail.com wrote:

> See how

Everything I said is an easily verifiable fact,
for anyone with access to the internet.

Google it. Take your meds.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149848759418

[Joe Bruno]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:39:14 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:11:23 -0800, John Locke
> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
> ><ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> >>

> >...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
> >religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with

> >constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government and

> >into the public school system.
>

> Once again, Mad Joe demonstrates what a psychopath he is.

By posting a link to wiki?????ROTFL!

[Joe Bruno]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:59:26 AM UTC-8, Jørgen Farum Jensen wrote:
> Den 03-03-2016 kl. 03:42 skrev Joe Bruno:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> >
> Do you have any comment?
>
Yup. Go fuck yourself.

[Kevrob]

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 6:56:05 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> I'm so sorry if your mental illness does not allow
> you to cope with reality, but atheism is a religion.
>
> Kevrob wrote:
>
> > Atheism is NOT a religion.
>
> Great. Another fucked-in-the-head fake atheists who
> thinks he's God...
>

I might be likelier to consider you other than a mouth-frothing loon
if you could manage noun/verb numerical agreement.

> YOU don't get to decide. Know who does? The courts.
> And the courts have ruled -- past tense -- that
> atheism is a religion.
>

Courts declare a lot of things to be so, that aren't.
_except in law._

> Know who brought it to court?
>
> Atheists. Sometimes individuals, sometimes acting
> as groups, it was always ATHEISTS marching into
> court and demanding that, yes, atheism is a religion
> and should be treated as such.
>

Have you got a link? I can imagine a group like
American Atheists doing something like that.

Anyway, one can belong to a religion, and be an atheist
of sorts. Buddhism does not require a belief in a deity,
and there are things like the Ethical Culture Society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_

Personally, I consider belief in any unproven supernatural
entities or states of being to be superstitions, just as
unjustified as theism, so Buddhism that accepts ideas like
nirvana and reincarnation to be functionally equivalent
to theism.

> You? Who cares? Certainly not me. Certainly not
> the government, nor the legal system.
>
> Atheism is a religion.
>

In the US, we have a First amendment. Government doesn't get
to decide what is a religion, or what isn't. Now, if said
organization wants non-profit, tax-exempt status, that may
become an issue, but not all religions want or need that.

> Accept it & move on.

If and when you are elected Pope of a.a, maybe. Not until.

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

Telling people to F themselves is such the mitvah.

You don't seem to be an atheist, "Joe." Why don't you
stop trolling the group? Unlike our fundie Christian
"pals," you aren't under the delusion that you've been
given a Great Commission, are you?

Kevin R

[Kevrob]

It occurs to me JTEM may be referencing a footnote in Torcaso v
Watkins.

See: https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/3346

David Koepsell explains why that is an over-reach.

Kevin R

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 11:05:28 AM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > See how
>
> Everything I said is an easily verifiable fact,
> for anyone with access to the internet.
>
> Google it. Take your meds.

So, if you are not born with common sense, don't assume others to be the same.
Common sensible knowledge can be understood with our personal ability and mind, not google.
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/149848759418

[hhya...@gmail.com]

Wow, psychiatric problem appeared when another person asked a simple question?
Hey, book a session with Dr Ezra and don't come back without effective treatment or medicine....

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:a7307aa7-b288-40cc-bb19-
73e511...@googlegroups.com:

Wiki is more accurate than the knee-slappers YOU post.




"The words "Under God" were removed from the official
version of the Pledge of Allegiance more than 50 years
ago in response to a Supreme Court ruling."
Art Tandy "Joe Bruno", April 22 2014.
No such case exists and the words are still there.

[duke]

On Sat, 03 Sep 2016 07:48:41 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net>
wrote:

>Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:a7307aa7-b288-40cc-bb19-
>73e511...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:39:14 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:11:23 -0800, John Locke
>>> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>>> ><ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>>> >>
>>> >...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
>>> >religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
>>> >constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government and
>>> >into the public school system.
>>>
>>> Once again, Mad Joe demonstrates what a psychopath he is.
>>
>> By posting a link to wiki?????ROTFL!

> Wiki is more accurate than the knee-slappers YOU post.

Wiki, the reader written book?

>"The words "Under God" were removed from the official
>version of the Pledge of Allegiance more than 50 years

Wrong - they were ADDED.

>ago in response to a Supreme Court ruling."
>Art Tandy "Joe Bruno", April 22 2014.
>No such case exists and the words are still there.
>
>
>
>

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Mitchell Holman]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:fafosbhfrsim8tbid...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 03 Sep 2016 07:48:41 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@verizont.net> wrote:
>
>>Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:a7307aa7-b288-40cc-bb19- 73e511...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:39:14 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:11:23 -0800, John Locke
>>>> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>>>> ><ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>>>> >>
>>>> >...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
>>>> >religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
>>>> >constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government
>>>> >and into the public school system.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, Mad Joe demonstrates what a psychopath he is.
>>>
>>> By posting a link to wiki?????ROTFL!
>
>> Wiki is more accurate than the knee-slappers YOU post.
>
> Wiki, the reader written book?
>
>>"The words "Under God" were removed from the official
>>version of the Pledge of Allegiance more than 50 years
>
> Wrong - they were ADDED.
>

True.

Thus proving Artie Joe is a liar.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 03 Sep 2016 07:48:41 -0500, Mitchell Holman
<noe...@verizont.net> wrote:

>Joe Bruno <ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:a7307aa7-b288-40cc-bb19-
>73e511...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 8:39:14 AM UTC-8, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 08:11:23 -0800, John Locke
>>> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:42:56 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
>>> ><ajtan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>>> >>
>>> >...meanwhile, today, here in the U.S. where we have freedom of
>>> >religion, religious morons continue to abuse the privilege with
>>> >constant illegal attempts at interjecting religion into government and
>>> >into the public school system.
>>>
>>> Once again, Mad Joe demonstrates what a psychopath he is.
>>
>> By posting a link to wiki?????ROTFL!


> Wiki is more accurate than the knee-slappers YOU post.

John's remark _was_ right on the button - and Mad Joe is a psychopath
when he posts button-pushingly nasty and deliberately offensive links.

He knows perfectly well that atheism is a non-event that neither
motivates nor justifies anything. Nobody does anything "because they
are atheist".

Theists lie about this all the time, when religion doesn't get the
free ride they imagine it should.

>"The words "Under God" were removed from the official
>version of the Pledge of Allegiance more than 50 years
>ago in response to a Supreme Court ruling."
>Art Tandy "Joe Bruno", April 22 2014.
>No such case exists and the words are still there.

When will Mad Joe admit he made a mistake?

[duke]

On Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:58:54 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net>

I think it's much more likely that you didn't understand what he said.

[Mitchell Holman]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:hsoqsb91roeefuevf...@4ax.com:

If you really want to defend Artie/Joe's claim
go for it. He certainly can't.

"The words "Under God" were removed from the official
version of the Pledge of Allegiance more than 50 years

ago in response to a Supreme Court ruling."
Art Tandy "Joe Bruno", April 22 2014.
No such case exists and the words are still there.

http://tinyurl.com/kwnwlek
http://tinyurl.com/muq9vhr

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:12:16 PM UTC-8, WeHang FagZ And Jews Too wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 9:43:00 PM UTC-5, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
>
>

> Christianity is a very secular system, like the Roman Sacred SENATE and the Roman Temple which were separated but connected, Saint Paul structured his system the same way: The Church and the Altar in keeping with the Roman republican system of government should be run separate yet connected under the authority of the same state.
> It was only in later date that popes blended the SENATE(Church) and the Temple(Altar) together. Then again the papal system could easily be converted back to Saint Paul original system to prevent the priests from running the government(SENATE OR THE CHURCH) and confine them to the Altar.
> This is why we just don't understand all the hoopla about Church and State supposed separation which we owe to the American founding fathers....
> WE OWE THEM NOTHING BUT CONFUSION.
> Please If you are a Jew, stay out of our bisiness, will you?

"Our" business? How dare you speak for anyone but your own sorry ass.
Learn how to spell business if you want people to stay out of it instead of make fun of it, you dumb fuck.

You speak for nobody.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 5:11:12 PM UTC-8, Joe Bruno wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 4:25:58 PM UTC-8, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:18:05 AM UTC-8, Joe Bruno wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:07:02 AM UTC-8, Kevrob wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 12:01:59 PM UTC-5, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> > > > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:59:28 +0100, Jørgen Farum Jensen
> > > > > <atei...@733.dk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Den 03-03-2016 kl. 03:42 skrev Joe Bruno:
> > > > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >Do you have any comment?
> > > > >

> > > > > Not without demonstrating that he is an even bigger bigot.
> > > >
> > > > There's no need for that.
> > > >
> > > > http://alt-atheism.org/atheism:joebruno
> > > >
> > > > Kevin R
> > >
> > > I never said I was a lawyer. In fact, I said I was not.
> >
> > You lying sack of shit. If you said you weren't a lawyer, it was only after a bit of research caught you lying again. You said you were a prosecutor in the Navy. That sure sounds like a lawyer to most people. Or do they let the Quartermasters prosecute cases?
>
> Legal officers.

You were trying to be deceptive and make yourself seem more important, as if we wouldn't still think you are an idiot if you had a law degree.

Then there was the time you had to fess up that "practicing law" meant something that lawyers do and you were not a lawyer.

You're a deceitful piece of shit and nothing you can do will ever change the fact that you have lied. You could try and redeem yourself by just acting like someone with integrity, (look it up)it would be interesting to see if you could pull it off.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 2:04:46 AM UTC-8, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-5, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 9:25:33 AM UTC-8, JTEM wrote:
> > > hhya...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > Do you know why Karl Marx had encouraged states to be free of religion?
> > >
> > > The state REPLACED God in communist countries.
> > > It didn't eliminate religion, it invented a
> > > new one.
>
> > >
> > The liar strikes again. Atheism is not a religion. Religions have magic people in the sky. Religion runs on faith. Atheists have no such faith.
> > You already know all this, so you knew you were lying. Why are all the theists who post here such liars? Why can't you make your case honestly? Could it be that your faith is not strong? Or could it be that it is impossible to prove that something exists when it doesn't.
>
>
>
> He didn't say that atheism is a religion. He said that the State was.
> That is what the Nazis and Communists did. People worshipped the State
> as a whole and believed that people were only cogs who existed only for
> the state. That is what religion does, whatever its form. It creates a mythology, whether it be State or Church, that humans become dehumanized
> cogs in. Atheism doesn't do this. Atheists are individuals who, if they
> don't live under a Church or State religion, learn to think for themselves.
>
> People who vote Republican want a religious government that would force everyone to think one way only. And, since they belong to many different religions, it probably won't be the way they want. They don't understand
> that under such a government, they would be the peasants with even less
> control over their lives than they now have - if they survived the change.

Where did that piece of rhetoric come from?

IME people vote Republican for one of 2 reasons, generally. One is they want politicians who represent their beliefs, no question about it. If they think that they are ever going to get a religious government, they are clearly crazy. The Constitution would have to be amended and I don't see it happening for this issue, ever.

The other reason is the GOP says it is for a free market economy which we have never had, it's always been some variation of a mixed economy. The problem is that both the GOP and the Democrats deal in crony capitalism and not free market policies.

As far as I can tell all the government agencies created mostly by Democrats, seem to good for is to encourage bribery to get laws favorable to anybody who works in anything covered by any given agency.

I think you might have been just edging into hyperbole a bit.

[duke]

On Mon, 05 Sep 2016 09:16:04 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net>

A simple error on his part at best. Maybe you're lying.

>"The words "Under God" were removed from the official
>version of the Pledge of Allegiance more than 50 years
>ago in response to a Supreme Court ruling."
>Art Tandy "Joe Bruno", April 22 2014.
>No such case exists and the words are still there.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/kwnwlek
>http://tinyurl.com/muq9vhr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mitchell Holman]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:26utsb191du7miilc...@4ax.com:

So why won't he admit it?

[duke]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 12:43:11 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net>

Maybe he was trying to see how dumb you are.

[Mitchell Holman]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:4gf6tbhrhp2l6t3ja...@4ax.com:

He runs away after being proven
wrong, just like you do.

[duke]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 21:19:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net>

It was just as likely he was trying to see how dumb you are. But either way, a
simple slip of the add/delete is the simple answer.