Atheist Group Sues University of Wisconsin Over Fort Hood Prayer
J
Thankfully the university was able to see through this charade and the
students were able to honor a friend, soldier, and fellow student.
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011527.cfm
Atheist Group Sues University of Wisconsin Over Fort Hood Prayer
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is protesting a prayer vigil
held at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. The university held the
event to honor Amy Kruger, a student who was killed in the Fort Hood
shootings earlier this month.
The service was student-planned and student-led. Students asked the Campus
Ministry Center to send out a campus-wide e-mail announcement.
In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
prayers."
The vigil went ahead as planned. Sara Kuhl, director of news and public
affairs for the university, said the administration felt the service was
justified.
"Our campus had suffered a loss," she said. "It was a very emotional time
for us, and in honor of Amy, we made a decision, and if I were to make that
decision again today, I probably would have done the same thing."
- Steve Jordahl
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Olrik
> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
"god" and religion should never, ever be in any kind of public, secular
event.
Your freedom of religion ends when you walk out of your home until you
enter your church.
<snip>
W.T.S.
news:3acepr....@news.alt.net...
> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon
> others. Thankfully the university was able to see through this charade and
> the students were able to honor a friend, soldier, and fellow student.
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011527.cfm
Prayer on campus? How sick and degenerate! Thank God for Atheist groups.
Bible, bad. Atheism, good!
Larry
> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> prayers."
>
>
They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
It's why the Rabbis don't at least APPEAR to control the US
Government....yet.
--
Larry
duke
>J wrote:
>> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
>
>"god" and religion should never, ever be in any kind of public, secular
>event.
A funeral is NEVER a secular event. But the public can be invited - but told to
shut the trap.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
Good for the eternal fires of hell.
duke
>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>
>> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
>> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
>> prayers."
>>
>>
>
>They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
>PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral. Public
invited if they choose to attend.
haiku jones
And of course if you had tried checking your
facts, you would have found that the Freedom
From Religion Foundation is doing no such thing.
They sent a letter asking that the announcement
be re-sent, and that it be called a "memorial service"
rather than a prayer service.
They did not sue. They did not threaten
to sue.
You really ought to look at "sources"
beyond citizenlink.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> >> prayers."
>
> >They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>
> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
<SNOFT!>
Say what? Where does the Constitution "specifically
ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
Silly boy, if I choose to hold my funeral -- a sit-down
event -- in the middle of the busiest street in all
of downtown, you may be quite confident that
the police will "hinder my funeral".
Same thing if I decide to hold it on your
front porch.
Haiku Jones
LC
Schizophrenic with a side of OCD, "J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:3acepr....@news.alt.net...
> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon
> others.
Then let's take away their tax exemptions!
Syd M.
> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
> Thankfully the university was able to see through this charade and the
> students were able to honor a friend, soldier, and fellow student.
>
They could have avoided the whole thing by holding this service in a
church. But then, of course, there would have been no chance to play
the martyr, would there?
PDW
JohnN
> Thankfully the university was able to see through this charade and the
> students were able to honor a friend, soldier, and fellow student.
>
> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011527.cfm
>
> Atheist Group Sues University of Wisconsin Over Fort Hood Prayer
>
> The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is protesting a prayer vigil
> held at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. The university held the
> event to honor Amy Kruger, a student who was killed in the Fort Hood
> shootings earlier this month.
>
Did the prayers bring her back to life? Did the god being prayed to
console her family and friends so they are now happy she was murdered?
If not, what was the point?
JohnN
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:53:46 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:3acepr....@news.alt.net...
>>> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon
>>> others. Thankfully the university was able to see through this charade and
>>> the students were able to honor a friend, soldier, and fellow student.
>>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011527.cfm
>>"citizenlink", Lies are what we do best!
>>Prayer on campus? How sick and degenerate! Thank God for Atheist groups.
>>Bible, bad. Atheism, good!
>
> Good for the eternal fires of hell.
So? You're on the express to there, by your own stupidity.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 2, Houston 1 (OT, November 22)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, November 25 at Hamilton, 6:05
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>>
>>> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
>>> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
>>> prayers."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
>>PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
Really? (It could be limited in that respect, obviously for the decedent's
family and friends, but the U makes the decision, and you'd have to whine
like the 70-odd-year-old baby you've been for more than a few years.)
> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral. Public
> invited if they choose to attend.
Precisely where, Delusional Duke? (Lay off the wine, dammit.)
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:12:45 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >J wrote:
> >> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
> >
> >"god" and religion should never, ever be in any kind of public, secular
> >event.
>
> A funeral is NEVER a secular event. But the public can be invited - but told to
> shut the trap.
What a moron.
There were funerals even before there were homo sapiens and their made
up gods.
Definitions of funeral on the Web:
a ceremony at which a dead person is buried or cremated;
"hundreds of people attended his funeral"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Sure sounds like a secular event to me.
It is religion that has to be invited.
Mark Sebree
Closure for her friends and family, mostly.
Mark Sebree
> JohnN
JumpsOnFire
Really? Lets see you enforce your restrictions on individual rights.
>
Olrik
Again, your individual rights ends when mine begin. It's not very
complicated.
J
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:30741259-7d81-4ee2...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
....and who say's there's no such thing as a stupid question?
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Syd M.
Not you, for sure.
PDW
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
In other words, he achieved his object. A good troll.
Ben
JumpsOnFire
Then If I don't see you, fuck you. In fact if I do see you I'll still
tell you to get fucked. The only way you're going to infringe on my
civil rights is to kick my ass and you being the pussy you are THAT
JUST AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN, BOY! That I can easily stomp a mud hole in
your scrawny ass with a post to a newsgroup imagine what I would do to
you in a street fight...
Olrik
You're funny, kid. Now just go out and pick a fight with anyone you
disagree with.
Buh bye.
WangoTango
says...
duke
>In article <rfkng5dqmq7j6q5as...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:12:45 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >J wrote:
>> >> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
>> >
>> >"god" and religion should never, ever be in any kind of public, secular
>> >event.
>>
>> A funeral is NEVER a secular event. But the public can be invited - but told to
>> shut the trap.
>
>What a moron.
>There were funerals even before there were homo sapiens and their made
>up gods.
And a funeral is a chance to see that the dead are dead and to pray them a safe
trip to heaven with God.
It's not a secular event unless the family so says. You are therefore an invited
atheist, and it's only polite to keep your f_cking mouth shut.
>Sure sounds like a secular event to me.
>It is religion that has to be invited.
The family decided. Live and learn.
duke
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:32:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:53:46 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3acepr....@news.alt.net...
>>>> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon
>>>> others. Thankfully the university was able to see through this charade and
>>>> the students were able to honor a friend, soldier, and fellow student.
>>>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011527.cfm
>>>"citizenlink", Lies are what we do best!
>>>Prayer on campus? How sick and degenerate! Thank God for Atheist groups.
>>>Bible, bad. Atheism, good!
>>
>> Good for the eternal fires of hell.
>
>So? You're on the express to there, by your own stupidity.
If you say "bible bad, atheism good", bend over, stick your head between your
legs, and kiss your ass goodbye.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 24, 5:33�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>>
>> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
>> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
>> >> prayers."
>>
>> >They'd be correct. �To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
>> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>>
>> It was not a public event. �It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>>
>
>> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>
><SNOFT!>
>
>Say what? Where does the Constitution "specifically
>ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
It specifically prohibits the free exercise of one's religious.
>Silly boy, if I choose to hold my funeral -- a sit-down
>event -- in the middle of the busiest street in all
>of downtown, you may be quite confident that
>the police will "hinder my funeral".
Not if you get you license first.
duke
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:33:34 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in news:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>>>
>>>> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
>>>> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
>>>> prayers."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
>>>PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>>
>> It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>
>Really? (It could be limited in that respect, obviously for the decedent's
>family and friends, but the U makes the decision, and you'd have to whine
>like the 70-odd-year-old baby you've been for more than a few years.)
It's for the deceases family to decide.
>> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral. Public
>> invited if they choose to attend.
>Precisely where, Delusional Duke? (Lay off the wine, dammit.)
Here you go, gobble, gobble.
The First Amendment reads, in its entirety:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:12:45 -0500, Olrik <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >J wrote:
> >> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
>
> >"god" and religion should never, ever be in any kind of public, secular
> >event.
>
> A funeral is NEVER a secular event.
A funeral is whatever type of event that the family wishes, religious
or secular. So, your statement that a funeral is never secular is
just another one of your lies, lying pedophile earl.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> >> prayers."
>
> >They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>
By definition, memorials held on public property is a public event.
Jimbo
> On Nov 24, 5:33 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> > >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>
> > >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> > >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> > >> prayers."
>
> > >They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
> > >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> > It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>
> > And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>
> <SNOFT!>
>
> Say what? Where does the Constitution "specifically
> ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
>
> Silly boy, if I choose to hold my funeral -- a sit-down
> event -- in the middle of the busiest street in all
> of downtown, you may be quite confident that
> the police will "hinder my funeral".
>
> Same thing if I decide to hold it on your
> front porch.
>
> Haiku Jones
>
>
Another duke lie. No surprise there.
Jimbo
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:44:11 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 24, 5:33 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>
> >> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> >> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> >> >> prayers."
>
> >> >They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
> >> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> >> It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>
> >> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>
> ><SNOFT!>
>
> >Say what? Where does the Constitution "specifically
> >ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
>
> It specifically prohibits the free exercise of one's religious.
>
> >Silly boy, if I choose to hold my funeral -- a sit-down
> >event -- in the middle of the busiest street in all
> >of downtown, you may be quite confident that
> >the police will "hinder my funeral".
>
> Not if you get you license first.
>
You still don't get it duke, the freedom of religion is not unlimited,
the 1st amendment does not give your religion leave to trample the
rights of others, or to violate law in the process, liar pedophile
earl.
Jimbo
> On 24 Nov 2009 21:25:55 GMT, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:33:34 -0600, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> >>>> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> >>>> prayers."
>
> >>>They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
> >>>PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> >> It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>
> >Really? (It could be limited in that respect, obviously for the decedent's
> >family and friends, but the U makes the decision, and you'd have to whine
> >like the 70-odd-year-old baby you've been for more than a few years.)
>
> It's for the deceases family to decide.
>
> >> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral. Public
> >> invited if they choose to attend.
> >Precisely where, Delusional Duke? (Lay off the wine, dammit.)
>
> Here you go, gobble, gobble.
>
> The First Amendment reads, in its entirety:
Sorry duke, but your religious freedom is not allowed to trample my
civil rights.
Hollis Brown
> It's not a secular event unless the family so says. You are therefore an invited
> atheist, and it's only polite to keep your f_cking mouth shut.
>
>
> The Dukester, Gilligan-American
> *****
> "Aw, crap, I knocked the bong over again."
> Pope Paul VI
It's cute when they want so badly to swear, but can't quite do it.
Does it soften the blow for Jes_s if you replace one letter with a
different type of symbol?
HB
haiku jones
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:44:11 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 24, 5:33 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>
> >> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> >> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> >> >> prayers."
>
> >> >They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
> >> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> >> It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>
> >> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>
> ><SNOFT!>
>
> >Say what? Where does the Constitution "specifically
> >ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
>
> It specifically prohibits the free exercise of one's religious.
Oh? So Mormons can have multiple wives? American
Indians can exercise their peyote-centered religion
everywhere? Followers of Santeria
can sacrifice any animal they wish to in any
manner they choose?
Sorry, Duke, but there are any number of
laws which limit free exercise of religion.
If I wish to follow an ancient Aztec sect,
I'm pretty sure the Constitution does not.
allow me to re-introduce human sacrifice.
>
> >Silly boy, if I choose to hold my funeral -- a sit-down
> >event -- in the middle of the busiest street in all
> >of downtown, you may be quite confident that
> >the police will "hinder my funeral".
>
> Not if you get you license first.
Uh huh. And the city is going to grant
me a license to tie up traffic for a couple
of hours in the busiest part of town duringi
the busiset part of the day? You think?
And when they refuse -- and they will --
are they interfering with my right to
freely practice my religion?
All of which is beside the point, to wit:
your "free exercise of religion" does not
guarantee that anything that turns you
off -- like Steve and Ralph getting hitched --
will cause the government to take action
to ensure that your delicate sensibilities
do not get offended.
Haiku Jones
The Chief Instigator
I don't obey the fantasies of brain-damaged religious whackjobs who think
they have authority over anyone not of their feeble excuse of a cult. You
have no say in my beliefs, and that's the reality you either live with, or
die from your own malicious stupidity.
The Chief Instigator
Try it on your own and see how fast you get slapped even more stupid than
you already are, even in your village.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 25, 10:35�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>> It's not a secular event unless the family so says. You are therefore an invited
>> atheist, and it's only polite to keep your f_cking mouth shut.
>It's cute when they want so badly to swear, but can't quite do it.
>Does it soften the blow for Jes_s if you replace one letter with a
>different type of symbol?
As long as it gets your goat, I'm satisfied.
duke
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:36:11 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 24 Nov 2009 21:22:23 GMT, The Chief Instigator <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:32:05 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:53:46 -0600, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3acepr....@news.alt.net...
>>>>>> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon
>>>>>> others. Thankfully the university was able to see through this charade and
>>>>>> the students were able to honor a friend, soldier, and fellow student.
>>>>>> http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011527.cfm
>>>>>"citizenlink", Lies are what we do best!
>>>>>Prayer on campus? How sick and degenerate! Thank God for Atheist groups.
>>>>>Bible, bad. Atheism, good!
>>>>
>>>> Good for the eternal fires of hell.
>>>
>>>So? You're on the express to there, by your own stupidity.
>>
>> If you say "bible bad, atheism good", bend over, stick your head between your
>> legs, and kiss your ass goodbye.
>
>I don't obey the fantasies of brain-damaged religious whackjobs who think
>they have authority over anyone not of their feeble excuse of a cult.
> You
>have no say in my beliefs, and that's the reality you either live with, or
>die from your own malicious stupidity.
I'm not trying to have a say so in your beliefs. I'm trying to tell you that
your pretense that God doesn't exist is wrong. Clean up your act or face the
punishment you stupidly refuse, with no support, to accept.
duke
Nor your right to hinder mine.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 25, 10:37�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:44:11 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 24, 5:33�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>>
>> >> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
>> >> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
>> >> >> prayers."
>>
>> >> >They'd be correct. �To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
>> >> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>>
>> >> It was not a public event. �It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>>
>> >> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>>
>> ><SNOFT!>
>>
>
>> >Say what? �Where does the Constitution "specifically
>> >ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
>>
>> It specifically prohibits the free exercise of one's religious. �
>Oh? So Mormons can have multiple wives?
Many do, until found out.
> American
>Indians can exercise their peyote-centered religion
>everywhere? Followers of Santeria
>can sacrifice any animal they wish to in any
>manner they choose?
Your demonstrated ignorance fails to address the vote.
duke
Nor your freedom trample mine. I vote.
duke
Nobody said "try it on their own". Good grief, west loop, get with the program.
Carl Kaufmann
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:02:57 -0800 (PST), Hollis Brown <AT_Ta...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 25, 10:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's not a secular event unless the family so says. You are therefore an invited
>>> atheist, and it's only polite to keep your f_cking mouth shut.
>
>> It's cute when they want so badly to swear, but can't quite do it.
>> Does it soften the blow for Jes_s if you replace one letter with a
>> different type of symbol?
>
> As long as it gets your goat, I'm satisfied.
So you admit you're here to harass and annoy.
The Chief Instigator
*click* You're gone.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 1, Hamilton 0 (November 25)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 27 at Syracuse, 6:05
duke
>duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:02:57 -0800 (PST), Hollis Brown <AT_Ta...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 10:35 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's not a secular event unless the family so says. You are therefore an invited
>>>> atheist, and it's only polite to keep your f_cking mouth shut.
>>
>>> It's cute when they want so badly to swear, but can't quite do it.
>>> Does it soften the blow for Jes_s if you replace one letter with a
>>> different type of symbol?
>>
>> As long as it gets your goat, I'm satisfied.
>
>So you admit you're here to harass and annoy.
Here where?
duke
So long, gobbler.
JohnN
> On Nov 24, 3:20 pm, JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 12:00 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
> > > Thankfully the university was able to see through this charade and the
> > > students were able to honor a friend, soldier, and fellow student.
>
> > >http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000011527.cfm
>
>
> > > The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is protesting a prayer vigil
> > > held at the University of Wisconsin, Whitewater. The university held the
> > > event to honor Amy Kruger, a student who was killed in the Fort Hood
> > > shootings earlier this month.
>
> > Did the prayers bring her back to life? Did the god being prayed to
> > console her family and friends so they are now happy she was murdered?
>
> > If not, what was the point?
>
> Closure for her friends and family, mostly.
>
> Mark Sebree
>
> > JohnN
I do not believe the family and friends of the murdered girl required
the resources of the University of Wisconsin for closure. I think
anyone of the local Houses of Mumbo Jumbo could have done the job.'
JohnN
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:39:12 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <rfkng5dqmq7j6q5as...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:12:45 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >J wrote:
> >> >> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
> >> >
> >> >event.
> >>
> >> shut the trap.
> >
> >What a moron.
> >There were funerals even before there were homo sapiens and their made
> >up gods.
>
> And a funeral is a chance to see that the dead are dead and to pray them a safe
> trip to heaven with God.
Huh?
Funerals sure seem like a thing by the living for the living.
>
> It's not a secular event unless the family so says. You are therefore an invited
> atheist, and it's only polite to keep your f_cking mouth shut.
Last time I checked the family has to tell the funeral home where to
take the body and they have to arrange for the service.
If I knew the deceased and wanted to go to the funeral, I would be
respectful of the families beliefs. I would be a guest and would act as
such. I wouldn't need any holier than thou jerk like you to tell me how
to act.
>
> >Sure sounds like a secular event to me.
> >It is religion that has to be invited.
>
> The family decided. Live and learn.
I guess that all depends on WHERE they decided to have the service, and
that is what is in contestation here.
haiku jones
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:06:53 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 25, 10:37 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:44:11 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 24, 5:33 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>
> >> >> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> >> >> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> >> >> >> prayers."
>
> >> >> >They'd be correct. To schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
> >> >> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
> >> >> It was not a public event. It was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>
> >> >> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>
> >> ><SNOFT!>
>
> >> >Say what? Where does the Constitution "specifically
> >> >ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
>
> >> It specifically prohibits the free exercise of one's religious.
> >Oh? So Mormons can have multiple wives?
>
> Many do,until found out.
"until found out"?
Gee, Duke, you've been arguing that
the First Amendment promises that
the free exercise of one's religion shall
not be trumped by any law passed by
the government.
So what in the world would being "found out"
have to do with do with a Mormon's inalienable
right freely to practice his religion, a religion
which includes polygamy?
Haiku Jones
duke
>In article <7jqqg5pjb0ad25vld...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>@cox.net says...
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:39:12 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <rfkng5dqmq7j6q5as...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
>> >@cox.net says...
>> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:12:45 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >J wrote:
>> >> >> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
>> >> >
>> >> >"god" and religion should never, ever be in any kind of public, secular
>> >> >event.
>> >>
>> >> A funeral is NEVER a secular event. But the public can be invited - but told to
>> >> shut the trap.
>> >
>> >What a moron.
>> >There were funerals even before there were homo sapiens and their made
>> >up gods.
>>
>> And a funeral is a chance to see that the dead are dead and to pray them a safe
>> trip to heaven with God.
>Huh?
>Funerals sure seem like a thing by the living for the living.
Good grief but you're ignorant.
>> It's not a secular event unless the family so says. You are therefore an invited
>> atheist, and it's only polite to keep your f_cking mouth shut.
>Ass backwards, it is a secular event until made into a religious one.
It's totally private first.
duke
wrote:
>On Nov 27, 11:23�am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
It's simple, but I'm not surprised that you can't figure it out.
The civil government doesn't care how many women a man lives with. Or even
calls his wives. But the civil contract establishing a legal unit can only be
between one man and one woman.
Mitchell Holman
news:r25ah5drg418k25qr...@4ax.com:
Wrong.
Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.
haiku jones
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:37:58 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
And that legal restriction, according to your own personal
Looney Toon school of Constitutional law, violates
our Mormon's right to free expression of his religion.
Haiku Jones
>
>
>
>
>
> >Haiku Jones
>
> >> > American
> >> >Indians can exercise their peyote-centered religion
> >> >everywhere? Followers of Santeria
> >> >can sacrifice any animal they wish to in any
> >> >manner they choose?
>
> >> Your demonstrated ignorance fails to address the vote.civil g
WangoTango
@cox.net says...
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:27:35 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <7jqqg5pjb0ad25vld...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >@cox.net says...
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:39:12 -0500, WangoTango <Asga...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <rfkng5dqmq7j6q5as...@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
> >> >@cox.net says...
> >> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:12:45 -0500, Olrik <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >J wrote:
> >> >> >> This is another case of atheists wanting to force their beliefs upon others.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"god" and religion should never, ever be in any kind of public, secular
> >> >> >event.
> >> >>
> >> >> A funeral is NEVER a secular event. But the public can be invited - but told to
> >> >> shut the trap.
> >> >
> >> >What a moron.
> >> >There were funerals even before there were homo sapiens and their made
> >> >up gods.
> >>
> >> And a funeral is a chance to see that the dead are dead and to pray them a safe
> >> trip to heaven with God.
>
> >Huh?
> >Funerals sure seem like a thing by the living for the living.
>
> Good grief but you're ignorant.
The moron is strong in you.
duke
Ah, I figured you were beyond comprehension on the simplest of subjects.
duke
>On Dec 1, 6:06嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:37:58 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 27, 11:23嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:06:53 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Nov 25, 10:37嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:44:11 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 24, 5:33嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
>> >> >> >> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
>> >> >> >> >> prayers."
>>
>> >> >> >> >They'd be correct. 嚙確o schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
>> >> >> >> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>>
>> >> >> >> It was not a public event. 嚙瘢t was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>>
>> >> >> >> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>>
>> >> >> ><SNOFT!>
>>
>> >> >> >Say what? 嚙磕here does the Constitution "specifically
>> >> >> >ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
>>
>> >> >> It specifically prohibits the free exercise of one's religious. 嚙�>>
>> >> >Oh? 嚙磅o Mormons can have multiple wives?
>>
>> >> Many do,until found out.
>>
>> >"until found out"?
>> >Gee, Duke, you've been arguing that
>> >the First Amendment promises that
>> >the free exercise of one's religion shall
>> >not be trumped by any law passed by
>> >the government.
>> >So what in the world would being "found out"
>> >have to do with do with a Mormon's inalienable
>> >right freely to practice his religion, a religion
>> >which includes polygamy?
>>
>> It's simple, but I'm not surprised that you can't figure it out.
>> The civil government doesn't care how many women a man lives with. 嚙瞌r even
>> calls his wives. 嚙畿ut the civil contract establishing a legal unit can only be
>> between one man and one woman
>And that legal restriction, according to your own personal
>Looney Toon school of Constitutional law, violates
>our Mormon's right to free expression of his religion.
Just not multiple civil contracts.
haiku jones
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 05:50:16 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 1, 6:06 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:37:58 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:06:53 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:44:11 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
> >> >> >> >> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
> >> >> >> >> >> prayers."
>
> >> >> >> >> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>
>
> >> >> >> >> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>
> >> >> >> ><SNOFT!>
>
> >> >> >> >ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
>
> >> >> >> It specifically prohibits the free exercise of one's religious.
>
>
> >> >> Many do,until found out.
>
> >> >"until found out"?
> >> >Gee, Duke, you've been arguing that
> >> >the First Amendment promises that
> >> >the free exercise of one's religion shall
> >> >not be trumped by any law passed by
> >> >the government.
> >> >So what in the world would being "found out"
> >> >have to do with do with a Mormon's inalienable
> >> >right freely to practice his religion, a religion
> >> >which includes polygamy?
>
> >> It's simple, but I'm not surprised that you can't figure it out.
> >> between one man and one woman
> >And that legal restriction, according to your own personal
> >Looney Toon school of Constitutional law, violates
> >our Mormon's right to free expression of his religion.
>
> Just not multiple civil contracts.
Polygamous fundamentalist LDSers like
those at Colorado City and Bountiful
don't do civil contracts at all, Dookie
they're married in religious ceremonies.
So, let's make you squirm some more: do you
think the government is interfering with these
fundamentalists' right to free exercise of religion?
And how about the states which outlaw the
Native American Church's centuries-old use
of ceremonial peyote. Does that violate
"free exercise" I notice you've run away
from this question from the start.
Haiku Jones
duke
>On Dec 2, 6:32嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 05:50:16 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 1, 6:06嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:37:58 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Nov 27, 11:23嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:06:53 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Nov 25, 10:37嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:44:11 -0800 (PST), haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Nov 24, 5:33嚙窮m, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:27:07 +0000, Larry <no...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:3acepr....@news.alt.net:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> In a letter, the atheist group demanded "the event must be changed to a
>> >> >> >> >> >> 'memorial service,' and its program must not schedule any religious
>> >> >> >> >> >> prayers."
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >They'd be correct. 嚙確o schedule a religious service on the U of Wisconsin's
>> >> >> >> >> >PUBLIC campus is against the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> It was not a public event. 嚙瘢t was a memorial to a fallen soldier.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> And the Constitution specifically bans the hindrance of a funeral.
>>
>> >> >> >> ><SNOFT!>
>>
>> >> >> >> >Say what? 嚙磕here does the Constitution "specifically
>> >> >> >> >ban[s] the hinderance of a funeral"?
>>
>> >> >> >> It specifically prohibits the free exercise of one's religious. 嚙�>>
>> >> >> >Oh? 嚙磅o Mormons can have multiple wives?
>>
>> >> >> Many do,until found out.
>>
>> >> >"until found out"?
>> >> >Gee, Duke, you've been arguing that
>> >> >the First Amendment promises that
>> >> >the free exercise of one's religion shall
>> >> >not be trumped by any law passed by
>> >> >the government.
>> >> >So what in the world would being "found out"
>> >> >have to do with do with a Mormon's inalienable
>> >> >right freely to practice his religion, a religion
>> >> >which includes polygamy?
>> >> It's simple, but I'm not surprised that you can't figure it out.
>> >> The civil government doesn't care how many women a man lives with. 嚙瞌r even
>> >> calls his wives. 嚙畿ut the civil contract establishing a legal unit can only be
>> >> between one man and one woman
>> >And that legal restriction, according to your own personal
>> >Looney Toon school of Constitutional law, violates
>> >our Mormon's right to free expression of his religion.
>> Just not multiple civil contracts.
>Polygamous fundamentalist LDSers like
>those at Colorado City and Bountiful
>don't do civil contracts at all, Dookie
>they're married in religious ceremonies.
Sorry, but with out a civil contract, the civil authorities just see a one man
living with many different women.
>So, let's make you squirm some more: do you
>think the government is interfering with these
>fundamentalists' right to free exercise of religion?
Not for getting a little from many women with no moral codes. From a civil law
standpoint, there can be only one contract establishing a civil partnership.
See, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
>And how about the states which outlaw the
>Native American Church's centuries-old use
>of ceremonial peyote. Does that violate
>"free exercise" I notice you've run away
>from this question from the start.
That's because I have no specific knowledge. I suspect that Indian Nation lands
are protected from strict US laws, and as such, they can use peyote from that
standpoint. But I know little to nothing about it.