OT-The repercussions of political correctness....
Lone Haranguer
http://www.owatonna.com/news.php?viewStory=111955
A question I have is why is a cross in a school a sign of government
support of certain religions but a prayer room for Muslims isn't?
LZ
Jenny6833A
> A question I have is why is a cross in a school a sign of government
> support of certain religions but a prayer room for Muslims isn't?
> LZ
I don't approve of either, but I can see a distinction.
A cross out in the open is advertising a specific religion to all and
sundry, whereas prayers in a closed room don't affect those who choose
not to enter the room.
One solution, of course, is to put the cross in a closed room. But
then there'd need to be a whole lot of closed rooms. I mean they'd
need a room for a picture of The Spaghetti Monster (May you be touched
by His noodly appendage) and for worshippers of Thor, etc.
The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
property..
:-)
Jenny
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." -- Benjamin
Franklin
Lone Haranguer
> On Nov 21, 7:31�am, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A question I have is why is a cross in a school a sign of government
>> support of certain religions but a prayer room for Muslims isn't?
>> LZ
>
> I don't approve of either, but I can see a distinction.
>
> A cross out in the open is advertising a specific religion to all and
> sundry, whereas prayers in a closed room don't affect those who choose
> not to enter the room.
Who said the cross is out in the open? The ACLU would have a fit even
if it were in a closet.
Knowledge that the prayer room exists and the sound of prayers emanating
from it is just as evident as a cross somewhere in the school.
Are the schools setting aside Bible study rooms that Christians can
repair to several times a day?
>
> One solution, of course, is to put the cross in a closed room. But
> then there'd need to be a whole lot of closed rooms. I mean they'd
> need a room for a picture of The Spaghetti Monster (May you be touched
> by His noodly appendage) and for worshippers of Thor, etc.
>
> The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
> property..
The point is that those in charge are NOT doing that. They are making
special arrangements for one religion that they would not allow for
other religions.
So where is your voice about that arrangement? I haven't heard it.
LZ
Jenny6833A
> Jenny6833A wrote:
>
> > The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
> > property..
>
> The point is that those in charge are NOT doing that. �They are making
> special arrangements for one religion that they would not allow for
> other religions.
If you have the story straight, they are.
> So where is your voice about that arrangement? �I haven't heard it.
I'm writing a $500 check to the ACLU again this month. I'll mention
that you're upset.
:-)
Jenny
Lone Haranguer
> On Nov 21, 7:55�pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jenny6833A wrote:
>>
>>> The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
>>> property..
>> special arrangements for one religion that they would not allow for
>> other religions.
>
> If you have the story straight, they are.
I gave the URL, it's a local paper. Read the comments too.
>
>> So where is your voice about that arrangement? �I haven't heard it.
>
> I'm writing a $500 check to the ACLU again this month. I'll mention
> that you're upset.
>
So you support unequal treatment? Another liberal hypocrite among
hordes of others.
I doubt if you earn $500 in a month. You're not counting food stamps
are you?
LZ
Jenny6833A
> >> Jenny6833A wrote:
>
> >>> The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
> >>> property..
> >> special arrangements for one religion that they would not allow for
> >> other religions.
>
> > If �you have the story straight, they are.
>
> I gave the URL, it's a local paper. �Read the comments too.
>
>
> > I'm writing a $500 check to the ACLU again this month. �I'll mention
> > that you're upset.
>
> So you support unequal treatment? �Another liberal hypocrite among
> hordes of others.
Learn to read. As I said above, the best solution is to ban all
religious expresssion on public property.
> I doubt if you earn $500 in a month. �You're not counting food stamps
> are you?
As usual, whenever LZ loses, he resorts to baseless insults.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh. What a jerk!
:-|
Jenny
> LZ
nothermark
<Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
Maybe the best answer is to stop trying to supress Christianity. The
issue is freedom *of* religion not freedom *from* religion.
FWIW it stems from the policiy of supporting the church of england
with tax dollars and the fear by the deligates from Maryland that
Catholicism might be prohibited. It was not from a desire to supress
religion.
Lone Haranguer
> On Nov 21, 8:52�pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jenny6833A wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 7:55 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Jenny6833A wrote:
>>>>> The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
>>>>> property..
>>>> The point is that those in charge are NOT doing that. They are making
>>>> special arrangements for one religion that they would not allow for
>>>> other religions.
>> I gave the URL, it's a local paper. �Read the comments too.
>>
>>>> So where is your voice about that arrangement? I haven't heard it.
>>> that you're upset.
>> So you support unequal treatment? �Another liberal hypocrite among
>> hordes of others.
>
> Learn to read. As I said above, the best solution is to ban all
> religious expresssion on public property.
Yahbut you claim to be supporting the ACLU who has not come out against
prayer rooms. Both you and the ACLU therefore fall into the hypocrite
category.
>
>> I doubt if you earn $500 in a month. �You're not counting food stamps
>> are you?
>
> As usual, whenever LZ loses, he resorts to baseless insults.
Loses what?
>
> Sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh. What a jerk!
So post a copy of a cashed check for $500 made out to the ACLU and I'll
withdraw the speculation.
Otherwise admit you were lying again.
LZ
>
> :-|
>
> Jenny
>
>
>
>
>> LZ
>
Jenny6833A
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:49:36 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A
>
> >On Nov 21, 7:31?am, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> A question I have is why is a cross in a school a sign of government
> >> support of certain religions but a prayer room for Muslims isn't?
> >> LZ
>
> >I don't approve of either, but I can see a distinction.
>
> >A cross out in the open is advertising a specific religion to all and
> >sundry, whereas prayers in a closed room don't affect those who choose
> >not to enter the room.
>
> >One solution, of course, is to put the cross in a closed room. �But
> >then there'd need to be a whole lot of closed rooms. �I mean they'd
> >need a room for a picture of The Spaghetti Monster (May you be touched
> >by His noodly appendage) and for worshippers of Thor, etc.
>
> >The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
> >property..
>
> >:-)
>
> >Jenny
> >"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
> >it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
> >so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
> >power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." -- Benjamin
> >Franklin
>
> Maybe the best answer is to stop trying to supress Christianity.
No one wishes to suppress Xtianity. The object is to prevent
minorities from being overwhelmed by an evangelistic majority which
seeks to make government a de facto supporter.
>�The issue is freedom *of* religion not freedom *from* religion.
Even if one defines it that way, the only way to keep government
neutral is to ban all religious advertising (which in practice means
banning religious expression) on public property.
> FWIW it stems from the policiy of supporting the church of england
> with tax dollars and the fear by the deligates from Maryland that
> Catholicism might be prohibited. �It was not from a desire to supress
> religion.
Once again, no one wants to suppress religion. The intent is to keep
from dragging government into the ongoing competition.
For example, any religion or non-religion can have a TV channel (or 50
of them), put up billboards, go door to door peddling their wares, and
so on. That's fine with me.
However, it's worth noting that many Christians go nuts when non-
Christian groups advertise in exactly the same way Christians do.
Christians generally want to suppress any non-Christian advertising.
:-)
Jenny
The Wiz
Write another one for the Communist Party of America.
Lone Haranguer
> On Nov 22, 7:44�am, nothermark <notherm...@not.here> wrote:
>> Maybe the best answer is to stop trying to supress Christianity.
>
> No one wishes to suppress Xtianity. The object is to prevent
> minorities from being overwhelmed by an evangelistic majority which
> seeks to make government a de facto supporter.
Like prayer rooms in schools? Much of the media and especially
Hollywood believe in suppressing Christianity and especially the morals
it espouses.
>
>> �The issue is freedom *of* religion not freedom *from* religion.
>
> Even if one defines it that way, the only way to keep government
> neutral is to ban all religious advertising (which in practice means
> banning religious expression) on public property.
Why not give them equal time/space? We could have a referendum to
allocate how much. That would actually be freedom OF religion
instead of government and the ACLU suppressing some and favoring others.
>
>> FWIW it stems from the policiy of supporting the church of england
>> with tax dollars and the fear by the deligates from Maryland that
>> Catholicism might be prohibited. �It was not from a desire to supress
>> religion.
>
> Once again, no one wants to suppress religion. The intent is to keep
> from dragging government into the ongoing competition.
It's gone beyond that because the lefties want government to suppress
religion as much as Christians want government to support it.
>
> For example, any religion or non-religion can have a TV channel (or 50
> of them), put up billboards, go door to door peddling their wares, and
> so on. That's fine with me.
Irrelevant since it does not involve the government.
>
> However, it's worth noting that many Christians go nuts when non-
> Christian groups advertise in exactly the same way Christians do.
Which ones?
> Christians generally want to suppress any non-Christian advertising.
Prove that statement....if you can.
LZ
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
Jenny6833A
That's so typical of the type of American you so ably represent. Your
only response is to manufacture some totally false and totally
unrelated accusation. You're not the worst of the bunch, nor do you
post as often as some of them, but you're nevertheless just as
incapable of discussing anything rationally.
:-)
Jenny
Jenny6833A
> >> Maybe the best answer is to stop trying to supress Christianity.
>
> > No one wishes to suppress Xtianity. �The object is to prevent
> > minorities from being overwhelmed by an evangelistic majority which
> > seeks to make government a de facto supporter.
>
> Like prayer rooms in schools?
You're harping on one example which, if true, still represents no more
than an anomaly.
>�Much of the media and especially
> Hollywood believe in suppressing Christianity ...
I see you're dredging up the usual whipping boys without offering any
evidence.
> ... and especially the morals it espouses.
Which morals? Those it espouses in words, which seldom make sense, or
those it espouses by its actions, which are often truly despicable.
> >> The issue is freedom *of* religion not freedom *from* religion.
>
> > Even if one defines it that way, the only way to keep government
> > neutral is to ban all religious advertising (which in practice means
> > banning religious expression) on public property.
>
> Why not give them equal time/space?
Do you really think the ~75% Christian majority would accept equal
time with the 0.6% Muslim minority?
>�We could have a referendum to
> allocate how much.
Now you want proportionate time, not equal time.
>�That would actually be freedom OF religion ...
No, it would be the destruction of the minority rights that the
constitution was designed to prevent.
> >> FWIW it stems from the policiy of supporting the church of england
> >> with tax dollars and the fear by the deligates from Maryland that
> >> Catholicism might be prohibited. It was not from a desire to supress
> >> religion.
>
> > Once again, no one wants to suppress religion. �The intent is to keep
> > from dragging government into the ongoing competition.
>
> It's gone beyond that because the lefties want government to suppress
> religion as much as Christians want government to support it.
I don't know who you think the "lefties" are, but no one I know or
have read about wants to suppress religion anywhere. However, many of
us, of all political opinion, want to suppress overt religious
_expresssion_ on public property: public schools, courthouses, city
halls, public parks, national monuments, etc. That leaves plenty of
territory in the USA available for overt religious advertising.
> > For example, any religion or non-religion can have a TV channel (or 50
> > of them), put up billboards, go door to door peddling their wares, and
> > so on. �That's fine with me.
>
> Irrelevant since it does not involve the government.
You apparently were absent through most of grades 5-10 when your
English writing teacher spoke of using adjacent paragraphs to make
comparisons and contrasts, with the first leading into the second.
You certainly missed he or she saying that "However" was a reliable
clue.
> > However, it's worth noting that many Christians go nuts when non-
> > Christian groups advertise in exactly the same way Christians do.
>
> Which ones?
The ones who wish to violate the constitution, who place their
religion over their obligations as citizens.
> > Christians generally want to suppress any non-Christian advertising.
>
> Prove that statement....if you can.
Proof isn't possible outside of mathematics, and mathematics is based
on unproven postulates. However, I can offer a few examples.
Well, let's see now. The Christian uproar over ads saying something
like, "God probably doesn't exist, so just live a good life and be
happy." That was in DC, IIRC. The threats to and boycotts of
billboard companies that accept similar advertising. The support of
those who refuse it.
And, in two of the places where I've lived in the last 20 years, I've
witnessed intense community opposition to non-Christian and/or unusual
churches that wanted to build in my neighborhood. Of course, the
opposition was all about congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and
such. Ha. The kicker was the absolute lack of such opposition a year
or two later when a Christian church wanted to build in the same
area. In one case, it was on the same vacant property.
Oh, yeah, and fairly routinely I read about some city council or state
legislature that insists on an invocation at the start of meetings,
but won't let any non-Christian give it. When (often with ACLU help)
they're forced to do so, most or all of the council people walk out.
There's a Christian slogan that applies here, although it didn't
originate with Christianity. I think they call it the Golden Rule.
In this context it reads, "STFU about your religion on government
property as you would have others STFU about theirs."
We need some places that are neutral ground.
> LZ
:-)
Jenny
"Dear hell-bound heathen,
"Do you have any idea of the torments that await you in the next
life? Just for your information, your Yahwee is a false god. The
true Lord of the Universe is the His Noodly Majesty, the Flying
Spagetti Monster. And he is a jealous, vengeful Monster, let me tell
you!!! Actually, there are different schools of thought on this.
The
mainstream Pastafarians and the reformed Pastafarians have a namby-
pamby nicy-nicy conception of the Noodly One. But as far as I'm
concerned, they're all going to hell along with the Christians and
the
Pagans and the Linguini-worshiping heretics.
"I am a faithful member of the Fundamentalist Pastafarian Church
and I am an upright Pasta-fearing man, let me tell you!! When I will
be up in heaven partying with the faithful, you will be in hell and
you will be flogged with noodles for all of eternity. Yea, and there
will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and there shall be no escape
from the wrath of the Noodly Lord. Repent before it is to late!!"
Lone Haranguer
> On Nov 22, 12:16�pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jenny6833A wrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 7:44 am, nothermark <notherm...@not.here> wrote:
>>>> Maybe the best answer is to stop trying to supress Christianity.
>>> minorities from being overwhelmed by an evangelistic majority which
>>> seeks to make government a de facto supporter.
>> Like prayer rooms in schools?
>
> You're harping on one example which, if true, still represents no more
> than an anomaly.
Everyone in the town of Owatonna knows it's true. That is why the
newspaper mentioned it and many of the comments also mentioned it.
Here's another "anomaly".
"In July 2007 the University of Michigan at Dearborn, as a result of
pressure from its campus MSA (Muslim Students Association) acknowledged
it was planning to build foot baths for Muslim students who wished to
practice the ritual washing of their feet before praying on campus."
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:HIn5M3a-mOgJ:sun.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/education_guide.pdf+schools+allowing+muslim+practices&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjM7vRiMkucN1Aj5zcaGWLldwvYtfd7Ow_7LUwHk86LDGEqLSBOFSnu02saRgX4JzbWpX0HPy68f4xN-dnsJGdxZ0_rn3NvLxXTKweEYbWivbazszi0VrZRp3QVCcve3kOGJoLH&sig=AHIEtbSNuJ3-bwHapSllqQGkRgn2hvBddw
>
CAIR to educators: "allow students to pray in unused classrooms".
>> �Much of the media and especially
>> Hollywood believe in suppressing Christianity ...
>
> I see you're dredging up the usual whipping boys without offering any
> evidence.
You don't own a TV set?
>
>> ... and especially the morals it espouses.
>
> Which morals? Those it espouses in words, which seldom make sense, or
> those it espouses by its actions, which are often truly despicable.
Judeo-Christian teachings are the basis of many of our laws. Would you
prefer Muslim laws enforced in Saudi Arabia?
**************
JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (WOMENSENEWS)--Jeddah, I was told, is the more
liberal place in the kingdom, a little like the San Francisco of this
nation. Said to be more tolerant than elsewhere because it is, and has
been for 1,400 years, the entry point for the millions of travelers each
year in their annual pilgrimage to Mecca, the holiest place in Islam.
Yet, as I studied my guidebook in anticipation of my first journey here,
I duly noted the warning that Saudi Arabia was perhaps the most
difficult place on the globe for women to travel alone and noted the
guide made no mention of any exceptions.
Women on Saudi soil must have a husband or male relative as an escort.
We are not allowed to drive. When sight-seeing we must wear a
full-length black gown known as an abaya. During Saudi Arabia's first
elections, held the week before my arrival, women were not permitted to
vote or run for office.
*****************
I doubt there are any places you can run loose bareass unless it is in
some sheik's harem. I don't think you would be allowed to express your
views in public.
>
>>>> The issue is freedom *of* religion not freedom *from* religion.
>>> Even if one defines it that way, the only way to keep government
>>> neutral is to ban all religious advertising (which in practice means
>>> banning religious expression) on public property.
>> Why not give them equal time/space?
>
> Do you really think the ~75% Christian majority would accept equal
> time with the 0.6% Muslim minority?
Obama can run roughshod over us because he says he "won the election".
Don't you believe in democratic principles?
Obama feels he has that right because the majority voted for him. Now
that his popularity has fallen to 49% should he pack his bags
and go back to Chicago?
>
>> �We could have a referendum to
>> allocate how much.
>
> Now you want proportionate time, not equal time.
Same principle as our political parties. He who has the most votes gets
to override the losers.
>
>> �That would actually be freedom OF religion ...
>
> No, it would be the destruction of the minority rights that the
> constitution was designed to prevent.
Praying in schools is not allowed by Christians but OK for Muslims?
Where is that in the Constitution?
>
>>>> FWIW it stems from the policiy of supporting the church of england
>>>> with tax dollars and the fear by the deligates from Maryland that
>>>> Catholicism might be prohibited. It was not from a desire to supress
>>>> religion.
>>> Once again, no one wants to suppress religion. �The intent is to keep
>>> from dragging government into the ongoing competition.
>> It's gone beyond that because the lefties want government to suppress
>> religion as much as Christians want government to support it.
>
> I don't know who you think the "lefties" are, but no one I know or
> have read about wants to suppress religion anywhere. However, many of
> us, of all political opinion, want to suppress overt religious
> _expresssion_ on public property: public schools, courthouses, city
> halls, public parks, national monuments, etc. That leaves plenty of
> territory in the USA available for overt religious advertising.
But you don't complain if Muslims can do things that Christians are not
allowed to do. You don't even want to hear about it so you can
continue being a hypocrite.
BTW, I saw a stained glass panel depicting the three wise men on
government property today. Should I notify the ACLU?
It was on a military post on some colonel's lawn. He could probably
shoot a few representative of the ACLU on an Army post and get a medal
for doing it.
>
>>> For example, any religion or non-religion can have a TV channel (or 50
>>> of them), put up billboards, go door to door peddling their wares, and
>>> so on. �That's fine with me.
>> Irrelevant since it does not involve the government.
>
>>> However, it's worth noting that many Christians go nuts when non-
>>> Christian groups advertise in exactly the same way Christians do.
>> Which ones?
>
> The ones who wish to violate the constitution, who place their
> religion over their obligations as citizens.
Which groups? Let's hear some names.
>
>>> Christians generally want to suppress any non-Christian advertising.
>> Prove that statement....if you can.
>
> Proof isn't possible outside of mathematics, and mathematics is based
> on unproven postulates. However, I can offer a few examples.
>
> Well, let's see now. The Christian uproar over ads saying something
> like, "God probably doesn't exist, so just live a good life and be
> happy." That was in DC, IIRC. The threats to and boycotts of
> billboard companies that accept similar advertising. The support of
> those who refuse it.
Not good enough. Boycotts are a common tool of many groups. Liberals
on RORT advocate boycotting Fox News and Beck's sponsors.
I guess that means the liberals are against the first amendment.
>
> And, in two of the places where I've lived in the last 20 years, I've
> witnessed intense community opposition to non-Christian and/or unusual
> churches that wanted to build in my neighborhood. Of course, the
> opposition was all about congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and
> such. Ha. The kicker was the absolute lack of such opposition a year
> or two later when a Christian church wanted to build in the same
> area. In one case, it was on the same vacant property.
There is often intense community opposition to homeless shelters, detox
facilities and halfway houses in their neighborhood because they
don't blend in with the neighborhood. The churches you mention may have
included sacrificing chickens during their services. I imagine SPCA
members in the neighborhood would circulate petitions so they wouldn't
be allowed to locate there.
>
> Oh, yeah, and fairly routinely I read about some city council or state
> legislature that insists on an invocation at the start of meetings,
> but won't let any non-Christian give it. When (often with ACLU help)
> they're forced to do so, most or all of the council people walk out.
Freedom FROM religion is part of the 1st amendment. In our briefings in
Korea, the prayers were said by a Rabbi, a Protestant Minister and a
Catholic Priest.
No one objected and they all took turns. On base chapels are used for
worship services for all represented religions on the base.
>
> There's a Christian slogan that applies here, although it didn't
> originate with Christianity. I think they call it the Golden Rule.
So what makes it a Christian slogan?
>
> In this context it reads, "STFU about your religion on government
> property as you would have others STFU about theirs."
So why are you still not condemning the practice of giving special
treatment to Muslims on public property?
>
> We need some places that are neutral ground.
Take your tent and move to a designated wilderness area.
LZ
>
Chuck Norris
<Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 11:53?am, The Wiz <anywh...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Jenny6833A wrote:
>> > On Nov 21, 7:55 pm, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Jenny6833A wrote:
>>
>> >>> The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
>> >>> property..
>> >> The point is that those in charge are NOT doing that. They are making
>> >> special arrangements for one religion that they would not allow for
>> >> other religions.
>>
>> > If ?you have the story straight, they are.
>>
>> >> So where is your voice about that arrangement? I haven't heard it.
>>
>> > I'm writing a $500 check to the ACLU again this month. ?I'll mention
>> > that you're upset.
>>
>> > :-)
>>
>> > Jenny
>>
>> Write another one for the Communist Party of America.
>
>That's so typical of the type of American you so ably represent. Your
>only response is to manufacture some totally false and totally
>unrelated accusation. You're not the worst of the bunch, nor do you
>post as often as some of them, but you're nevertheless just as
>incapable of discussing anything rationally.
>
>:-)
>
>Jenny
OH..
My..
God..
You should talk.
HawHawHaw
--
NASCAR: The new Wrestling
Chuck Norris
nothermark
<Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 7:44?am, nothermark <notherm...@not.here> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:49:36 -0800 (PST), Jenny6833A
>>
>> <Jenny68...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 21, 7:31?am, Lone Haranguer <linus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> A question I have is why is a cross in a school a sign of government
>> >> support of certain religions but a prayer room for Muslims isn't?
>> >> LZ
>>
>> >I don't approve of either, but I can see a distinction.
>>
>> >A cross out in the open is advertising a specific religion to all and
>> >sundry, whereas prayers in a closed room don't affect those who choose
>> >not to enter the room.
>>
>> >One solution, of course, is to put the cross in a closed room. ?But
>> >then there'd need to be a whole lot of closed rooms. ?I mean they'd
>> >need a room for a picture of The Spaghetti Monster (May you be touched
>> >by His noodly appendage) and for worshippers of Thor, etc.
>>
>> >The best solution is to ban all religious expression on public
>> >property..
>>
>> >:-)
>>
>> >Jenny
>> >"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when
>> >it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it
>> >so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil
>> >power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." -- Benjamin
>> >Franklin
>>
>> Maybe the best answer is to stop trying to supress Christianity.
>
>No one wishes to suppress Xtianity. The object is to prevent
>minorities from being overwhelmed by an evangelistic majority which
>seeks to make government a de facto supporter.
>
>>?The issue is freedom *of* religion not freedom *from* religion.
>
>Even if one defines it that way, the only way to keep government
>neutral is to ban all religious advertising (which in practice means
>banning religious expression) on public property.
>
>> FWIW it stems from the policiy of supporting the church of england
>> with tax dollars and the fear by the deligates from Maryland that
>> Catholicism might be prohibited. ?It was not from a desire to supress
>> religion.
>
>Once again, no one wants to suppress religion. The intent is to keep
>from dragging government into the ongoing competition.
>
>For example, any religion or non-religion can have a TV channel (or 50
>of them), put up billboards, go door to door peddling their wares, and
>so on. That's fine with me.
>
>However, it's worth noting that many Christians go nuts when non-
>Christian groups advertise in exactly the same way Christians do.
>Christians generally want to suppress any non-Christian advertising.
>
>:-)
>
>Jenny
Riiggghhhhttttt. Ever listen to the athiest movements spout off?
John Kinney
Sure thing.
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own
church." Thomas Paine
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do
because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Susan B.
Anthony
"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to
be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."
Isaac Asimov
"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful
God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own
mistakes." Gene Roddenberry
"Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished
from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."
Ambrose Bierce
"I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good
citizen and you have solved the problem of life." Andrew Carnegie
"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches." Benjamin Franklin
"'In God We Trust.' I don't believe it would sound any better if it were
true." Mark Twain
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I
have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than
in the church. Ferdinand Magellan
"Not only is there no god, but try getting a plumber on weekends." Woody
Allen
"It’s an incredible con job when you think about it, to believe
something now in exchange for something after death. Even corporations
with their reward systems don’t try to make it posthumous." Gloria
Steinem
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked
by religion." Arthur C. Clarke
"I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative." Bill
Maher
"I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe in Mother Goose."
Clarence Darrow
"Religion easily has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it.
Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in
the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the
invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to
do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special
place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to
live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But
he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money." George
Carlin
"The characters and events depicted in the damn bible are fictitious. Any
similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental."
James Madison
"What has been Christianity’s fruits? Superstition, Bigotry and
Persecution." Penn and Teller
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever
believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins
"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a God superior to themselves.
Most Gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child." Robert Heinlein
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful." Seneca the Younger
"Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have
a family." Steven Colbert
"I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas
of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.
So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake…
Religion is all bunk." Thomas Edison
"Believing in gods always causes confusion." Pearl S. Buck
"Today the god hypothesis has ceased to be scientifically tenable ... and
its abandonment often brings a deep sense of relief." Sir Julian Huxley
"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion,
and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish." Author Unknown
"The divinity of Jesus has made a convenient cover for absurdity." John
Adams
"All thinking men are atheists. Ernest Hemingway
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the
point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
Shall we go on?
Regards, John Kinney