Yes, they are.
the fundamental reason why i dislike most Christians. thanks.Stingray24 wrote:
... apparently 12 out of the whole city's population.
Edit: Green Bay's population is over 100,000.
if only the romans had stomped out christianity when the had the chance, while they were still a small minority.
What the fuck are you talking about?nukchebi0 wrote:
I have a question though:
Isn't the government, by bowing to wishes of the atheists, effectively endorsing atheism instead?
The American government is designed to support seperation of church and state. Putting a symbol of any religion, or atheism, on any government property should be deemed unconstitutional and should be condemned by every free-thinking American patriot. (Including myself and stingray).
Just because you dont turn left doesnt mean you have to turn right.
Wake up! It imposes NOTHING! You don't have to convert because you looked at it! And if you're serious about opposing Christmas I don't want to see a Christmas tree or presents in your house.Reciprocity wrote:
the fundamental reason why i dislike most Christians. thanks.Stingray24 wrote:
... apparently 12 out of the whole city's population.
Edit: Green Bay's population is over 100,000.
if only the romans had stomped out christianity when the had the chance, while they were still a small minority.
Constitution says seperation of church and state. I think its the other way around buddy.Stingray24 wrote:
Spearhead thinks I care about points. If you oppose religious expression that's your prerogative, man. I've got the Constitution, you have your opinion. Next.
And the whole point thing was a rather poorly done parody of the NYSE.
Wrong. You need to study the Constitution.Spearhead wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about?nukchebi0 wrote:
I have a question though:
Isn't the government, by bowing to wishes of the atheists, effectively endorsing atheism instead?
The American government is designed to support seperation of church and state. Putting a symbol of any religion, or atheism, on any government property should be deemed unconstitutional and should be condemned by every free-thinking American patriot. (Including myself and stingray).
Just because you dont turn left doesnt mean you have to turn right.
Not really, I'm sure most atheists don't really care, I think what we have here is just a bunch of wishy washy bullies with nothing better to do than to stir up some shit.nukchebi0 wrote:
I have a question though:
Isn't the government, by bowing to wishes of the atheists, effectively endorsing atheism instead?
A government that picks sides cannot represent its people in an unbiased fashion.Stingray24 wrote:
Wake up! It imposes NOTHING! You don't have to convert because you looked at it! And if you're serious about opposing Christmas I don't want to see a Christmas tree or presents in your house.Reciprocity wrote:
the fundamental reason why i dislike most Christians. thanks.Stingray24 wrote:
... apparently 12 out of the whole city's population.
Edit: Green Bay's population is over 100,000.
if only the romans had stomped out christianity when the had the chance, while they were still a small minority.
It does NOT say that. Read again.Spearhead wrote:
Constitution says seperation of church and state. I think its the other way around buddy.Stingray24 wrote:
Spearhead thinks I care about points. If you oppose religious expression that's your prerogative, man. I've got the Constitution, you have your opinion. Next.
And the whole point thing was a rather poorly done parody of the NYSE.
isn't freedom of religion in the Constitution?Stingray24 wrote:
Wrong. You need to study the Constitution.Spearhead wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about?nukchebi0 wrote:
I have a question though:
Isn't the government, by bowing to wishes of the atheists, effectively endorsing atheism instead?
The American government is designed to support seperation of church and state. Putting a symbol of any religion, or atheism, on any government property should be deemed unconstitutional and should be condemned by every free-thinking American patriot. (Including myself and stingray).
Just because you dont turn left doesnt mean you have to turn right.
is that how you recognize religion? pagan decorations and rampant consumerism?Stingray24 wrote:
And if you're serious about opposing Christmas I don't want to see a Christmas tree or presents in your house.
Stingray,
Since you're not really explaining your position here I'll just throw back what you said.
Since you're not really explaining your position here I'll just throw back what you said.
Wrong. You need to study the Constitution.
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-12-26 21:13:18)
Um, yes, it is.Reciprocity wrote:
is that how you recognize religion? pagan decorations and rampant consumerism?Stingray24 wrote:
And if you're serious about opposing Christmas I don't want to see a Christmas tree or presents in your house.
Not sure what stingrays going on about. Maybe if he could explain his postion we would have more things to say. I'm not sure what he means by saying the constitution isn't founded on the idea that government should not pick sides in regards to religion.
I just told you the Constitution specifically does NOT contain the separation of church and state. Hence, your need to re-read and study the document.Spearhead wrote:
Since you're not really explaining your position here I'll just throw back what you said.Wrong. You need to study the Constitution.
Actually the Constitution does not say that Church and State must be Separate, but that the State cannot create a religion or force people to follow a particular religion. Setting up a Nativity does not fall into either category.Spearhead wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about?nukchebi0 wrote:
I have a question though:
Isn't the government, by bowing to wishes of the atheists, effectively endorsing atheism instead?
The American government is designed to support seperation of church and state. Putting a symbol of any religion, or atheism, on any government property should be deemed unconstitutional and should be condemned by every free-thinking American patriot. (Including myself and stingray).
Just because you dont turn left doesnt mean you have to turn right.
that sounds rightDoctaStrangelove wrote:
Actually the Constitution does not say that Church and State must be Separate, but that the State cannot create a religion or force people to follow a particular religion. Setting up a Nativity does not fall into either category.Spearhead wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about?nukchebi0 wrote:
I have a question though:
Isn't the government, by bowing to wishes of the atheists, effectively endorsing atheism instead?
The American government is designed to support seperation of church and state. Putting a symbol of any religion, or atheism, on any government property should be deemed unconstitutional and should be condemned by every free-thinking American patriot. (Including myself and stingray).
Just because you dont turn left doesnt mean you have to turn right.
Precisely. If the atheists would like to set up a display containing their opposition to all things religious, that expression is protected. However, they cannot legally infringe on religious expression of any kind.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Actually the Constitution does not say that Church and State must be Separate, but that the State cannot create a religion or force people to follow a particular religion. Setting up a Nativity does not fall into either category.Spearhead wrote:
What the fuck are you talking about?nukchebi0 wrote:
I have a question though:
Isn't the government, by bowing to wishes of the atheists, effectively endorsing atheism instead?
The American government is designed to support seperation of church and state. Putting a symbol of any religion, or atheism, on any government property should be deemed unconstitutional and should be condemned by every free-thinking American patriot. (Including myself and stingray).
Just because you dont turn left doesnt mean you have to turn right.
Stingray, you know as well as anyone else that a Muslim display would cause a tremendous outrage that the government would allocate tax dollars to a Muslim monument and that it endorsed the religion over others. It is completely apt, and demonstrates why there are those of us who would protest the advocation of Christianity and the allocation of tax dollars to set up a nativity scene. It is not enough that atheists are able to set up their own display (never mind that atheism is not an organized group that endorses any particular theme that would be sufficient for a display), but that if the government creates a nativity scene, should they not create an atheist display, or a Muslim display, or a Jewish display? A nativity scene by the government is not a religious expression, but a religious endorsement. It should be protected that anyone can create a religious expression (that does not infringe on others), but not that a singular one is protected by the government.
And they say gamers have no lives...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Drakef says it like it is.Drakef wrote:
Stingray, you know as well as anyone else that a Muslim display would cause a tremendous outrage that the government would allocate tax dollars to a Muslim monument and that it endorsed the religion over others. It is completely apt, and demonstrates why there are those of us who would protest the advocation of Christianity and the allocation of tax dollars to set up a nativity scene. It is not enough that atheists are able to set up their own display (never mind that atheism is not an organized group that endorses any particular theme that would be sufficient for a display), but that if the government creates a nativity scene, should they not create an atheist display, or a Muslim display, or a Jewish display? A nativity scene by the government is not a religious expression, but a religious endorsement. It should be protected that anyone can create a religious expression (that does not infringe on others), but not that a singular one is protected by the government.
I know this is somewhat astray, but the ad below the post says 'campaign for world peace through the holy spirit'.\
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
these guys need a job, not a hobby.
I see the r-bots on the corner nearly everyday now.
I see the r-bots on the corner nearly everyday now.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It would not cause an outrage during a Muslim holiday season, nor would a Muslim display endorse Islam over other religions. In the same way, the nativity is singular only because Christianity is the only religion celebrating their most holy holiday this time of year. Next year, Hanukkah will fall on December 22nd so a if Jews would like a Menorah displayed alongside, it should be included. Then when Ramadan comes around in the fall season, Muslims can have their display. The Muslim or Jewish display would not infringe on my religious freedom in any way. Muslims are taxpayers just like everyone else and as long as they aren't forcing conversion I'm good. I wholeheartedly disagree that any religious display is endorsement and not simple acknowledgment and expression. That is where we differ.Drakef wrote:
Stingray, you know as well as anyone else that a Muslim display would cause a tremendous outrage that the government would allocate tax dollars to a Muslim monument and that it endorsed the religion over others. It is completely apt, and demonstrates why there are those of us who would protest the advocation of Christianity and the allocation of tax dollars to set up a nativity scene. It is not enough that atheists are able to set up their own display (never mind that atheism is not an organized group that endorses any particular theme that would be sufficient for a display), but that if the government creates a nativity scene, should they not create an atheist display, or a Muslim display, or a Jewish display? A nativity scene by the government is not a religious expression, but a religious endorsement. It should be protected that anyone can create a religious expression (that does not infringe on others), but not that a singular one is protected by the government.
Atheists simply oppose all this expression which is the definition of infringement. As you say, they cannot have their own display. Apparently their display of their views is to get everyone else's display torn down.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-27 08:39:47)
I have no problem with what you said, because I essentially said the same thing on page one. However, we disagree on the point of using tax dollars. These displays should not be done using a single red cent of tax payer money. If a group wants to privately fund it, so be it. I have no problem with the location of the displays, as long as they are temporary during a holiday, and as long as all belief systems have the same opportunity. But no tax dollars, period.Stingray24 wrote:
It would not cause an outrage during a Muslim holiday season, nor would a Muslim display endorse Islam over other religions. In the same way, the nativity is singular only because Christianity is the only religion celebrating their most holy holiday this time of year. Next year, Hanukkah will fall on December 22nd so a if Jews would like a Menorah displayed alongside, it should be included. Then when Ramadan comes around in the fall season, Muslims can have their display. The Muslim or Jewish display would not infringe on my religious freedom in any way. Muslims are taxpayers just like everyone else and as long as they aren't forcing conversion I'm good. I wholeheartedly disagree that any religious display is endorsement and not simple acknowledgment and expression. That is where we differ.Drakef wrote:
Stingray, you know as well as anyone else that a Muslim display would cause a tremendous outrage that the government would allocate tax dollars to a Muslim monument and that it endorsed the religion over others. It is completely apt, and demonstrates why there are those of us who would protest the advocation of Christianity and the allocation of tax dollars to set up a nativity scene. It is not enough that atheists are able to set up their own display (never mind that atheism is not an organized group that endorses any particular theme that would be sufficient for a display), but that if the government creates a nativity scene, should they not create an atheist display, or a Muslim display, or a Jewish display? A nativity scene by the government is not a religious expression, but a religious endorsement. It should be protected that anyone can create a religious expression (that does not infringe on others), but not that a singular one is protected by the government.
I think people need to grow some skin. I don't see any harm here.