OT: I KNEW you' Merkans knew how to fix stuff:

Page 3 of 14  
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

"But officer, you don't understand. I HAD to hit him - he spit on my University of Oklahoma button!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Hang the bastard!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/21/2011 8:09 AM, Tim W said this:

You are confusing the right to *speak* freely and the right to be *heard*. You have a natural right to say whatever you wish so long as your speech is not threatening or fraudulent. However, this does not mean you have a right to make people listen to you.

This is what happens when government abdicates its primary role of being a defender of liberty. Invading a private event like a funeral - even just with sound - is an act of *force*. It's effectively forcing someone to listen to you whether they wish to or not. This is very different that writing, publishing, or otherwise speaking your mind freely wherein potential listeners have the ability to walk away.
When government doesn't do its job, the citizens themselves are forced to step up and do it instead. That's what happened here. It's not a great alternative, but it's all that's left. Conceptually, it's the same thing as shooting an armed intruder because law enforcement cannot or will not prevent them for entering your home.
The real irony here is that - thanks to the ideological loons running Western culture - every wingnut's right to be heard is effectively being upheld by government passivity, but people that voluntarily wish to participate in traditional religious expression are forbidden doing so by that same government.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message

The way it works is either everyone's rights are protected or nobody's rights are safe, so even a vile group of psychos like the Westboro "church" is protected by the same law that protects you.
As for the govt. forbidding you from expressing your religious views, if you can provide any examples that don't come under the doctrine of the separation of church and state, let's hear 'em. But if this is really about nonsense like a "right" to pray in school, sorry, you have no case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/21/2011 12:28 PM, DGDevin said this:

are safe, so even a vile group of psychos like the Westboro "church" is protected by the same law that protects you.

can provide any examples that don't come under the doctrine of the separation of church and state, let's hear 'em. But if this is really about nonsense like a "right" to pray in school, sorry, you have no case.
I don't have the particulars handy, but a number of years ago, the governor of (I think) Colorado got abused by the Usual Suspects because - as a personally devout Christian - he chose to attend a prayer breakfast featuring people in government. I supposed if he'd appeared to promote a pro-anything-but-Judeo-Christian event, it would have been OK of course.
Church-State "separation" (a phrase appearing nowhere in the Constitution) is supposed to prevent the State from *establishing* a religion. It was never in the minds of the Framers (based on their own statements anyway) that the State was to be protected *from* the appearance any religious expression in the context of government activities. This notion of sanitizing all appearance of religious expression within government is a fiction invented by the aforementioned Loons In Charge Of Western Culture (LICOWC) . It is completely at odds with the many and repeated writings of the US Framers - many of whom were barely religious or even openly hostile to religion. The fact is that - from the beginning of the nation - there was religious expression within government, starting with the first Congress that opened with a pastoral prayer. This does not stop the intellectually, historically, and conceptually demented LICOWC ...
Prayer in schools is a problem because schools are funded as government institutions (which they should not be).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's it, that's your example of, "people that voluntarily wish to participate in traditional religious expression are forbidden doing so by that same government"? Some vague memory of a governor being "abused" by some unnamed persons over attending a prayer breakfast, that qualifies as the govt. forbidding religious expression?
You have got to be kidding.

Happily the foolish position that the state could be just a little bit pregnant on the issue of a state religion has not survived examination by the courts. You're free to stage your religious rituals in your church, in your home, on private property with like-minded adherents--you have no right to inject them into the operations of govt.

You're always good for a laugh, I'll give you that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/21/2011 8:48 PM, DGDevin wrote:

participate in traditional religious expression are forbidden doing so by that same government"? Some vague memory of a governor being "abused" by some unnamed persons over attending a prayer breakfast, that qualifies as the govt. forbidding religious expression?
Like I said, the details escape me - but here's one example - I know that whole Google thing is complicated, so I did it for you:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?idr07
I am reasonably certain that had this been an expression of atheism - a different kind of religion - the ACLU would have been strangely silent...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Atheism isn't a religion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2011 3:41 PM, David Paste said this:

Oh yes it is. It is the denial of a deity without confirmable proof. Like any religion, it:
1) Starts from an unprovable starting point 2) Develops a system of epistemology and ethics thereby 3) Defines all other religions with which it disagrees as being wrong
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is not the denial of anything. It is not accepting someone else's word for something that THEY cannot prove. Different thing.
Atheism IS falsifiable - believers simply have to show evidence for their faith, and there you go - atheism would be proven 'wrong'. BUT! Then again, if believers COULD prove their faith, they technically wouldn't be believers...
Atheism is not a religion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Atheists believe they're right, they don't KNOW they're right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ha! I would be hard pushed to find an atheist with /any/ belief, really.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2011 5:07 PM, David Paste wrote:

By definition, every atheist believes there is no God (or god).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net says...

Not really. By the definition that used to apply atheists neither knew nor cared whether there was a deity of any kind. However the movement got hijacked by religious loons who know with certainty from revealed truth that there is no deity.
I once had a lengthy discussion of this with a well known author who is a serial-numbered card-carrying atheist who used to write a column for the Atheist magazine (i.e. he knows a lot more about organized atheism than most of the rest of us do). When it was clear that the organization was changing from a group of people who were without religion to a group who adhered to the religion that there is no deity, he quit writing for them in disgust.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/23/2011 12:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

< clipped >
I dont know what you mean by glory, Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you donttill I tell you. I meant theres a nice knock-down argument for you! But glory doesnt mean a nice knock-down argument, Alice objected. When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master, thats all. -- Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass
I suppose, like Humpty Dumpty, you can use a word to mean whatever you want. But to have a meaningful conversation, people have to reach common agreement on what their words mean. In the absence of circumstances requiring something different, most people will use the usual and ordinary meaning of a word. Merriam-Webster online dictionary (www.merriam-webster.com) defines "atheist" to mean "a disbelief in the existence of deity." It defines "agnostic" to mean "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly, one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
Your definition better describes an agnostic than an atheist. After considering these matters, I stand by my statement.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, by definition, every atheist does not accept that there is a god(s). There is no belief in it. This is a crucial point, and one where many, many people fall down - 'belief' is to accept an idea as true with no supporting evidence. Atheists don't /believe/.
But, I know what you mean... I was being pedantic for the sake of clarity!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <11c5b90e-f019-4332-a2d0-dc27a0592e2c@

The paradox of unbelief is that, unbelief is belief. The opposite of belief is probably apathy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't care what you believe, and as long as you don't bother me I won't bother you. Moreover, as my mother said, God put you on this earth to help your fellow man.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Works around here, Han.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

I guess mom is my god ...because I'm pretty sure she put me on this earth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.