Well, edgar - your point of view on this subject is a little "tiresome" to me, as well, but my point stands. In every case, you have the individual choice about how you react. No one is forcing you to genuflect at the monuments, or listen to the Jehovah's Witness' spiel, or watch the Inauguration. You feel persecuted, fine - have at it, may your grievous lamentations fill your little heart with satisfaction. But my point of view is as valid as yours - and I think there are several things which are pushed just as hard or harder than the neocon/fundie brand of Christianity in America today. And I have to make conscious choices everyday which of them to make personal battles. Just because we are on opposite sides of this debate, don't lose your Christian courtesy.
No, your point is not as valid as mine so long as you endorse combining church-state in our everyday lives. I don't care how good you may think it is for me to be constantly inundated with your version of reality it is a burden I will not carry.
edgarblythe wrote:No, your point is not as valid as mine so long as you endorse combining church-state in our everyday lives. I don't care how good you may think it is for me to be constantly inundated with your version of reality it is a burden I will not carry.
I don't "endorse" anything. I'm not even saying I disagree with you about , say for instance, that much ballyhooed 10 commandments monument of that wacky judge. I'm saying it's not something I choose to make a personal battle. Just because you hold it as such a threatening priority and affront to your sensibilities and sense of justice, doesn't mean everyone has to.
Then why do you expend so much energy with these threads? How can you choose to not participate and then show up on every thread to argue with the ones who seek a separation?
I have as much right to be on this thread as anyone, edgar. It's an interesting topic. I could just as well ask you why an atheist spends so much time on topics started by and for believers, but you have the right.
I am not trying to remove you from the threads, Snood. But for these points of contention I like you very much. I just don't understand the type of persistence you have shown.
I don't know - maybe I feel like it's important to keep all sides of this particular topic represented - the rabidly for, the rabidly against, and the moderate and conciliatory. I think I have that attitude about alot of topics.
(I think you are taking the wrong side on this one).
Baldimo wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Baldimo, who posted that we should give tsunami victims nothing in aid unless we got a "back scratch" for it in return.....now proudly starts a thread about how someone Godless gets what he deserves. I feel certain Heaven is overrun with angels and a host of the Saints rejoicing in Baldimo's name and preparing a double wide for him on the South Side.
I never said only for a "back scratch", I said we shouldn't offer money unless they request it. I'm not that cold hearted.
Wow if I'm not mistaken you just called me a redneck, quite mature of you.
Baldimo said:
I say we don't send any money until it is asked for.
Then make sure we are going to get a scratch on the back later.
Read 'em and weep Baldimo.....a back scratch is
exactly what you said.....you want to put strings on aid and then deny it then go ahead....it suits you. Fortunately that seems to be a minority opinion. I did not call you a redneck btw.....I was merely suggesting a reward in kind for your tender altrusim :wink: ....by the way this quote from Baldimo comes from the thread about sending bush's inauguration money to tsunami relief.....
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41975
I stand corrected. I guess I was referring to what I have said to other people. I still do beleive this but we should also have waited for the asking of the money before giving any.
We need the imput of the lawyers here on A2K for this one.
How is it that school prayer demonstrates a "clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause," but the presidential inaguration ceremony in which god is invoked doesn't?
InfraBlue wrote:We need the imput of the lawyers here on A2K for this one.
How is it that school prayer demonstrates a "clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause," but the presidential inaguration ceremony in which god is invoked doesn't?
My guess is that schoolchildren can avoid the Inauguration but are helpless to avoid the mention of a nation under a "Christian" God in the "Pledge"
It was my experience in elementary school and it pissed me off no end..
panzade wrote:InfraBlue wrote:We need the imput of the lawyers here on A2K for this one.
How is it that school prayer demonstrates a "clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause," but the presidential inaguration ceremony in which god is invoked doesn't?
My guess is that schoolchildren can avoid the Inauguration but are helpless to avoid the mention of a nation under a "Christian" God in the "Pledge"
It was my experience in elementary school and it pissed me off no end..
Didn't seem to do your dick any harm!
I can't lift half that much weight with mine.
Whattya expect you atheist?
panzade wrote:InfraBlue wrote:We need the imput of the lawyers here on A2K for this one.
How is it that school prayer demonstrates a "clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause," but the presidential inaguration ceremony in which god is invoked doesn't?
My guess is that schoolchildren can avoid the Inauguration but are helpless to avoid the mention of a nation under a "Christian" God in the "Pledge"
It was my experience in elementary school and it pissed me off no end..
If it were "One nation, under Jesus," I could see your point, but as it just says "God" I don't believe you to be right here. I mean you are welcome to your opinion, but I do not think it speaks directly of a christian god.
McGentrix wrote:If it were "One nation, under Jesus," I could see your point....
Why?
Because it would violate law...or because it would violate your sense of fair play and inclusivenss?
Goodness, of course it speaks directly of a Christian God.....don't play dumb with me McG.
It certainly doesn't refer to another religion's God
