1 "I think Christmas should be for all faiths..."

You're welcome to join in on the festivities, but don't tell us how to celebrate it you multi-culti effing moron.

2 A movie about the birth of Jesus Christ cant be shown at a Christmas festival, because that festival celebrates the Christian Holiday of Christmas, which is a federal Holiday held every year in this country to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ--even though the Christians who made the movie paid the city of Chicago through the nose to hold that festival?


Who says there's a jihad on Christmas and Christians in this country? Just because the religious symbols of other religions were allowed to be displayed at this Christian festival, doesn't mean Christians are being singled out for persecution. Just because muslims are allowed to screech their nerve-wracking call to prayer over outdoor loudspeakers 5 times a day throughout the city, and play movies denouncing America as the "great Satan" at their conferences, that doesn't mean the city leaders in Chicago discriminate against Christians.


Mr. Blue Cap Dorkinheimer is right. A Christmas festival should be open to all faiths, even the faiths that want to destroy it. I guess I missed the signs and guards barring non-Christians from the festival. Chicago doesn't want to offend non-Christians patronizing a Christian festival. That makes perfect sense.


Bill Maher and David Letterman are right. What war on Christmas? It's a right-wingnut fiction. Bushitler probably started this rumor during one of his White House ramadan celebrations. Just because assaults like this against the Holiday are commonplace, doesn't mean there's a concerted effort to purge Christ from Christmas.


Leftists would never force their opinions down everybody ele's throats. They're the most tolerant people in the world, next to the followers of the religion of peace.


Chicago loves Jesus.

3 Wouldn't it be something sad, even if we win the war against the Jihadi terrorists, we lose the souls of the nation anyway?

I'm not even asking from a religious standpoint.

We are suppossed to have 'free exercise' of religion in the USA. Well watch out people, cause we could lose it.

What with infidel slaying being a major part of being a good Muslim, we can't very well let that kind of free excercise get around, can we?

Meanwhile the Godless Socialists are trying to convert us all to Atheism, by turning the mention of the word "Christ" into some sort of hate speech.

Anybody got any ideas what to do?

USA all the way!

4 I don't understand the problem. Will someone please explain it to me.

This "Christkindlmarket" is all about the moneychangers selling their wares.

I assume that this is being done on private property, so there should be no constitutional issue involved.

So why does the Chicago city government have anything to say about showing a religious movie on private property?

I would think that the only people, that have a say in any activity going on at this sale, are the sponsors of the sale.

Not the government and not anyone that is not connected with the sale.

If the city is endorsing or interfering with the sponsorship or the sale of this stuff, then someone should be suing the City of Chicago in federal court.

As far as Christmas being for all faiths, don't you guys believe that the message of Christmas is applicable to all faiths?

And what is the message of Christmas?

Peace on earth, goodwill to men.

The message is for all faiths as well as for us godless leftists.

I'm confused.

Here's more on the story that has sort of relieved my confusion.

It turns out that your assertions about the City of Chicago stopping the showing of "Nativity" at the German Christkindlmarket Christmas/holiday festival are completely fabricated.

------------------------------------------------

"The Nativity Story Turned Down at US Festival
The city of Chicago in the US is not allowing The Nativity Story to be presented at a major public Christmas festival.
by Kevin Donovan
Posted: Wednesday, November 29, 2006, 8:41 (GMT)
Font Scale:A A A
The Nativity Story Turned Down at US Festival

The city of Chicago in the US is not allowing The Nativity Story to be presented at a major public Christmas festival.

Officials have asked organisers of the German Christkindlmarket to reconsider using New Line Cinema, the maker of movie The Nativity Story, as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film might offend non-Christians.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/the.nativity.story.turned.down.at.us.festival/8535.htm

Note, that in the first paragraph of this article it reads "The city of Chicago in the US is not allowing The Nativity Story to be presented at a major public Christmas festival", but the second paragraph reads "Officials have asked organisers of the German Christkindlmarket to reconsider using New Line Cinema, the maker of movie The Nativity Story, as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film might offend non-Christians", the second paragraph contradicting the first.

------------------------------------------------

Christkindlmarket Organizers & Management

Christkindlmarket Chicago is presented by the German American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest Inc. and organized through its subsidiary German American Services, Inc. in close cooperation with the City of Chicago and the Mayor’s Office of Special Events.

Christkindlmarket is planned, organized and executed by Ray Lotter, Vice President & Managing Director, German American Services, Inc., and Maren Biester, Assistant Manager, German American Services. Inc. Ray Lotter is responsible for management, strategic planning, sponsorship & partnerships, advertising & public relations, Maren Biester handles marketing & public relations, vendor relations, visitor relations, event planning, and administration.

To learn more about the German American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest Inc. and its work to "further, promote and assist in the expansion of bilateral trade and investment between Germany and the United States" visit www.gaccom.org.

http://www.christkindlmarket.com/facts.htm

If anyone has a problem with what is allowed and not allowed, at Christkindlmarket, Ray Lotter is the guy to talk to as the guy responsible for organizing the event.

----------------------------------------------

BTW - let's set the record straight.

The City of Chicago did not tell the festival organizers that it could not show the movie.

The festival organizers, who are not associated with the City of Chicago government, CHOSE not to accept the distributers of "Nativity", as a sponsor.

The City of Chicago is a sponsor of the festival and cannot endorse any particular religion.

For a movie to be shown, at the festival, that endorses a particular religion would violate the sponsorship agreement between the City of Chicago and the organizers of the event.

The City of Chicago would have had no choice but to withdraw their sponsorship of the event, which amounted to $12,000.

Also, in the youtube, a couple of people thought that the Jews and the Muslims should not be represented at the festival.

What bigotry!!

This is a Christmas/holiday festival, as defined by the organizers.

Should the organizers be discriminating against vendors that sell Jewish or Muslim holiday stuff?

5 Piddledick: Why don't you just shut up. Aren't you going to parachute on the Laostian army today? You friggin commies need to form you own blog. All you do is take up space that can be better used. Friggin phoney.

6 puddle,

stop with the spin already.  It's gotten so ridiculous it hardly bears a response.  What difference does it make whether it was cancelled by the City of Chicago or by the private organizers because of their agreement with the City.  Same goddam thing.  It boils down to Leftism's commie hatred of christianity and their subversive distortion of the Constitution.

7 PuddleDuck. We knew the traditional hell with demons raping your butt
would be too enjoyable for you so we have developed a special level
formed in the image of a small conservative Southern town with nothing
but NeoCons who listen to Rush and Hannity all day and night long. You
will burn there for eternity.



St. Peter


Personal Hell Department


Pearly Gates

8 My God, that would be Hell...

9 As usual, JC, you have missed the point.

"puddle,

stop with the spin already. It's gotten so ridiculous it hardly bears a response. What difference does it make whether it was cancelled by the City of Chicago or by the private organizers because of their agreement with the City. Same goddam thing. It boils down to Leftism's commie hatred of christianity and their subversive distortion of the Constitution.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 2, 2006 08:58 AM"

It was not the City of Chicago that decided not to allow a sponsor to advertise a Christian movie (BTW-the movie wasn't going to be show - only the advertisement for it, which included previews).

So, stop blaming the City of Chicago, for a decision made by the organizers of the event.

If the organizers want to allow sponsors, that promote a particular religion, they are free to do that.

They just can't expect the City of Chicago to violate the US constitution, by sponsoring an event, in which a particular religion is promoted over another.

Why don't the Jawas support the contitution?

Got it, yet?

10 "Piddledick: Why don't you just shut up. Aren't you going to parachute on the Laostian army today? You friggin commies need to form you own blog. All you do is take up space that can be better used. Friggin phoney.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 2, 2006 08:19 AM "

I can't shut up. I have to keep trying to staighten out assholes like you, that haven't got a fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

All you guys know how to do is make up shit, or quote the half truths that you find at some RW Chistian website or on Fox News.

You sure are a pathetic bunch, especially you, Grey.

As I have said before, there are no vets, here that are questioning my military service, because they know that I'm telling the truth.

Only those of you, who have never served in the military, are questioning my service.

Even a "leg" wouldn't question my service, but then again, a "leg" probably wouldn't even know that he was a "leg".

If your so concerned about losing President Moron's war in Iraq, why don't you bunch of draft dodgers volunteer for service in Iraq, or don't you even meet the lower minimum standards?

I did my 3 years from 1963 thru 1966.

It's your turn to do your part to defend your country.

Get to it.

But please don't volunteer for airborne training.

They don't need any pussies like you in the airborne.

11 There is no historical evidence for Jesus. Why should the city of Chicago subsidize one religion's (two, if you count the Religion of Peace) fiction?

12 "PuddleDuck. We knew the traditional hell with demons raping your butt
would be too enjoyable for you so we have developed a special level
formed in the image of a small conservative Southern town with nothing
but NeoCons who listen to Rush and Hannity all day and night long. You
will burn there for eternity.

St. Peter

Personal Hell Department

Pearly Gates
Posted by: St Peter at December 2, 2006 09:00 AM"

too funny.

Imagine a place where all channels on tv are playing Fox News and it's always BOR or Vannity and all stations on the radio only pick up Rush Limpballs.

That would be hell, for sure.

But, for most of the guys here, that would be heaven, wouldn't it?

Because they don't know the difference?

13 To make that hell even hotter, Ann Coulter would be on every show.

14 Ann Coulter would be on every show.

No...she will be your wife but have the body of Barney Frank.

I have to keep trying to staighten out assholes

And just how are you "straightening" them out?

15 Rectus means straight in Latin.
Rectum means love in Liberal.

16 stop blaming the City of Chicago, for a decision made by the organizers of the event.

puddle,

am I blaming the city of Chicago?  No, I'm blaming the Leftards who run the show.  First Leftards banned christianity from public spaces in the name of the Constitution (was a load of crap).  Are you going to remove the Ten Commandments and religious symbols from the U.S. Capitol too?  From the Supreme Court building?  From our currency?  And now under the cover  "tolerance" and multi-cultism you've attempted to ban christianity from the private sphere. You've made your intentions quite clear, wouldn't you say?  So stfu and show some intellectual honesty for a goddam change.

17 Show me the evidence Jesus EVER existed as a real person.

18 It is most probable that Jesus was propaganda created by the Roman government's agent Paul in order to create division amongst rebellious Jews, as well as a sect that encouraged pacifism.

19 Fishelle,

you're an ignoramus who obviously doesn't have a clue what you're talking about.

20 Wow Jesusland Carlos, how Christlike you are in your persuasion ! Please though, show me the evidence Jesus the man existed. I want to believe.

21 Fishelle,

it's called Google:  "Jesus" and "historical evidence."  You're a big boy.

22 Looks like Jesusland Carlos' bluff has been called...

23 Actually it looks like Jesusland Carlos knows when someone's trying to change the subject and he refuses to take the bait.

24

That Google search is not helpful. Try real scholarship, such as Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, written in 1944.

25 http://www.atheists.org/christianity/didjesusexist.html

26 Fishelle Talkin
"There is no historical evidence for Jesus."

Please tell me then, what is Christianity itself?

It is historic evidence for something, wouldn't you say?

There is no evidence you have any idea what you are talking about. Maybe you could provide some.

USA all the way!

27 What makes Atheists think they can foist off their religion as historica fact?

They can't prove their religion in any meaningful way, so why do they get to pretened superiority?

Fishelle has nothing. Atheists have nothing. It shows through. Speaking as a one time Atheist, I can tell you this.

USA all the way!

28 I know, I mis-spelled stuff so don't try the (you can't spell) dodge!

USA all the way!

29 How bout you read some Josephus.

30 Anyway, it is a dodge to attack Jesus, when the issue of this post is the restrictions against free exercise of religion.

Free excercise is Constitutionally protected speech, and association, so why not adress that issue?

Atheists are behaving like fascists, trying to oppress free exercise of religion, by the people.

They are trying to create Atheism as the state religion, when it isn't, and no act of Congress can Constitutionally make it so.

So the ACLU and Atheists supporting restrictions against free exercise of religion, are attacking the Constitution itself. For their own gain, and advantage.

I really don't care about Atheists, and have some for friends, but I count the oppressors among them as enemies of the people.

So Nyah! Nyah! to Fishelle and friends


USA all the way!

31 Josephus !
Is he all you have !
The schemer, the philanderer, the killer, the traitor !
No incentive to trade allegiances on his part ! Jesus, he even sold out his family to become a Roman citizen !
Really reliable guy you use to vouch for your fictional god !
As you may not be aware, Josephus' "writing" is not undisputed.

32 "Get a clue!"

Got one. I do comaparative religion as a passtime, and Atheism is one of the worst. Your cherry picking instead of really adressing the point. Someone didn't just sit down and make up Jesus, and suddenly we have a whole religion.

Neither did anyone make up Mohammed. So don't be non-sensical.

As for Gods, and the Supernatural, whether you believe there is evidence or not, depends on whether you think dumb luck, and random chance explains the universe, or not. That is a personal choice.

Free exercise of religion, leaves that choice up to you, not a government. Atheists want to limit that choice, through government. That makes them fascistic in behavior, if not strictly.

I said this, and its true. I have been an Atheist. I'm not going back. It lacks so much of what makes greater human society actually care about each other, that I can't endorse it. It is hollow, and justifies the worst behavior as 'human nature'. it casts accusations against other faiths, without admitting to its own genocides.

No Atheist can preach to me from any kind of suppossed high ground. Atheists have none from which to speak down from. All they can do is try to tear down others because they have nothing to give of their own. I know this first hand.

Jesus existed, whether he was the Son of God, or not is a persons own business, but don't try and rewrite history just because you don't like it.

Get a clue of your own, and let people freely enoy their religion as long as they don't go around maiming, or killing each other.

Enough said, unless you think you have something with some meat on it, for the real subject of this thread ...


USA all the way!

33 Fishelle....its religion moron. Faith...not proof. I'm not religious and I even know your argument is stupid. If you can't troll better than that get a new hobby asswipe.

34 JC et al -

If you don't like what happened in Chicago, organize your own festival.

You can invite whomever you want and show all of the Christmas movies you want, as long as you aren't expecting some local government to violate the constitution, by supporting you.

BTW, JC - Nice rant.

But expected, as that's how you wingnuts make your point.

If you scream long enough and loud enough and insult everyone that disagrees with you, eventually someone will believe your lies.

There is no war on Christmas or on Jesus, personally.

You really need to take a break from Bill O'liely.

Freedom of, and from, religion is still alive and well, in this country, even if you choose not to believe it.

35 Randman, then simpleton faithists like Jesusland should stop presenting religion as historical fact.

36 "Fishelle Talkin
"There is no historical evidence for Jesus."

Please tell me then, what is Christianity itself?

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 2, 2006 03:40 PM "

What a fucking joke!!!

The existance of a religion "proves" that it's namesake existed?

Give me a fucking break!!

Is that the best you've got for "proving" the existance of "historical Jesus"?

37 JC -

"If you don't like what happened in Chicago, organize your own festival.

We do. And then the Leftards ruin it for everybody.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 2, 2006 05:33 PM"

Please explain how the Leftards are ruining your Christian festivals.

This should be interesting, if you actually came up with an inteligent response.

But you won't will you, because you can't come up with an inteligent response?

Your response will be predictable, yet stupid.

38 Michael Weaver,

Christianity is as much historical evidence of Jesus the man as:

* Scientology is evidence of body thetans.

* Mormonism is evidence of Moroni

* Islam is evidence of Al-Lat, the moon goddess.

Get a clue !

39 "What makes Atheists think they can foist off their religion as historica fact?

They can't prove their religion in any meaningful way, so why do they get to pretened superiority?

Fishelle has nothing. Atheists have nothing. It shows through. Speaking as a one time Atheist, I can tell you this.

USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 2, 2006 03:44 PM"

Now that is about the dumbist thing I have read today.

Glad you found what was missing in your life, but religion is not for everyone.

90% of the people, in this country say that they are religious.

Guess that makes them better than Atheists, without any other considerations.

Atheism is a religion?

Let me see, now, if Theism is the belief in a supreme being and Atheism is the disbelief in a supreme being, then how does Atheism get elevated to the stature of a religion?

Have you ever see an Atheist, knocking on your door at 8am on a Saturday morning to try to sell you on their "religion".

If Atheism is a religion, then it would qualify for funding for the "faith-based initiatives" program, or do you now want to discriminate against a particular religion, since you don't believe in it's teachings.

I am a former and current Atheist and I haven't attended one of those Godless church of Atheism services, since...let's see...oh yeah...never!!!

Do your research, moron, before you come back here.

You are embarrasing yourself.

Please tell me the rest of you guys aren't that stupid.

40 "Atheists are behaving like fascists, trying to oppress free exercise of religion, by the people.

They are trying to create Atheism as the state religion, when it isn't, and no act of Congress can Constitutionally make it so.

So the ACLU and Atheists supporting restrictions against free exercise of religion, are attacking the Constitution itself. For their own gain, and advantage.

I really don't care about Atheists, and have some for friends, but I count the oppressors among them as enemies of the people.

Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 2, 2006 03:55 PM"

It's just amazing how full of crap you are, Michael.

Atheists don't care which God or other diety you choose to worship and they have no interest in interfering with your freedom of religion.

Atheists respect the constitution, but don't want your religion crammed down our thoats.

The ACLU will defend your right to freedom of religion as vigorously as it will defend an Atheist from having religion imposed on him.

I wish you guys would get off the ACLU's case.

Their only reason for existance is to defend the constitution of the US, against morons, like you, that would try to restrict the constitutional rights of some Americans while trying to grant special priveleges to another group.

I am a member of the ACLU and I support the constitution.

Why aren't you guys members of the ACLU?

Is is because you don't support the constitution, except when you agree with it?

41 Josephus !
Is he all you have !
The schemer, the philanderer, the killer, the traitor !
No incentive to trade allegiances on his part !

I guess even the ancient Jews had their Liberals.  But what does "philandering" have to do with history?  Nothing ya ignoramus.  Read.

42
If you don't like what happened in Chicago, organize your own festival.

We do.  And then the Leftards ruin it for everybody.

43 Randman, then simpleton faithists like Jesusland should stop presenting religion as historical fact.

It seems they are arguing about expression and your the one trying to
prove or disprove. It oftentimes seems that many atheist are as
fanatical on the subject of destroying peoples faith as any Christians
are about believing. If they came to you and tried to force you to
convert you would be furious. Yet your kind seem to live for destroying
their faith. Seems rather dogmatic to me for someone who claims such
intellectual high ground. And please don't roll out the John Lennon
"the world would be perfect without religion" crap. It would not only
NOT change human nature...it might unleash it.

44 Randman, your last statement is heavy on stereotypes. That aside, there is no harm in debating the historical accuracy of the Jesus Myth. If it comes to the Chicago city council intervening in support of a holiday celebrating Jesus' birth, the subject of whether Jesus was really born is certainly relevant. Further, the burden of proof is on those who push Christmas. Why should the government subsidize a religious holiday? If it is because the holiday is now secular and all faiths can enjoy it, then proof of Jesus' existence is irrelevant and people should have no problem if "Chicago hates the Baby Jesus" and chooses not to subsidize depictions of the little fucker. If it is because Christmas is a holy holiday, then proof of the holiness is in order before public tax dollars, or public time or other resources, should be expended. However, since there is no proof of Jesus, and since proof is not important anyway since the public wavers when it comes to the government intervening in support of religious holidays, the religious folks whine that they can no longer enjoy a religious holiday on either the government's time or expense. Seems that it is the John Gibsons of the world who are the sourpusses.

45 It seems they are arguing about expression and your the one trying to
prove or disprove.

Randman,

I guess on a thread about how much Liberals hate Christianity it's relevant that Fish smell and piddle would try to disprove the historical Jesus. 

Yet except for the part that Josephus was a "philanderer" (LOL), no evidence on their part that he didn't exist.

Libs, google it.  "Jesus" and "historical evidence."  You're big boys.  You don't need me to babysit you through it.

46 A good explanation of why Atheism is a religion, in deed, even if not so named by some Atheists:

"Some Atheists...assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion.... But this is like saying that "black," (which physicists define as the total absence of color) is not a color.... In common practice throughout the world, "black" is understood to be a color, despite the technical definition of the physicists. Likewise, "Atheism" is a religion, despite any technical definitions to the contrary. If black is a color, then Atheism is a religion.

—Rev. Bill McGinnis, "The Religion of Atheism"

USA all the way!

47 Apparently someone has been to an Atheist church service ...

As an example:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/church_of_atheism
"Church of Atheism
Submitted by Dissident1 on Sun, 2006-11-19 11:57.

There are, like, two churches of atheism here in Texas that I know of. I have often considered this to be rather absurd. I mean, what would a preacher of atheism have to preach on? Is there a holy textbook telling what the nongod dictates to the unbeliever?

However, I do understand a certain amount of the reasoning behind opening a church of atheism. "

And I didn't make that up.

USA all the way!

48 "But what does "philandering" have to do with history? Nothing ya ignoramus." -- Jesusland Carlos

Well. I am an "ignoramus." Using sophpmoric epithets always wins converts, as Jesus himself used to say. I suspect that your willingness to squeeze off this epithet is no different than the willingness of many a past Christian to squeeze off a few rounds into non-believers. It reveals your contempt for my ignorance, and your contempt for me as a human being, not your Christian love and certainly not your willingness to help me mend my ways or see the divine truth.
Regarding the significance of Josephus being a philanderer, perhaps you should ask Bill Clinton, Charles Lee Francis Anzalone or any other traitor or liar whose philandering ways contributed to his deception and fall. Does infidelity to one's wife make their other assertions more credible? If a man makes a vow to his wife to always be true to her and not cheat, does he retain credibility when witnessing about his religious beliefs, or swearing allegiance to his country, if he cannot keep the simple vow to his wife? But, then again, you and your minister, Senior Haggard, probably don't believe that lies about sex matter.

49 In another example of religious usage of Atheism ...

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/irs_tax_exempt_status
"IRS Tax Exempt Status
Not for Profit Organization

Church of Reality gets Nonprofit Status
The Church of Reality is a 501(c)3 tax exempt not for profit organization recognized by the IRS. Here is the initial letter approving our status. The image is slightly edited in that it was originally 2 pages and I merged them."
Also
"Although I had some paranoid thoughts, as it turned out what the Church of Reality believed in was never an issue. "
Also
"The universe doesn't care about us. Stars explode. Solar systems are sucked into black holes. This planet is but a speck of dust in the universe. Our entire galaxy is but a speck of dust in the universe. If our galaxy blew up tomorrow it would take 2.2 million years before anyone in the next galaxy even knew it happened. If there were anyone in the next galaxy, that is. And there are trillions of galaxies. We live for just a moment in time. There is no universal right or wrong. Whatever happens is whatever happens. If the sun explodes, then it is just one of trillions of stars that explode.

The human race is very young and we are just beginning to become aware of what we are, how we relate to the reality around us, and the responsibilities we face in determining our future. We have choice, so what do we do with that? What shall we choose for ourselves? How will we decide to relate to reality?

Not all of the axioms of the Church of Reality are based only on objective truth. That's because the Church of Reality isn't a religion of science. The Church of Reality is about people who are exploring reality from a human perspective. "
Also
"Do you believe in God?


The short answer is no. The long answer is - if he comes out of hiding we will believe in him. "

Also
"Just like all religions the real secret agenda is that you are just trying to convert everyone to reality, aren't you? The Church of Reality is just like all the other religions, trying to convert everyone. Trying to win souls over to reality. I suppose if we weren't out secretly trying to convert people we wouldn't be a real religion. So yes! Busted!

So - what I want to know is - are you ready to accept reality today? Are you ready to make a personal commitment to the real world? To experience reality the way it really is? Are you willing to quit living the lie? Then welcome to the real world! (Darwin loves you!)

Yours in Reality,

Marc Perkel
First One
Church of Reality"

So whats up with that Fishelle? PD?

USA all the way!

50 "no evidence on their part that he didn't exist." -- Jesusland Carlos

"no evidence that did not exist" is not the same as evidence that he did exist. Which is one of the many problems with the Jesus Myth.

51 INCOMING!!!!
In another example:
http://www.churchoffreethought.org/
"Welcome to the North Texas Church of Freethought!


We are the Church for the Unchurched, offering atheists and unbelievers all the social, emotional and inspirational benefits of traditional faith-based religions, but without the superstition. Our growing community of unbelievers provides a positive, affirming environment for leading the good life free of the illogic and intolerance of religions based on holy books and supernaturalism.
Join Us"

Join us? Proselytizing? Hmmm.

USA all the way!

52 More about Atheist religious organization:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/atheism.html
"Group Organization: Different atheists follow their beliefs in different ways. Some form or join organizations for atheists, while others do not even associate with other atheists, keeping their beliefs relatively unknown to society. Organizations like American Atheists and Atheists United are engaged in debate about atheist and theological issues, and they seek to promote the rights and beliefs of atheists."

DID THAT SAY 'BELIEFS OF ATHEISTS'!?!

"Others join atheist groups that act as a social network, as a group that tries to dissuade others from "blind faith" in religion, or as an ideology/religion in and of itself. Faith Atheism , for example, declares itself to be a "religion," although it does not believe in the existence of any God. Some people participate in and enjoy the ritual and social network of the churches in which they were raised, and yet they do not believe in any god. The only thing that links all atheists together is their common lack of belief in the existence of any god."
"

So an Atheist has absolute faith in the absence of any kind of God, and absolute faith that no evidence will ever be found, anytime, or anywhere, for the rest of time. And that isn't a position of faith?

Not that I mind you having a faith of some kind

USA all the way!

53 More about Atheismm's legal status in the Federal courts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502222/posts
"7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Atheism as a Religion
Aletheia ^


Posted on 10/13/2005 10:37:14 PM PDT by stand4freedom


Atheist Religion Posted by Jack Salley on Saturday October 1, 2005 at 12:43 pm MST

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals: Atheism as a Religion

In a correctional facilities case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 19, 2005 that atheism should be considered a religion under the law and the facilities may not prevent groups of prisoners from forming groups to study atheism.

In its decision, the court reasoned that preventing these meetings would infringe upon the inmates First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. The court said, “Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being.”


(Excerpt) Read more at agapeplace.org ..."

So now what? Not a religion? Sorry guys, but the government grants tax exempt status, and recognition of the right to free expression of same.

USA all the way!

54 Fishelle: these sorts of arguments are always unproductive. Atheists have no more evidence to support their faith tradition than do the religious.

55

The historical veracity of Jesus is relevant to this thread. With a title like "Why Does Chicago Hate the Baby Jesus?", it matters whether Jesus actually existed. If he did not exist, then it should not matter if the city hates him. If he did exist and was just a man, big deal if the city declines to support images pictured as a baby. If he did exist and is a god, show us the proof before asking the government to subsidize the holiday with time, energy or expenses.

56 These guys are trying to rewrite history, and promote the concept that the founders wanted an Atheist state.

http://www.ffrf.org/purposes/
"What does the Foundation do?
Files lawsuits!
Publishes the only freethought newspaper in the United States, Freethought Today
Sponsors annual high school and college freethought essay competitions with cash awards
Conducts lively, annual national conventions, honoring an annual "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists
Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award and statuette to public figures for plain speaking on religion
Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature
Publishes useful freethought books
Provides speakers for events and debates
Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection "

The point is that 'seperation of church and state' was a reaction to European societal conflicts based primarily on differences of denomination. 'What was the Kings church? We have a new Queen, so what church does she like?'

The founders wanted to avoid that. Secularism is not Atheism. Seculairisnm is tolerance for all ideas. Atheism is intolerance for the idea of God, period.

There is 'weak' Atheism, which could fairly be described as a non-religion. Then there is 'strong' Atheism, which fits all the major philosophical requirements to be considered a true religion.

Non-belief in God, doesn't disqualify Atheism as a religion. Other religions exist absent a God.

What you have, as an Atheist (strong) is a belief regarding spiritual existence. You hold as an absolute, that no proof will ever be forthcoming, to your personal satisfaction, and so as an act of faith (look up the word) you say there IS no God.

And your totally free to believe that. I'm totally free to oppose you trying to make a secular government into an Atheist one. I demand the right to free exercise of my religion, allowing for the other persons right to not be sacrificed to my ancient Aztec god, or whatever.

The greatest act of religious faith shown by Atheists is the absolute belief that they alone are the caretakers of secular law.

You want to know how our Founding Fathers felt about religion? Check out WallBuilder Press.

And stop oppressing my religion. I've been on your side of this argument, and I have experienced the hypocrisy of it. My prefered Bible is the Jefferson Bible, and I note that he had no difficulty accepting the value of Christ, his teachings, or his historical existence.

I hope your tired of this, cause I am. Stop trying to force your 'unbelief' upon the rest of us as 'rule of law'. It is a lie, even if you don't realize it.

Merry Christmas. Enjoy it as you see fit. Let others do likewise.

USA all the way!

57 Fishelle: the title is sardonic; you seem to be the only commenter who didn't realize that. I have no use for anyone blinded by their faith, whether it be one of the big three, secular humanism...or atheism. Atheists are usually the most obnoxious of believers, a point your comments support.

58 Dread, that's great you are sneer at the whole thing. But you have a whole group of readers who feel otherwise about the relevance of Jesus to our society. You were not a part of this latest part of the discussion, but you joined in and chose to target me. I did not call myself an ignoramus, your Christian friend Jesusland stooped to that level. Glad you could join us though.

59 Using sophpmoric epithets always wins converts, as Jesus himself used to say.

Fish smell,

I have no desire to win you as a convert, only to expose you as an intellectually dishonest Leftard.  You asked for evidence that the historical Jesus existed and I gave you the Jewish historian Josephus who named him in his writings.  Your response was to label Josephus a philanderer, etc., because you didn't have a better retort-- as if his Josephus's personal failings had any bearing on his veracity as a historian.  I've debated a few honest Liberals and you're not one of them.  You're a waste of time and everybody on this thread knows it.

60 PiddleDick:


You claim that the City of Chicago blackmailed the Festival organizers into pulling the Nativity movie scenes, but you also make the contradictory claim that the city didn't stop them from showing the scenes.


Typical left-wing version of facts and logic. Where do you plagiarize this juvenile bullshit from? Just how stupid are you, anyway?

61 Fishelle Trollin:


Provide evidence that King Herod, Pontius Pilate, or Tiberius Caesar ever existed.


Provide evidence that they never existed.


We all learned the same empty argument in the eighth grade. The rest of us grew up, but apparently you're a moron.


Praise Jesus.

62 "It seems they are arguing about expression and your the one trying to
prove or disprove.

Randman,

I guess on a thread about how much Liberals hate Christianity it's relevant that Fish smell and piddle would try to disprove the historical Jesus.

Yet except for the part that Josephus was a "philanderer" (LOL), no evidence on their part that he didn't exist.

Libs, google it. "Jesus" and "historical evidence." You're big boys. You don't need me to babysit you through it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 2, 2006 06:16 PM "

When are you going to wise up?

Atheists aren't out to proved the non-existance of God or Jesus.

We have better things to do.

Like trying to prevent your delusions of their existance from negatively impacting our world.

Speaking as a liberal and an Atheist, I don't hate any religion.

It's your religion and your cross to bear (so to speak).

When you try to impose your belief on the rest of us is when we get pissed.

It's not that we hate religion. It's that we hate what religion, in this country is trying to do.

And it's the Christians, in this country, that are not satisfied to go to church and instill their delusions upon their children.

It is the Christians who are still living in the last "cold war" by keeping "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, when the pledge is not a prayer, but a pledge of allegiance to our country.

BTW - the guy that wrote the Pledge was a Socialist, remember?

It is the Christians that want to put prayer back into the schools and the teaching of false science into our high school biology classes.

It is the Christians, thru their TV mouthpieces like CBN and the 700 Club, who have used their TV forum to help to convince their viewers that global warming isn't happening or that it is not humans that are responsible.

Presented with the overwhelming evidence, however, even the TV evangelists are convinced and no preaching that we should be the caretakers of our home.

It is religion and mainly Christianity that is responsible for most of the suffering in the world in the past, the present and will be in the future.

So why do you guys, so strongly, support religion over lack of religion?

Do you feel that you have to attack the non-believers and defend your religion, because of the doubts about your own religious beliefs?

Why is it the Christians, that continue to whine about how their rights are being taken away, are so happy to see other's rights taken away?

Why do Chistians hate religious freedom (which includes freedom from religion)?

Why do Chistians hate our constitution, except for the parts they agree with?

I guess Chistians feel the same way President Moron feels about the constitution.

It's just a piece of paper.

63 Why do Chistians hate our constitution, except for the parts they agree with?

Yeah yeah yeah, we say you're traitors and you say we hate the Constitution.  I'm sure you really struck a nerve there.  It's like you're still in elementary school.

64 Piddledick: Takes a real nerd not to know when he's not wanted. The vets are the ones who spotted your lying bullshit to begin with.  Piddledick is planning to parachute in Ghana and save the natives today. More famous war stories from piddledick tomorrow. I think he's going to save Gambia using his famous Rambo parachute tactics he learned on the internet. ha, ha. Friggin phoney.

65 puddle a vet?  LOL.  Yah sure.

66 PiddleDick:


Yes, those evil Christians are preventing atheists from practicing their religion. Atheist festivals and displays of mindless Nihilism are being banned across the country. Slandering Christianity holds dire consequences. Christians are using the judiciary and legislature to impose their religion on everyone.


Being a snot-nosed kid is no excuse for your level of overweening stupidity. Mongoloids have more sense. Get back on the short bus and don't get off until your assigned stop at the Daily Kos, or whatever indoctrination camp school it is you attend. Try to exhale, retard.

67 Fishelle Trollin:


Sent you packing, I see. So much for your moronic argument. It was only meant to cause disruption and frustration. That moronic argument only works on other morons. People with healthy IQs react with annoyance or contempt.

68 TheAntiPuddleDuck

The Constitution says Congress can't make a law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means we cannot descriminate, by way of Congress, for or against ANY religion.

Barring prayer in school descriminates against everyone but Atheists. Blocking money to (traditional) faith based social support organizations discriminates against them based on their religion. There is no Constitutional basis for such descrimination.

If you recognize a religion, that does not ESTABLISH it in a Constitutional sense. realizing a religion exists, you are in fact, Constitutionally required to let that religion be exercised freely, that is, without descrimination.

The ACLU is consistently working against free exercise of religion. The exceptional cases (and they are the exception) where the ACLU actually helps protect Christian free exercise, are in MY OPINION a PR ploy, or possily evidence that the ACLU is not entirely dominated by Atheist Socialists.

The modern ACLU also does not protect the Constiutional rights of Americans equally. Instead it has a long history of ignoring the Second Amendment, as anyone familiar with the attacks on gun ownership can tell you.

The ACLU shows qualities that are consistent with Marxist ideology in what battles they choose to fight.

I do not trust the ACLU, and for those like PuddleDuck, who are members, I can only say I'm sorry your organization has failed me, and people who feel like me.

PuddleDuck asks if we don't love the Constitution. We do. We feel the ACLU is undermining it, not enhancing the rights the Constitution is intended to protect. Until, the ACLU reforms itself, it is toxic to American values. Regard this as 'my opinion'. If you want to argue about this on an appropriate thread, I'll see you there.

USA all the way!

69 Michael Weaver:

The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, was an avowed Marxist who wanted to turn America into a socialist state without personal possessions or a military.


He hated his country every bit as much as PuddlePuke does.

70 Maybe becuase CHICAGO the WINDY CITY is run by a big time demacratic windbag RICHARD DAILEY and chicago is just another secular bastion of evil

71 If Liberals actually cared about people not becoming "offended" they wouldn't constantly offend conservative christians with such glee.  The fact is the Left wants to secularize American society and turn it into
a-religious Europe.  That's it.  Period.  Because a religious society is a conservative society.  So they use the smokescreen of "tolerance" and the
"constitution" to achieve their goals.  It's that simple folks.

72 Comment #17: Show me the evidence that Alexander the Great or Attila the hun ever existed as real people.

73 "PiddleDick:

You claim that the City of Chicago blackmailed the Festival organizers into pulling the Nativity movie scenes, but you also make the contradictory claim that the city didn't stop them from showing the scenes.

Typical left-wing version of facts and logic. Where do you plagiarize this juvenile bullshit from? Just how stupid are you, anyway?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 2, 2006 11:58 PM "

One more time.

The City of Chicago did not prohibit the organizers of the festival from allowing advertisements and movie scenes to be shown.

The decision to "ban" the movie clips and ads was the decision of the organizers.

If you don't like it, take it up with the organizers.

If City of Chicago is "blackmailing" the festival organizers, it is using the US Constitution to do it.

This is a Christmas/holiday festival, representing many religions, including Christians, Jews and Muslims.

This is a separation of state issue and the City of Chicago is on the correct side. It can't sponsor an event that promotes one religion over another.

Got it yet?

"Piddledick: Takes a real nerd not to know when he's not wanted. The vets are the ones who spotted your lying bullshit to begin with. Piddledick is planning to parachute in Ghana and save the natives today. More famous war stories from piddledick tomorrow. I think he's going to save Gambia using his famous Rambo parachute tactics he learned on the internet. ha, ha. Friggin phoney.
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 3, 2006 10:22 AM "

First thing, moron. I have never claimed to be a war hero.

So you can stop the bullshit about me jumping into exotic places all over the world.

The only exotic place I ever jumped into was Vietnam, where we were still jumping for our $55 per month jump pay (aka hazardous duty pay) into secure DZs.

After I had made 2 pay jumps, the Army finally realized that too many paratroopers were getting hurt, unnecessarily, and too many chutes were being damaged, keeping the riggers busy full time.

Ever see what a bramble bush with 3 inch thorns can do to a parachute, not to mention what it can do to the soldier, wearing it? No, I didn't think so.

They sent most of the chutes home (and most of the riggers).

We stopped jumping, but still got our big $55 per month, in addition to our big $55 combat pay.

Well then Greyrooster, let's hear from all of those vets that still think that I am a lying bastard, huh?

This insult is coming from a guy that is too much of a pussy to have served his country.

Even your hero, President Moron, showed up for duty, once in a while, when he didn't have anything better to do.

"The Constitution says Congress can't make a law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means we cannot descriminate, by way of Congress, for or against ANY religion."

Something that finally makes sense, from Michael.
So we agree on something?

"Barring prayer in school descriminates against everyone but Atheists."

Total bullshit. Even some Christians are against prayer in school. Some Christians believe that prayer belongs at home an within the confines of their religious beliefs. It has no place in the public school system.

Why would you want someone to impose their religious beliefs on your children, especially while they are a captive audience.

Oh, yeah, the kids that don't want to hear the prayer could just stay out until the prayer is recited and then be singled out for ridicule later.

When I was in elementary school (I know, I know "just last year"), We were required to recite "The Lord's prayer".

It's a good all around Jewish, Christian and Muslim prayer, isn't it?

"Blocking money to (traditional) faith based social support organizations discriminates against them based on their religion. There is no Constitutional basis for such descrimination."

Why not support all organizations that provide social services to Americans?

Would you be in favor of supporting a Godless (Atheist) organization, as well as a "faith based" organization?

It shouldn't be a problem, since neither a "faith based" or "non-faith based" organization would be able to talk about their religion (or lack of it), as part of providing services, under the "faith based" initiatives program.

And I think that this is part of the problem.

The so-called "faith based" organizations are upset, since none of the money they receive can be used to promote their religious beliefs.

And even if they use some of their own money, in conjunction with the money, received from the Federal government they can't promote their religious beliefs.

This is very upsetting to them, since they will not be able to spew their religious propaganda, at government expense.

"If you recognize a religion, that does not ESTABLISH it in a Constitutional sense. realizing a religion exists, you are in fact, Constitutionally required to let that religion be exercised freely, that is, without descrimination."

You are right, again, on the above point.
A government can and should recognize all religions, although it can't promote any.

But it, also, can not descriminate against non-religious individuals and organizations, either, on the same basis.

This section of the constitution implies that there is freedom of and from religion.

You cannot protect religious beliefs, while denying the same rights to the non-believers.

"The ACLU is consistently working against free exercise of religion. The exceptional cases (and they are the exception) where the ACLU actually helps protect Christian free exercise, are in MY OPINION a PR ploy, or possily evidence that the ACLU is not entirely dominated by Atheist Socialists.

The modern ACLU also does not protect the Constiutional rights of Americans equally. Instead it has a long history of ignoring the Second Amendment, as anyone familiar with the attacks on gun ownership can tell you.

The ACLU shows qualities that are consistent with Marxist ideology in what battles they choose to fight.

I do not trust the ACLU, and for those like PuddleDuck, who are members, I can only say I'm sorry your organization has failed me, and people who feel like me."

Your attacks on the ACLU are totally bullshit.

BTW - there is not a "modern ACLU". There has always been just the plain ACLU.

The ACLU defends the constitutional rights of individuals and organizations, including guys like Rush Limpballs and the American Nazis, in federal courts, up to the level of the Supreme court.

And I'm sure that it leaves a really bad taste in their mouths, to have to defend scum like Rush and the Nazis, but the ACLU is not defending Rush and the Nazis, but the US constitution.

Could you defend the Constitutional rights of people that you hate?

That's got to be a stressful job.

Why are you guys so afraid of the ACLU?

Are federal judges going to rule in favor of the ACLU and against the Constitution, even at the level of the Supreme court?

You, now, have 2 consevative judges, on the Supreme court, handpicked by President Moron, for their conservative views of the Constitution.

Do you not trust President Moron and the Supreme Court to defend the Constitution against the ACLU?

"PuddleDuck asks if we don't love the Constitution. We do. We feel the ACLU is undermining it, not enhancing the rights the Constitution is intended to protect. Until, the ACLU reforms itself, it is toxic to American values. Regard this as 'my opinion'. If you want to argue about this on an appropriate thread, I'll see you there."

Again, total bullshit.

Only the government can undermine the constitution, and that's what's going on right now, in secret and in the name of "national security" with the present administration.

An organization, like the ACLU can not undermine the constitution.

All they can do is mount challenges, to the government, in the Federal Courts, to defend an individual or an organization, who feels that their constitutional rights have been violated.

That's why we have the Federal court system to protect our constitutional rights, to defend us from people, who would try to take our, constitutionally protected rights, away.

So, I'll ask you again.

Do you support the entire constitution, or just the parts you agree with?

Do you agree that every American has the same Constitutional rights and not just the people, that you happen to agree with?

It's a difficult decision, isn't it?

74 The I'malittledick:


More temper tantrums? Does having a baby dick affect your thought process?


Show me where the Constitution mentions separation of Church and state, and I'll show you a leftist with a functioning brain.

75 OK TheAntiPuddleDuck, I'm a bit annoyed that you don't seem to get me, or what I'm saying. But here we go again. You said this:

"This is a Christmas/holiday festival, representing many religions, including Christians, Jews and Muslims.

This is a separation of state issue and the City of Chicago is on the correct side. It can't sponsor an event that promotes one religion over another.

Got it yet?"

I want to point out that The US Constitution says

"Amendments to the Constitution of the United States
Amendment I (1791)
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 re dress of grievances."

To say Chicago can't 'sponsor an event' that favors a relion is flat wrong Constitutionally. Chicago isn't Congress. They can, but it wouldn't be fair if they were unwilling to sponsor any other religions public activity. Note that I am not saying they need to pony up for a Atheist parade, right away, just that they need to be willing to work for any group within the community. Religious or otherise.

There can be no such animal as 'separation of church and state' (as Atheists see it) in a free society. You would bar anyone who was not an Atheist from any public office if you really had it that way. Don't cry 'bullshit' cause that is cheap, and weak. I'm saying a human being brings his or her religious point of view where ever he goes. If your an Atheist on the Supreme Court, your views will affect your judgement.

In short, I maintain that seperation of church and state is as much a lie as the perfect communist society. You can't have either one, without removng human beings from the equation.

All the founders wanted was to insure that Catholics didn't kill Protestants, etc. And that nobody got promoted, or passed over, based on being of a specific denomination.

In fact, for Congress to treat a group, or organization, as less deserving, or less worthy, because they have a religious motivation, is unconstitional because it puts Congress in the role of religious oppressor.

In short, if my group wants to feed the poor, and we are religious, Congress will be asked by the ACLU, not to help us, when a non-religious group would get the same help. Do I ned to make this point any clearer?

Then you said:

"First thing, moron. I have never claimed to be a war hero."

I know that wasn't aimed at me, but it is an example of what goes wrong with these threads. People attack the person, not the argument. I'm not calling you names, so if your responding to me, please extend the same courtesy.

I said:
"The Constitution says Congress can't make a law respecting the ESTABLISHMENT of religion. That means we cannot descriminate, by way of Congress, for or against ANY religion."
You relpied:
"Something that finally makes sense, from Michael.
So we agree on something?"
I said:
"Barring prayer in school descriminates against everyone but Atheists."
You said:
"Total bullshit. Even some Christians are against prayer in school. Some Christians believe that prayer belongs at home an within the confines of their religious beliefs. It has no place in the public school system.

Why would you want someone to impose their religious beliefs on your children, especially while they are a captive audience."

So here we are. When you block my children from praying ANYWHERE, by enforcing a defacto Atheist religious practice of 'non-recognition' you are forcing your beliefs on my children. You are restricting their free exercise of religion.

Free exercise for an Atheist is to say 'God just ain't so.' Well so what!? Say it. If my kids want to praise Jesus, then let them be! If anyone stops either your little Ateists, or my little Christians from being loud and proud about their religion, it is religious oppression, plain and simple.

You said:
"Oh, yeah, the kids that don't want to hear the prayer could just stay out until the prayer is recited and then be singled out for ridicule later."
Not wanting to hear the free expression, and free speech of another American citizen, is not suffient grounds by itself, to restrict said speech/expression. Only a fascist would think so, so I'm sure I misunderstood you.
You said:
"When I was in elementary school (I know, I know "just last year"), We were required to recite "The Lord's prayer".

It's a good all around Jewish, Christian and Muslim prayer, isn't it?"

Dude! I'm not for requiring any kind of prayer be recited by anyone who doesn't want to. If forced to pray to Allah, I have my response ready. If asked to honor a freind who was Muslim, and respect his right to prayer, I can, and would. Call me a liar if you have to. I do have a fiend who was an active Satanist. Yeah, yeah, cry 'bullshit' whatever. I believe what I say when I say I'm for free exercise, as long as your not hurting someone. DO you get me on that?

I don't hate people for a religious belief. I don't hate Atheists. I do hate politically oppressive behavior, and overt aggression by anyone using religion (or non-religion). That goes for the Christian White supremecists who hate Native Americans, etc. It goes for Islamofascism, It goes for Godless Marxism as applied to crushing religions like mine. Do you understand me?

I said:
"Blocking money to (traditional) faith based social support organizations discriminates against them based on their religion. There is no Constitutional basis for such descrimination."
You said:
"Why not support all organizations that provide social services to Americans?

Would you be in favor of supporting a Godless (Atheist) organization, as well as a "faith based" organization?"

Yes TheAntiPuddleDuck, I have no problem with that. It shows a non-descrimanatory sense of freedom. As long as the organization wasn't sending money to terrorists, or otherwise anti-American, I don't care what they believe. If they want to help, let them.

You said:
"It shouldn't be a problem, since neither a "faith based" or "non-faith based" organization would be able to talk about their religion (or lack of it), as part of providing services, under the "faith based" initiatives program."

Really I don't care if the organization in question lets people know what they think, or what they believe in (see above) as long as they accept everyone in their soup lines, equally.

There is no establishment of religion in allowing free expression at any point in public life. As long as you are not forcing compliance with a code of behavior based purely on religion. My test for that is if someone gets materially infringed upon. If they get hurt feelings to bad. 'Piss Christ' is art. Its in lousy taste, but I don't get to pick.

You said:
"This is very upsetting to them, since they will not be able to spew their religious propaganda, at government expense."
Hey, you get to promote Athesism disguised as secularism, so I don't see the problem with allowing a Christian aid program to be Christian while offering aid. Atheists can go ahead and be Atheists. We can all be free.

I said:
"If you recognize a religion, that does not ESTABLISH it in a Constitutional sense. realizing a religion exists, you are in fact, Constitutionally required to let that religion be exercised freely, that is, without descrimination."
You said:
"You are right, again, on the above point.
A government can and should recognize all religions, although it can't promote any.

But it, also, can not descriminate against non-religious individuals and organizations, either, on the same basis."

I think I want to just agree there. I think there is nothing inherently wrong with promoting an atmosphere of tolerance, as oppossed to intolerance, and I think we interpret intolerance differently.

You said:
"You cannot protect religious beliefs, while denying the same rights to the non-believers."

I'm all for letting people out to run around and be as religious, or Atheist as they want to be. I expect people of different beliefs to be able to let others express a different belief. No one should be oppressed unless they are caught planning to hijack airplanes or lynch colored people. I think I'm being clear ...

Me condensed:
"The ACLU is consistently working against free exercise of religion. I do not trust the ACLU."
Also my use of the term 'modern' was me thinking outloud. I used to like the ACLU, but I hadn't done a lot of research back then. I think of the 'modern' ACLU as the ACLU the way I have come to percieve it. Sorry for the confusion. I still don't trust them.

You said:
"Could you defend the Constitutional rights of people that you hate?"

Yep! I hate the little anarchist America haters who run around calling our troops nazis' and baby killers. I'd like to stop them, but I need to work on explaining why they are wrong. Meanwhile they are expressing their hate, and they are allowed. If they cross the line to advocating the downfall of the USA then I see that as sedition. Sedition is a crime.

You said:
"Why are you guys so afraid of the ACLU?"
They have a political agenda that shows itself in what battles they choose to fight, and what rights they do not defend. They lost me on the Second Amendment a long time ago. That's just for starters.

You ask:
"Are federal judges going to rule in favor of the ACLU and against the Constitution, even at the level of the Supreme court?"

Activist Judges are real problem in this country, and the ACLU seeks them out when shopping for a court to fight in. Our US Supreme Court can only handle so may cases, and that leaves a lot of room for harmful Judicial activism.

Me condensed:
"Until, the ACLU reforms itself, it is toxic to American values."
I stand by that statement.

You in brief:
"Only the government can undermine the constitution, > An organization, like the ACLU can not undermine the constitution."

By looking for fights in the courtrooms of activist judges, and throwing special interst money to a large pool of lawyers, yes, the ACLU can undermine a correct understanding of the US Constitution.

The very idea that the Constitution is a living document, has been perverted to restrict rights previously enjoyed in America. There is plenty of evidence that the ACLU wants to change American society, rather than protect it. The challenges they take up are selective. It's true.

You said:
"So, I'll ask you again.

Do you support the entire constitution, or just the parts you agree with?"

YES! I support the entire Constitution, not a Neo-Marxist interpretation of it.

You ask:
"Do you agree that every American has the same Constitutional rights and not just the people, that you happen to agree with?"

Of course. Please ask me a question I haven't already answered!!! Point to a single place where I said anything about restricting anyones freedom to say, or express themselves however.

You say:
"It's a difficult decision, isn't it?"

I say, no it isn't. Stop restricting non-Atheists in public places. It is not Constitutional to restrict a belief, or a group of believers because they have that belief. Realize that allowing the Government to only work with non-religious groups isn't Contitutional, but an afront to free exercise of religion.

OH yeah! Start defending my right, as one of 'the people' to keep and bear arms. Stop being selective in what rights you will defend, and who you will defend them for.

Go to court for me, when someone passes me over because I'm white! Impress me!

Do that and I could give the ACLU another chance.
Merry whatever to you TheAntiPuddleDuck

USA all the way!

76 PuddleDuck,
Your right about the Chicago event being private. I got off track and that's my bad.

I still think your reading me wrong, and so I guess I'll let it be.
I'll read your wiki, but your right that I have a firm opinion about the ACLU. You and I see it differently.

As for the courts, remember Dred Scott. During times of strong political rivalry, the courts can become part of the problem. I think they are showing signs. These are similar times I think.

All I want is for the Atheists, and the Christians, and everyone to be able to be what they are freely. As always, I seek speech and expression, short of material harm. I know you can make the distinction. How can you not want that? Honestly, no joke, I want to understand why we are not seeing eye to eye.

And I'm also trying to be nice, even though this is sort of a sore topic, so I hope your getting a sense of that. I was reacting to what seemed to be a mean spirited attack by Fishelle.

If we don't burn witches anymore, whats the big deal? I have Wiccan friends, and a collection of books about them. I'm very religiously tolerant, as long as mine isn't being attacked. Don't try to characterize me as otherwise.

Its way past my bedtime, and I don't want to ramble at you half consciously (be nice) so have a good night, and I'll swing at you some more later

USA all the way!

77 Those long posts have to stop.  If you can't say it in two or three concise paragraphs then I don't even read it.  I got too much reading to do as it is.