If you didn't do that, then why didn't you answer teh following question "Doesn't the "entire evangelical Christian" community go on a rampage whenever some atheist openly says that they don't like "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money or that saying "merry Christmas" to everyone is offensive to those who are not Christian?" with a soimple "yes"? Instead of saying "yes" you tried to defend them.
They actually have a legitimate complaint. The pledge is nothing more than a tool of indoctrination. The "Under God" was added because it was an attempt at anti-atheist indoctrination.
Serious question: Are you having hallucinations or do you suffer from illiteracy?
I already addressed your lack of concern for history quite clearly by pointing out that the history of the pledge was dutifully ignored by you in your defense of it.
I also pointed out that history is of no concern for the specific claim I made regarding "Merry Christmas", one simply has to be capable of connecting the dots. (Christmas being a historical tradition doesn't invalidate the claim that it is offensive to say merry Christmas to non-Christians, ergo, your historical response is irrational gibberish spewed as a non-sequitur).
I did not cherry pick, I threw you a bone by not pointing out exactly how irrational and nonsensical your initial response was. You felt th eneed to make it's irrational nonsensical nature a primary part of the discussion, though, so I guess you only have yourself to blame for looking silly.
You like to play pretend, don't you?
Serious question: Are you having hallucinations or do you suffer from illiteracy?
If history is of no concer than why is the origin of the pledge of concern?
And why is it that you are trying to stray away from answering my question?
Doesn't the "entire evangelical Christian" community go on a rampage whenever some atheist openly says that they don't like "under god" in the pledge and "in god we trust" on the money or that saying "merry Christmas" to everyone is offensive to those who are not Christian?
You did not ask a question. You made a statement.
Now do you see why your literacy is questionable?
Maybe.... or maybe its the person who proposed the idea was a Christian who had support, political connections, etc. and it was agreed upon by the people added those two words that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles..... :shrug:
That is so historically wrong, it's almost funny. Unfortunately it's just further evidence of the ability of True Believers to play fast and loose with history when it doesn't suit them.
You didn't say a damned thing about Christmas you say?
Says the one who never fully reads the question and denies his own statements.
Yes, and its nice to see that you have finally come to your senses and that you sir finally see that the lefties who rant on about and are threatened by "under God" are just on a mindless rampage as well.
Maybe.... or maybe its the person who proposed the idea was a Christian who had support, political connections, etc. and it was agreed upon by the people added those two words that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles..... :shrug:
And I do not see how it would be "legimate" if its not a legally binding document? How is the supreme court going to rule on something that doesn't necessarily exist in their books?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?