- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 4,230
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Can you explain what the middle ground is between "enforcing the absence of religious display" and "endorsing religious displays?"The liberties are enough...I no more want government to enforce the absence of religious display, anymore than I want them to endorse them.
Tell me about how you feel about the encroachment of "free speech" or the encroachment of your "right to bear arms?"That's just silly, we are no more going to become a Theocracy, than we are a secular nation. It's foolish to believe that we need Government to "protect us" from beliefs.
You're viewing this from the reverse side of things:Ah, so an all encompassing government control is just fine with you, and you see opposition to that as just people that need to be forced until they see how good it is eh?
The atheists, and Satanists do things like this IMHO, not because they truly want some sort of equality in the public sphere, but because they think it will upset people, and jab a finger in their eye. Pretty vile if you ask me...
You're mistaking equal access by minorities to "tyranny."Allowing a display of a nativity scene, or a Menorah during the holidays is not "showing preference". Government does that by making laws. But, courts have ruled that the minority can tyrannize the majority with the force of Government. I don't believe that was the intent of the Constitution.
Christianity is the truth.
That makes no sense. What are you talking about, in the context of my statement that you quoted?It's like a vampire can not exist if he do not believe in god. If some of the tenants of vampirism is adversion to Holy water and a crucifix...then there must not be any atheist vampires.
Where's the Atheist display? The Supreme Court regards Atheism as a religion, after all. Shouldn't there be...I don't know...like a spot set aside for Atheists with absolutely nothing in it?Right after they get rid of the other religious displays.
Some may...that doesn't make them right either...For instance, I personally think it is rather interesting to see established religions and how they celebrate their holiest days...
It is likely this woman was truly offended by having to witness this display, but even then, she didn't have the right to tear it down, however, that to me makes no less disgusting that the group that put it up did so to offend. I doubt that a Buddhist, or Hindu group would do so for those reasons.
Only in Christianity. In Judaism, HaSatan is G-d's chief prosecutor, his employee, and cannot act without G-d's express will and approval. That would make Satan worship idolatry, which I suppose is an evil in itself, but not the "heinous evil" Christianity ascribes to that being.
That's what Christianity made of him. In fact, HaSatan is, as I said, an angel who works for G-d. Angels have no free will to act on their own, and thus cannot be an ex-employee. For that matter, they cannot sin at all, since they lack free will to choose to begin with.Isn't Satan a disgruntled employee, an ex-angel?
They did not do it to offend anyone. It was done to shame the group with the Nativity to move it elsewhere. They don't believe religious displays are appropriate on State property. It has the appearance of a State sanctioned religion and appearance is 9 tenths of the law. Sadly it seems many see it as a war between Satan and God, which is comically ludicrous and has nothing to with the aim of the Satanist display.
While incorrect, her actions are understandable and it should be pointed out that this sort of thing wouldn't happen if they didn't allow this heinous evil to occur in the first place.
No...not understandable. If someone destroyed a christian display, you wouldn't be saying the same thing...of course you want a christian theocracy here.
Christianity is the truth.
There is right and wrong. Praise of the devil goes in the wrong category. You wish to idolize evil? We don't need you, you are part of the problem.Really? He/she/it told you so? Or did you get it from that book of compiled stories which have been edited and reedited over hundreds of years?
Well of course not, Christianity is true.
Well, I don't buy that at all...In fact you come out and say it when you say they did it to "shame" Christians for putting up a nativity scene....What a bunch of assholes....See, I think it is the same question as the one when Muslims wanted to put the Mosque too near the site of 9/11. Do they have a "right" to put up a Mosque, or display? sure....Is it something they know would offend many, and a real dumb thing to do? Hell yes.
?
Oh the irony. Did you really just say that? Isn't that what this entire debate is all about? Militant atheists who equate a Christmas decoration with theocracy? You people are sumpthin' else. :roll:right!! Don't people realize that free speech rights are only for speech that doesn't offend? :screwy
Oh the irony. Did you really just say that? Isn't that what this entire debate is all about? Militant atheists who equate a Christmas decoration with theocracy? You people are sumpthin' else. :roll:
Sangha was being ironic, but I'm not sure what your point is. Are you against free speech if it offends someone? I mean, that nativity scene offended some non-christians.
State sponsorship of displays for just one religion WOULD be moving towards theocracy.
My point is, it is usually libs who want to shout down speech they don't agree with.
Having Christmas decorations on the little town square is not state sponsorship of religion, nor is it in any way, shape, or form a move towards theocracy. Do you even know what a theocracy is?
Um, no
Let's see a couple of them. Make sure they are the one's that ruled Christmas decorations as theocracies.Many court decisions disagree with you.
No one here has an issue with Christmas decorations. They have an issue with Christmas decorations on public property. They have issues with it because it's a step in the establishment of religion by the government which is unconstitutional and a step towards theocracy.Oh the irony. Did you really just say that? Isn't that what this entire debate is all about? Militant atheists who equate a Christmas decoration with theocracy? You people are sumpthin' else. :roll:
No one here has an issue with Christmas decorations. They have an issue with Christmas decorations on public property. They have issues with it because it's a step in the establishment of religion by the government which is unconstitutional and a step towards theocracy.
It's no different than if the government were to censor free speech in a way that most people agree with. Or to search and seize property that most people agree with. They're all unconstitutional, even if it seems harmless.
While incorrect, her actions are understandable and it should be pointed out that this sort of thing wouldn't happen if they didn't allow this heinous evil to occur in the first place.
It's not a step towards theocracy. Why don't you tell the class what a theocracy is. And while you're at it, explain how a Christmas decoration is a, "step towards theocracy". Please be specific.
"Theocracy is a form of government in which the clergy is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group."
Theocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The government publicly endorsing the Christian religion by dedicating public space during the annual holiest day is establishing a religion and a step towards establishing a theocracy.
How exactly do you get from a Christmas decoration, to priests being the governing body? That is your idea of specificity? :roll:
And if this practice is soooooo unconstitutional, why hasn't the SCOTUS shut that **** down?
Here, I got you something for Winter Solstice.
View attachment 67177864
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?