Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L8dxev3y58]Climategate Part 2 -Gaia Worship and The Formation of the New World Order - YouTube[/ame]
I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights.
Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.
Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.
I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights.
Your right to dictate to others what they may believe, Mullah Photo?
Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.
What laws?
You mean like;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
Oh wait, that would be YOU violating the law in order to deny constitutional rights to infidels who fail to bow to your little religion, Mullah Photo..
Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.
You've done your best at proselyting, now you'll use force to ensure all worship as you do.
So you're a conspiracy nut. That explains a lot of things.
As to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is a parody religion to show people why their religion is just as crazy. Just change a few words and boom, they celebrate the same thing.
So set in your own belief that you can't see anything outside of it. I feel sorry for you.
So set in your own belief that you can't see anything outside of it. I feel sorry for you.
What is *my* belief, Mullah Photo?
Public sector employees are in general allowed religious expression provided its not in the context of a mandated statute or policy.
God bless you is perfectly fine; as with God bless America, its not mandated policy.
That something is historical doesnt mitigate the fact its un-Constitutional. See: Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
The Court has held the Ten Commandments Constitutional when displayed on some pubic buildings, particularly in conjunction with other religious text.
No one ever said it was.
It doesnt need to be, to be in violation.
The fault lies with the school district, they should have known the law.
Baaaaa Baaaaa
Tell me if this little delicate flower of a girl doesn't believe in god then how can she be so offended by an invocation of the deity?
The problem is not the gift of a sign that is more a part of school history than it was any mandated religious policy but the problem is with this girl. That she felt somehow her rights were violated is ludicrous. Speaking as an atheist, to be offended by that in which you believe to be nonexistent speaks more to your own inadequacies than to anything else.
All of you with a zero tolerance attitude ought to start thinking for yourself as zero tolerance = zero intelligence
I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.
Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.
Baaaaa Baaaaa
Tell me if this little delicate flower of a girl doesn't believe in god then how can she be so offended by an invocation of the deity?
The problem is not the gift of a sign that is more a part of school history than it was any mandated religious policy but the problem is with this girl. That she felt somehow her rights were violated is ludicrous. Speaking as an atheist, to be offended by that in which you believe to be nonexistent speaks more to your own inadequacies than to anything else.
All of you with a zero tolerance attitude ought to start thinking for yourself as zero tolerance = zero intelligence
I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.
Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.
What right exactly was being infringed upon?
No one's rights were violated here
What's mine?
I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.
Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.
What right exactly was being infringed upon?
No one's rights were violated here
A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.
What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the fucking case, they were breaking the law.
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 redress of grievances.
I'm offended any time what they do in the name of their nonexistent God infringes on my rights. Especially if they believe their deity gives them special right to break laws.
Whether their God exists or not matters nothing at all, the followers certainly do.
What right exactly was being infringed upon?
No one's rights were violated here
A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.
What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the fucking case, they were breaking the law.
What right exactly was being infringed upon?
No one's rights were violated here
A prayer to the Christian God was displayed permanently in a building payed for by tax-payers, commissioned for creation by the administration, and then defended with tax-payer dollars.
What part about the government not respecting a particular religion don't you get? There is a reason they lost the fucking case, they were breaking the law.
You're such a fucking hypocrite. Until you file suit for every infraction of the law perpetrated by the government then you have not a leg on which to stand.
We should erase the word "creator" from the Declaration of Independence because the tax payers pay to preserve it right?
Right over your head. Every bit of it.
Tell me if this little delicate flower of a girl doesn't believe in god then how can she be so offended by an invocation of the deity?
None of this makes any sense and doesnt address the case or the law.The problem is not the gift of a sign that is more a part of school history than it was any mandated religious policy but the problem is with this girl. That she felt somehow her rights were violated is ludicrous. Speaking as an atheist, to be offended by that in which you believe to be nonexistent speaks more to your own inadequacies than to anything else.
All of you with a zero tolerance attitude ought to start thinking for yourself as zero tolerance = zero intelligence.
What right exactly was being infringed upon?
No one's rights were violated here.
Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say -- [p430] that the people's religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.
Engel v. Vitale
I know I said I was gonna stay out of this, but I just found this out:
The mural has been in the school since 1963 and a school committee said it was "historical" and "artistic."
It's not a "banner", it's a mural. Good God, she's ordered them to destroy a mural. Apparently public buildings can display a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in actual feces, but a MURAL in a public school with the words "our father" is prohibited. This really has gone too far. This isn't just a matter of taking down a banner, they are going to DESTROY this artwork. The school board is trying to decide if they should appeal. Probably because destorying artwork is as disgusting to them as it is to me. I wonder if this girl cheered when the Taliban brought down those Buddhist statues? While I was so outraged that the world let it happen.
Tell me if this little delicate flower of a girl doesn't believe in god then how can she be so offended by an invocation of the deity?
You’ve obviously not read the entire thread, understandable given its length, so a recap is in order:
The girl is utterly irrelevant, as are her motives and intent – this has noting to do with being ‘offended.’ She filed suit, the district was caught out of compliance, its ignorance of the law no excuse.
None of this makes any sense and doesn’t address the case or the law.The problem is not the gift of a sign that is more a part of school history than it was any mandated religious policy but the problem is with this girl. That she felt somehow her rights were violated is ludicrous. Speaking as an atheist, to be offended by that in which you believe to be nonexistent speaks more to your own inadequacies than to anything else.
All of you with a zero tolerance attitude ought to start thinking for yourself as zero tolerance = zero intelligence.
The right of freedom of conscience is violated, the state violates the wall of separation between church and State:
Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend upon the succession of monarchs. The First Amendment was added to the Constitution to stand as a guarantee that neither the power nor the prestige of the Federal Government would be used to control, support or influence the kinds of prayer the American people can say -- [p430] that the people's religions must not be subjected to the pressures of government for change each time a new political administration is elected to office. Under that Amendment's prohibition against governmental establishment of religion, as reinforced by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.
Engel v. Vitale
This is the settled law of the land, that you disagree with it is irrelevant, that you continue to fail to understand it means you should seek out a jurist to explain it better than I.
I know I said I was gonna stay out of this, but I just found this out:
The mural has been in the school since 1963 and a school committee said it was "historical" and "artistic."
It's not a "banner", it's a mural. Good God, she's ordered them to destroy a mural. Apparently public buildings can display a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in actual feces, but a MURAL in a public school with the words "our father" is prohibited. This really has gone too far. This isn't just a matter of taking down a banner, they are going to DESTROY this artwork. The school board is trying to decide if they should appeal. Probably because destorying artwork is as disgusting to them as it is to me. I wonder if this girl cheered when the Taliban brought down those Buddhist statues? While I was so outraged that the world let it happen.
Your participation is always welcome – but the reasons why all the points in your post are irrelevant and incorrect have already been addressed.
That judge ruled against American religion by suppressing that particular expression.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 redress of grievances.
I just think this is bad to tell a school to remove tenets of people's faith from its halls.
That judge ruled against American religion by suppressing that particular expression.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 redress of grievances.
I'm sick of judges destroying the Constitution our Christian founders set in place, and I'd like them to resign the bench voluntarily.
I have not read this entire thread so I don't know if this question has been posed, but I'd love to know how all the Christians outraged with this story would react if it was a Muslim prayer mural instead of a Christian one. The question is of course rhetorical, because I already know that if a Muslim prayer display existed in a public school in the US most all of you would be screaming at the top of your lungs for it to be removed. Religious displays in public areas is a right, as long as it's your religion, right?
