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.
A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why??
Show us which liberal atheists say that.
1. My friend D is one such liberal atheist Democrat who admits to using
votes for the Democratic Party as his only means of opposing the religious conservative right
he is more afraid of taking liberties away than he fears any liberals will
He does complain about the messed up health care mandates,
and why taxpayers are paying for coverage for govt officials
but they aren't providing coverage for taxpayers paying for them.
He is honest about that in private, but politically he will support and push
for Democrats to oppose Republicans at any cost just to make that political statement to say NO to them.
That's one person I know personally who hasn't changed his mind for the 20 years
I've known him. The most he's done is admit he is technically more agnostic than atheist,
but when you put him in a room with hardcore Christians he will revert back to his atheist stances in reaction to them
NOTE I brought this up in a meeting yesterday and one man in the group, also from Texas,
said he knew a lot of people who side with the liberals/Democrats as their way of defense collectively
2. I can cite two cases from memory where atheists or atheist related organizations sued
to remove Christian references from public property
A. the recent case where an organization sued from across the country
over a cross on a teacher's memorial on public school grounds.
some freedom from religion foundation that funded the legal complaints or petitions.
B. the case of the cross that resulted in a court fine against the city for each day it remained,
that was finally settled by selling the land to a private organization for preservation,
after THAT move was contested on the grounds that govt was still favoring religion.
That case stood out to me because even the proposed solution to remove it from public property
in a way that would preserve it was contested by the suing parties. This seems to indicate they didn't just want the problem
solved in the most expedient manner by separating public and private, they wanted the cross removed to make a statement.
Do you want the links to these?
if you are arguing these are not "atheists per se" pushing these arguments,
that's fine, you can remove atheist and put secular political advocates or whatever label.
The question remains why is it OKAY to sue to remove references to Christian beliefs
where people contest these as conflicting or excluding them,
but NOT okay to ask to remove references to Homosexual beliefs
where people say this conflicts or excludes their beliefs they have a right to.
Can you answer that NYcarbineer without the atheist label inserted anywhere?
Thanks for your help on this!
B. It's okay for liberals to demand "free choice of abortion" without govt regulations much less penalties
on the FREE CHOICE.
But it's NOT okay for conservatives to demand "free choice of health care" without govt penalties.
I can't even follow what you think you are comparing.
No, this is yet another example of the propensity of most on the right to lie in a nutshellLeftists, not liberals.
American leftists are selfish little fuckers who want something for nothing. They think they deserve everything with no effort on their part.
That's it in a nutshell.
Emily has been a very involved activist in politics and her local city projects for many years, and much more. She walks the walk. Research her.Based on what?I believe she does. Probably more so than most here.Here's a suggestion. Get away from the keyboard, go outdoors, and go talk to some real people, not Internet anonyms.
If you're not interested enough to present the research yourself, you can't be all that impressed with whoever she claims to be.
I, meanwhile, am less than impressed with her OP or her follow-up "arguments."
That's to do with the Constitution isn't it?BONUS if you can explain why it isn't okay for conservatives to take their beliefs
and impose them through govt (such as beliefs about right to life),
but apparently it's okay if liberals do that with their beliefs
such as beliefs about right to marriage, right to health care, etc.
A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why??
Show us which liberal atheists say that.
1. My friend D is one such liberal atheist Democrat who admits to using
votes for the Democratic Party as his only means of opposing the religious conservative right
he is more afraid of taking liberties away than he fears any liberals will
He does complain about the messed up health care mandates,
and why taxpayers are paying for coverage for govt officials
but they aren't providing coverage for taxpayers paying for them.
He is honest about that in private, but politically he will support and push
for Democrats to oppose Republicans at any cost just to make that political statement to say NO to them.
That's one person I know personally who hasn't changed his mind for the 20 years
I've known him. The most he's done is admit he is technically more agnostic than atheist,
but when you put him in a room with hardcore Christians he will revert back to his atheist stances in reaction to them
NOTE I brought this up in a meeting yesterday and one man in the group, also from Texas,
said he knew a lot of people who side with the liberals/Democrats as their way of defense collectively
2. I can cite two cases from memory where atheists or atheist related organizations sued
to remove Christian references from public property
A. the recent case where an organization sued from across the country
over a cross on a teacher's memorial on public school grounds.
some freedom from religion foundation that funded the legal complaints or petitions.
B. the case of the cross that resulted in a court fine against the city for each day it remained,
that was finally settled by selling the land to a private organization for preservation,
after THAT move was contested on the grounds that govt was still favoring religion.
That case stood out to me because even the proposed solution to remove it from public property
in a way that would preserve it was contested by the suing parties. This seems to indicate they didn't just want the problem
solved in the most expedient manner by separating public and private, they wanted the cross removed to make a statement.
Do you want the links to these?
if you are arguing these are not "atheists per se" pushing these arguments,
that's fine, you can remove atheist and put secular political advocates or whatever label.
The question remains why is it OKAY to sue to remove references to Christian beliefs
where people contest these as conflicting or excluding them,
but NOT okay to ask to remove references to Homosexual beliefs
where people say this conflicts or excludes their beliefs they have a right to.
Can you answer that NYcarbineer without the atheist label inserted anywhere?
Thanks for your help on this!
The cases as you've presented them here (verifying by links is unnecessary, let's just take them as described for argument) are based on the crucial adjective: "public property". That means property the public (taxpayers) own and pay for. As such, such property, which is administered by government as a proxy for "the public", cannot promote (or squelch) a religion.
I thought this basis was common knowledge.
That's to do with the Constitution isn't it?BONUS if you can explain why it isn't okay for conservatives to take their beliefs
and impose them through govt (such as beliefs about right to life),
but apparently it's okay if liberals do that with their beliefs
such as beliefs about right to marriage, right to health care, etc.
A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why??
Show us which liberal atheists say that.
1. My friend D is one such liberal atheist Democrat who admits to using
votes for the Democratic Party as his only means of opposing the religious conservative right
he is more afraid of taking liberties away than he fears any liberals will
He does complain about the messed up health care mandates,
and why taxpayers are paying for coverage for govt officials
but they aren't providing coverage for taxpayers paying for them.
He is honest about that in private, but politically he will support and push
for Democrats to oppose Republicans at any cost just to make that political statement to say NO to them.
That's one person I know personally who hasn't changed his mind for the 20 years
I've known him. The most he's done is admit he is technically more agnostic than atheist,
but when you put him in a room with hardcore Christians he will revert back to his atheist stances in reaction to them
NOTE I brought this up in a meeting yesterday and one man in the group, also from Texas,
said he knew a lot of people who side with the liberals/Democrats as their way of defense collectively
2. I can cite two cases from memory where atheists or atheist related organizations sued
to remove Christian references from public property
A. the recent case where an organization sued from across the country
over a cross on a teacher's memorial on public school grounds.
some freedom from religion foundation that funded the legal complaints or petitions.
B. the case of the cross that resulted in a court fine against the city for each day it remained,
that was finally settled by selling the land to a private organization for preservation,
after THAT move was contested on the grounds that govt was still favoring religion.
That case stood out to me because even the proposed solution to remove it from public property
in a way that would preserve it was contested by the suing parties. This seems to indicate they didn't just want the problem
solved in the most expedient manner by separating public and private, they wanted the cross removed to make a statement.
Do you want the links to these?
if you are arguing these are not "atheists per se" pushing these arguments,
that's fine, you can remove atheist and put secular political advocates or whatever label.
The question remains why is it OKAY to sue to remove references to Christian beliefs
where people contest these as conflicting or excluding them,
but NOT okay to ask to remove references to Homosexual beliefs
where people say this conflicts or excludes their beliefs they have a right to.
Can you answer that NYcarbineer without the atheist label inserted anywhere?
Thanks for your help on this!
"Liberals are emotional hemophiliacs". Dennis Miller.
Dear Arianrhod I invested over 60,000 in financial lending to nonprofit volunteers with 5-6 groups
trying to save two distressed neighborhoods in Houston from being destroyed by corrupt politics,
because they both had plans to restore their communities through educational development of campuses
that would represent and serve the residents in order to empower them to be self-reliant.
These plans were censored because the Democrat leadership depends on monied interests to get into office. since developers wanted that land, that's where the power and property control shifted, despite well written plans by the residents, including some passed into federal laws
that were part of subgrant agreements on funding. These were sideswiped to take that money
and bypass the residents plans but to benefit those of city and corporate developers competing for control of the properties.
I am hoping current Mayor Sylvestor Turner is different and smart enough to beat this game instead of falling victim to it.
But in the past it cost me about 20 years, including the last 7 working two jobs to pay off the loans on my credit cards, in order to keep the nonprofits going that have served as the lifelines of these communities that political competitors sought to "bleed out" of their own neighborhoods in order to finish taking over. It is nothing short of legalized invisible genocide,
even silenced in the media.
It amazes me to this day that preachers can get in the media and scream about police abuse,
but not invest one dime in saving historic churches built by Freed Slaves in our national landmark district. The media silence is deafening, and I even wrote a short essay about how George Zimmerman should have hidden in Freedmen's Town and the media would have left him alone.
I give credit for the plans to the community leaders who put them together.
I have expanded on their plans and proposed this as a model for restoring and uplifting distressed districts nationwide (through prison reform networks with public radio) and turning prisons and sweatshops into schools using the same "campus model":
http://www.houstonprogressive.org
proposed for replication along the border for immigration reform and restitution for trafficking:
Earned Amnesty
The credit really belongs to the heroes I was trying to support who aren't paid to do the
work saving their communities while millions of taxdollars were going to destruction instead.
But sadly, many of them, including one of the co-authors of the campus concepts
Lenwood Johnson may not see the realization of their life work, because it has gone on for so long and the Black leadership is still too divided politically to unite and demand
reimbursement of the abused funds, in order to invest in their own legacy they could build
in this historic district: see Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing
Gladys House wrote the Veteran housing and health service plans,
that have gone unfunded despite budget planning and proposals to VA and HUD.
Why? Because she is a Black Female Republican business leader and conflicts
with Sheila Jackson Lee and other Democrat leaders who want the credit but won't invest the work or the dollars.
While Gladys and I work two jobs each (she might work 3-4 now)
trying to fund plans while everyone else points the finger and plays the blame game.
I've even tried to offer to pay the closing costs to buy the last row of historic houses
for Gladys' vet housing project. But because we're both women, and the men won't
listen to the women but want to be in charge, nothing is getting done.
We need male leadership to get this going, but they are divided and falling victim to politics.
At this point, I even blame the gender divide more than the racism that is part of
Freedmen's Town history, built on segregation.
The issue turning the local men leaders against Gladys is so bad,
I even gave up and don't know how to help overcome this.
I've reached out to ministers and found an academic link that looks hopeful,
but working two jobs to pay the debts this already cost me is killing me.
so it's taking forever, and I wish more able adept leaders would step in and
take this over and help Gladys, Lenwood and the other resident leaders
to develop their campus plans as a model for the nation that I think would
solve the problems that both Occupy and BLM has brought up with the lack of Black ownership.
The solutions are there, and it's a matter of uniting the Black leadership around them.
I'm Asian American and trying to help the Vietnamese landowners sell those
last houses to a nonprofit that can fulfill Gladys vet housing plans.
The communities and leadership are divided over this left/right rich/poor
political infighting that detracts attention and resources from solutions to the problems.
so that's why it's taken so long and has exhausted everything we tried to invest
to buy time until these plans can finally be recognized and promoted nationally.
Even Sheila Jackson Lee signed the original campus development plans,
and no funding has followed up because the Mayors gave tax money to
developers to strip the neighborhood, seize and destroy national historic
property and landmarks. So politics has been killing us, inside and out.
That is why I am so opposed to political bullying and division which I blame
for wasting resources that could have gone into saving not just one but
two national historic landmarks in Houston: Freedmen's Town and the Astrodome.
Our past Mayor Annise Parker would rather spend tax dollars and also
millions in campaigning to fight for the bathroom issue while letting
a national historic site go without funding to buy houses for Vets to
set up sustainable jobs and financial education in business management.
Very sad. Maybe it's someone else's story to finish telling, as it was
going on before I got there. But I do believe the future solutions to
all the past conflicts and grievances with the history of slavery
and ownership can be solved by applying the campus model out of
Freedmen's Town as a system of investing restitution back into community development.
That plan speaks for itself, and it came from a cumulative process combining
the work of many groups together that all have part of the plan.
My job was just to support the people in putting it together,
but it will take networking across party lines and investing resources
in building up instead of billions wasted campaigning by party to tear
each other down.
And I'm not sure which people are ready to lead solutions that
rise above this ongoing trend of both sides blaming the other,
for political points in the media, while nothing is getting done
and no resources are going to people really doing the work and developing
working plans.
A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why??
Show us which liberal atheists say that.
1. My friend D is one such liberal atheist Democrat who admits to using
votes for the Democratic Party as his only means of opposing the religious conservative right
he is more afraid of taking liberties away than he fears any liberals will
He does complain about the messed up health care mandates,
and why taxpayers are paying for coverage for govt officials
but they aren't providing coverage for taxpayers paying for them.
He is honest about that in private, but politically he will support and push
for Democrats to oppose Republicans at any cost just to make that political statement to say NO to them.
That's one person I know personally who hasn't changed his mind for the 20 years
I've known him. The most he's done is admit he is technically more agnostic than atheist,
but when you put him in a room with hardcore Christians he will revert back to his atheist stances in reaction to them
NOTE I brought this up in a meeting yesterday and one man in the group, also from Texas,
said he knew a lot of people who side with the liberals/Democrats as their way of defense collectively
2. I can cite two cases from memory where atheists or atheist related organizations sued
to remove Christian references from public property
A. the recent case where an organization sued from across the country
over a cross on a teacher's memorial on public school grounds.
some freedom from religion foundation that funded the legal complaints or petitions.
B. the case of the cross that resulted in a court fine against the city for each day it remained,
that was finally settled by selling the land to a private organization for preservation,
after THAT move was contested on the grounds that govt was still favoring religion.
That case stood out to me because even the proposed solution to remove it from public property
in a way that would preserve it was contested by the suing parties. This seems to indicate they didn't just want the problem
solved in the most expedient manner by separating public and private, they wanted the cross removed to make a statement.
Do you want the links to these?
if you are arguing these are not "atheists per se" pushing these arguments,
that's fine, you can remove atheist and put secular political advocates or whatever label.
The question remains why is it OKAY to sue to remove references to Christian beliefs
where people contest these as conflicting or excluding them,
but NOT okay to ask to remove references to Homosexual beliefs
where people say this conflicts or excludes their beliefs they have a right to.
Can you answer that NYcarbineer without the atheist label inserted anywhere?
Thanks for your help on this!
The cases as you've presented them here (verifying by links is unnecessary, let's just take them as described for argument) are based on the crucial adjective: "public property". That means property the public (taxpayers) own and pay for. As such, such property, which is administered by government as a proxy for "the public", cannot promote (or squelch) a religion.
I thought this basis was common knowledge.
Dear Pogo so if public restrooms in schools and govt facilities are for the public
and cannot promote or squelch a religion,
then why are SOME beliefs about orientation and gender
considered govt duty to protect by law by imposing penalties against people who believe otherwise,
but the same protections are NOT equally offered to the other side and their beliefs?
Shouldn't the govt remain neutral and not defend one side or another in a conflict
between two faith based beliefs (another example, the belief that same sex
marriage is the same as heterosexual or the belief it is not, or beliefs
that such same sex relations are not natural and should not be participated in)
Where is it govt's place to make a decision if people don't agree on these beliefs?
Shouldn't the most equal position be to treat the beliefs the same, keep govt out
of them and them out of govt, and support BOTH sides, ALL people in defending
and protecting their own beliefs from infringement by not allowing any laws
to be imposed that violate ONE BELIEF OR ANOTHER.
Why just defend one creed 'selectively' in ways the others are not protected ?
How could govt pick one side or one religion, like writing laws requiring that no Buddhists
specifically be harassed, without ALSO including all the other types of followers
who deserve equal protection from harassment? Isn't the best policy to
write the laws where they apply to ALL people of ALL beliefs, and not singling out one
side WHILE PENALIZING PEOPLE OF THE OTHER BELIEF?
It wouldn't matter.Do you not understand what a strawman is?
"Liberals are emotional hemophiliacs". Dennis Miller.
No, this is yet another example of the propensity of most on the right to lie in a nutshell
Dennis Miller hasn't been funny since he quit trying to be funny.
OK, so this is what I'm hearing from liberal politics.
Please help explain these to me why one is right and the other is wrong:
A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why?
Why should Christians be expected to be tolerant of groups they blame for religious violence,
but it's okay for atheists to openly condemn Christians collectively for their beliefs?
B. It's okay for liberals to demand "free choice of abortion" without govt regulations much less penalties
on the FREE CHOICE.
But it's NOT okay for conservatives to demand "free choice of health care" without govt penalties.
If conservatives push "right to life" at the expense of free choice, that is pushing beliefs through govt.
so why is it okay for liberals to push "right to health care" through govt at the expense of free choice?
Why is one political belief okay to push by force onto people who believe in free choice,
but not the other?
C. And now this:
If homosexual people only want to seek same sex relations, that's okay.
They should not be forced to participate in heterosexual relations just because of majority pressures.
But if heterosexual people only want to use the restroom in same sex company, that's not okay?
Why is one okay but the other is a problem?
I'm not finding any luck getting answers or explanations to A or B.
Can any liberals explain C to me?
I understand if someone has changed or is in process of changing BIOLOGICAL gender,
then that is a medical personal issue. but as for preferences, why is one
"homosexual" belief rejected as intolerant but the other is considered natural? Why?
Syriusly? hazlnut? Can anyone explain to me why one belief is rejected and the other is imposed?
Sigh --- still employing strawmen.
Do you not understand what a strawman is? Did you even read my post 36?
Yet the USSC interprets them through the Constitution so how can they not be political?cnm more about the spirit or principles in the Constitution
since these are not written literally in there as "political beliefs"
