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.
Let's take it from a point of view that's more relatable to the secular view and easier to understand. What would the perception be if a small minority allowed homosexual couples to display affection, just don't display that in public where they might find such display offensive. Would that be considered attacking someone's personal freedom? I'm sure they would be viewed as being intolerant and homophobic.... what does then say of a minority who is easily offended and intolerant of Christians openly displaying their beliefs in public?
It's interesting how tolerance ( which is really about "allowing" someone the freedom to openly express their views even if we don't agree with it ), is now replaced with being more "political correct" towards one ideological view. Being offended has nothing to do with it, it's more about silencing a view (belief) of a particular group of people they don't agree with. How we often forget the first amendment regarding religion also continues on to say: nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
No one is taking issue with ‘public displays of religion,’ the issue only concerns itself with violations of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, where persons of faith seek to conjoin church and state, by enacting measures that lack a secular motive, or attempting to promote religion through legislative means, or where there is an excessive entanglement between church and state. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Moreover, no one is seeking to ‘silence’ a view or belief, as the Constitution prohibits conjoining only church with state, as the First Amendment applies to government alone. And that the Constitution prohibits citizens attempting to codify their religious dogma, there is no Free Exercise Clause violation.
Clearly "establishment" is about government promoting one particular DENOMINATION and forcing others to conform to that particular DOCTRINE, with penalties towards those who don't comply. There has NEVER been such establishment of Christian doctrine to be found in the United States. Read the intent of what the Founders had in mind, if you want to educate yourself on the history behind the initial interpretation of the First Amendment.
By forcing the removal of ALL religious symbols and displays on government property, and not allowing the freedom of any religion to be displayed, you are in fact "establishing" atheism.
You ARE of course aware the United States Supreme Court building's east side has a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, aren't you? So much for this view of "violation" conjoin church and state with the First Amendment. Doesn't appear that our Founders really agree on that view.
Let's take it from a point of view that's more relatable to the secular view and easier to understand. What would the perception be if a small minority allowed homosexual couples to display affection, just don't display that in public where they might find such display offensive. Would that be considered attacking someone's personal freedom? I'm sure they would be viewed as being intolerant and homophobic.... what does then say of a minority who is easily offended and intolerant of Christians openly displaying their beliefs in public?
It's interesting how tolerance ( which is really about "allowing" someone the freedom to openly express their views even if we don't agree with it ), is now replaced with being more "political correct" towards one ideological view. Being offended has nothing to do with it, it's more about silencing a view (belief) of a particular group of people they don't agree with. How we often forget the first amendment regarding religion also continues on to say: nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
No one is taking issue with public displays of religion, the issue only concerns itself with violations of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, where persons of faith seek to conjoin church and state, by enacting measures that lack a secular motive, or attempting to promote religion through legislative means, or where there is an excessive entanglement between church and state. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Moreover, no one is seeking to silence a view or belief, as the Constitution prohibits conjoining only church with state, as the First Amendment applies to government alone. And that the Constitution prohibits citizens attempting to codify their religious dogma, there is no Free Exercise Clause violation.
Clearly "establishment" is about government promoting one particular DENOMINATION and forcing others to conform to that particular DOCTRINE, with penalties towards those who don't comply. There has NEVER been such establishment of Christian doctrine to be found in the United States. Read the intent of what the Founders had in mind, if you want to educate yourself on the history behind the initial interpretation of the First Amendment.
By forcing the removal of ALL religious symbols and displays on government property, and not allowing the freedom of any religion to be displayed, you are in fact "establishing" atheism.
You ARE of course aware the United States Supreme Court building's east side has a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, aren't you? So much for this view of "violation" conjoin church and state with the First Amendment. Doesn't appear that our Founders really agree on that view.
No one is taking issue with public displays of religion, the issue only concerns itself with violations of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, where persons of faith seek to conjoin church and state, by enacting measures that lack a secular motive, or attempting to promote religion through legislative means, or where there is an excessive entanglement between church and state. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Moreover, no one is seeking to silence a view or belief, as the Constitution prohibits conjoining only church with state, as the First Amendment applies to government alone. And that the Constitution prohibits citizens attempting to codify their religious dogma, there is no Free Exercise Clause violation.
Clearly "establishment" is about government promoting one particular DENOMINATION and forcing others to conform to that particular DOCTRINE, with penalties towards those who don't comply. There has NEVER been such establishment of Christian doctrine to be found in the United States. Read the intent of what the Founders had in mind, if you want to educate yourself on the history behind the initial interpretation of the First Amendment.
By forcing the removal of ALL religious symbols and displays on government property, and not allowing the freedom of any religion to be displayed, you are in fact "establishing" atheism.
You ARE of course aware the United States Supreme Court building's east side has a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, aren't you? So much for this view of "violation" conjoin church and state with the First Amendment. Doesn't appear that our Founders really agree on that view.
the Supreme Court building also features Mohammed, but we don't accept Shariah as legally binding.
Oh, and the building was constructed in the 1930's, so it isn't indicative of what our nation was founded on.
The fact that the courts had to step in to ensure that these people were afforded their rights shows precisely that there is persecution.Please, like you would know "reasonable". You can't make an argument to save your life.
Yes, Christians in the US are persecuted....not to the degree that they are in other countries, yet, but that's not for want of trying.
Persecution like this?
Texas judge rules for cheerleaders in Bible banner suit
And in North Carolina we have HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION DRHJR10194-MM-54
And I'll guess Rowan County isn't going to choose Ba'hai as their official religion.A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM THE ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, 1 DEFENSE OF RELIGION ACT OF 2013.
SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution 31 of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws 32 respecting an establishment of religion. 33
SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal 34 court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public 35 schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an 36 establishment of religion.
The country was founded on slavery and stealing from Indians, wasn't it?Oh, and the building was constructed in the 1930's, so it isn't indicative of what our nation was founded on.
The country was founded on slavery and stealing from Indians, wasn't it?Oh, and the building was constructed in the 1930's, so it isn't indicative of what our nation was founded on.
.
The fact that the courts had to step in to ensure that these people were afforded their rights shows precisely that there is persecution.Please, like you would know "reasonable". You can't make an argument to save your life.
Yes, Christians in the US are persecuted....not to the degree that they are in other countries, yet, but that's not for want of trying.
Persecution like this?
Texas judge rules for cheerleaders in Bible banner suit
And in North Carolina we have HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION DRHJR10194-MM-54
And I'll guess Rowan County isn't going to choose Ba'hai as their official religion.A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM THE ROWAN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, 1 DEFENSE OF RELIGION ACT OF 2013.
SECTION 1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution 31 of the United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from making laws 32 respecting an establishment of religion. 33
SECTION 2. The North Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal 34 court rulings which prohibit and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public 35 schools, or any political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an 36 establishment of religion.
Let's take it from a point of view that's more relatable to the secular view and easier to understand. What would the perception be if a small minority allowed homosexual couples to display affection, just don't display that in public where they might find such display offensive. Would that be considered attacking someone's personal freedom? I'm sure they would be viewed as being intolerant and homophobic.... what does then say of a minority who is easily offended and intolerant of Christians openly displaying their beliefs in public?
It's interesting how tolerance ( which is really about "allowing" someone the freedom to openly express their views even if we don't agree with it ), is now replaced with being more "political correct" towards one ideological view. Being offended has nothing to do with it, it's more about silencing a view (belief) of a particular group of people they don't agree with. How we often forget the first amendment regarding religion also continues on to say: nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
No one is taking issue with public displays of religion, the issue only concerns itself with violations of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, where persons of faith seek to conjoin church and state, by enacting measures that lack a secular motive, or attempting to promote religion through legislative means, or where there is an excessive entanglement between church and state. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Moreover, no one is seeking to silence a view or belief, as the Constitution prohibits conjoining only church with state, as the First Amendment applies to government alone. And that the Constitution prohibits citizens attempting to codify their religious dogma, there is no Free Exercise Clause violation.
Clearly "establishment" is about government promoting one particular DENOMINATION and forcing others to conform to that particular DOCTRINE, with penalties towards those who don't comply. There has NEVER been such establishment of Christian doctrine to be found in the United States. Read the intent of what the Founders had in mind, if you want to educate yourself on the history behind the initial interpretation of the First Amendment.
By forcing the removal of ALL religious symbols and displays on government property, and not allowing the freedom of any religion to be displayed, you are in fact "establishing" atheism.
You ARE of course aware the United States Supreme Court building's east side has a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, aren't you? So much for this view of "violation" conjoin church and state with the First Amendment. Doesn't appear that our Founders really agree on that view.
The country was founded on slavery and stealing from Indians, wasn't it?Oh, and the building was constructed in the 1930's, so it isn't indicative of what our nation was founded on.
.
Actually, no.
The fact that the courts had to step in to ensure that these people were afforded their rights shows precisely that there is persecution.Persecution like this?
Texas judge rules for cheerleaders in Bible banner suit
And in North Carolina we have HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION DRHJR10194-MM-54
And I'll guess Rowan County isn't going to choose Ba'hai as their official religion.
Christians are persecuting Muslims. The fact that the courts have to step in to ensure that these people are afforded their rights shows this. What comes around goes around.
Let's take it from a point of view that's more relatable to the secular view and easier to understand. What would the perception be if a small minority allowed homosexual couples to display affection, just don't display that in public where they might find such display offensive. Would that be considered attacking someone's personal freedom? I'm sure they would be viewed as being intolerant and homophobic.... what does then say of a minority who is easily offended and intolerant of Christians openly displaying their beliefs in public?
It's interesting how tolerance ( which is really about "allowing" someone the freedom to openly express their views even if we don't agree with it ), is now replaced with being more "political correct" towards one ideological view. Being offended has nothing to do with it, it's more about silencing a view (belief) of a particular group of people they don't agree with. How we often forget the first amendment regarding religion also continues on to say: nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
No one is taking issue with public displays of religion, the issue only concerns itself with violations of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, where persons of faith seek to conjoin church and state, by enacting measures that lack a secular motive, or attempting to promote religion through legislative means, or where there is an excessive entanglement between church and state. See: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).
Moreover, no one is seeking to silence a view or belief, as the Constitution prohibits conjoining only church with state, as the First Amendment applies to government alone. And that the Constitution prohibits citizens attempting to codify their religious dogma, there is no Free Exercise Clause violation.
Clearly "establishment" is about government promoting one particular DENOMINATION and forcing others to conform to that particular DOCTRINE, with penalties towards those who don't comply. There has NEVER been such establishment of Christian doctrine to be found in the United States. Read the intent of what the Founders had in mind, if you want to educate yourself on the history behind the initial interpretation of the First Amendment.
By forcing the removal of ALL religious symbols and displays on government property, and not allowing the freedom of any religion to be displayed, you are in fact "establishing" atheism.
You ARE of course aware the United States Supreme Court building's east side has a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, aren't you? So much for this view of "violation" conjoin church and state with the First Amendment. Doesn't appear that our Founders really agree on that view.
No evidence forthcoming from sanfag, I see.
The country was founded on slavery and stealing from Indians, wasn't it?Oh, and the building was constructed in the 1930's, so it isn't indicative of what our nation was founded on.
.
Actually, no.
Progressive Christmas: attacking God, Jesus & the cross:
11/29/12
The progressive war on Christmas - and Christianity in general - continues to rage on. The latest example comes from a small town in Kansas that found itself smack dab in the middle of a battle with progressives who were oh-so offended that a cross was on public property! Hear the oblivious local news report and get Glenns reaction on radio today.
Kansas town flirts with progress and loses traditional values
There is a sign in the town of Buhler, Kansas causing controversy in the news this week. The sign in the small town, described as a town rooted in small town values, featured a large cross, representative of much of the towns values. The sign is now being changed following a law suit from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).
---
Glenn was referring to the slogan on the sign that on one version reads: Our second century of progress, and on another says, Tradional Values. Progressive Ideas.
Glenn pointed out that the town is ironically up in arms over a group wanting to remove the cross from the public sign they dont understand why.
Well, because its a progress organization and theyre pushing their progressive ideas.
Youre eventually going to lose the cross in your seal if your seal has progressive ideas in it, Glenn quipped. No doubt about it.
Glenn continued to point out the irony in the situation noting that the communities solution is to move the sign to private property.
What is the progressive idea? The elimination of private property, he said. If you continue with these progressive ideals and ideas, you will lose your private property. Which means you have no place to have your point of view. None.
The situation with this towns sign is a great example of what progressivism does to traditional values, Glenn pointed out. The sign mixed the church with progressivism from the get-go.
---
Kansas town flirts with progress and loses traditional values Glenn Beck
The country was founded on slavery and stealing from Indians, wasn't it?
.
Actually, no.
What is mindblowing is how immoral your glib remark is.
The christians keep repeating the mantra that they have done no harm since the 1400-1500s The truth is that they are still involved in a massive coverup of the atrocities commited in the last 400 years here in the new world.
You people actually believe that because the cost of any meaningful financial reparations would be impossible the whole thing should be swept under the rug and ignored.
Why punish any crime at all ?
How many of you Christians believe that god intended you to live here in America?
Obviously the genie is out of the bottle. So where do we go that will put us on a path to honesty. The Roman Catholic church needs to be declared for what it is and eliminated here and in all of the Americas. All of thier property has to be sold and othewise dispersed to the remaining Native People. All religions that caused harm on native Americans need to be treated exactly the same.. Bye Bye Mormans. All companies and property that began or were co conspirators in human slavery should be confiscated and sold with the reciepts given to the hiers of provable slave linneage. Bye Bye railroads owned by corporations. Now owned by the hiers of those enslaved to build them. Oil? All property confiscated and profits divided among those who were originally run off the land.
Lol...progressive nutbags refer to freedom of religion as *bitching about little symbols*.
It just shows the mentality of the people who seek to remove our freedoms.
Progressive Christmas: attacking God, Jesus & the cross:
11/29/12
The progressive war on Christmas - and Christianity in general - continues to rage on. The latest example comes from a small town in Kansas that found itself smack dab in the middle of a battle with progressives who were oh-so offended that a cross was on public property! Hear the oblivious local news report and get Glenns reaction on radio today.
Kansas town flirts with progress and loses traditional values
There is a sign in the town of Buhler, Kansas causing controversy in the news this week. The sign in the small town, described as a town rooted in small town values, featured a large cross, representative of much of the towns values. The sign is now being changed following a law suit from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).
---
Glenn was referring to the slogan on the sign that on one version reads: Our second century of progress, and on another says, Tradional Values. Progressive Ideas.
Glenn pointed out that the town is ironically up in arms over a group wanting to remove the cross from the public sign they dont understand why.
Well, because its a progress organization and theyre pushing their progressive ideas.
Youre eventually going to lose the cross in your seal if your seal has progressive ideas in it, Glenn quipped. No doubt about it.
Glenn continued to point out the irony in the situation noting that the communities solution is to move the sign to private property.
What is the progressive idea? The elimination of private property, he said. If you continue with these progressive ideals and ideas, you will lose your private property. Which means you have no place to have your point of view. None.
The situation with this towns sign is a great example of what progressivism does to traditional values, Glenn pointed out. The sign mixed the church with progressivism from the get-go.
---
Kansas town flirts with progress and loses traditional values Glenn Beck
Yes it is a war, a war on MENTAL ILLNESS, to save America from the debilitating virus of the mind named fundamentalist Christianity
