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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for proving my point. Bitch about a symbol yet you still can practice your religion but this is so more important to a simple mind.
How much more of a joke can you provide yourself to be.
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.
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.
These people have a goal to complete pervert civilization into a sick joke.
Thank you for proving my point. Bitch about a symbol yet you still can practice your religion but this is so more important to a simple mind.
How much more of a joke can you provide yourself to be.
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.
Wow I don't know, but I'll have to try hard to surpass the hilarity that post of yours provides...
Did you and that dyslexic halfwit, daws, attend the same school? Or, probably closer to the truth...ditch English comp class together?
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
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.
I’m sorry, but this is just ignorant nonsense, having nothing to do with the facts of law I cited.
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.
March 27, 1854 Congress of the United States of America
received the report of Mr. Metacham of the House Committee on the Judiciary:
At the adoption of the Constitution... every State...provided as regularly for the support of the Church as for the support of the Government....
Down to the Revolution, every colony did sustain religion in some form. It was deemed peculiarly proper that the religion of liberty should be upheld by a free people. Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, not any one sect [denomination]. Any attempt to level and discard all religion would have been viewed with universal indignation. The object was not to substitute Judaism or Mohammedanism, or infidelity, but to prevent rivalry among the [Christian] sects to the exclusion of others.
January 19, 1853 Congress of the United States of America
as part of a Congressional investigation, records the report of Mr. Badger of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or anything like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people...
They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the DEAD AND REVOLTING SPECTACLE OF ATHEISTIC APATHY. Not so had the battles of Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted.
Anything in the name of Christianity is okay by this crowd. They are so upset and bitch about their little symbols more than they are about true practice of their beliefs.
If you took ALL of the hideous monsters that have ever existed that without the influence of religion have commited the most heinous crimes and put them all together they are amateurs compared to the butchery done in the name of Jesus. I do not care about the freedoms of insane psychopathes.
Those of religion are the most consciousless predators earth has ever known. I care more about Charlie Manson's freedoms than yours. At least HE is honest about what he is.
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.
Nonsense.
No one is trying to remove anyones freedoms.
Youre free to practice your religion anywhere, anytime.
But dont attempt to codify your religious dogma in the secular law by prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying or violating a womans privacy rights, for example.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was specifically designed to protect citizens from the blind religious extremism you represent.
It may be that no group of people can be free from "religion". The push for secularism is just the advocacy of a new religion, not the absence of religion. Secularism could be called the worship of man in general and self in particular. Like all other religions, it does not want competition.
They are idolaters.Anything in the name of Christianity is okay by this crowd. They are so upset and bitch about their little symbols more than they are about true practice of their beliefs.
Anything in the name of Christianity is okay by this crowd. They are so upset and bitch about their little symbols more than they are about true practice of their beliefs.
When did you gain the right to tell people when and how to practice their religion?
Are you the theophobe Pope?
They are idolaters.Anything in the name of Christianity is okay by this crowd. They are so upset and bitch about their little symbols more than they are about true practice of their beliefs.
God's gonna get 'em for violating Jesus' commandment :
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind -- and thou shalt live thy neighbour as thyself."
.
They are idolaters.Anything in the name of Christianity is okay by this crowd. They are so upset and bitch about their little symbols more than they are about true practice of their beliefs.
God's gonna get 'em for violating Jesus' commandment :
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind -- and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
.
