The progressive war on Christmas/Christianity

[koshergrl]

I already addressed that. Move on to your next hysterical fit, please.

 

[koshergrl]

And again you have your childish or childlike response to deflect the reality that you are not telling the truth in any manner on this thread.

So what lie did I tell again?

Oh yeah. None. Thank you for playing. Your troll membership fees are due.

You keep saying that...yet you can't specifically point to a lie that I've told. You did make something up and attribute that to me, but that was a lie on your part.

This is fun. Keep going, please. Find a lie that I've told. It should be easy since you maintain I haven't told the truth at all in this thread. Just copy and paste. It's easy.

 

[Katzndogz]

Nobody has ever tried in any way to stop me from celebrating Christmas.

Can I hear from any Christian who has been molested for celebrating Christmas, please?

I WANT to hear your story.

yeah beckie & allie. We're all ears

Who said that Christians were molested for celebrating Christmas?

Oh yeah. You. It's all about assigning people stances they have never assumed, then making fun of them for the statements they never made.

A woman was fired for saying Merry Christmas.
Florida Woman Claims She Was Fired For Saying "Merry Christmas"

Another woman was fired for wearing a cross

Woman fired for wearing cross?

But ask the veteran school teacher Jerry Buell in Florida who was suspended from his job and “investigated” for simply stating his sincerely held beliefs regarding homosexuality on his own personal Facebook page if he was discriminated against. Or how about the man in Missouri, Alaa Alsaegh, who was ran off of the road, stabbed and had a Star of David carved in his back by muslims because he wrote a pro-Israel poem? And some day maybe you will have the opportunity to ask Stephen Ocean and Tite Sufra, two Evangelists in Florida, who were gunned down / murdered with a shotgun for evangelizing how they felt about it.

Are Christians Really Persecuted in America?

How about a full scale state investigation for refusing to bake a cake.

Oregon Baker Faces State Investigation After Refusing to Make Same-Sex Couple?s Wedding Cake | Video | TheBlaze.com

A state attorney general suing a florist.
he Washington state-based florist who refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding is now facing a lawsuit from the state attorney general.

We can always go to the failed attempt to intimidate Chick Fil A. That just didn't work.

 

[Dot Com]

oh puhleeease a few isolated incidents. That all you got thumper grrl?

I like the fact that you're using links WITHOUT being asked to provide them. Thanks for not being as lazy as you used to be just a few days ago

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

why you got to "Tebow" in the public square (put all your religious idols out on public property) to get the full effect of your religion? STOP W/ THE TEBOWING!!!

Why do you find it so offensive that someone desires to express the same Constitutional freedom of speech and assembly as you, no matter what form? Are we not all equal under the Constitution, yes or no?

We can allow a teacher to indoctrinate a whole class of elementary school kids into performing praises of "Mmmmm Mmmmm Mmmmm Barrack Hussein Obama" but they can't sing one Christmas carol for fear of indoctrination. Yes, I can truly see the hypocrisy in this argument of "forced" indoctrination placed on innocent PUBLIC school children.

 

[HUGGY]

why you got to "Tebow" in the public square (put all your religious idols out on public property) to get the full effect of your religion? STOP W/ THE TEBOWING!!!

Why do you find it so offensive that someone desires to express the same Constitutional freedom of speech and assembly as you, no matter what form? Are we not all equal under the Constitution, yes or no?

We can allow a teacher to indoctrinate a whole class of elementary school kids into performing praises of "Mmmmm Mmmmm Mmmmm Barrack Hussein Obama" but they can't sing one Christmas carol for fear of indoctrination. Yes, I can truly see the hypocrisy in this argument of "forced" indoctrination placed on innocent PUBLIC school children.

Obama was elected to his position of leadership. We expect him to speak of his goals to lead. No one elected the fanatic religious to any such post. Obama's words are mandated. The religious are over reaching morons to think they have equal status to the elected president of the United States.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

oh puhleeease a few isolated incidents. That all you got thumper grrl?

I like the fact that you're using links WITHOUT being asked to provide them. Thanks for not being as lazy as you used to be just a few days ago

I provided a lot more than that ....and that's just skimming off the top.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

why you got to "Tebow" in the public square (put all your religious idols out on public property) to get the full effect of your religion? STOP W/ THE TEBOWING!!!

Why do you find it so offensive that someone desires to express the same Constitutional freedom of speech and assembly as you, no matter what form? Are we not all equal under the Constitution, yes or no?

We can allow a teacher to indoctrinate a whole class of elementary school kids into performing praises of "Mmmmm Mmmmm Mmmmm Barrack Hussein Obama" but they can't sing one Christmas carol for fear of indoctrination. Yes, I can truly see the hypocrisy in this argument of "forced" indoctrination placed on innocent PUBLIC school children.

Obama was elected to his position of leadership. We expect him to speak of his goals to lead. No one elected the fanatic religious to any such post. Obama's words are mandated. The religious are over reaching morons to think they have equal status to the elected president of the United States.

I don't recall any other president being praised in a class room, looks like classic indoctrination to me. Question: Can you tell me if any of the kids could opt out of that assignment, or not? Go ahead, tell me more of this hypocrisy you make excuses for .

I also see you completely ignored my constitutional "equality" question as well. Are we not all equal under the Constitution with the same rights and freedoms of speech, as well as assembly - Yes or No?

 

[koshergrl]

And again you have your childish or childlike response to deflect the reality that you are not telling the truth in any manner on this thread.

So what lie did I tell again?

Oh yeah. None. Thank you for playing. Your troll membership fees are due.

It's not a lie if she believes it.

Yet..nobody has yet pointed to this alleged "lie".

What lie did I tell, again? Well, not again..since you haven't been able to identify it at all yet...Despite being asked repeatedly...

 

[bendog]

oh puhleeease a few isolated incidents. That all you got thumper grrl?

I like the fact that you're using links WITHOUT being asked to provide them. Thanks for not being as lazy as you used to be just a few days ago

I provided a lot more than that ....and that's just skimming off the top.

you provided stories dating back YEARS, and which were disputed.

Moreover, as an employer, I can tell my employee how he/she will answer the phone, or pick up your check next week. Her religious freedom stops the second she takes my money customers pay me, or take their biz to someone who doesn't offend them with religious expresssions.

The oregon case is an interesting issue, but it's not new. Does the govt have the power to tell me that I must provide a private biz service to anyone who seeks it, or can I choose not to serve, blacks, GLBT, muslims, women, and even .... christians, just because I somehow find them offensive? Personally, I'd say no, govt can't do that, and if I choose to act as a bore and to my own econ detriment ... then I can. However, apparantly, Ore disagrees. it's not really a religious issue though, and it's really a govt power over the individual.

 

[numan]

Thank you for providing an example of attempted persecution. You can't stop people from praying in public.

What if you are blocking traffic while you are doing it?
.

 

[numan]

In fact in this thread, we have one person calling for Christians to be identified as mentally ill....

The spectrum between mental disease and obsessive delusion is fairly broad.
.

 

[koshergrl]

Thank you for providing an example of attempted persecution. You can't stop people from praying in public.

What if you are blocking traffic while you are doing it?
.

Then you are probably breaking a law.

But the law you're breaking isn't a law against public prayer; it's a law against blocking traffic.

This is too stupid. Are you people really this dim? I thought atheists were supposed to be the *intelligent* people. I have you dolts here who apparently don't grasp how blocking traffic is illegal...but public displays of faith aren't...and I have coyote in anotehr thread who can't figure out that a HUMAN embryo doesn't become HUMAN only some time after birth..by which time it isn't even an embryo anymore, but meh, this is what we get from the brilliant atheist nuts when they attempt to use *science*..or even *law*.... to prove their non-points.

 

[numan]

This is too stupid. Are you people really this dim? I thought atheists were supposed to be the *intelligent* people. I have you dolts here who apparently don't grasp how blocking traffic is illegal...but public displays of faith aren't...

One of the reasons that religious fanatics tend to be so bad at science is that their "minds" have difficulty moving from the Particular to the General.

There is a broad spectrum of how tolerable religious insanity is to society.

Praying in public is probably quite tolerable, but is gathering in a screeching mob outside an abortion clinic, shouting threats and insults at people who go in?

Is making public threats and insults to homosexuals tolerable? Is whipping bigots up in a frenzy to attack them? In many countries such actions would constitute Hate Crimes, and be prosecuted accordingly.

...and I have coyote in another thread who can't figure out that a HUMAN embryo doesn't become HUMAN only some time after birth....

And that person is correct, and you are wrong.

If you were not such an ignoramus about biology, perhaps even someone of your limited mental capacity might be able to understand that.
.

 

[koshergrl]

This is too stupid. Are you people really this dim? I thought atheists were supposed to be the *intelligent* people. I have you dolts here who apparently don't grasp how blocking traffic is illegal...but public displays of faith aren't...

One of the reasons that religious fanatics tend to be so bad at science is that their "minds" have difficulty moving from the Particular to the General.

There is a broad spectrum of how tolerable religious insanity is to society.

Praying in public is probably quite tolerable, but is gathering in a screeching mob outside an abortion clinic, shouting threats and insults at people who go in?

Is making public threats and insults to homosexuals tolerable? Is whipping bigots up in a frenzy to attack them? In many countries such actions would constitute Hate Crimes, and be prosecuted accordingly.

...and I have coyote in another thread who can't figure out that a HUMAN embryo doesn't become HUMAN only some time after birth....

And that person is correct, and you are wrong.

If you were not such an ignoramus about biology, perhaps even someone of your limited mental capacity might be able to understand that.
.

So..you maintain that human embryos aren't human, and become potential..something...only after birth?

That's quite the scientific argument there, einstein. Which of course flies directly in the face of all scientific knowledge and understanding.

And once again...if someone is screaming and yelling and blocking traffic, the crime isn't the prayer, if it's happening, or the religious display, if it's happening...it's the harassment or the interference with traffic.

I'm sadly, deeply disappointed. Atheists are nowhere near as well educated, reasonable, or logical as they maintain they are. Nor are they as truthful...

Shocker.

Here, I'm using a DIFFERENT source to again point out that embryos are, indeed, human.

I'm not even going to continue to point out how idiotic it is to maintain that embryo's become "a potential" something only upon birth, since by the time one gives BIRTH, the embryo is no longer an embryo but a fetus...but I digress...

"A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from either: the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears, and has not yet reached 8 weeks of development since the first mitotic division."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17178746

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

oh puhleeease a few isolated incidents. That all you got thumper grrl?

I like the fact that you're using links WITHOUT being asked to provide them. Thanks for not being as lazy as you used to be just a few days ago

I provided a lot more than that ....and that's just skimming off the top.

you provided stories dating back YEARS, and which were disputed.

Moreover, as an employer, I can tell my employee how he/she will answer the phone, or pick up your check next week. Her religious freedom stops the second she takes my money customers pay me, or take their biz to someone who doesn't offend them with religious expresssions.

The oregon case is an interesting issue, but it's not new. Does the govt have the power to tell me that I must provide a private biz service to anyone who seeks it, or can I choose not to serve, blacks, GLBT, muslims, women, and even .... christians, just because I somehow find them offensive? Personally, I'd say no, govt can't do that, and if I choose to act as a bore and to my own econ detriment ... then I can. However, apparantly, Ore disagrees. it's not really a religious issue though, and it's really a govt power over the individual.

I would like to see the facts to these supposed "disputed stories", at least I was able to back up my examples with links. Where are yours?

 

[numan]

So..you maintain that human embryos aren't human....

I maintain that human embryos, with gills and a tail and scarcely any nervous system or brain, are potentially full human beings, but they are not actual full human beings.

My cat is closer to being a full human being than a human embryo is.

Here, I'm using a DIFFERENT source to again point out that embryos are, indeed, human.

No, you are dishonestly playing around with the various and inconsistent dictionary definitions of the word "human".
.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, brother.

As I said, and as I have shown, you may think that, and you're entitled to your grossly uneducated and retarded opinion...

But kindly refrain from pretending it has anything whatever to do with scientific FACT, and please don't insult our intelligence by brazenly pretending that there is any scientist on the face of the planet that would say that is, indeed, a scientific fact.

 

[numan]

As I said, and as I have shown....

The only thing you have shown is XXXXXXX
.

 

[koshergrl]

Really? Again, why don't you specify exactly what I'm wrong about?