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.
No, I think the devil really wants to see the ignorance of non believes and to see what he will be able to get away with. Starting with liberals, cause all the stuff Obama has pulled over on you and he is just a man. LolIn the Conservative Christian Utopia all those who are non Christian would be executed so that they can be sent swiftly to hell and prevented from corrupting any believers.Those that don't get the mark of the beast dies.It is in the end times that tattoos on our forehead will tell others if we are christian...and those who are christian die.
It's in the AP report that's linked in my link.I didn't read that he said religion should be favoured at all. Perhaps you could quote it?He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.
He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.
What's wrong with that? Do you think non-religious people should be favoured?
Public accomodation laws. They can't say we won't bake cakes for interracial marriages or for non Christian marriages.These Christians were in the business of baking cakes. That was not endorsement of the gay marriage, merely providing public accomodation for baking cakes.Does tolerance equal favoritism in the low information predominately left wing mind? Christians would be glad to be left alone instead of cramming left wing ideology down their throats. Imagine forcing Muslems to cook pork for a Christian wedding like they forced Christians to bake a cake for sodomites.
Merely being forced to do something against their will in order to placate a Totalitarian Ideology.
Then the states could pass such laws? Would you be in support of such laws?The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.Hell, no! You are wrong. The Constitution protects people to be non religious. Equal Opportunity Country.The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
If you examine Congress' enumerated powers, you will not find any power that would allow them to require that any of the people of the several states be religious. Such a law would be outside the scope of their delegated powers.
OMG.....he's got ....If it can favor religion over non-religion, then you must conclude that it can render non-religious people as non citizens without rights. That is the ultimate result of favoring religion over non-religion. The endgame so to speak. What does it mean to you?He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.
He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.
What's wrong with that? Do you think non-religious people should be favoured?
Is he wrong?
That is a huge and unsupported jump.
YOu are being irrationally afraid of religious people.
CHRISTIANOPHOBIA
And the baker sold them everyday items, but didn't want to bake a gay wedding cake. I see no problem.These Christians were in the business of baking cakes. That was not endorsement of the gay marriage, merely providing public accomodation for baking cakes.Does tolerance equal favoritism in the low information predominately left wing mind? Christians would be glad to be left alone instead of cramming left wing ideology down their throats. Imagine forcing Muslems to cook pork for a Christian wedding like they forced Christians to bake a cake for sodomites.
Or trolling.The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.Hell, no! You are wrong. The Constitution protects people to be non religious. Equal Opportunity Country.The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
I have never heard a "right winger" say that the government can demand that citizens "freely exercise" a religion.
That is just nonsense you made up.
Denying "Freedom From Religion" comes up when you libs try to drive religious people from the PUblic Square just because they are religious.
You are either lying, or you have the ability to empathize of a dead fish.
Or trolling.The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.Hell, no! You are wrong. The Constitution protects people to be non religious. Equal Opportunity Country.The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
I have never heard a "right winger" say that the government can demand that citizens "freely exercise" a religion.
That is just nonsense you made up.
Denying "Freedom From Religion" comes up when you libs try to drive religious people from the PUblic Square just because they are religious.
You are either lying, or you have the ability to empathize of a dead fish.
Public accomodation laws. They can't say we won't bake cakes for interracial marriages or for non Christian marriages.These Christians were in the business of baking cakes. That was not endorsement of the gay marriage, merely providing public accomodation for baking cakes.Does tolerance equal favoritism in the low information predominately left wing mind? Christians would be glad to be left alone instead of cramming left wing ideology down their throats. Imagine forcing Muslems to cook pork for a Christian wedding like they forced Christians to bake a cake for sodomites.
Merely being forced to do something against their will in order to placate a Totalitarian Ideology.
Yes.Or trolling.The constitution says the free exercise of religion will not be prohibited, but that does not prohibit the government from demanding that citizens freely exercise one religion or another. That is why right wingers say there is no freedom from religion, only freedom of religion.Hell, no! You are wrong. The Constitution protects people to be non religious. Equal Opportunity Country.The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
I have never heard a "right winger" say that the government can demand that citizens "freely exercise" a religion.
That is just nonsense you made up.
Denying "Freedom From Religion" comes up when you libs try to drive religious people from the PUblic Square just because they are religious.
You are either lying, or you have the ability to empathize of a dead fish.
With you lefties it is hard to tell.
YOur actual beliefs are so goofy that it is impossible to tell if you are purposefully being silly or deadly serious.
SO, are you admitting to trolling?
The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
Yes, trolling, but I heard at the last Republican Convention a speaker say, regarding religion, that to be an American you have to believe in something.
There are plenty of bakeries. There's no need to force Christians to act against their conscience. That can, I'm sure be very distressing to them. It's mean and petty.These Christians were in the business of baking cakes. That was not endorsement of the gay marriage, merely providing public accomodation for baking cakes.Does tolerance equal favoritism in the low information predominately left wing mind? Christians would be glad to be left alone instead of cramming left wing ideology down their throats. Imagine forcing Muslems to cook pork for a Christian wedding like they forced Christians to bake a cake for sodomites.
Yep, I read it and quoted it already. I saw him say that the non religious should not be favoured over the religious. I'm fine with that. Liberal lefties aren't, because they insist on carving up society and giving more rights to their preferred victims ... I mean groups. So please could you pull a precise quote to illustrate your libel...I mean assertion. Thanks.It's in the AP report that's linked in my link.I didn't read that he said religion should be favoured at all. Perhaps you could quote it?He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.
He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.
What's wrong with that? Do you think non-religious people should be favoured?
News from The Associated Press
If you ignore words and wait until oppression is already here, you are too late.The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
How about you ignore the harping? It's easy to ignore words you don't agree with. Don't worry about it until people make something your issue by forcing things on you, such as making laws to force you to behave a certain way or even making laws, like the recent one pushed by Dems regarding Islam, to punish you for thinking a certain way or expressing your views. Too many Muslims want death for those insulting them and in Muslim countries, people are either forced to convert or killed. Why don't you save your outrage for evil actions instead of shit you don't agree with?
It was a good set of morals that helped make this country what it was. Whether that came from religion or just responsible people, it was still crucial.
Yes, you should believe in something, whether it's being a good person or just believing that a country offering freedom and opportunity is worth saving. The new attitude we see from too many is what is in it for them. That will be our downfall.
You didn't quote that artice which contains the actual Scalia quote.Yep, I read it and quoted it already. I saw him say that the non religious should not be favoured over the religious. I'm fine with that. Liberal lefties aren't, because the insist on carving up society and giving more right to their preferred victims ... I mean groups. So please could you pull a precise quote to illustrate your libel...I mean assertion. Thanks.It's in the AP report that's linked in my link.I didn't read that he said religion should be favoured at all. Perhaps you could quote it?He actually said one denomination cannot be favored over another, but the government shoild be able to favor religion over non religion.The religious right is constantly harping on this being a Christian nation, and "you have to believe in something greater than yourself", and that atheism is an existential threat to the United States, and that the Constitution protects freedom of religion but not the freedom to be non religious.
Scalia is the latest to join this discussion, saying government should favor religion over non religion and that America has only prospered because she has honored God.
Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
So would you favor passage of a law requiring all Americans to offer annual proof that they belong to an approved religious body (i.e. no spaghetti monster type stuff)? And what should be the penalty of failing to prove this? Death seems to be the only viable penalty to ensure that every American is religious, and so that no atheist scum are able to threaten America's survival by mocking God.
On Saturday, he said the First Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing one religion over another. But, he added, that doesn’t mean the government has to favor non-religion over religion.
He argued that’s a more modern reading originating in the courts in the 1960s.
What's wrong with that? Do you think non-religious people should be favoured?
News from The Associated Press
You're ok then, you adhere to the religion of atheism.Yes, trolling, but I heard at the last Republican Convention a speaker say, regarding religion, that to be an American you have to believe in something.
