U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Atheists Lose...Again.

a reply to: spirited75

Lol, what?

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Metallicus

evangelical militant atheists.

Evangelical
of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.

Militant
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause

Atheist
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Calling someone an evangelical militant atheist makes no f**king sense, WHATSOEVER. It only serves to prove what an imbecile the person saying it is.

a reply to: Secret009

secret, are you incapable of reading the constitution.
please do so and find for me the words
"Separation of church and state"

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: rickynews

Is it attempting to restrict your freedoms, or attempting to protect themselves from restrictions on their freedoms?

As Benevolent Heretic pointed out, one of the women was Jewish. Not exactly a communistic atheist...

.

I wonder how you'd feel if you were in the religious minority and faced with constant reminders of that...

how would i feel?!!! HOW WOULD I FEEL??!!!!

i wouldn't give a rats! leave me alone.

how would you feel about getting beat on all the time?

in the whole friggin town there are two old bitty's making a complaint that went to the supreme court.

i don't like justin beaver or brittany or rap but i am bombarded with them everyday.

you people need a life/self control or fess up to the fact that you are WORSE than any christian in promoting your agenda.

they had others there for opening prayer.

i am not going underground in my belief, you have none.

originally posted by: Secret009

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Metallicus

evangelical militant atheists.

Evangelical
of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion.

Militant
combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause

Atheist
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Calling someone an evangelical militant atheist makes no f**king sense, WHATSOEVER. It only serves to prove what an imbecile the person saying it is.

he was right on, DUDE!
and nice personal attack. btw.

Fighting over religion is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend.

a reply to: spirited75

secret, are you incapable of reading the constitution.
please do so and find for me the words
"Separation of church and state"

Article VI of the Constitution provides that all state and federal officials "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution" but no "religious test" shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", making it clear that not only no church but no religion could be made the official religion of the United States.

The Free Exercise Clause provides that Congress shall not make laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. These prohibitions were extended to state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War.

If the US government can't require its officials to support a church, can't support a church itself; and can't interfere with the worship or belief of any church, is there really a serious argument that church and state are not separate? Why would anyone want to renegotiate one the most valuable philosophies that the US has espoused since its inception?

its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce

How the f$%^ is government acknowledging religious leaders and institutions not establishing religion?!
The is massively unconstitutional, and to be more blunt, idiotic. The Bush supreme court is the worst in the history of the nation and an embarrassment. They can't even comprehend a straightforward section of the constitution.

They should all be impeached, if that's possible.

that's why they came here. to separate state from church.
have any church they want. where and whenever they want.

not have the state dictate religion.

it doesn't require officials to do anything about religions, they are citizens also and have the right to believe how they wish.

change the sunday blue laws, i grew up with them too. PITA but hey... that's life.
i don't win the lotto every week either.




and what exactly is the benefit of taking all religion out of the public sphere?

what would that do?

i don't see any reason it would help anything, besides shutting some people up coz they got what they wanted.

even then, would they be happy? naw!

level the vatican, next?
rome?

take out notre dame? mecca? jerusalem?

what is the end game for these/you people? unisuits/haircuts?

non gender names? just a number?

sorry gays, no more rainbows.

originally posted by: CB328

its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce

How the f$%^ is government acknowledging religious leaders and institutions not establishing religion?!
The is massively unconstitutional, and to be more blunt, idiotic. The Bush supreme court is the worst in the history of the nation and an embarrassment. They can't even comprehend a straightforward section of the constitution.

They should all be impeached, if that's possible.

THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT MANDITORY!
like obamacare.

a reply to: rickynews

As far as those songs go, the words don't bother me. What does
bother me, though, is your attitude. Your gloating is immature
and bordering on pathetic.

For me, Christianity isn't the problem, but Mr.Holier than Thou-
I'm better than you-I'm going to Heaven and you're going Straight
to Hell-HaHa!! and Mrs. Determined to Witness Knocking on my door at 9 am.
who won't take a polite no for an answer.....those aspects of
the religion are what irritate me.

I really hate to say it, but attitudes like yours are in direct opposition
of what your bible says. A little birdie named Proverbs 24:17 told me so.

You seem to loathe non-Christians. Out of curiosity, if there was a time when
'Atheists either conform to Christianity, or be put to death' and majority vote won,
would you vote yea or nay? If it were up to you, what would you do with all the
atheists in the US?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Fighting over religion is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend.

My thoughts as well.

Although Buddhism is a religion, it does not have a imaginary friend, just teachings of a guy that discovered that being rich is not necessary to be happy

a reply to: rickynews

Lmao... Why isn't this in the hoax bin yet? This isn't even about atheists just the op assumes atheists are celebrating... What a complete joke of a thread... No atheist cares if you pray or not lol... You can be a jedi knight for all I care!

originally posted by: DisabledVet1
a reply to: rickynews

Good decision and I support it. When things become one sided then we should take a step back and remember why the white man left Europe.... one of the reasons was freedom of religion.....not rule out religion.

Most of our founding fathers were deists and abhored religion in all its forms. You should read up on your history.

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
a reply to: rickynews

Would you support this as much as you do if it was only Muslim prayers before the meetings?

In the United States, it is fair to assume that the other faiths aren't likely to pray in town council meetings, simply because the United States is comprised of 73% Christians (Approx. 247 Million Americans), and the other 27% is a mix of Non-Christian faiths. As such, the population, due to the shear numbers, isn't likely to elect Muslims and Buddists, although the public may elect those of the Jewish faith in certain districts and areas of the country. So, as a result, it is not a likely hypothetical scenario. Regardless, let's say in a heavily Jewish populated district for example..., if the Mayor or Town Council officials wanted to offer a Jewish prayer prior to a meeting, I would have no problem with them doing so whatsoever. It is their solemn right, and they are free to do so.

originally posted by: Meee32
a reply to: rickynews

Lmao... Why isn't this in the hoax bin yet? This isn't even about atheists just the op assumes atheists are celebrating... What a complete joke of a thread... No atheist cares if you pray or not lol... You can be a jedi knight for all I care!

There is no reason to believe that Atheists are celebrating the decision. The opposite is true, as they clearly loathe the decision.

a reply to: rickynews

no it's not....and no they don't....

the issue atheists have with this sort of thing is that religion, and religious ceremonies, and religious verbal paraphernalia, have no place being co-mingled with legitimate government business...

religion should never have the power to interfere with the law, to make the law, or to exercise ANY measure of influence over the law.

have your religion, but don't drag it into the chambers, and don't mix it with government.

originally posted by: virraszto
a reply to: rickynews

As far as those songs go, the words don't bother me. What does
bother me, though, is your attitude. Your gloating is immature
and bordering on pathetic.

For me, Christianity isn't the problem, but Mr.Holier than Thou-
I'm better than you-I'm going to Heaven and you're going Straight
to Hell-HaHa!! and Mrs. Determined to Witness Knocking on my door at 9 am.
who won't take a polite no for an answer.....those aspects of
the religion are what irritate me.

I really hate to say it, but attitudes like yours are in direct opposition
of what your bible says. A little birdie named Proverbs 24:17 told me so.

You seem to loathe non-Christians. Out of curiosity, if there was a time when
'Atheists either conform to Christianity, or be put to death' and majority vote won,
would you vote yea or nay? If it were up to you, what would you do with all the
atheists in the US?

I accept the fact that when on the losing end of a discussion or argument, the default mode and tactics of most leftists liberals and some atheists - is to name call, personally attack, mischaracterize, false quote, put words in other people's speech and make erroneous assumptions about anyone who does not otherwise agree with them or share their point of view, which you have done in the above post. It does not bode well for supporting whatever point(s) you are trying to make, nor does it affect the persons that you attempt to swing at, so in short - I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

a reply to: rickynews

yet your default mode is to name call, personally attack, mischaracterize, false quote, put words in other people's speech, and make erroneous assumptions about anyone who does not otherwise agree with you or share your point of view...seems a bit..i dunno, hypocritical...

it seems to me that he made a tough argument, asked a tough question, and rather than even ATTEMPT to address it, you'd rather just sidestep, and try to justify it, by squirting a cloud of B.S. like an octopus shoots ink...

originally posted by: DietJoke
a reply to: Secret009

If you want the constitution to remain as it is then you MUST ALLOW ...

the free exercise of religion

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

So the people of Greece township MAY assemble peaceably and MAY freely exercise their religion by saying prayers to start council meetings with.

Now since you don't want that then you do NOT want the constitution to remain as it is and therefor you want an amendment made.

Absolutely Secret2009. It should be noted that there are provisions in the Constitution that allows for Amendments, so long as 2/3 of the Congress supports and votes in favor to said or proposed Amendment(s). The frustrations and outright anger for many leftist liberals is that they know, based on the American People's will, that they will not be able to get anywhere near the 2/3 of Congress to get an Amendment passed which serves their misguided agenda and ideology. The Constitution was written to make it quite challenging to pass an Amendment, which would require overwhelming support of the American People. The founding fathers were very wise indeed.