It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WTFover
You know, those horrendous atrocities you listed weren't committed by real Christians, but by those who used the religion as a false justification for asserting control over others. It is really unfair to characterize an entire religion and all of its adherents, based on the actions of people who, clearly, were not acting in accordance with the teachings of its architect.
Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
I'm sorry, but I'm not following. I think maybe you've confused my posts with someone else's, as I've never mentioned anything about "atheist states".
Originally posted by sara123123
Hundreds of millions have been impoverished, imprisoned and murdered by atheist states. Atheists have murdered more innocent people for their inccorrect social beliefs than Christian states have done in two thousand years. Should we persecute atheists in this "justice" scheme of guilt by association?
Originally posted by sara123123
In the Black Book of Communism, Stalin murdered 30 million people in his term. Mao murdered 27 million in his term. The Soviets continued to murder incorrect beleivers until the wall fell and it is estimated that another 100 million fell to the atheist empire. China still murders the politically incorrect (and sells their organs on the black market) and unborn children by the hundreds of millions. The wikileaks just revealed the chi-coms are chasing people around the world who promote the rights of Buddists and befriend the Dahli Lama. Then you have Cuba, Viet Nam (whose atheist slaughter is marked by a mountain of skulls) and all the other atheist regimes.
Is that good enough for you? Proud? Still riding around on that high atheist horse of sinlessness?
Originally posted by WTFover
You know, those horrendous atrocities you listed weren't committed by real Christians, but by those who used the religion as a false justification for asserting control over others. It is really unfair to characterize an entire religion and all of its adherents, based on the actions of people who, clearly, were not acting in accordance with the teachings of its architect.
Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by Annee
You don't mind this argument of not looking at offensive art if it is Christians complaining about porn. It is too bad that what is true for one offended person is true for the other who is easily offended in a free society.
Originally posted by WTFover
Those in the post I addressed, did in fact claim their actions were sanctioned by a religion; Chrisitanity in these cases. What I pointed out was that their claims were fallacious and their actions were not true representations of Christianity.
Originally posted by Annee
It CAN BE and IS offensive - -
Government of the people - for the people - - ALL THE PEOPLE. Not just those who believe in Jesus.
Is a display of any religion on government property recognizing that belief? YES - it is.
No one is losing anything if a Nativity Scene does not appear on public/government property.
Originally posted by WTFover
What I pointed out was that their claims were fallacious and their actions were not true representations of Christianity.
Originally posted by Annee
It may not be what you want to accept as Christians - - but Yeah! Absolutely! They were Christians.
Originally posted by Annee
Point is - - you do not want to accept the reality that atrocities were done in the name of Christianity - - BY CHRISTIANS.
It may not be what you want to accept as Christians - - but Yeah! Absolutely! They were Christians.
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
sometimes its worth the effort to see if a bridge is possible but, usually, its not...
Originally posted by WTFover
The First Amendment does not say "Congress shall not "recognize" any religion". The word is "Establish".
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.
An English word can consist of three parts: the root, a prefix and a suffix. The root is the part of the word that contains the basic meaning (definition) of the word. The root is the base element of the word.
please, take note of the very important part that says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Originally posted by WTFover
And what is it the OP is contemplating?
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
Originally posted by WTFover
What I pointed out was that their claims were fallacious and their actions were not true representations of Christianity.
Originally posted by Annee
It may not be what you want to accept as Christians - - but Yeah! Absolutely! They were Christians.
...agreed, annee - but - ya know, sometimes its worth the effort to see if a bridge is possible but, usually, its not... never hurts to try tho, huh?...
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...gosh, wtfover, are you the deflection king or what?...
...establish is a verb... establishment is a noun... your argument is lame... you got busted using the wrong word and being arrogant about it... get over it and lets move on...
www.firstamendmentcenter.org...
Everson v. Board of Education 1947 “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church."
...if your next futile attempt at deflection is that PieKeeper is attempting to prohibit the free exercise of christianity, dont bother...
Originally posted by Annee
There is very little Jesus in Christianity. There are very very few who truly "walk in His footsteps".