Thread: Liberal Hitlers

Originally Posted by Steve

The only fantasy here is your contention that what you posted wasn't a cut & paste.

It wasn't because it wasn't

Originally Posted by Steve

It was.

You say it was. I know it wasn't. I know, because I'm the one that created the opening post and cited the source it refers to. It was not a "cut & paste" job.

Originally Posted by Steve

And you're unable to admit it.

I'm perfectly able to admit it

I'm not going to lie to make a few confused lunatics happy though.

Originally Posted by Steve

There's no reason to take anything you say seriously if you're unable to be honest about something as simeple as that...

What is clear is the fear so many seem to have of discussing the main issue. That is probably why USPOL has trouble getting and keeping new members.

Rather than discuss the issues, we have a group that will find any way to bypass and ignore them.

This is just silliness.

Geez, 5 pages and not a single example of how anyone's first amendment right to freedom of religious expression has been curbed, eroded, or reduced in any way.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Rather than discuss the issues, we have a group that will find any way to bypass and ignore them.

This is just silliness.

What's silly is the belief that a reasonable conversation could be had, on any topic, with someone who insists on being so dishonest...

Originally Posted by snowden

Geez, 5 pages and not a single example of how anyone's first amendment right to freedom of religious expression has been curbed, eroded, or reduced in any way.

No one wants to talk about that. They'd rather talk about me.

I'm such a fascinating guy

One can find many examples of this if one wants to honestly look of course. I don't expect anyone besides myself wants to do that. Hey, I'm alright with that. I know I'm such a fascinating guy and all

This is what we do at USPOL Avoid the issues and talk about ourselves and each other.

Silliness.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

No one wants to talk about that. They'd rather talk about me.

I'm such a fascinating guy

One can find many examples of this if one wants to honestly look of course. I don't expect anyone besides myself wants to do that. Hey, I'm alright with that. I know I'm such a fascinating guy and all

This is what we do at USPOL Avoid the issues and talk about ourselves and each other.

Silliness.

Well I have taken an honest look and I have found no evidence for the claims in the article you posted. If you would point them out to me I would gladly investigate them.

Why do the religious True Believers not understand that the separation of church and state if for the protection of both? Freedom of religion means that the government does not in any way shape or form promote any one religious viewpoint. That needs to be absolute and complete for the protection of all religions and for the protection of the state.

The only time the true Believers support government involvement in religion is when it is presenting their point of view and supporting their beliefs.

Originally Posted by snowden

Well I have taken an honest look and I have found no evidence for the claims in the article you posted. If you would point them out to me I would gladly investigate them.

Here are just a couple of the many incidents where people of faith have been harassed or even silenced. There are many more.

Just in case anyone is interested in the subject matter. Not that that's likely of course, I'm such a fascinating guy and all.

Maybe you are, and that's great. Finally someone that is interested in something other than me.

------------------------------

A Yellowstone County District Court judge has been asked to decide whether a Butte High School student’s civil rights were violated when she was banned from speaking at graduation ceremonies last year because she refused to remove religious references from her speech.


Butte grad claims rights violated when forced to remove ?God? from speech


------------------------------

Arguments have moved to the appellate court level in a California case in which a man talking to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.

The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people.

Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of a conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen's arrest for "trespassing."

The pastor said he agreed to leave but instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing.

A short time later the charges were dropped, but officials with the Pacific Justice Institute decided to pursue a case against the mall over the impact of the policy on free speech.


Mall to Christians: God talk banned!

Originally Posted by RDK

Why do the religious True Believers not understand that the separation of church and state if for the protection of both? Freedom of religion means that the government does not in any way shape or form promote any one religious viewpoint. That needs to be absolute and complete for the protection of all religions and for the protection of the state.

The only time the true Believers support government involvement in religion is when it is presenting their point of view and supporting their beliefs.

Do read the opening post carefully. There is no such thing as this "separation of church and state."

There is always the obligatory genuflection to the "separation of church and state." Who is arguing for combining them ? The First Amendment is not dealing with church-state issues. The prohibition is against Congress and what it can't do. The states with their religious state constitutions insisted on an amendment protecting them from a strong national government, including the topic of religion. The amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof !!!!



in ACLU of Kentucky, et al. v. Mercer County, Kentucky, et al. (December 20, 2005), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stated that while "the ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state,' [t]his extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome." The court went on to argue the following:

The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 673; Lemon, 403 U.S. at 614; Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265, 274 (4th Cir. 2001); Stark v. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 640., 123 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 300 (dismissing strict separatism as "a notion that simply perverts our history"). Our Nation's history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. See, e.g., Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (upholding Sunday closing laws); see also Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674 ("There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789."); Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 293-99 (describing historical examples of governmental involvement with religion). After all, "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach, 343 U.S. at 313. Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible. [ACLU of Kentucky, et al. v. Mercer County, Kentucky, et al. (December 20, 2005)]

Speaking of Hitler...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQnT0...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Here are just a couple of the many incidents where people of faith have been harassed or even silenced. There are many more.

Just in case anyone is interested in the subject matter. Not that that's likely of course, I'm such a fascinating guy and all.

Maybe you are, and that's great. Finally someone that is interested in something other than me.

------------------------------

A Yellowstone County District Court judge has been asked to decide whether a Butte High School student’s civil rights were violated when she was banned from speaking at graduation ceremonies last year because she refused to remove religious references from her speech.


Butte grad claims rights violated when forced to remove ?God? from speech


------------------------------

Arguments have moved to the appellate court level in a California case in which a man talking to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.

The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people.

Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of a conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen's arrest for "trespassing."

The pastor said he agreed to leave but instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing.

A short time later the charges were dropped, but officials with the Pacific Justice Institute decided to pursue a case against the mall over the impact of the policy on free speech.


Mall to Christians: God talk banned!

None of those are examples of how the government has restricted freedom of religion. Your article make a point of stressing that the First amendment places restrictions on government, particularly congress. Schools and malls are not the government.

Originally Posted by snowden

None of those are examples of how the government has restricted freedom of religion. Your article make a point of stressing that the First amendment places restrictions on government, particularly congress. Schools and malls are not the government.

That is the point.


Isn't it ? It seems you've just seen this, correct ?


So, by what insane reasoning do these schools, malls, our jobs, whatever, have to tell us that we cannot speak of our faith in God ? They have no right to do so and are clearly wrong in trying to do so. Unless it really IS disruptive of course.


So, where are these actions coming from ? They are coming because atheists and other nasty lunatics want to silence people of faith and have found that hiring some slick ACLU lawyers can work to silence them. They make claims such as; "I find that language offensive." or "I find that persons picture of a normal family offensive at my workplace and can't work in that condition."

If you study what these types have been doing, you will be well aware of this new phenomenon of silencing those you don't like or disagree with by claiming "offense." This is the newest way the war of hatred against people of faith is being waged. It's an old war, just a newfangled way they've found to wage it.

Read the thread, voted five. Wish I had gotten here sooner.

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

......

If you study what these types have been doing, you will be well aware of this new phenomenon of silencing those you don't like or disagree with by claiming "offense." This is the newest way the war of hatred against people of faith is being waged. It's an old war, just a newfangled way they've found to wage it.

I have in over 30 years in the work place seen people claim something pertaining to religion was “offensive” on only three different occasions.

In each and every one of these it was a self professed Christian objecting to people displaying, relatively benignly, religious opinions that were non Christian.

In one of these the person objected to was a Hindu who was wearing traditional garb and had a religious figurine on his desk.

In another it was against a person who had a small sign on his desk declaring his office a “God Free Zone” He put it there because the Christians were coming into his office and trying to convert him.

The third was a tee shirt someone was wearing at an afterhours social function that had a picture of a cross on it, in a red circle with a slash through it and the statement “Bad Religion” under it. This person was the guest of an employee and the complaint was launched against the employee who brought him as her date.

The Christians that did the objecting had large and prominent crucifixes on their desk, would leave pamphlets on people’s desks would occupy a corner of the lunch room and hold loud bible study sessions at break times.

It was after the third case that a large number of the employees got together and collectively complained against the harassment that senior management put a stop to it.

I do not cite these to be a general Christian bashing but to simply point out that assholes come under cover of all religious beliefs.