tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post1931142082993130561..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: In Rhode Island, anti-Christian kristallnacht continuesmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15454853991925739762012-01-19T11:19:48.287-05:002012-01-19T11:19:48.287-05:00To TRY it and see if it works, as you have nothing...<i>To TRY it and see if it works, as you have nothing to lose and EVERYTHING to gain.</i><br /><br />Well, except for losing all the time you spend uselessly engaged in pointless rituals and obeying a meaningless creed that drives you to condemn people for their choices.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-7318280736919094362012-01-19T09:59:40.293-05:002012-01-19T09:59:40.293-05:00What matters is the actual text of the U.S. Consti...<i>What matters is the actual text of the U.S. Constitution, and not judicial midrashim.</i><br /><br />Explain what Due Process of law means using only the "actual text of the U.S. Constitution". Explain what the Establishment clause means using only the "actual text of the U.S. Constitution". Insisting on strict textual interpretation of the Constitution marks you as an idiot. A hayseed even.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64161359805162375112012-01-18T21:22:27.167-05:002012-01-18T21:22:27.167-05:00Nice rant. Not one word changes the fact that you...Nice rant. Not one word changes the fact that your comparison of the Rhode Island mural case to Kristallnacht is an insult to the memory of the Jews killed or displaced by Germans (almost entirely Christian) on those horrible days in 1938.<br /><br />And no Christian that I know would agree with you. They would consider you, as I do, to be a demonstration of the sort of fanatical thinking that leads to events like Kristallnacht.<br /><br />Shame on you. You've painted yourself as a poor excuse for a human being, and certainly a poor excuse for someone who claims to follow the teachings of Jesus.<br /><br />Trish and Crusader have gone silent, retreating from what they know is an indefensible position - namely equating Kristallnacht with the Rhode Island mural. <br /><br />Now it's your turn: man up and apologize, or face the fact that the person you see in the mirror suffers from a supreme morality disfunction.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51074798371593837212012-01-18T08:59:06.659-05:002012-01-18T08:59:06.659-05:00Rex, i appreciate your reply.
Theres no hatred on...Rex, i appreciate your reply.<br /><br />Theres no hatred on my part, mostly frustration. And i honestly dont think that the majority of atheists HATE theists either. We just see and have seen, for millennia how the pious can bully and use their religion as a tool for conformity, for fear, and manipulation - all under the guise of love.<br /><br />Is positivism madness? Hardly. I would say madness is attributing everything to an invisible man that there can be no real proof of other than stories from an old book, then turning the burden of proof onto skeptics.<br /><br />I still find it kind of insulting to hear the religious tell us that we have 'no purpose.' Really? I find purpose in many things in my life - personal growth, to be a great father, to pave the way for my kids to have a fruitful and successful life. What is your purpose? To constantly honor and worship an invisible man? To strive to live after death? You may see my philosophy as short sighted or a 'failure of my imagination,' but this is how i am. I'm a good person, a great dad, i dont steal, kill or lie to give myself personal gain. Yet that still doesnt seem good ENOUGH for the religious.<br /><br />I dont mean to be snarky here, and we all get kind of heated with our arguments, I know.Mulderhttp://muldonia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76410269412349973462012-01-18T01:33:41.451-05:002012-01-18T01:33:41.451-05:00@RickK:
[Because in his zeal to play the poor vic...@RickK:<br /><br />[Because in his zeal to play the poor victim of overwhelming hordes of school-age atheists armed with lawyers, Michael stooped so low as to equate a kerfuffle over a religious mural with the German slaughter of Jews on Kristallnacht.<br /><br />Do you comprehend the difference, Trish?]<br /><br />Our experience here in the US with atheists is skewed. Atheism in the US (so far) has been a domesticated idiocy. The totalitarianism that in other parts of the world inevitably results when atheists assume state power has taken the form of judicial censorship in the US. Atheists in the US are a fringe minority. In the US they have been able to sandblast religious expression from civic life, but so far, nothing more. They are only about 4% of the population here, so that's still quite a bit of nastiness for such a fringe minority.<br /><br />Around the world, the Christian world has not been as fortunate as we here in the US have been. There have been tens of millions of Christians murdered in the past century because of their faith, in the USSR, in Eastern Europe, in Spain, in Mexico, and in Indochina and East Asia. <br /><br />Atheists have killed 100 million people since 1917. They have instituted massive programs of repression against their most intractable enemy-- the Christian church.<br /><br />In the US, we merely have to put up with censorship. But many of us see the larger picture, and we remember what atheists have done.<br /><br />Atheism has been engaged in a century-long campaign to exterminate Christianity, two centuries if you trace it to 1789. They use what tactics they can get away with. In the US, it's judicial censorship of civic religious expression. Elsewhere, it's been bloody. But with atheists it's always the same.<br /><br />Kristallnacht.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15145220202301091742012-01-17T21:38:05.856-05:002012-01-17T21:38:05.856-05:00Trish asked: "Why is Dr. Egnor an "insul...Trish asked: "Why is Dr. Egnor an "insult" to the Christians he "pretends" to defend? "<br /><br />Because in his zeal to play the poor victim of overwhelming hordes of school-age atheists armed with lawyers, Michael stooped so low as to equate a kerfuffle over a religious mural with the German slaughter of Jews on Kristallnacht.<br /><br />Do you comprehend the difference, Trish?<br /><br />Was any Christian jailed in Rhode Island for their religion?<br /><br />Was the school burned down?<br /><br />Were Christian businesses destroyed?<br /><br />Did 16-year-old Jessica KILL people for being Christian?<br /><br />Were any laws broken?<br /><br />Was ANYBODY'S ability to practice their religion curtailed in any way?<br /><br />Is legally removing a prayer from a public school wall the same as killing people, Trish?<br /><br />Look at it this way: If I killed every member of your family - butchered them because they were Christian - should I receive no punishment because that's no different than removing a prayer from a public wall? <br /><br />Michael is a disgrace because of his callous exploitation of a horrific slaughter in his spittle-flecked rantings against a school girl exercising her legal right to attend school without the words of somebody's god over her head. His article is horrible and shameful, and your defense of it just demonstrates how far your fanaticism has taken you from reason.<br /><br />I suggest you go to the nearest synagogue and ask the people there if they consider the Rhode Island case to be comparable to the German pogrom. Have a good, serious discussion with them. Or, just go ask your priest/minister. Ask the Christians at your church - if they're anything like the Christians I know, they'll be no less horrified by Michael's insults than I am. <br /><br />Trish, after such discussions, hopefully you'll come away with a better perspective and with some of your morality restored.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-76374242020748845452012-01-17T21:35:18.900-05:002012-01-17T21:35:18.900-05:00CrusadeRex,
Your reading skills are abysmal. I s...CrusadeRex,<br /><br />Your reading skills are abysmal. I specifically referred to Michael posting a link, not you.<br /><br />Actually, he mightn't have linked to that page in Wikipedia. He provided 3 links, 2 were to Wikipedia and one was to a 1998 newspaper article about the New York mayor threatening to remove funding from the art gallery if they didn't remove an offensive article. The article went on to state a court action was mooted to stop the mayor carrying out the threat.<br /><br />Michael is often hit and miss with his links. 1998 isn't recent, there's no indication of what happened afterwards, and it's also irrelevant as an example of a court refusing to have an insulting article removed.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-75388416042498793012012-01-17T21:20:15.506-05:002012-01-17T21:20:15.506-05:00Oh stop, Crus.
The armies you fought against did ...Oh stop, Crus.<br /><br />The armies you fought against did not live under the U.S. legal system. WE DO. And the Oklahoma law would only weaken it.<br /><br />Why can't you understand this? Why are you so insistent on making an irrelevant point about the Muslims you hate so much that you leave reason behind?<br /><br />If the OK law was so important in the U.S., then why were the proponents only able to find example cases from England??<br /><br />Name one tenet of Sharia Law that you fear entering the U.S. legal system that hasn't already been addressed by U.S. case law. Go for it - name one.<br /><br />If you want an understanding of the OK case, read this:<br />http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/01/17/why-the-aclu-opposed-the-oklahoma-law/<br /><br />Note, they make an interesting point on the prohibition against any "international" law in the OK case. We actually WANT some international law in contracts cases. So that part of the law was silly as well.<br /><br />Come on, Crus - show us you're brave enough to admit a mistake. Be a man, put away your over-developed personal defense mechanisms, and admit the Oklahoma law was a half-assed, transparently symbolic piece of nonsense, and was rightly thrown out.RickKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6537787863605315232012-01-17T19:43:53.730-05:002012-01-17T19:43:53.730-05:00I suggested you google it. I did not post a link.I suggested you google it. I did not post a link.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34825390386774706002012-01-17T19:02:28.622-05:002012-01-17T19:02:28.622-05:00CrusadeRex,
I hate this form of commenting. I...CrusadeRex,<br /><br />I hate this form of commenting. I've just noticed your comment.<br /><br />I'm well aware of 'Piss Christ'. The court case against in was in Victoria, Australia. The injunction was denied.<br /><br />But of course that has nothing to do with my point that there has never been a court case in America denying removal of an article insulting Christianity, if display of the article was paid by public funds, partially or completely.<br /><br />Australia doesn't have separation of state and religion. My point was about America alone. Michael's thread was about America too. Although he included a link to the same Wikipedia article on 'Piss Christ' I'd previously read.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-6031981918187507582012-01-17T17:06:00.164-05:002012-01-17T17:06:00.164-05:00Joey,
What makes you think I hate Christianity? ...Joey,<br /><br />What makes you think I hate Christianity? I dislike it because I don't think that it's true and its ministers have too much power, but 'hate' is too strong a word.<br /><br />I was merely answering Michael's assertion that any teacher using Martin Luther King's letter would be immediately sued. I was providing arguments why it wouldn't happen.<br /><br />Of course, the major problem with the letter is that it's very long. I doubt students nowadays would have the ability of concentration to finish what they've commencbachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37021718838103897742012-01-17T17:03:00.498-05:002012-01-17T17:03:00.498-05:00Hi Hayseed,
What matters is the actual text of th...Hi Hayseed,<br /><br />What matters is the actual text of the U.S. Constitution, and not judicial midrashim.R OBriennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-78486821189741106252012-01-17T10:22:53.516-05:002012-01-17T10:22:53.516-05:00Amen to that,
PépéAmen to that, <br />PépéAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-888740382793295562012-01-17T10:18:08.724-05:002012-01-17T10:18:08.724-05:00@John Henry,
Sure. Canon law is not common law. It...@John Henry,<br />Sure. Canon law is not common law. It should not be the law defended by the constitution. Only common law. The wording of the law was poor, I agree. Singling out Sharia was foolish, especially in this PC climate, but the intent was laudable IMO. To simply cut it down, without a chance of rewording seems to me a very dangerous precedent in a nation founded on the principles of common law for all. <br /><br />@Anon,<br />Religion will always thrive. It is human nature to seek the will and guidance of their creator/designer. No amount of technology or scientific dogma will change that in the long haul.<br />Further, you state:<br />"While you are busy second-guessing a sitting Federal judge who is well-versed in the law, I hope you don't mind if a truck driver shows up and second-guesses your medical judgements."<br />This is a poor comparison. Dr Egnor is a highly educated man with tenure, and while some drivers are too, I think it is safe to assume most are actually totally uninterested in neurosurgical procedures or theory.<br />Law, on the other hand, affects us all. <br />Secondly, the doctor has the RIGHT and DUTY to question the decisions of an unelected judiciary as a citizen. That is also in your constitution, no? Jefferson and Lincoln sure did think so. <br /><br />@KW.<br />That was my point entirely. This new England hysteria is a useless exercise in generated controversy that will result in an easily predictable majority backlash. It is using laws designed to protect a minority, in order to enforce a false equality. That will result in blowback. You must see that?<br />Not just intolerant and shallow but VERY poor tactics. I am sure there are better targets for the 'progressive' set than a school banner, and better tools to use than a little girls angst and mourning. <br />Isn't there? <br />Maybe religiously based parallel legal systems in US states, for example?<br />The result of this farce has been nothing but resentment and polarization. The banner has NOTHING to do with any of that... but a certain pretentious agenda does. <br /><br />On a personal note:<br />I have a posh dinner to attend tomorrow, and I think I will wear my Crimson Dress (Red Coat) in honour of your constitutional comment, as it has tickled my pride immensely. <br />God keep our land<br />Glorious and Free. <br />GSTQ!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57910628387568834442012-01-17T09:44:10.754-05:002012-01-17T09:44:10.754-05:00KT,
IMO, It says we are a soft, spoiled, anaesthet...KT,<br />IMO, It says we are a soft, spoiled, anaesthetized culture filled with a scientific Hubris that makes us an easy target or mark for those who would replace us.<br />This is not only evident in our theology and philosophy, but in our economics, politics, environmental policy, our attitude towards the animal kingdom, and even the raising of our own children. <br />My tupenny's worth.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60517980460796726142012-01-17T09:39:13.103-05:002012-01-17T09:39:13.103-05:00@KW,
Threat? It scares you, eh?
Good. It should gi...@KW,<br />Threat? It scares you, eh?<br />Good. It should give you the willies. A good hand will do that. <br />But is not a threat. It is a bet.<br />It has nothing to do with violence or conformity. You may wish to read it at some point, KW (ie NOT on an Atheist/Theist dogma site) <br />Pascals wager dares you to live your life with moral purpose and faith in the traditions and dreams of your ancestors. To TRY it and see if it works, as you have nothing to lose and EVERYTHING to gain. <br />If that is a threat to your mind and not simply unnerving, so is common sense. <br /><br /><br />@Mulder,<br />In my own theology (High Church, Anglo Catholic), God will forgive your error. You feel compelled, by reason, to think the way you do. If I can understand that, so can my Lord. <br />The hatred (of some the new Atheists - I don't accuse you personally)? <br />The Animosity toward the faithful themselves? <br />That is up to you. That is the CHOICE you must make. That is an exercise of FREE WILL. <br />In my creed Hell is of our own making, and many of my creed think it is right here on Earth. It is futility, purposelessness, and utter isolation from the spiritual. A spiritual Hell is an extension of your living Hell. <br />We condemn ourselves and others to a living Hell, and if then we become evil and revel in it, there is only 'the second death'.<br />That is the ultimate punishment a man can bring on himself in my creed. To simply cease to exist from all time. To be struck from the book of life. To exist, even in hell, is to exist. Where there is hope, there is life (not simply biological, but actual) <br />I see Hell AND hope in all the commenters on this blog. Even my own. <br />I don't want you to burn with daemons in the pit or cease to exist, nor does God, we ALL (religious minds, philosophers, theologians, and the Divine) would like to see you truly FREE of the madness of positivism. The Atheism is just philosophical tool turned facilitator. <br />Your Atheism is just a failure of the imagination. We all suffer these failures, even if not as profound. <br />In my mind that is not a sin and can easily be remedied with insight and a more open outlook.<br />Why on earth do you think I bother discussing and debating you folks if I think your all Hell-bound infidels spewing evil? <br />I have been honest with you, Mulder.<br />Now please do me the courtesy of being honest in return. I do not need lectures on Leviticus or Corinthians. I would like to heat YOUR own ideas on what I have said. <br />Thanks for your interest...both of you.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-27300588199281722602012-01-17T08:58:24.368-05:002012-01-17T08:58:24.368-05:00Did his lawyers get permission from the Privy Coun...Did his lawyers get permission from the Privy Council? Was his defacement and the removal of the work SANCTIONED by any secular or religious authority? <br />No. <br />Apples and oranges. <br />Nobody is arguing there is no religious nutjobs. <br />I am certainly not. <br /><br />PS <br />Fond of Dali too! Surrealism is one of my favourite styles (yes I paint..if not very well).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-2636062650946571942012-01-17T08:52:37.246-05:002012-01-17T08:52:37.246-05:00"You say these 'dogmatic creeds' are ..."You say these 'dogmatic creeds' are often referred to as the religion of that group. Maybe referred to by people like YOU."<br />Sure. I have a creed. I have dogma. Your point?<br /><br />"Atheists don't believe in a personal god. Or any god(s)."<br />Agreed. You have replaced God or gods with a various non testable theories of autobiogenesis (ABG ... anything but God).<br /><br />"This fact is reflected in the real world, because we find theism which exists outside of religion and religion which exists without theism. "<br />And? What is your point? You seem to make mine very nicely.<br /><br />"Whoa. Morality? Purpose? There are plenty of atheists who disagree on morality and purpose, but are we all AGAINST it? No."<br /><br />Mincing words? Okay. OBJECTIVE morality, and implicit purpose. Not subjective ideals nor 'progress' or 'reproduction' redefined. Atheism is a TOOL used by those wishing to redefine and refine these terms to suite their 'cause' (the real and full 'religion'), just as you have in the last comment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-87642812621672402342012-01-17T08:42:02.887-05:002012-01-17T08:42:02.887-05:00"Suppressing religious expression?...in a PUB..."Suppressing religious expression?...in a PUBLIC school. "<br />ANYWHERE. That is the law. <br />ANYWHERE BY ANYONE. <br />Get it?<br /><br />"Relying on insults again, Rex?...'short sighted'..historically ignorant.' "<br />No. I am perhaps making excuses for these people, as I do not want to simply label them bigots. It may be that is so, but do not mistake my being polite for insults. <br />I am a soldier. If I want to insult you or them, you'll KNOW it. <br /><br />"I used Hive Mind to describe the Jesuits building schools, and drilling it into young minds to think like they do and to believe religious dogma."<br />Scientific dogma, Jesuit dogma, political dogma.<br />Dogma is a reality. It only offends when it is not your own. <br />Christian dogma teaches that CHOICE (ie FREE will) is a God given potential. There is no debate over that. <br />We Christians may CHOOSE to do evil or good, right or wrong. Those choices have consequences. <br />That is not a 'hive' mind. That is free will with consequences. That is OBJECTIVE morality. <br />Determinism? Neo-Darwinism? Humanism? A bit closer, perhaps but still not a 'hive', as illustrated by the dissent in their own ranks. <br />Communism and collectivism? NOW we're talking. That requires a hive like form of thinking. <br /><br />"What better way to inculcate than to start with the young, impressionable brain?"<br />So do you suggest not teaching creation/design OR autogenesis/ex nihilus to children AT ALL? <br />To leave religion and the argument against it completely out of the conversation? <br />Nice idea, but impractical. <br />Our history must be taught, and with it the ideals of them men and women we study. Their goals and sense of purpose etc. <br />Better, imo, that the traditional values be taught with a limited attention to dissent and who the dissenters are. A nod is all the 2% should get, and ONLY if that 2% is worth the nod. <br /><br />"Little pieces of propaganda like these prayer posters backhandedly serve to put bits of superstition into the minds of children."<br />Superstition? By that do you mean belief in the supernatural? That has to be removed in a mental psychic equivalent of lobotomy in all but the most autistic of materialists. Luckily the procedure more often than not reversed. A good example would be A. Flew. <br />If by superstition you mean belief in the boogeyman and black cats etc, I do not see any mention of that stuff on the banner. <br />Even some Atheists are existentialists, no?<br />This banner is just a banner. <br />The same argument could be made of pictures of dinosaurs. We don't really know what they looked like, other than their frame. The definition of what a dinosaur is changes all the time (3 or 4 since I was a lad). To give children the impression that ALL is known could be seen in EXACTLY the same light as your prayer banner argument. <br />Should we Christians argue that positivism is being pushed on our children by GOVERNMENT backed PUBLIC schools? Er...no. <br />The banner and Barney can both stay, as far as this Christian is concerned. But then there is no such debate here in Ontario. (real) Prayers in bronze and fossil bed field trips co-exist quite happily without the bed-wetting we see in New England. <br />Maybe our 'atheists' don't see the opportunity, or maybe they are ACTUAL atheists that do not what to kill the goose that laid their golden egg.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61180432124578220482012-01-17T08:35:10.641-05:002012-01-17T08:35:10.641-05:00"Atheists would be very happy with Martin Lut..."Atheists would be very happy with Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail being used in its entirety because he criticizes many church ministers for being hypocritical."<br /><br />Bachfriend, you offer a window into your thinking. <br /><br />MLK was indeed responding to the words and sentiments of local religious leaders from the Birmingham area who enjoined him to be more "patient" with his struggle, and not to break the law. He was responding to them, as one clergyman to another, and explaining why he was Biblicaly correct and they were not. <br /><br />But that's the point. The Bible was still the basis of his argument. He was saying that God's law trumps man's law. According to King, there are two types of laws--those which square with the will of God and those that don't. Those that don't should be disregarded as a matter of principle. Try teaching that to a class full of schoolchildren today. <br /><br />Considering the fact that we now teach the historical lie that the Pilgrims had the first Thanksgiving to give thanks to the INDIANS, and not God, I think it's safe to say that we cannot teach about "God's Law" in a public school without nutjob anti-theists losing their cool. Such a lesson presupposes that there is a God, that he has a law, and that people should observe that one above civil law. For more on "God's Law", see the abolitionist William Seward and his famous "higher law" speech condemning slavery. <br /><br />If MLK were alive today, would the left be calling him "the American Taliban" and claiming that he wants to "impose Christian Sharia"? Well, probably not. But they would in fact be hypocritical not to do so. If they want to be taken seriously, they should apply their principles consistently. Either Jerry Falwell and MLK are BOTH the American Taliban or neither of them are. <br /><br />But Bachfiend thinks that most atheists would be just fine with MLK's sentiments because, according to him "he criticizes many church ministers for being hypocritical." <br /><br />He's bashing the clergy of his day, and that's why it's okay to use the letter. That would make atheists smile. They'd get a warm fuzzy all over. And really, that's what our Constitution has to say on matters of religion, right? God talk in school is acceptable, so long as it fulfills two requirements. First, it must makes atheists happy. Second, it must bash traditional Christians. <br /><br />Bachfiend, you reveal your thought process. MLK invoking God is okay precisely because he is rebuffing people you HATE. <br /><br />JoeyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37691354607215293532012-01-17T08:14:12.838-05:002012-01-17T08:14:12.838-05:00There are numerous well known cases, Bach.
Google...There are numerous well known cases, Bach. <br />Google 'piss Christ' for an example.<br />I know that may seem strange to an Australian, as it does to me. Such displays would have failed the 'Taste test' up this way, but the Met and other big NYC galleries are notorious for allowing controversial 'art' displays, and so it happens on occasion there is a display that causes offence. Some to Christians. <br />Nobody has dragged the constitution through the mud for them. Protest? Sure. Boycott? Why not. But change/challenge the legal precedents for fundamental rights of expression? Nope.<br />Only the 'Atheist' censors have done that. <br />You'll note I have used inverted commas on the term atheist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64427817512553772872012-01-17T08:08:13.449-05:002012-01-17T08:08:13.449-05:00That is a single concession, RicK.
The singling ou...That is a single concession, RicK.<br />The singling out of Islam, a major religious group with POWERFUL influence ($$$), was erroneous. I agree. I also stand against 'reconstructionism' theologically and legally, but I do not see it as a real threat to common law. It's a lunatic fringe. <br />The Shariat is a MAINSTREAM and TRADITIONAL Muslim solution. It is the Muslim legal Canon. <br />The reality is that I have not fought against armies of re-constructionists (or in them) and did not return home to my own civilization to find them setting up shop LEGALLY in some of the most powerful nations and states. That is exactly what I am witnessing with the Dar Al Islam. <br />They could have simply ruled the law needs to be more inclusive in it's scope and sent it back to the legislature to reword. Instead they struck it down, setting a precedent. <br />I conceded to your single point, not my argument.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88505250824672073542012-01-17T05:27:02.383-05:002012-01-17T05:27:02.383-05:00Michael,
No, there wouldn't be a lawsuit. At...Michael,<br /><br />No, there wouldn't be a lawsuit. Atheists would be very happy with Martin Luther King's letter from a Birmingham jail being used in its entirety because he criticizes many church ministers for being hypocritical . A sentiment most atheists would share.<br /><br />I've been thinking about Troy calling you earlier almost a Holocaust denier. He was almost correct. I think you are almost as bad as a Holocaust denier. Comparing a minor federal court case concerning a poster with a prayer in a minor school with Kristallnacht is trivializing Kristallnacht. Someone who isn't familiar with the history of the Third Reich might come to the mistaken idea that Kristallnacht wasn't as horrible as it was.<br /><br />Your comparison of the federal court case with Kristallnacht also wasn't a metaphor. It was actually an analogy.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-74961048726289487852012-01-16T22:55:27.115-05:002012-01-16T22:55:27.115-05:00Oh, boo-hoo, Egnor.
You're quite prepared to ...Oh, boo-hoo, Egnor.<br /><br />You're quite prepared to stoop low enough to enlist Kristalnacht for rhetorical effect so don't affect an attack of the vapors when it comes back to bite you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21711964324513845162012-01-16T22:33:51.560-05:002012-01-16T22:33:51.560-05:00Good point KW. What better way to get people to fo...Good point KW. What better way to get people to follow your way of thinking/acting/living/compulsory LOVE..than to entice them with rewards of 'heaven'- the best place imaginable, right by our god's side, for etertnity!! Yay! And if you DONT then, well heh, god has a special place for ya alright. The worst place imaginable.<br /><br />But hey...you got 'freewill' and all...so. its totally up to YOU! No pressure.Mulderhttp://muldonia.comnoreply@blogger.com