Pastor Scott Lively to be tried for crimes against humanity

Padawanbater2 said:
That's exactly what it means actually
Click to expand...

I believe what our founders were talking about was there would be no national religion like "The Church of England" which was gaining a lot of popularity and influence at the time.

Cool story about the Puritans being total stick up their ass types and religious protesters of the day (some type of protestants, don't remember which, look it up if you care) would streak up and down the aisles naked at service time to protest the archaic ways.

Separation of church and state simply meant keeping the government out of religion, there was no push to keep religion out of government.

Religious freedom is at the very foundation of our country's core. It means you are free to practice or not practice whatever you want, but whatever you want to practice is also protected.

The religion haters seem to have this all ass backwards as you can see when the courts rule in favor of the Hobby Lobby type cases.

I can't stand the moral majority tell me what to do how live type but the anti-religion crowd is starting to take it to a new level of intolerance.

So no, no matter how much you want it to mean that, it doesn't.
 
ginwilly said:
there was no push to keep religion out of government.
Click to expand...

i love how these supposedly self-proclaimed non-religious types try to revise history completely in order to favor their obvious white christian hetero supremacist views.

it never gets old watching these idiots make obvious liars out of themselves and give themselves away.

ginwilly said:
The religion haters seem to have this all ass backwards as you can see when the courts rule in favor of the Hobby Lobby type cases...the anti-religion crowd is starting to take it to a new level of intolerance.
Click to expand...

wow, the bible thumping bigot is taking it to whole new levels of mental retardation.

viewing birth control as medicine does not make a person a religion hater, nor does it make someone a religion hater if they do not wish to impose one religion on everyone else.

you retarded bigots are the first ones to cry about the completely imaginary threat of sharia law in this nation. yet when you push your own campaign of christian sharia law, imposing your intolerance for gay rights and birth control on the entire nation, you wail like fucking babies if someone even points out what you are doing.

ginwilly, you claim to be opposed to "the moral majority" and claim not to be a bible thumper, but posts like the one you just made tell the true story.

you are as big a bible beater as anyone out there.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
That's exactly what it means actually
Click to expand...
Freedom from religion implies that I violate your rights if when a public restaurant I say a prayer prior to eating in your presence.

Separation of church and state just means state owned things can't be used in pushing religious stuff.
 
UncleBuck said:
give up the wannabe lawyer routine, bignbushy.

freedom from religion is the same thing as stating that you are not allowed to impose your radical, extremist, fanatical christian sharia law on folks like me and pada.
Click to expand...
I'll put you and the salvation of your marriage on the prayer list.
 
ginwilly said:
I don't know what's happened in your life to make you so angry, bitter and unhappy but I sincerely hope things get better for you. As much as I think you are creepy stalker snitch, I don't wish misery on anyone, and it's really obvious how miserable you are right now.

Buck up little buckaroo.
Click to expand...

i don't know why you are so embarrassed about owning up to being the racist, bible thumping retard that you are, but it would save everyone a whole lot of confusion of you did.

for christ sake, some people actually thought you were a decent person for a while.
 
UncleBuck said:
:spew:
Click to expand...
nuclear-meltdown-just-ahead-sign.jpg
 
SmokeyDan said:
Freedom from religion implies that I violate your rights if when a public restaurant I say a prayer prior to eating in your presence.

Separation of church and state just means state owned things can't be used in pushing religious stuff.
Click to expand...
That encompasses the public
 
After the 2012 election, Priebus focused the RNC's efforts on upgrading the committee's technological infrastructure and voter data as well as outreach to minority communities.
He commissioned a report, the "Growth and Opportunity Project," that outlined ways for the GOP to grow its base. Republicans largely embraced the report, but social conservatives opposed a recommendation the party be more tolerant of people who are gay
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/08/politics/reince-priebus-rnc-chair-reelection/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
 
Padawanbater2 said:
That encompasses the public
Click to expand...
Are you implying it prevents me from forcing you to go to church?

Kidnapping and false imprisonment laws also prevent that. Don't need separate c n c.

The laws that prohibit me from firing you for your religion are civil rights laws, not separate c n c laws.

You're not afforded any privilege to not have to see religion.
 
SmokeyDan said:
There is no such legal thing as freedom from religion.

Separation of church and state is as close as it gets and they are not the same thing by a long shot.
Click to expand...

that's because it's not a law; it's a statement.

you see the righteous right wishes to force others to live as they "say" they do, through theological lifestyle.

however, way too many do not practice what they preach. way.

how oppressive.
 
ChesusRice said:
After the 2012 election, Priebus focused the RNC's efforts on upgrading the committee's technological infrastructure and voter data as well as outreach to minority communities.
He commissioned a report, the "Growth and Opportunity Project," that outlined ways for the GOP to grow its base. Republicans largely embraced the report, but social conservatives opposed a recommendation the party be more tolerant of people who are gay
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/08/politics/reince-priebus-rnc-chair-reelection/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
Click to expand...


chris christie commissioned a report too:wink:
 
ginwilly said:
I believe what our founders were talking about was there would be no national religion like "The Church of England" which was gaining a lot of popularity and influence at the time. true.

Cool story about the Puritans being total stick up their ass types and religious protesters of the day (some type of protestants, don't remember which, look it up if you care) would streak up and down the aisles naked at service time to protest the archaic ways. citation.

Separation of church and state simply meant keeping the government out of religion, there was no push to keep religion out of government. orly? bullshit, they rely on the 501(c)(3) to keep their side show going.

Religious freedom is at the very foundation of our country's core. It means you are free to practice or not practice whatever you want, but whatever you want to practice is also protected.
sadly, you are incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

The religion haters seem to have this all ass backwards as you can see when the courts rule in favor of the Hobby Lobby type cases.

I can't stand the moral majority tell me what to do how live type but the anti-religion crowd is starting to take it to a new level of intolerance.
this is intolerance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
please show me the wiki definition of anti-religion crowd intolerance

So no, no matter how much you want it to mean that, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

the puritans wore garments to bed with an access panel because it is a sin for skin to touch, to have sex.

so you're saying they took off their clothes?..naked? the puritans? religious protesters and streaked in front of others? :lol:

dammit! where's @tyler.durden when you need him?

citation GW..please teach me something new.
 
Last edited:
They wore garments with an access panel so they could poop. Their homes were poorly insulated and they needed to stay warm at night.
 
schuylaar said:
that's because it's not a law; it's a statement.

you see the righteous right wishes to force others to live as they "say" they do, through theological lifestyle.

however, way too many do not practice what they preach. way.

how oppressive.
Click to expand...
So the religious people set a standard for how to live and many fail to meet it and you call it hypocrisy.

It is not. It's human.

It is a high standard and nearly impossible to meet. I don't want to live that way.

I don't see them as trying to force anyone into living a certain way.

And if a group had standards that were met with regularity I would say their standards were weak.

Central to christian theology is that humans are sinners in need of salvation through christ to have any chance to go to heaven.

The standard is that set by christ. I'm perfectly willing to say that it is a fictional standard as we have no way of knowing anything with certainty what the actual christ was like or what he did.
 
schuylaar said:
the puritans wore garments to bed with an access panel because it is a sin for skin to touch, to have sex.

so you're saying they took off their clothes?..naked? the puritans? religious protesters and streaked in front of others? :lol:

dammit! where's @tyler.durden when you need him?

citation GW..please teach me something new.
Click to expand...

Not the Puritans streaking, some form of protestants would streak up and down the aisle during a Puritan service. This was something our history teacher used to like to tell. I'll see if I can find a version of the story, I'm sure it's out there, very cool story to me.

Sky this teacher also wore orange instead of green on St Patrick's day because he was an Irish Protestant. That's another fascinating story that Harrekin could probably explain better than I can.
 
Last edited:
SmokeyDan said:
Freedom from religion implies that I violate your rights if when a public restaurant I say a prayer prior to eating in your presence.

Separation of church and state just means state owned things can't be used in pushing religious stuff.
Click to expand...

fail.

you can say a prayer in public..you just cannot force other to join in.

that's law.
 
SmokeyDan said:
So the religious people set a standard for how to live and many fail to meet it and you call it hypocrisy.

It is not. It's human.

It is a high standard and nearly impossible to meet. I don't want to live that way.

I don't see them as trying to force anyone into living a certain way.

And if a group had standards that were met with regularity I would say their standards were weak.

Central to christian theology is that humans are sinners in need of salvation through christ to have any chance to go to heaven.

The standard is that set by christ. I'm perfectly willing to say that it is a fictional standard as we have no way of knowing anything with certainty what the actual christ was like or what he did.
Click to expand...

right. they set the standard; can't make it themselves; and still insist on saying "do as i say; not as i do".

while i'm not a theologian like @tyler.durden i came from a very large, very catholic family and that's my citation.

did you even click on any of those links i posted above to see the carnage of which the moral majority approves?
 
ginwilly said:
Not the Puritans streaking, some form of protestants would streak up and down the aisle during a Puritan service. This was something our history teacher used to like to tell. I'll see if I can find a version of the story, I'm sure it's out there, very cool story to me.
Click to expand...

oh yeah, then i can believe that. it sounded like you're referring to the puritans doing that.

actually, one of my favorite subjects is the politics of salem, what the witch trials were really all about.

people are sick, scary freaks; mostly an abomination.

don't you see that here at riu? some of the things people post from their minds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top