A Peaceful and Amicable Request to the President About Religion and the Citizenry

a reply to: WarminIndy

I dont have to do away with christianity, nor do I care to. I just don't want it shoved down my throat by people who are whining thst Im taking away their right in fits of ironic hypocrisy. But lets be honest, Christianity is indeed your concern, not all religions otherwise you wouldn't be so focused on trying to prove to yourself that its the foundation of our country. If it were then the first amemdment would not have been written the way it was to guarantee thst no one religion cojld be legslly codified as the state religion. The formation of our country was as influenced by Iroquois law and philosophy as it was muslim and christian. Each of the founding fathers had their own views from devoutly christian to deist to those who employed philosophies from across the world. Why did Thomas Jefferson, as one of the preeminent authors of this cou tries origins, rewrite the Christian bible to suit his own inclinations if it was THE basis for what we are. It just is t the case.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: WarminIndy
Contrary to popular belief. I truly have no desire to kick the religious out of this country, or any other. My only real beef with the Abrahamic faiths is their agressiveness and elitism. And they are both. There's no denying it.

Though I know not all xtians, muslims, and jews are that way, but I'm talking about the religions as a whole. All three are "god's chosen people" in their own estimation. That's fine with me. Be god's chosen. Just don't proselytize the rest of us, and threaten us with your god's wrath for making our own choice NOT to be in the clique. If shaking the dust off your feet makes you feel better. Then do it. But I don't need to hear about it.

The xtian "great commission", has been, and is, nothing but a great assault on the free will, and freedoms of people around the world for the past 2000 years. One's faith is a personal matter. Why can't it be kept that way?

Sorry to ramble on, but I feel you need to understand, I truly have no desire to rid the world of xtians, or any other faith. However crass I can be at times, I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your right to believe in the xtian god, and the bible. But I will also fight you tooth and nail if you try to take away my right not to.

Well thank you for your generosity.

So then we are agreed, we both have the right to live freely in this country. So no more complaints and more defense?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

I dont have to do away with christianity, nor do I care to. I just don't want it shoved down my throat by people who are whining thst Im taking away their right in fits of ironic hypocrisy. But lets be honest, Christianity is indeed your concern, not all religions otherwise you wouldn't be so focused on trying to prove to yourself that its the foundation of our country. If it were then the first amemdment would not have been written the way it was to guarantee thst no one religion cojld be legslly codified as the state religion. The formation of our country was as influenced by Iroquois law and philosophy as it was muslim and christian. Each of the founding fathers had their own views from devoutly christian to deist to those who employed philosophies from across the world. Why did Thomas Jefferson, as one of the preeminent authors of this cou tries origins, rewrite the Christian bible to suit his own inclinations if it was THE basis for what we are. It just is t the case.

Then you see the absurdity of my post.

Too many people complaining about religion without actually seeing the other has a right to believe or not believe. And since I never proposed that Christianity should be the state religion, I said "plethora of religious views" in this country.

We have state representatives and congressmen of all beliefs, but all of them must defend the Constitution. And our military is made up of every type of religious and non-religious world views, they are defending our rights.

All I was doing was pointing out an absurdity of society. When you have some people determined to do away with religion in this country, no matter the religious world view, then those people can't accept the rights of people to have religion.

Certainly Christianity has been predominant, however, not one denomination has been the most predominant, including Quakers in Pennsylvania when that state was created for the sole purpose of religious freedom, founded by the Quakers. Utah was created for the Mormons. We have different states with different denominational views, but every representative and congressman all vow to uphold and defend the Constitution, even the President took that oath. If he can't do his job regarding that, meaning he has to recognize the interests of all people and not just one group, then he shouldn't have the job.

But let me ask this, suppose Jon Stewart made the same plea, except saying all Christians can go if they wish, would you have been as offended?

a reply to: WarminIndy

But you hear it every day, people call for the total abolition of religion, and yet I never said anywhere that anyone must leave, only that if they want to leave then they could.

Who is calling for the abolition of religion? People are calling for the separation of church and state to be enforced, that's a far cry from "abolition of religion".

a reply to: WarminIndy

Changing laws with the ACLU is not for the benefit of all society, only a portion of society that doesn't want religion. The AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans.

How so? You're making lots of claims here and providing no information to support them.

Are you therefore defending the right for my freedom speech to make an absurd post?

Of course! And I'm exercising my right of free speech to tell you that it's absurd.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Um, did I mention Christianity in my post?

No but it's pretty clear that that's your end-game...

Yes, land of the free. I exercised my freedom of speech. You don't like it, but do you defend it?

What exactly do you think this is?.....it goes without saying. However from your OP it's clear you have no interest in freedom from religion.

And passive-aggressive? Nope, fully aggressive.

Lol yeah right a thread entitled 'A Peaceful and Amicable Request to the President About Religion and the Citizenry' is all aggression....

You're the very definition of passive-aggressive.......and your true intent is transparent and clear to see.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Um, did I mention Christianity in my post?

No but it's pretty clear that that's your end-game...

Yes, land of the free. I exercised my freedom of speech. You don't like it, but do you defend it?

What exactly do you think this is?.....it goes without saying. However from your OP it's clear you have no interest in freedom from religion.

And passive-aggressive? Nope, fully aggressive.

Lol yeah right a thread entitled 'A Peaceful and Amicable Request to the President About Religion and the Citizenry' is all aggression....

You're the very definition of passive-aggressive.......and your true intent is transparent and clear to see.

And with all the cynicism and skepticism, and generally the all around "I hate religion so much that I'm gonna' complain about it all day long until I'm frothing at the mouth to get everyone on my side against religion, because I hate it so much, I'm gonna' go online and shove religion up their rear ends. Stupid, mofo Christians, who do they think they are? Telling me about their stupid religion. I hate Christians so much that you know what, they better act like the Christians I say they need to be and shut up about whatever it is that I want to do. Stupid Christians taking my freedom away, who do they think they are? They need to bend over and take it in the rear, because that's how we want Christians to be, otherwise they are hypocrites. Stupid intolerant judgmental Christians. "

Is that aggressive enough for you?

But tell you what, the next time you see a religion basher, simply ask yourself "Am I also being intolerant and am I also judgmental?" But hey, this has been fun proving who is more intolerant than the other. Did I win?

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: WarminIndy

Changing laws with the ACLU is not for the benefit of all society, only a portion of society that doesn't want religion. The AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans.

How so? You're making lots of claims here and providing no information to support them.

Are you therefore defending the right for my freedom speech to make an absurd post?

Of course! And I'm exercising my right of free speech to tell you that it's absurd.

And so what?

If a complaint falls on deaf ears, does anything get done about it?

Tell me why you felt from my post that your freedom of speech is hindered?

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: WarminIndy

But you hear it every day, people call for the total abolition of religion, and yet I never said anywhere that anyone must leave, only that if they want to leave then they could.

Who is calling for the abolition of religion? People are calling for the separation of church and state to be enforced, that's a far cry from "abolition of religion".

Now let me ask you this, since you desire it so much, tell me the way you perceive that enforcement to be.

Who do you feel ultimately should enforce it and by what means are acceptable to you, ultimately?

a reply to: WarminIndy

And so what?

Not "and so"... "how so", as in you made the following claim:

Changing laws with the ACLU is not for the benefit of all society, only a portion of society that doesn't want religion. The AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans.

How is the ACLU not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans? I'm asking you cite some kind of examples instead of making a vague claim.

Tell me why you felt from my post that your freedom of speech is hindered?

I never said it was. You asked:

Are you therefore defending the right for my freedom speech to make an absurd post?

I'll restate my response and hopefully make it more clear for you: Yes, I am absolutely defending your right to free speech and therefore your right to make such an absurd post. And I, in turn, am exercising my right to free speech by telling you that your post is absurd. I can only hope that you'll defend my right to call you absurd with the same fervor with which I defend your right to be absurd.

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: WarminIndy

And so what?

Not "and so"... "how so", as in you made the following claim:

Changing laws with the ACLU is not for the benefit of all society, only a portion of society that doesn't want religion. The AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans.

How is the ACLU not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans? I'm asking you cite some kind of examples instead of making a vague claim.

Tell me why you felt from my post that your freedom of speech is hindered?

I never said it was. You asked:

Are you therefore defending the right for my freedom speech to make an absurd post?

I'll restate my response and hopefully make it more clear for you: Yes, I am absolutely defending your right to free speech and therefore your right to make such an absurd post. And I, in turn, am exercising my right to free speech by telling you that your post is absurd. I can only hope that you'll defend my right to call you absurd with the same fervor with which I defend your right to be absurd.

And at any point did I say this post wasn't absurd?

Good, we agree on how absurd the post is. At least we are getting somewhere.

The ACLU went into many small communities in Ohio, where I am from, and the representatives of the ACLU decided that in a small community, no bigger than 10,000 people, in a predominantly Catholic community, in a community full of churches, sued the city government because on the courthouse lawn was a simple sign "Worship in church on Sunday".

Is that separation of church and state, or just an ACLU representative being snippy and spiteful, considering that this community was founded by the Catholic pioneers who settled there. Methinks snippy and spiteful.

The ACLU struck at the cultural identity of a small Ohio town, and the representative didn't even live there, he was just driving through. No money was being made off the sign and the sign didn't even say which church. But here's what happened, the ACLU got the sign removed, the community made a ginormous sign and stuck it on the building across the street. But tell me, how does the ACLU have the authority to go into any community and feel they have the right to throw their weight around? They violated the civil liberties of the people in the community, and is that ok and acceptable?

originally posted by: WarminIndy


Then you see the absurdity of my post.

Absolutely. Though i dont think we find it absurd for the same reasons

Too many people complaining about religion without actually seeing the other has a right to believe or not believe.

Based on what exactly? That sounds more like a perjorative opinion than a fact.

And since I never proposed that Christianity should be the state religion, I said "plethora of religious views" in this country.

You domt need to. Your posting history says a lot in that regard. Your epithets against muslims in the thread about arming european jews indicates that youre most definitely NOT in favor of religious equality across the board.

We have state representatives and congressmen of all beliefs, but all of them must defend the Constitution. And our military is made up of every type of religious and non-religious world views, they are defending our rights.

Yes, the rights of ALL Americans, not just the voal ,religious americans.

All I was doing was pointing out an absurdity of society. When you have some people determined to do away with religion in this country, no matter the religious world view, then those people can't accept the rights of people to have religion.

Please, as has been asked before, demonstrate exactly WHO , WHERE and WHEN non theistic individuals have tried to absolve the nation of all religions.

Certainly Christianity has been predominant, however, not one denomination has been the most predominant, including Quakers in Pennsylvania when that state was created for the sole purpose of religious freedom, founded by the Quakers. Utah was created for the Mormons.

Aside from minor factual errors( Wm Penn Received the charter for Pennsylvania to create freedom of all religions not just quakers and Utah was not made FOR Mormons) every one of the denominatoons is still Christian. Its the common denominator that binds them all together and unifies you all in your hatred of people like me who have gone to greater lengths than you ever will to preserve the rights of everyone to utilize their constitutional rights, whetger I agree with them or not. One thing nobody ever seems to remember when excercising tgeir rights howeveris that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and you need to ve prepared to get as good as you gave. But thats not the case here. You want carte blanche to be able to avoid the words of agnostics and atheists, satanists and wiccans as well as the muslims you pontificate about in other threads. The irony is that once you do away with all us godless heathens and then the muslims all youll have left is each other and then the real fun starts as you Ll devolve fully amd begin to cannibalize one another in a blund fervor to attain religious supremacy in the US. And if you dont think this is the stated goal of religios groups youre only foolimg yourself. In 1970 there were 40 religious lobbying groups in washington DC. Today there are well over 200 and growing every year.

We have different states with different denominational views, but every representative and congressman all vow to uphold and defend the Constitution, even the President took that oath. If he can't do his job regarding that, meaning he has to recognize the interests of all people and not just one group, then he shouldn't have the job.

And that all applies to every religious person in america too. Unfortunately, everyone of those members of congress panders to their constituency. The ones with thebiggest checkbooks mke the most noise. Thosearent individual donors, they are religious affiliated people pushing their religious based agendas into a legal arena while narrowly circumventing the law. This is still a secular nation. It ceases to be so when we. Have christian values only shoved down everyones throats. So if your favorite congress person isnt "doing his job" will you call for their impeachement even if their ideology is in alignement with yours or do they get a free pass?

But let me ask this, suppose Jon Stewart made the same plea, except saying all Christians can go if they wish, would you have been as offended?

While i seriously doubt that john stewart would bow this low, i would think he was just as big of an A hole for promoting disenfranchising any segment of the country and setting up cultural divides. So much for that melting pot of people and ideas i learned about as a kid.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: iterationzero
a reply to: WarminIndy

And so what?

Not "and so"... "how so", as in you made the following claim:

Changing laws with the ACLU is not for the benefit of all society, only a portion of society that doesn't want religion. The AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION is not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans.

How is the ACLU not recognizing the civil liberties of all Americans? I'm asking you cite some kind of examples instead of making a vague claim.

Tell me why you felt from my post that your freedom of speech is hindered?

I never said it was. You asked:

Are you therefore defending the right for my freedom speech to make an absurd post?

I'll restate my response and hopefully make it more clear for you: Yes, I am absolutely defending your right to free speech and therefore your right to make such an absurd post. And I, in turn, am exercising my right to free speech by telling you that your post is absurd. I can only hope that you'll defend my right to call you absurd with the same fervor with which I defend your right to be absurd.

And at any point did I say this post wasn't absurd?

Good, we agree on how absurd the post is. At least we are getting somewhere.

The ACLU went into many small communities in Ohio, where I am from, and the representatives of the ACLU decided that in a small community, no bigger than 10,000 people, in a predominantly Catholic community, in a community full of churches, sued the city government because on the courthouse lawn was a simple sign "Worship in church on Sunday".

Is that separation of church and state, or just an ACLU representative being snippy and spiteful, considering that this community was founded by the Catholic pioneers who settled there. Methinks snippy and spiteful.

The ACLU struck at the cultural identity of a small Ohio town, and the representative didn't even live there, he was just driving through. No money was being made off the sign and the sign didn't even say which church. But here's what happened, the ACLU got the sign removed, the community made a ginormous sign and stuck it on the building across the street. But tell me, how does the ACLU have the authority to go into any community and feel they have the right to throw their weight around? They violated the civil liberties of the people in the community, and is that ok and acceptable?

Perhaps part of the problem is that you don't understand that separation of church and state means just that. I say that because you clearly don't understand that the government in that small town was in clear violation of the law. No, the ACLU did not violate the civil liberties of anyone in that town. The government of that town was doing that. I now suspect that you've never actually read the Bill of Rights on which our civil liberties are based. I respectfully suggest that you put down your Bible long enough to read the Bill of Rights and then read the Supreme Court decisions about separation of church and state. You will then have a better understanding of what is legal is what is not.

originally posted by: WarminIndy


The ACLU went into many small communities in Ohio, where I am from, and the representatives of the ACLU decided that in a small community, no bigger than 10,000 people, in a predominantly Catholic community, in a community full of churches, sued the city government because on the courthouse lawn was a simple sign "Worship in church on Sunday".

What exactly does the size and predominant denomination have to do with the fact that a publicly funded building was advocating for religion? Actually, i take that back. If almost all the churches were catholic then its pretty clear that the courthouse was favoring one denomination. But you wont see that. You see a town being bullied.


[quote]Is that separation of church and state, or just an ACLU representative being snippy and spiteful, considering that this community was founded by the Catholic pioneers who settled there. Methinks snippy and spiteful.

It was a violation of federal law. Either everyone follows the laws or nobody does. Which would you prefer? The other option os to campaign to change the law.

The ACLU struck at the cultural identity of a small Ohio town, and the representative didn't even live there, he was just driving through. No money was being made off the sign and the sign didn't even say which church. But here's what happened, the ACLU got the sign removed, the community made a ginormous sign and stuck it on the building across the street.

Good for them. For real. If they had tge foresight to do so earlier they wouldnt have ended up in court.

But tell me, how does the ACLU have the authority to go into any community and feel they have the right to throw their weight around? They violated the civil liberties of the people in the community, and is that ok and acceptable?

Anybody can file a law suit against any other party in this country. Its a bsic part of our legal system. They didnt violate anybody's civil liberties. If that were the case the whole thing would have been thrown out of court on appeal. As for tgrowing their weight around, we can bNdy about back and forth over whether we think it was right or weong but as you were pontificating to me about how our representatives and military take an oath to defend the constitution, likewise are legal practitioners there to make sure laws are upheld. If there wasnt a case, if it were not in violation of federal law, it wouldnt have made it to trialor ould have been tossed out on appeal. That didnt happen though.

a reply to: peter vlar

I tell you what, I do not believe for a second that Islam is a religion, it is a political ideology, pure and simple.

Now if you perceive it to be a religion, then by all means shake hands with them, hug them and tell them the evil Christians shouldn't be picking on them.

You want to know who says it is a political ideology? People who escaped it, but since you won't take my word for it, and neither do you listen to those who escaped it, then what's your problem when Jews are forced into that position?

And if I should say in 2015 that any political ideology should be permitted to commit genocide, then the world is lost. I am not against their religion, I am against their political ideology. But do you really think they appreciate your support and defense of their political ideology?

They don't care, they'll bomb your home, wiretap your phone, trace your IP, look for you and do whatever they want to you because they must advance a political ideology. How is it that you underestimate them and you are so well-educated?



Why don't you listen to what they are saying instead of the propaganda and whitewashing they do for Westerners?

But hey, they are acceptable to you, right? Have fun with them all you want, be nice to them, give them milk and cookies and tuck them into bed and read them a bedtime story if they are all so innocent and need your love.

I reserve the same criticisms for Nazis, Fascists, tyrants, Stalinist-like regimes, and any that places itself as a political ideology hiding as a religion. Don't believe me, just listen to what they are saying.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: WarminIndy


The ACLU went into many small communities in Ohio, where I am from, and the representatives of the ACLU decided that in a small community, no bigger than 10,000 people, in a predominantly Catholic community, in a community full of churches, sued the city government because on the courthouse lawn was a simple sign "Worship in church on Sunday".

What exactly does the size and predominant denomination have to do with the fact that a publicly funded building was advocating for religion? Actually, i take that back. If almost all the churches were catholic then its pretty clear that the courthouse was favoring one denomination. But you wont see that. You see a town being bullied.

I'm not even Catholic, imagine that.

I would not go into a Mexican community and demand that the police don't have any swinging crucifixes in their publicly funded cars. But what do you think about firemen who pray, publicly funded firemen, who actually pray for their lives everyday?

And you were a soldier, right? You were publicly funded as well, should we go to Belgium and dig up the graves of all the soldiers there because they were publicly funded to have crosses and stars of David on their graves?

But hey, why don't you go into the very publicly funded House of Representatives and demand that Suleiman the Magnificent, Moses and Hammurabi be removed.

Can you then go to the United Nations and ask them to remove this statue

Beat their swords into plowshares because that is a verse from the Bible.

And all of those places, soldiers dying for it, government built around it and you want to say a sign in a courtyard is a federal offense. Maybe it is an offense to you, but neither you nor I are more important than each other.

originally posted by: WarminIndy




I'm not even Catholic, imagine that.

I would not go into a Mexican community and demand that the police don't have any swinging crucifixes in their publicly funded cars.

Since Mexican police dont fall under US federal law its an entirely irrelevant comparison

But what do you think about firemen who pray, publicly funded firemen, who actually pray for their lives everyday?

I have no problem with what people do in their private lives. Unless they're stopping before going imto a burning building to pray its not my business.

And you were a soldier, right? You were publicly funded as well, should we go to Belgium and dig up the graves of all the soldiers there because they were publicly funded to have crosses and stars of David on their graves?

Placed and paid for by the Belgian and French governments respectively. Not our tax dollars at work. Are there crosses as grave markers at Arlimgton?

But hey, why don't you go into the very publicly funded House of Representatives and demand that Suleiman the Magnificent, Moses and Hammurabi be removed.

Might want to think before you speak. Ive written many letters to congressmen discussing the illegality of religious text displayed in federal buildings and court houses.Code of Hammurabi isnt a religious law though and is the first written law in human history. From a historical perspective, it has a place in a building where laws are written.

Can you then go to the United Nations and ask them to remove this statue

Sovereign territory subject to the same laws as other foreign embassies. Not covered under US federal law.

And all of those places, soldiers dying for it, government built around it and you want to say a sign in a courtyard is a federal offense. Maybe it is an offense to you, but neither you nor I are more important than each other.

Its not an offense to me. Its a violation of federal law. Get over it or fight to change the law. That is your right after all.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: peter vlar

I tell you what, I do not believe for a second that Islam is a religion, it is a political ideology, pure and simple.

Youre entitled to your opinion but irregsrdless its accepted as a religion under federal law amd protected as such so youre just rationalizimg your own ignorance and bigotry.

Now if you perceive it to be a religion, then by all means shake hands with them, hug them and tell them the evil Christians shouldn't be picking on them.

Do you actually know any Muslims?

You want to know who says it is a political ideology? People who escaped it, but since you won't take my word for it, and neither do you listen to those who escaped it, then what's your problem when Jews are forced into that position?

So,e quality bobing amd weaving here. I stead of addressing the many points and wuestions i brought up you i stead resort to an entire rep,y centered around your bigotry of Islam amd tgem throw the Jews under the bus in an act of emotional appeal. Bravo!

And if I should say in 2015 that any political ideology should be permitted to commit genocide, then the world is lost.

Then why arent hou speaking out against what the American governement has done to the Iraqi people for 25 years through samctions amd wars?

I am not against their religion, I am against their political ideology. But do you really think they appreciate your support and defense of their political ideology?

The ones i personally know, the ones I served with... Yes. I know they appreciate my support. I view them as individual people first and formost, being muslims is secondary to how i judge someone.

They don't care, they'll bomb your home, wiretap your phone, trace your IP, look for you and do whatever they want to you because they must advance a political ideology. How is it that you underestimate them and you are so well-educated?

All of them are like that hug? Should i base my entire view of christianity on the cstholic church as it was during the crusades? Maybe based on westboro baptist church then? What a bizarre way to view a billion people. Cute how you try to mock my education to rationalize hating a huge segment of the worlds population.

Why don't you listen to what they are saying instead of the propaganda and whitewashing they do for Westerners?

Right, because you arent getting your viewpoint of muslims from sheepdipped sources. Give me a break. Your the worst kimd of bigot, the one who doesnt know it or recognize it.

But hey, they are acceptable to you, right? Have fun with them all you want, be nice to them, give them milk and cookies and tuck them into bed and read them a bedtime story if they are all so innocent and need your love.

Again, i judge people on who they are and how they treat me, their faith doesnt come into play until they proselytize to me. Im pretty open about my lack of patience with overt religious people who like to push their views on others, i would react the same to an intolerant Muslim as I would to you.

I reserve the same criticisms for Nazis, Fascists, tyrants, Stalinist-like regimes, and any that places itself as a political ideology hiding as a religion. Don't believe me, just listen to what they are saying.

Again, youre creating a strawman to encompass an entire faith based on a minority, albeit a vocal and growing minority, of extremists. Yes, as is evident in Syria, extreme Shia and Wahabbist groups are gaining momentum through decimating people who have already been battered by decades of war, sanctions and the iron fists of despotic dictators. Its not exactly like they're out there converting educated snd well off masses through proselytizing. They're raping and murdering their way across a landscape under threat and institution of rampant violence. Not exactly an easy thing to export to the west. If someone tried to start a Sharia free zone or some other nonsense, I would be the first in line to stop it. Is it is thoug, your fears are misplaced and bordering on hysterical. Extreme Christian ideology is a far bigger threat in the US than islam

a reply to: WarminIndy

The ACLU went into many small communities in Ohio, where I am from, and the representatives of the ACLU decided that in a small community, no bigger than 10,000 people, in a predominantly Catholic community, in a community full of churches, sued the city government because on the courthouse lawn was a simple sign "Worship in church on Sunday".

Is that separation of church and state, or just an ACLU representative being snippy and spiteful, considering that this community was founded by the Catholic pioneers who settled there. Methinks snippy and spiteful.

The ACLU struck at the cultural identity of a small Ohio town, and the representative didn't even live there, he was just driving through. No money was being made off the sign and the sign didn't even say which church. But here's what happened, the ACLU got the sign removed, the community made a ginormous sign and stuck it on the building across the street. But tell me, how does the ACLU have the authority to go into any community and feel they have the right to throw their weight around? They violated the civil liberties of the people in the community, and is that ok and acceptable?

I've only heard your side of events, so I'm not even remotely well informed enough to offer a response. Can you tell me what town and when this happened so I can research it for myself instead of taking your story at face value?

originally posted by: WarminIndy
And with all the cynicism and skepticism, and generally the all around "I hate religion so much that I'm gonna' complain about it all day long until I'm frothing at the mouth to get everyone on my side against religion, because I hate it so much, I'm gonna' go online and shove religion up their rear ends. Stupid, mofo Christians, who do they think they are? Telling me about their stupid religion. I hate Christians so much that you know what, they better act like the Christians I say they need to be and shut up about whatever it is that I want to do. Stupid Christians taking my freedom away, who do they think they are? They need to bend over and take it in the rear, because that's how we want Christians to be, otherwise they are hypocrites. Stupid intolerant judgmental Christians. "

That was the most bizarre play of the christian victim card I think I've even come across....

Is that aggressive enough for you?

I wouldn't describe that as aggressive, more incredibly whiny.

But tell you what, the next time you see a religion basher, simply ask yourself "Am I also being intolerant and am I also judgmental?" But hey, this has been fun proving who is more intolerant than the other. Did I win?

You'd win such a competition, hands down every day of the week against the majority of people on these boards, hell even just people in general.

How many would write a faux letter the the president suggesting that people that don't have any strong superstitions should be deported or moved out of the country?

How many would do it in such a back-handed and passive-aggressive manner?...