It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The ones holding these signs of massacre are in my opinion not understood and are in need of healing, not fueling the fire, which is what the US has been doing since before the first World War.
We (the us) fuel fires, sensor the media, war with other nations, lie to the people, and expect peace!
Originally posted by MamaJ
Freedom of speech to a point.
Holding a sign in favor of killing is not using the freedom of speech in a peaceful manner.
There is a difference.
The ones holding these signs of massacre are in my opinion not understood and are in need of healing, not fueling the fire, which is what the US has been doing since before the first World War.
We (the us) fuel fires, sensor the media, war with other nations, lie to the people, and expect peace!edit on 30-9-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by randomname
what happened to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
freedom of religion is not to protect the state from religion but protect you from the state.
and its doing exactly that, they have twisted the 1st amendment yet again.
rome persecuted Christians and look what happened to them.
Originally posted by MamaJ
Originally posted by LeSigh
reply to post by VaterOrlaag
Why shouldn't a student have been allowed to pray? Separation of church and state does not and should not prevent individual citizens from practicing their religion and having freedom of expression. She's not a teacher, so she isn't obligated to follow the rules of state/government employees. It's a completely different ball game from a public school teacher or administrator doing the same while on the job.
Two men from UCLA blessed their food the other day (no kids... all faculty) as they have for the last thirty years and today they are on leave and being sued.
Our rights are going bye, bye. We have been infiltrated BIG TIME!!!
Both parties are responsible for letting this happen over time. Neither can be trusted in my opinion.
Originally posted by Dustytoad
reply to post by GoldenRuled
They didn't make a mean remark about Jesus... Christians are just over hyper offendable... John Lennon made a joke about being more popular than Jesus, that was it.
I find Jesus and John Lennon were and are both awesome and both of them have warmed my heart like most Christians could never, because they are too busy judging everything instead of loving everything.
If they had followed Jesus' teaching of tolerance then they wouldn't have this kind of thing directed at them. You reap what you sow, and that's right in the bible..
That's a terrible rule though. This reality all seems fake these days. Freedom of speech got stabbed in the back.
Isn't graduation after school is over? lol.. She's not free to say what ever she wants? I can see why you might not want teachers talking about all this stuff all the time, but the kids?? seems way over the top.edit on 9/29/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by littled16
To jiggerj:
I defend everyone's right to freedom of religious expression, whether I agree with them or not. That means EVERYONE!
As long as your religious expression is speech I will defend it. If you are committing acts of violence (doing physical harm to anyone in expression of religious beliefs) I will not support it. I don't care WHAT religion you are.
edit on 30-9-2012 by littled16 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by littled16
To jiggerj:
I defend everyone's right to freedom of religious expression, whether I agree with them or not. That means EVERYONE!
As long as your religious expression is speech I will defend it. If you are committing acts of violence (doing physical harm to anyone in expression of religious beliefs) I will not support it. I don't care WHAT religion you are.
edit on 30-9-2012 by littled16 because: (no reason given)
Hey, I agree. But, when Freedom of Religion is written as law, can we take it back and say, "Oh no, you can't kill people, sacrifice animals, whip your kids (spare the rod, spoil the child), or make your wives into submissive servants."
In other words, Freedom of Religion doesn't allow us to pick and choose what rituals are practiced in any religion. If you can demand that one part of somebody else's religion is not acceptable, then that somebody can tell you to scrape off the bumper sticker of "Jesus Loves You".
Originally posted by littled16
Also, I don't have a "Jesus Loves You" bumpersticker. However I do have a shirt that reads "Jesus Loves You But The Rest Of Us Think You're An _________". T&Cs prevent me from filling in the blank, but you get the picture.edit on 30-9-2012 by littled16 because: (no reason given)
In the 1980s, members of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, a Santeria congregation, began leaving the bodies of sacrificed chickens near trees and bushes in Hialeah, Florida, where the Church was located. Santeria priest Ernesto Pichardo thought this was a good idea. The City Council did not. The government of the city of 240,000, 11 miles northwest of Miami, prosecuted the church under a law banning animal sacrifices. The church contended that the ritual scatterings were an indispensable part of their religion, and of its Afro-Cuban cultural roots. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law as unconstitutional religious discrimination. Although they are now recognized as legal, Pichardo says that authorities still occasionally hassle church members. Pichardo is an orite, a priest empowered to conduct sacrifices. He is philosophiocal about the situation. "I learned one thing" he says. "When you bring something forward that is outside the Judeo-Christian tradition, the dominant culture is going to cause you problems." U.S. courts are seeing increasing numbers of immigrants from African, Asian and other non-western cultures, who are prosecuted for offenses which were not crimes in their native countries. These cases have involved many different customs, such as ritual mutilation and animal sacrifice.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by MamaJ
Freedom of speech to a point.
Holding a sign in favor of killing is not using the freedom of speech in a peaceful manner.
There is a difference.
The ones holding these signs of massacre are in my opinion not understood and are in need of healing, not fueling the fire, which is what the US has been doing since before the first World War.
We (the us) fuel fires, sensor the media, war with other nations, lie to the people, and expect peace!edit on 30-9-2012 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)
Sorry Mama, we can't do that. These fanatics believe in their twisted religion just as much as Christians believe in theirs. It's called FREEDOM OF RELIGION. We can't go around saying, "You're religious beliefs are wrong and ours are right, so you can't practice your religion here."
I don't like it anymore than you do, but it doesn't change the fact that either there is freedom of (all) religious expression, or there is no freedom of religious expression.
If that were the case, then atheists that find Christianity an embarrassment to mankind should be able to tell Christians that they can't publicly display gruesome signs of the cross, put up nativity scenes around christmas, and can't go around saying Jesus is god and he loves you.
We can't tell the Jews that cutting off a length of a baby's penis is evil.edit on 9/30/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)edit on 9/30/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by smilesmcgee
reply to post by violet
Oh, you are being dramatic. I am an atheist who celebrates a non-religious Christmas, as are my family and friends.
None of us get mad over the whole "Merry Christmas" thing. NONE OF US.
And neither do 98% of atheists or people of different faiths.
If a store wants to be non-denominational and focus on celebrating the spirit of the season, and not the holiday itself, then that is their perogative.
Christians need to stop making a mountain out of an molehill.
Furthermore, the word god isn't capitalized because it is also a word that is used to describe a god, and not your "God."
And not everyone considers 666 to have any meaning... only the superstitious do, and that population is ever shrinking as well.
edit on 30-9-2012 by smilesmcgee because: (no reason given)
he structure of these almost identical chapters mentioning the quantity of gold is worth noting. First, the Queen of Sheba visits Solomon and is impressed (1 Kings 10:1-13; 2 Chronicles 9:1-12). Then we are told of the 666 talents, and a description of the rest of his wealth and glory is given (1 Kings 10:14-22; 2 Chronicles 9:13-21). Then his greatness is reiterated, with emphasis on the revenues he collected (1 Kings 10:23-25; 2 Chronicles 9:22-24). Finally, we are told that Solomon collects horses and chariots (1 Kings 10:26-29; 2 Chronicles 9:25-28). In other words, he sins, by doing what a king in Israel is never supposed to do (Deuteronomy 17:16-17). At this point, 2 Chronicles 9 closes with Solomon’s death and the next chapter shows the kingdom ripped apart. In 1 King’s, however, the chapter ends with Solomon’s sins regarding horses and chariots. The next chapter shows him collecting foreign wives (also forbidden in Deuteronomy 17:17) and finally worshipping false gods. In short, both chapters show us God’s Anointed falling into outright apostasy. It is significant that the kingdom split because Rehoboam refused to lighten the load in taxes and forced labor which his father had put on the people (1 Kings 12:1ff; 2 Chronicles 10:1ff). Solomon’s latter reign was not a happy time. He had become a beast. And, in telling us of the height of his power and glory, both texts mentioned that Solomon brought in 666 talents of gold one year. Then he slid into sin. There is no reason to doubt that Revelation 13:18 is building on 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13. Simply the fact that the number is not used anywhere else in Scripture, guarantees that any Biblically literate first-century person reading or hearing John’s epistle from Patmos would immediately turn to those passages. Where else could he go?