AlAyeti wrote:Insult and sarcasm directed at "me" in a personal way. Hmm.
Your sarcasm denotes a weak wit.
Though I find it laughable coming literally from a monkey.
Hmm, my initial reading of this is that you are grossly violating TOS here.
Why do we have to banter when it is Christians time and time again that are outlawed coast to coast.
Outlawed? Funny, I went to Church today and didn't have to hide my face from the FBI cameras. Guess you were wrong in that claim.
The Boy Scouts not wanting homosexuals to be off far away in the mountains with "Questioning Youth" is attacked because they are "perceived" as Christian.
Actually, they also threw out a couple of leaders for not being Christian. That, of course, violated many different ordinances against religious discrimination. Yes, the Boy Scouts can be as much bigots as they want to be. They then just can't function as a publically supported group in communities that have rules against discrimination. The boy scouts can do anything they want, but can't be publically supported while they do so. You of course, are saying that this is wrong. That bigots should have public support, even as they discriminate. Not unlike the KKK insisting on public support. Are you saying that bigots have a RIGHT to public support? When you bring up the Boy Scouts, that sure seems to be what you were saying. Or were you merely confused and unaware of the facts?
We need to debate that? If they were Jews, Muslims or Sikh's, the ACLU would be no where to be found.
Given that ACLU has defended Christians' rights as well, your claim does seem initially to be dishonest. Just want to clarify. Are you saying that the ACLU is anti-Christian? Because if so you clearly is making a false claim. So please clarify.
Try teaching anything but Darwinistic Evolution in our schools and see if the law will not be used to silence the blashphemer!
Well, if I wanted to teach the Lakota Creation muth about the turtle, would that be an appropriate use of science class? Or were you trying to say something else? Your unsubstantiated one-liner all blended together is not really that clear and informative; rather it almost seems like a rant and a rather incoherent and ignorant one at that. So I hope you will dissuade us of that impression and actually clarify what you mean here.
The Ten Commandments "Litigated" and ousted is an attack on only the Christians by a judge passing a law, or, better yet making one up to discriminate against only Christians.
Rather, it is a Christian attempt at displaying public support for our religion only. And THAT clearly is illegal in the US Constitution.
There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. Hanging the Ten Commandments on the wall of a city building does not a temple make.
But it is a public display of only one religion, ignoring all others. That's the same as promoting one religious belief over all others, and THAT is illegal in the US Constitution. Didn't you know that? So if you want to hang the basic laws/life isntructions of all religions on a wall together, all with the same prominence, then you are actually allowed to do so.
Would you want that?
Where does it say that the teachings of Krishna cannot hang on a court house wall?
Who are you kidding sarcasmo? The ACLU and the Democrats would fight tooth and nail for that.
Again, where is your evidence that the ACLU, which upholds the US Constitution (sidenote, I am wondering why you hate the constitution so much? Could it be that it doesn't allow a Christian theocracy?) would suddenly support unconstitutional actions? Again, on the surface, your claim seems absurd and just plain false so could you again dissuade us of that impression, please?
It is OK to teach children about giving h--d the proper way in school but teaching them abstinence is "religious dogma!"
Hmm, as far as I can see, you are referring to the Henry Waxman report that documented that 17 of 19 "abstinence-only" sex-ed programs outright lied to kids in numerous areas. So I take it that you are in favor of lying to kids, right?
Whose religion? The Christians.
What about it?
The Nativity? Christian. Out "lawed" in many towns and schools
Again, it is the endorsement of only one religious teaching, excluding al others. It seems that your complaint is that Christianity is not allowed to be presented alone. Well, obviously that would be illegal per the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, so as best I can read your posts, you are lamenting that illegal activities are not allowed. Why is it you are praising law breaking and illegal acts?
while Halloween is rejoiced over.
Let me see, what religion is celebrating kids dressing up in costumes and collecting candy from neighbors?
Modern Hate Crime definition silences one religion only.
That again seems a false claim. Do you have evidence? Or is this the one where Christians of Phelp's type are upset that beating up a kid and leaving him to die tied to a barbwire fence is seen as hateful? Ah, yes. I can't understand or accept your lament, but you have the right to hold it.
It illegalizes Christianity.
So your Church got confiscated by the government? Or did your excitement result in a touch of hyperbole there?
You cannot support sexual perversion as a civil right
"perversion"? Really? By whose claim?
and then say that those that denigrate and dsicriminate ahgainst sexual perversion and those that willingly practice it is allowed and allowable.
Could you rewrite this so it makes sense, please? It kind of reads as you lamenting not being able to discriminate, not being able to push bigotry?
Black-White male-female unions can find empirical scientific proof for the coupling being "natural."
Really?
Homosexuality finds every branch of physical science squarely in opposition. Genitalia denotes sexual orientation.
Funny that you should bring up the "natural" argument. Surely you know that homosexual activity has been well-documented in the animal world? So your claim, just based on scientific facts, is clearly false. Plain and simple, YOU ARE WRONG.
Perhaps you should research such things before making absolutist claims so that your credibility won't suffer?
African-American are furious that sexual perversoin is given equal definition to slaves, and non-human status.
Really? because you say so?
That, by the way, Darwin, (evolution) and his disciples truly believed.
You seem so certain of this. Can you actually provide evidence for this? because certainly nothing in Darwin's writings justifies your accusation. You are not making a false claim, are you?
Same-sex sex, is nonsense in perfect definition of non sense.
Ah, another fundamentalist "because I say so" postulation. Yeah, I love how you proved your claim... NOT!
Slavery and race discrimination is provably wrong.
And yet, both are PROMINENTLY in the Bible. So you are saying that the Bible is wrong, aren't you?
While you are evolving into a higher chimp or whatever non- knuckledragger
Huh? You seem deficient in your understanding of Evolution. Individuals don't evolve, populations do.
you look forward to your offspring being, sperm and ovum will get you progeny there. Unless you're "a" homosexual. Then, offspring wouldn't enter your oriented mind.
As is true in childless couples and those using some form of contraception. Are you suggesting that they are wrong also?
Sorry to throw fact water on your sarcasmo laugh-parade.
Really? Where? I must have missed the "facts." What were they?
