Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Why are Christians so insecure in their faith that they have to impose their churchiness on others?

The majority are a bunch of dopes.

Majority religion took another small step forward Monday, when the Court decided, 5-4, that the town of Greece, New York, did not violate the Establishment Clause when it chose to begin its town-board meetings with explicitly Christian prayers, in which local clergy asked citizens to bow their heads, acknowledge “the saving sacrifice of Jesus,” and signify assent by saying “amen.”

The result will dismay those who believe, like Justice Elena Kagan, that “when citizens go before the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans.” Kagan believes that so strongly that she repeated the idea no fewer than four times in a spirited dissent from the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archi ... ce/361754/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ecrassez l'infame

No freeloader like a fvcking preacher.

Must be a WCB thing. I keep my religion to myself unless asked. And then I just say "I'm a Catholic." That usually is enough to dispell any door to door fuckers. Followed by "Yes, a practicing Catholic" if they are pushy.

The Founding Fathers, the writers of the Constitution, are relieved that their practice of opening meetings with a prayer is in agreement with the very Constitution that they wrote.

kalm wrote:Why are Christians so insecure in their faith that they have to impose their churchiness on others?

The majority are a bunch of dopes.

Majority religion took another small step forward Monday, when the Court decided, 5-4, that the town of Greece, New York, did not violate the Establishment Clause when it chose to begin its town-board meetings with explicitly Christian prayers, in which local clergy asked citizens to bow their heads, acknowledge “the saving sacrifice of Jesus,” and signify assent by saying “amen.”

The result will dismay those who believe, like Justice Elena Kagan, that “when citizens go before the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans.” Kagan believes that so strongly that she repeated the idea no fewer than four times in a spirited dissent from the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archi ... ce/361754/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If the town is find with it, then who cares? If a town wants to read from the Koran, then let them. We are NOT a Christian nation. We were not founded to be a Christian nation. We have freedom of religion (or from religion if you prefer it that way.)

There is nothing compulsory about the prayer, so who gives a damn?

I'm more concerned with the high school kids in California who are not allowed to wear shirts with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo because a bunch of wetbacks find it offensive.

CitadelGrad wrote:There is nothing compulsory about the prayer, so who gives a damn?

I'm more concerned with the high school kids in California who are not allowed to wear shirts with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo because a bunch of wetbacks find it offensive.

Don't give two-tenths a s*** if they're having prayers at these meetings. Let me know when they are trying to ban working on Sundays or trying to keep gays from getting joint checking accounts. The ACLU and morons like the Freedom from Religion Foundation need to get a life.

Justice Kagan will defend to the death your right to worship at the Church of "What Have You."

Pwns wrote:Don't give two-tenths a s*** if they're having prayers at these meetings. Let me know when they are trying to ban working on Sundays or trying to keep gays from getting joint checking accounts. The ACLU and morons like the Freedom from Religion Foundation need to get a life.

It's just like the ten commandments in the court house. Government should be neutral when it comes to religion, especially in situations where laws are being enforced and/or determined. We're not a christian town, state, county, or nation. It's completely unnecessary.

Many of you would be singing a different tune if it was prayer to invoke Sharia Law.

kalm wrote:Why are Christians so insecure in their faith that they have to impose their churchiness on others?

The majority are a bunch of dopes.

Majority religion took another small step forward Monday, when the Court decided, 5-4, that the town of Greece, New York, did not violate the Establishment Clause when it chose to begin its town-board meetings with explicitly Christian prayers, in which local clergy asked citizens to bow their heads, acknowledge “the saving sacrifice of Jesus,” and signify assent by saying “amen.”

The result will dismay those who believe, like Justice Elena Kagan, that “when citizens go before the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans.” Kagan believes that so strongly that she repeated the idea no fewer than four times in a spirited dissent from the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archi ... ce/361754/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's the beginning of the end. I'm skeered...

Ivytalk wrote:Justice Kagan will defend to the death your right to worship at the Church of "What Have You."

This about one's right to worship?

CitadelGrad wrote:There is nothing compulsory about the prayer, so who gives a damn?

I'm more concerned with the high school kids in California who are not allowed to wear shirts with the American flag on Cinco de Mayo because a bunch of wetbacks find it offensive.

Racist language aside, I agree.

kalm wrote:

Pwns wrote:Don't give two-tenths a s*** if they're having prayers at these meetings. Let me know when they are trying to ban working on Sundays or trying to keep gays from getting joint checking accounts. The ACLU and morons like the Freedom from Religion Foundation need to get a life.

It's just like the ten commandments in the court house. Government should be neutral when it comes to religion, especially in situations where laws are being enforced and/or determined. We're not a christian town, state, county, or nation. It's completely unnecessary.

Many of you would be singing a different tune if it was prayer to invoke Sharia Law.

I apply the same standard for other religions. If there is a majority Muslim community or government and they want to have a prayer before a meeting then go ahead. I'll get concerned if they try and pass an ordinance to not allow women to drive or to ban the sale of pork.

kalm wrote:Government should be neutral when it comes to religion, especially in situations where laws are being enforced and/or determined. We're not a christian town, state, county, or nation. It's completely unnecessary.

Not sure neutral is the word for which you are looking. You would seem to prefer them to stay as far away as possible. That's far from neutral in my book.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Justice Kagan will defend to the death your right to worship at the Church of "What Have You."

This about one's right to worship?

Doofus.

kalm wrote:Why are Christians so insecure in their faith that they have to impose their churchiness on others?

The majority are a bunch of dopes.

Majority religion took another small step forward Monday, when the Court decided, 5-4, that the town of Greece, New York, did not violate the Establishment Clause when it chose to begin its town-board meetings with explicitly Christian prayers, in which local clergy asked citizens to bow their heads, acknowledge “the saving sacrifice of Jesus,” and signify assent by saying “amen.”

The result will dismay those who believe, like Justice Elena Kagan, that “when citizens go before the government, they go not as Christians or Muslims or Jews (or what have you), but just as Americans.” Kagan believes that so strongly that she repeated the idea no fewer than four times in a spirited dissent from the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archi ... ce/361754/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

hey look Jon hacked Klams account

theocracy lol

Pwns wrote:

kalm wrote:
It's just like the ten commandments in the court house. Government should be neutral when it comes to religion, especially in situations where laws are being enforced and/or determined. We're not a christian town, state, county, or nation. It's completely unnecessary.

Many of you would be singing a different tune if it was prayer to invoke Sharia Law.

I apply the same standard for other religions. If there is a majority Muslim community or government and they want to have a prayer before a meeting then go ahead. I'll get concerned if they try and pass an ordinance to not allow women to drive or to ban the sale of pork.

I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

GannonFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:
I apply the same standard for other religions. If there is a majority Muslim community or government and they want to have a prayer before a meeting then go ahead. I'll get concerned if they try and pass an ordinance to not allow women to drive or to ban the sale of pork.

I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

andy7171 wrote:Must be a WCB thing. I keep my religion to myself unless asked. And then I just say "I'm a Catholic." That usually is enough to dispell any door to door fuckers. Followed by "Yes, a practicing Catholic" if they are pushy.

Greece, N.Y., dingleberry.

GannonFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:
I apply the same standard for other religions. If there is a majority Muslim community or government and they want to have a prayer before a meeting then go ahead. I'll get concerned if they try and pass an ordinance to not allow women to drive or to ban the sale of pork.

I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

Only problem - Christian Theocrats are already, and have in many instances, put the Old Testament version of Sharia law into effect.

If not, then I would be able to get married in any state.

The issue is that they are excluding all other religions. They are only allowing Christians to lead the prayers. This happens in many, many towns across the country. The ignorant masses, both in the country and on the Supreme Court are for freedom of religion, as long as it is their version of Christianity.

GannonFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:
I apply the same standard for other religions. If there is a majority Muslim community or government and they want to have a prayer before a meeting then go ahead. I'll get concerned if they try and pass an ordinance to not allow women to drive or to ban the sale of pork.

I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

Im waiting fir klam to confirm that Dback or Felchy hacked him

Then there is Clarence "stupidest Justice of all time" Thomas, who doesn't think the Bill of Rights applies to the states...

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -the-clock" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



GHWB should be waterboarded for appointing him in the first place.

dbackjon wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I agree with this. Saying a prayer before a meeting and invoking Sharia Law are two wholly different sentiments so I can't really believe that kalmy is trying to link the two. Offering a prayer and then acting on a religious belief to institute religious laws are orders of magnitude different.

If offering a prayer before a meeting is now the definition of theocracy than someone should talk to the Webster people and get them to change the definition so that kalmy isn't hyperbolizing anything.

Only problem - Christian Theocrats are already, and have in many instances, put the Old Testament version of Sharia law into effect.

Really? Which Christian theocrats? Christian theocrats like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson? Gay marriage was made not possible because of them?

Or like Thomas Jefferson or John Adams? Those theocrats?

Wait- you already couldnt get married back then, either.

How about Henry VIII? You mean him? Wait. Nope. Gay marriage was already taboo before he came along and founded the CoE

what about Martin Luther? did HE make gay marriage verboten?

Hold on! Ive now gone back before America was an independent nation

Im trying to figure which American theocrats instituted christian sharia law by making gay marriage illegal

that you chimed in on a post about the ridiculous hyperbole with even more hyperbole of your own is ..... I think i need a thesaurus to describe it properly

BDKJMU wrote:The Founding Fathers, the writers of the Constitution, are relieved that their practice of opening meetings with a prayer is in agreement with the very Constitution that they wrote.

You speak words that you do not understand parrot...
Read the prayer and report back your finding parrot



The Left and Right fringes have stolen our founding Fathers
Please say you understand the difference between the word "God" and the word Jesus and Muhammad