POLL: Civil War in the US?

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A viewpoint on Religion is not the same as a Religious Viewpoint.

that sentence is self contradictory. a viewpoint on a particular subject is a viewpoint, period.

No it isn't. A Religious Viewpoint is one that is based on ones religion where as a Viewpoint on Religion doesn't necessarily have to be based on ones religion. In fact I would say that a viewpoint on Religion that's not based on ones religious beliefs is the only objective viewpoint that there can be about religion though it usually isn't the case.

ROFL! do you have a link or reference showing the difference other than your say so?

from the oh so often ignored merriamwebster.com:

VIEWPOINT: forwarded to "POINT OF VIEW"

: a position from which something is considered or evaluated :

let's try a few sentences...

Billy's religious viewpoint is atheism, he does not believe in God and considers religion a bunch of hooey.
Billy's viewpoint on religion is atheism, he does not believe in God and considers religion a bunch of hooey.
Billy's religious point of view is atheism, he does not believe in God and considers religion a bunch of hooey.
Billy's point of view on religion is atheism, he does not believe in God and considers religion a bunch of hooey.

a viewpoint is a viewpoint...they all mean the same thing, do you have evidence other than your opinion this is not so? make it a verifiable source please.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Shad0whack - no amount of semantic wrangling on your part will convince me that atheism is a religion or anything remotely close. The only person you're convincing seems to be yourself. Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the freedom from them. Atheists wouldn't say, "I believe there is no God", rather they would say "I do not believe in God." See the difference? Do not believe...

What does God have to do with religion ?

that is a mighty good question! i wonder if he will answer it when he has the time?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You can roll on the floor all you want, but I still don't buy your argument that atheists rely on faith. But hey, declare yourself "right" and continue believing your own twisted semantics. Why don't you ask a real atheist what they think rather than making up your own theory? I'm not a real atheist, but I'm sure there are plenty who will tell you what they do or do not believe in. Or whether faith has anything to do with it.

of course you do not! all you have to do is ignore the dictionary and refer to the definitions as "twisted semantics" because you disagree with them. do let let the fact you cannot demonstrate this claim get in your way!

i guess in this argument about the meaning of words my being the only one to post the actual definitions from a dictionary does not mean anything, but wait! I am the one "making up my own theory" even though i am the only one presenting any evidence to support my claim. ROFL!

do you consider buddhists "real" atheists? does one have to be areligious to be a "real" atheist? should that definition be ignored too since it only mentions disbelief in diety and not religion?

Do you even remember what your point was? I sure don't...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Shad0whack - no amount of semantic wrangling on your part will convince me that atheism is a religion or anything remotely close. The only person you're convincing seems to be yourself. Atheism is neither religion nor faith, but the freedom from them. Atheists wouldn't say, "I believe there is no God", rather they would say "I do not believe in God." See the difference? Do not believe...

What does God have to do with religion ?

that is a mighty good question! i wonder if he will answer it when he has the time?

Well, duh, let's see: Most religions believe in a God (or Gods) with a few minor exceptions. And oh yeah, atheists do not believe in God. There you go! Wasn't that simple? By the way, if you hope to understand atheists (or religion in general) by looking up words in the dictionary, you're heading down the wrong path. But I guess feel free to "prove" us all "wrong"

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You can roll on the floor all you want, but I still don't buy your argument that atheists rely on faith. But hey, declare yourself "right" and continue believing your own twisted semantics. Why don't you ask a real atheist what they think rather than making up your own theory? I'm not a real atheist, but I'm sure there are plenty who will tell you what they do or do not believe in. Or whether faith has anything to do with it.

of course you do not! all you have to do is ignore the dictionary and refer to the definitions as "twisted semantics" because you disagree with them. do let let the fact you cannot demonstrate this claim get in your way!

i guess in this argument about the meaning of words my being the only one to post the actual definitions from a dictionary does not mean anything, but wait! I am the one "making up my own theory" even though i am the only one presenting any evidence to support my claim. ROFL!

do you consider buddhists "real" atheists? does one have to be areligious to be a "real" atheist? should that definition be ignored too since it only mentions disbelief in diety and not religion?

Do you even remember what your point was? I sure don't...

so you proved something after all! when reason, and logic fail, there is always the jr. high school level humor to fall back on! nice question avoidance also BTW

 

[rjain]

Shadohawk, the point is that you're attacking a strawman. Who cares if Buddhists are atheist or not? Does that entitle Christians to impose Christian beliefs on Buddhists? If your camp is to be believed, then the answer is yes, simply because they are atheist means that they don't get the right to be part of this country's history.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: GrGr
Not at all. You are applying the religious sense of words like belief and faith where they do not belong.

ROFL! despite all the evidence(the meaning of the word faith" and your contradictions you still going on with this? i just posted the definition of the word "faith" that directly refutes your eytomological revisionism, religion has nothing to do with it. you simply do not like that word and try anything you can to distance yourself from it. my logic has not failed, you have not been able to demonstrate any failure on my part, on the other hand, i have made obvious the contradictions and logical failings of yours, which you go right on ignoring and simply repeating yourself. our latest example in bold:

Originally posted by: GrGr
You, however, is claiming that Atheists have religious FAITH in their UNFAITH which is illogical since Atheists by definition reject FAITH in the religious sense. Atheist say that there is not a shred of evidence that God exists. That does not mean that they have faith in the absence of proof. There simply are no proof. Dot, end of story. That is not faith.

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

there are numerous things wrong with your logic here:

1. your claiming that atheists have "religious faith"i never have siad that. faith is not just religious in sense and use the definition shows that.

My point is that you are applying the religious sense of faith and the religious sense of belief to atheists when you so adamantly claim that they have a religious viewpoint. Religious conviction is impossible without faith and belief, don't you agree. You are saying that argument any conviction (which you say requires faith and belief) is a religious viewpoint. That is of course absurd.

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
2. your making the definitive claim there is no evidence God exists, anytime you make a definitive claim in the positive or negative you also have the burden of proof.

Meh, atheists say they are convinced there is no god because there is, and never has been, any proof that he exists. This has convinced them there is no god. The Burden of Proof lies with those that still claim there is a god, without having any proof there is one.

For example. Let's say I claim that there is an INVISIBLE BLUE SMURF living in your head. Not only that this Smurf IS THE GOD OF ALL SMURFS The Burden of Proof is not with you, you do not have to prove that in fact there is no invisible blue smurf god living in your head. The Burden of Proof lies with me for making such a preposterous claim and not with you even though you are quite CONVINCED a: there is no such smurf god, and b: I am nuts for making that claim. I'm sure you can make the definitive claim that there IS NO invisible blue smurf god with utter conviction without being bothered with the burden of proof.

Now do you have faith and belief in your conviction that there is no Invisible Blue Smurf living in your head? Does the fact that you cannot disprove my assertion that there is no invisible blue smurf god living in your head make your certainty that there is no smurf god in your head a religious viewpoint? Of course not. The idea is beyond ridiculous. Or are you saying that you are not utterly certain that there is no invisible smurf god living in your head?

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK<
3. unless you have been EVERYWHERE in the universe and know everything there is to know, you cannot know for a fact whether God exists or not.

Originally posted by: GrGrLook, for arguments sake, you can have FAITH in your BELIEF that there are little green men made of cheese living on the dark side of the moon, if you were CONVINCED such men exists. Even though I?ve never been to the moon I can safely say that I would not believe you if you said so without proof and simply pointed to the need for FAITH. However I would not have FAITH in my conviction that you are nuts, I would simply be CONVINCED you are nuts. See FAITH does not come into the picture. You can be CONVINCED of something without having FAITH. Just as you can be convinced about something without believing it or not.

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK<
again your mangling the word, the definition states that "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" so if you choose to believe or disbelive in little green men made of cheese living on the moon it would not matter because either belief would be based on conviction without proof.

I wouldn't have to disbelieve such a preposterous claim (that there are little green men made of cheese living on the moon). I would simply decide that a person who seriously made such a claim was "mentally irregular" to put it nicely. Belief without proof does not really come into it. See the Invisible Smurf argument. I say that you have an invisible blue smurf living in your head, but you cannot prove that there is no invisible blue smurf living in your head. That does not mean that there is an invisible smurf in your head, does it?

Originally posted by: GrGrI am not talking about belief in God here. I am talking about the semantic meaning of the word belief and explaining why you are misusing it.

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK<
the same goes for me concerning the word faith...i am going to do a radical thing here, i am going to use the dictionary again to determine the meaning of a word...

BELIEF:
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may OR may not imply certitude in the believer. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof

FAITH:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction

now lets look at what you said earlier:

Originally posted by: GrGrAtheists on the other hand have only their Conviction, and nothing else. Not "faith", nor "belief" nor "God".

this is what your not getting, having conviction(and "nothing else" especially PROOF) in something you cannot prove is in itself FAITH and/or BELIEF and in both cases the dictionary directly backs me up. i am not mis-using the word, but instead using both perfectly...they are synonyms for a reason. we both have viewed the evidence, but come to differing conclusions.

i see what your trying to say, it is a thing/no-thing argument. faith IN something such as God not being the same as DISbelief in God's existance...with an absolute positive not being the same as it's opposite an absolute negative. what your not taking into account is beleif-faith-conviction no matter how they are applied are all existential things in the positive bracket. they are ideas we have.

I am of course talking about the words "faith" and "belief" in their religious context in that quote. I thought that was obvious.

It is possible to have a conviction without that conviction being religious in nature. With your logic there is no difference between a philosophical conviction and a religious conviction for example. This is evident since you are calling atheism a religious viewpoint. My Invisible Blue Smurf God argument shows you why atheism it is not a religious viewpoint, no more than your refutation of my claim that there is a invisible blue smurf god living in your head would be a religious viewpoint.

Descartes assertion that; I think, therefore I am, would be a religious conviction since Descartes is convinced he is thinking thus he has faith in and belief in the fact that he is thinking which convinces him he is thinking. With your logic this is a faith based system of thinking.

The philosophy of Existentialism, for example, would be a religion with your logic.

 

[Shad0hawK]

your just repeating the same mantra over and over ignoring proof you're wrong. what is telling in this argument (as i just pointed out to another) is that in this conversation about the meaning of a word you expound using paragraph after paragraph but offer no evidence to support your claim... attempting to accuse me of semantic games yet i seem to be the only one to partake in the radical idea of using a dictionary to determine word meaning. there is little wonder why, in just a few sentences and using your own self contraditory words compared to the definitions supplied by a dictionary it is made obvious, and all you have to rebut with is merely your opinion.

atheists always say "where is the proof?" and as usual the proof is right in front of them, they simply ignore it because they do not WANT to believe it. this also is no surpise. if you cannot convince a person he is wrong about the definition of a word when the dictionary DIRECTLY shows them to be so, there is probobly not much that can be proved to such a closed minded dogmatic individual, especially about much more complex things like the existance of God.

 

[InstantKarma]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My posts on this are that Historically the U.S. was founded by Theists or whatever you want to call them and re-writing Hostory is wrong. The Founders did an excellent job and people are doing their best to tear down what they built over 200 years ago and that is sickening.

The founding fathers were deist. Not theist. A huge difference.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
dmcowen674 mentions in this thread that he believes that a new civil war will errupt in the US.

Yes, looks like War is brewing in the U.S. itself. Not sure which group or issue will start the guns firing first yet though.

Take a look out the window and then vote.

The neonazis et al have been predicting a race war for around the last 35 years. I am not sure who or what group is talking about.

 

[InstantKarma]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawKif it comes to civil war, most likely it will be a combination of issues, i know one thing that does not sit well is the leftist democrats basically running the country through judges like we are seeing now, due process of law does not matter anymore. the liberals are basically undermining the the system by undoing anything the legistlature does, and they insure they get the judges appointed they want by blocking those that are not politically alignied to thier view. to "interpret" the law as they see fit or as in the case of the new jersey senate election, totally ignore it.
very few people realize how dangerous this is

Unbelievable. 4 extremely right wing candidates compared to 168 confirmed judicial appointments are stalled and somehow, the "liberals" are undermining the system? Look at the record. Clinton had a far larger percentage of nominations blocked. One of Bush's nominations received a "not qualified" label from the American Bar Association! This doesn't mean they don't agree or support the judge's views. They simply do not have the legal expertise or credentials to hold a job on the federal bench. i.e. bad rulings, incorrect interpretation of the law, and in this woman's case a very unpleasent demeanor with a history of unprofessional conduct. She threw a pen at a lawyer in court ! What IS dangerous is giving a conservative ideologue a lifetime position of considerable power.

I admire your resolve debating the religious fundamentalist/I'm too stupid to understand separation of church and state crowd, DealMonkey. I would have lost patience on page 1.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: InstantKarma

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My posts on this are that Historically the U.S. was founded by Theists or whatever you want to call them and re-writing Hostory is wrong. The Founders did an excellent job and people are doing their best to tear down what they built over 200 years ago and that is sickening.

The founding fathers were deist. Not theist. A huge difference.

Hmmm. Deist, Theist whatever, doesn't say Atheist. Having a problem reading???

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
your just repeating the same mantra over and over ignoring proof you're wrong. what is telling in this argument (as i just pointed out to another) is that in this conversation about the meaning of a word you expound using paragraph after paragraph but offer no evidence to support your claim... attempting to accuse me of semantic games yet i seem to be the only one to partake in the radical idea of using a dictionary to determine word meaning. there is little wonder why, in just a few sentences and using your own self contraditory words compared to the definitions supplied by a dictionary it is made obvious, and all you have to rebut with is merely your opinion.

Our argument isn't so much about semantic definiton as it is about logic.

This discussion started when you said that atheism is a "matter of faith", and as such a religious viewpoint. In support of your view you made the claim that any conviction carries within it faith and belief. I have shown you that it is possible to have a conviction without "faith" and "belief" playing any significant part in that conviction. If you believe that atheism is a "matter of faith" then, with the same logic, you must believe that the fact that there is no invisible smurf god living in your head also is a "matter of faith" and a religious viewpoint. This position is absurd (inconsistent with reason, or logic or common sense) and the fact that it is so has nothing to do with the dictionary.

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

atheists always say "where is the proof?" and as usual the proof is right in front of them, they simply ignore it because they do not WANT to believe it. this also is no surpise. if you cannot convince a person he is wrong about the definition of a word when the dictionary DIRECTLY shows them to be so, there is probobly not much that can be proved to such a closed minded dogmatic individual, especially about much more complex things like the existance of God.

Lol, which God is it you are talking about? Where's the proof that is Allah exists? Where's the proof that Jahve exists? Where's the proof that Shiva or any of the other Hindu Gods exist? There is no proof whatsoever that these gods (or the little blue smurf god) exists and there never have been any proof. Why is your Christian lack of proof more convincing than the lack of proof provided by the Muslims for example? That has nothing to do with WANT.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: InstantKarma

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My posts on this are that Historically the U.S. was founded by Theists or whatever you want to call them and re-writing Hostory is wrong. The Founders did an excellent job and people are doing their best to tear down what they built over 200 years ago and that is sickening.

The founding fathers were deist. Not theist. A huge difference.

Hmmm. Deist, Theist whatever, doesn't say Atheist. Having a problem reading???

So this country is based on their religion? Their religious beleifs should dominate the government's philosophies for all eternity?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: InstantKarma

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
My posts on this are that Historically the U.S. was founded by Theists or whatever you want to call them and re-writing Hostory is wrong. The Founders did an excellent job and people are doing their best to tear down what they built over 200 years ago and that is sickening.

The founding fathers were deist. Not theist. A huge difference.

Hmmm. Deist, Theist whatever, doesn't say Atheist. Having a problem reading???

So this country is based on their religion? Their religious beleifs should dominate the government's philosophies for all eternity?

What Domination are you speaking of?

History is History, you cannot erase it for your own benefit if that is what you are implying.

 

[rjain]

An entity that does not objectively exist cannot objectively be a part of our history. Your religion is irrelevant to what the government's official viewpoints should be. We should not proclaim for this nation to be a Christian nation unless we want to revert to the same situation that the early Americans from Europe were fleeing in the first place.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rjain
An entity that does not objectively exist cannot objectively be a part of our history. Your religion is irrelevant to what the government's official viewpoints should be. We should not proclaim for this nation to be a Christian nation unless we want to revert to the same situation that the early Americans from Europe were fleeing in the first place.

Troll, stop with the "Your Religion" bit. No one has proclaimed the Nation to be a Christian Nation but you. Go away.

 

[DealMonkey]

The only civil war I foresee is between the retards and the morons. I'll be glad when they finally fight it out.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The only civil war I foresee is between the retards and the morons. I'll be glad when they finally fight it out.

i bet your having a serious self conflict as to which side to be on.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Our argument isn't so much about semantic definiton as it is about logic.

that sounds like a good excuse to basically throw the dictionary out the window when it contradicts your argument.

Originally posted by: GrGr
This discussion started when you said that atheism is a "matter of faith", and as such a religious viewpoint. In support of your view you made the claim that any conviction carries within it faith and belief. I have shown you that it is possible to have a conviction without "faith" and "belief" playing any significant part in that conviction. If you believe that atheism is a "matter of faith" then, with the same logic, you must believe that the fact that there is no invisible smurf god living in your head also is a "matter of faith" and a religious viewpoint. This position is absurd (inconsistent with reason, or logic or common sense) and the fact that it is so has nothing to do with the dictionary.

ANYTHING that is beleived without proof is a matter of faith as per the definition of both words which i provided. your logic has been proven faulty from the beginning, this is not an empty claim, i demonstrated it by posting the definitions from the dictionary showing you to be incorrect by comparing them to your own words, yet you ignore the evidence and continue with the same argument merely rehashed a bit but with the same faulty logic at the core that is unrecoverable.

your claims that my argument is "absurd inconsistent with reason, or logic or common sense" are the claims made from impotence, because your whole argument is based only on your OPINION, while i provide reputable sources for my reasoning. i do not "believe" atheism is a matter of faith, i KNOW it for a demonstrative fact because the evidence shows it to be so. what is laughable to the point of pity is the fact that in the end when it comes right down to it all you can do with the evidence is simply make a pathetic excuse to ignore it by saying it somehow does not matter.

the idea of not using a dictionary to settle a dispute on the meaning of a word and it's usage is what is truly "absurd, inconsistent with reason, or logic or common sense". this type of thinking is produced by going off to school and getting endoctrinated rather than educated.

but you probobly will not change your mind, because you have a dogma that filters out whatever does not fit within it. in short, you are no different than a christian, muslim..etc...etc. you beleive what you beleive regardless of evidence as this argument has so aptly demonstrated.

Originally posted by: GrGr

Lol, which God is it you are talking about? Where's the proof that is Allah exists? Where's the proof that Jahve exists? Where's the proof that Shiva or any of the other Hindu Gods exist? There is no proof whatsoever that these gods (or the little blue smurf god) exists and there never have been any proof. Why is your Christian lack of proof more convincing than the lack of proof provided by the Muslims for example? That has nothing to do with WANT.

i believe in God because i have perceived Him, you disbelieve because you have not. in either case our perception may be faulty. you cannot say there has never been any proof because you honestly do not know, that is mere opinion on your part.

where is your proof there is no God? why is your atheistic lack of proof more convincing than others? you have the same questions to answer everyone else does.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: GrGr

Our argument isn't so much about semantic definiton as it is about logic.

that sounds like a good excuse to basically throw the dictionary out the window when it contradicts your argument.

Originally posted by: GrGr
This discussion started when you said that atheism is a "matter of faith", and as such a religious viewpoint. In support of your view you made the claim that any conviction carries within it faith and belief. I have shown you that it is possible to have a conviction without "faith" and "belief" playing any significant part in that conviction. If you believe that atheism is a "matter of faith" then, with the same logic, you must believe that the fact that there is no invisible smurf god living in your head also is a "matter of faith" and a religious viewpoint. This position is absurd (inconsistent with reason, or logic or common sense) and the fact that it is so has nothing to do with the dictionary.

ANYTHING that is beleived without proof is a matter of faith as per the definition of both words which i provided. your logic has been proven faulty from the beginning, this is not an empty claim, i demonstrated it by posting the definitions from the dictionary showing you to be incorrect by comparing them to your own words, yet you ignore the evidence and continue with the same argument merely rehashed a bit but with the same faulty logic at the core that is unrecoverable.

your claims that my argument is "absurd inconsistent with reason, or logic or common sense" are the claims made from impotence, because your whole argument is based only on your OPINION, while i provide reputable sources for my reasoning. i do not "believe" atheism is a matter of faith, i KNOW it for a demonstrative fact because the evidence shows it to be so. what is laughable to the point of pity is the fact that in the end when it comes right down to it all you can do with the evidence is simply make a pathetic excuse to ignore it by saying it somehow does not matter.

the idea of not using a dictionary to settle a dispute on the meaning of a word and it's usage is what is truly "absurd, inconsistent with reason, or logic or common sense". this type of thinking is produced by going off to schol and getting endoctrinated rather than educated.

but you probobly will not change your mind, because you have a dogma that filters out whatever does not fit within it. in short, you are no different than a christian, muslim..etc...etc. you beleive what you beleive regardless of evidence as this argument has so aptly demonstrated.

Originally posted by: GrGr

Lol, which God is it you are talking about? Where's the proof that is Allah exists? Where's the proof that Jahve exists? Where's the proof that Shiva or any of the other Hindu Gods exist? There is no proof whatsoever that these gods (or the little blue smurf god) exists and there never have been any proof. Why is your Christian lack of proof more convincing than the lack of proof provided by the Muslims for example? That has nothing to do with WANT.

i believe in God because i have perceived Him, you disbelieve because you have not. in either case our perception may be faulty. you cannot say there has never been any proof because you honestly do not know, that is mere opinion on your part.

where is your proof there is no God? why is your atheistic lack of proof more convincing than others? you have the same questions to answer everyone else does.

A ruling was just handed down today that the Commandments and God were not part of the History of the United States;

A federal judge ruled Monday that the way Habersham County displays the Ten Commandments in its courthouse and natatorium is unconstitutional. The commandments must be removed immediately, the judge ruled.

"In his ruling, Judge William O?Kelley of the United States District Court in Gainesville said the inclusion of the commandments in a display with other historical documents ?failed to include any explanation with the documents as to how they all fit together or why they were being presented as a group".

So basically the Magna Carter, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence etc etc all documents that referenced God never happened therefore the Constitution never happened either.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The only civil war I foresee is between the retards and the morons. I'll be glad when they finally fight it out.

i bet your having a serious self conflict as to which side to be on.

I'm with the retards. They are so much friendlier than the morons.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

A ruling was just handed down today that the Commandments and God were not part of the History of the United States;

A federal judge ruled Monday that the way Habersham County displays the Ten Commandments in its courthouse and natatorium is unconstitutional. The commandments must be removed immediately, the judge ruled.

"In his ruling, Judge William O?Kelley of the United States District Court in Gainesville said the inclusion of the commandments in a display with other historical documents ?failed to include any explanation with the documents as to how they all fit together or why they were being presented as a group".

So basically the Magna Carter, Mayflower Compact, Declaration of Independence etc etc all documents that referenced God never happened therefore the Constitution never happened either.

all sorts of revisionism going on these days. it seems we are living in a oligarchy comprised of judges. perhaps revolution is not as remote a possibility as some may think...

 

[PainTrain]

Oh come on, you or your hillbilly flock pick up a gun and just watch the real CHRISTians and the rest of the "infedels" beat your sociopathic @sses to the ground. If worse comes to worse we'll just leave you to starve in your own stupidity.

 

[InstantKarma]

Thankfully this country is moving in the right direction.