I should probably state for the record that the State of Illinois has voted Democratic in every presidential election since I can remember. It is a Pro-Democrat state from one end to the other. There may have been a Republican Governor, but that was probably in response to the corruption in Chicago from the Dailey Clan. I wonder where they get the Republicans from. In my voting Precinct a lot of elected officials run unapposed because a lot of the time no Republican will even bother running for office.
Originally posted by: Corbett
since you are apparently confused, what she said does not have a basis in either fact or law.
If you, or anyone else, can express your viewpoint without resorting to nasty personal attacks or massive derailments of the thread, feel free to speak your mind. Nobody is going to ban you for saying what you think, as long as you don't violate any rules when you do it.
Rainsford
AnandTech P&N Moderator
Sounds like the burder of proof is on you for that one.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Corbett
since you are apparently confused, what she said does not have a basis in either fact or law.
you and her are the ones making the claim.Originally posted by: Corbett
Sounds like the burder of proof is on you for that one.Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Corbett
since you are apparently confused, what she said does not have a basis in either fact or law.
Its a belief. We already know my posting evidence to support it wont change your position whatsoever.
You are confused again. He isn't asking you (or the Rep.) to prove the existence of God. He is asking you to prove that the claims made by her that you were so quick to agree with and claim to be truth actually are.
He is asking you to prove that Atheists want to fight anything related to God. That this man isn't fighting guns in school. That it is dangerous for children to "even know that your (Sherman's) philosophy exists. That he (or any atheist) has deep rooted beliefs in destroying what the state of Illinois was built upon (and even that it was built upon those beliefs).
The problem is that when the Athiest campaigns or protests, is that often it is a campaign against religion? If you bring up religion, with an Anti-Religious-Rant, then you open the door for it to be discussed. It is only fair that all parties be represented for the discussion. In a court this would be considered poison fruit because the Athiest probably brings up the subject. So the subject must be discussed. If you are voted in by a predominently religous constituency, should you not be representing that constituency? People should not be afraid to discuss their religion. Christians have freedom of speech also. I dont want to force religion on anyone. I would not support forced muslim religious training any more than forced Christian religious training. Being a Mormon I have neutral point of view on this, because in the past many Christians persecuted Mormons.
We really need a discussion of Freedom of Speech. It is suppose to protect people's right to practice their relion and express their beliefs or lack thereof. If the Athiest has a right to freedom of speech, so does the Christian and any other religion. Open discussion should be permitted. How can you discuss Social Studies or History without discussing how religion has had an effect on history or culture? Religion is often used as an excuse to persecute other groups. However, religion can also be the source of compassion and giving to feed the poor and protect the fatherless. In the end it is men that do Evil or Good, not religion or phylosophy. Liberals can do just as much evil as the Zealots of Faith.
We really need a discussion of Freedom of Speech. It is suppose to protect people's right to practice their relion and express their beliefs or lack thereof. If the Athiest has a right to freedom of speech, so does the Christian and any other religion. Open discussion should be permitted. How can you discuss Social Studies or History without discussing how religion has had an effect on history or culture? Religion is often used as an excuse to persecute other groups. However, religion can also be the source of compassion and giving to feed the poor and protect the fatherless. In the end it is men that do Evil or Good, not religion or phylosophy. Liberals can do just as much evil as the Zealots of Faith.
I agree with your points from the religious side of the equation. However, your viewpoints from the Atheist side are completely off the mark.
First and foremost, it has been considered to be taboo to even discuss the prospect of being an Atheist in America. The non-religious have been historically (American history) chastised and shunned. They have been made to feel as if they should be ashamed of their lack of beliefs and that they are not entitled to the same basic courtesies that the religious are. They are also made out to be morally bankrupt and have to behave in deceitful ways to gain positions of importance in society.
Don't believe me, do a search and try to find the number of Atheists that have served as President, Senator, Congressman or almost any other public office.
First and foremost, it has been considered to be taboo to even discuss the prospect of being an Atheist in America. The non-religious have been historically (American history) chastised and shunned. They have been made to feel as if they should be ashamed of their lack of beliefs and that they are not entitled to the same basic courtesies that the religious are. They are also made out to be morally bankrupt and have to behave in deceitful ways to gain positions of importance in society.
Don't believe me, do a search and try to find the number of Atheists that have served as President, Senator, Congressman or almost any other public office.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,604
- 17
- 81
Stupid people vote for stupid politicians - or more likely, smart politicians who are good at manipulating stupid people.
And here, for the hell of it, enjoy. Progress.
That works both ways and the atheist wasn't the one acting in an ignorant and unprofessional manner while abusing their position of power.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,574
- 5
- 81
It used to be the case that the pro-religion crowd had school days begin with the teacher leading the classroom in a prayer to God and Jesus. The "Anti-religious" crowd sued over that, and the Supreme Court in 1962 mysteriously agreed that prayer under such circumstances constituted state establishment of religion. Which just goes to show you that the Founding Fathers were anti-religious, communist atheists.
As to those 60-second "moments of silence," we all know that the impetus to get them into the school day was solely a disinterested desire by the right to give students a little respite from their hectic lives. "Prayer?!! What's that?!!!?"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Speculation: RDNA2 + CDNA Architectures thread- Started by uzzi38
- Replies: 5K
-
-
Discussion i7-11700K preliminary results
- Started by GunsMadeAmericaFree
- Replies: 591
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 10K
-
Question 'Ampere'/Next-gen gaming uarch speculation thread
- Started by Ottonomous
- Replies: 5K
Facebook
Twitter