Originally Posted by foundit66

What delicious ridiculousness.
You admit that you don't understand what the web-site is simply saying, but then you label it as "spin"?

That is the truth of the matter on a LOT of these issues.
You DO NOT KNOW what we are actually saying, but you condemn it anyways without a thought.



Yes. You, a lay-person, understand that clause perfectly and its history (although you have proven that false) better than the lawyers and judges who actually apply the establishment clause.

I bet you know how to build bridges better than engineers and operate better than surgeons too, eh?

<end sarcasm>

You claim to understand the clause "perfectly well", but then admit that a simple explanation as to what the clause means CONFUSES YOU.
Quit with your lying already alias. NOBODY is buying it...

Originally Posted by alias

Yes I do understand the clause better than a lot of judges who understand it but will not uphold it.

Originally Posted by alias

I suppose all those conservatives are just as stupid as me who are hollering to get rid of activist judges who legislate from the bench.

Originally Posted by alias

Yeah, we're all stupid aren't we foundit? According to you, everyone is stupid who disagrees with you. Quit your lying already. NOBODY is buying it.

Originally Posted by alias

That clause says what it says and says what it means. All you gave me was a site with some gobblygook about crap to confuse the issue. You know it, I know it, and everybodyelse knows it.

Originally Posted by foundit66

ROFLMAO!
Alias, you DO NOT UNDERSTAND what our arguments are in the first place, so it's obvious that you DO NOT understand the clause better.

It's like a creationist trying to argue that he doesn't understand what evolution is, but he understands the origins of life better than the evolutionists.

Admitting your incapability to comprehend was your down-fall. You messed up.



1) I believe I had a thread on here about conservative "activist judges".
Do you object to them too?

2) In the end, the claims of "activism" basically boil down to YOU NOT AGREEING with their rulings, which you typically do not comprend, so you blindly label it as "activism" and pretend that it's an argument.



No. Not everyone who disagrees with me is stupid.
I don't label people as stupid when they JUST disagree with me.
In fact, I'ld have to label the "stupid" population on this board as limited to 2 or 3. And it's not just because of "disagreement".

And once again you have proceeded to LIE YOURSELF in claiming I believe something I don't.
And you followed THAT up by predictably claiming that I am guilty of something YOU are routinely guilty of. In fact, you were guilty of it IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.



Alias?
WHAT PRECISELY about that web-site did you not understand?
WHAT PRECISELY did you think was gobblygook?
Be specific.

I'm betting you STILL haven't even read it...

Originally Posted by Tabris

The main problem I see with this Jesus picture is if it doesn't actually show jesus in a religious light (his head, sans-halo), then who cares?

Originally Posted by alias

I understand your arguments perfectly.

Originally Posted by alias

The fact you can't disguise them behind a multitude of meaningless babble and saying I do not understand is laughable.

Originally Posted by alias

The left wants anything religious out of the public view.

Originally Posted by alias

Our constitution forbids that and the only way you can say it does is with a lot of mubo jumbo and then say that anyone who doesn't understand it is stupid. That about sums it up.

Originally Posted by foundit66

WHAT PRECISELY about that web-site did you not understand?
WHAT PRECISELY did you think was gobblygook?
Be specific.

I'm betting you STILL haven't even read it...

Originally Posted by foundit66

Which leaves me with the conclusion that when you inaccurately portray my arguments, you are LYING.
Get it?



And this is code for "alias is about to COMPLETELY IGNORE all Foundit's arguments, but pretend he just argued something".
You claiming my arguments are "meaningless babble" is not a refutation of my points. It's an AVOIDANCE of them.



And you demonstrate more lies.
If anything, we want religion out of the GOVERNMENT.
"Public view"? You can pray in public view all you want. Put your crosses on your church land and home property.

It's the GOVERNMENT we're talking about here. NOT "public view".
It's REALLY disturbing that you don't get that.



So you call my arguments names, COMPLETELY FAIL to show where they are false, and pretend you have proven something.
That's about par for your course...
==============================================


Your failure to respond to these simple questions demonstrates to me alias that you DID NOT read that web-site at all.

Originally Posted by foundit66

Obviously you for one...
And why do you care? Do you care for RELIGIOUS reasons????

It's like a bunch of kids with Cheetos on their fingers insisting that they didn't take the snack. You can't harp on about religious discrimination and then pretend that it's not religious.

It just doesn't make sense!

Originally Posted by Tabris

That meaning of Christmas is what it is now, though. It was made a federal holiday in the first place to recognize Christ, same with Easter, as 99.9% (possibly a slight exaggeration?) celebrated them and were Christians when the country was founded, and for a couple decades after that (and I don't think there were many non-Christian citizens for a while, which is what counts). Only recentlyt has Christmas taken on a more commercial aspect to it, and even then it's mostly in the US. Over in Europe, Christmas is still very low-key and more family-oriented (surprising).

Originally Posted by Jaxian

It was made a federal holiday for the reasons you state, and those were poor reasons which were in clear violation of the First Amendment. I suggested better reasons why Christmas should remain a holiday.



When a school makes an endorsement of a certain religion, that certainly does coerce people to believe that religion. Basic sociology tells us that people try to fit in, and basic psychology tells us that people believe figures of authority, the most perfect example of which is a child in a school.

And even if that isn't happening, having a picture of Christ in your school sort of tells people that this school favors or endorses Christianity. It's a message that Christians will be warmly accepted and Christian values will be promoted, but at the same time, it is a message that non-Christians will not be so warmly accepted, and non-Christian values may not be considered. This is not the message a school should be sending.

So if you're looking at the Constitution, it's illegal. But it's illegal for a good reason. Schools shouldn't be alienating people of different religions, and they shouldn't be declaring favoritism toward one religion. Why put this picture up if not to declare love of Christianity?

It may not be all that important to you, but it's important to those who feel like their school is favoring someone else, and it's important to those parents who don't want their children thinking the school believes in Christianity. So I say just take it down. It's not a huge effort.

Originally Posted by alias

The school is not endorsing a religion unless it clearly states it is.

Originally Posted by alias

A child putting up a picture of Jesus is freely exercising her religious freedom. The government is not allowed to interfere with that according to the first amendment.