Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Paul

hypocrisy - reaction to British bus campaign

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Whoaaaaa Nelly.............

Who was the "communist under the bed" paranoid that hitched the pledge to a fantasy? AND the currency? Was that going to have the "old man on the cloud" bless our bombings of countless Southeast Asians? :lol:

There's not a human being that's ever lived that can possibly KNOW god from a pubic hair, but countless have turned people into blood pudding insisting they do (is that WWJD?)..........and to ADVANCE THEIR POLITICS you can't BEAT DOG wrapped in old glory! Praise be the holy mackerel..........

Read this slowly if you have trouble with English (or hubris). ABSENSE of your DOG, your holy bibicular, your cross (burning and bleeding), the beads of roses, the cortran, the talmush, the holy fadda, the tablets of noses, Ben Hurr, the shroud, the wall of whales, your 72 va-jeens, gobs of lung-chips that look like the virgin Matilda or waltzing Mohammer and all the REST of your cult mechanisms and dual standard bigotries that you selfishly and insidiously move to inflict upon the US government and the taxes it collects and ravenously spends....is not a view forced on others. :angry:

The designed/intended ABSENSE of this dog GODMA from how we conduct our government and how we PAY for it, is PRECISELY why the freedom to worship your favorite flavor of bleeding Jeezee can work for so many diverse people in the USA.

Got a problem with that concept? (yes, I know you may have a problem with "diverse people" but read on)

Consider this reality: All dogcults are rabidly competitive and self-aggrandizing. Most each of them teaches their cashflock that THEIR DOG IS THE TRUE DOG, and all the rest are merely cats bound for general Tso's lunch special. Imagine the egos involved in THAT weekly gathering of souls!!! Woot Woot!! HALLELUJAH!!..........

.........and then imagine those egos during the work week. VOILA!!! YOU GET THE BUSH REGIME!!!! <_<

So as you hawk your DOG swishing for more of OTHER DOG hawkers' TAX MOOLAH (and the tax moolah of those Americans that respect gravity and speed of light because they don't play favorites) to consummate your sacred portfolio.........shove it up your genesis where your savior doesn't shine in the eyes of others, causing holy wars of terrorific heroes. :ninja:

This guys on Paul's side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
No, you're describing a tyranny of the majority. In a Constitutional democracy there are limits on what the majority may do. For example, you right wingers would be the first to remind anyone that the government cannot confiscate your property without a compelling reason. The government can't sentence you to prison without a criminal trial and conviction. The government can't take any action adverse to your personal interests without due process, no matter how many people ask for it.

With this issue, religious expression, the government has no business promoting it and no reason to promote it. As usual, you change the subject to make your point. We're not saying Christian references are inappropriate. We're saying that government promotion of Christianity is inappropriate. The only reason it's happening is, just as you say, Christians are the dominant force in the United States. But that makes our case, not yours. The dominance of Christianity in this culture is all the more reason to guard against intrusions of Christian theology and symbolism by government. None of us needs your disparaging remarks, or your rudeness and ignorance.

You have a choice. You can either respect us as your equals or not. You've made your choice, but I still hope you'll open and then change your mind.

Only a far left loon would equate a Christmas display with tyranny. You don't think that's a little bit of an over-reaction? When the black SUV's come to your house and drag you out, you can rightfully call that tyranny. Baby Jesus in the manger doesn't present that threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftist atheists don't understand majority rule. It makes no sense that a small bunch of wackos (atheists) should feel they have any influence over a Christian country such as the USA. When the new President and new Senators both finish their oaths of office with the words "so help me God", when our currency reads "in God we trust", when our pledge contains the words "one nation under God", it's fair to say the USA is a Christian nation.

Of course far left, Kool-Aid swigging atheists will continue to complain and they'll swear there is no God until on their death-bed they'll pray for forgiveness

(just in case there is a God".)

Christians cannot even agree amongst themselves. I have counted well over one hundred different denominations of Christianity in this country (I am certain there are more) and they argue and they fuss and they split from one another, and they even call each other names and show little respect for the common ground they do have. When are you going to get it? The pledge was written in the 1890s and altered in the 1950s by the Communist fearing government at the time. The original author of the pledge did not include these words so it is no longer the same pledge. IN God We Trust was added to money during the civil war also for political reasons and pressure from religious groups. The motto of the USA is E PLuribus Unum. (from many, one) Much more appropriate for the land of free and the melting pot of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Leftist atheists don't understand majority rule. It makes no sense that a small bunch of wackos (atheists) should feel they have any influence over a Christian country such as the USA. When the new President and new Senators both finish their oaths of office with the words "so help me God", when our currency reads "in God we trust", when our pledge contains the words "one nation under God", it's fair to say the USA is a Christian nation.

Of course far left, Kool-Aid swigging atheists will continue to complain and they'll swear there is no God until on their death-bed they'll pray for forgiveness

(just in case there is a God".)

There was a time when slavery was practiced here too. Just because things are being done a certain way doesn't make it right.

So you have a choice. You can respect my religious beliefs or not. If you do, then you must stop forcing your religion on me. If you don't, then you're a hypocrite and to the extent that the majority forces its beliefs on me under color of law, the law is a farce.

The answer would be very different if there was a reason for religion to be brought into public life (e.g., "under God" in the pledge), but there isn't. These things are being done in the name of us all. I resent it and it's wrong. There's no reason to do it. So cut it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Most respectfully, you’re the ones doing the forcing. You’re forcing your religious beliefs on me and millions of others in the public square, presuming to speak for our religious beliefs through a national pledge that presents itself as speaking for us all when in plain fact it doesn’t; worse than that, you’re presuming that we wish to proclaim the same belief, even though you know we don’t. We want you to stop doing that. Treat us as your equals and treat our religious beliefs with the same respect you want for your own. Don’t represent us to the world as Christians on the grounds that we are Americans. You know very well that the conclusion does not follow from the premise, so I want you to stop. That’s all I’m asking here.

Like many people, I feel very close to the people who went to elementary and junior high and high school with me. Like many places in the United States, my community was mostly Christian, almost exclusively so. At a reunion quite a few years ago, some of the de facto leaders decided they would say a prayer before dinner was served. I wouldn’t have minded if they had said “many of us are Christian and we wish to offer a prayer; we mean no disrespect to people of other religious beliefs or to those who choose not to participate.” But instead, one of the sweetest people I ever met announced that we would be saying a prayer, just sort of assuming that everyone would want to join in.

Kindly don’t presume to speak for me. Don’t disparage my religious beliefs by treating them as less worthy than your own. Let the law reflect that respect for everyone’s religion, not just the religion of the majority. If you think that’s forcing you, I can only say that I don’t see it that way. Maybe you can be more specific about what you think I would force you to do.

I wouldn’t even mind so much if it was just the pledge, but it isn’t just the pledge. Things like that never stop there. They foster an already present attitude of assumption in a culture whose majority, in our case, is Christian. I can’t force the majority to do anything, but I can point out to you why it’s wrong, why it’s disrespectful, why it’s not consistent with our founding principle of equality and how it makes me feel.

I welcome you to continue the discussion. I also invite you to post some kind of identity, even if you just call yourself x. It would be nice to know which “Guest” I’m addressing.

But you'd like to be the one doing the forcing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Christians cannot even agree amongst themselves. I have counted well over one hundred different denominations of Christianity in this country (I am certain there are more) and they argue and they fuss and they split from one another, and they even call each other names and show little respect for the common ground they do have. When are you going to get it? The pledge was written in the 1890s and altered in the 1950s by the Communist fearing government at the time. The original author of the pledge did not include these words so it is no longer the same pledge. IN God We Trust was added to money during the civil war also for political reasons and pressure from religious groups. The motto of the USA is E PLuribus Unum. (from many, one) Much more appropriate for the land of free and the melting pot of the world.

"Much more appropriate"? Christians (80+% population) will decide what's appropriate, you deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
Only a far left loon would equate a Christmas display with tyranny. You don't think that's a little bit of an over-reaction? When the black SUV's come to your house and drag you out, you can rightfully call that tyranny. Baby Jesus in the manger doesn't present that threat.

You think that because you don't understand what tyranny is or how it comes about. Here are the definitions from the Word dictionary:

"1. cruel use of power: cruelty and injustice in the exercise of power or authority over others

2. oppressive government: oppressive government by one or more people who exercise absolute power cruelly and unjustly

3. state ruled by tyrant: a country or state under the power of an oppressive ruler

4. cruel act: a cruel or oppressive act, especially one committed by a person wielding great power."

[Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]

When the majority uses its power to force its religion on the minority, or declare its religion to be superior over all others, that is unjust and oppressive. You're right to point out that it's not cruel, and of course it's not being done by one person. That's why I qualified the term as a tyranny of the majority. On the other hand, religious persecution and favoritism have a long history of cruelty, so while the present practices may not be cruel in themselves, they do make cruelty possible. If you read your own posts honestly and openly, for example, you will see language and thought that is clearly inclined toward cruelty. You do not respect my beliefs. You have made that obvious time after time.

We wish to nip this in the bud and not allow the dominant religion to turn our form of government into an exclusive theocracy in which the "other" can be treated cruelly at the majority's whim. We have already had two presidents named Bush say with complete impunity that an atheist is not a good American. That is disrespectful, bigoted and disgraceful. The American people should have condemned those statements, but virtually no one said a word. It is a form of religious persecution and a step on the road to cruelty. We non-theists are already shut out from public office on the basis of our belief, a reality that is completely at odds with all the principles the country claims to stand for.

That is why we oppose even the slightest assertion of superiority by the culture's dominant religion. Have your church services, do your thing on your time and in all appropriate places; but stop assuming that you have the right to assert any superiority on matters of religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
But you'd like to be the one doing the forcing.

Not true.

But since you think you're an expert on what I would like to do, tell me: what would I like to do that would force my religious beliefs on others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
It is simply called a "winter break" not a Christmas Holiday.

That's a cute spin, but what is the reason for a winter break?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
"Much more appropriate"? Christians (80+% population) will decide what's appropriate, you deal with it.

Not on matters of religion. Those belong to the individual. They are not up for a majority vote or even a super-majority vote. This point has been made to you many times, but you just ignore it. You are being nasty and obnoxious and wilfully ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a cute spin, but what is the reason for a winter break?

It's not MY spin-that is what the district calls it. That makes it all inclusive, whether someone celebrates Hanuukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas, the Winter Solstice or nothing at all. I remember when I went to school in the 1960s and it was called the Christmas holiday and we even sang Christmas songs at our concerts, had Santa Claus and the whole bit-but there was always a few Jewish or Jehovah's Witness kids that were not allowed to participate. That is NOT all inclusive. Although, it did not stop me from celebrating, I always felt sorry for those kids and did not understand why the party couldn't be for them too. Children have a natural sense of compassion for others-they are taught to hate and bully by the opinions of the adults around them. Schools should be a safe haven for children to be--all children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"Much more appropriate"? Christians (80+% population) will decide what's appropriate, you deal with it.

It's more appropriate because "from many, one" speaks for and includes all of us. "Under God" and "in God we trust" do not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
It's not MY spin-that is what the district calls it. That makes it all inclusive, whether someone celebrates Hanuukkah, Kwanzaa, Christmas, the Winter Solstice or nothing at all. I remember when I went to school in the 1960s and it was called the Christmas holiday and we even sang Christmas songs at our concerts, had Santa Claus and the whole bit-but there was always a few Jewish or Jehovah's Witness kids that were not allowed to participate. That is NOT all inclusive. Although, it did not stop me from celebrating, I always felt sorry for those kids and did not understand why the party couldn't be for them too. Children have a natural sense of compassion for others-they are taught to hate and bully by the opinions of the adults around them. Schools should be a safe haven for children to be--all children.

"Winter Break", "Happy Holidays", it's all part of the atheists war on Christmas. I credit Bill O'Reilly with calling attention to the mean-spirited attempts to demean Christmas by these Godless souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
"Much more appropriate"? Christians (80+% population) will decide what's appropriate, you deal with it.

You arrogant, obnoxious jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
It's more appropriate because "from many, one" speaks for and includes all of us. "Under God" and "in God we trust" do not.

You're missing the point, Christians don't want to be included with atheists. You people are creepy, I heard you eat your children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Much more appropriate"? Christians (80+% population) will decide what's appropriate, you deal with it.

You should go read Federalist #10. I'm not sure if you'll enjoy it though. Or comprehend it. The writings of James Madison may be a bit too "loony left" for your liking.

But, like it or not, guarding against the tyranny of the majority, or as Madison termed it, the violence of faction, is one of the most fundamental founding principles of our country. A principle that has been absolutely essential to the greatness and success that our country has achieved. A principle that you not only ignore and disrespect, but vociferously oppose.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=...page=transcript

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're missing the point, Christians don't want to be included with atheists. You people are creepy, I heard you eat your children.

We are all American, like it or not. Anyone who thinks the thoughts you do is beyond creepy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Winter Break", "Happy Holidays", it's all part of the atheists war on Christmas. I credit Bill O'Reilly with calling attention to the mean-spirited attempts to demean Christmas by these Godless souls.

Okay Patriot. I am going to attempt to educate your sorry ass-not that it is possible to do so. Christmas and so many other things in our popular culture have their roots in paganism. The church never thought of Christ's birth as any reason to have a holiday endorsed with it until they realized it could be used to counter act the other celebrations that were occuring at this time period. ie: Winter Soltice, Saturnalia, birth of the Persian god Mithra (who happened to be born of a virgin on Dec 25th-coincidence? Probably not) The church did not even know when Jesus was even born, and the likelihood that he was born in Winter is highly debated (shepherds in the field, Roman Census, etc) Many churches codemned the celebration of Christmas and some religions even outlawed it. Our German settlers brought with them many of their customs and when Queen Victoria married a German in England, Christmas went through a reform and became a holiday associated with family and friends, good food and drink and reminicing about the year. Food was often scarce and neighbors pulled together their feast and drank and danced to keep warm. With the popularity of Christmas and any excuse for a party or holiday we Americans seem to have in our popular culture, the church has used this as a marketing campaign to sell Christianity. I love Christmas and I am a Humanist. Anything that makes us a more giving, compassionate and kinder species is something I can endorse regardless of the origins. Christmas is actually a pagan holiday. The Christian church hijacked it, slapped it's own label on it and now is upset because "ungodly" people have decided to reclaim it. The church is willing to adopt any ideaology if it can be used to further their agenda. Face it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Paul
You should go read Federalist #10. I'm not sure if you'll enjoy it though. Or comprehend it. The writings of James Madison may be a bit too "loony left" for your liking.

But, like it or not, guarding against the tyranny of the majority, or as Madison termed it, the violence of faction, is one of the most fundamental founding principles of our country. A principle that has been absolutely essential to the greatness and success that our country has achieved. A principle that you not only ignore and disrespect, but vociferously oppose.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=...page=transcript

Good pickup, William. Here is one of the best paragraphs:

"By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Patriot
Okay Patriot. I am going to attempt to educate your sorry ass-not that it is possible to do so. Christmas and so many other things in our popular culture have their roots in paganism. The church never thought of Christ's birth as any reason to have a holiday endorsed with it until they realized it could be used to counter act the other celebrations that were occuring at this time period. ie: Winter Soltice, Saturnalia, birth of the Persian god Mithra (who happened to be born of a virgin on Dec 25th-coincidence? Probably not) The church did not even know when Jesus was even born, and the likelihood that he was born in Winter is highly debated (shepherds in the field, Roman Census, etc) Many churches codemned the celebration of Christmas and some religions even outlawed it. Our German settlers brought with them many of their customs and when Queen Victoria married a German in England, Christmas went through a reform and became a holiday associated with family and friends, good food and drink and reminicing about the year. Food was often scarce and neighbors pulled together their feast and drank and danced to keep warm. With the popularity of Christmas and any excuse for a party or holiday we Americans seem to have in our popular culture, the church has used this as a marketing campaign to sell Christianity. I love Christmas and I am a Humanist. Anything that makes us a more giving, compassionate and kinder species is something I can endorse regardless of the origins. Christmas is actually a pagan holiday. The Christian church hijacked it, slapped it's own label on it and now is upset because "ungodly" people have decided to reclaim it. The church is willing to adopt any ideaology if it can be used to further their agenda. Face it.

Hey Paul, thanks for the history lesson, although most of it is inaccurate and you didn't say anything I didn't already know. FYI, Jesus most likely was born in the spring because shepherds guarded their flocks in the spring when their calfs were born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
You're missing the point, Christians don't want to be included with atheists. You people are creepy, I heard you eat your children.

You probably did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
No, what I'm describing is majority rule, a democratic process. Since Christians make up 80+% of the population, it only stands to reason that you will see a lot of various Christian references every day. If you have such a hard time dealing with that, then perhaps a good therapist can help.

We used to have a pledge that 100% of the people could go along with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith
What a coincidence, a secular Humanist just like Paul. And you have that smug "know more than everyone else" attitude, just like Paul. Go figure.

So then, you believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...