Jump to content

Out Of The Woodwork


Guest Patriot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Patriot

If the secret taping of a school teacher's conversation to his students has done nothing else, it's drawn all the crazies out of the woodwork. The frenzy that's been worked up among these radical left Kool-aid drinkers is nothing short of comical.

These atheists have their panties in a bind because the word "God" was mentioned in a classroom.

Kids today have access to x-rated pornography on their computers and they're exposed to all kind of smut on a daily basis, without a word of objection from the Kool-aid crowd.

But using the word "God" in a classroom !!! That's where they draw the line, they can taste the blood, they want that teacher drawn and quartered.

Welcome to America, folks !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve_C
If the secret taping of a school teacher's conversation to his students has done nothing else, it's drawn all the crazies out of the woodwork. The frenzy that's been worked up among these radical left Kool-aid drinkers is nothing short of comical.

    These atheists have their panties in a bind because  the word "God" was mentioned in a classroom.

    Kids today have access to x-rated pornography on their computers and they're exposed to all kind of smut on a daily basis, without a word of objection from the Kool-aid crowd. 

    But using the word "God" in a classroom !!!  That's where they draw the line, they can taste the blood, they want that teacher drawn and quartered.

    Welcome to America, folks !!

Is that what happened? I don't think so. You had a teacher babbling on about Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, Non-Christians going to hell and that the big bang never happened. Has any of that anything to do with history? Matt recorded the teacher after he was ignored several times when he talked to the principal about what was happening in that class. Class is not a private conversation and students tape lectures all the time... it helps to take notes. Obviously this wasn't the intention, it was to catch his teacher violating the constitution. Atheists don't have a problem with comparative religion classes in school. Learning about other cultures and belief systems is important.

That teacher should at least be suspended. He's a liar and a blow hard.

Try reading the constitution and the bill of rights. I love my country and the freedoms it was foudned on. On of them is freedom FROM religion endorsed by the government.

Welcome to America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the secret taping of a school teacher's conversation to his students has done nothing else, it's drawn all the crazies out of the woodwork. The frenzy that's been worked up among these radical left Kool-aid drinkers is nothing short of comical.

    These atheists have their panties in a bind because  the word "God" was mentioned in a classroom.

    Kids today have access to x-rated pornography on their computers and they're exposed to all kind of smut on a daily basis, without a word of objection from the Kool-aid crowd. 

    But using the word "God" in a classroom !!!  That's where they draw the line, they can taste the blood, they want that teacher drawn and quartered.

    Welcome to America, folks !!

What's comical is the lengths some religious nuts will go to in defending a blatantly illegal action by a teacher, as long as it's done "in God's name." Your town has become a national laughingstock--which has thankfully taken some of the heat of embarrassment off of us poor folks trapped in Cobb County, GA.

You're Michael Richards to our Mel Gibson. Thanks for sharing the disgrace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the secret taping of a school teacher's conversation to his students has done nothing else, it's drawn all the crazies out of the woodwork. The frenzy that's been worked up among these radical left Kool-aid drinkers is nothing short of comical.

    These atheists have their panties in a bind because  the word "God" was mentioned in a classroom.

    Kids today have access to x-rated pornography on their computers and they're exposed to all kind of smut on a daily basis, without a word of objection from the Kool-aid crowd. 

    But using the word "God" in a classroom !!!  That's where they draw the line, they can taste the blood, they want that teacher drawn and quartered.

    Welcome to America, folks !!

Does this mean that all the liberals will now praise Linda Tripp as "COURAGEOUS", or is that title held for Liberal whistleblowers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Steve_C
Does this mean that all the liberals will now praise Linda Tripp as "COURAGEOUS", or is that title held for Liberal whistleblowers?

That was a private conversation. There's a difference. And Monica had committed no crime.

Nice try.

Does this mean the conservatives are going to condemn Bush's illegal wiretapping of American's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Is that what happened? I don't think so. You had a teacher babbling on about Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, Non-Christians going to hell and that the big bang never happened. Has any of that anything to do with history? Matt recorded the teacher after he was ignored several times when he talked to the principal about what was happening in that class. Class is not a private conversation and students tape lectures all the time... it helps to take notes. Obviously this wasn't the intention, it was to catch his teacher violating the constitution. Atheists don't have a problem with comparative religion classes in school. Learning about other cultures and belief systems is important.

That teacher should at least be suspended. He's a liar and a blow hard.

Try reading the constitution and the bill of rights. I love my country and the freedoms it was foudned on. On of them is freedom FROM religion endorsed by the government.

Welcome to America.

So this teacher is the "Government" ?? That's a stretch, even for a radical left Kool-aider. Unless his conversation was endorsed and supported by the Congress of the U.S. it was just a school teacher voicing his opinion.

The constitution which you Kool-aiders love to quote (inaccurately, by the way) protects free speech, even for school teachers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the secret taping of a school teacher's conversation to his students has done nothing else, it's drawn all the crazies out of the woodwork. The frenzy that's been worked up among these radical left Kool-aid drinkers is nothing short of comical.

    These atheists have their panties in a bind because  the word "God" was mentioned in a classroom.

    Kids today have access to x-rated pornography on their computers and they're exposed to all kind of smut on a daily basis, without a word of objection from the Kool-aid crowd. 

    But using the word "God" in a classroom !!!  That's where they draw the line, they can taste the blood, they want that teacher drawn and quartered.

    Welcome to America, folks !!

You use the term Kool-aid drinkers. That is too funny. You realize the reference is to Jonestown right? The cult of religious fanatics? get it? It is ye who drinks the Kool-aid everytime you sip at the communion cup, or take and eat the "body of Christ" as a sacrament. For the good of humanity I hope this generation is the beginning of the end of these cults of religion. There is no hope for any of us if this does not end.

Here is an idea, we could use all the Fundy Christians in the military and sacrifice them in a holy war against Islam and then be rid of both evils. Kool-aid, you are too funny Mr. Patriot. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that what happened? I don't think so. You had a teacher babbling on about Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, Non-Christians going to hell and that the big bang never happened. Has any of that anything to do with history? Matt recorded the teacher after he was ignored several times when he talked to the principal about what was happening in that class. Class is not a private conversation and students tape lectures all the time... it helps to take notes. Obviously this wasn't the intention, it was to catch his teacher violating the constitution. Atheists don't have a problem with comparative religion classes in school. Learning about other cultures and belief systems is important.

That teacher should at least be suspended. He's a liar and a blow hard.

Try reading the constitution and the bill of rights. I love my country and the freedoms it was foudned on. On of them is freedom FROM religion endorsed by the government.

Welcome to America.

Oh Boy STEVE! Where did you get your story from? This story is getting blown out ot proportion every day from people like you. Read the threads from the beginning before you start twisting more facts around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that what happened? I don't think so. You had a teacher babbling on about Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, Non-Christians going to hell and that the big bang never happened. Has any of that anything to do with history? Matt recorded the teacher after he was ignored several times when he talked to the principal about what was happening in that class. Class is not a private conversation and students tape lectures all the time... it helps to take notes. Obviously this wasn't the intention, it was to catch his teacher violating the constitution. Atheists don't have a problem with comparative religion classes in school. Learning about other cultures and belief systems is important.

That teacher should at least be suspended. He's a liar and a blow hard.

Try reading the constitution and the bill of rights. I love my country and the freedoms it was foudned on. On of them is freedom FROM religion endorsed by the government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did you hear or read about Matt being ignored several times when he talked to the principal? I missed that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the secret taping of a school teacher's conversation to his students has done nothing else, it's drawn all the crazies out of the woodwork. The frenzy that's been worked up among these radical left Kool-aid drinkers is nothing short of comical.

    These atheists have their panties in a bind because  the word "God" was mentioned in a classroom.

    Kids today have access to x-rated pornography on their computers and they're exposed to all kind of smut on a daily basis, without a word of objection from the Kool-aid crowd. 

    But using the word "God" in a classroom !!!  That's where they draw the line, they can taste the blood, they want that teacher drawn and quartered.

    Welcome to America, folks !!

There's really no end to your stupidity, ignorance, hypocrisy, and tunnel-vision, is there PatRat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this mean that all the liberals will now praise Linda Tripp as "COURAGEOUS", or is that title held for Liberal whistleblowers?

Tripp taped a private phone conversation without informing the other party, all to the purpose of uncovering a private sexual affair.

The taping here was of a PUBLIC and GOVERNMENT SPONSORED history class in which an obvious and pretty clear constitutional violation was going on (and, frankly, arrogance: the idea that the government has any right to lecture kids or anyone on what religious beliefs they should or shouldn't have is incredibly arrogant).

If you can't see the difference, and how your equivalence is thus false, then you don't really understand some important distinctions between state and private action.

Personally, I think Tripp was personally slimy, but ultimately within the law in her jurisdiction (though it would have been illegal in most jurisdictions, and as far as I know now s even in hers). In the case of taping a class, however, there is little question that it was both legally permissible and perfectly appropriate, especially since the teacher was a public employee and the public has a right to know what and how he does his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this teacher is the "Government"  ??  That's a stretch, even for a  radical left Kool-aider.  Unless his conversation was endorsed and supported by the Congress of the U.S. it was just a school teacher voicing his opinion.

      The constitution which you Kool-aiders love to quote (inaccurately, by the way) protects free speech, even for school teachers.

You like to skip the establishment clause every time don't you.

Yes the teacher works for the city/state government. I think that counts. He is a representative of it. You can talk ABOUT religion all you want in class but you can't endorse one and say others are false. It's discrimination. He can preach all he wants when he's NOT working for the city/state. His freedom of speech rights are not violated in anyway.

Here's a First Amendment refresher.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and later, by a Supreme Court Judge, 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Critics of this interpretation argue that it effectively changes the Constitution in a way never contemplated by the founders. However, this is a controversial and evolving area of jurisprudence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the secret taping of a school teacher's conversation to his students has done nothing else, it's drawn all the crazies out of the woodwork.

You said it. Holy shit have a lot of religious nuts come out of nowhere to defend their hopeless cause. Talk about crazies.

The frenzy that's been worked up among these radical left Kool-aid drinkers is nothing short of comical.

I pity you, if you don't love your country enough to stand up for its highest laws. I pity you for not thinking it's a big deal for a public school history teacher to tell people who does and doesn't "belong in hell."

These atheists have their panties in a bind because  the word "God" was mentioned in a classroom.

If only. You can try to trivialize it all you want, but you know damned well, just as well as I (have you listened to the recordings?), that it was much, much more serious than that. And that's before taking into account his dishonest denial of his own statements to his bosses.

Kids today have access to x-rated pornography on their computers and they're exposed to all kind of smut on a daily basis, without a word of objection from the Kool-aid crowd.

I do believe you're just making this up. On the other end of the spectrum is an extreme that actually has happened...a TV station fined hundreds of thousands of dollars because there was a visible female nipple on-screen for a few seconds. Now that is just ridiculous.

But using the word "God" in a classroom !!!

Not nearly an accurate description of the actual events and you know it, liar.

That's where they draw the line, they can taste the blood, they want that teacher drawn and quartered.

    Welcome to America, folks !!

The law is very clear on this matter. The teacher has violated the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America without regard or remorse, and for that he deserves to be fired at LEAST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this teacher is the "Government"  ??

Paid by the government, works for the government, on the government's time at the time of the actions...

Yes, he was acting as an 'agent' of the government as a public school teacher, which means he is subject to the laws applicable to state-funded employees and institutions. He blatantly violated one of the biggest ones with no remorse at all.

That's a stretch, even for a  radical left Kool-aider.

Not at all--don't speak of things you don't understand. The laws and the Constitution, as well as legal precedents, can be freely researched. Maybe take some time off from lying for Jesus to educate yourself a bit? Maybe a futile request, but I have to try...

Unless his conversation was endorsed and supported by the Congress of the U.S. it was just a school teacher voicing his opinion.

1. He spoke of his dogma as if it was fact: "you belong in hell" is not an opinion.

2. Opinion or not, he still broke the law. The law is quite clear on this matter.

The constitution which you Kool-aiders love to quote (inaccurately, by the way) protects free speech, even for school teachers.

It does not protect all speech--it's so funny that you idiots are still even attempting this argument. A public school teacher telling his students who "belong in hell" is no more protected speech than yelling "fire!" in a crowded public location. The line where free speech ends, like with all other rights, is the line where it infringes on the rights of another. The endorsement of a religion in a public school crosses that line quite clearly. It's in the Constitution, and it's decided court cases in the past. Face it. Public school teachers cannot legally preach to their students. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You use the term Kool-aid drinkers. That is too funny. You realize the reference is to Jonestown right? The cult of religious fanatics? get it? It is ye who drinks the Kool-aid everytime you sip at the communion cup, or take and eat  the "body of Christ" as a sacrament.  For the good of humanity I hope this generation is the beginning of the end of these cults of religion. There is no hope for any of us if this does not end.

Here is an idea, we could use all the Fundy Christians in the military and sacrifice them in a holy war against Islam and then be rid of both evils.  Kool-aid, you are too funny Mr. Patriot. :huh:

I think the Internet, and its ability to widely disseminate information in a way that makes the sheltering/indoctrination of children exponentially more difficult, is going to play a major role in eliminating fundamentalism, if not all religion, eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest a proud american
You like to skip the establishment clause every time don't you.

Yes the teacher works for the city/state government. I think that counts. He is a representative of it. You can talk ABOUT religion all you want in class but you can't endorse one and say others are false. It's discrimination. He can preach all he wants when he's NOT working for the city/state. His freedom of speech rights are not violated in anyway.

Here's a First Amendment refresher.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and later, by a Supreme Court Judge, 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." Critics of this interpretation argue that it effectively changes the Constitution in a way never contemplated by the founders. However, this is a controversial and evolving area of jurisprudence.

You guys who are new to this sight need to understand patriot. He's a nice guy who believes only what he hears on the Fox News and any information he can get from the right. His ilk are very skilled at changing the subject to fit their agenda and if you look the more crazier threads they are always started by either their leader Bush Backer or Patriot himself. I truly love these guys though because they are so out of touch with the real world that when I need a good laugh, I check out their comments. But this is america and they have every right to come on here and make fools of themselves in the name of truth as they know it. So try and cut them some slack if you can. It's hard for them to type and think with their foot in their mouths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys who are new to this sight need to understand patriot. He's a nice guy who  believes only what he hears on the Fox News and any information he can get from the right. His ilk are very skilled at changing the subject to fit their agenda and if you look the more crazier threads they are always started by either their leader Bush Backer or Patriot himself. I truly love these guys though because they are so out of touch with the real world that when I need a good laugh, I check out their comments.  But this is america and they have every right to come on here and make fools of themselves in the name of truth as they know it. So try and cut them some slack if you can. It's hard for them to type and think with their foot in their mouths.

You're right. However, these people have the same right to vote as everyone else. Their opinions are not without consequence to the rest of us.

Obviously, democracy means every eligible citizen gets to vote. Any other way, it's not democracy. But it won't work to our benefit if citizens vote from ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u / Postlude
Paid by the government, works for the government, on the government's time at the time of the actions...

Yes, he was acting as an 'agent' of the government as a public school teacher, which means he is subject to the laws applicable to state-funded employees and institutions. He blatantly violated one of the biggest ones with no remorse at all.

Not at all--don't speak of things you don't understand. The laws and the Constitution, as well as legal precedents, can be freely researched. Maybe take some time off from lying for Jesus to educate yourself a bit? Maybe a futile request, but I have to try...

1. He spoke of his dogma as if it was fact: "you belong in hell" is not an opinion.

2. Opinion or not, he still broke the law. The law is quite clear on this matter.

It does not protect all speech--it's so funny that you idiots are still even attempting this argument. A public school teacher telling his students who "belong in hell" is no more protected speech than yelling "fire!" in a crowded public location. The line where free speech ends, like with all other rights, is the line where it infringes on the rights of another. The endorsement of a religion in a public school crosses that line quite clearly. It's in the Constitution, and it's decided court cases in the past. Face it. Public school teachers cannot legally preach to their students. End of story.

Endorsement, preach, dogma...... they're all your words, not Mr.P's This is the way the BOE will see it. He was not endorsing a religion, he was not preaching. He was having an open discussion with his students on religion. Before the taping began there were questions from the students which Mr.P was responding to. It was a conversation about religion from a historical perspective (it was a history class) and the students knew that (except for one). Atheists can put all the spin they want on this subject, it doesn't change the facts. Now why don't all you God-hating Darwiniacs go find another drum to beat, this party's over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

      The constitution which you Kool-aiders love to quote (inaccurately, by the way) protects free speech, even for school teachers.

What the hell would YOU, who thinks Allah is another word for the God(your thought) Mohammed know about accuracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this teacher is the "Government"  ??  That's a stretch, even for a  radical left Kool-aider.  Unless his conversation was endorsed and supported by the Congress of the U.S. it was just a school teacher voicing his opinion.

      The constitution which you Kool-aiders love to quote (inaccurately, by the way) protects free speech, even for school teachers.

He(She) didn't say federal government you nitwit!

Let's see, the teaher is paid from funds collected through taxes by the town GOVERNMENT, If you'd open your beady little eyes you'd realize that makes him an employee of the GOVERNMENT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

      Kids today have access to x-rated pornography on their computers and they're exposed to all kind of smut on a daily basis, without a word of objection from the Kool-aid crowd. 

    But using the word "God" in a classroom !!!  That's where they draw the line, they can taste the blood, they want that teacher drawn and quartered.

    Welcome to America, folks !!

For once you are right! Kids should be protected from the crap that idiots like you spew out as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Endorsement, preach, dogma...... they're all your words, not Mr.P's  This is the way the BOE will see it.  He was not endorsing a religion, he was not preaching.  He was having an open discussion with his students on religion. Before the taping began there were questions from the students which Mr.P was responding to.  It was a conversation about religion from a historical perspective (it was a history class) and the students knew that (except for one).  Atheists can put all the spin they want on this subject, it doesn't change the facts. Now why don't all you God-hating Darwiniacs go find another drum to beat, this party's over.

"God Hating Darwiniacs"

So, anyone who disagrees with you hates God? How conveniant that must be for you. There nothing like a cozy "Blanket of Justification". It's almost as if you are God's personal representative. My how flattering it is to converse with you. Tell the big guy I said hello, ok? I can only assume from what I have read in your posts that you would have salivated at the chance to have been the first to light the pyre at a witch buring.

I was born and raised a Christian and people like you sir or madam are exactly why I and others like me have left the church. Although you profess to be a Christian and brow beat those with conflicting opinions, You are no more of a Christian than the most hardcore Atheist out there. Still, you wonder why people don't want any religeon at all in public schools? I would contend that it's not the religeon in and of itself, it's because someone like you will pervert for thier own ends. Some of the most wonderful and caring people I've ever met in my life are non religeous people and I will not stand by while someone of your tack fouls the character of the non-religeous with such filth. At worst you are a liar by claiming yourself to be a Christian, at best you are to be pitied for believing this is how a Chirstain should act.

I submit to you sir or madam that it is not because people hate god or religeon in general for that matter, rather it is precisely because of people like you. I didn't leave Christianity, I left the "Church" or more to the point "Organized Religeon" and even more to the point, people just like you.

How can you, as a supposed Christain spew such hate and corrresponding level of intolerance? Meanwhile you expect the rest of us to join in lockstep with you?

No thanks, As I've said before if heaven is full of people like you then I don't want to go. My God will understand that.

I sincerely hope that you, as the Christain that you claim to be can go back and look at your posts and admit to yourself that you are nothing like what a Christain should be. I've been reading your posts all over this site and you should be ashamed of yourself ! Spewing your bile while cloaked in the flag of Christainity.

You wonder why people don't like some Christians and don't want ANY religeon taught in public schools? I invite you to look in the mirror and see for yourself.

You are selfish and ignorant. I welcome your response as I'm sure that it will be colorful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
"God Hating Darwiniacs"

So, anyone who disagrees with you hates God? How conveniant that must be for you. There nothing like a cozy "Blanket of Justification". It's almost as if you are God's personal representative. My how flattering it is to converse with you. Tell the big guy I said hello, ok? I can only assume from what I have read in your posts that you would have salivated at the chance to have been the first to light the pyre at a witch buring.

    I was born and raised a Christian and people like you sir or madam are exactly why I and others like me have left the church. Although you profess to be a Christian and brow beat those with conflicting opinions, You are no more of a Christian than the most hardcore Atheist out there. Still, you wonder why people don't want any religeon at all in public schools? I would contend that it's not the religeon in and of itself, it's because someone like you will pervert for thier own ends. Some of the most wonderful and caring people I've ever met in my life are non religeous people and I will not stand by while someone of your tack fouls the character of the non-religeous with such filth. At worst you are a liar by claiming yourself to be a Christian, at best you are to be pitied for believing this is how a Chirstain should act.

    I submit to you sir or madam that it is not because people hate god or religeon in general for that matter, rather it is precisely because of people like you. I didn't leave Christianity, I left the "Church" or more to the point "Organized Religeon" and even more to the point, people just like you.

    How can you, as a supposed Christain spew such hate and corrresponding level of intolerance? Meanwhile you expect the rest of us to join in lockstep with you?

    No thanks, As I've said before if heaven is full of people like you then I don't want to go. My God will understand that.

    I sincerely hope that you, as the Christain that you claim to be can go back and look at your posts and admit to yourself that you are nothing like what a Christain should be. I've been reading your posts all over this site and you should be ashamed of yourself ! Spewing your bile while cloaked in the flag of Christainity.

  You wonder why people don't like some Christians and don't want ANY religeon taught in public schools? I invite you to look in the mirror and see for yourself.

You are selfish and ignorant. I welcome your response as I'm sure that it will be colorful.

You call me intolerant ??? I'm certainly not seeing a lot of tolerance toward Mr. P from you atheists. Hatred ??? I have no use for pseudo-intellectual radical left Darwiniacs, but I don't hate you.

"Spewing your bile while cloaked in the flag of Christianity" ?? "You are selfish and ignorant" ?? A lot of tolerance there, Mr. Guest

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...