Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Ohio in 2010?

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>How can non-government employees violate the Establishment Clause?

Most incredibly stupid statement of the week.

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude, really? The Church is nothing but men. Mostly pedophile men. Even Jesus is embarrassed. He has spoken to a Catholic in years.

Very good point, Chi Chi. I am sure your relationship with something or someone you so activley disparage and ridicule gives you insight well and above believers. Wow, if only we could be like you and really know the true feelings of Jesus.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>Who are they to prevent a taxpayer or his children from exercising a specifically mentioned Constitutional right?
And again, the ugly double standard applies:
Some public schools and universities are granting Muslim requests for prayer times, prayer rooms and ritual foot baths, prompting a debate on whether Islam is being given preferential treatment over other religions.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-2...

I'm all for it. Isolate the Catholics in special rooms every chance we get. Maybe during biology class. They don't believe in that any way. They can pray and the non-Catholic kids can learn.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>We were talking about inside the US.

That excuses the violence then. As long as Catholics aren't killing Americans, let's just name a drink after their terrorism.

Ghost Writer wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry again, my friend. You used a resource to try and distort what "Fred" posted - catholic membership has increased. And, just as I predicted the source would be put forth as being on solid ground. Yet, it neglected the global implications which firmly supported "Fred"; catholic memebership has increased despite your claim that catholic leadership has eroded the church.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFF FFFFFF!

The numbers are comparable worldwide, both for population growth, and catholicism. I stand by my statements. They're based on facts.

http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/data/topic/m...

http://www.catholic-convert.com/2010/02/22/nu...

woof

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm all for it. Isolate the Catholics in special rooms every chance we get. Maybe during biology class. They don't believe in that any way. They can pray and the non-Catholic kids can learn.

Oops, I have an undergraduate degree in Biology and a graduate degree in Physics; I pray each day.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>How is giving in to the Muzzies not a double standard? And using taxpayer dollars to boot.
And wake up to reality:
Student Suspended For Bringing Bible To School Files Suit
Kenneth Dominguez, 16, Suspended For Bringing Bible To Gateway East High School
According to the suit, in January 2010, a teacher told Dominguez he should not talk about his faith at school because of the "separation of church and state." After Dominguez continued to share his Christian beliefs with other students, he was then ordered not to bring his Bible to school. Two days later, the teacher confiscated his Bible and Dominguez was suspended for two days, according to the suit.
http://www.10news.com/news/27378164/detail.ht...

If he wasn't disrupting the educational process, I would have represented him in that suit (of course, that because we don't have to worry about a loser pays law).

Hey Fred, who represented that kid? The militant atheist ACLU, that's who.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>What does Jesus have to do with terrorists and their actions?

I would think that Jesus would have something to do with the vile things that come out of your mouth.

(The Crusades notwithstanding, of course)

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>Public school fees paid for by students. Taxation by another name. And you know it.
So, an American student in a public school isn't allowed to discuss his faith with other students? That's not the America I grew up in.

Now Fred, its not taxation and you know it. Its not compulsory education in a school that the government is obligated under the State Constitution. Its a college campus that people freely choose to attend, and you know it.

And Fred, if your little tot wishes to discuss Catholicism in school with his buddies he can. But if he's disrupting classes with it, or offending others, he can't. You know the rules.

You just don't like them. And yes, that may not be the America you grew up in. That America didn't abide by the Constitution.

woof

Duke for Mayor wrote:

I guess none of you three noticed that when asked to do so, Fred can't cite any actual instance of an atheist abridging his personal right to practice his religion, even though that's the very claim he made last night. Heck, he's probably doing after mass breakfast at Denny's right now.
hmmmm.
woof

Maybe not Fred or I personally, but I know of others.
There are court cases through out the land. What's your "point" anyway?

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>I don't pray to a rock in the Saudi desert. My God doesn't tell me in a book to kill unbelievers.

No. The prophets of your god (men) tell you to do engage in different mystic rituals. It's the same god.

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
But if he's disrupting classes with it, or offending others, he can't. You know the rules.

I like how you state his position as an assumption of disruption. And just because it was not a disruption does not equal a clash with the Constitution. Do you even think before you type? I am guessing, no. Calm down zealot.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>You say you're a "lawyer." Answer the question.

The answer to your question is it can't. The problem with your question is that it assumed that school officials aren't state actors. Hence, the most stupid post of the week.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>That American most assuredly did abide by the Constitution. It has been shredded in the past 40 years.

Most assuredly Fred, it did not.

You probably didn't agree with Brown v. Board either huh?

woof

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
If what you say is true, then you have spineless administrators. The property ownership issue is irrelevant though.
woof

Thank you for comment. However, the property ownership issue delves to an issue in which I believe we could have a much more interesting debate rather than religion - universal sufferage. The argument over religion, though intense, really is more of a personal preference. I know you and Chi Chi may have taken a side, but the reality is the argument becomes tiresome; we accept something on faith and you do not (or at least you do not in your arguments), and nothing will change either side due to an understanding of what faith is. Let us move forward with something a little more concrete. Referring to my earlier post, the idea that someone who does not pay the bill (taxes) should have the same or equal input as someone who does pay the bill seems unfair from my point of view. And you say? By the way, the IRA was not a catholic organization. It was simply an Irish orgainization intent on breaking from British rule; the fact that most Irish were catholic is immaterial and not relate, as their actions were not done in the name of Catholicism.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>Bigotry again.
Do you realize the Catholic Church accepts the possibility of evolution?

Bigotry? You want the Muslims separated, let's separate the Catholics too. Only seems fair in America.

Derf wrote:

<quoted text>
I like how you state his position as an assumption of disruption. And just because it was not a disruption does not equal a clash with the Constitution. Do you even think before you type? I am guessing, no. Calm down zealot.

Learn how to read. See the word "but"?

woof

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>Northern Ireland was far more about politics than religion. And you know it.

Well, that makes it all ok.

You can't separate the politics from the religion. Look at you.

Fred Gee Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>That American most assuredly did abide by the Constitution. It has been shredded in the past 40 years.

YEAH! The first thing they did wrong was say those blacks had the Constitutional right to marry a white. Or was it the other way around?

DON W SOUTH wrote:

<quoted text> Maybe not Fred or I personally, but I know of others.
There are court cases through out the land. What's your "point" anyway?

My point is that when someone's rights are being abridged in violation of the Establishment Clause, the overwhelming majority of those whose rights are being abridged are not Christian.

woof