Rubio pushes back at contraception rules under health care law

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."
--Thomas Jefferson

OH GOODY!

Now we get to discuss the "Founding Fathers"!

More men who brought women to the table to produce law in governing their lives! How exciting!

I love discussing men who dictate law and consider the "woman" experience in the formation!

I think you are digging a deeper hole but are not bright enough to recognize it.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Merely used the sanctimonious, pious and self-righteous atheist's own words against him, which apparently went over your little uninformed, biased head.

I know what you mean I like using the sanctimonious, pious and self-righteous celibate mens own words against them and theirs. Which apparently goes right over their little uninformed, misogynistic heads. In case you fail to understand, I included you in the above statement.

downhill246 wrote:

Thus, the court concluded, atheism is equivalent to religion for purposes of the First Amendment

Sweetie: "equivalent" to a religion doesn't *make* it a religion. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't declared atheism to be a *religion* as someone with a limited understand of the English language such as yourself might understand, the court simply acknowledged 'atheism' holds equal standing with 'religions' with regard to the First Amendment.

CONTEXT, Honey.

AnnAgain wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical sanctimonious, pious and self-righteous Christian bonehead!
The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.
Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE) who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, he needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God. He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the “Council of Nicaea” and voted the "word of God" into existence.
So sorry to rain on your parade – moron!

Let's see who the real moron is .

"From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation."

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

The four gospels were already defined by Irenaeus as early as 180 AD as revealed in his writings, Against the Heresies,(180 AD)
As far as the other books, in his Festal(Easter)letter of 367 AD, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, first gave the complete list of those books which would become the New Testament canon. These books were confirmed by Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384),in his Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).

"Ignorance is temporary, stupidity is forever."
Anonymous

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sweetie: "equivalent" to a religion doesn't *make* it a religion. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't declared atheism to be a *religion* as someone with a limited understand of the English language such as yourself might understand, the court simply acknowledged 'atheism' holds equal standing with 'religions' with regard to the First Amendment.
CONTEXT, Honey.

Perhaps you should buy shoes and get out into the real world.

Treating atheism as a religion is all that really counts since atheists attack religion using the First Amendment but thought they were free from the same type of scrutiny. The fact that atheism may just be a warped worldview favored by the worst of tyrants is at this moment of little concern.
Yet even ex atheist Psychologist Paul Vitz attaches a religious connotation to atheism when he calls atheism the Faith of the Fatherless. Vitz states, "For every person[atheist] strongly swayed by rational argument, there are countless others more affected by nonrational, psychological factors." The weird thing is other psychologists say the same thing. LOL

Morgana 9 wrote:

<quoted text>
I know what you mean I like using the sanctimonious, pious and self-righteous celibate mens own words against them and theirs. Which apparently goes right over their little uninformed, misogynistic heads. In case you fail to understand, I included you in the above statement.

Of course you did. People have many ways of displaying their insecurities and prejudices and obviously yours is quite apparent.

Morgana 9 wrote:

<quoted text>
OH GOODY!
Now we get to discuss the "Founding Fathers"!
More men who brought women to the table to produce law in governing their lives! How exciting!
I love discussing men who dictate law and consider the "woman" experience in the formation!
I think you are digging a deeper hole but are not bright enough to recognize it.

Apparently atheists thrive on person attacks,it must be the nature of the ugly beast.

As to equality , what would we have done without that icon of atheism, Madalyn Murray O'Hair.She was not the greatest role model for atheism or for women.We know she loathed her father; her son William writes that she once tried to kill his grandfather with a butcher knife. Life Magazine dubbed her "the most hated woman in America."

"My mother was not just Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the atheist leader. She was an evil person who led many to hell. My mother was an evil person ... Not for removing prayer from America’s schools ... No ... She was just evil. She stole huge amounts of money. She misused the trust of people. She cheated children out of their parents’ inheritance. She cheated on her taxes and even stole from her own organizations. She once printed up phony stock certificates on her own printing press to try to take over another atheist publishing company. I could go on but I won’t. All the money my mother made in this manner stayed behind. It did not go with her. "

William O'Hair.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps you should buy shoes and get out into the real world.
Treating atheism as a religion is all that really counts since atheists attack religion using the First Amendment but thought they were free from the same type of scrutiny.

You are rolling around the floor kicking your feet making noise but it has nothing to do with what I said.

I do understand: you are not capable of understanding what the court said, they cannot always write down to the lowest common denominator- i.e., what you are able to understand.

PS: similarly, "atheists" do not use the FA to attack the religion, you will find atheists (as well as (and more often) theists using (courts) the FA to protect their rights, to keep religious bigots such as yourself thrusting your beliefs down their throat.

Happy to see ***ANY*** case of an atheist using the FA to attack religion.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently atheists thrive on person attacks,it must be the nature of the ugly beast.

Funny, as an example of how 'atheists' use "person" attack on Christians... you use William O'Hair's (a Christian 'minister') attack on his mother...

downhill246 wrote:

Yet even ex atheist Psychologist Paul Vitz attaches a religious connotation

He isn't a judge. He is someone with an opinion.

Shug.

PS: There are lots more ex Christians than there are ex atheists...

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny, as an example of how 'atheists' use "person" attack on Christians... you use William O'Hair's (a Christian 'minister') attack on his mother...

I didn't attack you which would be a personal attack. If you believe william O'Hair's claims are fraudulent you have the ability to post info to the contrary.If a writer posts derogatory info in a book about Joseph Stalin ,is that a personal attack or just a person posting the facts concerning a tyrant.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't attack you which would be a personal attack. If you believe william O'Hair's claims are fraudulent you have the ability to post info to the contrary.If a writer posts derogatory info in a book about Joseph Stalin ,is that a personal attack or just a person posting the facts concerning a tyrant.

So you ready to give tax payers there money back from even just Notre Dame now... we are waiting

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
He isn't a judge. He is someone with an opinion.
Shug.
PS: There are lots more ex Christians than there are ex atheists...

Of course there is. In contrast to Christianity, atheism has few adherents to start with and apparently worldwide atheism , other than in the west, is on the decline. Christianity is exploding in China as atheism loses its hold on its citizens. The Pew Forum on Religion said of the 16% of Americans who considered themselves religiously unaffiliated only 1.6% defined themselves as atheists. That would mean roughly five million self professed atheists in the United States. Even worse, a more recent study stated that 20% of those that claimed they were atheists also claimed they believed in God.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's see who the real moron is .
"From these there appears almost no evidence that the council of Nicaea made any pronouncements on which books go in the Bible, with the ambivalent exception of Jerome, or about the destruction of heretical writings, or reincarnation."
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
The four gospels were already defined by Irenaeus as early as 180 AD as revealed in his writings, Against the Heresies,(180 AD)
As far as the other books, in his Festal(Easter)letter of 367 AD, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, first gave the complete list of those books which would become the New Testament canon. These books were confirmed by Pope Damasus (regn. A.D. 366-384),in his Decree of the Council of Rome, The Canon of Scripture (A.D. 382).
"Ignorance is temporary, stupidity is forever."
Anonymous

It is by no means unusual that religious fanatics, like yourself, are seemingly incapable of accepting empirical data established by notable historians – no one disputes the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Trent! There were, literally hundreds of ancient scriptures or books that were left out in the Bible, the Council of Nicaea was instructed by Emperor Constantine to only select the scripture that would help unify and control the, at the time, fractured Roman Empire. The various Church leaders were paid to agree upon a single Canon (Bible) that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence. The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. And so it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God Almighty but Constantine Almighty! Therefore, one can easily and safely conclude that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use!
Some of these lost (or forbidden) books are accessible on the internet but others are, or will be, forever hidden by the Catholic Church.
http://rapture-soon.net/Forbidden_Books.html

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>
So you ready to give tax payers there money back from even just Notre Dame now... we are waiting

According to you, you illegally don't pay taxes, you are wanted by law enforcement,and you engage in illegal sexual activities.
so isn't it a bit hypocritical to purposely screw the government,(no pun intended), brag about it, and take a moral position against others?

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
According to you, you illegally don't pay taxes, you are wanted by law enforcement,and you engage in illegal sexual activities.
so isn't it a bit hypocritical to purposely screw the government,(no pun intended), brag about it, and take a moral position against others?

Just because my life is as it is doesn't mean I can't object on rligous grounds to any federal money going to benefit catholics or christians... remember I'm protected by the first ammendment as well stupid... there is no unless your a hooker/stripper with a warrent clause..... and i'm a devout Satanist and I have legal rights to.. HA HA CATHOLIC

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't attack you which would be a personal attack. If you believe william O'Hair's claims are fraudulent

Why would you think I or anyone else would give "O'Hair"'s claims a second thought?

Putting aside it's O'Hare...

Are you going to make your way back to the topic or are you going to continue tossing red herrings?

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course there is. In contrast to Christianity, atheism has few adherents to start with

Sweetie: most people who are atheists now used to be theists, now that is a fact and I am sure being a theist you don't really give the same weight to facts as do some atheists.

Now it is a fact that - when looking at those who are atheists - the move from theism to atheism is larger than atheism to theism.

So don't confuse yourself by trying to compare apples to oranges.

downhill246 wrote:

<Christianity is exploding in China as atheism loses its hold on its citizens.

No, Sweetie: atheism doesn't have a hold of Chinese citizens or any other citizen. The Chinese **government** has a hold on its citizens, and what the Chinese government is doing is allow practice of *some* but not all religions.

downhill246 wrote:

Even worse, a more recent study stated that 20% of those that claimed they were atheists also claimed they believed in God.

Putting aside you are making things up (such as this "recent survey"), there are millions who say they believe in God but they don't.

So what?