XPost: alt.politics, rec.sport.pro-wrestling, alt.atheism   
   XPost: alt.slack   
   From: Jimmy@Crack.corn   
      
   On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:18:05 -0600, "catpandaddy"    
   wrote:   
      
   >   
   >"RT"  wrote in message   
   >news:4B6D012B.F5742E66@hotmMOVEail.com...   
   >> RT wrote:   
   >>> Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head wrote:   
   >>> >   
   >>> > > > > > > > > Nope. Wish them all the best...But I wont tolerate them   
   >>> > > > > > > > > pretending   
   >>> > > > > > > > > their religion is any better or that they have all the   
   >>> > > > > > > > > answers. [It   
   >>> > > > > > > > > isn't and they don't]   
   >>> > >   
   >>> > > > > > > > You just demonstrated that you have no idea what we   
   >>> > > > > > > > believe.   
   >>> > > > > > > > Atheism is not a religion.   
   >>> > > > > > What, Atheist not willing to admit what everyone else already   
   >>> > > > > > knows?!?!?!? [There's a shocker]   
   >>> > >   
   >>> > > > > > > Nor does he understand the purpose of the Establishment   
   >>> > > > > > > Clause.   
   >>> > > > > > No I don't understand your version of it...The one where   
   >>> > > > > > Atheist   
   >>> > > > > > zealots cram their religion down our throats and we're told we   
   >>> > > > > > can't   
   >>> > > > > > celebrate any other religion but that one. [Ever hear of the   
   >>> > > > > > 1st   
   >>> > > > > > Amendment to the Constitution?]   
   >>> > >   
   >>> > > > > Which contains the Establishment cause.   
   >>> > > > Good job. [Now what does that amendment do?]   
   >>> > >   
   >>> > > You're welcome.   
   >>> > >   
   >>> > > > Hint: It's not the establishment of a state religion...Like you   
   >>> > > > want   
   >>> > > > to Atheism to be.   
   >>> > >   
   >>> > >  A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten   
   >>> > > Commandments,   
   >>> > >  purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public   
   >>> > > school   
   >>> > >  classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and   
   >>> > > therefore is   
   >>> > >  unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First   
   >>> > > Amendment.   
   >>> > So as usual the courts side with the religion of Atheism. [Which is   
   >>> > nothing new seeing as how they haven't given a shit about the US   
   >>> > Constitution(on anything) from day one]   
   >>>   
   >>> The courts have properly interpreted the clause to mean no government   
   >>> endorsement   
   >>> of any religion so that there is a level playing field for all. What is   
   >>> your   
   >>> interpretation of the clause ->   
   >>   
   >> Any reason you can't answer? Don't like backing up your mouth?   
   >   
   >Please just let the thread die.   
      
   This Poast MUST STAY on TOP!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)