Doesn't this kinda violate the separation between Church and State?

[Capt. Jack Sparrow]

I work in a Federal office building just outside of D.C. that contains all the offices for an entire Federal agency (and nothing else. Not even a cafe.)

Why is it when I walk in and I see the building's daily schedule posted on the T.V. screen... why are there conference rooms reserved for "Bible Study"?

Doesn't this seem to violate the separation of Church and State?

[MMike]

I worked at a place in Bellingham WA and they had bible study at lunch time. That surprised me....

[fubar5]

Probably has to do with how you interpret the meaning of the seperation. If the rooms can be reserved for devil worship as well I think the principle is upheld. There is no one specific doctrine being enforced. Overall though this will be a pretty hairy, but jack sparrow is a hairy guy so I guess it all works out.

[brungeman]

I saw a great bumper sticker that said... something like...

"If religious groups want to get into politics, they should pay taxes!"

[MudGrrl]

OMGF in 5.....4........3.......

[MudGrrl]

btw, Captain Jack, did you see the bit about the DC churches and double parking?

Apparently, people are trying to make it ok for church goers to double park in the district if they are attending church.

[Old Man G Funk]

..and God is mentioned numerous times in our Constriction, Declaration of Independence and currency... who cares?
Check your facts.

The Declaration is NOT a legally binding document.
The Constitution has no mention of "god" except in the date which is written out as "In the year of our Lord" which was common practice back then.
Our currency did not have any mention of god until the Civil War, and even then it was not on all money until many years later.

[Old Man G Funk]

I work in a Federal office building just outside of D.C. that contains all the offices for an entire Federal agency (and nothing else. Not even a cafe.)

Why is it when I walk in and I see the building's daily schedule posted on the T.V. screen... why are there conference rooms reserved for "Bible Study"?

Doesn't this seem to violate the separation of Church and State?
If the conference rooms are available for all groups, religious and non-religious, then I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that a violation of Church and State was taking place. In that case, they are seen as public rooms that are open to all, and a Bible study group just happens to be using them at that specific time.

If there is some sort of preference for the Bible study group over other groups, then there may be a problem. Or, if a government group that works in the building is promoting it or sponsoring it, then there could also be a problem.

[Capt. Jack Sparrow]

btw, Captain Jack, did you see the bit about the DC churches and double parking?

Apparently, people are trying to make it ok for church goers to double park in the district if they are attending church.
MudGrrl, I didn't see that. Once a friend and I got a moving truck stuck in D.C. (we were helping a friend move up from Louisiana) on a one-way street on a Sunday morning because people double-parked in front of a church. We couldn't go straight (and we couldn't go backwards since there was a bunch of cars behind us), so we tried to drive down an alley. Unfortunately, someone parked within a few feet of the alley (illegally), messing up our turning angle... and we ran over the hood of the parked car. It was a freaking nightmare. Cost us tons of money to fix that car. The driver of that car got a ticket for her bad parking job.

What a nightmare. That's why I choose churches in the suburbs.

[Secret Squirrel]

MudGrrl, I didn't see that. Once a friend and I got a moving truck stuck in D.C. (we were helping a friend move up from Louisiana) on a one-way street on a Sunday morning because people double-parked in front of a church. We couldn't go straight (and we couldn't go backwards since there was a bunch of cars behind us), so we tried to drive down an alley. Unfortunately, someone parked within a few feet of the alley (illegally), messing up our turning angle... and we ran over the hood of the parked car. It was a freaking nightmare. Cost us tons of money to fix that car. The driver of that car got a ticket for her bad parking job.

What a nightmare. That's why I choose churches in the suburbs.

You choose churches in the suburbs to run over cars??

Church of Monster Truck Sundays!!! Rock on!:rofl:

[MudGrrl]

yeah... and the suburbs around here aren't exactly poor, so Capt. Jack's squashin' H3s and BMW X5s.

[llkoolkeg]

If the conference rooms are available for all groups, religious and non-religious, then I think you would have a hard time convincing anyone that a violation of Church and State was taking place. In that case, they are seen as public rooms that are open to all, and a Bible study group just happens to be using them at that specific time.

If there is some sort of preference for the Bible study group over other groups, then there may be a problem. Or, if a government group that works in the building is promoting it or sponsoring it, then there could also be a problem.

When you and Cap'n Jack use the term "violate", to what code do you refer? "Separation of church & state" is a constitutional principle based mostly on the establishment and free exercise clauses of the 1st Amendment...not a law.

[Old Man G Funk]

Uhh... not very observent are you?

I said "Constriction" not Constitution.


:rofl:
Not my fault you can't spell.

[RhinofromWA]

The simple existance of a bible study group is not the government imposing one religion on it's masses. Kinda what the whole Seperation of Church and state was created for I beleive. Avoiding a governmently run and imposed religion....all others be damned. Not quite the same having an independant bible study group borrowing a room now is it? :)

I swear.....(i do from time to time ;) lol )

Seperation of church and state, bah! (no, not BAH the member ;) )

[Old Man G Funk]

When you and Cap'n Jack use the term "violate", to what code do you refer? "Separation of church & state" is a constitutional principle based mostly on the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment...not a law.
The Constitution is our basis for law. You can "violate" the First Amendment restriction on mixing church and state. The Supreme Court has enumerated many cases of this in on-going case law examples. The law is shaped by what is written in the Bill of Rights and how that law has been interpreted in the courts.

[Old Man G Funk]

The simple existance of a bible study group is not the government imposing one religion on it's masses. Kinda what the whole Seperation of Church and state was created for I beleive. Avoiding a governmently run and imposed religion....all others be damned. Not quite the same having an independant bible study group borrowing a room now is it? :)

I swear.....(i do from time to time ;) lol )

Seperation of church and state, bah! (no, not BAH the member ;) )
What you are missing is the advocacy. The gov. should technically not advocate for any religion over another or over non-religion. If the gov. is setting up this Bible study in an unfair way over other religions or non-religions, then it runs afoul of the First Amendment.

[Capt. Jack Sparrow]

When you and Cap'n Jack use the term "violate", to what code do you refer? "Separation of church & state" is a constitutional principle based mostly on the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment...not a law.

Good point. What I was getting at in my initial post is that if way back when our forefathers decided to base part of the unique design of our new country on keeping Church and State separate... well, I just find it surprising to see Bible Study in a fed gov building.

My friends and I from high school held our Bible study in friends' homes or at church... we never had it at school nor did we think it was appropriate. Frankly, I wouldn't want the government doing their business in my church, either.

[Old Man G Funk]

Good point. What I was getting at in my initial post is that if way back when our forefathers decided to base part of the unique design of our new country on keeping Church and State separate... well, I just find it surprising to see Bible Study in a fed gov building.

My friends and I from high school held our Bible study in friends' homes or at church... we never had it at school nor did we think it was appropriate. Frankly, I wouldn't want the government doing their business in my church, either.
No, not really a good point. It's a semantic nit pick that neither adds to the point nor detracts from it.

The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people from the Federal Gov. (and state govs through the 14th amendment.) The word "violate" is completely valid in this situation because we may or may not have a case of the gov. violating our rights as citizens.

[RhinofromWA]

What you are missing is the advocacy. The gov. should technically not advocate for any religion over another or over non-religion. If the gov. is setting up this Bible study in an unfair way over other religions or non-religions, then it runs afoul of the First Amendment.Only if you pee sitting down.

j/k! :D

Use of a room for employees (or non employees) to discuss religion is not the same as the government advocating it.

I think the seperation of church and state bit is a little wacked right now anyway. I DON"T EVEN GO TO CHURCH nor do I care to sit in on a discussion group. If the military booted everyone out of the USA that wasn't (pick your religion) or made them second class citizens then that would be a SoCaS issue. If the judge goes "umm sorry you are really not guilty but because you are (pick a religion) I am going to have you make small rocks out of big rocks for 40 years.....SoCaS issue.

In my opinion (not that it is worth much), having a room set aside for employees (or anyone outside of a government employee) to come in and discuss religion (with their personal time) is not a cause for SoCaS.

[Ciaran]

Waaaahhhh.... Some christians are in my building and they arte PRAYING! OMG! Waaahhhh!

:rolleyes: Get over it.

[llkoolkeg]

The Constitution is our basis for law
To be precise, the US Constitution and its amendments establish the basic structure and functions of the federal government. The Constitution grants certain specified rights- constitutional rights- to the American people and places limits on the powers and activities of our federal and state governments.

You can "violate" the First Amendment restriction on mixing church and state.
There is no 1st Amendment restriction on mixing church and state. That is something that the judicial branch has grabbed ahold of and run with.

The Supreme Court has enumerated many cases of this in on-going case law examples.
The Supreme Court has generally ruled in favor of the principle of church/state separation. Is that what you were trying to say?

The law is shaped by what is written in the Bill of Rights and how that law has been interpreted in the courts.
Many things shape our laws and you have correctly identified two of them.

[Secret Squirrel]

Waaaahhhh.... Some christians are in my building and they arte PRAYING! OMG! Waaahhhh!

:rolleyes: Get over it.
Thank you Captain Crusades.....:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You and your mace need to leave! :rofl: :rofl:

[golgiaparatus]

T minus 10 seconds to blast off to Political Forum.

[llkoolkeg]

T minus 10 seconds to blast off to Political Forum.

No lie. I keep forgetting that I'm supposed to rein it in and not argue with people. It might almost be said that I'm...ahem...turning over a new leaf.

[Silver]

See if you can book a conference room for a Koran study session, or a stamp collecting discussion.

If they say no, then there is an issue.

[Jeremy R]

I am so glad that we have so many important religious threads here on RM. I mean this is a MOUNTAIN BIKE messageboard, and you guys that like to debate religion all day long on here are really making a monumental difference on our society!
Keep up the fantastic work!
Especially you guys that like to chicken peck at your keyboard all day long berating a God that you do not even believe in.
There has got to be something a little better to do.
A bike ride perhaps.....

[Capt. Jack Sparrow]

See if you can book a conference room for a Koran study session, or a stamp collecting discussion.

If they say no, then there is an issue.

Hmmm. Yeah, there's just not a religion I feel like bringing into the workplace, so I won't even try, just for fun.

I wonder if the gov't runs out of office space they can just start having meetings in churches? It seems only fair that the gov't should ask/expect that if churchgoers are so bent on having religious meetings in gov't buildings.

[BurlyShirley]

If people would just quite bitching about things so benign as whether or not its legal for people to gather in certain conference rooms, the world would be a much better place.

The only thing I hate more than religious nuts are people who, for no real reason, decide to drum up some controversy for lack of leading an interesting life of their own.

Are they really bothering you? Get a ****ing life hippie.

[Capt. Jack Sparrow]

If people would just quite bitching about things so benign as whether or not its legal for people to gather in certain conference rooms, the world would be a much better place.

The only thing I hate more than religious nuts are people who, for no real reason, decide to drum up some controversy for lack of leading an interesting life of their own.

Are they really bothering you? Get a ****ing life hippie.

No, they don't bother me. I just thought it was interesting, so I pointed out. I didn't say I had a problem with it personally... the point of my post was to ask a group of people whether or not it seemed to go against something I always heard the gov't tried to maintain - separation.

As a Christian, there are tons of things that bother me, and other Christians meeting in a gov't building isn't one of them. I just think it's unusual and pointed it out.

Thanks for your charitable name-calling. Quite an example.

[BurlyShirley]

No, they don't bother me. I just thought it was interesting, so I pointed out. I didn't say I had a problem with it personally... the point of my post was to ask a group of people whether or not it seemed to go against something I always heard the gov't tried to maintain - separation.

As a Christian, there are tons of things that bother me, and other Christians meeting in a gov't building isn't one of them. I just think it's unusual and pointed it out.

Thanks for your charitable name-calling. Quite an example.

Well now you got me all riled up, just to deflate me that fast? :rofl:

Dammit!

[narlus]

..and God is mentioned numerous times in our Constriction, Declaration of Independence and currency... who cares?

ok, i'll bite...what is a 'Constriction'? is that related to the painful malady rush experiences when he's OD'd on viagra?

[Old Man G Funk]

Well, what about the prayer before Congress opens
I disagree with it, but unfortunately for me the courts do not. That does not make it right. Congress has tried to differ the prayers to some extent, however, and also to make the non-sectarian.
or the invocation before an air show on a military base
Should not be allowed, and the AF has been in trouble lately for being overly religious.
or the phrase 'so help me God' when being sworn in...???
Again, I disagree, but the court disagrees with me. The case could be made for this one, however, that it is simply an affirmation of the individual, not the state. So, I would not have to utter that phrase if I were being sworn in.
I think one can reasonably expect a seperation of Church and State, but not an exclusion of religion and state.
That is the only way to have true separation.

[Old Man G Funk]

Only if you pee sitting down.

j/k! :D

Use of a room for employees (or non employees) to discuss religion is not the same as the government advocating it.

I think the seperation of church and state bit is a little wacked right now anyway. I DON"T EVEN GO TO CHURCH nor do I care to sit in on a discussion group. If the military booted everyone out of the USA that wasn't (pick your religion) or made them second class citizens then that would be a SoCaS issue. If the judge goes "umm sorry you are really not guilty but because you are (pick a religion) I am going to have you make small rocks out of big rocks for 40 years.....SoCaS issue.

In my opinion (not that it is worth much), having a room set aside for employees (or anyone outside of a government employee) to come in and discuss religion (with their personal time) is not a cause for SoCaS.
Seeing as how I don't know how the room is used, I can only speak hypothetically.

Having a room set aside to discuss religious issues may be one thing. Having a room set aside to discuss the Bible is something else. That is explicit use of tax payer money to subsidize the furthering of one religion.

[Old Man G Funk]

Waaaahhhh.... Some christians are in my building and they arte PRAYING! OMG! Waaahhhh!

:rolleyes: Get over it.
And I would never advocate telling them they can't pray. Quit trying to change the argument. You're trying to frame the argument as if I'm trying to do away with all prayer. That's the furthest from the truth. I'm trying to make sure that all Americans are free to pray or not pray as they so choose with NO coersion from the gov.

[Old Man G Funk]

To be precise, the US Constitution and its amendments establish the basic structure and functions of the federal government. The Constitution grants certain specified rights- constitutional rights- to the American people and places limits on the powers and activities of our federal and state governments.
Exactly. And one of those limits is the power of the government to coerce us into any particular religion, or any religion at all for that matter.

Edit: Oh, and the Constitution is the highest law of the land.
There is no 1st Amendment restriction on mixing church and state. That is something that the judicial branch has grabbed ahold of and run with.
Wrong. The original intent was to create a wall of separation between church and state as per Jefferson's words. The SCOTUS has simply been trying to uphold that distinction.
The Supreme Court has generally ruled in favor of the principle of church/state separation. Is that what you were trying to say?
The SCOTUS has become more and more in line with the principle of church state separation through the history of our country. To simply assert at any time in this country's history, however, that your right to freedom of religion can not be violated because it is not a law is simply incorrect.
Many things shape our laws and you have correctly identified two of them.
And you seem willing to blindly ignore them. Why? Is it because it satisfies your particular want at this moment? What happens when that turns against you? The only true freedom of religion for all Americans is when one is free to choose or not choose any religion and be completely free from government coersion on the subject.

[Old Man G Funk]

Especially you guys that like to chicken peck at your keyboard all day long berating a God that you do not even believe in.
Far from it. I'm berating those that think they have the right to force me to believe in their god.
There has got to be something a little better to do.
A bike ride perhaps.....
I find it well worth my time to fight against those who would violate the first amendment rights of all.

[LordOpie]

Probably has to do with how you interpret the meaning of the seperation.
"We're still together, but we can have sex with other people."

[Old Man G Funk]

Moral Authority scares some people.. bad.


:p
You imposing YOUR religious morals on me and being allowed to do it by coersion of the state is a scary prospect.

[Old Man G Funk]

..... who cares?
I hear this all too often. So church and state are mixed, who cares? Well, we all should. The founding fathers sure did. They put religious freedom about as high on the priority list as possible, writing it into the very first amendment (as well as a blurb in the actual Constitution itself.) They recognized the dangers to a society that is ruled on religious grounds.

So, why did they write it the way they did? Don't know, but the intent is pretty clearly evident. We can look at their own words, which is where we find Jefferson clearly stating that the purpose of the first amendment is to build a wall of separation between church and state.

[MMike]

I really don't see this as mixing church and state. The Bible study is a hobby, enjoyed by people who happen to work together. This is not part of "policy"...or shouldn't be. But just have bible study at work, isn't really that big of a deal. But I'd rather have boob study.....

[DRB]

Far from it. I'm berating those that think they have the right to force me to believe in their god.



AND who exactly is doing that to you?

As for the orginial question, the information Capt. Jack has provided is too vague to make a determination. However, it is doubtful that a "bible study" in a government building hasn't been vetted by about a 1000 lawyers before a supervisor gave it the okay.

[Old Man G Funk]

AND who exactly is doing that to you?
Anyone who asserts that it is OK for the gov. to sponsor a specific religion.
As for the orginial question, the information Capt. Jack has provided is too vague to make a determination. However, it is doubtful that a "bible study" in a government building hasn't been vetted by about a 1000 lawyers before a supervisor gave it the okay.
Agreed, as I've said a few times before. We don't know enough details.

I would disagree, however, that we can assume this has "been vetted by about 1000 lawyers." It's my experience that the gov. doesn't really worry about making sure things pass legal muster when setting up programs like this. I've been to government science conferences where they have a prayer before lunch. Tell me how that passed through 1000s of lawyers.

[DRB]

Anyone who asserts that it is OK for the gov. to sponsor a specific religion.

Agreed, as I've said a few times before. We don't know enough details.

I would disagree, however, that we can assume this has "been vetted by about 1000 lawyers." It's my experience that the gov. doesn't really worry about making sure things pass legal muster when setting up programs like this. I've been to government science conferences where they have a prayer before lunch. Tell me how that passed through 1000s of lawyers.

Such a drama queen.

[JerseyDave]

There's nothing in the constitution about separation of church and state, it's just a priciple that was seen to be a good one until recently.

[Changleen]

"Until recently, it was generally held that making a decision based on the facts and reality of the situation was a good idea, and making decisions based on pre-supposed untestable assumptions was possibly a little short-sighted."

[DRB]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......

[Changleen]

Article VI: Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The public trust bit is more relevant here.

[Old Man G Funk]

There's nothing in the constitution about separation of church and state, it's just a priciple that was seen to be a good one until recently.
And, as I've already explained, Jefferson enlightened us on what they meant by that when he coined the phrase, "Separation of Church and State." It is not in the Constitution, but it is what was meant.

[Old Man G Funk]

Article VI: Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The public trust bit is more relevant here.
I also like to cite that part of the Constitution. It's what I was referring to earlier.

Of course, we know this doesn't work in practice since no atheist could get elected to any national office right now (and it is doubtful any atheist could get elected to most regional/state offices) but the concept was enshrined in the law.

[BurlyShirley]

So just to sum this all up:

There's actually nothing in the constitution that says you cant pray together in a room in a federal building. STFU already you whiney little vaginas.

[Old Man G Funk]

So just to sum this all up:

There's actually nothing in the constitution that says you cant pray together in a room in a federal building. STFU already you whiney little vaginas.
No, that's not a correct summation. If you can't follow the discussion, perhaps you shouldn't be telling us all to STFU.

[BurlyShirley]

No, that's not a correct summation. If you can't follow the discussion, perhaps you shouldn't be telling us all to STFU.
No, I think that's about right. There's been the usual whining and wanking of Thomas Jefferson and some other crap, but what it really boils down to is that you hate christians and there's nothing you can do about it. Sucks to be you, I guess.

[Old Man G Funk]

No, I think that's about right. There's been the usual whining and wanking of Thomas Jefferson and some other crap, but what it really boils down to is that you hate christians and there's nothing you can do about it. Sucks to be you, I guess.
Burly,
I challenge you to find anywhere on this thread where I have bashed Xtians or Xtianity.

The real summation of this thread is that we don't have enough info to decide whether or not there is a potential church/state separation issue. The other stuff has simply gone into hypotheticals and whether it is possible to actually violate church/state separation. If you are trying to assert that it is not possible, then too bad for you because you are dead wrong. If you think it is good to blur the line of separation, then go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran and then tell me how you like it.

Also, your comment that I hate Xtians has already been dealt with. I challenge you find anywhere on any thread where I say that I hate Xtians. Of course, coming from the guy who said that religion is for people who are too stupid to live without it, your remark is simply retarded.

[BurlyShirley]

Burly,
I challenge you to find anywhere on this thread where I have bashed Xtians or Xtianity.

The real summation of this thread is that we don't have enough info to decide whether or not there is a potential church/state separation issue. The other stuff has simply gone into hypotheticals and whether it is possible to actually violate church/state separation. If you are trying to assert that it is not possible, then too bad for you because you are dead wrong. If you think it is good to blur the line of separation, then go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran and then tell me how you like it.

Also, your comment that I hate Xtians has already been dealt with. I challenge you find anywhere on any thread where I say that I hate Xtians. Of course, coming from the guy who said that religion is for people who are too stupid to live without it, your remark is simply retarded.
:rofl:

[Old Man G Funk]

:rofl:
So, I'll take it that the challenge will not be met?

Next time you try to bash me, make sure you have some ammo, or I'll make you look stupid then too.

[BurlyShirley]

So, I'll take it that the challenge will not be met?

Next time you try to bash me, make sure you have some ammo, or I'll make you look stupid then too.

You ****ing swim off with the bait so easy every day in this b!tch. I cant help myself.:rofl:

[Old Man G Funk]

You ****ing swim off with the bait so easy every day in this b!tch. I cant help myself.:rofl:
I'm not buying the Colbert thing if that's what you mean. In fact, I'm pretty sure no one buys the Colbert thing. So, I treat you like any other debate opponent, whether you are serious or not, because it is impossible to tell. Someone reading this would not be able to tell, and I think it is important to make sure that this issue is dealt with accurately and in good faith. Also, when you make personal attacks on me that neither I nor others realize is in jest, I'm going to defend myself.

[BurlyShirley]

I'm not buying the Colbert thing if that's what you mean. In fact, I'm pretty sure no one buys the Colbert thing. So, I treat you like any other debate opponent, whether you are serious or not, because it is impossible to tell. Someone reading this would not be able to tell, and I think it is important to make sure that this issue is dealt with accurately and in good faith. Also, when you make personal attacks on me that neither I nor others realize is in jest, I'm going to defend myself.

:rolleyes:
Who cares what you buy? You DO in fact attack christianity at every given opportunity, and while Im admittedly very inconsistent about attacking it, I tend to only do it when I have a point to make. Here, as usual, it's the same petty drama you like to stir...
I dont have answer some challenge to tell me your opinion on christians. Its blatantly evident in every post you make. And good for you, but Im going to continue to give you sh!t about it, as that's just the kind of thing I do.
Deal with it, or ignore me. Either way, stop whining like a little girl.

[Old Man G Funk]

:rolleyes:
Who cares what you buy? You DO in fact attack christianity at every given opportunity, and while Im admittedly very inconsistent about attacking it, I tend to only do it when I have a point to make. Here, as usual, it's the same petty drama you like to stir...
And attacking Xtianity is NOT the same as attacking Xtians. But I forgot that you aren't able to comprehend that.
I dont have answer some challenge to tell me your opinion on christians.
Because you can't.
Its blatantly evident in every post you make.
Then it should be easy to show, but you can't.
And good for you, but Im going to continue to give you sh!t about it, as that's just the kind of thing I do.
Deal with it, or ignore me. Either way, stop whining like a little girl.
Whining like a little girl? The only one whining here is you. "Oh, how dare you challenge me on my pathetic little snipings that I can't back up. I'm going to call you names now because that's what little girls throwing temper tantrums do."

[BurlyShirley]

Whining like a little girl? The only one whining here is you. "Oh, how dare you challenge me on my pathetic little snipings that I can't back up. I'm going to call you names now because that's what little girls throwing temper tantrums do."
Where've I whined? I could care less where anyone prays or who calls me what names...

You're the one with you panties in a bunch in EVERY debate. You throw a temper tantrum when someone prays in a freaking conference room. You dont see how ridiculuous you are because you're too upset with christians to care.

[Old Man G Funk]

Oh, and Burly, for the record most of the time you aren't funny.

[Old Man G Funk]

Where've I whined? I could care less where anyone prays or who calls me what names...
Whining about being challenged on your blatantly false accusations.
You're the one with you panties in a bunch in EVERY debate. You throw a temper tantrum when someone prays in a freaking conference room. You dont see how ridiculuous you are because you're too upset with christians to care.
Where have I thrown a temper tantrum? If you could read you would note that I've said multiple times that we don't have enough info to tell whether it is a problem or not. Are you really that deficient in reading comprehension?

[BurlyShirley]

Oh, and Burly, for the record most of the time you aren't funny.
:rofl: Well Im glad thats on record now. Man you sure take yourself too seriously.

I really couldnt care less if some ultraliberal anti christian internet debater thinks Im funny to be honest, but some people do, most importantly ME. So like I said, you can deal with it, ignore me, or stop whining like a little girl any time now.

[BurlyShirley]

Whining about being challenged on your blatantly false accusations.

Where have I thrown a temper tantrum? If you could read you would note that I've said multiple times that we don't have enough info to tell whether it is a problem or not. Are you really that deficient in reading comprehension?

Every post you make is a temper tantrum. I can picture you jumping in the floor and flailing about after every N8 post.

[Old Man G Funk]

:rofl: Well Im glad thats on record now. Man you sure take yourself too seriously.

I really couldnt care less if some ultraliberal anti christian internet debater thinks Im funny to be honest, but some people do, most importantly ME. So like I said, you can deal with it, ignore me, or stop whining like a little girl any time now.
I am dealing with it. I'm showing how you have nothing to back up your base assertions against me.

[BurlyShirley]

Watch this:

You hate Christians.

See? You aint shown me sh!t!

[Old Man G Funk]

Every post you make is a temper tantrum. I can picture you jumping in the floor and flailing about after every N8 post.
Then you don't know me at all. I rarely lose my temper.

Of course, you can't point to any specific thing on this thread where I have bashed Xtians or Xtianity or lost my temper. You also can't find other places where I've bashed Xtians as you assert. So, really you must like making yourself look stupid. But hey, you could make me look stupid. All you have to do is find a post that refutes me. C'mon. It should be easy. I mean, every single one of my posts according to you fits the above categories. So, is it really that difficult for you? It would take 1 minute tops to go back to an earlier post on this thread even and produce it. In fact, it would take less effort to do that than to do all of the explaining away why you haven't done it. So, c'mon. Sh*t or get off the pot.

[Old Man G Funk]

Watch this:

You hate Christians.

See? You aint shown me sh!t!
No, but everyone else knows you are full of it.

Edit: Simply because you don't have the cognitive faculties to realize that you're argument is deficient doesn't mean that everyone is so afflicted.

[BurlyShirley]

Why do you hate them so bad though?

[Old Man G Funk]

Why do you hate them so bad though?
As I've explained, I don't.

Why are you so chicken that you have to lob insults and base accusations at people and then can't back them up?

[fluff]

Sheesh, get a room.

[Old Man G Funk]

Maybe because he's racist...?? a lot of black people are devout christians...

:confused:
N8, feel free to help Burly out with his challenge.

Edit: He needs all the help he can get.

[Old Man G Funk]

You know damn good and well you are scared of christians and their beliefs.
Scared? What do you mean by that?

[Old Man G Funk]

So, Burly, you gonna back up your cowardly accusations?

http://www.chicken-bone.com/images/emblem.jpg

C'mon chicken, we ain't got all day.

<crickets chirping>

Just as I thought.

[Old Man G Funk]

frightened
Let me be more specific.

What is it that I'm supposedly scared of. How do Xtians and their beliefs scare me?

[Old Man G Funk]

I donno... but I guess it's..

Because they actually believe in something.... and are able to dedicate their lives to it.
Bwaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Oh man, that is precious.

OTOH, people should be scared when that sort of thing gets out of hand, unless you like people flying airplanes into our buildings.

[Old Man G Funk]

an amusing red herring... but it wasn't a christian who did that now was it?
Wow, N8. You're trying to use logical terms now?

When belief in something is carried too far, it can and has led to people flying planes into our buildings. I was speaking in generalities, so it need not be a Xtian. Over-zealous Xtians have done some pretty nasty things throughout history as well. I should have made that more clear for you since I know you have trouble with comprehension too.

[DRB]

OMGF has in fact gotten his panties in a bunch about a Bible Study in a government conference room. Dragging up the first amendment and tripping all over Article 6 (which unless Capt. Jack was getting forced into the Bible study as a part of her Government Employement isn't even relavant) and drug Thomas Jefferson and what he believed up is pretty good proof of that.

A bible study in a conference room isn't causing a constitutional crisis. And I'm pretty sure that good 'ole Thomas could have cared less if folks got together and talked about the Bible on their own time even if it was on government property.

[Old Man G Funk]

OMGF has in fact gotten his panties in a bunch about a Bible Study in a government conference room. Dragging up the first amendment and tripping all over Article 6 (which unless Capt. Jack was getting forced into the Bible study as a part of her Government Employement isn't even relavant) and drug Thomas Jefferson and what he believed up is pretty good proof of that.

A bible study in a conference room isn't causing a constitutional crisis. And I'm pretty sure that good 'ole Thomas could have cared less if folks got together and talked about the Bible on their own time even if it was on government property.
You have even admitted yourself that we don't have enough info to really decide or not on the issue. Are you backing off of that?

Also, I have said multiple times that we don't know for sure since we don't have all the info. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

Also, I dragged TJ into it to answer a separate question that was unrelated to this specific instance.

So, will you go down the same road as N8 and Burly and continue?

[DRB]

You have even admitted yourself that we don't have enough info to really decide or not on the issue. Are you backing off of that?

Also, I have said multiple times that we don't know for sure since we don't have all the info. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

Also, I dragged TJ into it to answer a separate question that was unrelated to this specific instance.

So, will you go down the same road as N8 and Burly and continue?

You are as bad as they are, you just take more words to do it.

[Secret Squirrel]

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.....

This seems very apt right now....

[DRB]

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.....

This seems very apt right now....

Yeah it is pretty much a waste of time discussing this topic here.

[Silver]

A bible study in a conference room isn't causing a constitutional crisis. And I'm pretty sure that good 'ole Thomas could have cared less if folks got together and talked about the Bible on their own time even if it was on government property.

We don't know that. Like I mentioned upthread, without knowing if those conference rooms are available at lunch for anyone to book for a meeting not related to work, it's hard to say. If they are wide open, no problem. If only the God Squad gets to book them, then there is an issue.

Basically, we need more info before jumping to conclusions.

[DRB]

We don't know that. Like I mentioned upthread, without knowing if those conference rooms are available at lunch for anyone to book for a meeting not related to work, it's hard to say. If they are wide open, no problem. If only the God Squad gets to book them, then there is an issue.

Basically, we need more info before jumping to conclusions.

So then someone delete this thread or get more info.

[Silver]

So then someone delete this thread or get more info.

Oh no, keep giving OMGF hell for falling off the port side of the boat while you're falling off the starboard side. I'm enjoying it...

[BurlyShirley]

Silver hates christians too.

[Old Man G Funk]

Lots of stuff happend way back when... unfortunately I live now and christains are not the ones killing masses of their own populations.

I personally don't believe in christianity, but I am an afraid of the beliefs of those that do.
Why is that? What are you afraid of?

[Old Man G Funk]

You are as bad as they are, you just take more words to do it.
How am I as bad? Did I make personal attacks? Have I leveled accusations that I can't back up? You have. Have you backed them up? No. So, don't try to say that I'm as bad as N8, Burly, or even you.

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah it is pretty much a waste of time discussing this topic here.
Why is it a waste? I have to admit that it does seem wasteful for me to try and discuss this with a couple of people who would rather throw insults at me than actually hold an honest discussion, but I do it anyway. If anyone should be lamenting wasted time, it should be me.

[Old Man G Funk]

We don't know that. Like I mentioned upthread, without knowing if those conference rooms are available at lunch for anyone to book for a meeting not related to work, it's hard to say. If they are wide open, no problem. If only the God Squad gets to book them, then there is an issue.

Basically, we need more info before jumping to conclusions.
Exactly, and the only ones that have jumped to conclusions so far have been N8, Burly, and the like. I thank you Silver for saying exactly what I've been trying to tell them for how many posts?

[BurlyShirley]

Ive actually been quite entertained at wasting your time, and wondering why you bother to respond. I mean, you hate christians, yeah, but do you hate them so bad as to let it ruin your whole day? Looks like it.

[Old Man G Funk]

Oh no, keep giving OMGF hell for falling off the port side of the boat while you're falling off the starboard side. I'm enjoying it...
Except I haven't fallen off any side. I've completely agreed with what you said above and said so many times in this thread. I've also defended every single accusation thrown at me, while those who accuse have not been able to back up a single thing. From where I'm sitting, I'm completely on the boat.

[Old Man G Funk]

Ive actually been quite entertained at wasting your time, and wondering why you bother to respond. I mean, you hate christians, yeah, but do you hate them so bad as to let it ruin your whole day? Looks like it.
Making you look stupid is fun for me. So, no ruin of my day.

Are you going to back up your assertions coward?

[BurlyShirley]

Making you look stupid is fun for me. So, no ruin of my day.

Are you going to back up your assertions coward?

LMAO:rofl: You back up my assertions with every reply you make, fvcktard.

[BurlyShirley]

..and lighten up, Francis.

[DRB]

Except I haven't fallen off any side. I've completely agreed with what you said above and said so many times in this thread. I've also defended every single accusation thrown at me, while those who accuse have not been able to back up a single thing. From where I'm sitting, I'm completely on the boat.

Of course you are. You are always right. I bet you know the truth with a capital T don't you.

[Old Man G Funk]

LMAO:rofl: You back up my assertions with every reply you make, fvcktard.
Your assertion that I hate Xtians? Hardly. Considering that we haven't even been talking about Xtians.

Oh, do you think I hate you? Are you a Xtian? I don't even know you, so I would hardly say that I hate you for one. For two, you're not worth it. You're just a coward who can only lob insults when you can't come up with a cogent response. C'mon coward. Prove me wrong. You act like it's so easy. What are you afraid of? Put me in my place.

[Old Man G Funk]

Of course you are. You are always right. I bet you know the truth with a capital T don't you.
All you are trying to do is insult me, but all you have to do is back up your assertions and I'll be a man and own up to whatever mistake I've made. If only you, N8, and Burly could be so honest.

[BurlyShirley]

Your assertion that I hate Xtians? Hardly. Considering that we haven't even been talking about Xtians.

Oh, do you think I hate you? Are you a Xtian? I don't even know you, so I would hardly say that I hate you for one. For two, you're not worth it. You're just a coward who can only lob insults when you can't come up with a cogent response. C'mon coward. Prove me wrong. You act like it's so easy. What are you afraid of? Put me in my place.

I think you're doing a fine job by yourself, bud. Are you frothing at this very moment?

[Old Man G Funk]

I think you're doing a fine job by yourself, bud. Are you frothing at this very moment?
Nope. I'm laughing at your cowardly acts.

[BurlyShirley]

Nope. I'm laughing at your cowardly acts.

Hating christians is cowardly.

[DRB]

All you are trying to do is insult me, but all you have to do is back up your assertions and I'll be a man and own up to whatever mistake I've made. If only you, N8, and Burly could be so honest.

Show me where I insulted you.

[Old Man G Funk]

Hating christians is cowardly.
Oh yeah, how is that?

[BurlyShirley]

Oh yeah, how is that?
Do you openly hate them in public, or just over the intarnet?

[Old Man G Funk]

Show me where I insulted you.
Post #89 was insulting for your abuse of my argument, but I won't even count that.

Post #92 was definitely an insult. Also post #110 was meant as an insult.

[Old Man G Funk]

Do you openly hate them in public, or just over the intarnet?
Considering that you can't even find one shred of evidence that I hate Xtians over the internet, then I would say that your question is a false dichotomy.

C'mon coward. Stop resorting to logical fallacy. Back up your arguments. I'm right here. Make me shut my big mouth. It should be so easy to do if what you say is correct. So, how about it?

http://images-jp.amazon.com/images/P/0064451801.09.MZZZZZZZ

[BurlyShirley]

your question is a false dichotomy.


coward.

[Old Man G Funk]

coward.
Burly, I was wrong about one thing. You are funny. Just not in the way that you intend.

So, you are going to resort to the rubber/glue retort. That is so third grade. Should I retort with "Na na na na na na?"

[MudGrrl]

Hating christians is cowardly.

He doesn't hate Christians,
he does have issues with Zoroastrians.



and Scientologists.

[Secret Squirrel]

Burly, I was wrong about one thing. You are funny. Just not in the way that you intend.

So, you are going to resort to the rubber/glue retort. That is so third grade. Should I retort with "Na na na na na na?"
"She's got the look!"

[DRB]

Post #89 was insulting for your abuse of my argument, but I won't even count that.

Post #92 was definitely an insult. Also post #110 was meant as an insult.

Nope none of those are insults. So where did I insult you?

[BurlyShirley]

Should I retort with "Na na na na na na?"

It'd be about as effective as your usual debating skills.

[Old Man G Funk]

It'd be about as effective as your usual debating skills.
As opposed to yours? Cowardly assertion with no data to back it up?

[Old Man G Funk]

Nope none of those are insults. So where did I insult you?
Care to explain why I shouldn't take those as insults?

[DRB]

Care to explain why I shouldn't take those as insults?

Care to explain why you should?

[Old Man G Funk]

Care to explain why you should?
Sure.

You are as bad as they are, you just take more words to do it.
Comparing me to N8 and Burly should be considered an insult in this instance. They are using infantile tactics to smear me while I am defending myself.
Of course you are. You are always right. I bet you know the truth with a capital T don't you.
Patronization is generally always seen as an insult.

[DRB]

Sure.


Comparing me to N8 and Burly should be considered an insult in this instance. They are using infantile tactics to smear me while I am defending myself.

I like N8 and Burly so comparing you to them is not an insult.

Patronization is generally always seen as an insult.

How do you know I'm patronizing you? Are you psychic?

As for patronization, if someone was to partonize some group, I could view that as an insult to that group?

[Old Man G Funk]

I like N8 and Burly so comparing you to them is not an insult.



How do you know I'm patronizing you? Are you psychic?

As for patronization, if someone was to partonize some group, I could view that as an insult to that group?
It's not about personal like or dislike. They might be great guys off the internets, but that's not what you did. You compared me to them and their argumentation style. You insulted my intelligence and my person with the comparison. If that was not your intent, then I will take no offense.

As for patronizing me, first I don't mean it as "to be a patron." Second, does it really take a psychic to discern your meaning? C'mon.

[BurlyShirley]

Second, does it really take a psychic to discern your meaning? C'mon.
So you see then why my inferring that you hate christians is completely valid.:rofl:

[DRB]

It's not about personal like or dislike. They might be great guys off the internets, but that's not what you did. You compared me to them and their argumentation style. You insulted my intelligence and my person with the comparison. If that was not your intent, then I will take no offense.

Any insult you took from that is due to your interpretation of my statement.

As for patronizing me, first I don't mean it as "to be a patron." Second, does it really take a psychic to discern your meaning? C'mon.

So its possible to discern implicit meaning from posts without being psychic?

And back to the important question you didn't answer:

If someone was to partonize some group, I could view that as an insult to that group?

[Old Man G Funk]

So you see then why my inferring that you hate christians is completely valid.:rofl:
No, because you can't even point to a single statement that backs your claim. Coward.

[Old Man G Funk]

Any insult you took from that is due to your interpretation of my statement.

So its possible to discern implicit meaning from posts without being psychic?

And back to the important question you didn't answer:
I did answer that question. I figured you were trying to be funny and using the definition of patronize as in to be a patron. Yes, generally when you patronize someone it is meant to be insulting.

As for not being psychic, I do have reading comprehension skills. What you said was meant to be insulting and the fact that you deny it now does not look good for you. Be a man. Admit it.

I also see that you are resorting to the, "I said what I said and it's your problem if you took offense to it," tack in regards to the first. I said point blank that you just had to tell me that I was mistaken, and you did not do that. Why not?

[DRB]

I did answer that question. I figured you were trying to be funny and using the definition of patronize as in to be a patron. Yes, generally when you patronize someone it is meant to be insulting.

I find your use of Xtians patronizing.

As for not being psychic, I do have reading comprehension skills. What you said was meant to be insulting and the fact that you deny it now does not look good for you. Be a man. Admit it.

I also see that you are resorting to the, "I said what I said and it's your problem if you took offense to it," tack in regards to the first. I said point blank that you just had to tell me that I was mistaken, and you did not do that. Why not?

Any insult you took from that is due to your interpretation of my statement.

Lots of what you say is meant to be insulting to Christians and the fact that you deny it now does not look good for you. Be a man. Admit it.

[Old Man G Funk]

I find your use of Xtians patronizing.
How so? If it is indeed insulting, then I will stop using it. I've had other Christians tell me that they don't mind, but if you don't like it, I won't use it.
Any insult you took from that is due to your interpretation of my statement.

Lots of what you say is meant to be insulting to Christians and the fact that you deny it now does not look good for you. Be a man. Admit it.
Example?

[formermtboarder]

I think what he was orginally getting at overall is Theocracy=Death

The problems associated with a national religion or lack there of is the issue here. As to forcing religion, we have a president who comes from a born-again group that comes and knocks on your door. There is obvious bias in our government towards christians and christians. Who are they to say whos right and whos wrong. Fanatics ruin the world. Look at israel that was attacked by lebanon today, and surly they will have some strike back. The cause is religious dissent in the middle east, ALWAYS. Everyone's looking for a scapegoat, the blame lies on the emphasis in one belief. Im not religious, but I believe that religion, like anything else, should be taken in moderation and on a sane level. My gf is a jew and is over in Israel and I worry eevryday because of their damn zionist group taht sends them over there to spend 6 weeks in a warzone (basically).

Im confused and pissed off and generally distraught because she called me this morning bc of this incident in tears. What I hate is bull**** liek this that happens.

Religion in moderation, religion out of the government.

[narlus]

and flailing about.

did justsomeguy ever trademark that phrase? because if he did, he could swap out his 911 for an enzo soon.

[Changleen]

I think what he was orginally getting at overall is Theocracy=Death

The problems associated with a national religion or lack there of is the issue here. As to forcing religion, we have a president who comes from a born-again group that comes and knocks on your door. There is obvious bias in our government towards christians and christians. Who are they to say whos right and whos wrong. Fanatics ruin the world. Look at israel that was attacked by lebanon today, and surly they will have some strike back. The cause is religious dissent in the middle east, ALWAYS. Everyone's looking for a scapegoat, the blame lies on the emphasis in one belief. Im not religious, but I believe that religion, like anything else, should be taken in moderation and on a sane level. My gf is a jew and is over in Israel and I worry eevryday because of their damn zionist group taht sends them over there to spend 6 weeks in a warzone (basically).

Im confused and pissed off and generally distraught because she called me this morning bc of this incident in tears. What I hate is bull**** liek this that happens.

Religion in moderation, religion out of the government.
Sounds about right.

[Upgr8r]

This started out as an interesting discussion, but the p*ssing match is too much for me

[JerseyDave]

If it's what he meant, they why didn't he write it. Religion is woven thru our Gov. since the begining.

[DirtyDog]

Waaaahhhh.... Some christians are in my building and they arte PRAYING! OMG! Waaahhhh!

:rolleyes: Get over it.

That's the most articulate argument I have ever seen in this forum. Well done. Don't you have a sword to sharpen or something?

[noname]

OMGF. Dude, this thing really pisses me off "Xtians". 1) I think it is disrespectful, 2) Every time I see it I think of Scientology, TomKat, and Xenu the alien, it totally derails my train of thought.
As far as burly, N8 and DRB, I believe they bring up a valid point, your behaviour and stance on issues concerning Christianity coupled with the zeal you exibit while debating said topic imply a generally anti Christian position. Not to be confused with the missionary position.
While you may not blatantly attack Christians or their mythology, you seem to take a consistently antagonistic approach to them. Juxtapose that with your position on issues like chocolate chip pancakes your dislike of Christians becomes obvious.

[DirtyDog]

OMGF. Dude, this thing really pisses me off "Xtians". 1) I think it is disrespectful, 2) Every time I see it I think of Scientology, TomKat, and Xenu the alien, it totally derails my train of thought.
As far as burly, N8 and DRB, I believe they bring up a valid point, your behaviour and stance on issues concerning Christianity coupled with the zeal you exibit while debating said topic imply a generally anti Christian position. Not to be confused with the missionary position.
While you may not blatantly attack Christians or their mythology, you seem to take a consistently antagonistic approach to them. Juxtapose that with your position on issues like chocolate chip pancakes your dislike of Christians becomes obvious.

I think religion will be straw that breaks humanities back. Christianity is a right behind Islam in terms of encouraging the self centered, intolerant behavior that imperils global society. You need it said any clearer than that?

[noname]

I think religion will be straw that breaks humanities back. Christianity is a right behind Islam in terms of encouraging the self centered, intolerant behavior that imperils global society. You need it said any clearer than that?
like communism, sociallism etc........
People will latch onto a belief structure of one sort or another. Believe it or not I actually believe that religion has far less pull on global society now than it did one hundred years ago. It seems to have more sway now partly because we have instant news coverage and partly because a majority of the conflicts people are engaged in seem to have a religious component to at least one side. Odd how that currently seems to be Islam.
As far as being self centered, selfishness has it's virtues. Even people who boast of being altruistic due it to make themselves feel good.
True altruism is antagonist to the natural state of things, but go ahead, be altruistic and send me all your money, cause you know I need it and all............:rolleyes:

[Old Man G Funk]

OMGF. Dude, this thing really pisses me off "Xtians". 1) I think it is disrespectful, 2) Every time I see it I think of Scientology, TomKat, and Xenu the alien, it totally derails my train of thought.
As far as burly, N8 and DRB, I believe they bring up a valid point, your behaviour and stance on issues concerning Christianity coupled with the zeal you exibit while debating said topic imply a generally anti Christian position. Not to be confused with the missionary position.
While you may not blatantly attack Christians or their mythology, you seem to take a consistently antagonistic approach to them. Juxtapose that with your position on issues like chocolate chip pancakes your dislike of Christians becomes obvious.
I always have seen "Xtians" on the internets used as a shorthand notation. I'm not sure why it is disrespectful, it is simply an abbreviation.

Now, please don't go down the road that those others have. Don't equate anti-Christianity with anti-Christians. I am anti-Christianity. I dislike the faith. If I liked it, I would be a follower, would I not? Instead, I see many things wrong with it, and for that I will not apologize. That is quite a different thing, however, from being anti-Christian. Attacking a belief system is not the same thing as attacking the person.

[Changleen]

The fact is that belief in a concept such as christianity is a delusion on the part of the believer. Delusions never result in positive results.

[fluff]

The fact is that belief in a concept such as christianity is a delusion on the part of the believer. Delusions never result in positive results.
Why?

Whilst I know where you are coming from (and I myself think that belief in God is irrational), if you are saying that belief in something that you have no concrete evidence for is delusional then we are all in trouble. We take many things on faith because we think we see evidence of them, but we actually see what we are told is evidence of them.

[DRB]

Attacking a belief system is not the same thing as attacking the person.

You're not stupid but what you believe in is stupid. :rolleyes:

[Old Man G Funk]

You're not stupid but what you believe in is stupid. :rolleyes:
Not what I said. Nice strawman.

[DRB]

Not what I said. Nice strawman.

Sure it is. I'd say that most Christians would find it hard to separate criticism of their faith as not being criticism of them.

Now I'm sure you can make yourself feel good by saying that's their problem and not yours but it doesn't change the fact.

[Old Man G Funk]

Sure it is. I'd say that most Christians would find it hard to separate criticism of their faith as not being criticism of them.

Now I'm sure you can make yourself feel good by saying that's their problem and not yours but it doesn't change the fact.
So, you admit that it isn't a logical error on my part, but on theirs. Yet, somehow it is still my fault. Nice one.

Edit: I.E. you admit that you just made a strawman, but blame me anyway.

[DRB]

So, you admit that it isn't a logical error on my part, but on theirs. Yet, somehow it is still my fault. Nice one.

Edit: I.E. you admit that you just made a strawman, but blame me anyway.

I thought you said that you had reading comprehension skills? I guess not.

No I think that you hold Christianity and those that believe in it in general contempt. You'll say you can separate the two but Christians will say that you can't.

[Old Man G Funk]

I thought you said that you had reading comprehension skills? I guess not.

No I think that you hold Christianity and those that believe in it in general contempt. You'll say you can separate the two but Christians will say that you can't.
So, Christians designate what I am able to do?

Actually, what you said was that Christians would find it hard to separate criticism of their religion from criticism of themselves. That does not mean that the two are equal, however. The problem isn't so much reading comprehension as unclear writing it seems. If you meant that it does make the two equal, then you should have said that. Of course, then I would simply say that you are wrong, unless you could prove to me that Chrisianity = Christian.

[moff_quigley]

OMGF, your argument (I hate Xtianity not Xtians) is the same that Christians use in regards to homosexuals. "Homosexuality is wrong and a sin. I hate sin, but I don't hate homosexual people." Is it not? Homosexuals say you can't seperate the two. (homosexuality and being homosexual)

Whether the person/people in question really are Christian or not can be up for debate. Christianity is more than a belief system it is something that one "becomes." So I can see why people say you can't seperate the two.

ps. I know homosexuality is not a belief system, but you get the idea right?

[fluff]

OMGF, your argument (I hate Xtianity not Xtians) is the same that Christians use in regards to homosexuals. "Homosexuality is wrong and a sin. I hate sin, but I don't hate homosexual people." Is it not? Homosexuals say you can't seperate the two. (homosexuality and being homosexual)

Whether the person/people in question really are Christian or not can be up for debate. Christianity is more than a belief system it is something that one "becomes." So I can see why people say you can't seperate the two.

ps. I know homosexuality is not a belief system, but you get the idea right?
Unless you see Christians as victims of Christianity also?

[Old Man G Funk]

OMGF, your argument (I hate Xtianity not Xtians) is the same that Christians use in regards to homosexuals. "Homosexuality is wrong and a sin. I hate sin, but I don't hate homosexual people." Is it not? Homosexuals say you can't seperate the two. (homosexuality and being homosexual)

Whether the person/people in question really are Christian or not can be up for debate. Christianity is more than a belief system it is something that one "becomes." So I can see why people say you can't seperate the two.

ps. I know homosexuality is not a belief system, but you get the idea right?
No, it's not the same. Homosexuality is better compared to ones eye color than the beliefs one holds. The Christian, in contrast, is not born as a Christian, but makes a positive decision to believe in the Christian view.

Should we use examples? I find them easier to deal with.

Example: I dislike Christianity because I dislike the god depicted in the Bible.

Am I denigrating Christians in this statement? No.

[moff_quigley]

Some of them/us most definitely are.

[moff_quigley]

No, it's not the same. Homosexuality is better compared to ones eye color than the beliefs one holds. The Christian, in contrast, is not born as a Christian, but makes a positive decision to believe in the Christian view.

Should we use examples? I find them easier to deal with.

Example: I dislike Christianity because I dislike the god depicted in the Bible.

Am I denigrating Christians in this statement? No.

Yeah, I understand that.

Meh. I do my best to avoid politics and religion on the intraweb. It's not worth the stress and aggravation. It's fun to read other folks get worked up about it though...not that I'm saying you , OMGF, are worked up about this. I don't think you are, yet anyway...

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah, I understand that.

Meh. I do my best to avoid politics and religion on the intraweb. It's not worth the stress and aggravation. It's fun to read other folks get worked up about it though...not that I'm saying you , OMGF, are worked up about this. I don't think you are, yet anyway...
I'm not worked up. I just felt like defending myself against the personal attacks yesterday. I laughed through it all.

Thanks for the rational, level-headed discussion.

[Capt. Jack Sparrow]

OMGF. Dude, this thing really pisses me off "Xtians". 1) I think it is disrespectful, 2) Every time I see it I think of Scientology, TomKat, and Xenu the alien, it totally derails my train of thought....
While you may not blatantly attack Christians or their mythology, you seem to take a consistently antagonistic approach to them....

"Xtian" is a respectful and legitimate abbreviation, just like, "Xmas." Try not to take offense to things that aren't meant to be offensive. I don't know what you all were taught, but my Bible study in my church (not in my fed gov't building) taught me that "X" has been a symbol of Christ for centuries.

Here's a quote about the use of "X" to represent Christ/Christianity from Dennis Bratcher from the web site, The Voice: Biblical and Theological Resources for Growing Christians (http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html):

"The exact origin of the single letter X for Christ cannot be pinpointed with certainty. Some claim that it began in the first century AD along with the other symbols, but evidence is lacking. Others think that it came into widespread use by the thirteenth century along with many other abbreviations and symbols for Christianity and various Christian ideas that were popular in the Middle Ages. However, again, the evidence is sparse. In any case, by the fifteenth century Xmas emerged as a widely used symbol for Christmas."

[Ciaran]

I think religion will be straw that breaks humanities back. Christianity is a right behind Islam in terms of encouraging the self centered, intolerant behavior that imperils global society. You need it said any clearer than that?
I think human greed will be our downfall way before religion.

You anti-christians are as bad as the fundies sometimes.
:rofl:
For once I agree with N8! :rofl: This thread is silly.

[DRB]

I think human greed will be our downfall way before religion.

You anti-christians are as bad as the fundies sometimes.

For once I agree with N8! :rofl: This thread is silly.

Hey.... what happened to the first response you made. It was 10x times better.

[DirtyDog]

Quit yer whinin already!!! I used language appropriate to the topic at hand. You anti-christians are worse then the stupid fundies from the bible belt! "Oh no! Someones praying on government property! We better stop them!!!" ( Ciaran)

So people who complain about the fundamentalists are worse than the fundamentalists, who do things like try to stop HPV virus immunizations in the name of morality?

That's like saying people who didn't agree with Nazi policies and were vocal about them were actually worse than the Nazis themselves.

Your logic is like the Exxon Valdez. It needs a new captain.

[DirtyDog]

Please, bitch. Don't get all uppity on me just because I disagree with your opinion. I am normally more articulate than 70% of the people on here. And you know better than I that there are way, WAY stupider and less articulate posts in this forum than my own.

In my original post I used language and intelligence appropriate to the topic at hand.

Don't you have someone to oppress and moderate?

LOL that's some good stuff :rofl: It's like an episode of the Real World.

[noname]

I always have seen "Xtians" on the internets used as a shorthand notation. I'm not sure why it is disrespectful, it is simply an abbreviation. I was axtually being facetious, but in reallity I do find it interesting that someone who takes the time to carefully articulate his point of view while being considerate of his typing would see it necessary to shorthand just that word. :think:

Now, please don't go down the road that those others have.
Why not? It's so well traveled. :)
As far as having disdain for someones religion and not them, I possess a slightly bifurcated view. On the one hand people who inculcate themselves to a religion define themselves primarily by it and it's teachings. Therefore contempt for their religion is contempt for the core structure of beliefs that makes them who they are.
Just look to the recent flap over the comics in Denmark and you can see my point.
Contrarily, I have a multitude of friends whos core beliefs are antipedean to mine own yet we get along just fine.
I don't come foward and directly attack any religion often because I usually can find some points within it that I share agreement with. Which is precisely the binding thread of what would be seamingly two irreconsilable views on the issue. :oink:

[noname]

LOL that's some good stuff :rofl: It's like an episode of the Real World.
The Real World 87: Ridemonkey

[formermtboarder]

As far as having disdain for someones religion and not them, I possess a slightly bifurcated view. On the one hand people who inculcate themselves to a religion define themselves primarily by it and it's teachings. Therefore contempt for their religion is contempt for the core structure of beliefs that makes them who they are.

To define what defines a person is not that easy, you can divide yourself into three diffrent "selfs;" Human Self-equates to instinct, and deep seeded animal instinct (brain stem activity). Authentic Self is who you are without anything else, the person buried deep within. Whether you think so or not this exist. And finally cultural self-what society has made us. Therefore you are referring to a cultural self, and how can you utterly define yourself by your culture? I think thats misguided judgement

[formermtboarder]

I think religion will be straw that breaks humanities back. Christianity is a right behind Islam in terms of encouraging the self centered, intolerant behavior that imperils global society. You need it said any clearer than that?

I think you may have typed the clearest, most direct, and accurate text in this entire thread.

PS. earlier it was said that Islam is the current attacker/destroyer (crusades was all christian bruhaha vs jew/islam, comes back to haunt eh?) in the name of religion, with fanatics galore. What about Ireland vs. N. Ireland? All amongst Christians I might add.

[noname]

To define what defines a person is not that easy, you can divide yourself into three diffrent "selfs;" Human Self-equates to instinct, and deep seeded animal instinct (brain stem activity). Authentic Self is who you are without anything else, the person buried deep within. Whether you think so or not this exist. And finally cultural self-what society has made us. Therefore you are referring to a cultural self, and how can you utterly define yourself by your culture? I think thats misguided judgement what society has made you is what you are. It's that simple. The cultural moors that are embedded in you create the prism through which all judgements are made. They can't be separated from you. They are a part of you. You can change them but in so doing you will be changing who you are.
I see the world the way I do and react to situations the way I do because of my upbringing and the education I have pursued as well as how I choose to handle that knowledge. Were I raised in a different society with different values I would be a different person. I would not be me. Genetically I would be the same but my interests, passions, and dispositions would be different, so too would my means of processing information and the level of import I apply to it.
I think you are mildly misguided. But that's OK it's what the intrwebbynet is for. ;)

[formermtboarder]

you cant change you

[Changleen]

you cant change youYou're changing all the time...

[Old Man G Funk]

Just look to the recent flap over the comics in Denmark and you can see my point.
But, surely you don't defend those actions, which gets back to my point that I should not be blamed if someone else makes illogical decisions.

[noname]

you cant change you
tell that to Madonna.......

[noname]

But, surely you don't defend those actions, which gets back to my point that I should not be blamed if someone else makes illogical decisions.
I'm not defending their actions, just using their behaviour to elucidate my point of people taking offenses aimed at their religion personally as they consider themselves part of that religion.

[Old Man G Funk]

I'm not defending their actions, just using their behaviour to elucidate my point of people taking offenses aimed at their religion personally as they consider themselves part of that religion.
That's fine, but it doesn't mean that I have to stop criticizing it.

Edit: When warranted of course.