Quote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.
Quote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.
Quote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.
Quote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.
You must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.
Let me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.
Any of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 15, 2015, 10:57:25 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.Openly favoring a religion by putting its words on your wall IS operation. They're spending time voting on this. They're spending money putting the words up. This is operation.... I'm talking about laws and bills that actually affect the country here
Quote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.Openly favoring a religion by putting its words on your wall IS operation. They're spending time voting on this. They're spending money putting the words up. This is operation.
Quote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.Endorsing a religion is an operation.Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.
Quote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 11:02:48 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.Endorsing a religion is an operation.Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.Conducting in appearance in this case, is simply how something looks. That government building now looks like it is endorsing Christianity. But if it actually were doing that, it would pass laws, bills and other legislation to prove it was doing so. But they wont, because they aren't favoring a faith when it comes to the law and every citizen's rights.You are right in saying that those words shouldn't be up there, but my point is they have no effect on the policies of the government as a whole. I just dont see this particular act as a public endorsement of Christianity by the U.S government as a whole, which is where we disagree and will continue to do so.TL:DRDon't care about buildings, care about the legislation that comes out of them
Quote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 11:09:38 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 11:02:48 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.Endorsing a religion is an operation.Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.Conducting in appearance in this case, is simply how something looks. That government building now looks like it is endorsing Christianity. But if it actually were doing that, it would pass laws, bills and other legislation to prove it was doing so. But they wont, because they aren't favoring a faith when it comes to the law and every citizen's rights.You are right in saying that those words shouldn't be up there, but my point is they have no effect on the policies of the government as a whole. I just dont see this particular act as a public endorsement of Christianity by the U.S government as a whole, which is where we disagree and will continue to do so.TL:DRDon't care about buildings, care about the legislation that comes out of themOh, you mean how we just spent decades treating gays like second-class citizens and denying them basic protections because the Bible says it's wrong?
Quote from: Mad Max on July 15, 2015, 11:12:35 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 11:09:38 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 11:02:48 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.Endorsing a religion is an operation.Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.Conducting in appearance in this case, is simply how something looks. That government building now looks like it is endorsing Christianity. But if it actually were doing that, it would pass laws, bills and other legislation to prove it was doing so. But they wont, because they aren't favoring a faith when it comes to the law and every citizen's rights.You are right in saying that those words shouldn't be up there, but my point is they have no effect on the policies of the government as a whole. I just dont see this particular act as a public endorsement of Christianity by the U.S government as a whole, which is where we disagree and will continue to do so.TL:DRDon't care about buildings, care about the legislation that comes out of themOh, you mean how we just spent decades treating gays like second-class citizens and denying them basic protections because the Bible says it's wrong?Pretty sure Christians aren't the only ones who disapprove of homosexuality. And people in general were just put off to it back then. Those people vote, and they voted "no"Don't act like Christianity is the sole cause of that.
Quote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 11:20:33 AMQuote from: Mad Max on July 15, 2015, 11:12:35 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 11:09:38 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 11:02:48 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.Endorsing a religion is an operation.Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.Conducting in appearance in this case, is simply how something looks. That government building now looks like it is endorsing Christianity. But if it actually were doing that, it would pass laws, bills and other legislation to prove it was doing so. But they wont, because they aren't favoring a faith when it comes to the law and every citizen's rights.You are right in saying that those words shouldn't be up there, but my point is they have no effect on the policies of the government as a whole. I just dont see this particular act as a public endorsement of Christianity by the U.S government as a whole, which is where we disagree and will continue to do so.TL:DRDon't care about buildings, care about the legislation that comes out of themOh, you mean how we just spent decades treating gays like second-class citizens and denying them basic protections because the Bible says it's wrong?Pretty sure Christians aren't the only ones who disapprove of homosexuality. And people in general were just put off to it back then. Those people vote, and they voted "no"Don't act like Christianity is the sole cause of that.The prevailing argument against lgbt equality is religious.
Quote from: Mad Max on July 15, 2015, 11:23:55 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 11:20:33 AMQuote from: Mad Max on July 15, 2015, 11:12:35 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 11:09:38 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 11:02:48 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:55:28 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:54:22 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:51:55 AMQuote from: career ender on July 15, 2015, 10:50:08 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:43:25 AMYou must have misinterpreted my post. Where did I say Christianity gets special treatment? Nowhere? That's what I thought.No, but you have tacitly disregarded something so blatantly unconstitutional throughout this entire discussion. You might as well have at this point.QuoteLet me make this very clear: No faith gets special treatment.It must be nice being so blissfully ignorant.QuoteAny of them should have had a chance of having something put up there. Doesn't mean they should be up there in the first place, but that one didn't have more likelihood than another faith.Literally no idea what this even means.It seems to have gone over your head again so I'll simplify it for you.GOVERNMENT CANNOT FAVOUR ONE RELIGION OVER THE OTHERGOVERNMENT + RELIGION = NOSECULARISMnoun1.secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.2.the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.Make sure you read my replies to Max as well.A government's appearance and how it actually operates aren't always the same.Agreed, which is why we should always call them out for their bullshit, not handwave it off with half assed excuses.The big thing here is you care what the government puts in the buildings, you care about their appearance.I dont. I only care about how it operates.Endorsing a religion is an operation.Not even sure what conducting "in appearance" even is, but whatever. You clearly have no intentions of recognising the demonstrably unconstitutional practice of the government.Conducting in appearance in this case, is simply how something looks. That government building now looks like it is endorsing Christianity. But if it actually were doing that, it would pass laws, bills and other legislation to prove it was doing so. But they wont, because they aren't favoring a faith when it comes to the law and every citizen's rights.You are right in saying that those words shouldn't be up there, but my point is they have no effect on the policies of the government as a whole. I just dont see this particular act as a public endorsement of Christianity by the U.S government as a whole, which is where we disagree and will continue to do so.TL:DRDon't care about buildings, care about the legislation that comes out of themOh, you mean how we just spent decades treating gays like second-class citizens and denying them basic protections because the Bible says it's wrong?Pretty sure Christians aren't the only ones who disapprove of homosexuality. And people in general were just put off to it back then. Those people vote, and they voted "no"Don't act like Christianity is the sole cause of that.The prevailing argument against lgbt equality is religious.Prevailing. But not the only one, which you implied it was
We still need to get rid of the religious text on other shit. Hopefully this doesn't pass.
Rocketman how are you not getting this.U.S=secularChristian words do not belong on government buildings.Christian guys want "in god we trust" to be put on government building.Max=atheist Max does not believe in the Christian faith and does not want his taxpayer money wasted on something that he doesn't agree with and doesn't belong there anyway.
Rocketman doesn't care because having such a phrase on a building is in alignment with his beliefs.
Just to make it clear, I'm not saying they aren't doing something unconstitutional. I agree with that, but people are so concerned over a cosmetic breach of the constitution which doesn't threaten their civil liberties. You could be much more concerned about legislation among other things that actually changes your life and can infringe upon your rights. That's all I'm saying.
You could be much more concerned about legislation among other things that actually changes your life and can infringe upon your rights. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:16:35 PMJust to make it clear, I'm not saying they aren't doing something unconstitutional. I agree with that, but people are so concerned over a cosmetic breach of the constitution which doesn't threaten their civil liberties. You could be much more concerned about legislation among other things that actually changes your life and can infringe upon your rights. That's all I'm saying.Having religious motto's on government buildings is enough to path way to more religious things being in something they don't belong in. One day it's this motto and the next day they're forcing it by teaching about the bible in public schools. Religion shouldn't have any appearance on or in government related things and if it does it shouldn't be targeting a single one out of all the religions we have in this country.
For people who don't believe in God atheists sure are afraid of him.
Quote from: BerzerkCommando on July 16, 2015, 05:27:33 AMQuote from: Rocketman287 on July 15, 2015, 10:16:35 PMJust to make it clear, I'm not saying they aren't doing something unconstitutional. I agree with that, but people are so concerned over a cosmetic breach of the constitution which doesn't threaten their civil liberties. You could be much more concerned about legislation among other things that actually changes your life and can infringe upon your rights. That's all I'm saying.Having religious motto's on government buildings is enough to path way to more religious things being in something they don't belong in. One day it's this motto and the next day they're forcing it by teaching about the bible in public schools. Religion shouldn't have any appearance on or in government related things and if it does it shouldn't be targeting a single one out of all the religions we have in this country. Yet when Christians say stuff like this, it's a "slippery slope fallacy"
My city wants to display "In God We Trust" in the city council chambers
