It is amazing the extent to which right-wingers love to victimize themselves.

How do you turn an attempt at inclusivity as an attack on your religion? Is it part of your religious beliefs to denounce detractors?

You really don't get much right do you? It must be tough seeing stuff that isn't there.
Nothing in my post about anyone being a victim. No one claiming an attack on "my religion" even though you have no idea to which church I attend.
I was not going to dignify your missive with a response but the target was too good.

"Atheists are always welcome at church and any Christian gathering."

True. I am one and sometimes attend Christian gatherings. I do not have any problems with Christians, simply because I respect them. I KNOW that most of our Founders, for example, were Christians, and that we have inherited much of our culture from Christianity.

Maybe I should start an organization, "Original Intent Atheists" or the like....

{The fact that there was a House Resolution supporting Christmas is not evidence that "there has [sic] been attacks on Christmas".}

Left-winger denial at its finest. It is obvious that this was in response to attacks. There is a history behind it, but Liberals are not interested. They want to contrive some way to deny this.

Think about what you wrote and are asserting: Out of the blue, the House of Representatives - according to your reasoning - suddenly just decided it might be a "nice idea" to write up a resolution and have a vote on it. No special reason, no real cause. Just got in the mood one day because they had nothing better to do.

OK.

Stating "it's obvious", is not an argument. (And it's not obvious BTW.) Conservatives often begin arguments that way; with phrases like: "everybody knows" followed by an assertion that they believe, but is by no means widely held.

Further, read what I DID say! Perception is reality. No, Congress did not "out of the blue" decide to propose this resolution. I don't dispute that a core group of delusional Republican Congressman might believe that there is a War on Christmas. I simply assert that Louie Gohmert or Steve King believing something does not make it so.

That deals with the fact of the proposal. As to the passage of the resolution, it made no mention of any War on Christmas and was simply an affirmation of the holiday and it's spirit. Something few Congressmen could vote against.

Oh and again, "everybody knows" that Congress DOES pass lots of silly resolutions, because at least THEY can't think of anything better to do. I can't explain it; but there it is.

They deemed it necessary so they could force Christian views on non-Christians. The most likely reason they would do such a thing would be to appease their mythology believing constituents.

The American constitution calls for freedom of religion, not freedom of Christianity. The United States is a secular nation that allows you to have freedom of religion, not the other way around. The United states is not a Christian nation that allows secularism. It is a secular state that allows you to have your religious beliefs. Any religious beliefs. If the United States had been founded as a Christian nation you would be a theocracy, and you would still be executing people for not thinking like Christians do right now.

If the U.S. had been founded as a Christian nation it would have needed a clause that allowed for secularism (as though any religion would ever allow for that level of freedom). Sorry Mishima, but the U.S. is a non-theist country with the decency to allow for freedom of thought, expression and religion. That decency is a direct result of Non-theism. These rights and freedoms are direct result of secularism and are unique to secular countries. No country set up as a religious state (theocracies) has ever allowed for these kinds of personal freedoms and never would. Religion is not about personal freedom. Religion is about the political power of the leaders of each individual cult. Christian, Muslim, or Scientology.

No one is stopping anyone from celebrating the holiday season however they see fit. If a business or home owner wants to cover their property in Christian symbolism all year long they have every right to do so. You just don't like the fact that others have the right, constitutionally, to do otherwise if they see fit. In typical Christian fashion if you are not allowed to force your beliefs on others you are somehow being suppressed.

If I put up a sign saying "Happy Holidays" on it, am I at war with Christianity? Of course not. The constitution calls for freedom of religion and freedom from it. It does not call for freedom of Christianity.

If Christians force me to put up a sign that says Merry Christmas on it are they at war with the constitution? Absolutely.

"The Constitution....[does not] prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialogue." That is absolutely right, but you seem to be ignoring that the constitution does not make any special provisions for the mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog either. In fact the establishment clause says government can make no laws on religious grounds at all.

Show us the bills put forth to "ban Christmas." Show us the effort being made by non-theists to exclude Christmas from the holiday season. There is no attempt to ban Christmas from the holiday season from anyone. There is however an attempt to include those that are not Christian in the holiday season. There is an attempt by the right to ban anything but Christmas, and thereby ban anything but Christianity from the anti-constitutional Christians of America.

"it made no mention of any War on Christmas and was simply an affirmation of the holiday and it's spirit."

No, it was a response to relentless attacks on Christmas by Left-wingers.

It IS "obvious," anyone except a die-hard Leftist could see this.

It happened because screeching and yelling Liberals, stores and other place gave in to Leftist demands rather than endure demonstrations, bashing in the Left-winger media, and incessant ranting and whining.

Sears banned the mention of the word "Christmas" in seasonal advertising.

Lowe's Company: the store managers must refer to the trees as "holiday" trees.

City of Boston: Changed the name of the Christmas tree on the Common to "holiday tree."

The ACLU jumped on a school in Arizona because a clergyman played the role of Saint Nick. Fortunately the school won the case.

The ACLU filed lawsuits in Benton, Louisana and in Cranston, Rhode Island, among others, objecting to Christmas displays. The ACLU lost, fortunately.

The ACLU tried to ban the singing of Christmas carols in public schools in Elizabeth, Colorado.

The mayor of Denver, Hickenlooper removed the words, "Merry Christmas" from a City Hall display. He was forced to back down because of an outcry by REAL AMERICANS.

O’Reilly told REAL AMERICANS to do something about this. They did. The stores responded, and people were publically greeted with the words, ‘MERRY CHRISTMAS.”

But best yet, Lefty, is what happened in CONGRESS. YEP, CONGRESS RESPONDED TO THE LEFT-WINGER ASSAULTS ON OUR CULTURE AND TRADITIONS!

Now, deny all this. Contrive some excuse to say these things that happened just before it were not related. Go ahead and think of something else, like this is dated, I need more "proof," one cannot make that connection, blah, blah, blah. Go right ahead.

"They deemed it necessary so they could force Christian views on non-Christians."

Nothing is being forced on anyone. There are such things as traditions and culture.

"The American constitution calls for freedom of religion, not freedom of Christianity."

Not exactly. In spirit, you are right, but many of the state constitutions specified freedom of way of worship within Christianity, and most even included - for being in public office - some sort of affirmation of belief in Christianity.

But yes, freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion which is what Left-winger atheists and malcontents want.

"The United states is not a Christian nation that allows secularism."

It is incorrect, technically, to call the US a "Christian" nation. Rather, it is a nation that was founded by mainly Christians and has a heritage that is fundamentally Christian.

"These rights and freedoms are direct result of secularism and are unique to secular countries."

Not exactly. The Founders were almost all Christians, and the American response to Establishment. In addition, many scholars accept the idea that our concept of equality came out of the Judeo-Christian heritage: God made man in his image, meaning that all are equal because God made them thus. For example, even the supposed "deist," Jefferson, was not sure if blacks were intellectually equal to whites, but his concept of humans was multifold - he believed all were equally capable of a moral sense, and this is what made us human. He believed that blacks were thus equal. (Don't start about slavery on this thread.... plleeeeaauusssse.)

" If a business or home owner wants to cover their property in Christian symbolism all year long they have every right to do so. You just don't like the fact that others have the right, constitutionally, to do otherwise if they see fit."

Glad you recognize private property rights! I do not care if others want to reject the holiday season and our traditions. I do not care if people choose to say, "Happy Holidays," to which I ALWAYS reply, "Merry Christmas."

I do care that the Left-wingers have tried to take every semblance of religious expression out of the public square. That towns cannot set up a manger scene, that schools cannot have Christmas plays and songs. Yup. This atheist here doesn't like Left-wingers' attacks on Christmas.

In spirit I am right? You don't like the spirit of the constitution so like a true conservative you will simply believe it means something else.The American constitution does not allow for freedom of Christianity above all others.

Do you actually think that freedom of religion means that I have no right to choose the religion of my choice?

Do you think freedom of religion means that I have no freedom to live the way I choose but must live my life by Christian dictate?

Do you think freedom of religion means one person has the right to force their religious beliefs on another?

Only a dictatorial mind would think freedom of religion meant freedom to force one particular religion on everybody else. You seem to like having the religious freedom to be a Christian, but you don't much care for the idea of the rest of us having the religious freedom to be a Muslim, or a Druid, or a non-theist.

Yes Mishima, freedom of religion means that one can live the life a Christian, free from having Muslim ideology forced upon them. Freedom of religion means that one can live the life of a Muslim without having Christian ideology forced upon them. Freedom of religion means you can live the secular life without having the ideology of any religion forced upon them.

To specifically allow for freedom of religion in the constitution of a religiously founded country would be redundant. In fact, the constitution of a Christian founded nation would not allow for freedom of religion. They would put restrictions on holidays, rituals, and the practice of faith to confine them to Christianity only. Kind of like you and your conservative friends are trying to do right now.

The 1st amendment says freedom of religion and not freedom of Christianity for a reason. The constitution allows for freedom of all religions, or the right to live without them.

The only reason they would put freedom of religion in the constitution is because the country is secular humanist. It would be ridiculous to put freedom of religion in the constitution of a Christian country that believed Christianity is the only faith that should be followed and should be forced on everyone.

Your idea of personal freedom is do as I say. I am a Christian.

"You don't like the spirit of the constitution so like a true conservative you will simply believe it means something else.The American constitution does not allow for freedom of Christianity above all others. "

Why do you distort what I write? THIS IS WHAT I WROTE; STOP MISREPRESENTING WHAT I WRITE!

"many of the state constitutions specified freedom of way of worship within Christianity, and most even included - for being in public office - some sort of affirmation of belief in Christianity."

STATE, STATE, STATE, STATE constitutions!

"Do you actually think that freedom of religion means that I have no right to choose the religion of my choice? "

Distortion yet again. I never hinted at, implied, or suggested anything of the sort. Did you notice that I wrote I am an atheist?

"You seem to like having the religious freedom to be a Christian, but you don't much care for the idea of the rest of us having the religious freedom to be a Muslim, or a Druid, or a non-theist."

Again, I wrote I am an atheist. But this does not mean that I want to distort and lie about history in order to make it look like our Founders were also what some malcontent and dispirited atheists WISH they were. I am free to be an atheist and I am publically stating I am. If anyone in real life asks, I will not hesitate to state what I believe and do not believe. But, unlike LEFT-WINGER atheists, I do not insist that I am right and others have to conform to me!

"To specifically allow for freedom of religion in the constitution of a religiously founded country would be redundant. In fact, the constitution of a Christian founded nation would not allow for freedom of religion."

And yet ANOTHER misrepresentation and distortion. I do not feel like repeating myself yet again. It is all there above. Please read what I wrote.

The public square huh? If it is funded in any way by the public it should make no religious statement whatsoever.

I would be careful what you wish for. Here in Canada we non-theists have been saying that children can pray in school if they want to. They can pray all day long if they don't care how their studies go. What we have been pointing out for years is that public schools are publicly funded and the only reason for forced and formal prayer is to force a Christian ritual on non-Christian students. After all, we are not saying you can't pray in school, pray all day long if you want too. Just don't force your religion on us.

Well guess what? The "we like forced religion" people won. Until they found out the right they so covet for themselves was also being afforded to others. Boy did their tune change then. All of a sudden they were right there with us "keep organized prayer out of school" people. They were adamantly against prayer in school. And it wasn't even in the class room. Their children would not be forced to take part or leave and marginalize themselves like Christian prayer in the classroom works.

Why do you think the "keep prayer in school" people all of a sudden became "keep prayer out of school" people Mishima?

Freedom of religion means freedom of all religion and freedom from it if one chooses that path. It does not mean freedom for Christians alone. Christians do not have more rights than anybody else.

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/25/group-protests-prayers-in-school

"If it is funded in any way by the public it should make no religious statement whatsoever."

No, the community should decide. Case closed.

"What we have been pointing out for years is that public schools are publicly funded and the only reason for forced and formal prayer is to force a Christian ritual on non-Christian students. After all, we are not saying you can't pray in school, pray all day long if you want too. Just don't force your religion on us."

Sounds great. In America, it is different: The Left-wingers use the courts to stop any semblance of even VOLUNTARY religious expression.

Examples of LEFT-WINGERISM IN OUR COURTS:

Reed v. van Hoven, 1965
If a student prays over his lunch, it is unconstitutional for him to pray aloud.

DeSpain v. DeKalb County Community School Dist, 1967
Even though the word “God” is not said, it is unconstitutional for kindergarteners to recite “thank you” sentences. The little ones just said this, and it was determined that the teacher of these 5-year olds was engaging in an unconstitutional activity: “We thank you for the flowers so sweet; we thank you for the food we eat; we thank you for the birds that sing; we thank you for everything.” The rationale? That even though the word “God” was not there, “that word is in the minds of the children.” It was about what they assumed “the children are thinking.” Horrible! Unimaginable!

State Board of Education v. Board of Education of Netcong, 1970, Supreme Court of New Jersey, held up by the United States Supreme Court
It is unconstitutional for students to come to school early to hear a volunteer read prayers. It was a 22-word prayer, requiring less than 10 seconds of reading time. The statute of New Jersey was very careful not to infringe on anyone’s freedom of religion. It contained many provisions, such as “before school instruction begins….participate voluntary….not be expressed in any way which will interfere with another’s rights. Participation may be total or partial, regular or occasional, or not at all. Non-participation shall not be considered evidence of non-religion…[It is] to promote love of neighbor, brotherhood, respect for the dignity of the individual, moral consciousness and civic responsibility….”

You are no more an atheist than the Pope is. Who is distorting history? Did you forget which one of us is the conservative? Christian Revisionism says the U.S. was founded as a religious nation.

The 11 clause of the treaty of Tripoli states that the United States was in no way founded as a Christian nation and it was presented by founding father John Adams to the congress and ratified into law unanimously.

The words Christian, Bible, Creator, Devine and God are never mentioned in the constitution. State constitutions don't have a damn thing to do with the fact that your country was set up as a secular nation. The fact is the states that you speak of are outright defying article 6 section 3 that states "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Christians just don't much dare for the constitution do they.

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington. Of these seven key members of the founding fathers only John Jay was an Orthodox Christian. Most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians.

Well what did you mean when you said we Non-Theists don't have the right to freedom from religion if you didn't mean we don't have the right to make that religious choice?

The communities are deciding Mishima. You mean the Christian community should decide.

You seem to have missed the point that the people who demanded this right for themselves are now protesting the fact that that same right is being given to someone else. Claiming that others should not have the rights that they have sounds familiar doesn't it Mishima? Sounds like other rights Christians think should only be for people that are like them.

"All the examples you cite are not examples of a War on Christmas."

Some were, and the court cases were examples of the Left-winger War on Religion. And Christmas was originally a Christian holiday, of course.

"Rather they are a recognition that this is a more diverse country than in earlier times. Many of our citizens observe other religious or secular traditions at this time of year."

They are free to do so, of course. But Left-wingers want to rid every public arena of the ability to choose to continue some simple traditions which have their origins in Christian beliefs or holidays.

"Try to see them as an attempt to show respect and tolerance and yes LOVE for people of other faiths or cultures, not as an attack on yours."

Telling children that they cannot pray in schools, not allowing children to say a prayer voluntarily, going to the Supreme Court to rid towns of manger scenes and little 5-year olds of saying a generic "thank you" statement are attacks. The height of Left-winger INtolerance.

"I am a great lover of Christmas"

Great to hear. I am, too.

"You are no more an atheist than the Pope is."

How can you possibly declair that? This shows an incredible unreasonableness: If you do not like what a poster writes, you deem yourself arbiter and judge, and declare the person to be a LIAR.

"Christian Revisionism says the U.S. was founded as a religious nation."

Did I say I ascribe to what YOU are INSISTING that I ascribe? Why do you misrepresent what I write again and again? You are DECLARING not only what I believe (last post) but now that I have aligned myself with some sort of group with which YOU have determined I am a part. You somehow KNOW my religious beliefs, you can proclaim that I am a liar, and you know to which group's beliefs I ascribe.

Please tell me how you became so all-knowing.

"The 11 clause of the treaty of Tripoli states that the United States was in no way founded as a Christian nation"

I know. That statement does not conflict with anything I wrote, of course. Please re-read what I wrote. Thank you.

One cannot separate the Declaration and the Constitution. The former is a statement of principles, values, beliefs, intent, etc. The latter is how to carry this out.

Notice in the Declaration:
"with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor"
DIVINE
SACRED

"all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator"

CREATOR - Capitalized, please note.

Sorry.

"State constitutions don't have a damn thing to do with the fact that your country was set up as a secular nation."

But they do. Try reflecting on the times.

The delegates came from their respective states, did they not? And they were "employed" by these states, "represented" them, right? In addition, most had a hand in creating their respective state constitutions. In other words, they either ascribed to their constitutions (remember about how states were relatively independent, etc.), and most helped to WRITE AND CREATE them.

OK. Next, let's look at some of these state constitutions:

Examples:

Delaware, Article 22: Every person serving had to take this oath – “I, …., do profess faith in God the Father, and in JESUS CHRIST….” (emphasis added)

Pennsylvania, “I do believe in one God, the Creator…I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

Massachusetts, Chapter VI, Article I: “I, …., do declare, that I believe the Christian religion….”

North Carolina, Article XXXII, “No person, who shall deny the being of God….or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments,…shall be capable of holding any office.”

Maryland, Atricle XXXV: “No other test or qualification….than… a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.”

Vermont, 1786, Section 9: “Each member [of the legislature]….shall make…the following declaration: ‘I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

In addition to these, the various state constitutions also referred to religious freedom – SPECIFICALLY FOR CHRISTIANS!

Examples related to Christians in various state:

Massachusetts, 1780, Article III: “And every denomination of CHRISTIANS… shall be equally under the protection of the law.”

New Hampshire, 1784, Article I, Section VI: “And every denomination of CHRISTIANS… shall be equally under the protection of the laws.”

South Carolina, 1778, Article XXXVIII: “All denominations of Christian[s]…shall enjoy equal religious and civil privileges.”

Tennessee, 1796, Article VIII, Section II: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.”
-------------
Again, SORRY

The Statement conflicts with every thing you wrote. I quote " Rather, it is a nation that was founded by mainly Christians and has a heritage that is fundamentally Christian." The 11th clause if the Treaty of Tripoli is in direct conflict with that statement.

The treaty states emphatically and without ambiguity that the United States was in no way founded as a Christian nation. In no way is it a Christian nation. No way.

There is no way that a person can claim the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Not by Christian ideals, not by Christian ideology, not by Christian morality, not by Christian beliefs. In no way Christian. Full stop.

"Well what did you mean when you said we Non-Theists don't have the right to freedom from religion"

It is unreasonable for non-believers to DEMAND that there are to be laws that insulate them, protect their widdle eyes and ears, from any visible or auditory manifestation of religion. I suggest that, if they are too bigoted, close-minded and narcissistic to enjoy (or tolerate) others' showing of their Christmas spirit in public, that they shut their eyes and put their hands over their ears, and leave people the f... alone.

"You mean the Christian community should decide."

No. In Hawaii, some schools have had Buddhist celebrations. In Brooklyn, there have been schools with mostly Jewish students who have had rabbis perform prayers and such.

You can call yourself an athiest if you want to Mishima but you talk exactly like a far right conservative Christian all the time.

Maybe I should back in the files and see if you ever identified yourself as a Christian believer. What do you think? Should I do that?

"You can call yourself an athiest if you want to Mishima but you talk exactly like a far right conservative Christian all the time."

Your ideological mind-set has determined that, not the facts.

"Maybe I should back in the files and see if you ever identified yourself as a Christian believer. What do you think? Should I do that?"

Yes. Go ahead.

Try reflecting on the times? The United States was in no way founded as a Christian nation. Try reflecting on that. Any State that requires an employee or public servant to declare his faith in Christianity is in direct violation of the constitution and by default UN-American.

You claim to be an atheist but are advocating for Christianity to be the only religion in the U.S. by law and oath. You are not an atheist you are a Christian by definition. You can not be an atheist and claim forced Christianity is the way to go at the same time.

I guess it is time for a little Mishima statement hunting isn't it?

I choose my words carefully, so please read carefully. You are misrepresting me again.

You wrote that I intended this, note what I capitalized: "no way founded AS a Christian nation"

But, as you correctly quoted me, "it is a nation that was founded BY mainly Christians and has a heritage..."

Only one word, but it makes all the difference. think about it. I chose my words carefully.

We are not asking for laws that insulate us from religion. We already have a law that protects us from one particular religion or another from forcing their beliefs on us. It's called freedom of religion.

Who says Christians can't enjoy Christmas however they see fit. What is stopping them from doing whatever they want. The only thing Christians are being stopped from doing is forcing their Christian beliefs on others. If someone puts up a sign that says Happy Holidays on it that is not a war on Christmas. It is a decision to celebrate the holidays as they see fit. If my local government puts up a sign saying Merry Christmas so what? I'm an Non-Theist but their are bigger things to worry about than that. If the government says the holiday season is about Christianity and the rest of us have no choice in the matter then we have a problem. The problem we would have if Christianity got it's hands on the reigns of power. We would then be confronted with a dictatorial theocracy that would have no interest whatsoever in individual rights.

You are right. I found no instance of you claiming to be a Christian in my quick search. Just page after page of you espousing Christian values and advocating for it.

Atheists don't do that.

"We are not asking for laws that insulate us from religion."

American Left-winger atheists are. Take the Castroville, Texas example: A student simply said a 24 SECOND prayer. It was not something required by the school. It was just a student who was asked to speak at graduation, and he said a 24 SECOND prayer. The Left-winger atheists (2) took it all the way to the Supreme Court. This is a typical example.

No Mishima. The founding fathers chose their words carefully. Very carefully. Do you think they said "in no way founded as a Christian nation" because the wording didn't matter. They knew exactly what they were saying and why. They were saying in no uncertain terms that the United States was "in no way founded as a Christian nation. IN NO WAY A CHRISTIAN NATION Mishima. Not a Christian nation by law.

Do you think they didn't know what they meant to say? You think that you choose your words carefully, but the founding fathers who declared that the United States of America was in no way founded as a Christian nation didn't think it through?

It doesn't matter how carefully you choose your words Nishima because the founding fathers who ratified the 11th clause of the Treaty of Tripoli into law chose theirs much more carefully. The words they chose were clear and to the point. The United States is not a Christian Nation. It is a secular nation that allows for freedom of religion. The fact that Christians got their first does not make the slightest bit of difference to what the law states. It states without ambiguity that the United States is not a Christian nation.

"If someone puts up a sign that says Happy Holidays on it that is not a war on Christmas."

No, it is when they hold demonstrations in parking lots of department stores; it is when they go to courts do DEMAND that government officials say "happy holidays" and not "Merry Christmas"; it is when they will have a manger scene taken down because they do not want to drive by and have to see it; it is when they scream and yell when a school has a play and sings a Christmas carol.

"If my local government puts up a sign saying Merry Christmas so what? I'm an Non-Theist but their are bigger things to worry about than that."

Good. That is as it should be.

"If the government says the holiday season is about Christianity and the rest of us have no choice in the matter then we have a problem."

Of course.

"The problem we would have if Christianity got it's hands on the reigns of power. We would then be confronted with a dictatorial theocracy that would have no interest whatsoever in individual rights."

I do not believe it is any danger. The proof of this is in the fact that there are no prominent political leaders who have any intention of establishing a national church or enacting laws that would FORCE anyone to observe any religion. I have never heard of one - ever. There will be politicians who will look into their own conscience and moral system to recommend policy. The person might be an atheist or a Jew or an agnostic or a Christian. It is only right - and desireable if a person has principles and values on which they make solid life decisions. The Left-winger atheists only object if those principles and values are Christian. They wrongfully claim that this is imposing a religion on them, but it most certainly is not. I am against abortion because it is killing unborn children, not because of any religion. And another person can come to the same conclusion from Christian beliefs, or even that it is better for society if we increase births or whatever. With Left-winger atheists, the very fact that a person is a Christian is hateful.

"The United States is not a Christian Nation."

Post Classification: Distortion of what I wrote. Misrepresentation, possibly deliberate.

Summary: Explanation was given FOUR or five times, but Liberal keeps distorting.

Conclusion: Case closed.

Can't even get that right can you Mishima?

According to the Christian Post itself the graduating ceremony at Medina Valley High School in Castroville was "filled with prayers and was likened to a revival meeting."

That's right Mishima. Your own example of lefties trying to stop a 24 second prayer, is actually a case of Christians turning what was supposed to be a graduating ceremony for all students, of all faiths into, how did the Christians put it, a revival meeting.

How come you think it was a 24 second prayer and the Christian Post is claiming victory for turning what was supposed to be a non-denominational graduation ceremony onto a good old revival meeting that was, and I quote, "filled with prayers" and that the crowd applauded after speakers said “Amen, and atheists would not attend because it was turned into a faith based ceremony praising God instead of the young people who worked so hard to achieve their goals.

Isn't a graduation ceremony supposed to be about the students and not a prayer meeting?

I guess the secular humanist fears that Christians would turn the ceremony into a religious event were unfounded. Weren't they Mishima?

They didn't turn it into a religious event did they?

They turned it into a full blown revival meeting. Well, according to the Christians anyway.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-graduation-takes-advantage-of-prayer-rul...

We don't distort what you say Mishima. We just point out your logical, historical and factual flaws and the only way you can deal with it is to claim we must be distorting what you say.

We are not doing that Mishima. We are just more intelligent and better informed than you are. Like any good conservative, dealing with being proved wrong is not in your tool box, so you have to figure out a way to not be wrong. Claiming that we distort what you say (something you do on almost every post) is as good a way to deal with it as any.

Post Classification: Distortion

"Revival meeting?"

A prayer and several "amens" constitute a revival meeting?

This is why it is so frustrating to attempt to "communicate" with Left-wingers: They write in emotional and hysterical fashions, exaggerating. Then, one is reduced to finding definitions and such to "prove" the absurdity of their claims, and one goes in circles and circles as they deny, obfuscate and dissemble and deflect.

Description from Wiki:

"A revival meeting usually consists of several consecutive nights of services conducted at the same time and location, most often the building belonging to the sponsoring congregation but sometimes a rented assembly....The length of such meetings varies. Until the last quarter-century they were frequently a week or more in duration, especially in the Southern United States. Currently they may be held for three or four days."

Stop the Left-winger hysteria.

The Christian Post said it was a likened to a revival meeting. The San Antonio Express news also said the gathering "at times resembled a revival as much as a small town graduation." It wasn't a prayer and a couple of amens just because you want it to be. The Christian Post said it resembled a revival meeting. So did the San Antonio Express.

The ruling didn't say the students couldn't pray. It said "the school is in no way prohibiting students from silent prayer. The judge reportedly “ruled that students who are speaking at graduation can still talk about their faith, or cite a belief in God as the reason for their success.” What is prohibited is turning the graduation ceremony into a religious ceremony, like allowing speakers to lead prayers, say “amen” or “God bless you” or “have the audience rise and bow their heads.” In short, the ruling simply reiterates this country’s longstanding, Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

According to the San Antonio Express and the Christian Post the Christians in attendance did exactly that. They turned the graduation into a religious ceremony.

I think the folks at The Christian Post are probably Christians and wouldn't claim that the event was "filled with prayers and was likened to a revival meeting" unless it was would they?

Post Classification:
Leftist denial

Facts:
Data about what constitutes and defines a "revival meeting" was presented and rejected by the Liberal.
An interpretation of a description by the attackers of the HS graduation were distorted; the Left-winger presented them as a description by the Christians themselves.
Only a student prayer and several "amens" were said. Hardly a "revival meeting" by any standards that a reasonable, rational and mature adult would hold.

Conclusion:
Left-winger obfuscation and typical deflection and distortion.
Case closed.

I was quoting the Christians at the Christian post. It WAS a description by Christians themselves. A news agency in the area described it in the same way. The Christians at the Christian Post and the local news agency described it in that way. Not me.

You see Mishima. Now that you have been presented with the proof of your own error you are becoming even more convoluted.

"Data about what constitutes and defines a "revival meeting" was presented and rejected by the Liberal." I didn't say it was a revival meeting, the Christians at the Christian Post did. And so did the local media. I guess I will trust the Christians at the Christian Post to know a revival meeting when one takes place rather than take the word of an atheist like you on such matters.

"An interpretation of a description by the attackers of the HS graduation were distorted." What attackers? An interpretation of a description was "distorted"? Do you see why it so difficult for us to take you seriously Mishima?

Managed to get that old standby "distorted" in there again didn't you?

What are you going on about now. The meaning of likened to is not that someone else saw it. In fact the definition of likened to does not mention someone else at all. The very first definition of liken, likened, likening etc., is to see. That is followed by mention, show as similar, or compare. I can say I was there and I likened it to a revival meeting. That does not mean I heard it from someone else.

Besides they say it was filled with prayers before they say it was likened to. Here is the quote. The graduation ceremony at Medina Valley High School in Castroville, Texas, on Saturday was filled with prayers AND was likened to a revival meeting. The statement that the event was filled with prayer is entirely from The Christian Post. It was their statement because they were not quoting anyone. Later in the article, when they did quote the San Antonio Express News they did the professional thing and used quotation marks and a citation.

You are also assuming that The Christian Post would be talking about the Express News if they did mean others likened it to a revival meeting. If they meant others likened it to a revival meeting, why couldn't it be those in attendance at the graduation that did the likening. After all, The Christian post does not quote anyone in particular when the make that statement do they?

Do you not see the headline The Christian Post chose to use for their article? I think it tells us exactly what went on that graduation ceremony. The title of the article in case you refused to look at it is. "Texas Graduation Takes Advantage of Prayer Ruling, Goes All Out." They took advantage of the appeal decision to allow prayer. Now just what do you think that means Mishima? How did they take advantage. What does Goes All Out mean do you think? A prayer and a couple of amens. Is that what you think The Christian Post meant when the said "Goes All Out? A prayer and a couple of amens. What do you think it meant when The Christian Post said the event was "filled with prayer," and Rep.John V. Garza (R-San Antonio), said “The judge of all judges commands us to pray”? Garza's statement is the only time the Christian Post claims they are quoting someone else and the only time they cite the Express News.

I guess it totally escaped you that the Christian Post never once denies that the graduation ceremony resembled a revival meeting do they. They themselves said the event was "filled with prayer."

The original ruling did not even say the graduates could not pray. It said the school could not lead an official prayer to begin or end the event, and the words invocation and benediction were not to be used. Nothing more.

The judge said "students who are speaking at graduation can still talk about their faith, or cite a belief in God as the reason for their success, but they may not say "amen" or "God bless you," or have the audience rise and bow their heads. They were asked not to lead the graduation ceremonies in prayer. They had that decision appealed and won. So they decide to "GO All Out."

What do you suppose they did when they went "All Out" Mishima? NOT lead the ceremonies in prayer. Are you still going with a prayer and a couple of amens?

"Case Closed"? Because you have decided to ignore the evidence right in front of you? Typical conservatism. You have decided what the truth is and that's all there is to it.

The Christian Post said the event was, and I quote, "filled with prayer AND likened to a revival meeting" They quote no one and cite no one. They were certainly making the statement that the event was filled with prayer entirely on their own and objectively.

This was not a prayer and a couple of amens. It was filled with prayers and likened to a revival meeting.

Case closed? I agree. The Christians got their hands on a non-denominational ceremony for everyone and turned it into an event "filled with prayer" just for them. Just like secular humanist say, and know know they do.

You are completely wrong. I provided the court records with links. I found the origin of the reference to it looking like a "revival meeting" in a newspaper - an interpretation/view of a reporter. I referenced that, too. I referred to the English useage in each in detail, how one said it WAS LIKE and another said it WAS LIKENED TO.

To claim otherwise is simply absurd and hateful. It is what it is. My essential point is solid. Case closed.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-graduation-takes-advantage-of-prayer-rul....99

Wow. You just don't understand what the Christian Post meant when they said “Texas Graduation Takes Advantage of Prayer Ruling, Goes All Out” do you? Tell me Mishima, how do you think the Christians in attendance took advantage of the ruling? What do you think the Christian Post was saying the Christians in attendance did when they went "All Out." The Christian post also said the event was "filled with prayer." they were not quoting anyone Mishima, they were saying it themselves. It's what they know happened.

Here is the quote.
The graduation ceremony at Medina Valley High School in Castroville, Texas, on Saturday was filled with prayers.... That is their statement Mishima. No one else said it. They don't quote anyone. The Christians at The Christian Post say the event was "filled with prayers."

Of course the Christians at The Christian Post are wrong about what they know and reported to have happened because Mishima says so.

The definitions I gave you for likened came from the dictionary. Of course the dictionary is wrong about that because Mishima says so.

Your way of saying things was likened to craziness.

I can say it was likened to craziness because I likened your way of saying things as crazy in the past. I am not sure if I have ever heard anyone else do it though. If I was quoting someone else I would do exactly what The Christian Post would have done and cited them.

Oh, and by the way, the court document you link us to is irrelevant. Almost. It is only the complaint. Not the decision to ban OR the decision to overturn the ban. The decision to ban prayer was overturned so the only thing your link does is show us the 115 or so infractions of the establishment clause the school board and it's employees are guilty of. Over 115 infractions. Just a prayer and a couple of amens? We will still go with that won't we Mishima?

The PEOPLE of Texas were happy with the ruling. I am an atheist, and if I were there, I would be cheering and clapping, too. I am for liberty and freedom OF religion, not LEFT-WINGER freedom FROM religion.

Liberty won!

But you wrote about AFTER the court cases. The Left-winger malcontents kept up the garbage - the vicious attacks on freedom of religion - for three years! For three years, the people of Texas had to worry about losing their FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS to extremist anti-religion Leftists!

They won. I am genuinely happy for them.

I described what happened. Please re-read the documents. I rarely ever provide data to Leftists for obvious reasons, but I did in this case - thoroughly documenting and PROVING beyond any doubts - that concerned dissembling, deceit and prevarications. But most of all - Liberty!

So you truly believe that non-theists have no right to freedom from religion? What if a ceremony had 40% of the people Christian, and 60% of the people non-christian. Would the Christians get to decide whether or not prayer, and how much, was to be involved?

Is there any kind of public function were the Christians, no matter how many in attendance, would not be able to decide whether or not a small or large amount of christian worship should take place?

If non-theists don't have any right to freedom from religion, does that mean that freedom of religion is only for those that choose to believe, what non-theists believe is a myth.

Does freedom of religion mean the right to inflict christian ceremonies and laws based on christian beliefs on non-Christians whether they like it or not?

That sure is a lot of power for one religion based an amendment that does not mention Christianity at all.

Does the establishment clause mean the government shall make no laws stopping the Christians from forcing their beliefs on everyone else? I guess the Non- Preferential part Is for everybody except the people who choose not to believe. Of course a secular document like the Constitution would give that right to everyone but the secular.

{So you truly believe that non-theists have no right to freedom from religion? What if a ceremony had 40% of the people Christian, and 60% of the people non-christian. Would the Christians get to decide whether or not prayer, and how much, was to be involved?}

I already responded to that! I will REPEAT myself.

There was a public school in Hawaii and it had Buddhist ceremonies or celebrations of some kind. There was no fuss, no bother, no court involvement. In Brooklyn, NY, before these horrendous, nonsensical court rulings, rabbis often went into the schools for celebrations and such. No fuss, no problem, no bother, no courts.

Let the schools and community decide. It is that simple. If you notice the school regulations, in virtually every case, students can opt out of activities. Even when I was in school, I remember Witnesses abstaining from the pledge and prayer. No big deal. Nobody cared or payed any attention. The most was it raised curiosity. That was all.

"If non-theists don't have any right to freedom from religion, does that mean that freedom of religion is only for those that choose to believe, what non-theists believe is a myth."

They have that right. They can get the f... up and leave.

"Does freedom of religion mean the right to inflict christian ceremonies and laws based on christian beliefs on non-Christians whether they like it or not?"

Redundant. I answered that in a post of a minute ago, and in the past about three or four times.

"Does the establishment clause mean the government shall make no laws stopping the Christians from forcing their beliefs on everyone else? "

How often do you kill puppies? Loaded question, right? Makes no sense.

"a secular document like the Constitution"

Not true, of course. Why don't you read my posts? Left-wingers like to call it a "secular" document, as if the Founders DELIBERATELY wanted to make it such, and that simply is not true, of course. I already explained EXACTLY why, and it is tiresome repeating myself over and over and over.

Wow!

Yes. I answered all of your questions, and preferred to break them up into one post each.

I am glad that you are on board now. I do not think I omitted anything.

Thanks.

If non-theists don't like it when religious groups turn public ceremonies meant to include them into worship events, and non-theists don't like it when their accomplishments are credited to a deity they don't believe in, they can just shut the f...up and leave?

This is what you think religious freedom means? I wonder why liberals think the conservatives believe there are different rights for different people.

Nineteen percent of the American population are non-believers according to Pew Research Center data reported by USA Today. They include atheists, agnostics and people who report believing in nothing in particular.

There is speculation the 19 percent number could be disproportionately high should the survey respondents have been disproportionately young, single or, and get this, highly educated.

That's very interesting but you did not answer my question. What if a ceremony had 40% of the people Christian, and 60% of the people non-christian. Would the Christians get to decide whether or not prayer, and how much, was to be involved? Would the only choice 60% of the people have is to shut the f...ck up and leave?

Well I'm sorry I missed that Mishima. So how about we keep it simple. Give us a yes or no answer.

"Does freedom of religion mean the right to inflict christian ceremonies and laws based on christian beliefs on non-Christians whether they like it or not?"

Yes or no.

I will take anything but a yes or no answer as an attempt to evade the question in fine conservative fashion.

Well make it simple for my simple liberal mind.

"Does freedom of religion mean the right to inflict christian ceremonies and laws based on christian beliefs on non-Christians whether they like it or not?"

Yes or no?

{"Does freedom of religion mean the right to inflict christian ceremonies and laws based on christian beliefs on non-Christians whether they like it or not?"

Yes or no?}

Moot question. It is an obviously loaded question. The fact is that you are taking liberties with the word "inflict," no doubt. Be very specific.

"If non-theists don't like it when religious groups turn public ceremonies meant to include them into worship events...."

That was not the case in the example I provided, nor is it in the other examples, such as allowing VOLUNTARY prayer or a moment of silence. Just because Left-winger whining atheists don't feel "comfortable" certainly does not mean that the entire community, school or organization should have to give up decades of a tradition. That goes beyond selfishness and borders on narcissism.

"I wonder why liberals think the conservatives believe there are different rights for different people."

No, Left-wingers create rights. Conservatives know that the only real rights are inalienable ones. Leftists think that GOVERNMENT can actually create rights, and thus, the Liberals never stop demanding more and more "rights."

"Nineteen percent of the American population are non-believers according to Pew Research Center data reported by USA Today. They include atheists, agnostics and people who report believing in nothing in particular."

Link please. I do not doubt you, but just would like to see this. I am an atheist, but do not identify myself as one. I do not center my identity on such things. If someone does, that is his choice and responsibility, and it is unreasonable to demand that others recognize this. One should respect others' beliefs. It is important for the place called "society," and it is a matter of manners, which Left-wingers seem to think are outdated and anachronistic.

"What if a ceremony had 40% of the people Christian, and 60% of the people non-christian. Would the Christians get to decide whether or not prayer, and how much, was to be involved?"

I did answer. It is up to the school board, principal and parents. As I wrote - FIVE TIMES ALREADY - in Hawaii they celebrated some Buddhist holidays or events. Fine. I do not think this should be reduced to a % or specific number. Liberals love to quantify, and it removes all humanity, transcendence, and meaning out of everything, from love and parenting, to patriotism and any sense of duty and honor. Can't reduce those things to Leftist numbers, so Liberals do not want to accept that have any meaning.

Well Mishima. For me, having to sit through a religious ceremony when attending a public ceremony, means I am being forced to spend time at a religious ceremony and a public ceremony. The Christians in attendance are also at a public ceremony. If they turn that public ceremony into a religious ceremony, they are inflicting their religious beliefs on all others in attendance.

"Does freedom of religion mean the right to inflict christian ceremonies and laws based on christian beliefs on non-Christians whether they like it or not?" Yes or no.

Does it matter how the non-Christians in attendance feel about it even they outnumber the Christians? Yes or no.

If a non-theist group held public event would the Christians in attendance be able to lead a prayer circle before and after the event started against the wishes of the non-theists? Yes or no.

They are very simple questions to answer. Here I will show you how.

1) Does freedom of religion mean the right to inflict christian ceremonies and laws based on christian beliefs on non-Christians whether they like it or not? My answer -no.
(See Mishima, if you agree with me, this is where you say no. If you disagree with me, this is where you say yes).

2) Does it matter how the non-Christians in attendance at a public meeting feel about religious activities taking place even if they outnumber the Christians? My answer - yes.

3) If a non-theist group held a public event, would the Christians in attendance be able to lead a prayer circle before and after the event started against the wishes of the non-theists? My answer - no.

See Mishima. It's that easy. See if you can do it.

The fact that you don't want to give me a yes or no answer says a lot.

"For me, having to sit through a religious ceremony when attending a public ceremony, means I am being forced to spend time at a religious ceremony and a public ceremony. The Christians in attendance are also at a public ceremony. If they turn that public ceremony into a religious ceremony, they are inflicting their religious beliefs on all others in attendance."

Absurd. Extremism. If a prayer is said or a Christmas song is sang, one should have the decency to just relax and defer to the community's wishes. If one is made to proclaim he is a believer or something, that is a different story. But that is not what is happening, AND YOU KNOW IT!

"Does it matter how the non-Christians in attendance feel about it even they outnumber the Christians? Yes or no."

It may. If they are that "sensitive" to hearing a prayer in which they do not have to participate, then they can approach the people in charge. At least they could have that decency.

For the SEVENTH time, it is quite simple: It is egotistical, selfish, greedy and narcissistic for someone to DEMAND - via courts of law - that others change their habits, traditions, and ways of behaving for decades because that self-centered SOB does not want to "endure" a minute or two of only HEARING a prayer. It is unreasonable, and ugly.

"If a non-theist group held public event would the Christians in attendance be able to lead a prayer circle before and after the event started against the wishes of the non-theists? Yes or no."

These questions are silly. If they wanted to have something like, say, a book reading or whatever, and they asked for the room in the school and did not want any prayers, any reasonable principal and such would have no problem with that. The ACLU does not have to get involved.

"Does freedom of religion mean the right to inflict christian ceremonies and laws based on christian beliefs on non-Christians whether they like it or not? My answer -no."

Wrong! Your obvious definition of inflict is absurd.

"Does it matter how the non-Christians in attendance at a public meeting feel about religious activities taking place even if they outnumber the Christians? My answer - yes."

It does and they can get the f... out.

"If a non-theist group held a public event, would the Christians in attendance be able to lead a prayer circle before and after the event started against the wishes of the non-theists? My answer - no."

Why state the obvious? If a Jewish group celebrated their function, there would not be Christians insisting that they should say Christian prayers. It is absurd to even begin to think so.

Recognition for atheists? Not wanting public events turned into religious ceremonies is not recognition for atheists. If a public event had no religious aspect at all, how would you know what anyone in attendance had for religious beliefs. It would not be recognition for atheists. It would be a lack of recognition for Christians. In fact it would be a lack of recognition for any religious beliefs.

Non-theists don't say recognize my religious beliefs. They say stop forcing us to recognize christian religious beliefs.

We are talking about public events here Mishima. No one is trying to take away a persons right to be as religious as they please. We are just saying a public event is not the place for extolling your beliefs in one way or another.

Here is another yes or no question for you. If Christians are allowed 15 minutes of prayer, just a number, should non-theists be allowed 15 minutes to explain their beliefs to the crowd in attendance?

You know like the evolutionary process.

Why the story of Jesus is actually the story of Osiris.

How the flood story came from the flooding of the Mediterranean.

That the story of Isaac's willingness to sacrifice his son just because God said so was nothing more than a warning about people like Isaac.

I could probably tell the group in attendance quite a bit about non-theism in five, ten or fifteen minutes.

Do I have the same right to celebrate my beliefs on religion at public events just like Christians do. Yes or no. My answer - yes.

Here is your link.

http://www.ibtimes.com/number-nonreligious-americans-continues-increase-one-fift...

Who gets to decide what rights are inalienable?

I think a woman's right to choose for herself when it comes to her own reproductive decisions is inalienable. It would seem they have that right in a lot of westernized secular countries right now. The United States and Canada just to name 2. It would also seem that Christians and far right conservatives are trying to take away that inalienable right.

I also think it is an inalienable right to go to a public event without being subjected to someone elses religious beliefs. If you don't mention yours, I won't mention mine and we can both have whatever religious ceremonies we both choose to have anywhere else but at the event that was designed for everybody in the community.

Who gets to decide if the things I believe are inalienable rights actually are or not?

I wonder if Christians or conservatives would be good people to make those decisions.

What if I don't want to get the f..ck out but want to offer this prayer.

Thank you logic for giving me the ability to see the truth of evolution. And thank you logic for allowing me to understand the scientific process. Thank you logic for allowing me to see the randomness of existence. Please logic, find your way into the minds of those gathered here so they too can see the truth of non-theism as you have so graciously allowed me. And finally, thank you logic for the secular state we live in and all the rights and moralities that came only after their inception. Ah secularism.

What do you think Mishima? Nat bad eh? Should I be allowed to give that thanks to logic in the form of a prayer at public events too?

Communities have traditions. Only the selfish and narcissistic would ask the community to give up its decades and generations of traditions in order to feel a bit more comfortable. It would be the height of extreme egoism.

"No one is trying to take away a persons right to be as religious as they please. We are just saying a public event is not the place for extolling your beliefs in one way or another. "

On the contrary, public event are precisely that place.

" If Christians are allowed 15 minutes of prayer, just a number, should non-theists be allowed 15 minutes to explain their beliefs to the crowd in attendance?"

No. However, if these radical extremist narcissists who cannot even adapt to a community but think that their personal DESIRES are so important as to override any manners, sense of propriety and decency, think that they have to make their egotistical and selfish puerile statements, no matter how offensive, then perhaps they should ask those in charge if this would be alright. I doubt it would because those in charge will be primarily concerned with the enjoyment of the people, and not want to cater to some puerile vainglorious extremist.

"Who gets to decide what rights are inalienable?"

Most, like the Founders, probably say God. Or the Creator. But being an atheist myself, I defer to Nature. It is a continual process of discovery by trying to understand the nature of Man.

"I think a woman's right to choose for herself when it comes to her own reproductive decisions is inalienable."

Yes, she can choose whether to have sex or not, use contraceptives, see a doctor to find out when the best time to have sex for pregnancy and so forth.

Is that what you are talking about?