| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2005 09:52:21 PM |
| Object: |
Atheists claim discrimination |
Any group that is crazy enough to claim "Christian persecution" just
because they were told "NO" would probably have been a disruptive
presence, therefor the owner was correct in refusing accomodations. Do
atheists really want to be recognized as a oppressed minority?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050802/2religion.htm
Atheists claim discrimination
The owner of a coffee shop near Birmingham, Ala., has banned members of
a secular group for atheists, agnostics, and other questioners from
meeting in her cafe. The Universist Movement is claiming Christian
persecution, while Cool Beans owner Amy Anderson says she's only trying
to maintain order in her business.
In an increasingly religious America, the nonreligious have begun
painting themselves as a persecuted minority.
.
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
06 Aug 2005 05:36:54 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3ro7f1pa15dj45bvcau22jv8mbbi9af621@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<boLIe.6021$%X1.2892@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
But under the law we are free from religion also.
Your private rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 08:19:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3ro7f1pa15dj45bvcau22jv8mbbi9af621@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<boLIe.6021$%X1.2892@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
But under the law we are free from religion also.
Your private rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
To some extent.
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action? Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard? Or set up
a bandstand?
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 08:56:01 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vd2cf15tcvf4m0rk7b92jl198isgdrmg79@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3ro7f1pa15dj45bvcau22jv8mbbi9af621@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<boLIe.6021$%X1.2892@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
But under the law we are free from religion also.
Your private rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
To some extent.
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that
you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that
again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action?
Because sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to attain what you desire.
Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard?
There are statutes against arsonist type activities.
Or set up
a bandstand?
If someone sets up a bandstand in your yard, then you can claim that
bandstand as your own.
Eminent domain should flow to the individual property owner.
If someone abandons a vehicle on your property, not on the right of way,
then you can hold it until the owner comes to pick it up, and you could
charge a stowage fee just like the impounders do.
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Because religion is not to be taxed or charged a fee. Religion has its own
revenue generation system, the tithe and offerings which are given
electively, which means that religion does not levy taxes or send bills
assessed on income or property.
There is a difference in the practice of religion and the practice of
business and government.
The exclusion afforded to religion recognizes their non-taxing and
non-billing nature.
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
You do have a right not to be annoyed on your own property.
Trespassing statutes can help you to keep people you do not want on your
property off of your property.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 04:00:40 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:56:01 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<SooJe.23122$hp.7418@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vd2cf15tcvf4m0rk7b92jl198isgdrmg79@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3ro7f1pa15dj45bvcau22jv8mbbi9af621@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<boLIe.6021$%X1.2892@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
But under the law we are free from religion also.
Your private rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
To some extent.
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that
you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that
again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action?
Because sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to attain what you desire.
Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard?
There are statutes against arsonist type activities.
But arson requires destruction of property.
Or set up
a bandstand?
If someone sets up a bandstand in your yard, then you can claim that
bandstand as your own.
Or burn it down.
Eminent domain should flow to the individual property owner.
If someone abandons a vehicle on your property, not on the right of way,
then you can hold it until the owner comes to pick it up, and you could
charge a stowage fee just like the impounders do.
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Because religion is not to be taxed or charged a fee.
Which I support changing.
Religion has its own
revenue generation system, the tithe and offerings which are given
electively, which means that religion does not levy taxes or send bills
assessed on income or property.
So what? If there is income, or property owned, then there should be
taxes paid.
There is a difference in the practice of religion and the practice of
business and government.
There should not be.
The exclusion afforded to religion recognizes their non-taxing and
non-billing nature.
I support eliminating this. Totally.
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
You do have a right not to be annoyed on your own property.
Trespassing statutes can help you to keep people you do not want on your
property off of your property.
It is rather difficult to get such pests arrested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 09:13:54 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:rctcf1hpeij6n4o7apjpqhgtvdk3uljftc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:56:01 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<SooJe.23122$hp.7418@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vd2cf15tcvf4m0rk7b92jl198isgdrmg79@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3ro7f1pa15dj45bvcau22jv8mbbi9af621@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<boLIe.6021$%X1.2892@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in
alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First
Amendment.
But under the law we are free from religion also.
Your private rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
To some extent.
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that
you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you
can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that
again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action?
Because sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to attain what you
desire.
Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard?
There are statutes against arsonist type activities.
But arson requires destruction of property.
What would they be burning?
Or set up
a bandstand?
If someone sets up a bandstand in your yard, then you can claim that
bandstand as your own.
Or burn it down.
Which would require you to be able to establish ownership rights it somehow,
correct?
Eminent domain should flow to the individual property owner.
If someone abandons a vehicle on your property, not on the right of way,
then you can hold it until the owner comes to pick it up, and you could
charge a stowage fee just like the impounders do.
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Because religion is not to be taxed or charged a fee.
Which I support changing.
Which has about zero chance of succeeding in this nation.
Current law does not allow such.
Religion has its own
revenue generation system, the tithe and offerings which are given
electively, which means that religion does not levy taxes or send bills
assessed on income or property.
So what? If there is income, or property owned, then there should be
taxes paid.
Why?
Are they not paying their way already?
Maybe you should get the money needed to protect the people from for-profit
businesses and don't worry about the constitutional right to free exercise
of religion.
There is a difference in the practice of religion and the practice of
business and government.
There should not be.
You are saying that Churches should charge admission and tax statements and
monthly bills to their members?
You do not like freedom?
The exclusion afforded to religion recognizes their non-taxing and
non-billing nature.
I support eliminating this. Totally.
I don't. I would prefer that taxes and bills be eliminated rather than
taxing Churches.
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
You do have a right not to be annoyed on your own property.
Trespassing statutes can help you to keep people you do not want on your
property off of your property.
It is rather difficult to get such pests arrested.
So, why try to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
08 Aug 2005 05:29:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 22:13:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<BczJe.34278$Mo.22898@bignews5.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:rctcf1hpeij6n4o7apjpqhgtvdk3uljftc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:56:01 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<SooJe.23122$hp.7418@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vd2cf15tcvf4m0rk7b92jl198isgdrmg79@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3ro7f1pa15dj45bvcau22jv8mbbi9af621@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<boLIe.6021$%X1.2892@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in
alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First
Amendment.
But under the law we are free from religion also.
Your private rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
To some extent.
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that
you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you
can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that
again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action?
Because sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to attain what you
desire.
Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard?
There are statutes against arsonist type activities.
But arson requires destruction of property.
What would they be burning?
Whatever they brought to burn.
Or set up
a bandstand?
If someone sets up a bandstand in your yard, then you can claim that
bandstand as your own.
Or burn it down.
Which would require you to be able to establish ownership rights it somehow,
correct?
But it's on my property.
Eminent domain should flow to the individual property owner.
If someone abandons a vehicle on your property, not on the right of way,
then you can hold it until the owner comes to pick it up, and you could
charge a stowage fee just like the impounders do.
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Because religion is not to be taxed or charged a fee.
Which I support changing.
Which has about zero chance of succeeding in this nation.
That does not mean I can't continue trying.
Current law does not allow such.
What part of 'changing' eludes you?
Religion has its own
revenue generation system, the tithe and offerings which are given
electively, which means that religion does not levy taxes or send bills
assessed on income or property.
So what? If there is income, or property owned, then there should be
taxes paid.
Why?
Why not?
Are they not paying their way already?
No.
Maybe you should get the money needed to protect the people from for-profit
businesses and don't worry about the constitutional right to free exercise
of religion.
Why should people need protection from for profit businesses? And
protection from what?
There is a difference in the practice of religion and the practice of
business and government.
There should not be.
You are saying that Churches should charge admission and tax statements and
monthly bills to their members?
They can do as they like as long as they report all income for tax
purposes and pay property tax on exactly the same basis as anyone
else.
You do not like freedom?
This is freedom. After all, why should religion be a special case for
anything?
The exclusion afforded to religion recognizes their non-taxing and
non-billing nature.
I support eliminating this. Totally.
I don't. I would prefer that taxes and bills be eliminated rather than
taxing Churches.
Someone must pay the costs of government. Religion should have no
exemption.
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
You do have a right not to be annoyed on your own property.
Trespassing statutes can help you to keep people you do not want on your
property off of your property.
It is rather difficult to get such pests arrested.
So, why try to?
Because they should be discouraged from being pests.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 11:18:26 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vd2cf15tcvf4m0rk7b92jl198isgdrmg79@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that
you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that
again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action? Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard? Or set up
a bandstand?
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
It's a little like e-mail.
The presumption of innocence gives everyone *one* shot at contact, on the
assumption that no one is really going to bither anyone else. However, one
annoyance & you're out.
I agree that people shouldn't be so obnoxious & arrogant in the first place,
but you can't change even defective human nature.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 04:03:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:18:26 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <mvqJe.3985$2j.69@trnddc07> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vd2cf15tcvf4m0rk7b92jl198isgdrmg79@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that
you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that
again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action? Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard? Or set up
a bandstand?
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
It's a little like e-mail.
The presumption of innocence gives everyone *one* shot at contact, on the
assumption that no one is really going to bither anyone else. However, one
annoyance & you're out.
Great. I have been bothered by a JW more than once. As well as a
baptist or two. I can have the next ones arrested.
I agree that people shouldn't be so obnoxious & arrogant in the first place,
but you can't change even defective human nature.
Actually you can. If you make the result distasteful enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 04:40:33 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3ktcf15ngvktuc4ba8d8nvpaoqa55lnql6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:18:26 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <mvqJe.3985$2j.69@trnddc07> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vd2cf15tcvf4m0rk7b92jl198isgdrmg79@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that
you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you
can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that
again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action? Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard? Or set up
a bandstand?
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
It's a little like e-mail.
The presumption of innocence gives everyone *one* shot at contact, on the
assumption that no one is really going to bither anyone else. However, one
annoyance & you're out.
Great. I have been bothered by a JW more than once. As well as a
baptist or two. I can have the next ones arrested.
Uh, it has to be the same person, if you;re going on that premise.
BUT, if you post "No Solicitation" & they bother you anyway, they don't even
get a first shot, & you can get them arrested. But getting them to stay put
for it is a trifle difficulot.
I agree that people shouldn't be so obnoxious & arrogant in the first
place,
but you can't change even defective human nature.
Actually you can. If you make the result distasteful enough.
That's not changing human nature, it's changing human behavior.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 08:02:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:40:33 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <ldvJe.9755$WQ.9161@trnddc03> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:3ktcf15ngvktuc4ba8d8nvpaoqa55lnql6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 16:18:26 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <mvqJe.3985$2j.69@trnddc07> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:vd2cf15tcvf4m0rk7b92jl198isgdrmg79@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 18:36:54 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8XaJe.19082$jq.6196@bignews3.bellsouth.net> wrote:
If someone comes to your home witnessing to you, you can tell them that
you
do not want them coming to your home conducting such activity, and you
can
inform them that they will be trespassing against you if they do that
again
against your wishes. I think you have to notify them in writing in some
states and/or have a no trespassing sign up.
But why should I have to take proactive action? Do I need to do the
same if someone wants to build a bonfire in my front yard? Or set up
a bandstand?
Why should religion have any more rights or protections than any other
activity?
Why don't I have a right not to be annoyed?
It's a little like e-mail.
The presumption of innocence gives everyone *one* shot at contact, on the
assumption that no one is really going to bither anyone else. However, one
annoyance & you're out.
Great. I have been bothered by a JW more than once. As well as a
baptist or two. I can have the next ones arrested.
Uh, it has to be the same person, if you;re going on that premise.
BUT, if you post "No Solicitation" & they bother you anyway, they don't even
get a first shot, & you can get them arrested. But getting them to stay put
for it is a trifle difficulot.
Rig a hose over the door with an inside activation. Post a note
saying "RELIGION DISCUSSED AT YOUR PERIL"
I agree that people shouldn't be so obnoxious & arrogant in the first
place,
but you can't change even defective human nature.
Actually you can. If you make the result distasteful enough.
That's not changing human nature, it's changing human behavior.
All religion is nothing more than human behavior.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf1029 ©2001-2008" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 12:45:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
My free exercise of religion is not to exercise it at all. ‘Free
exercise’ is just that: I can do what I want with it. If part of my
philosophy is not being unduly exposed to it, I am entitled to that
under the 1st Amendment, especially in state run establishments, such
as government buildings, public schools, and in matters of
jurisprudence. So, the point of ‘no freedom from religion for people I
don't like’ is moot. If you want to disagree, I see that there is also
a section in the 1st Amendment about redress of grievances. I'm sure
that the SCOTUS would like to hear from you. And after they're done
laughing at you, life will continue on its merry way, with all being
treated equally before the laws of the USA. That includes atheists,
your nose-wrinkling notwithstanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 03:47:20 PM |
|
|
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:2997f1hi1vqvtaevvv28go86aco25kptng@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
My free exercise of religion is not to exercise it at all. 'Free
exercise' is just that: I can do what I want with it. If part of my
philosophy is not being unduly exposed to it, I am entitled to that
under the 1st Amendment, especially in state run establishments, such
as government buildings, public schools, and in matters of
jurisprudence. So, the point of 'no freedom from religion for people I
don't like' is moot. If you want to disagree, I see that there is also
a section in the 1st Amendment about redress of grievances. I'm sure
that the SCOTUS would like to hear from you. And after they're done
laughing at you, life will continue on its merry way, with all being
treated equally before the laws of the USA. That includes atheists,
your nose-wrinkling notwithstanding.
Althought you may believe that, the First Amendment prohibits the government
from infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the people of the
Unted States.
If you do not want to be unduly exposed to such Constitutional practices,
then you must find a way to insulate yourself from being exposed without
infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the citizenry of the USA.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 04:57:41 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:xeQIe.16619$BA5.8502@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone>
wrote in message news:2997f1hi1vqvtaevvv28go86aco25kptng@4ax.com...
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
My free exercise of religion is not to exercise it at all. 'Free
exercise' is just that: I can do what I want with it. If part of my
philosophy is not being unduly exposed to it, I am entitled to that
under the 1st Amendment, especially in state run establishments, such
as government buildings, public schools, and in matters of
jurisprudence. So, the point of 'no freedom from religion for people I
don't like' is moot. If you want to disagree, I see that there is also
a section in the 1st Amendment about redress of grievances. I'm sure
that the SCOTUS would like to hear from you. And after they're done
laughing at you, life will continue on its merry way, with all being
treated equally before the laws of the USA. That includes atheists,
your nose-wrinkling notwithstanding.
Althought you may believe that, the First Amendment prohibits the
government from infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the
people of the Unted States.
If you do not want to be unduly exposed to such Constitutional practices,
then you must find a way to insulate yourself from being exposed without
infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the citizenry of the
USA.
Nothing you said is an answer for what she wrote.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf1029 ©2001-2008" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 10:48:48 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:57:41 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:xeQIe.16619$BA5.8502@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone>
wrote in message news:2997f1hi1vqvtaevvv28go86aco25kptng@4ax.com...
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
My free exercise of religion is not to exercise it at all. 'Free
exercise' is just that: I can do what I want with it. If part of my
philosophy is not being unduly exposed to it, I am entitled to that
under the 1st Amendment, especially in state run establishments, such
as government buildings, public schools, and in matters of
jurisprudence. So, the point of 'no freedom from religion for people I
don't like' is moot. If you want to disagree, I see that there is also
a section in the 1st Amendment about redress of grievances. I'm sure
that the SCOTUS would like to hear from you. And after they're done
laughing at you, life will continue on its merry way, with all being
treated equally before the laws of the USA. That includes atheists,
your nose-wrinkling notwithstanding.
Althought you may believe that, the First Amendment prohibits the
government from infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the
people of the Unted States.
If you do not want to be unduly exposed to such Constitutional practices,
then you must find a way to insulate yourself from being exposed without
infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the citizenry of the
USA.
Nothing you said is an answer for what she wrote.
I'm a he. <g> And thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 12:30:00 PM |
|
|
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:8oc8f1pih18hge5pf9d0u9phaonp36sn19@4ax.com...
Nothing you said is an answer for what she wrote.
I'm a he. <g> And thank you.
I thought so, but someone else called you a "she" & I didn't see a
contradiction, so I figured I was wrong. Maybe you missed it (or maybe I
even misread it!).
But you're welcome!
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf1029 ©2001-2008" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 01:35:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:30:00 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
wrote:
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:8oc8f1pih18hge5pf9d0u9phaonp36sn19@4ax.com...
Nothing you said is an answer for what she wrote.
I'm a he. <g> And thank you.
I thought so, but someone else called you a "she" & I didn't see a
contradiction, so I figured I was wrong. Maybe you missed it (or maybe I
even misread it!).
It was probably some shitwad troll, like B*ll Taylor.
But you're welcome!
Anytime. I think (sinus infection + drugs = me right now, wooohoo!)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
08 Aug 2005 09:34:36 AM |
|
|
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:n0lcf15hhc3r3kcdflmmtemurc5ipdl5dc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:30:00 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
wrote:
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone>
wrote
in message news:8oc8f1pih18hge5pf9d0u9phaonp36sn19@4ax.com...
Nothing you said is an answer for what she wrote.
I'm a he. <g> And thank you.
I thought so, but someone else called you a "she" & I didn't see a
contradiction, so I figured I was wrong. Maybe you missed it (or maybe I
even misread it!).
It was probably some shitwad troll, like B*ll Taylor.
But you're welcome!
Anytime. I think (sinus infection + drugs = me right now, wooohoo!)
Gender isn't NEARLY as important as position on a topic. If someone is
right, they are right with or without testes, and the same is true if they
are wrong :)
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
08 Aug 2005 08:59:41 PM |
|
|
"Mickey" <mickeySPAMb@SPAMcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:D9GdncQICabj8GrfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
Gender isn't NEARLY as important as position on a topic. If someone is
right, they are right with or without testes, and the same is true if they
are wrong :)
I suppose this also applies to those who have the on-demand use of them,
too?
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
12 Aug 2005 06:09:01 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h6UJe.3071$0d.2467@trnddc02...
"Mickey" <mickeySPAMb@SPAMcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:D9GdncQICabj8GrfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
Gender isn't NEARLY as important as position on a topic. If someone is
right, they are right with or without testes, and the same is true if
they
are wrong :)
I suppose this also applies to those who have the on-demand use of them,
too?
On demand? Hey, I'm easy, but I ain't THAT easy.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
12 Aug 2005 10:16:37 AM |
|
|
"Mickey" <mickeySPAMb@SPAMcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:CIydnTpIx4T1HmHfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h6UJe.3071$0d.2467@trnddc02...
"Mickey" <mickeySPAMb@SPAMcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:D9GdncQICabj8GrfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
Gender isn't NEARLY as important as position on a topic. If someone is
right, they are right with or without testes, and the same is true if
they
are wrong :)
I suppose this also applies to those who have the on-demand use of them,
too?
On demand? Hey, I'm easy, but I ain't THAT easy.
That's your wife's problem, isn't it? :-P
Susan
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
14 Aug 2005 06:27:17 PM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:p33Le.197$Rp5.163@trnddc03...
"Mickey" <mickeySPAMb@SPAMcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:CIydnTpIx4T1HmHfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h6UJe.3071$0d.2467@trnddc02...
"Mickey" <mickeySPAMb@SPAMcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:D9GdncQICabj8GrfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
Gender isn't NEARLY as important as position on a topic. If someone
is
right, they are right with or without testes, and the same is true if
they
are wrong :)
I suppose this also applies to those who have the on-demand use of
them,
too?
On demand? Hey, I'm easy, but I ain't THAT easy.
That's your wife's problem, isn't it? :-P
Doesn't seem to be THAT big a problem :)))))
Mickey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
07 Aug 2005 03:44:40 PM |
|
|
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:n0lcf15hhc3r3kcdflmmtemurc5ipdl5dc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:30:00 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
wrote:
I'm a he. <g> And thank you.
I thought so, but someone else called you a "she" & I didn't see a
contradiction, so I figured I was wrong. Maybe you missed it (or maybe I
even misread it!).
It was probably some shitwad troll, like B*ll Taylor.
Or someone who got genuinely confused.
But you're welcome!
Anytime. I think (sinus infection + drugs = me right now, wooohoo!)
Oh, been there, done that, would run like heck if you came near me 'cuz I'd
rather keep my miserable cold as such & not up the ante....
(Drink hot tea with honey & lemon!)
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "maf1029 ©2001-2008" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
08 Aug 2005 01:32:29 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:44:40 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
wrote:
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:n0lcf15hhc3r3kcdflmmtemurc5ipdl5dc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:30:00 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
wrote:
I'm a he. <g> And thank you.
I thought so, but someone else called you a "she" & I didn't see a
contradiction, so I figured I was wrong. Maybe you missed it (or maybe I
even misread it!).
It was probably some shitwad troll, like B*ll Taylor.
Or someone who got genuinely confused.
Could be, although the regs in my group (aph) know I'm a guy with a
fondness for animal welfare, chocolate, and Ricky Martin. <g>
But you're welcome!
Anytime. I think (sinus infection + drugs = me right now, wooohoo!)
Oh, been there, done that, would run like heck if you came near me 'cuz I'd
rather keep my miserable cold as such & not up the ante....
Good plan. And if I had the energy to run, I'd probably do the same.
(Drink hot tea with honey & lemon!)
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
08 Aug 2005 09:35:32 AM |
|
|
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:i1vdf1lc08nd65frkmgq7g8tc8a1o0t530@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:44:40 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
wrote:
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone>
wrote
in message news:n0lcf15hhc3r3kcdflmmtemurc5ipdl5dc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:30:00 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
wrote:
I'm a he. <g> And thank you.
I thought so, but someone else called you a "she" & I didn't see a
contradiction, so I figured I was wrong. Maybe you missed it (or maybe
I
even misread it!).
It was probably some shitwad troll, like B*ll Taylor.
Or someone who got genuinely confused.
Could be, although the regs in my group (aph) know I'm a guy with a
fondness for animal welfare, chocolate, and Ricky Martin. <g>
But you're welcome!
Anytime. I think (sinus infection + drugs = me right now, wooohoo!)
Oh, been there, done that, would run like heck if you came near me 'cuz
I'd
rather keep my miserable cold as such & not up the ante....
Good plan. And if I had the energy to run, I'd probably do the same.
If you see me running, it means that either the devil is one step behind me,
or I am one step behind him :)
Mickey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 05:16:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:47:20 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<xeQIe.16619$BA5.8502@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:2997f1hi1vqvtaevvv28go86aco25kptng@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
My free exercise of religion is not to exercise it at all. 'Free
exercise' is just that: I can do what I want with it. If part of my
philosophy is not being unduly exposed to it, I am entitled to that
under the 1st Amendment, especially in state run establishments, such
as government buildings, public schools, and in matters of
jurisprudence. So, the point of 'no freedom from religion for people I
don't like' is moot. If you want to disagree, I see that there is also
a section in the 1st Amendment about redress of grievances. I'm sure
that the SCOTUS would like to hear from you. And after they're done
laughing at you, life will continue on its merry way, with all being
treated equally before the laws of the USA. That includes atheists,
your nose-wrinkling notwithstanding.
Althought you may believe that, the First Amendment prohibits the government
from infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the people of the
Unted States.
If you do not want to be unduly exposed to such Constitutional practices,
then you must find a way to insulate yourself from being exposed without
infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the citizenry of the USA.
That is interpreted by thousands of fundies as the right to be
annoying as hell and the more obnoxious they behave the more
self-righteous they feel. Personally I like using a garden hose on
them after one warning to leave my property.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 05:32:53 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:l1p7f1hjb63j2foll118n7or7r1la2m6kc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:47:20 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<xeQIe.16619$BA5.8502@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
That is interpreted by thousands of fundies as the right to be
annoying as hell and the more obnoxious they behave the more
self-righteous they feel. Personally I like using a garden hose on
them after one warning to leave my property.
I womnder if you are related to my husband....?
Granted, I was pregnant & ill at the time, and they were driving by our
house SLOWLY, honking their horns with a "Choose Jesus" parade....
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
06 Aug 2005 03:55:42 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:32:53 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <pORIe.526$z%.209@trnddc02> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:l1p7f1hjb63j2foll118n7or7r1la2m6kc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:47:20 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<xeQIe.16619$BA5.8502@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
That is interpreted by thousands of fundies as the right to be
annoying as hell and the more obnoxious they behave the more
self-righteous they feel. Personally I like using a garden hose on
them after one warning to leave my property.
I womnder if you are related to my husband....?
Granted, I was pregnant & ill at the time, and they were driving by our
house SLOWLY, honking their horns with a "Choose Jesus" parade....
Susan
I had a JW bother me one day. I invited him to my prayer circle, and
he got all excited and eager. Then I told him we believed in human
sacrifice and it was my turn to bring a guest.
I loved his face.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
06 Aug 2005 05:04:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 04:55:42 -0400 in alt.atheism, Attila (Attila
<prochoice@here.now>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:32:53 GMT, "Susan Cohen" <flaviaR@verizon.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <pORIe.526$z%.209@trnddc02> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:l1p7f1hjb63j2foll118n7or7r1la2m6kc@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:47:20 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<xeQIe.16619$BA5.8502@bignews6.bellsouth.net> wrote:
That is interpreted by thousands of fundies as the right to be
annoying as hell and the more obnoxious they behave the more
self-righteous they feel. Personally I like using a garden hose on
them after one warning to leave my property.
I womnder if you are related to my husband....?
Granted, I was pregnant & ill at the time, and they were driving by our
house SLOWLY, honking their horns with a "Choose Jesus" parade....
Susan
I had a JW bother me one day. I invited him to my prayer circle, and
he got all excited and eager. Then I told him we believed in human
sacrifice and it was my turn to bring a guest.
I loved his face.
Done that with moonies. They pointed and shouted at me in the street.
Most amusing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf1029 ©2001-2008" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 10:47:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:47:20 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:2997f1hi1vqvtaevvv28go86aco25kptng@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
My free exercise of religion is not to exercise it at all. 'Free
exercise' is just that: I can do what I want with it. If part of my
philosophy is not being unduly exposed to it, I am entitled to that
under the 1st Amendment, especially in state run establishments, such
as government buildings, public schools, and in matters of
jurisprudence. So, the point of 'no freedom from religion for people I
don't like' is moot. If you want to disagree, I see that there is also
a section in the 1st Amendment about redress of grievances. I'm sure
that the SCOTUS would like to hear from you. And after they're done
laughing at you, life will continue on its merry way, with all being
treated equally before the laws of the USA. That includes atheists,
your nose-wrinkling notwithstanding.
Althought you may believe that,
It's a fact. No belief required.
the First Amendment prohibits the government
from infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the people of the
Unted States.
Your right to shove your sick, diseased dogma down my throat ends
where public property begins. That includes public schools and courts
of law. The 1st Amendment does not provide you a forum to force others
to believe vas you do, your theocratic fantasies notwithstanding.
If you do not want to be unduly exposed to such Constitutional practices,
You misspelled UN-constitutional.
Again, your free exercise of religion ends where public property
begins. If you wish otherwise, then you may petition for a redress of
your grievances, for which you will be handed an application for
citizenship in a theocracy. I hear Afghanistan is taking applications.
then you must find a way to insulate yourself from being exposed without
infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the citizenry of the USA.
Already am. It's called the 1st Amendment, which applies just as much
to me as it does to you, despite your wishing to the contrary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
06 Aug 2005 05:33:46 PM |
|
|
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone> wrote
in message news:k2c8f1tbfk5jo7kb0j95n4dd48acri2pj8@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 16:47:20 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"maf1029 (©2001-2008)" <saxophone@saxophone.whereforeartthousaxophone>
wrote
in message news:2997f1hi1vqvtaevvv28go86aco25kptng@4ax.com...
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:16:23 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u3v6f1d6hh7d3n5t026beh01lpd731f130@4ax.com...
On 5 Aug 2005 06:10:34 -0700, in alt.abortion
with message-id
<1123247434.730912.124760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> wrote:
They like to flaunt their
religion too.
By going door to door, or standing on the street with a loudspeaker?
BTW, atheism is not a religion.
Which means they have no free exercise rights under the First Amendment.
My free exercise of religion is not to exercise it at all. 'Free
exercise' is just that: I can do what I want with it. If part of my
philosophy is not being unduly exposed to it, I am entitled to that
under the 1st Amendment, especially in state run establishments, such
as government buildings, public schools, and in matters of
jurisprudence. So, the point of 'no freedom from religion for people I
don't like' is moot. If you want to disagree, I see that there is also
a section in the 1st Amendment about redress of grievances. I'm sure
that the SCOTUS would like to hear from you. And after they're done
laughing at you, life will continue on its merry way, with all being
treated equally before the laws of the USA. That includes atheists,
your nose-wrinkling notwithstanding.
Althought you may believe that,
It's a fact. No belief required.
the First Amendment prohibits the government
from infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the people of the
Unted States.
Your right to shove your sick, diseased dogma down my throat ends
where public property begins.
Actually, that is not true. Free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the
First Amendment; and, that right applies to all US Citizens at any location.
There are other laws which can protect you from people witnessing to you
such as trespassing laws which are designed to protect you on your own
private property.
That includes public schools and courts
of law.
Nothing in the First Amendment allows infringing the free exercise of
religion right of the people.
The 1st Amendment does not provide you a forum to force others
to believe vas you do, your theocratic fantasies notwithstanding.
Read the First Amendment and understand it verbatim.
If you do not want to be unduly exposed to such Constitutional practices,
You misspelled UN-constitutional.
Again, your free exercise of religion ends where public property
begins.
Not true. The First Amendment makes no distinction about whether the
property is public or private.
As a Citizen, you and your children have the right to attend schools and you
can avoid harassment if there are teachers with enough discretion to tell
people to leave you alone in this area.
If you wish otherwise, then you may petition for a redress of
your grievances, for which you will be handed an application for
citizenship in a theocracy.
Why is it that it is atheists that are petitioning the government or
whatever they are doing in this case, contrary to the First Amendment?
I hear Afghanistan is taking applications.
You going?
then you must find a way to insulate yourself from being exposed without
infringing the free exercise of religion rights of the citizenry of the
USA.
Already am. It's called the 1st Amendment, which applies just as much
to me as it does to you, despite your wishing to the contrary.
I think you should read it again, and understand it in its verbatim
language.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 08:46:31 AM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 19:52:21 -0700, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
thought hard and wrote:
Any group that is crazy enough to claim "Christian persecution" just
because they were told "NO" would probably have been a disruptive
presence, therefor the owner was correct in refusing accomodations. Do
atheists really want to be recognized as a oppressed minority?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050802/2religion.htm
Atheists claim discrimination
The owner of a coffee shop near Birmingham, Ala., has banned members of
a secular group for atheists, agnostics, and other questioners from
meeting in her cafe. The Universist Movement is claiming Christian
persecution, while Cool Beans owner Amy Anderson says she's only trying
to maintain order in her business.
It is certainly the owner's right to do whatever the hell she wants
with her business--even if it means losing customers and business and,
gasp, money.
In an increasingly religious America, the nonreligious have begun
painting themselves as a persecuted minority.
....
Did you really just write what I thought you did?
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 17 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheists claim discrimination |
05 Aug 2005 09:48:58 AM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2005 19:52:21 -0700, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1123210341.943653.218200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Any group that is crazy enough to claim "Christian persecution" just
because they were told "NO" would probably have been a disruptive
presence, therefor the owner was correct in refusing accomodations. Do
atheists really want to be recognized as a oppressed minority?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050802/2religion.htm
Atheists claim discrimination
The owner of a coffee shop near Birmingham, Ala., has banned members of
a secular group for atheists, agnostics, and other questioners from
meeting in her cafe. The Universist Movement is claiming Christian
persecution, while Cool Beans owner Amy Anderson says she's only trying
to maintain order in her business.
In an increasingly religious America, the nonreligious have begun
painting themselves as a persecuted minority.
Some interesting information
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
