What's new

Oklahoma and Satan

La Li Lu Le Lo said:
Speaking of being blindsided by ignorance, how is that whole Obamacare thing working out?
Pretty good actually.

I kept my same insurance, i kept my same doctor, and now my children are still covered under my family plan.

My rates went up about same increase as the have been for last decade.

Thanks for asking....
 
La Li Lu Le Lo said:
Most of the people in this country claim the Christian faith. When you deny Christian symbolism you are denying the history, heritage, and culture of the vast majority.
Maybe, but we also have equal treatment in this country. You can't promote one set of symbolism while denying another. How would the discussion be if it wasn't Satanists that wanted to build something, but rather a group of, say, Jewish people?
 
I am personally getting tired of having our culture (not just religion) shredded by a bunch of "special Interest" groups.
I think the extremity on both sides is a bit old. I mean, I don't want my kids being forced to pray in school, but at the same time it's a f'ing Christmas tree, ya know?

Somehow we managed to make it ~200 years w/o it being too big of a deal. A little more "live and let live" all around would do this nation well.
 
 
southwind said:
For a practicing Atheist, you sure seem concerned with people spreading the word of the Devil...
Southwind (unwittingly) brings up a good point. Much like my question about Jews above, what if it was the Freedom From Religion Coalition that was pushing to build something? Then what direction does the discussion go in?
 
Kev3188 said:
Maybe, but we also have equal treatment in this country. You can't promote one set of symbolism while denying another. How would the discussion be if it wasn't Satanists that wanted to build something, but rather a group of, say, Jewish people?
 

I think the extremity on both sides is a bit old. I mean, I don't want my kids being forced to pray in school, but at the same time it's a f'ing Christmas tree, ya know?

Somehow we managed to make it ~200 years w/o it being too big of a deal. A little more "live and let live" all around would do this nation well.
 
 

Southwind (unwittingly) brings up a good point. Much like my question about Jews above, what if it was the Freedom From Religion Coalition that was pushing to build something? Then what direction does the discussion go in?
 
I was raised Jewish.  All that was celebrated in school was Christmas.  Never anything else.  Most the kids I grew up with did not know how to react when I told them I was Jewish and had little or no knowledge of their faith.  They knew even less of mine.  I felt like an outsider.  I never thought it was fair.  So while I agree that it 'is only a Christmas tree' to a degree.  For someone who does not practice that faith, it is far more than that.  Best way I can explain it is go to a foreign country where you do not speak the language and go to a party.  I think it will be a pretty lonely experience.
 
I agree that if it were a faith that the Christians accepted or agreed with there would be know discussion at all. 
 
South seems to miss the point that this is all about.  It has nothing to do with what is believed.  We could be talking about Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto (sp?) Ancient Greek, Roman or Egyptian faith.  This is simply a equal protection question.  If the Christians can have a monument, everyone can, if everyone else cannot, then neither can the Christians.  Fourteenth is quite clear about this.
 
I totally get all of that. My comment about the tree was a nod to the sort of zealotry that insists it now be called a "holiday tree."

In that same vein, I'm not religious at all, but if someone says "Merry Christmas" to me, I'm either gonna say it right back in the spirit in which it was intended, or just say "thanks!"
 
Ms Tree said:
It stinks.  Better than whats out there and it's a start to overhauling the health care system.  The dems screwed up by not pushing harder for single payer in 2010.
 
If you had a policy costing $500 a month with a $2500 deductible, and now it costs $650 a month with a $5000 deductible.......what planet you buying insurance on and who from?
 
I think I see both sides.  The tree thing bugs me sometimes and sometimes not.  I wear a star of david which my mother gave me as a child.  I wear it for reasons not related to religious belief which I will not get into here.  I live in Texas and I have stopped counting the number of times someone see my star and treats me like a novelty.  I feel like a freak at a side show sometimes.
 
The closer to the holidays it gets the more tiresome it becomes for me to here the merry Christmas.  Lately I have to admit I am getting more people saying happy holidays which I appreciate.  One thing I have noticed is that professionals seem to say that while what appear to be less educated or older folks stick with the Merry Christmas.
 
There have been a few times where if someone tells me Merry Christmas I'll wish them a happy Hanukah.  Some get it, most don't.
 
Bottom line for me is there are a lot of people in the world.  We do not all believe the same.  I see no problem is giving a generic greeting to those I do not know.
 
Ms Tree said:
I think I see both sides.  The tree thing bugs me sometimes and sometimes not.  I wear a star of david which my mother gave me as a child.  I wear it for reasons not related to religious belief which I will not get into here.  I live in Texas and I have stopped counting the number of times someone see my star and treats me like a novelty.  I feel like a freak at a side show sometimes.
 
The closer to the holidays it gets the more tiresome it becomes for me to here the merry Christmas.  Lately I have to admit I am getting more people saying happy holidays which I appreciate.  One thing I have noticed is that professionals seem to say that while what appear to be less educated or older folks stick with the Merry Christmas.
 
There have been a few times where if someone tells me Merry Christmas I'll wish them a happy Hanukah.  Some get it, most don't.
 
Bottom line for me is there are a lot of people in the world.  We do not all believe the same.  I see no problem is giving a generic greeting to those I do not know.
What a surprise a liberal see's themselves as a victim............
 
For the record Ms Tree if I told you Merry Christmas and you replied Happy Hanukkah (you misspelled Hanukkah by the way which I find hilarious) I would consider that a normal response and would not think anything of it. A lot of the "side show freak" feeling you have is self imposed. The only person that turned you into a "victim" is YOU.
 
You are a warped person.
 
Where did he say he was a victim?

It sounds like you are a victim of your own bias. How sad.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-orders-landmark-california-cross-taken-down-012849685.html
U.S. judge orders landmark California (the liberal cesspool capital of the United States) cross taken down
 
A massive cross that serves as part of a war memorial on a San Diego hilltop must be dismantled because it has been found to violate a constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion, a federal judge grudgingly ruled on Thursday.
 
The decision by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns marks the latest development in a long-running legal battle over the 43-foot-tall cross, a local landmark that has stood on top of Mount Soledad since 1954 and is visible for miles.
 
Burns stayed his order to give the Obama administration and the association that erected the cross, which have fought its removal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a chance to file another appeal. Otherwise, he said, the monument must be taken down within 90 days.
 
"This is a victory for religious liberty," said Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (Liberal Terrorist) program on freedom of religion and belief who argued the matter for the plaintiffs in a hearing before Burns on Thursday.
 
"We firmly support the government's efforts to honor the service of those who fought and died for this country, but there are many ways to do that without playing favorites with religion," Mach said.
 
The case hinged on whether it is legal for a religious symbol to be prominently displayed on public land and whether the cross violated the U.S. Constitution's requirement on separation of church and state.  (Read this sentence for what it really is)
 
The Mount Soledad cross has been the subject of litigation since 1989, when two veterans sued San Diego to get it off city land. In 2006, Congress intervened in the dispute, resulting in the federal government taking ownership of the property.
 
A group of plaintiffs, including the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, then sued. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled that the dominance of the cross conveyed a message of government endorsement of religion.
 
The Obama administration (notice they took great care to say the Obama administration was against this even though we all know, they were not) and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which erected the cross, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, supported by 20 U.S. states and various veterans groups in arguing the cross should be allowed as part of the memorial.
 
In June 2012, the Supreme Court declined to take the case, letting the Ninth Circuit's ruling stand. In ordering that the cross be taken down, Burns said on Thursday he did not agree with the Ninth Circuit's ruling but that his hands were tied.
 
The cross, located between the Pacific Ocean and a major interstate highway, is surrounded by walls displaying granite plaques that commemorate veterans or veterans groups. Easter services were held annually at the cross from 1954 until at least 2000, according to court documents.
 
The Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which erected the cross in place of another cross that had stood on that spot since 1913, (part of our history and heritage) could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday's ruling.
 
By Dan Whitcomb
Reuters
 
Yet another example of libtards attacking a piece of American history (1913/1954), heritage, and culture, all in the name of "Civil Liberties"
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
Congress made no laws here. The First Amendment was never broken. Libtards are trying to twist the law to enforce an agenda.
 
The First Amendment was written to keep the Government from becoming a Theocracy, not so a bunch of whiney Libtards can play "victim".
 
Glenn Quagmire said:
Where did he say he was a victim?

It sounds like you are a victim of your own bias. How sad.
Sounds like your a victim of stupidity........ every time you open your mouth.
 
La Li Lu Le Lo said:
What a surprise a liberal see's themselves as a victim............
 
For the record Ms Tree if I told you Merry Christmas and you replied Happy Hanukkah (you misspelled Hanukkah by the way which I find hilarious) I would consider that a normal response and would not think anything of it. A lot of the "side show freak" feeling you have is self imposed. The only person that turned you into a "victim" is YOU.
 
You are a warped person.
Most narscists would not get it so I am not surprised at your reaction.
 
La Li Lu Le Lo said:
U.S. judge orders landmark California (the liberal cesspool capital of the United States) cross taken down
A massive cross that serves as part of a war memorial on a San Diego hilltop must be dismantled because it has been found to violate a constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion, a federal judge grudgingly ruled on Thursday.

 

The decision by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns marks the latest development in a long-running legal battle over the 43-foot-tall cross, a local landmark that has stood on top of Mount Soledad since 1954 and is visible for miles.

 

Burns stayed his order to give the Obama administration and the association that erected the cross, which have fought its removal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a chance to file another appeal. Otherwise, he said, the monument must be taken down within 90 days.

 

"This is a victory for religious liberty," said Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (Liberal Terrorist
) program on freedom of religion and belief who argued the matter for the plaintiffs in a hearing before Burns on Thursday.
 

"We firmly support the government's efforts to honor the service of those who fought and died for this country, but there are many ways to do that without playing favorites with religion," Mach said.

 

The case hinged on whether it is legal for a religious symbol to be prominently displayed on public land and whether the cross violated the U.S. Constitution's requirement on separation of church and state.

 

The Mount Soledad cross has been the subject of litigation since 1989, when two veterans sued San Diego to get it off city land. In 2006, Congress intervened in the dispute, resulting in the federal government taking ownership of the property.

 

A group of plaintiffs, including the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, then sued. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled that the dominance of the cross conveyed a message of government endorsement of religion.

 

The Obama administration (notice they took great care to say the Obama administration was against this even though we all know, they were not
) and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which erected the cross, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, supported by 20 U.S. states and various veterans groups in arguing the cross should be allowed as part of the memorial.
 

In June 2012, the Supreme Court declined to take the case, letting the Ninth Circuit's ruling stand. In ordering that the cross be taken down, Burns said on Thursday he did not agree with the Ninth Circuit's ruling but that his hands were tied.

 

The cross, located between the Pacific Ocean and a major interstate highway, is surrounded by walls displaying granite plaques that commemorate veterans or veterans groups. Easter services were held annually at the cross from 1954 until at least 2000, according to court documents.

 

The Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which erected the cross in place of another cross that had stood on that spot since 1913, (part of our history and heritage
) could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday's ruling.
 

By Dan Whitcomb

Reuters

 

Yet another example of libtards attacking a piece of American history (1913/1954) heritage, and culture, all in the name of "Civil Liberties"
Try doing a search on that fascist organization and see how many times they have defended conservative causes.

Fourteenth amendment is quite clear. Im sorry you do not agree with the COTUS but the courts have ruled on similar issue like this and the outcome is usually the same. Move it or lose it.
 
La Li Lu Le Lo said:
http://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-orders-landmark-california-cross-taken-down-012849685.html
U.S. judge orders landmark California (the liberal cesspool capital of the United States) cross taken down
 
A massive cross that serves as part of a war memorial on a San Diego hilltop must be dismantled because it has been found to violate a constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion, a federal judge grudgingly ruled on Thursday.
 
The decision by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns marks the latest development in a long-running legal battle over the 43-foot-tall cross, a local landmark that has stood on top of Mount Soledad since 1954 and is visible for miles.
 
Burns stayed his order to give the Obama administration and the association that erected the cross, which have fought its removal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a chance to file another appeal. Otherwise, he said, the monument must be taken down within 90 days.
 
"This is a victory for religious liberty," said Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (Liberal Terrorist) program on freedom of religion and belief who argued the matter for the plaintiffs in a hearing before Burns on Thursday.
 
"We firmly support the government's efforts to honor the service of those who fought and died for this country, but there are many ways to do that without playing favorites with religion," Mach said.
 
The case hinged on whether it is legal for a religious symbol to be prominently displayed on public land and whether the cross violated the U.S. Constitution's requirement on separation of church and state.  (Read this sentence for what it really is)
 
The Mount Soledad cross has been the subject of litigation since 1989, when two veterans sued San Diego to get it off city land. In 2006, Congress intervened in the dispute, resulting in the federal government taking ownership of the property.
 
A group of plaintiffs, including the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, then sued. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled that the dominance of the cross conveyed a message of government endorsement of religion.
 
The Obama administration (notice they took great care to say the Obama administration was against this even though we all know, they were not) and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which erected the cross, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, supported by 20 U.S. states and various veterans groups in arguing the cross should be allowed as part of the memorial.
 
In June 2012, the Supreme Court declined to take the case, letting the Ninth Circuit's ruling stand. In ordering that the cross be taken down, Burns said on Thursday he did not agree with the Ninth Circuit's ruling but that his hands were tied.
 
The cross, located between the Pacific Ocean and a major interstate highway, is surrounded by walls displaying granite plaques that commemorate veterans or veterans groups. Easter services were held annually at the cross from 1954 until at least 2000, according to court documents.
 
The Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which erected the cross in place of another cross that had stood on that spot since 1913, (part of our history and heritage) could not immediately be reached for comment on Thursday's ruling.
 
By Dan Whitcomb
Reuters
 
Yet another example of libtards attacking a piece of American history (1913/1954), heritage, and culture, all in the name of "Civil Liberties"
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/size]
 
Congress made no laws here. The First Amendment was never broken. Libtards are trying to twist the law to enforce an agenda.
 
The First Amendment was written to keep the Government from becoming a Theocracy, not so a bunch of whiney Libtards can play "victim".
Stupid is as stupid does. The "liberal" ACLU has defended gun rights, Christians, tea party, etcetera.

ACLU SUPPORTS STUDENTS' RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 7, 2010
CONTACT: C. Ray Drew, Colorado ACLU Executive Director, 303-777-5482 x105
Mark Silverstein, Colorado ACLU Legal Director, 303-777-5482 x114

COLORADO SPRINGS The Colorado Springs Gazette has reported that a local middle school has announced a policy forbidding students from wearing certain Christian symbols to school, unless they are worn underneath clothing.

The ACLU strongly opposes the decision of Colorado Springs School District 11 on the basis of religious liberty.

Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU said, The First Amendment protects the right of students to express their faith by wearing crosses, rosaries, or other religious symbols without interference from school officials. Our Constitution protects the right to individual religious liberty and the ACLU is here to support everyone who chooses to exercise that right.

For over 90 years the ACLU has always defended the religious liberty of all Americans. It is one of the most fundamental of our nations freedoms, said ACLU Executive Director Ray Drew.

According to the Gazette, Monsignor Bob Jaeger of the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs has stated that the church is OK with the schools position and Colorado Springs School District 11spokesperson Elaine Naleski states that this policy is necessary to prevent the use of crosses and rosaries as gang symbols.

http://aclu-co.org/news/aclu-supports-students-right-of-religious-freedom

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com
 
Ms Tree said:
Most narscists would not get it so I am not surprised at your reaction.
OK first things first, what's a narscists? Are you inventing words again?
 
What's to get? You are playing "victim" so you can feel special and get attention. It is the leftist way. It is the narcissistic way. If you want to see a narcissist find a picture of Obama (or a mirror). I am sure with the left leaning media that will be a trivial pursuit or, if not, I am sure he would be happy to send you a selfie.
 
Glenn Quagmire said:
Stupid is as stupid does. The "liberal" ACLU has defended gun rights, Christians, tea party, etcetera.

ACLU SUPPORTS STUDENTS' RIGHT OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 7, 2010
CONTACT: C. Ray Drew, Colorado ACLU Executive Director, 303-777-5482 x105
Mark Silverstein, Colorado ACLU Legal Director, 303-777-5482 x114

COLORADO SPRINGS The Colorado Springs Gazette has reported that a local middle school has announced a policy forbidding students from wearing certain Christian symbols to school, unless they are worn underneath clothing.

The ACLU strongly opposes the decision of Colorado Springs School District 11 on the basis of religious liberty.

Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU said, The First Amendment protects the right of students to express their faith by wearing crosses, rosaries, or other religious symbols without interference from school officials. Our Constitution protects the right to individual religious liberty and the ACLU is here to support everyone who chooses to exercise that right.

For over 90 years the ACLU has always defended the religious liberty of all Americans. It is one of the most fundamental of our nations freedoms, said ACLU Executive Director Ray Drew.

According to the Gazette, Monsignor Bob Jaeger of the Catholic Diocese of Colorado Springs has stated that the church is OK with the schools position and Colorado Springs School District 11spokesperson Elaine Naleski states that this policy is necessary to prevent the use of crosses and rosaries as gang symbols.

http://aclu-co.org/news/aclu-supports-students-right-of-religious-freedom

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com
They also defended NAMBLA. 
 
Your post changes nothing. The ACLU is a leftist bottom feeder parasite.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top