Printable View
Thank you for totally missing the point. Liberals are always the ones who like to screech about majority rule but only when it further's their agenda. Truth be told, there is nothing in this world that doesn't offend someone but the truth here is that secular progressives and their useful fools in the Atheist movement to totally remove God from the public forum. Nothing more, nothing less.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterS
Why? The removal of God from the public sphere is predicated on secularism. Your other imaginary examples aren't. Your battle isn't with atheists, who have no more proof for their beliefs than a Christian, but with the secularist who insists on the removal of god so that no belief can be imposed over another...Quote:
Originally Posted by JB
There is no majority rule over individual rights...which was my point...and god should be removed from the public forum. We are a secular country after all...Quote:
Originally Posted by NJCardFan
As for being the night owl. Nope, try again...
I'm getting tired of every new member being accused of being somebody else, if you must say something send a PM to a mod.Quote:
Originally Posted by NJCardFan
He's not even new!! I think Pete is waiting for a chick to get dressed and just wanted to post a bit. :smile-new:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockntractor
I'm the same PeterS that was on here in 07 and 08. I got bored on FB so drifted by. Thats all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockntractor
I just don't want my school mascot to be named after something imaginary. The imaginary was the issue that I originally replied to.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterS
Not quite. Not having an officially recognized religion does not mean the country is secular.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterS
I like that one!Quote:
Originally Posted by JB
Non sequitur. If your point is that individual rights should be protected from majority rule, then why not recognize that the 'free exercise of religion' is one of the first enumerated. Nowhere in the constitution are you guaranteed the right to be free from personal offense, but the free exercise of religion is very clearly and unambiguously stated in first amendment. That particular individual right is protected from interference by the majority, and specifically from Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterS
And if you start on about the 'wall of separation between church and state', I'll know you've completely misunderstood the concept of 'individual rights'. The wall is there to protect religion from government, not the other way around.
Be careful my friend, you are on thin ice here. The question to be asked is whether the founders intended this country to be free. If that is the case then how can one be free when the religion of one cab be imposed over another? And if the religion of one cannot be imposed another isn't the definition of secularism what is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by JB