Slashdot Mirror

As opposed to any other religion, which is also convinced that it knows the ultimate truth about the Universe, and has the absolute moral guidance?

Or atheists, who are convinced of their own ultimate truths about the universe (typically chance and evolution) and their own moral guidance (typically self-imposed sense of ethics, civilly imposed sense of law, etc.)?

We’ve degenerated into the stupid situation where simply believing someone is wrong is considered to be the same as intolerantly bashing them over the head. If someone goes on a lengthy tirade about godless atheists who have no morals then yeah, you have a justified reason to call them intolerant. A polite prayer before a meal, however, is absolutely not any justifiable cause for offense.

Absurd, good sir.

America's culture of freedom and individual responsibility has made it a hotbed of unconventional electronic marketing entrepreneurs.

Godless elsewhereistan's degenerate criminality makes it a hive of spammer scum.

Get the Facts(tm)!

By hyper religious, I assume you mean that earlier on his life he entered Seminary, intending to be a priest but changed his mind.

He was going to be a priest but he screwed up, and down, and sideways, and anything nearby in a skirt that didn't move fast enough.
I'd call him a "Godless Christian" in that he's doing it for appearances but in his own words has broken every commandment but one. His beliefs are whatever it takes to get the job done and change daily.

Either way after the election Conroy will be shuffled off elsewhere to make life hell for others and nobody else on either side of goverment cares enough to put this through. A peace offering to a Godless pseudo-Christian NIMBY to get votes to pass has backfired with this filter and it won't be needed for grubby political numbers games soon.

Oh god, please get those godless, incompetent idiots out of my live and out of this country.

It's not the abuses anyone is complaining about, it's the cover ups.

*cough* To be accurate, I'm sure we're at least a little pissed about the abuses themselves eh? I know what you're trying to say, but let's not forget the horrors the children had to go through just because they had faith that so-called "men of god" would not be perverted old goats. I guess the sentiment is (or should be) that the crime was vicious and deserves harsh punishment. The fly on the pile was the way their godless leaders protected these animals instead of (if they were even remotely serious about their own faith) going all Torquemada on their asses.

To my mind, the far greater sin is the original abuse and the unanswered question of why in Beelzebub's name these irredeemable sinners are not rotting in a prison for life? Has a SINGLE priest spent a single day in a jail cell over this? Is pedophilia an acceptable perk of being a clergyman these days? Are we still living in medieval times where the rule of law was nonexistent and morality defined at the whim of theocratic tyrants?

In fact, I grieve that this whole discussion of the responsibility of the Vatican is beginning to take the focus away from the actual criminals (the PRIESTS) and making the issue more abstract and vague than it is. I fear that this vagueness will ultimately result in nothing being done since the big guys are sitting all comfy on their thrones in their own little joke of a toy nation. Who gives a bunny's wedding whether some guy in a funny hat takes some metaphorical responsibility for these concrete crimes? I would be a lot more impressed by that rhetoric if the authorities in - let's take a real example - the USA (why not?) actually prosecuted and punished these miserable excuses for human beings for crimes committed in the USA instead of being all "respectful" and stuff. *retch* THEN you can go after the leaders if you want.

But why is everyone just forgetting the animals who actually did the crimes? Where are the criminal trials for this criminal issue? The saddest part of this whole debacle is that common catholics and even victims appear to be closing ranks and showing a tendency to want to treat this as "an internal matter" because their leaders have brainwashed them to believe in a global anti-catholic conspiracy that will try to use this issue to destroy their church.

Lastly, WHY in the name of satan's spawn would this institution EVER be granted the right to treat this as an internal matter? Isn't that why we have laws? Or have I mistakenly read the last few hundred years of world history from a novel and foolishly thought that the holy roman empire never actually dissolved and democratic government never arose in the western world?

Having said that, overreaction is a large part of health and safety rules in most western countries

An that's why you godless pussays's owe you're lazy ass's to the chinky's.

OUR constatutian mentian's the right to liberty and persuite of happiness. Nothing, repeat NUTHIN, about the right to be a shit-scared faggot and cry like a baby.

If shit like falling out the skye botherd our ancysters they never would of gotten abord the Mayfly.

Don't bother, he's a godless, hell-bound faggot.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. He just has to be bisexual! Now no matter what his politics and policies are, he'll never be able to accomplish much of anything.

Don't bother, he's a godless, hell-bound faggot.

Then again, sometimes parents have an attack of sanity, like the Dover, PA case where the old school board tried to implement intelligent design, and they were voted out en masse the next election and the curriculum was scrapped.

A true conservative would say something like "why are you spending so much time teaching my kid a Godless version of Genesis and cutting out something that could help them get a job?".
It's not just bad science, it's bad theology inflicted by weasels that want to pretend it isn't.

Godless pinko commie bastards!
Why do the founding fathers hate America?!!!

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.

Did you even read the articles you linked? Theses are exactly the cases that I was talking about. Those are about school sponsorship of prayer, student-lead prayer at school events, the moment of silence in class, and use of school property for religious purposes. So snide remarks aside, you aren't exactly showing me anything I didn't already refer to.

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

I see one article that refers to graduation ceremonies, and it's the one that the school agreed to ban proselytizing and prayer in the ceremonies. Are you sure you read these?

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

If you write God with the capital G, it's a proper noun. So you're referring to a specific person, place or thing. In this case, a specific god. You do understand what a proper noun is don't you?

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

As I said, the court's ruling was simply an appeal to tradition and a refusal to review it. The dissenting opinion by Stephen Reinhardt clearly shows, through their own statements, that the congressmen supporting the bill were doing it for religious reasons. From the dissent:

"The majority argues that the purpose of the amendment of the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 was not predominantly religious because the words “under God” are simply a reference to the limited powers of our national government. That is, of course, an argument dreamt up by my colleagues that can nowhere be found in the Congressional Record. In addition, my colleagues have apparently forgotten that it is the Constitution that sets forth the limitations on government powe

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19256
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19517
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lamb_v_cent.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/rose_v_rege.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_merg.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/widm_v_vinc.html

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

You are correct as I have already noted, the phrase was intended to distance ourselves from those godless commies. But what you are not seeing here is that our system of leadership and government (until relativity recently anyways) answered to a higher power. Be it the people, a god, or patriotism and the constitution in which all it's power is derived from the consent of the people. On the contrast, the godless commies decreed the state and their personal power to be the ultimate in much the same ways as the Roman emperors and the pharaohs of Egypt eventually declared themselves a god. There was no higher power then themselves to which the US was st

    Bah. Here at the US Gov't, we don't care if your ground water, or anything else for that matter, gets contaminated by anything that may happen, either intentional or accidental. Well, unless we can blame the terrorists for it, then we'll go invade their godless country, bring religion to them, and kill anyone who argues.

    What were you complaining about again? We're really good at slapping the T label on your forehead, and bringing down the vengeance of the mighty United States military.

You do realize that there has been a tirade of constitutional court cases surrounding this very issue where schools banned all references to a religion including bibles and students praying on their own.

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

So still, it's not asking you or anyone else to believe in God or worship any religious entity, it's asking you to believe that there is no authority that has power over the US besides God which you (or Not everyone) does not believe in.

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

But when you look at the constitution, you will find that your basis of a "clear violation" is completely crap. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution, there is only a prohibition on making laws about religions or restricting them.

Allowing government property and government employees to support one or more religions but not others seems like a clear establishment of religion to me. Since they can't give equal treatment to all religions (and many religious folks would have a cow if they tried), the only reasonable solution is to keep the government completely out of it.

Exactly! That's the same reason I'm a creationist: evolution is also still just a theory. I'm also not fooled by their lies that the world is more than 6000 years old, because all those physicists have are silly theories to back up their ridiculous zillions of years nonsense (or whatever the age is this week!). I support you 100%. The high priests of this "godless science" religion need to be removed from the pedastal they're sitting on!

> In other words, you want China to speak for us all?

Not really, because the godless chinkychonks don't [to a reasonable approximation] have computers and even if they did they'd never find out about it because they don't have google.

mens rea

What? What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where mens rea is still alive and kicking? Here, in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated, mens rea was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.

That's it. We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.

--
BMO

ermm...you tried that once before, it didnt work out so well, and in fact we got pissed enough to burn down your White House.

Seriously though, thanks for the Kudos.

We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.

The last dust-up between Canada (a British colony at the time and probably called British North America) and United States of America ended with BNA burning down the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Are you itching for a repeat performance?

mens rea

What? What the fuck kind of barbarian country is Canada where mens rea is still alive and kicking? Here, in the Civilized United States of America Incorporated, mens rea was abolished in the Nixonian War On Drugs.

That's it. We're invading next Thursday to stop this Godlessness.

--
BMO