Feed on Posts or Comments 25 October 2014

Christianity Thomas on 08 Dec 2011 12:01 am

Christian bigotry at its finest

Rick Perry puts bigotry front and center in his campaign and demonstrates that when Jesus said, “Love one another”, Christians translate it to mean “Hate one another”:

How in the world can Christians be so hateful and appalling on such a consistent basis? How can they not see that they ignore Jesus’s teachings at every turn?

See also: Why Christians drive everyone else nuts – Rick Perry’s Hypocrisy

52 Responses to “Christian bigotry at its finest”

  1. on 08 Dec 2011 at 12:13 am 1.Obvious said …

    Wow. Can hatred get any more obvious than that?

  2. on 08 Dec 2011 at 12:44 am 2.Zed said …

    Astonishing. Still at least there are well over 40,000 more dislikes than likes (98% disapproval) of that clear display of Christian intolerance.

  3. on 08 Dec 2011 at 2:04 am 3.Observer said …

    Rick Perry is like George W. Bush minus 30 IQ points. On the country’s current trajectory, it will take another 20 years for us to have an electorate stupid enough to elect someone that bad.

    I do think hatred directed toward something as odious as Rick Perry is quite reasonable if not desirable. And by hate, I refer to the rather ill-defined word denoting feelings one might have toward cancer, plane crashes, and preventable catastrophes.

  4. on 08 Dec 2011 at 2:18 am 4.Horatiio said …

    We have Barrack in the White House. (NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!)

    Anyhow, there is no where but up because we are sitting at 0K. Hope & Change! LOL!!!

    Great message Rick but no president, other than one, can stop the atheists from spending all their money attempting to stop Christmas. Now Obama possibly could. If he keeps killing the jobs in the USA they will not have money for stupid ad campaigns. Hmm, maybe Barrack is on to something….

  5. on 08 Dec 2011 at 3:22 am 5.Observer said …

    #4 Cretin “If he keeps killing the jobs in the USA they will not have money for stupid ad campaigns.” You may be as simple-minded as Glenn Beck. The only sector of the economy where employment has steadily been decreasing of late is the government. Is that Obama’s fault? Simpleton.

  6. on 08 Dec 2011 at 3:59 am 6.Zed said …

    How does one “stop Christmas”? Is that like standing at the North Pole waving a big flag at Santa and telling him to return to base?

    Considering that much of Christmas has pre-Christian influence, does your objection to it being “stopped” extend to the parts that Christianity absorbed and re-purposed to establish it’s own brand identity, or the commercialism so appreciated by most Americans?

  7. on 08 Dec 2011 at 10:36 am 7.D said …

    Where does this Christian Persecution Complex come from? Any kid can pray in school. Didn’t Kennedy have the line about there always being prayer in school as long as there are math tests? And Christmas? Seriously? It is the biggest thing in America.

  8. on 08 Dec 2011 at 12:51 pm 8.Hell Yeah said …

    Hor said, “Great message Rick but no president, other than one, can stop the atheists from spending all their money attempting to stop Christmas.”

    Atheists are not trying to stop Christmas. There is something called separation of church and state, though, which means the government cannot celebrate a religion on government or state property or with the use of government office. Otherwise, anyone is free to do with what they want as far as celebrating religion in the United States.

  9. on 08 Dec 2011 at 2:24 pm 9.Lou (DFW) said …

    7.D said …

    “Where does this Christian Persecution Complex come from?”

    It comes from the xtian belief that if they aren’t free to ram their religion down everyone’s throat, then THEY (xtians), are being persecuted.

  10. on 08 Dec 2011 at 3:06 pm 10.Lou (DFW) said …

    7.D said …

    “Any kid can pray in school.”

    Of course they can. There is no law, rule, or regulation that prohibits anyone from praying anywhere, especially a kid in public school. Yet you always hear xtians claiming otherwise. What they’re really complaining about is that they can’t force your kid to pray.

  11. on 08 Dec 2011 at 3:07 pm 11.Anonymous said …

    “What they’re really complaining about is that they can’t force your kid to pray.”

    Brilliant! So true!

  12. on 08 Dec 2011 at 4:38 pm 12.Lou (DFW) said …

    Holiday Greetings from Gov. Perry

    No mention of Christmas.

    http://governor.state.tx.us/video/11748/

  13. on 08 Dec 2011 at 6:37 pm 13.Curmudgeon said …

    “There is something called separation of church and state”

    Find me this quote in the Constitution.

    Now that you have not, if out founders didn’t want prayer in schools, government buildings, meetings and public, they would have stopped it from the very beginning.

    They didn’t because that was never there intention.

    It is no coincidence that America’s greatness began to falter as she began to throw God out from her daily life.

  14. on 08 Dec 2011 at 6:53 pm 14.Anonymous said …

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#United_States

    “In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: “… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.[7] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.[8] The phrase “separation of church and state” itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The [[Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state, but a majority held that the present case (a local authority paying to transport parochial students to school), the benefits to the children outweighed the Constitutional objection."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

    "Jefferson's metaphor of a wall of separation has been cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision, the court allowed that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.” In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”"

  15. on 08 Dec 2011 at 7:12 pm 15.Lou (DFW) said …

    13.Curmudgeon said …

    “There is something called separation of church and state”

    “Find me this quote in the Constitution.”

    Quote? His quote wouldn’t be in the Constitution.

    “Now that you have not, if out founders didn’t want prayer in schools, government buildings, meetings and public, they would have stopped it from the very beginning.”

    Whether they “wanted” it in those places or not is irrelevant. What they “wanted” was freedom of religion.

    “They didn’t because that was never there [sic] intention.”

    Really? What was their intention? Did they for “In God We Trust” to be the US official motto? If yes, then it would have been in the Constitution, correct?

    The US was NOT founded as an xtian nation that required prayer in school, etc.

    As evidence, the Treaty of Tripoli was a diplomatic agreement submitted to (and ratified by) the US Senate by President John Adams (one of the MAIN FOUNDING FATHERS), and signed by Adams.

    It proclaimed that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

    “It is no coincidence that America’s greatness began to falter as she began to throw God out from her daily life.”

    When was that, and how is “greatness” measured?

  16. on 08 Dec 2011 at 8:03 pm 16.Curmudgeon said …

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    I like to watch the guys scramble. yes, we know about the letter and we also now why he wrote it. I studied American history. It is NOT in the Constitution. I really don’t care what a court determined, what I do know is we have freedom of religion not from religion. Jefferson was in Paris when the Constitution was written. Praying is a long way from establishing a state church.

    I understand to an atheist who hates religion they love the fact we have a government attempting to restrict our freedom. They pitched a fit when Bush did it but bend over in subjection for Obama. Oh the foolishness of the masses.

    Wait until it hits something you desire to maintain. It is a slippery slope.

    Lou if you don’t know what greatness is then you have never had it.

  17. on 08 Dec 2011 at 8:29 pm 17.Lou (DFW) said …

    16.Curmudgeon said …

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    “I studied American history. It is NOT in the Constitution.”

    You don’t consider the First Amendment to be part of the Constitution?

    “They pitched a fit when Bush did it but bend over in subjection for Obama. Oh the foolishness of the masses.”

    Oh the foolishness of Crum who equates atheists with Obama and theists with Bush.

    “Wait until it hits something you desire to maintain. It is a slippery slope.”

    Like what?

    “Lou if you don’t know what greatness is then you have never had it.”

    Hor, you dodged the question. Why can’t you simply answer it rather than reply with a juvenile insult? Wouldn’t an honest answer that supported your position be more effective? Or is that you can’t reply with an honest answer that supports your position?

  18. on 08 Dec 2011 at 8:31 pm 18.Ray said …

    When you say 50 simple proofs that God is imaginary, you sure aren’t joking. They sure are simple.

  19. on 08 Dec 2011 at 8:40 pm 19.Lou (DFW) said …

    16.Curmudgeon said …

    “I really don’t care what a court determined…”

    Except when it agrees with your “worldview.”

  20. on 08 Dec 2011 at 9:14 pm 20.Lou (DFW) said …

    16.Curmudgeon said …

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    “I like to watch the guys scramble. yes, we know about the letter and we also now why he wrote it. I studied American history. It is NOT in the Constitution.”

    But we don’t like to watch you scramble as you did with this reply. Nobody in this thread claimed it was in the Constitution. You are attempting to create a type of straw man argument.

  21. on 08 Dec 2011 at 10:50 pm 21.RC said …

    “There is something called separation of church and state, though, which means the government cannot celebrate a religion on government or state property or with the use of government office.”

    Mr Yeah

    There is “something” alright but exactly where is this mandated in our founding documents? The founders pulled all the antics you listed: celebrated, on government property, on state property and with the use of government offices. Maybe you think we are smarter than our founders?

    In my case, we do it on and in city property. So what would my town be violating?

  22. on 08 Dec 2011 at 11:24 pm 22.Anonymous said …

    This is another example of an argument from irrelevancy.

    Even if the founding fathers did act as the cretins above would like to believe. So what?

    All that would prove is that they too were delusional. The Christian god would still be imaginary, Jesus still wouldn’t be the son of [an imaginary] god, prayer still wouldn’t work, and religion would still look a lot like a mental illnesses.

    How about instead off arguing that “they too were believers”, we see some evidence of this all-powerful deity who, apparently, is now too scared to put in an appearance?

  23. on 08 Dec 2011 at 11:39 pm 23.Lou (DFW) said …

    21.RC said …

    “There is “something” alright but exactly where is this mandated in our founding documents?”

    Where is it “mandated in our founding documents” that children in public schools should be forced to pray to the xtian god?

  24. on 09 Dec 2011 at 12:43 am 24.Hell Yeah said …

    The following is all that is needed to be said:

    http://ffrf.org/publications/nontracts/Is-America-A-Christian-Nation/

    Is America A Christian Nation?

    The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust” (Art. VI), and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn’t our Constitution say so?

    In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”

    —The First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution

    What about the Declaration of Independence?

    We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bands,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

    The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

    What about the Pilgrims and Puritans?

    The first colony of English-speaking Europeans was Jamestown, settled in 1609 for trade, not religious freedom. Fewer than half of the 102 Mayflower passengers in 1620 were “Pilgrims” seeking religious freedom. The secular United States of America was formed more than a century and a half later. If tradition requires us to return to the views of a few early settlers, why not adopt the polytheistic and natural beliefs of the Native Americans, the true founders of the continent at least 12,000 years earlier?

    Most of the religious colonial governments excluded and persecuted those of the “wrong” faith. The framers of our Constitution in 1787 wanted no part of religious intolerance and bloodshed, wisely establishing the first government in history to separate church and state.

    Do the words “separation of church and state” appear in the Constitution?

    The phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state,” was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson’s phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the Constitution; neither do “separation of powers,” “interstate commerce,” “right to privacy,” and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

    What does “separation of church and state” mean?

    Thomas Jefferson, explaining the phrase to the Danbury Baptists, said, “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.” Personal religious views are just that: personal. Our government has no right to promulgate religion or to interfere with private beliefs.

    The Supreme Court has forged a three-part “Lemon test” (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971) to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clauses.
    1. A law must have a secular purpose.
    2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
    3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

    The separation of church and state is a wonderful American principle supported not only by minorities, such as Jews, Moslems, and unbelievers, but applauded by most Protestant churches that recognize that it has allowed religion to flourish in this nation. It keeps the majority from pressuring the minority.

    What about majority rule?

    America is one nation under a Constitution. Although the Constitution sets up a representative democracy, it specifically was amended with the Bill of Rights in 1791 to uphold individual and minority rights. On constitutional matters we do not have majority rule. For example, when the majority in certain localities voted to segregate blacks, this was declared illegal. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion.

    Not only is it unAmerican for the government to promote religion, it is rude. Whenever a public official uses the office to advance religion, someone is offended. The wisest policy is one of neutrality.

    Isn’t removing religion from public places hostile to religion?

    No one is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt churches and temples abound. The state has no say about private religious beliefs and practices, unless they endanger health or life. Our government represents all of the people, supported by dollars from a plurality of religious and non-religious taxpayers.

    Some countries, such as the U.S.S.R., expressed hostility to religion. Others, such as Iran (“one nation under God”), have welded church and state. America wisely has taken the middle course–neither for nor against religion. Neutrality offends no one, and protects everyone.

    The First Amendment deals with “Congress.” Can’t states make their own religious policies?

    Under the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868), the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states. No governor, mayor, sheriff, public school employee, or other public official may violate the human rights embodied in the Constitution. The government at all levels must respect the separation of church and state. Most state constitutions, in fact, contain language that is even stricter than the First Amendment, prohibiting the state from setting up a ministry, using tax dollars to promote religion, or interfering with freedom of conscience.

    What about “One nation under God” and “In God We Trust?”

    The words, “under God,” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, “In God We Trust” was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as “Mind Your Business.” The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum (“Of Many, One”), celebrating plurality, not theocracy.

    Isn’t American law based on the Ten Commandments?

    Not at all! The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against “coveting,” free enterprise would collapse! The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

    Our secular laws, based on the human principle of “justice for all,” provide protection against crimes, and our civil government enforces them through a secular criminal justice system.

    Why be concerned about the separation of church and state?

    Ignoring history, law, and fairness, many fanatics are working vigorously to turn America into a Christian nation. Fundamentalist Protestants and right-wing Catholics would impose their narrow morality on the rest of us, resisting women’s rights, freedom for religious minorities and unbelievers, gay and lesbian rights, and civil rights for all. History shows us that only harm comes of uniting church and state.

    America has never been a Christian nation. We are a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: “There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent.”

  25. on 09 Dec 2011 at 1:40 am 25.Horatiio said …

    “We are not governed by the Declaration.”

    Louiar is right. We are governed by a letter to Danbury Baptist! Then again, the DI tells us where our rights come from and its not primordial ooze.

    LOL!!!

    The Constitution was not meant to be a theological document, it is a document for governing. One of the lamest arguments from atheist. We are founded for freedom of religion not freedom from religion. In other words, not secularism.

    Now, how do I know it is OK to pray in schools and in government institutions? How do I know it is OK to speak of God and the Bible in these places? Easy, the founders allowed it and practiced it. If it was not intended to be Constitutional they would have put a stop to it.

    Case closed Louiar!

    All these issues are so obvious so have a Merry Christmas.

  26. on 09 Dec 2011 at 1:53 am 26.Horatiio said …

    HY,

    I meant to point this out. TJ drafted the first DI, the final product was a work of the Continental Congress. Yes, it did not make him very happy. As noted above by RC, he was not in the country for the writing of the Constitution.

    Check it out my friend. Also, one cannot conclude TJ was a deist. He was probably a theist. Even if he were deist, he has enough sense to know the universe was created! LOL!!

    TJ always wrote realizing his letters would be saved and was extremely concerned on how he would be viewed by future generations. He was one of the least liked of the founders and a strange man.

    Try studying the founders by reading some biographies, not website quotes.

    Merry Christmas

  27. on 09 Dec 2011 at 2:54 am 27.Hell Yeah said …

    Hor said, “Now, how do I know it is OK to pray in schools and in government institutions? How do I know it is OK to speak of God and the Bible in these places?”

    Again, we never said you cannot pray in schools and government institutions. What we are saying is that “government” and “state workers” cannot promote religion in these places. There is a big difference there. The founding fathers, especially “TJ” implied that the government and religion need to be separated so that they don’t corrupt each other. Although, they seem to be corrupt on their own as it is. They just knew that if religion was involved in government decisions, that things would even be worse. I think we need to make a trademark on your “LOL” so that we need to put a hor after it, like LOLhor. LOLhor!!

  28. on 09 Dec 2011 at 9:52 am 28.Anonymous said …

    Rick Perry’s ‘Strong’ Ad Surpasses Rebecca Black’s ‘Friday’ With More Dislikes On YouTube

  29. on 09 Dec 2011 at 10:04 am 29.Anonymous said …

    I will weep for you

    http://imgur.com/glOrM

  30. on 09 Dec 2011 at 1:14 pm 30.Lou (DFW) said …

    26.Horatiio said …

    “He was one of the least liked of the founders and a strange man.”

    A strange man? Did he too have “Broadway In The Basement” fantasies and make public claims that he can prove god?

    BTW, just where is that proof that you promised a few weeks ago?

  31. on 09 Dec 2011 at 1:22 pm 31.Lou (DFW) said …

    25.Horatiio said …

    “The Constitution was not meant to be a theological document, it is a document for governing. One of the lamest arguments from atheist. We are founded for freedom of religion not freedom from religion. In other words, not secularism.”

    Now secularism is NOT a religion? Some months ago the theists here were all arguing that secularism IS a religion.

    And according to Hor the great historian, freedom of religion does NOT include freedom from religion. The US Constitution says otherwise – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    CONGRESS CAN MAKE NO LAW THAT ESTABLISHES RELIGION.

  32. on 09 Dec 2011 at 2:36 pm 32.Lou (DFW) said …

    25.Horatiio said …

    “Then again, the DI tells us where our rights come from and its not primordial ooze.”

    Our “rights” come from man, nowhere else.

    “Now, how do I know it is OK to pray in schools and in government institutions?”

    Everybody “knows” that it’s OK to pray in schools except for many ignorant theists.

  33. on 09 Dec 2011 at 7:28 pm 33.RJ said …

    Although there’s no actual persecution taking place, I think christians like to believe they’re being persecuted because then they can feel akin to Jesus (as in “O Jesus! I’m so persecuted just like you were!”) I’m willing to bet they secretly love the idea of being persecuted for their Righteousness. I guess they think that showing Jesus their steadfast devotion in the face of such “persecution” impresses him or something and he’ll put an even bigger mansion aside for them in heaven for all their troubles.

    LOLhor!

  34. on 09 Dec 2011 at 11:37 pm 34.Anonymous said …

    7 deadly sins

    http://m.quickmeme.com/meme/35gbb5/

  35. on 10 Dec 2011 at 7:24 am 35.Anonymous said …

    Starting a war

    http://i.imgur.com/BHagz.png

  36. on 11 Dec 2011 at 12:50 am 36.Anonymous said …

    The Music in Rick Perry’s ad:

    http://imgur.com/pTFgt

  37. on 12 Dec 2011 at 12:04 am 37.Anonymous said …

    Jesus Responds to Rick Perry’s “Strong” Ad

  38. on 12 Dec 2011 at 12:06 am 38.Anonymous said …

    Rick Perry – “Jacket” (“Strong” Parody)

  39. on 12 Dec 2011 at 3:11 pm 39.Anonymous said …

    Christian Persecution Complex:

    http://i.imgur.com/cgJjK.png

  40. on 14 Dec 2011 at 11:03 pm 40.Anonymous said …

    Rick Perry is clueless:

    http://i.imgur.com/nqKk3.jpg

  41. on 15 Dec 2011 at 12:38 pm 41.Anonymous said …

    Rick Perry – white, heterosexual, Christian:

    http://forlackofabettercomic.com/img/comic/95.png

  42. on 19 Dec 2011 at 11:59 am 42.Anonymous said …

    Hilarious:

    Perry challenged on gays in the military, energy policy

    “Asked about the dangers of hydraulic fracking, Perry launched into his common claim that there is no documentation of groundwater contamination as a result of the practice, which he says is safely conducted in Texas.

    Decorah native Jonathan Ruf, 31, chimed in from the audience, saying “that’s false.”
    A visibly annoyed Perry countered by challenging Ruf to “show me the paper.”

    “Bring me the paper, bring me the paper, show me the paper,” he said. “I am truly offended that the American public would be hoodwinked by stories that do not scientifically hold up.”

    “This is a fear tactic that the left is using and the environmental community is using that absolutely – excuse the pun – doesn’t hold water,” he added.

    “Bring me the evidence and once we do that, you show it to me and I will be the first to say you have a point.”

  43. on 19 Dec 2011 at 12:00 pm 43.Anonymous said …

    Why doesn’t Perry demand the same proof and evidence for his god?

  44. on 19 Dec 2011 at 12:19 pm 44.Anonymous said …

    Same tactic as Horatiio and the other delusional Xtians on this blog.

    Divert the conversation away from your own claims, demand evidence that you’re never going to accept because believing that a supernatural being that watches your every move and makes women from ribs is, oh so logical.

  45. on 20 Dec 2011 at 9:46 pm 45.Anonymous said …

    Perry Double Dips State Salary And Pension

    “The report filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that Perry is collecting his $7,700 monthly state pension in addition to his nearly $133,000 annual salary as governor… His decision to begin collecting retirement pay while on the public payroll will likely expose him to criticism from conservatives who complain that public sector employees are too generously compensated. The Republican comptroller of Texas said just this week that lawmakers need to review the pension system because it was burdening state finances. “

  46. on 22 Dec 2011 at 1:35 pm 46.Trina said …

    What’s with the reverence for your “founding fathers” anyway? You’d think they were the first group of people to ever take a boat ride somewhere.

  47. on 22 Dec 2011 at 8:02 pm 47.Curmudgeon said …

    “You’d think they were the first group of people to ever take a boat ride somewhere.”

    You would be confusing them with Pilgrims Trina. We may hold them in great respect because they were brilliant, brave and great leaders who made a very unlikely dream come true.

    Thanks for coming.

  48. on 26 Dec 2011 at 6:31 pm 48.Anonymous said …

    Christiany hypocrisy:

    http://imgur.com/tJ2M4

  49. on 26 Dec 2011 at 8:05 pm 49.Anonymous said …

    Curmudgeon would like to believe, although he knows it isn’t true, that the founding fathers were all Christian and that America was founded as a Christian Nation.

    He needs to do this because, even though he promised to do so, he can’t produce any evidence for his imaginary god. It’s a way of diverting attention away from his failure to produce any evidence of this supernatural being that fails all attempts to demonstrate its existence in the here and now.

    One of the ironies about the desperation of the theists on this blog is that they’ll cling to anything that supports religion, even if it isn’t theirs.

    For example, you could make a case for some of the founding fathers to be deists, but that would deny the bible being their god’s words and Jesus as being divine. Still, accuracy is not a strong point in Christian theology or the arguments people put forward here as to why they can’t, or won’t, provide evidence for this non-existing god of theirs.

    So, how about it Curmudgeon. Let’s hear about your proof for the existence of your god. You said you’d provide it, and you’ve certainly had time to work on it.

  50. on 27 Dec 2011 at 2:56 pm 50.Anonymous said …

    And there you have it. Horatiio and his ilk are more than happy to throw stones, bring up diversionary arguments, attack strawman arguments about non believers, redefine terms to suit their purposes, but when it comes to actually answering questions about their beliefs then they run away as fast as can be.

    What better proof does one need that their good is imaginary and Horatiio et al are simply trolling.

  51. on 27 Dec 2011 at 5:23 pm 51.Lou (DFW) said …

    47.Curmudgeon said …

    “You would be confusing them with Pilgrims Trina.”

    But we won’t be confusing you with Hor?

  52. on 16 Sep 2012 at 1:00 am 52.cristianlibertarian said …

    This guy is wrong.
    Romans 3:10 none are righteous. No not one.
    A verse all Christians need to learn

    Let he who is with out sin cast the first stone

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply