Atheist-Left's war on God Fearing Americans!

[calladus]

reference: More Church, Less State (http://cornelldailysun.com/articles/10252/) at the Cornell Daily Sun.


Liberals believe it is perfectly acceptable to show a 10-year-old how to put a condom on a banana, but recoil at the horror of students praying during study hall. They think it is "progressive" when two lesbians attend a high school prom, but file lawsuits if a football coach asks God to bless his squad. There would be a bigger controversy if a principal found a Bible on a student's desk than if he found a sex toy there.

An even greater controversy might erupt if a principal found Boy Scout paraphernalia on a student. Simply because the Boy Scouts had the temerity to stand up for Judeo-Christian principles in their membership criteria, they are now the targets of vile anti-religious assaults by radical homosexual activists.

Homophobic, believes in the official EAC(tm) {Evil Atheist Conspiracy, for those not in the 'know'}

On a related note:
This grad student is a reflection of what I see as a change in American University culture.

It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that throughout the 60s - 80s that universities were mostly liberal, or at least leaning toward the left. And that students were the most liberal of them all.

Now my experience is that the University STAFF is liberal, and that the students for the most part range from conservative to ultra-conservative.

Is this actually the case? Or am I just seeing things? Comments?

[Kullervo]

Never trust anyone under thirty.

[RussDill]

What really pisses me off is that this obsession with god in the right makes it impossible to make headway with fiscal conservative issues. Where's a socially liberal, fiscaly conservative athiest to go? Its time those that want to take away any hope of continued secular society to start fearing the right as much as the left.

[phildonnia]

I have no problem with the fact that people who hold controversial beliefs end up causing controversy. That is not a liberal assault on anything, that's one group of people not liking someone else's beliefs and saying so. It's not illegal, not even unreasonable, not against the principles of our country and government.

As far as I know, no child has been expelled or otherwise prosecuted in this country for praying or for being a member of the Boy Scouts.

When that happens, I would expect that most atheists, who often know more keenly what religious freedom is worth, would respond appropriately.

[Upchurch]

Has anyone honestly been offended by someone praying by themselves in school? I always thought the issue was school led/mandated prayers.

Is this a strawman or just an urban legand?

[Pahansiri]

God Fearing Americans???

1John 4:18.8- There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.

And

1 John 4:8] ...God is love

and

“[1 Cor 13:5] Love...keeps no record of wrongs.


More over if we look at many passages we see





If “1 John 4:8] ...God is love.”

And
“[1 Cor 13:5] Love...keeps no record of wrongs.”

And
“..Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;...it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;...it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right...Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things...LOVE NEVER FAILS; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues,they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away...[1Cor 13:4-8]”

and

“[1John 4:18.8] There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love.”””

Then 1) it is clear”he” keeps no record of wrongs and does not judge.
2) “he” is not a “jealous” God.
3) “he” has no ego and can not demand to or wish to be worshiped or placed before any other
4) “he” does NOT “insist on his own way”
5) Does not want to be feared in any way.
And 6) does not punish.

But of course he would say


Fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. Ecclesiastes 12:13

PR 8:13, 16:6 It is the fear of God that keeps men from evil.

He would say you were wrong because of these 2 and when asked what about all we have pointed out above he would respond you just don’t understand and were lost. He would be contradiction blind and blind to any passage that did not fit his agenda nor hate or agenda of hate.

[hgc]

Originally posted by calladus
reference: More Church, Less State (http://cornelldailysun.com/articles/10252/) at the Cornell Daily Sun.



Homophobic, believes in the official EAC(tm) {Evil Atheist Conspiracy, for those not in the 'know'}

On a related note:
This grad student is a reflection of what I see as a change in American University culture.

It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that throughout the 60s - 80s that universities were mostly liberal, or at least leaning toward the left. And that students were the most liberal of them all.

Now my experience is that the University STAFF is liberal, and that the students for the most part range from conservative to ultra-conservative.

Is this actually the case? Or am I just seeing things? Comments? I haven't been on campus in a number of years, but I would bet the liberals hold a big numerical advantage over the conservatives, but that both are well outnumbered by the politically thoughtless. It's largely a function of age. Really, how many 18-21 year-olds want to associate with the puritanical leanings evidenced in this lying screed? There have always been conservative students and organizations, and they like to be vocal too.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Has anyone honestly been offended by someone praying by themselves in school? I always thought the issue was school led/mandated prayers.

Is this a strawman or just an urban legand?

no, people do get offended when an instructor takes it upon themselves to become a religious leader and lead students in prayer (whether it be a class, a marching band, or a football team)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RussDill
no, people do get offended when an instructor takes it upon themselves to become a religious leader and lead students in prayer (whether it be a class, a marching band, or a football team) wasn't my point. My point is that it's a straw man to claim that kids are getting in trouble if they carry a bible to school or pray by themselves. I just don't think it happens, but I don't know for certain.

[Yahweh]

Liberals believe it is perfectly acceptable to show a 10-year-old how to put a condom on a banana, but recoil at the horror of students praying during study hall.
Please note the authors obvious use of emotional appeal to get his point across...

Fortunately, students can pray to their hearts content during studyhall, the recoiling of horror comes when the school tries to impose a "prayer schedule", tries to mandate prayer participation, etc. etc. etc.

(And no, 10 year olds in 5th graders do not learn about sex ed...)

They think it is "progressive" when two lesbians attend a high school prom, but file lawsuits if a football coach asks God to bless his squad.

So what does the author want, does he want to file lawsuits anytime 2 lesbians attend a prom, does he want to view football coach's prayer as "progressive" (because he certainly doesnt like it vice versa).

There would be a bigger controversy if a principal found a Bible on a student's desk than if he found a sex toy there.
Oh, did I forget the author invents his own "facts" to ...


The author's use of hyperbole is nice, but this news article is simply wishy-washy "pity the poor ol' persecuted Christians..." crap, nothing of value, nothing of substance, definitely not worth the time to read.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Upchurch
wasn't my point. My point is that it's a straw man to claim that kids are getting in trouble if they carry a bible to school or pray by themselves. I just don't think it happens, but I don't know for certain.

aye, but thats not how they see it. They see a group of happy, god loving, praying christians when suddenly the evil, bad, aclu comes and breaks them up. "what? we can't pray at school anymore, we weren't hurting anyone". They don't see, or don't want to see the distinction.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
wasn't my point. My point is that it's a straw man to claim that kids are getting in trouble if they carry a bible to school or pray by themselves. I just don't think it happens, but I don't know for certain. Well, it's a strawman to mischaracterize your opponent's argument in a debate, in such a way as to make it easy to refute. Of course that's a form of lying, but this case deserves to be called a lie, plain and simple, without the dressed-up moniker of strawman.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Please note the authors obvious use of emotional appeal to get his point across...

Fortunately, students can pray to their hearts content during studyhall, the recoiling of horror comes when the school tries to impose a "prayer schedule", tries to mandate prayer participation, etc. etc. etc.

(And no, 10 year olds in 5th graders do not learn about sex ed...)



So what does the author want, does he want to file lawsuits anytime 2 lesbians attend a prom, does he want to view football coach's prayer as "progressive" (because he certainly doesnt like it vice versa).


Oh, did I forget the author invents his own "facts" to ...


The author's use of hyperbole is nice, but this news article is simply wishy-washy "pity the poor ol' persecuted Christians..." crap, nothing of value, nothing of substance, definitely not worth the time to read.

True on many points.

Any students may pray all they wish but not force others not infringe on the rights of others.

What the writer does not say is what are his feelings of others or other beliefs praying, say if my 10 year old Buddhist son wished to chant or a Wicca, or Muslum etc.

And yes, for one who believes to lie is a sin he tells many lies and bears false witness, both sins, no 10 year old takes sex-ed as to placing rubbers on bananas.

Of course children teens etc should not know of sex and contraceptives safe sex etc, we need more pregnant and unwed mothers and children without parents also we need more AIDS etc.:hit:

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by calladus
reference: More Church, Less State (http://cornelldailysun.com/articles/10252/) at the Cornell Daily Sun.



Homophobic, believes in the official EAC(tm) {Evil Atheist Conspiracy, for those not in the 'know'}

On a related note:
This grad student is a reflection of what I see as a change in American University culture.

It is my understanding (which could be wrong) that throughout the 60s - 80s that universities were mostly liberal, or at least leaning toward the left. And that students were the most liberal of them all.

Now my experience is that the University STAFF is liberal, and that the students for the most part range from conservative to ultra-conservative.

Is this actually the case? Or am I just seeing things? Comments?

As the head of the EAC, I can say with a certainty that we do not and have never existed.

Now, I must go because I must send the black helicopter squadron out to, um, educate this individual. But first I need to check up on our fossil production and planting facility. It seems production has slowed down.

Oh how busy non-existent organization can keep one!!

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Has anyone honestly been offended by someone praying by themselves in school? I always thought the issue was school led/mandated prayers.

Is this a strawman or just an urban legand?

It is a strawman. People are not prohibited to pray on an individual level, but schools can not hold prayers that force those who do not wish to participate to do so. The religious right, dishonest as ever!

[hammegk]

Rather out of date, but on point:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/05/13/school.prayer.ap/

Hard to say if "no" student has ever been "disciplined" for personal prayer isn't it.

[rdaneel]

Christian principles upon which this nation was founded.

Even as an atheist I can't help but feel that Thomas Jefferson rolls in his grave every time this idiocy is uttered.

[calladus]

Originally posted by rdaneel


Even as an atheist I can't help but feel that Thomas Jefferson rolls in his grave every time this idiocy is uttered.

yea, if we really WERE a religious country, we would be ruled by a monarch who could claim he was selected by god, who would support the church through financial and legislative means, and who could deny or denigrate the non-believers. Such a monarch could declare war secure in the knowledge that God is on his side.

wait. . . Uhm. . . Which country was I talking about again?

[geni]

Originally posted by calladus


yea, if we really WERE a religious country, we would be ruled by a monarch who could claim he was selected by god, who would support the church through financial and legislative means, and who could deny or denigrate the non-believers. Such a monarch could declare war secure in the knowledge that God is on his side.

wait. . . Uhm. . . Which country was I talking about again?

Whats your problem? This system works quite well in my country.

Under UK law every school has to hold one act of worship a day. At my old school they tried this. Once. I don't think they are going to make that mistake again.:D

[c4ts]

Now there's an idea. Stop educating our nation's children and make them all pray instead.

[Marc]

Originally posted by c4ts
Now there's an idea. Stop educating our nation's children and make them all pray instead.

OMG!! I gotta keep that smilie! :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Upchurch
wasn't my point. My point is that it's a straw man to claim that kids are getting in trouble if they carry a bible to school or pray by themselves. I just don't think it happens, but I don't know for certain.

This has actually happened as Pat Roberston and the ACLJ love to shout from the ramparts, but it's invariably the result of an overzealous teacher or administrator unfamiliar with students rights and rulings on the issue.

It's beause of these incidences that Clinton issued the Religion in schools thingy a few years back.

(sorry for not providing more details but the forum is so slow I hate to try posting a long message and have it get eaten by the server)

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by c4ts
Now there's an idea. Stop educating our nation's children and make them all pray instead.

Pat Roberston would like that idea, a Christian Taliban for the US and by Thanksgiving all atheists will be treated like turkeys

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


This has actually happened as Pat Roberston and the ACLJ love to shout from the ramparts, but it's invariably the result of an overzealous teacher or administrator unfamiliar with students rights and rulings on the issue.

It's beause of these incidences that Clinton issued the Religion in schools thingy a few years back.

(sorry for not providing more details but the forum is so slow I hate to try posting a long message and have it get eaten by the server)

I'd guess roughly 100% of the times a person was prohibited from individual prayer it was by what you suggest, an overzealous person unfamiliar with the laws and really afraid of being sued.

The irony is that much of the confusion comes from the religious people themselves; the "all prayer in school is illegal" strawman has been repeated so many times that it gets considered fact by some of the less savvy school personel. The ACLU would most definately challenge a school board policy or the like that prohibited students from praying on their own time. However, certain people want to feel oppressed, so they scream that the ACLU wants to wipe out all prayer, and so on.

It's like the strawman has bootstrapped itself into truth is some cases...

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Never trust anyone under thirty. Or over thirty, depending on which side of thirty you're on. :D

[Nyarlathotep]

What a crock o' *****. It never ceases to amaze me that idiot ********** like the guy that wrote the linked article can continously mischaracterize efforts by people who don't want religion forced on them or their children as some sort of assault on motherhood, apple pie and the American way of life. Apparently stopping them from forcing their beliefs upon others is an assault on their rights. :rolleyes:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
What a crock o' *****. It never ceases to amaze me that idiot ********** like the guy that wrote the linked article can continously mischaracterize efforts by people who don't want religion forced on them or their children as some sort of assault on motherhood, apple pie and the American way of life. Apparently stopping them from forcing their beliefs upon others is an assault on their rights. :rolleyes:

It's a problem common to all fundies. First they isolate themselves by refusing to call anyone else Christian. Then they demand that everybody conform to their standards while practicing hate speech regularly to attract unwanted attention, so when they finally have it, they can say they are being persecuted for being Christians. How else can you make an enemy of the ACLU, the defenders of persecuted minorities in America? It's as though they are blind to their own actions.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Apparently stopping them from forcing their beliefs upon others is an assault on their rights. :rolleyes: Through long experience in legal practice, I've come to the conclusion that there is almost no ideological camp (conservative, liberal, secular, religious, you name it) that doesn't think that its rights are assaulted when it is merely being prevented from infringing the rights of others. Just human nature, it would seem.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by RussDill
. . .Where's a socially liberal, fiscaly conservative athiest to go? . . .

Mayhaps California under Arnold?

[Crossbow]

From the article:

Liberals believe it is perfectly acceptable to show a 10-year-old how to put a condom on a banana, but recoil at the horror of students praying during study hall. They think it is "progressive" when two lesbians attend a high school prom, but file lawsuits if a football coach asks God to bless his squad. There would be a bigger controversy if a principal found a Bible on a student's desk than if he found a sex toy there.

An even greater controversy might erupt if a principal found Boy Scout paraphernalia on a student. Simply because the Boy Scouts had the temerity to stand up for Judeo-Christian principles in their membership criteria, they are now the targets of vile anti-religious assaults by radical homosexual activists.

This whole thing is a straw-man argument and it clearly shows just how ignorant the writer is of the issues he is ranting about. I should think he would be embarrassed to publish such a piece, but since the deed has been done ...

1) Sex-education is voluntary. If any student has a problem with the class, then they do not have to attend.
2) Students can pray if they want to. I have found that many students will pray a bit before a big test.
3) Yes, I suppose that lesbians can attend the prom, and so what? Like Sex-ed, attending the prom is voluntary, so if seeing lesbians at the prom is such a big problem, then do not go to the prom.
4) Yes, it is legally wrong for a coach to lead his squad in prayer. Once again, this gets back to the issue of someone in authority forcing their religion on people who may not want it. I doubt that the writer would be so enthusiastic about having the coach leading his squad in prayer if the coach was a Satanist as opposed to a Christian.
5) School officials do not have a problem if a student wants to carry a Bible. Gee whiz, I saw quite a few students doing the same thing when I was in school and there was never a problem with it.
6) However a student brandishing a sex toy would get them in trouble.
7) With the exception of some items that could be considered weapons (axes, knives, guns, etc.), there would be no problem if students had some Boy Scout paraphernalia on them (I guess the writer is referring to things like the Boy Scout Handbook, an issue of 'Boys Life', and that sort of thing).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Crossbow
7) With the exception of some items that could be considered weapons (axes, knives, guns, etc.), there would be no problem if students had some Boy Scout paraphernalia on them (I guess the writer is referring to things like the Boy Scout Handbook, an issue of 'Boys Life', and that sort of thing). Ya know, now that I think about it, I seem to remember actually being encouraged to wear my Cub Scout/Boy Scout uniform to my grade/high school on certain days. And the Boy Scouts were custimarily in charge of raising and lowering the American flag in front of the school each day.

Granted, this was 15+ years ago, but I'm fairly certain the Boy Scout reference in the article is an out right lie, which like other lies, when told enough will become true. :(

[calladus]

Originally posted by c4ts

It's a problem common to all fundies. First they isolate themselves by refusing to call anyone else Christian. Then they demand that everybody conform to their standards . . .

I've seen this too. It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy applied as "No True Christians, 'cept us."

These people don't like being the majority, so they ignore that they are over 70 percent of the nation, and say, "well, most of those people are not TRUE Christians."

Therefore, the define themselves as a minority (repressed) all over again.

Reminds me of my Mathematics professor who would draw a fairly true circle on the board, and then say, "I define this to be a perfect circle."

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Through long experience in legal practice, I've come to the conclusion that there is almost no ideological camp (conservative, liberal, secular, religious, you name it) that doesn't think that its rights are assaulted when it is merely being prevented from infringing the rights of others. Just human nature, it would seem.

You have a point there, I think.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by calladus

Reminds me of my Mathematics professor who would draw a fairly true circle on the board, and then say, "I define this to be a perfect circle."

Reminds me more of one of my math professors that had coke bottle glasses, drew *something* on the board, and said it was a perfect circle.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by calladus


Reminds me of my Mathematics professor who would draw a fairly true circle on the board, and then say, "I define this to be a perfect circle."

Your Math professor is really saying "let this represent a perfect circle." It began with Euclid, who let lines, point, circles (etc)... be geometric concepts that were impossible to actually draw. A line was breadthless length, a point had no parts to it, and anyone can see that if you draw a line, it will have breadth in order to be visible, and if you draw a point, it will inevitably have a part to it. So a perfect circle would be invisible to the human eye anyway, and that gives your Math prof enough license to draw some pretty crappy representations. This isn't the "one true scotsman" fallacy, it's something else entirely.

[DarkPrimus]

Then... what is it? http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/yellows/lookaround.gif

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


And yes, for one who believes to lie is a sin he tells many lies and bears false witness, both sins, no 10 year old takes sex-ed as to placing rubbers on bananas.



Apparently the author was getting his/her information from South Park (although there it was the Kindergarteners who were putting the condom on the banana (with their mouths))

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Suddenly

The irony is that much of the confusion comes from the religious people themselves; the "all prayer in school is illegal" strawman has been repeated so many times that it gets considered fact by some of the less savvy school personel. The ACLU would most definately challenge a school board policy or the like that prohibited students from praying on their own time. However, certain people want to feel oppressed, so they scream that the ACLU wants to wipe out all prayer, and so on.


Interesting, though, is that if a student were prohibited from bringing a bible to school, or stopped from praying on their own, the ACLU would actually fight for them.

The ACLU is a strong supporter of an individual's right to practice religion.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Interesting, though, is that if a student were prohibited from bringing a bible to school, or stopped from praying on their own, the ACLU would actually fight for them.

The ACLU is a strong supporter of an individual's right to practice religion.

Do you have a case to cite involving Xianity?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by hammegk


Do you have a case to cite involving Xianity? A rapid review of the religious liberty press release archive (dating back nearly 5 years) on the ACLU website indicates the organization's involvement in only a handful of Free Exercise Clause cases, and none of them involved Christians.

I noted that in 2002, the ACLU joined with Jerry Falwell in a challenge to a Virginia constitutional provision prohibiting religious organizations from incorporating. I would not characterize that as a classic free-exercise case, however.

All of this suggests that the ACLU does not typically become involved in advocating the free-exercise rights of Christians, whereas it frequently places itself on the opposite camp from Christians in Establishment Clause cases. Anti-Christian bias?

Not necessarily. It may be that controversies arising under the Free Exercise Clause and involving Christians are relatively few in number, although I have not researched this. On the other hand, it is clear that Establishment Clause controversies are in fact far more likely to involve state action allegedly favoring some form of Christianity than action disfavoring Christianity, which would tend to explain the ACLU's lopsided involvement in such cases.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
A rapid review of the religious liberty press release archive (dating back nearly 5 years) on the ACLU website indicates the organization's involvement in only a handful of Free Exercise Clause cases, and none of them involved Christians.

I noted that in 2002, the ACLU joined with Jerry Falwell in a challenge to a Virginia constitutional provision prohibiting religious organizations from incorporating. I would not characterize that as a classic free-exercise case, however.

All of this suggests that the ACLU does not typically become involved in advocating the free-exercise rights of Christians, whereas it frequently places itself on the opposite camp from Christians in Establishment Clause cases. Anti-Christian bias?

Not necessarily. It may be that controversies arising under the Free Exercise Clause and involving Christians are relatively few in number, although I have not researched this. On the other hand, it is clear that Establishment Clause controversies are in fact far more likely to involve state action allegedly favoring some form of Christianity than action disfavoring Christianity, which would tend to explain the ACLU's lopsided involvement in such cases.

I'd agree with that. Most incidents of interference with free exercise by a Christian that I have seen were a result of a more or less isolated incident of a misinterpretation of policy. These situations usually get cleared up with a phone call, assuring the principal or whatever that it is perfectly legal for little Johnny to pray or read the bible during lunch. Most school administrators are all to happy to comply, so litigation doesn't get filed. That kind of cooperation is rare w/r/t seperation situations.

[rdaneel]

Spotted this in my local bookstore today.
Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261111/qid=1070080181/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8630075-2847001?v=glance&s=books)

Thought about getting it, but I'm not sure I have the intestinal fortitude to wade through something like this.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by DarkPrimus
Then... what is it? http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/yellows/lookaround.gif

It's evidence that your math teacher needs to take an art class or buy one of those chalkboard compasses.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rdaneel
Spotted this in my local bookstore today.
Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261111/qid=1070080181/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8630075-2847001?v=glance&s=books)

Thought about getting it, but I'm not sure I have the intestinal fortitude to wade through something like this.

Let me sum it up for you:

The evil liberal commies won't let the innocent, god-fearing christians use government resources to promote their religion.

[rdaneel]

Gosh I love being part of a minority that's so powerful and dominant in this country. I think I'll go out and oppress some Christians for fun. http://burns.thefinaldimension.org/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

[hammegk]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Anti-Christian bias?

Not necessarily. It may be that controversies arising under the Free Exercise Clause and involving Christians are relatively few in number, although I have not researched this. On the other hand, it is clear that Establishment Clause controversies are in fact far more likely to involve state action allegedly favoring some form of Christianity than action disfavoring Christianity, which would tend to explain the ACLU's lopsided involvement in such cases.

I.E. Anti-Christian bias? Could be; neither proved nor disproved.

It appears the cases taken are anti-xian, anyway. I beleive I can see why xians might come to the conclusion, definite anti-xian bias.

Thanks for the facts, btw. :)

rdaneel: You are "in the majority" on this board anyway. ;)

[DarkPrimus]

Originally posted by c4ts


It's evidence that your math teacher needs to take an art class or buy one of those chalkboard compasses.

Nonono, you misunderstand. You said it was not the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you said it was something else.

I was curious as to what it actually was.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by DarkPrimus


Nonono, you misunderstand. You said it was not the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, you said it was something else.

I was curious as to what it actually was.

The "no true scotsman" fallacy is a rejection of nominalism that removes all meaning from a word by increasing its exclusivity. The geometric concept of a circle loses no meaning no matter how poorly it is represented. It's just difficult or impossible for others to visualise the interactions of geometric objects if you have drawn a proof on a chalkboard with your eyes closed. As I said, it is just poor representation. If you say that no true circle is visble, the quality of circularity is still visible in some things, and because of this quality the concept of a circle retains its meaning.

[jimmygun]

Give em' what they want.

Church guy, ' You won't let our kids pray in school.'

School guy, 'Okay your kids can pray but they have to pray Muslim prayers.'

Church guy, 'No way! We are Christians. We demand Christian prayer!'

School guy, 'Fine, your kids can pray to the Virgin Mary.'

Church guy, 'No way, we aren't papists. We don't want our kids praying to no saints!'

School guy, 'Alright then they can say Anglican prayers.'

Church guy, 'Not a chance. We are not catholics of any description.'

School guy, 'Okay then your kids can pray a United prayer.'

Church guy, 'Nope!'

School guy, 'Presbyterian? Lutheran? Wesleyan? Branch Dividian?
Jehovah's Witness? Pentecostal? Mormon? Shaker? Evangelical Congregational Church?'

Church guy, 'Aha! Now you are talking, Evangelical Congregational Church prayers!'

School guy, 'Okay we will allow your children to say the prayers that Bill and Mabel Rubberboot say.'

Church guy, 'What? Are you mad? Those hypocrites? I'd rather my kids didn't say anything than repeat their blasphemy!"

School guy, 'Done and done!'

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by RussDill
What really pisses me off is that this obsession with god in the right makes it impossible to make headway with fiscal conservative issues. Where's a socially liberal, fiscaly conservative athiest to go?

Get thee to the Libertarian Party!!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Get thee to the Libertarian Party!!

naw, they even have more stuff I don't agree with