Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cat'sGrowl

NYC Atheists angry at 9/11 Firefighters being honored

130 posts in this topic

lol equal treatment under the law = favored treatment if not beneficial to the christfag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.

a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.

poo, the sorry ass welfare poor in the US are elitist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)

n.

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

2.

a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.

b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

Why?

This word exactly conveys what I'm accusing them of being.

I'm going for my most pages in a thread record. Don't try and hold me back.

Like I said, inferiority complex.

Project much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol equal treatment under the law = favored treatment if not beneficial to the christfag

Except we've already established the "your" side doesn't think they're should be equal treatment under the law. "Your" side has already stated that the opinions of religious peoples should be ignored, because they aren't "right" in "your" eyes, but "you" are, so law-making should be based around "your" opinions and noones elses, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Cornered cat.

Like I said, inferiority complex.

Project much?

Trust me when I say I have nothing to feel inferior about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm not about to address a bunch of unfounded claims like athiests are promoting Religion is a Scam Boulevard or whatever you have to fabricate in order to feel secure that your invisible man is watching you while you poo, shower and masturbate.

I certainly wouldn't advocate such a street name anymore than I'd advocate Hannukah Street or 72 Virgins Avenue.

You just don't seem to grasp that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except we've already established the "your" side doesn't think they're should be equal treatment under the law. "Your" side has already stated that the opinions of religious peoples should be ignored, because they aren't "right" in "your" eyes, but "you" are, so law-making should be based around "your" opinions and noones elses, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Cornered cat.

Trust me when I say I have nothing to feel inferior about.

When I see "trust me", the first thing I think is......yeah you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except it isn't. The street is being funded by the state, which we've already established is completely Constitutional. Of course the only retorts were a bunch of elitist atheist mudslinging, but that's what I expect from the cat in the corner, so it doesn't bother me.

Reading fail.

How so? I'm assuming your argument goes something like this: The constitution only puts separation of church and state applicable tot he federal gov't. If so then your argument is incorrect because the 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I stand really doesn't take away from the truthfulness of the statement.

But if you care, I just get slightly angry at how much the meaning of the Constitution has been changed by legal scholars throughout the years. If you want to change the constitution, then fuging change the constitution through the Amendment process. Don't trot out political hack judges that will ignore the relevant words at issue, dig deep into one of the founder's personal writings, or look to European law to reach the political decision that each judge wants, etc.

Those political hack judges are apart of that the political process set up by the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How so? I'm assuming your argument goes something like this: The constitution only puts separation of church and state applicable tot he federal gov't. If so then your argument is incorrect because the 14th amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

Not at all. Read back a few pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm not about to address a bunch of unfounded claims like athiests are promoting Religion is a Scam Boulevard or whatever you have to fabricate in order to feel secure that your invisible man is watching you while you poo, shower and masturbate.

I certainly wouldn't advocate such a street name anymore than I'd advocate Hannukah Street or 72 Virgins Avenue.

You just don't seem to grasp that.

The only thing I see is someone who is high and mighty on his own beliefs that when something is put in public that contradicts those beliefs, it causes him to act irrationally and start mud slinging at anyone who doesn't see it the way he does. This debate has been rather civilized, it's a shame that people like yourself can't contribute something worthwhile to it without having to resort to petty insults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“There should be no signage or displays of religious nature in the public domain,” said Ken Bronstein, president of New York City Atheists. “It’s really insulting to us.”

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that the majority of atheists are not this overly centered on their belief...... At least Id hope not!! If you dont believe in god thats all fine and well, but for one to overlook the honer intended by the sign and find a way to personally be insulted is a complete joke....Again, I dont think all athiests are this way, but this guy is really adding a negative perception on the belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites