All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!!
2/27/2013 6:44 PM
So, to your way of thinking:


people who think government shouldn't endorse particular religions: whiny and pathetic

people who get upset if the government doesn't give their religion preferential treatment: not whiny and pathetic



That's some really odd logic. Would you ever apply that in any other situation?

For example, let's suppose the government hires two people, Jim and John, of identical qualifications and experience to fill two identical job openings. Imagine two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Jim and John each make 50K. John complains that he should make more, because he goes to church with the boss.
Scenario 2: Jim makes 30K, John makes 70K. When Jim asks why, the boss confesses that it's because he and John go to the same church.

I guess, to your way of thinking, it's John, in scenario 1, who has a legitimate gripe.
2/28/2013 9:46 AM

It is the ones who want the change that are insecure.

You go to a hardware store and they have milk for sale. The government doesn't endorse any kind of drink. You think only groceries stores should be able to sell milk. You then go to the city council and demand that the hardware store stops selling milk. You are the one who is insecure. Not the hardware store owner.

2/28/2013 10:10 AM

I guess the abolitionists were just insecure. Shall we bring back slavery then?

2/28/2013 10:50 AM
There is a good chance they were. That doesn't mean they were wrong and slavery was right. You are talking about two totally different things and trying to twist them into one.

definition of insecure: troubled by anxiety and apprehension, threatened.

No where does it say "wrong".  Point out to me where I said removing the cross was wrong.
2/28/2013 10:51 AM
At least you agree they were right in removing the cross.
2/28/2013 11:08 AM
Posted by bheid408 on 2/28/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):
There is a good chance they were. That doesn't mean they were wrong and slavery was right. You are talking about two totally different things and trying to twist them into one.

definition of insecure: troubled by anxiety and apprehension, threatened.

No where does it say "wrong".  Point out to me where I said removing the cross was wrong.
You are talking about two totally different things and trying to twist them into one. 

Says the guy that used milk for sale in a hardware store as an analogy.
2/28/2013 11:14 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 2/28/2013 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bheid408 on 2/28/2013 10:50:00 AM (view original):
There is a good chance they were. That doesn't mean they were wrong and slavery was right. You are talking about two totally different things and trying to twist them into one.

definition of insecure: troubled by anxiety and apprehension, threatened.

No where does it say "wrong".  Point out to me where I said removing the cross was wrong.
You are talking about two totally different things and trying to twist them into one. 

Says the guy that used milk for sale in a hardware store as an analogy.
That milk/hardware thing was such a stupefying string of non sequiturs I wondered if swamp had an alias.
2/28/2013 11:56 AM
If you want to look at a stupifying analogy look at yours using Jim and John. In both scenarios you have a person who is insecure. Why would I say John is insecure in scenario 1 and Jim isn't in scenario 2? STUPID!

2/28/2013 12:47 PM
"Insecurity" has nothing to do with it. This is about equal treatment under the law.
2/28/2013 1:37 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 2/27/2013 6:44:00 PM (view original):
So, to your way of thinking:


people who think government shouldn't endorse particular religions: whiny and pathetic

people who get upset if the government doesn't give their religion preferential treatment: not whiny and pathetic



That's some really odd logic. Would you ever apply that in any other situation?

For example, let's suppose the government hires two people, Jim and John, of identical qualifications and experience to fill two identical job openings. Imagine two scenarios:

Scenario 1: Jim and John each make 50K. John complains that he should make more, because he goes to church with the boss.
Scenario 2: Jim makes 30K, John makes 70K. When Jim asks why, the boss confesses that it's because he and John go to the same church.

I guess, to your way of thinking, it's John, in scenario 1, who has a legitimate gripe.
So any acknowledgment of the history of a community is now endorsing a religion?

Is putting grapes on it an insult to orange growers?
2/28/2013 3:15 PM
I don't think the government should endorse a particular religion.

I also don't think they should ban things that are already in place, because that's not what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution.

Honestly, the purpose of congress making no rule establishing a national religion wasn't to ban all religious symbols - it was an effort to make sure the founding fathers didn't go through religious persecution by being forced to join a state sponsored church (i.e. like the church of England).

The idea was to keep government out of the church. They never intended to keep church out of the government.

In fact, they deliberately included religious references and symbols in government (see that "In God We Trust" on your money? The ten commandments on courthouses and other buildings? The repeated references to Bible verses in various locations?) and at one time they even held church services in the capitol building with no one suggesting it was wrong.

So if you want to use the constitution to back up removing the religious symbols and the like, keep in mind the founding fathers would not have supported such a move. Far from it.
3/5/2013 7:07 PM
A wonderful moderate approach to religion in American Bis!

Of course the Democrats would label you a religious fanatic, and the Southern Poverty law center is already declaring you a hate group, and Bill Maher will call you a stupid bastard.

The left wants tollerance and understanding...except when it comes to Christianity, that must be wiped out!
3/6/2013 9:47 AM
Except I'm not a religious fanatic - far from it.

I simply think everyone should have EQUAL rights, and we do NOT achieve that by giving so-called "minority" groups MORE rights in an effort to somehow "make up" for the past.

The problem with many of these groups is they don't want equal rights - they want to retain the positive aspects (whatever they may be) of being seen differently while gaining all the positive aspects of being see as the same, and that's not equality.



3/6/2013 11:21 AM
Posted by bistiza on 3/6/2013 9:47:00 AM (view original):
Except I'm not a religious fanatic - far from it.

I simply think everyone should have EQUAL rights, and we do NOT achieve that by giving so-called "minority" groups MORE rights in an effort to somehow "make up" for the past.

The problem with many of these groups is they don't want equal rights - they want to retain the positive aspects (whatever they may be) of being seen differently while gaining all the positive aspects of being see as the same, and that's not equality.



How is enforcing the law and requiring that the government not endorse any specific religion unfair?
3/6/2013 12:03 PM
I'm not sure who you think is asking the government to endorse a specific religion.

It goes beyond "enforcing the law" when someone with an anti-religion agenda decides to cause problems to remove some sort of symbol or artifact because it may have a significance to some religion and happens to be on government property.

Doing those kinds of things is clearly not what the law was intended to provide, and by all rights, the courts should laugh at these people and show them the door and maybe even fine them for wasting the court's time. The fact that they've found anyone to take their shenanigans seriously shows there is something incredibly wrong with the way some influential people  interpret the constitution in America.

The courts are essentially allowing radical atheists to grandstand on these issues when they should be told to STFU because they are ridiculous.
of 70
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!!!!

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.