Posted by tecwrg on 12/19/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 12/19/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Wow, this is what we've stooped to.... quoting the IRS definitions.

Sad.

I quoted the IRS definitions, not to provide THE DEFINITIVE definition of religion, but to point out other common characteristics of "religion" that had not been previously mentioned in this discussion.

Good call.

Participating in a discussion with bistiza is like taking a wrong turn in your car and ending up in Retardville. Disengage.  Immediately.  Or you will be assimilated.

"When someone who has tried to debate you is so rattled by their past failures in that regard that they enter other threads with no other purpose than to insult you, that is the ultimate compliment when it comes to debating on internet message boards.

It also speaks volumes about their lack of skills in debate when they go straight for the insults, when if their claims of the invalidity of the opposing argument were true, anyone with even marginal debate skills would surely have an easy time destroying such a weak argument, which would be a much greater way of showing how foolish it was in the first place.

In short: If someone's argument really is incredibly weak, there is no need to insult them - you just defeat them easily and certainly and move on. When the insults begin flying, the person hurling them is almost always trying to cover for a lack of debate skills or a lack of validity to their own argument or both."

Oh, please forgive me, superior one!

HA!  tec is still reading his nonsense.

Oh, please forgive me, superior one!

These types of comments are unnecessary to begin with, and are rendered further so by your original comments which show exactly what I stated they show.

HA!  tec is still reading his nonsense.

Many people are still reading YOUR nonsense and your constant attention-seeking behavior in the form of always playing devil's advocate, which is light years worse than anything I have to say. Nothing I say is anywhere close to that in terms of getting people riled up (unless you count those who try to debate me and lose, which apparently causes such severe frustration in some that they come into other threads just to hurl insults).

Can anyone explain why this discussion matters.

Outside of basic intellectual curiousity?

I am sure no one here is implying that there should be a difference in government policy based on the status of a small group of Americans?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/19/2012 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Can anyone explain why this discussion matters.

Outside of basic intellectual curiousity?

I am sure no one here is implying that there should be a difference in government policy based on the status of a small group of Americans?

You're right swamp. Putting aside the fact that atheism is not a religion, a secular government is not an endorsement of atheism. It's simply a government without religion.

And you summed it up better than I could.

So is there a war on Christmas or not?

Dont address the issues of motives, does it exist or not?

No, there is not.

Then why did this thread muddle on for 46 pages?

bistiza had an aneurysm and tried to argue that atheism is a religion.

1 The term war on Christmas was a catch phrase that some on the Religious right adopted and Fox News picked as the name for a topic dealing with the widespread limiting of the spiritual nature of the Christmas Holiday. It was never meant to imply an actual WAR.

2 Can anyone explain why it is ok to eliminate the Chrisitan traditions from the public aspects of Christmas? The SC said it was so, but where they right?

3 Can anyone deny that the ACLU keeps small towns in line with their Christmas agenda thrugh threat of lawsuits even if they are not valid?

2.  Every American citizen is not a Christian.   Equal rights, blah, blah, blah.

3.  The ACLU has a bully pulpit and they use it when they see fit. 

2. Yes, they were right. As harmless as a nativity scene on public property is (it doesn't offend me at all), it is an endorsement of a specific religion. Many of the people up in arms over this made up war on Christmas would be far more outraged if Ramadan displays started popping up on government property.

If a community was 85% Muslim we could talk.

Why is leatting the government acknowledge the taditions of a large majority of its citizens.

They are not forcing everyone to take religion classes. This is a simple use of space. Like allowing the citizens to use a room for a Christmas party.

Because anything that offends anyone is deemed offensive.    Allowing something to offend another is a form of bullying.    And every ******* thing on earth is bullying.