Flabbergasting! - Page 11
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 102 of 102

Thread: Flabbergasting!

  1. #101
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Yardley, PA


    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    That is exactly what I was asking Yardley....

    So progressives pushing an ideology is OK, but Christians living in faith is not.

    Assuming of course that maybe at least one Christian is a decent person.

    And assuming that just maybe at least one progressive has an agenda.

    I read what you guys post and aside from the appearance that Yardley knows everything about every subject brought up here, the progressive crowd points out that;
    Not all Muslims are bad, only a small handful.
    All Christians are religious zealots.
    Progressives will save us all from our selves.

    It's pretty funny.

    I also saw that most of the "rightys" didn't post much this weekend, they were hunting and such.

    The "leftys" ran wild.

    Speaks volumes.........

    I think you would have trouble substantiating your comment without (as you sometimes do) grossly distorting what was actually written.

    A more accurate summary might be:

    • Public schools should be engaged in any promotion of religious or atheistic ideals. People can deal with those issues in their own homes and/or religious institutions. Why would you want the government involved in religion at all?
    • Most Christians and Muslims (and even "Progressives") are reasonable people.
    • There are zealots claiming (falsely) to represent all forms of belief. They deserve to be treated with disdain.

  2. Remove Advertisements

  3. #102
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Rapid City, SD


    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    O'Donnell's comment was not a "mis-speak". Actually, the religious right, with whom O'Donnell identifies when she is not playing with candles and crystals, has been saying for years that the first amendment was never intended to impose a separation of church and state. Rather, the argument is made that the first amendment was intended solely to keeo government from interfering with religion, not to keep religion out of government.

    Not a bad statement from an atheist. Too bad your independant Dr doesn't understand that.

    Of course, the laughter from the audience suggests that she might want to pick better audiences than a law school if she wants to spout such drivel.

    You mean, like the class your independant Dr was educated in??? Where he larned that separation of church and state WAS drafted in the first amendment?

    While the words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, historical evidence certainly suggests that was the common understanding of the establishment clause in the first amendment when the Constitution was drafted and adopted.

    And finally we have the GREAT INTERPRETATION! Not enough to put down your independant buddy's ignorance...but you in your eloquent erudition must further the belief of the "common understanding", via no less than "historical EVIDENCE"??????

    Of course an atheist would call what ignorance 'suggests' to be EVIDENCE. Of this you are 'certain'? Your arrogance is only exceeded by your pomposity.

    If you were on the opposite side of the 2nd amendment, I can't imagine how you would interpret the founders words in that statement.

    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts