OT: shariah in Leesburg today

[okboomer]

You mean that pagan holiday at the winter solstice? You know, the one with trees and candles and lights and such? The one that was co-opted by Christians? Don't view it as "removing Christ from Christmas", but returning it to its rightful owners.

As for the "memorial crosses" - show me what you think is a memorial cross, and show me one that doesn't violate the establishment clause.


As for the rest of your screed, the start of this post was fear mongering about how sharia is going to take over, because people will vote and try to make it such. It's silly, because the people who are actually trying to do this kind of thing are generally Christians. You even acknowledge as much, but completely miss the point while doing so.

Typical "I don't believe what you are saying, so what you are saying doesn't count" BS ... as for Christmas being a pagan mid-winter holiday, yep it was co-opted by the Church in England ... but it is still a celebratory time for Christians whatever you say.

None of them violate the establishment clause ... the public land that many of the crosses are on were petitioned for and granted ... the memorial crosses didn't change in meaning, the meaning of the law changed around them.

Read your history and know what you are talking about before accusing me of posting fear mongering and 'screed' posting. Just because you have a 'third leg' and I don't doesn't mean you can marginalize my concerns.

/ignore list

 

[Tawnos]

Typical "I don't believe what you are saying, so what you are saying doesn't count" BS ... as for Christmas being a pagan mid-winter holiday, yep it was co-opted by the Church in England ... but it is still a celebratory time for Christians whatever you say.

Then let them celebrate. What does that have to do with the government taking out or putting in anything with the holiday? Anyway, if you are going to chide me for not paying attention to history, why not look at where the original war on Christmas stems from... the Christians!

None of them violate the establishment clause ... the public land that many of the crosses are on were petitioned for and granted ... the memorial crosses didn't change in meaning, the meaning of the law changed around them.

Bullshiat. Many of them attempted to make an end-run around the constitution, establishing on government land a cross that is specific to a particular sect of Christians. E.g. the Mount Soledad cross violates both the US 1st amendment and CA's No preference clause. It wasn't renamed a memorial cross until the lawsuit, indicating the crosses changed in meaning, contrary to your opinion. A similar scene has played out time and time again. When Christians stop getting special treatment for their religious symbols and doctrine, they throw a fit. Even if it means "yeah, you can put your symbol there, and so can anyone else", a fit is thrown. This pattern repeats in other areas, where special privilege is claimed on the basis of religious bigotry.

Read your history and know what you are talking about before accusing me of posting fear mongering and 'screed' posting. Just because you have a 'third leg' and I don't doesn't mean you can marginalize my concerns.

/ignore list

Ah, playing the sex card. Poor victim, being shut down by men with their penises and evil. I'll be sure not to speak my mind if there's a woman present, because apparently anything I say that contradicts you is "marginalization".

 

[PrayingForWar]

You mean that pagan holiday at the winter solstice? You know, the one with trees and candles and lights and such? The one that was co-opted by Christians? Don't view it as "removing Christ from Christmas", but returning it to its rightful owners.

ADMINISTRATOR COMMENT: Calling OP an idiot is a personal attack

Sort of like obozo stealing all the wealth he can get his hands on to return it to it's "rightful owners". It's frightening how asinine some people can be and still be convinced of their own intellectual superiority even though their ridiculous positions are rejected by the majority, who's oppinions have just as much validity. I love even more their mindless regurgitation of insipid little things like "Christian Taliban". As if women were not allowed to drive around the Vatican, had their genitals mutilated, or were killed for converting to to another religion or simply being raped.

Next thing you know the bed wetting fascist creeps will be demanding the US return lands to "indiginous" people...

Oh yeah, we're already there...

http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html

 

[eye95]

...

/ignore list

I figured out that I needed to do that a long time ago. Good decision.

 

[Tawnos]

I figured out that I needed to do that a long time ago. Good decision.

I do wonder who all has ignored me. Apparently, citing sources while being opinionated is a bad thing, here?

 

[since9]

What is the difference(s) between these two poll questions?

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President?"

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job the...Republican leaders in Congress are doing?"

As I said, "...independent third-party companies with solid reputations for being objective..." They'd word it as:

Please rate, on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) your approval or disapproval of the following persons or people:

1. Barack Obama in his role as President

2. The Republican leaders in Congress

3. The Democrat leaders in Congress

...they are terrible, yet typical, poll questions.

No arguments here! Most poll questions are terribly typical. And, for that matter, they're typically terrible, too.

I do wonder who all has ignored me. Apparently, citing sources while being opinionated is a bad thing, here?

I think it's a good thing, here, and everywhere. It's just that most people arguing from their opinions find it difficult to respond to actual facts.