And now with the histrionic lying (which it always comes down to). If you would be so kind as to go back and read, I submitted that the Phelps clan was out to give Christians a bad name...not that they were emblematic of anything.

__________________
The voice in your head that says "you can't do this" is a LIAR!!!

Did you just say, "proactively validating"?

No. Certainly not.

If the words, "under God," were not currently a part of the Pledge, I would object--strongly--to their interpolation into the Pledge.

But precisely because they are an integral part of the Pledge, I object, with equal fervor, to their intentional omission. This amounts to an intentional corruption of the Pledge.

And it is the political correctness-driven desire to corrupt the pledge that offends me--not anyone's refusal to "validat[e]" any sort of religious beliefs.

Does this make sense to you?

No, manufactured outrage never makes sense to me.

__________________
The voice in your head that says "you can't do this" is a LIAR!!!

Since you cannot (or will not) conduct yourself in a civil manner, I will simply ignore your posts in the future.

Please feel free to reciprocate, in this regard...

One final thought, however: If you had not viewed Fred Phelps as being emblamatic of Christianity (which, in any case, is not specified in the Pledge), one might wonder why you bothered to cite him, in an attempt to bolster your argument...

Cry me a ****in river, pal. You can ignore all you wish. Doesn't mean I'm not going to call you on your whiney bull**** for others to see.

I cited him in a long list of what others see in Christianity and not what Christianity is. If you would drop the hysterics and actually read instead for comprehension rather than convenient inference, you might have picked up on that.

__________________
The voice in your head that says "you can't do this" is a LIAR!!!

Any that do not believe in a single, male 'god'.

I didn't reduce anything. That's ALL it is.

Yes. He does.


You're perfectly free not to ever tune into NBC again.

No, I'm making fun of idiots who bitch, moan and cry over completely irrelevant stupid ****.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

I did not say "Infected". The bodily fluid which most represents your plethora of posts, is a flood blown out the pooper chamber. You try to analyze others through their responses. So do I. You've done that to me more than once. When you introduced the word jaundiced, it opened up a whole flood of metaphorical body responses. I don't see IP as fitting the word jaundiced at all. Unless you really mean "cynical", which he is on occasion.

Yes, I do. You have attached a theist/un-theist construct to the 2 words and apply it in many of your answers.Those two words appear to be key to some construct you hold.

It is when it is running. I missed "constipated, but saw "jaundiced." I don't consider it inappropriate, I have used the device, as well. I was avoiding adjectives up to that point as it is adjectives that often give offense. The introduction of bodily functions and bodily metaphors opens up a whole new level of exchange. I did not even have thoughts like that until you said, "jaundiced". Then I started thinking about you in terms of bodily functions since you were using them as a descriptive device, I didn't think you'd mind me taking it to the point of absurdity, which is where this thread has gone....
I am sorry, I thought you were the distressed one..... I am laughing!

__________________

Do they "exclude," say, Hinduism? Hinduism would say "under gods"

Do they "exclude" Buddhism?Buddhism doesn't use the concept of god.

Do they "exclude" Shintoism?Shintoism would say, "Under gods"

Do they "exclude" Sikhism? no.

Do they "exclude" Islam?no

Do they exclude Indigenous worship? Yes.

Do they exclude Afro-Carib religions? Yes. Voudoun celebrates "the Loa" which is plural. Santeria uses "Orishas", also plural.
Do they exclude.....Mother Nature? Well you get the idea.......

Do they...well, you get the idea...

A metaphorical assault?

You take it that way, but I am sure it was not the intent.
The constitution is not a sacred piece of paper- it was a working original. That's why the amendments. The FF did not foresee the complexities of civilization to come. And they even left slavery untouched to placate the south, though many knew it was an abomination from the founding. It took another 80 years or so to outlaw it and it was a fight the whole 80 years.

Originalism is just another freaky form of fundamentalism. It is for concrete thinkers. After all, the average IQ is 100. That's about 1/2 of Americans. 100 is adequate for learning many trades and businesses, but does not easily grasp abstract concepts, and couldn't handle upper division 4 year college courses. (Lest someone accuse me of elitism, I totally like the new "many intelligences" approach to IQ now. Psychologists now realize intelligence includes the abilities for abstract thought, understanding, communication, reasoning, learning, planning, emotional intelligence and problem solving. And spatial IQ. The old IQ test only measured verbal and math abilities. People scoring 100(average)in abstract thinking may score high in more than one of the others)

__________________

What difference does it make? The words "under God" were NOT originally in the pledge, they were inserted in the 50s.

__________________

Teh funny that MSNBC could not censor Mark Halperin from calling Obama a dick.

__________________
US Debate Board