Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Yeah, I stole it from Bill Maher, its not copyrighted so there you go. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. So here it is.

1) If Mormons or any other religion wants to bleed the line between the separation of church and state, then they must pay taxes:

Why you ask? Because they are trying to legislate taste. This prop 8 rule is like saying: I hate peanut butter, since it's bad for me it should be bad for everyone. No one else should eat peanut butter. If that became law everyone from D1B to T-man would be up in arms. Don't be hoarding money from the average Joe Wurzelbacher and then not pay taxes, if you intend on making religion law. There are lawmakers that do that and they are the Republican party.

2) Christians should not name God in their defense and then drag his name through the mud with hate speech:

Many people believe that a marriage should between a man and a woman because the Bible says so. Here the problem with that. If your claiming God as your lord and savior, your mission is not to legislate taste and force your beliefs down everyone's throat. Your mission is to UPLIFT, not CONDEMN. It's not your decision who goes to heaven or hell

3) Christian's rights has not been violated:
The source of the BS is right here:

T-man's quote:
"CHRISTIANS have lost their freedom of speech and freedom to practice their religion."

So you are saying you can't practice your freedom of speech or religion at home, in your car, or anywhere else that you can pray. The reason why people go out in public to do their practice is because they want to put up a facade saying "Look at me, I'm a true Christian", but in actuality, they are the WORST kind of Christian. Flaunting your religion is not a necessity in this country. Remember, freedom of religion is in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution for pete's sake, get a grip.

That's all I have you today ladies and gentlemen: A new edition of New Rules will come whenever I get the inspiration to do so.

I hope your enjoy, well not everyone will enjoy it because they can't handle the truth.

Excellent post!

Much obliged d-back!

wkuhillhound wrote: The reason why people go out in public to do their practice is because they want to put up a facade saying "Look at me, I'm a true Christian", but in actuality, they are the WORST kind of Christian. Flaunting your religion is not a necessity in this country.

Actually, as Christians, we are SUPPOSED to share our testimony about the greatness of God- no matter what country we live in.

HIU 93 wrote:

wkuhillhound wrote: The reason why people go out in public to do their practice is because they want to put up a facade saying "Look at me, I'm a true Christian", but in actuality, they are the WORST kind of Christian. Flaunting your religion is not a necessity in this country.

Actually, as Christians, we are SUPPOSED to share our testimony about the greatness of God- no matter what country we live in.

But are you SUPPOSED to tell people that thier way is wrong because it is contrary to yours? Are you supposed to be like the Baptists down here that called interracial loved a sin, that carry Confederate battle flags through church and talk about women needing to serve men?

As Christians, you are SUPPOSED to stand up for your faith and defend it, but you are also supposed to respect the choice of others. "Treat others as you would like to be treated", is supposed to be the general rule which is forgotten. It is not the place of a Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever to push thier beilefs on others and condem those that don't believe the same things. That's true bigotry.



The "you" is generalized, not directed towards you HIU93.

A point lost on most active organized religions is:
Freedom of Religion is 100% the same as Freedom from Religion...

Most people simply want to be left alone - and be free to make their own decisions about God - a small percentage of the population actively destroy that simple elegant balance...

I have noticed in my time here on earth - that there is a lot of fear that somebody might think for themselves - and at all costs, that notion of independent thought must be squashed

MarkCCU wrote:

HIU 93 wrote:
Actually, as Christians, we are SUPPOSED to share our testimony about the greatness of God- no matter what country we live in.

But are you SUPPOSED to tell people that thier way is wrong because it is contrary to yours? Are you supposed to be like the Baptists down here that called interracial loved a sin, that carry Confederate battle flags through church and talk about women needing to serve men?

As Christians, you are SUPPOSED to stand up for your faith and defend it, but you are also supposed to respect the choice of others. "Treat others as you would like to be treated", is supposed to be the general rule which is forgotten. It is not the place of a Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever to push thier beilefs on others and condem those that don't believe the same things. That's true bigotry.



The "you" is generalized, not directed towards you HIU93.

No, if contrary to your way....yes, if contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christians not condemning (when asked) those acts that are abhorrant to their faith are failing in their mission to witness and live a pure life. Problem is, alot of the condemnations are offered without solicitation. Christians (and all of us really) would do alot better by witnessing through our daily actions than by fiat.

Chizzang wrote: Most people simply want to be left alone - and be free to make their own decisions about God - a small percentage of the population actively destroy that simple elegant balance...

Well said.....

Appaholic wrote:

MarkCCU wrote:
But are you SUPPOSED to tell people that thier way is wrong because it is contrary to yours? Are you supposed to be like the Baptists down here that called interracial loved a sin, that carry Confederate battle flags through church and talk about women needing to serve men?

As Christians, you are SUPPOSED to stand up for your faith and defend it, but you are also supposed to respect the choice of others. "Treat others as you would like to be treated", is supposed to be the general rule which is forgotten. It is not the place of a Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever to push thier beilefs on others and condem those that don't believe the same things. That's true bigotry.



The "you" is generalized, not directed towards you HIU93.

No, if contrary to your way....yes, if contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christians not condemning (when asked) those acts that are abhorrant to their faith are failing in their mission to witness and live a pure life. Problem is, alot of the condemnations are offered without solicitation. Christians (and all of us really) would do alot better by witnessing through our daily actions than by fiat.

If contrary to the teachings of Christ is the rule, than does that include Jews, Hindus, Muslims,etc...



We are supposed to be free from religion(which back then meant freedom to practice what the colony preferred and you could still deny the right to practice others, every colony was guilty of this in the 1600's and 1700's).

Chizzang wrote: that notion of independent thought must be squashed

Isn't that called "high school" or "popularity"?

MarkCCU wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
No, if contrary to your way....yes, if contrary to the teachings of Christ. Christians not condemning (when asked) those acts that are abhorrant to their faith are failing in their mission to witness and live a pure life. Problem is, alot of the condemnations are offered without solicitation. Christians (and all of us really) would do alot better by witnessing through our daily actions than by fiat.

If contrary to the teachings of Christ is the rule, than does that include Jews, Hindus, Muslims,etc...



We are supposed to be free from religion(which back then meant freedom to practice what the colony preferred and you could still deny the right to practice others, every colony was guilty of this in the 1600's and 1700's).

Yes....as Christians believe (as do Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc) their God is the one true God forsaking all others....I'm just telling you what's being taught and re-gurgitated in churches around the world...personally, I put more weight in the testimony delivered by example than by voice.....

wkuhillhound wrote:Yeah, I stole it from Bill Maher, its not copyrighted so there you go. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. So here it is.

1) If Mormons or any other religion wants to bleed the line between the separation of church and state, then they must pay taxes:

Why you ask? Because they are trying to legislate taste. This prop 8 rule is like saying: I hate peanut butter, since it's bad for me it should be bad for everyone. No one else should eat peanut butter. If that became law everyone from D1B to T-man would be up in arms. Don't be hoarding money from the average Joe Wurzelbacher and then not pay taxes, if you intend on making religion law. There are lawmakers that do that and they are the Republican party.

Churches can lose their tax-exempt status right after Planned Parenthood loses theirs. At least the churches don't overtly endorse candidates, tell their members to call congress and oppose bills, and oppose a SCOTUS nominee because he once said a 14-year-old should get parental permission before getting an abortion.

Pwns wrote:

wkuhillhound wrote:Yeah, I stole it from Bill Maher, its not copyrighted so there you go. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. So here it is.

1) If Mormons or any other religion wants to bleed the line between the separation of church and state, then they must pay taxes:

Why you ask? Because they are trying to legislate taste. This prop 8 rule is like saying: I hate peanut butter, since it's bad for me it should be bad for everyone. No one else should eat peanut butter. If that became law everyone from D1B to T-man would be up in arms. Don't be hoarding money from the average Joe Wurzelbacher and then not pay taxes, if you intend on making religion law. There are lawmakers that do that and they are the Republican party.

Churches can lose their tax-exempt status right after Planned Parenthood loses theirs. At least the churches don't overtly endorse candidates, tell their members to call congress and oppose bills, and oppose a SCOTUS nominee because he once said a 14-year-old should get parental permission before getting an abortion.

Yeah, they do! I've been churches(Catholic, Baptist and Lutheran) who openly endorsed candidates.

Pwns wrote:

wkuhillhound wrote:Yeah, I stole it from Bill Maher, its not copyrighted so there you go. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. So here it is.

1) If Mormons or any other religion wants to bleed the line between the separation of church and state, then they must pay taxes:

Why you ask? Because they are trying to legislate taste. This prop 8 rule is like saying: I hate peanut butter, since it's bad for me it should be bad for everyone. No one else should eat peanut butter. If that became law everyone from D1B to T-man would be up in arms. Don't be hoarding money from the average Joe Wurzelbacher and then not pay taxes, if you intend on making religion law. There are lawmakers that do that and they are the Republican party.

Churches can lose their tax-exempt status right after Planned Parenthood loses theirs. At least the churches don't overtly endorse candidates, tell their members to call congress and oppose bills, and oppose a SCOTUS nominee because he once said a 14-year-old should get parental permission before getting an abortion.

Planned Parenthood is a complex structure which does pay some tax. Their structure includes a 501(c)(4) entity, a 501(c)(3) entity, a federally regulated PAC and a 527 organization. They do pay some tax and their structure is set up to allow them to legally support specific candidates and influence legislation.

In tax law a straight 501(c)(3) and what Planned Parenthood operates are apples and oranges. Most churches are straight 501(c)(3) organizations that are "organized and operated exclusive for religous purposes" - which is the definition of a 501(c)(3).

Good stuff, Hounder. Two things: Tman is nuts. Many Christians, especially the prosletyzing type will bitch at any perceived limit to their stuff. They are losing power and, as such, it hurts them. They are dangerous. HIU93, reread the previous observation and know that your Jesus stuff ends at the entrance to people's ears.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Good stuff, Hounder. Two things: Tman is nuts. Many Christians, especially the prosletyzing type will bitch at any perceived limit to their stuff. They are losing power and, as such, it hurts them. They are dangerous. HIU93, reread the previous observation and know that your Jesus stuff ends at the entrance to people's ears.

Once again, Wackyhound and Crappin' Cat are caughtSPEWING NONSENSICAL, UNINFORMED BLATHER.

The attacks against Catholicism and the LDS church in an attempt to intimidate and silence them are well documented, and now the Obama Administration has gotten into the act by banning secular content on NPR...

NPR axes Christian radio programs
Pete Chagnon
OneNewsNow
4/30/2009 8:30:00 AM

A shocking decision has been handed down by the National Public Radio board.

In 1985, National Public Radio (NPR) adopted a policy stating that member stations had to provide "nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial" educational programming. But in February 2009, the wording was changed to say: "NPR Member Stations shall provide ONLY [emphasis added] nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial educational content on all broadcast channel(s) and related media distribution platforms such as member partners that use the NPR member brands."

The rule, which takes effect May 1, means that any NPR stations carrying religious programming must cease and desist that programming as of that date. In explaining its decision in a similar matter, PBS -- another federally funded media outlet -- says it "places a high value on presenting diverse perspectives, as opposed to rigidly adhering to any single political or religious point of view." Allowing such programming, it continues, "would cause the public's trust in PBS to erode, along with the value of the brand."

travelinman67 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Good stuff, Hounder. Two things: Tman is nuts. Many Christians, especially the prosletyzing type will bitch at any perceived limit to their stuff. They are losing power and, as such, it hurts them. They are dangerous. HIU93, reread the previous observation and know that your Jesus stuff ends at the entrance to people's ears.

Once again, Wackyhound and Crappin' Cat are caughtSPEWING NONSENSICAL, UNINFORMED BLATHER.

The attacks against Catholicism and the LDS church in an attempt to intimidate and silence them are well documented, and now the Obama Administration has gotten into the act by banning secular content on NPR...

NPR axes Christian radio programs
Pete Chagnon
OneNewsNow
4/30/2009 8:30:00 AM

A shocking decision has been handed down by the National Public Radio board.

In 1985, National Public Radio (NPR) adopted a policy stating that member stations had to provide "nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial" educational programming. But in February 2009, the wording was changed to say: "NPR Member Stations shall provide ONLY [emphasis added] nonsectarian, non-political, noncommercial educational content on all broadcast channel(s) and related media distribution platforms such as member partners that use the NPR member brands."

The rule, which takes effect May 1, means that any NPR stations carrying religious programming must cease and desist that programming as of that date. In explaining its decision in a similar matter, PBS -- another federally funded media outlet -- says it "places a high value on presenting diverse perspectives, as opposed to rigidly adhering to any single political or religious point of view." Allowing such programming, it continues, "would cause the public's trust in PBS to erode, along with the value of the brand."

A free National Public forum paid for in any way by the Federal Govt. - be it radio or otherwise - should have ZERO religious content... (Period)
Why is that so confusing..?

Chizzang wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Once again, Wackyhound and Crappin' Cat are caughtSPEWING NONSENSICAL, UNINFORMED BLATHER.

The attacks against Catholicism and the LDS church in an attempt to intimidate and silence them are well documented, and now the Obama Administration has gotten into the act by banning secular content on NPR...

NPR axes Christian radio programs
Pete Chagnon
OneNewsNow
4/30/2009 8:30:00 AM

A free National Public forum paid for in any way by the Federal Govt. - be it radio or otherwise - should have ZERO religious content... (Period)
Why is that so confusing..?

Religious practitioners, just as with ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, are a protected class. If NPR wishes to BAN any religious content, then they should also BAN programming that contains discussion of ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.

Why is that so confusing?

travelinman67 wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
A free National Public forum paid for in any way by the Federal Govt. - be it radio or otherwise - should have ZERO religious content... (Period)
Why is that so confusing..?

Religious practitioners, just as with ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, are a protected class. If NPR wishes to BAN any religious content, then they should also BAN programming that contains discussion of ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation.

Why is that so confusing?

What's confusing to the majority of people here, T, is your insistence on being a Conk. Have you not seen the light?

mas

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund Center for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit against officials of the Los Angeles Community College District Wednesday. The lawsuit comes after a professor allegedly censored and threatened to expel a student following a speech about marriage and his Christian faith during an openended assignment in a public speaking class.

"Christian students shouldn't be penalized or discriminated against for speaking about their beliefs," said ADF senior counsel David French. "Public institutions of higher learning cannot selectively censor Christian speech. This student was speaking well within the confines of his professor's assignment when he was censored and ultimately threatened with expulsion."

According to the ADF, on Nov. 24, Los Angeles City College professor John Matteson interrupted and ended Jonathan Lopez's presentation mid-speech, calling him a "fascist bastard" in front of the class for speaking about his faith, which included reading the dictionary definition of marriage and reciting two Bible verses.

The ADF said that instead of allowing Lopez to finish, Matteson told the other students they could leave if they were offended. When no one left, Matteson dismissed the class. Refusing to grade the assigned speech, Matteson wrote on Lopez's evaluation, "Ask God what your grade is."

One week later, after seeing Lopez talking to the college's dean of academic affairs, Matteson told Lopez that he would make sure he'd be expelled from school, the ADF said.

"Professor Matteson clearly violated Mr. Lopez's free speech rights by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and retaliation because he disagreed with the student's religious beliefs," French said. "When students are given openended assignments in a public speaking class, the First Amendment protects their ability to express their views. Moreover, the district has a speech code that has created a culture of censorship on campus. America's public universities and colleges are supposed to be a 'marketplace of ideas,' not a hotbed of intolerance."

In 2007, officials at Penn State provided alumni with an opportunity to purchase bricks and stone pavers for the new "Alumni Walk," located on campus. A 2001 graduate, James Pursley, decided to participate and in April placed an order for a brick costing $250. He requested that his name, graduation year, and the words "Joshua 24:15" be included. But he quickly hit a part of that "wall of separation."

James' application was rejected in August; officials said their policy did not permit "religious messages," and that the reference "would not be in keeping with the intent of the Walk." This despite the fact that other personal messages were allowed.

Thankfully, the road to settling this issue wasn't too long. ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit in December, and university officials promptly agreed to allow the Scripture reference.

"Colleges and universities are supposed to represent the marketplace of ideas," said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Heather Gebelin Hacker. "We are pleased that Penn State officials agree that his First Amendment rights should be respected and took such quick action to correct the problem. I know Mr. Pursley looks forward to putting this behind him and returning to the task of supporting the university he loves."

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) -- An elementary school in Mt. Juliet, Tenn., is being sued for censoring the word "God" out of posters promoting a student-led prayer event.

A lawsuit filed March 3 by the Alliance Defense Fund said administrators at Lakeview Elementary School ordered students and parents to either remove signs promoting a "See You at the Pole" event or edit out religious language. With too little time to redo the posters, parents in the suit complied by covering the phrases like "In God We Trust," "Come and Pray" and a theme Bible verse with green paper.

Filed on behalf of 10 parents and the children, the lawsuit claims school officials violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights both by limiting their free speech and establishing hostility toward their religion. It seeks injunctive relief, nominal damages and court costs.

...and a nice summation about the global attempts at silencing Christians...

OXFORD (LifeSiteNews.com) - There is a growing culture of suppression among secularist governments that is using the doctrine of "tolerance and diversity" to push Christians entirely out of public life, Australia's Cardinal Pell told an audience at Oxford University this weekend.

The Australian cardinal said during an address at the university that human rights and anti-discrimination legislation is being used as a weapon against Christians and Christian opinion in the public debate.

"Secularist intolerance for Christianity," the archbishop of Sydney said, "seeks to drive it not only from the public square but even from the provision of education, health care, and welfare services to the wider community." And it is through anti-discrimination legislation that this goal has been widely achieved, he said.

The cardinal pointed to the apparent irony in the way in which some of the most morally permissive groups, such as the homosexualist and feminist political movements that endorse limitless "pan-sexuality" as well as abortion on demand, have become politically repressive of opposition, despite the rhetoric of "diversity and tolerance."

Spot on.

Cap'n Cat wrote: What's confusing to the majority of people here, T, is your insistence on being a Conk. Have you not seen the light?

If you mean the light you Donks see as you awaken from another drug and alcohol-induced blackout, then, no.

travelinman67 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: What's confusing to the majority of people here, T, is your insistence on being a Conk. Have you not seen the light?

If you mean the light you Donks see as you awaken from another drug and alcohol-induced blackout, then, no.

Hope you're ready for that backhand in Flagstaff, bitch.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
If you mean the light you Donks see as you awaken from another drug and alcohol-induced blackout, then, no.

Hope you're ready for that backhand in Flagstaff, bitch.

Hope you're ready to walk with a cane for the rest of your life, Shamu.

travelinman67 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Hope you're ready for that backhand in Flagstaff, bitch.

Hope you're ready to walk with a cane for the rest of your life, Shamu.

That's right, pick on the fat guy!



My problem is glandular!! And I'm protected by law!!!

He's not fat..

he just has big bones.