Every concerned parent must read!

[ocnblu]

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html




http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif Edited October 1, 2005 by ocnblu

[pow]

ROTFLMAO!

[Satty]

A boy must eat everything on his plate. But if your son pesters you to serve corn on the cob, hot dogs or sausages, that is your signal to change his diet. Try serving meals that more effectively evoke a hankering for the fragrant delights of the female genitalia. An artichoke stuffed with tuna fish will usually do the trick.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Cory Wolfe]

LMAO!!!

[Dsuupr]

What's wrong with people. It's not ok to make fun of Muslims, Jews, Gays, etc., why is it ok to make fun of Christians? I find this to be very offensive and shows what a sad state of affair our country is in.

[the_yellow_dart]

If your child is still crying after three weeks, please drop him off at the Creation Science Laboratory for the remainder of the year and for a determination of whether he is worth having back.

It is a scientific fact that when needing to use the restroom, a male is called upon to engage in the unpleasant undertaking of extruding a poopy in only 1 out of every 3 visits. But homosexuals use all three visits to practice squatting, to limber the cheeks of their bottom in preparation for even the most enormous (Negro) penises.

Your child must be taught that men who wear colored underwear or undergarments that are cut within one inch of the outer periphery of their pubic region or the trough of the valley between the cheeks of their bottom are either European or Homosexual – and in America there is no difference between the two.

wow.... just wow.

They also sell... thongs???

jesus thongs! SERIOUSLY!

[CARBIZ]

Okay, after I got as far as the above quote, I realized that this is just a joke. Surely nobody, not even from some deepwoods bayou would take this crap seriously! I was shocked at first, then started to laugh out loud.

[Croc]

No, some people DO take this seriously. That's what's scary...

[sciguy_0504]

What's wrong with people.  It's not ok to make fun of Muslims, Jews, Gays, etc., why is it ok to make fun of Christians?

I find this to be very offensive and shows what a sad state of affair our country is in.

[post="22787"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Welcome to the United States of Double Standards and the United States of Constantly Appeasing the Minority.

It's disturbing to me. Democracy is supposed to be "majority rules" but it seems different in the U.S. Hell, you can't even racially profile in airports because it's "racist." I do and you best believe when I see 5 terrorists on board I'm getting off. Who has a better chance of blowing up the plane: 70-year old Esther or 22-year old Mohammed?

[Croc]

I think incredibly fundamentalist Christians write the jokes themselves half the time.

[ocnblu]

Dsuupr, the people being made fun of at my link are hypocrites purporting to be Christian, not TRUE CHRISTIANS. To me, a true Christian has his faith inside. He keeps it quiet. He doesn't use his faith to condemn others.

I thought the linked site was hilarious, in an Onion sort of way, and decided to share. It's a satire.

[VenSeattle]

Welcome to the United States of Double Standards and the United States of Constantly Appeasing the Minority.

It's disturbing to me.  Democracy is supposed to be "majority rules" but it seems different in the U.S. 

[post="22813"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I personally don't find it disturbing. Regardless of who is in the majority, every American deserves to have their fundamental rights protected... even if they're not in the majority.

No majority should have the ability to remove a minority's fundamental rights.

[sciguy_0504]

It disturbs me when a single person can have the words "under God" removed from the pledge (let alone a judge actually agreeing with him) or when a group of people is given special consideration because of what happened in the past. Yes, every American is entitled to their fundamental rights though not at the expense of the rights of the majority, however.

[Croc]

Well it disturbs me even more that the words "under God" were ever ADDED to the pledge like they were in the 1950s. BUT I BET YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT? Those words never should have been in the pledge, and weren't until the Eisenhower years.

[Flybrian]

The guy who lobbied to have the words removed is an ass. Watch some of the interviews he gives. He's so cocky and full of himself its unbearable. "This is what is right for the American people and years from now, peers of my child and her children will remember me and see what I'm doing is right." Jesus... I'm almost surprised he didn't lobby to change the words to "Under Michael Newdow." What an pompus ass.

[ocnblu]

Jeez, I honestly did not post this to start a fire. I thought it was funny.

[Croc]

The guy who lobbied to have the words removed is an ass. Watch some of the interviews he gives. He's so cocky and full of himself its unbearable. "This is what is right for the American people and years from now, peers of my child and her children will remember me and see what I'm doing is right." Jesus...

I'm almost surprised he didn't lobby to change the words to "Under Michael Newdow." What an pompus ass.

[post="22859"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Whether or not you agree with his attitude, he IS right as far as the constitution is concerned, and that is all law should be concerned about.

[pow]

Whether or not you agree with his attitude, he IS right as far as the constitution is concerned, and that is all law should be concerned about.

[post="22877"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

One nation, under intelligent design. There! :rolleyes:

[Croc]

One nation, under intelligent design. There!  :rolleyes:

[post="22895"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

How about just the original words to the Pledge:

"...one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I think the big deal is that once you remove the G-d bullshit then there isn't a "loophole" to exploit for the discrimination of people deemed "sinners" and there's one less argument against extending liberties to people who should already have them just by virtue of being American, if you get my drift.

[Flybrian]

I think the big deal is that once you remove the G-d bullshit then there isn't a "loophole" to exploit for the discrimination of people deemed "sinners" and there's one less argument against extending liberties to people who should already have them just by virtue of being American, if you get my drift.

[post="22923"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Removing God from a piece of rhetoric that's more traditional and ornamental than official will not stop discrimination. I hardly think anyone founds their prejudice on what's on the Pledge of Allegience. The 'loophole' exists in the minds and conciousness of the people who believe them, not anything in any federal document.

Sorry, but I still believe its a pointless battle to fight.

[Croc]

I say keep fighting. One of these days justice will prevail. Just because it doesn't matter to the majority of Americans doesn't mean we should ignore the minority who is affected by it.

[Dsuupr]

I personally don't find it disturbing. Regardless of who is in the majority, every American deserves to have their fundamental rights protected... even if they're not in the majority.

No majority should have the ability to remove a minority's fundamental rights.

[post="22832"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

So in this case it's ok to rip on a supposed majority (which I don't think they are anymore)? I would find it very sad if someone made such a sight about Muslims. Why wouldn't I, or anyone else for that matter, find it sad if a website like that was made a about any other group, including Christians.

For the record, I'm no fundamentalist, nor do I think they bode well for Christians. I happen to be Quaker.

[ocnblu]

I do not believe that any religion should judge a person based on sexual orientation. It is fine to advocate fidelity to preserve a home, but let adults choose their adult partner as they will.

The commercialization of Christianity is wrong, imo. This website makes fun of "Christians" ©, and also puts to shame in a funny way anyone who improperly uses their faith to bring shame on gay people. If you believe in God, you must acknowledge that he made us too. We have a right to live as we were designed. We're not going to take over the world, that would be impossible. But we should be left alone and not shunned for being who we are. We are not evil.

Would you cast out a fellow Quaker if you found out he loved another man? What purpose would that serve the community as a whole? It would only weaken the community, for we are everywhere, we just don't shout about it. Edited October 2, 2005 by ocnblu

[CARBIZ]

As an atheist, I find all religions equally pointless, but I would strongly oppose any laws designed to curtail one religion's rights over another's. I survived many years of the Lords Prayer in school (before they were banned.) It is interesting to watch the liberal-left struggle to include absolutely everybody, which is virtually impossible. Protecting minority rights does sometimes go against what the majority BELIEVES or FEELS. Somebody's rights will necessarily get trampled on. There is no way of avoiding that. The only thing that scares me is the resurgence of the creationist movement in the United States. It has always puzzled me that while the U.S. purports to be the most advanced, richest, mightiest country the world has ever known, it has more than its fair share of wing nuts in the religious right. Is there something in the water down there?

[mustang84]

Jeez, I honestly did not post this to start a fire.  I thought it was funny.

[post="22861"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I don't get it either 'blu, it was just some light-hearted humor to me. Some people take things way too seriously. I'm Catholic and they made a crack about Catholic priests in there, but I thought it was funny...

[sciguy_0504]

I say keep fighting.  One of these days justice will prevail.  Just because it doesn't matter to the majority of Americans doesn't mean we should ignore the minority who is affected by it.

[post="22943"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Croc, are you aware there is no law making you say the Pledge and on top of that you can even leave the word "God" out of it by yourself? How are you affected by a word that isn't mean or derogative? Are you offended by Allah or Moses or just things associated with Christianity?

Whether or not you believe the Consitution explicitly states there is a separation between church and state you have to realize that government cannot endorse any religion, including atheism (it is a religion). Remember, it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous posts. A small group of people trying to impose their will on the majority over things like the word God. Now Americans can't pray in public schools or at public school functions, public schools have to call their break during the Christmas season "Winter Vacation" instead of "Christmas Vacation," towns can't have a cross as a part of their logo, cities can't display the Nativity scene during Christmas celebrations (but are free to display the Islamic Crescent during Ramadan and Menorah during Hanukkah), and college students can't have a Christmas tree in their dorm hallway. These are all actual court rulings.

Whose rights are being squashed now? Edited October 4, 2005 by sciguy_0504

[Croc]

Croc, are you aware there is no law making you say the Pledge and on top of that you can even leave the word "God" out of it by yourself?  How are you affected by a word that isn't mean or derogative?  Are you offended by Allah or Moses or just things associated with Christianity?

Whether or not you believe the Consitution explicitly states there is a separation between church and state you have to realize that government cannot endorse any religion, including atheism (it is a religion).  Remember, it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous posts.  A small group of people trying to impose their will on the majority over things like the word God.  Now Americans can't pray in public schools or at public school functions, public schools have to call their break during the Christmas season "Winter Vacation" instead of "Christmas Vacation," towns can't have a cross as a part of their logo, cities can't display the Nativity scene during Christmas celebrations (but are free to display the Islamic Crescent during Ramadan and Menorah during Hanukkah), and college students can't have a Christmas tree in their dorm hallway.  These are all actual court rulings.

Whose rights are being squashed now?

[post="23837"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Your post is so far off base it isn't even funny. I AM a Christian, but what part of "secular nation" eludes you? No one has to say the Pledge (except public school children in some states as a result of 9/11), and I do omit the "God" from my recitation of it because I do not believe it is right. Just because there's a Christian majority doesn't mean we have the right to step on Hindus, Athiests, Buddhists, and other religions that are not part of the Judaism-Christianity-Islam trio.

Why would I be offended of Allah or Moses (BTW Moses is part of Christianity, too, in case you forgot)? I would be offended if the Pledge said "one nation, under Allah" because I am not Islamic, and therefore would feel excluded in a way from the nation. The Pledge is about unity. How can one unify when one set of beliefs is clearly favored over another?

This "small group of people trying to impose their will on the majority" is just fighting back for the majority unconstitutionally imposing its will on everyone back in the 1950s; it's righting a wrong.

BTW you are wrong regarding the nativity scenes; cities can display them as long as they provide an "open forum" for all religious displays. Most cities just stopped with the nativity scenes when the Wiccans started showing up due to prejudice there.

As far as Xmas trees in college dorms...well they are a big fire hazard so no issue there from me! I'm sure a student could erect one in his room if it were not a fire hazard, but what is most likely frowned upon is erecting one in a public area.

Seeing as Winter Recess typically lasts a month (give or take a week) "Christmas Vacation" is a misnomer anyway. Why not New Year Vacation? or Holiday Vacation? Seeing as we already have Summer Recess, Fall Recess and Spring Recess, Winter Recess just fits in with the others. Honestly, you're free to call it whatever the hell you want to call it, but anything publicly-funded must stick with the secular term.

Please, don't argue with me and use a bunch of useless emotionally-based rhetoric because I will rip it to shreds. Use facts. They are a lot more effective.

[the_yellow_dart]

I really don't understand why it's such a big deal myself. O Canada has the word God in it, and Canada is just as multicultural as the US... Semantics. How often do you really say it anyways?

[CSpec]

I haven't said the Pledge since like 4th grade, but I agree that "under God" should be removed. It should revert to what Bellamy (went to U of Rochester, shameless plug :D) originally wrote.

[thegriffon]

Whether or not you agree with his attitude, he IS right as far as the constitution is concerned, and that is all law should be concerned about.

[post="22877"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's a matter of debate Croc. Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief explains it better, although I don't agree with all his opinions. The court has reinterpreted the establishment clause (probably wisely) to prohibit government establishment or support of a religion, when it was originally intended to be antidisestablishmentarian (and now you know where antidisestablishmentarianism comes from): i.e. the Federal government could not interfere with a state religious establishment (such as subsidies for Morman churches in Utah). To some extent this is still assumed, or Christmas and Easter would not be holidays (although both are essentially pagan winter and spring festivals rather than Christian in the Anglo-American tradition). There is still a lot of argument about whether it should now be taken to prohibit support of specific religions (which almost everyone agrees on), or broadly applied to religion in general (which many people do not agree with). US civil religion is long established and almost universally supported, if in a necessarily vague and all-encompassing way. "All men are created equal" "in God we trust", Thanksgiving etc. are all religious in nature, without reference to any specific tradition; and the desire to purge all religious language from civil life is arguably an attempt to "establish" secularism as the official American "religion".

[Croc]

There are numerous quotes from the Founding Fathers that make it very clear they want nothing to do with the mixing of religion and government. I'll find these and post them here...

"In God We Trust" was added to currency in the 1950s, same time "under God" was added to the pledge. All men are created equally, through sex. Rocks are created by plate tectonics, so the word created does not necessarily mean a creator.

Here is a link that is just chock full of them. Remember, these are the opinions and quotations from the Founding Fathers, who wrote the separation clause:

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa070202a.htm Edited October 5, 2005 by Croc

[sciguy_0504]

In a dispute over display of holiday symbols, New York City schools are allowing Jewish menorahs and Islamic crescents but barring Christian nativity scenes, alleging the depiction of the birth of Christ does not represent a historical event.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=35544

The Grinch visited campus for the holidays this season. Many students claimed to feel pressure from RAs and other administrators into keeping holiday decorations to a minimum.

SCSU made the KSTP Channel 5 nightly news with the controversy surrounding the Christmas tree overlooking campus from the roof of Sherburne Hall. Some students argued the display promoted Christianity, while others asserted a small pine tree had no religious connotations.

http://www.universitychronicle.com/media/p...ed-945966.shtml

At a time when Americans of many faiths – and even no faith – gear up to celebrate Christmas this year, a first-grade teacher in Sacramento Co., Calif., says she's been ordered by her principal not to utter the word "Christmas" at school.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29977

...the ACLU's biggest focus is censoring Christmas, a national holiday. The ACLU is clamping down on school districts, trying to deter them from promoting Christmas in any way. No Christmas tree, no carol singing, and by no means, any mention of the name of Jesus Christ.

http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumn...lenax120904.htm

Just a few facts to back up the examples in my previous post. All of the court cases were brought by people "offended" by Christianity.

Being a secular nation does not elude me. However, as evidenced by what happened in NYC public schools and what happens year after year thanks the ACLU, it seems as if our justice system supports every religion but Christianity. Again, atheism is a religion and people are advocating it when everyone should be free to practice whatever they want to, where ever they want to, whenever they want to, regardless who is "offended."

Croc, how can someone be "offended" by the phrase "Christmas Vacation?" How can someone sue over that? If your life is dedicated to something so petty, you need help.

Exactly like you and I have said, no one is forced to say the Pledge and (on top of that) don't need to say the phrase "under God." So what's the problem? Why have that phrase taken out when 98% of the country has no problem saying it and you can avoid saying the entire Pledge or just that phrase?

I realize the phrase "under God" wasn't part of the Pledge until Eisenhower had it put in. No one has had a problem with it until recently because during the past few decades we were all too concerned with Commies and being blown apart by nukes people had the common sense to not focus their attention on something so menial.

Organizations like the ACLU, activist judges and the left will keep pushing this and a few other issues on the general public (aka. mainstream America) and it will boil over. Sort of like how the daily Vietnam War protests in NYC eventually boiled over and caused hundreds of construction workers building towers to invade the protest one day and give the protesters a good beat down.

Edit: spelling Edited October 5, 2005 by sciguy_0504

[Satty]

I got an email from an RA a few years ago telling everyone on my floor to have a nice "non-demoninational winter break" that was retarded. The whole argument is retarded, both sides of the argument are retarded, frankly I'm starting to think this entire country is going retarded.

[ocnblu]

I see no harm in keeping the Pledge intact. "God" takes many forms. Leftists should chill. We all should chill, maybe have a little glass of merlot. :)

[Cory Wolfe]

At a time when Americans of many faiths – and even no faith – gear up to celebrate Christmas this year, a first-grade teacher in Sacramento Co., Calif., says she's been ordered by her principal not to utter the word "Christmas" at school.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29977

...the ACLU's biggest focus is censoring Christmas, a national holiday. The ACLU is clamping down on school districts, trying to deter them from promoting Christmas in any way. No Christmas tree, no carol singing, and by no means, any mention of the name of Jesus Christ.

http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumn...lenax120904.htm

Just a few facts to back up the examples in my previous post. All of the court cases were brought by people "offended" by Christianity.

Croc, how can someone be "offended" by the phrase "Christmas Vacation?" How can someone sue over that? If your life is dedicated to something so petty, you need help.

Exactly like you and I have said, no one is forced to say the Pledge and (on top of that) don't need to say the phrase "under God." So what's the problem? Why have that phrase taken out when 98% of the country has no problem saying it and you can avoid saying the entire Pledge or just that phrase?

[post="24482"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The same thing is happening at my school. Christmas vacation must now be referred to as a "winter break". Same with other Christian holiday's like Easter.

I got an email from an RA a few years ago telling everyone on my floor to have a nice "non-demoninational winter break" that was retarded. The whole argument is retarded, both sides of the argument are retarded, frankly I'm starting to think this entire country is going retarded.

I completely agree...

Anyways, I believe that "everyone should be free to practice whatever they want to, where ever they want to, whenever they want to, regardless who is "offended."

BTW, I don't really have a religion. I participate in holidays. However... I don't really believe in God. I don't really believe in heaven or hell. It is all one big fairy tale to me. Technically, I guess I'm a christian who doesn't belive.. :P

[Cremazie]

It finally all makes sense!

[Croc]

I prefer Everclear, but whatever.

Could we all just agree to keep our narrow-minded opinions to ourselves? Seems like everytime someone in here starts talking about either religion or politics everyone always gets all all pissy at each other.

[post="24547"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No one forces you to participate in lounge discussions that bother you; in fact, no one forces you to read them. It's not like this thread has degenerated into an all-out flame war or anything.

[Chris_Doane]

A boy must eat everything on his plate. But if your son pesters you to serve corn on the cob, hot dogs or sausages, that is your signal to change his diet. Try serving meals that more effectively evoke a hankering for the fragrant delights of the female genitalia. An artichoke stuffed with tuna fish will usually do the trick.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[post="22774"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Mmmm, popsicles. Oops. I mean...uhh....steamed cabbage?

[ocnblu]

Vienna sausages, all cute, stuffed in a can standing up.

BANANAS! SUMMER SAUSAGE! DILL PICKLES! KIELBASA!!!


:P

[SingleStylish]

Better yet lets say it like it does in the Constitution itself: "...one nation, under our creator, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Lest we forget our forefathers and the consitution acknowledge the presence and importance of God. If not we would use an American calendar and a judeo-christian callendar. Lord knows, everything else in this country must be specially made to fit ALL people...

[daves87rs]

Vienna sausages, all cute, stuffed in a can standing up.

BANANAS!  SUMMER SAUSAGE!  DILL PICKLES!  KIELBASA!!!
:P

[post="24718"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:blink: :lol:

[Satty]

I got an email from an RA a few years ago telling everyone on my floor to have a nice "non-demoninational winter break" that was retarded. The whole argument is retarded, both sides of the argument are retarded, frankly I'm starting to think this entire country is going retarded.

3 years later and I still think religious arguments are retarded.

[A Horse With No Name]

God will smite you...but only if you don't buy a Jesus thong.

Chris

[Drew Dowdell]

Better yet lets say it like it does in the Constitution itself:

"...one nation, under our creator, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Lest we forget our forefathers and the consitution acknowledge the presence and importance of God. If not we would use an American calendar and a judeo-christian callendar. Lord knows, everything else in this country must be specially made to fit ALL people...

It says no such thing in the Constitution.

[Paolino]

I'm sad to say I thought the website was legit the first minute I saw it. I think it was around the tuna-stuffed artichoke part that convinced me it was fake ;)

[Satty]

It says no such thing in the Constitution.

You're not reading the right Constitution, they give a decoy to all the gays so you think your arguments are valid. It amuses us...I mean them.

[Paolino]

You're not reading the right Constitution, they give a decoy to all the gays so you think your arguments are valid. It amuses us...I mean them.

Tsk tsk... not "gays"... heterosexually-challenged is the proper PC term.

[Satty]

Bump

[RjION]

I'm not concerned so I didn't read!

[caddycruiser]

TOO hilarious...and scary at the same time. People do think like that. Scary.