Please wait...
2025-04-20 13:34 from ZoeGraystone
Subject: Re: Heartless Scumbag
I could be mistaken, and this is just my interpretation, but i
suspect the meaning behind it was more that if a all powerful
deity does actually exist as some believe, if it allows the
atrocities committed against many of the pets that require the
need for a shelter at all, then the deity is not so 'wonderful'
after all, and in fact, heartless evil incarnate themselves, and
deserves no respect, let alone worship.
Some religions (in fact, MANY religions) solve the issue by declaring their deity (or deities) are outright imperfect. Zoroastran example: their god is Universally benevolent but not almighty, which is the reason why the bad guys can sometimes screw things up if we humans don't do our part to help.
And, nothing of value was lost.
I assume you're talking about the "pope" and I agree.
The roman catholic "church" is an insulting mockery of Christianity, and this last "pope" was a communist socialist heretic. And a jerk. He won't be missed.
I've heard, however, that he also packed the College of Cardinals with people just like him, so it would be ill advised to expect an improvement. In any case, at the rate Europe is going, Rome will fall in less than 20 years, so they'd better just bulldoze the vatican before it gets repurposed by another religion. I think they should build a nuclear power plant on the site.
Yes. However not for the same reasons you state. But same end result.
Tue Apr 22 2025 01:54:12 UTC from IGnatius T FoobarI assume you're talking about the "pope" and I agree.
Hopefully the cardinals elect Cardinal Robert Sarah; at least then the Catholic church will not be a thorn in the side of conservatism.
I've heard, however, that he also packed the College of
Cardinals with people just like him, so it would be ill advised
to expect an improvement. In any case, at the rate Europe is
going, Rome will fall in less than 20 years, so they'd better
just bulldoze the vatican before it gets repurposed by another
religion. I think they should build a nuclear power plant on
the site.
It would be a shame if the Vatican was overtaken, because they have lots of artistic items and buildings that pack a cultural impact.
I think I have already mentioned my grandmother has a bunch of Christian pieces of art in her basement, which were taken in a hurry from a Chruch just before it was overtaken. The problem is there isonly so much you can take with you when the barbarians show up.
Turn it into a museum then?
I may not agree with its underlying principles of why it exists, but i can get behind a preservation of architectural history and art sort of thing.
Fri Apr 25 2025 12:11:16 UTC from darknetuserIt would be a shame if the Vatican was overtaken, because they have lots of artistic items and buildings that pack a cultural impact.
How about just shutting it down?
Only if it's destroyed completely. I don't want to see it get rebuilt as a holy site for another religion -- especially one that said for centuries that its destiny was to sack both Constantinople and Rome -- and is already 50% finished with that goal.
That's why I want to see a nuclear power plant built there. Salt the earth so it can't become a holy site again.
This is one place where a Christian and an atheist can agree there are uses for that land that are far less desirable.
Not sure if its been ruled on, but even that it is a topic is gravely disturbing. Supreme court is to rule on mandating tax funding of a religious school.
No. Full stop, No. I do NOT want to pay for child indoctrination of ANY religion, especially 'only approved ones'. Sure, lie and program your kids if you like, but not on my fraking dime.
Wed Apr 30 2025 23:44:49 UTC from ZoeGraystoneNot sure if its been ruled on, but even that it is a topic is gravely disturbing. Supreme court is to rule on mandating tax funding of a religious school.
Do you mean this?: https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/30/supreme-court-signals-support-for-allowing-nations-first-public-religious-charter-school/
Justice Kavanaugh's argument seems solid to me:
When later questioning Gregory Garre, who argued the case on behalf of Drummond’s office, Kavanaugh suggested that the state’s exclusion of St. Isidore from the charter program “seems like rank discrimination against religion.”
“If you go and apply … to be a charter school and you’re an environmental studies school or you’re a science-based school or you’re a Chinese immersion school … you can get in. And then you come in, and you say, ‘Oh, we’re a religious school.’ It’s like, ‘Oh no, can’t do that.’ …” Kavanaugh said. “Our cases have made very clear … you can’t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second-class in the United States. And when you have a program that’s open to all comers except for religion … that seems like rank discrimination against religion, and that’s the concern that I think you need to deal with here.”
So if a Muslim oriented charter school opens next door to you, you are fine with using your tax dollars to fund it? How about a satanism school? Wicca? Celtic? How about a Atheist or Agnostic school? No, you wouldn't be. And if you claim you are, you are lying. Nor should "churches" get tax breaks, its the same thing. MY money is funding YOUR trash.
All religion should be banned and anyone who violates, turned into fertilizer. Period. its the root of all evil.
And if that is truly what the justice said, hes an idiot, is biased and should be removed from the bench for violation of his oath.
( and i can see why several people around here, no longer are. Its due to morons like you. )
Oh and just to be clear, i said *religion* not *belief*
Its a ( well used to be ) a free country, so believe what you want, even tho its wrong. But if you organize, then you need eradicated as THAT is the root of evil.
Thu May 01 2025 00:38:26 UTCfrom ZoeGraystoneAll religion should be banned and anyone who violates, turned into fertilizer.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I did not say it was constitutional did i? Its my personal opinion. I'm not allowed to have my own opinion if it disagrees with yours? Figures. And forcing me to pay for this school IS a form of 'state' establishment.
And i didn't see you respond if you support your tax dollars going to religions you arbitrarily dislike or not.
Thu May 01 2025 01:11:09 UTC from SouthernComputerGeek
Thu May 01 2025 00:38:26 UTCfrom ZoeGraystoneAll religion should be banned and anyone who violates, turned into fertilizer.
I advise you to read the religion clauses in the First Amendment (emphasis added to the one your proposal violates):Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
At least here in PA, the 2 biggest proponents of 'school choice' are conservatives who want to eliminate public schools and the Catholic Church. Both are doing quite well as far as I can see.
If they want to have science charter schools, music charter schools, whatever, then I think the law is clear that religious charter schools must also be allowed, and I agree with Kavanaugh on that point. Personally, I think none of them should be allowed tax dollars, but that requires a change in the law, not a court ruling.
I also think religion is a total load of hogwash, but I hold nothing against believers and it's certainly their right to believe and advocate as they believe. Sometimes I'm even a bit envious of them.
2025-05-01 00:38 from ZoeGraystone
So if a Muslim oriented charter school opens next door to you,
you are fine with using your tax dollars to fund it? How about a
satanism school? Wicca? Celtic? How about a Atheist or Agnostic
school? No, you wouldn't be. And if you claim you are, you are
lying. Nor should "churches" get tax breaks, its the same
thing. MY money is funding YOUR trash.
It seems to me more of a matter of if religion A can get its tax break, so should everybody else, including non religious groups.
Personally I would prefer all education to be funded privately. Public money makes schools even more dishonest than private funding.
At least here in PA, the 2 biggest proponents of 'school choice' are
conservatives who want to eliminate public schools and the Catholic
Church. Both are doing quite well as far as I can see.
Here's my perspective as a super hardcore evangelical Christian and 1st Amendment afficionado.
If you give privilege/funding to a religion you like, you're inevitably going to be forced to give the same privilege/funding to the ones you don't like.
And so that means you don't do it. At all. For anyone.
So for example the "prayer in schools" thing ... kids can pray in school if they want to but there's no way we're ever going to allow the school to lead them in prayer again. Maybe in the past they led the kids in prayer to the real God, but if they did it today they'd just as likely be forced to pray to Satan or Allah or FSM or Greta Thunberg.
Remember the context in which 1A was written: the British government from which the US had divested, had an official state religion. So 1A does two things: (1) it prohibits the establishment of an official state religion; and (2) it prohibits the state from banning religion.
It does *not* mean you have a right to never see religion being practiced (see also: the militant atheists who chant the lie "freedom of religion means freedom from religion"). It *does* mean that there should never be state funded displays of religion. So for example even though I think the Ten Commandments are an excellent code of ethics, I must reluctantly agree that it's not a good idea to have them engraved on a courthouse.
I agree.
( really, even going beyond religion i don't like the concept of 'privileged groups' at all. Sure, don't discriminate, but no one is 'special' either. )
If you give privilege/funding to a religion you like, you're inevitably going to be forced to give the same privilege/funding to the ones you don't like.
And so that means you don't do it. At all. For anyone.