The only thing sad about atheists is that they feel in order to give themselves legitimacy they have to tear down other people's faith to do so...in the courts.

Maybe that's why they are despised & the only reason. As far as those laws go, if they were enforced atheists would be getting arrested or their cases thrown out, to say the least.

I don't feel sorry for people who want to rain on someone else's parade to promote their own self agrandizement.

How about they just live & let live...like the libs always say?

Yep I agree live and let live.

Practice your religion in your church, your home and on private property.

Allow the rest of us to do the same and do not inflict the standards created from your mythology on others.

actually...the founding Fathers wanted ALL religion and beliefs to be practiced in the " public " square...somehow...the whole " wall of separation "...or..." separation of Church and State "...got hijacked by a liberal Supreme Court in 1947...Justice Hugo Black an FDR appointee...led the charge...there is NO clause or line in the constitution that says " separation of Church and State "...there is a clause that says " Freedom of Religion "...

Please, explain further.

The 'Wall of Separation,' Again:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.

We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.

-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. This is his second kown use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, President Jefferson said he believed there was a "wall of separation" in the Constitution that was designed to keep the government from interfering in the affairs of the church, not a wall to keep free speech out of the public arena. Thankfully, the Supreme Court finally clarified what Jefferson truly meant in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984) when they said that the phrase “separation of church and state” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, a “euphemism” as they put it, not Constitutional law.

That sounds like an awful lot of Christian Right rationalization going on. Im sticking with Jefferson's actual words. I believe he said what he meant and meant what he said You are simply attempting to "redefine terms" like you folks very often do with the bible itself.

Quick,

I have noticed that you use a lot of labels for groups of people and you even abbreviate them. I have become interested in labels after hearing LonelyWalker use a couple of his.

Libs: (I am assuming you mean liberals here) Got any more you can share?

redifine terms ?...the Supreme Court did that...not me...

the Supreme Court finally clarified what Jefferson truly meant in Lynch vs. Donnelly (1984) when they said that the phrase “separation of church and state” is nothing more than the opinion of Thomas Jefferson, a “euphemism” as they put it, not Constitutional law.

This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

prior to 1984...it was finally rectified...in 1984...

I find it very difficult to believe that someone can "clarify what one meant" when the person, who's words are getting "clarified" has died.

This is a bigoted statement all right.

Just goes to show what a bunch of hyprocrites post here.

True colors & all that...

Well the atheists always want to do away with anything in the public sq. that speaks of God. Like the nativity scene that represents Christmas.

Things like that. If you follow their line of thought right on this thread you will see they want to squelch the voice of Christians. So much for freedom of speech for anyone doesn't agree with the LIB mantras.

Correct Gio... unless you buy into the revisionist lies about it, that is.

Yes & it was always that way until the psuedo revisionist lies... I think we got time on our side. They just want to pervert anything good, including the truth...that's why they are all COUNTER our culture.

I notice that some just want to argue...don't pull me into that. I'm not buying it.

exactly !!...they " clarified "...in 1947...and...they " clarified "...in 1984...whose to say which decision is right or wrong...

Did I not see you scream foul when someone told you you are bigoted? For someone like that you are using the term quite freely, therefore, if you look for a hypocrite, just use a mirror, that will suffice.

Since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, that doesn't explain how, if laws are enforced, I, as an atheists, should be getting arrested.