Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps they just don't like what it says...

Kinda like how they read the Bible.

[firstfloor]

Looks like a student's school paper. An SJW student. Looking for a cause.

Your mocking tone is an expression of Christian privilege.
The Author,

[Sparko]

Your mocking tone is an expression of Christian privilege.
The Author,

Even worse. A professor of Law that writes like an SJW student. wow. bad, very bad.

She must be using her professor privilege to make a jackass out of herself.

[Cerebrum123]

What do you think reading is? . What you are pointing to here is the unfortunate fact that trainee Christians cannot read the Bible. The reason of course is that a special interpretation is required to extract the meaning that Christians want to extract and the trainee therefore has to be indoctrinated in that interpretation. The meaning is manufactured by the faith and it can be rejected out of hand for that reason.

Yeah, the underlined is correct. Unfortunately over many years, and changing cultures meaning can become lost upon a "surface reading", which is why you go back and look at more than just that. There is a little something called "context" which you are apparently too lazy to understand.

[JB DoulosChristou]

firstfloor, out of curiosity: Do you happen to think that the existence of the monument in question is a violation of the First Amendment?

[ke7ejx]

firstfloor, out of curiosity: Do you happen to think that the existence of the monument in question is a violation of the First Amendment?

Smart money would say yes based on what I just read from him...

[One Bad Pig]

Smart money would say yes based on what I just read from him...

Keep in mind that the question is purely academic for him, as he lives on the other side of the pond.

[seer]

Your mocking tone is an expression of Christian privilege.
The Author,

She is still an idiot - with letters after her name - which only makes it official. The fact is FF, the monument in question is not a violation of the First Amendment as written.

[EvoUK]

[firstfloor]

firstfloor, out of curiosity: Do you happen to think that the existence of the monument in question is a violation of the First Amendment?

No. The architecture of war memorials surely reflect the sensibilities of the time when they were built. I do not think we are entitled to rewrite history just because our own sensibilities might be different now and I do not think that a 90 year old war memorial has anything to do with church/state separation as it is currently debated.

[ke7ejx]

Keep in mind that the question is purely academic for him, as he lives on the other side of the pond.

Thanks for the head's up! I wasn't aware of that!

[Cow Poke]

No. The architecture of war memorials surely reflect the sensibilities of the time when they were built. I do not think we are entitled to rewrite history just because our own sensibilities might be different now and I do not think that a 90 year old war memorial has anything to do with church/state separation as it is currently debated.

I amen'd that. I think.

But, for grins, do you feel that same way over the civil war monuments that are causing such hyperflatus from many?

[Mountain Man]

Your mocking tone is an expression of Christian privilege.

This kind of argument is known as a kafkatrap.

Source: The Daily Bell

http://www.thedailybell.com/editoria...kafkatrapping/

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

Or Christ's return. The sooner the better.

Too funny!

[stfoskey15]

To prevent CONGRESS from establishing a national religion by LAW. As you know many of the early states, like mine, had tax supported churches. States were free do do this or not.

Right. But the 14th Amendment made the 1st Amendment apply to the states as well.