Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[rogue06]

Jed and I like it crispy like we used to get before the war.

Crispy bacon

So good it makes your tongue slap your face for eating anything else.

[rogue06]

Don’t you mean that fat men love fatty bacon?

tenor.gif

[Mountain Man]

The point is that government cannot favour one religion over another...

That's not what the First Amendment says.

[Cow Poke]

That's not what the First Amendment says.

But what it says doesn't support his narrative.

[Cerebrum123]

It matters not what the founders thought but what the constitution says.

This explains a lot about your "interpretations" of the Bible. You don't care what is meant by the passages, but what you think it "says".

[firstfloor]

This explains a lot about your "interpretations" of the Bible. You don't care what is meant by the passages, but what you think it "says".

What do you think reading is? I’ll tell you. It is a cognitive process of decoding symbols to derive meaning. 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.

[firstfloor]

That's not what the First Amendment says.

Here’s something interesting:

http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/...t=fac_articles

[Sparko]

Here’s something interesting:

http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/...t=fac_articles

[Mountain Man]

Here’s something interesting:

http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/...t=fac_articles

First of all, any screed that uses the word "privilege" as a pejorative is hardly worth reading.

And secondly, the author claims in the very first paragraph that the purpose of the First Amendment "is to protect religious minorities", which is such an absurd interpretation of the Establishment Clause that there's no point reading any further.

But thanks for the laugh.

[Psychic Missile]

First of all, any screed that uses the word "privilege" as a pejorative is hardly worth reading.

And secondly, the author claims in the very first paragraph that the purpose of the First Amendment "is to protect religious minorities", which is such an absurd interpretation of the Establishment Clause that there's no point reading any further.

But thanks for the laugh.

What do you think the purpose of the Establishment Clause is?

[Sparko]

First of all, any screed that uses the word "privilege" as a pejorative is hardly worth reading.

And secondly, the author claims in the very first paragraph that the purpose of the First Amendment "is to protect religious minorities", which is such an absurd interpretation of the Establishment Clause that there's no point reading any further.

But thanks for the laugh.

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

[Mountain Man]

What do you think the purpose of the Establishment Clause is?

It's purpose is exactly what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Not hard to understand.

[Sparko]

People act like the constitution wasn't written in English or something.

[seer]

What do you think the purpose of the Establishment Clause is?

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.

[seer]

People act like the constitution wasn't written in English or something.

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