Enigma: ^^^ Look, I thought you had something worthwhile to say but unfortunately you have proven yourself to be a mere liar.

It is also beginning to occur to me that you are probably a neophyte and maybe just out of your teens --- in which case I won't waste my time with your type.

u also ave nothing worth while to say.

besides logicboy was right. Atheism is not a religion so no need to argue with u

Enigma:

Strictly speaking "separation of church and state" is not a legal concept. Further, the concept, though known in American "politics" (for want of a better word presently) is open to different interpretations.

From a legal point of view, what the authorities are not allowed to do is divided into the two broad categories: (a) do not establish a religion and (b) do not interfere with free exercise of religion.

This is far far far removed from "Congress cannot pass any law with respect to religion"

I would think this would clearly mean do not support any religion, no?

Stalwert:

Ignorance is an understatement of what is really befuddling the minds of this individuals indeed!

And some of them are ridiculously and laughably arrogant despite their ignorance.

It really is a case of "he who does not know and does not know that he does not know ---- is a fool".

Ymodulus:
u also ave nothing worth while to say.

besides logicboy was right. Atheism is not a religion so no need to argue with u

I can give links on this forum where I have proven that evangelical atheism is now a religion both from an intellectual assessment and a legal examination (at least under American law) but the arguments would be lost and wasted on you just as they have been lost and wasted on even the better known self-acclaimed "intellectuals" on Nairaland.

wiegraf:

I would think this would clearly mean do not support any religion, no?

Read the thread and follow the arguments. I went to considerable lengths on that thread.

Enigma: One more thing and I'll make it loud just in case it will help in getting the point across to those sadly slower to assimilate things.

Jefferson who originated the phrase "separation of Church and State" must have had a different idea of what it means compared to what many mumus shouting the phrase nowadays use it to mean.


For example: as previously posted, Jefferson attended a church service on government property two days after coining the phrase "separation of Church and State"; not only that he continued to allow church services to be held on government property and himself to attend those church services.

Nowadays the evangelical/militant atheist mumus will shout at him "hey, you can't do that, 'separation of church and state'!"

Jefferson attended church, so what? He also edited the bible, should you adopt that version as well?. Would you also like xtianity declared as usa's official religion? Tax payers back in those days may have had no problems with his using government property for religious purposes but in this day and age assuming that is silly.

Separation of church and state is also a principle, one I would think they are proud of. Like 'inalienable freedoms' or however jefferson put it. Like for instance, honesty. Lying is not a crime but it is not encouraged, yes?

In this case though, that's by the way, it's open and shut. Public organizations cannot endorse any religion for very good reasons. That is all

wiegraf:

Jefferson attended church, so what? He also edited the bible, should you adopt that version as well?. Would you also like xtianity declared as usa's official religion? Tax payers back in those days may have had no problems with his using government property for religious purposes but in this day and age assuming that is silly.

Separation of church and state is also a principle, one I would think they are proud of. Like 'inalienable freedoms' or however jefferson put it. Like for instance, honesty. Lying is not a crime but it is not encouraged, yes?

In this case though, that's by the way, it's open and shut. Public organizations cannot endorse any religion for very good reasons. That is all

tanks. lets go off

wiegraf:

Jefferson attended church, so what? He also edited the bible, should you adopt that version as well?. Would you also like xtianity declared as usa's official religion? Tax payers back in those days may have had no problems with his using government property for religious purposes but in this day and age assuming that is silly.

Separation of church and state is also a principle, one I would think they are proud of. Like 'inalienable freedoms' or however jefferson put it. Like for instance, honesty. Lying is not a crime but it is not encouraged, yes?

In this case though, that's by the way, it's open and shut. Public organizations cannot endorse any religion for very good reasons. That is all

You couldn't follow a simple instruction: read the thread.

where are these guys running to? it must have occur to them that their argument are not cogent indeed!

^^^ why argue with blockheads that do not understand the separation of church and state? A public school can not endorse any religion.The girl is free to read and write her poem but the school can not endorse the poem with God at an event done by the school.


Why isnt the school being sued? After all, there are more christian parents at that school? No serious lawyer would bother because the school obeyed the law.


There was one christian fool here that mentioned private schools. I couldnt stop laughing at the ignorance. Private schools can do what they like about religion since they are not part of the government like public schools.


There was another fool that mentioned atheism as a religion.



It gets tiring arguing with blockheads

At all events, I am certain that the mere mention of the word "God" or some person's reference in a poem to another person "praying to God" hardly qualifies as official endorsement of any known religion.

As such, the removal of the line/ word is at best, the worst form of delusional paranoia, and at worst, the atheistic version of medieval oppressive inquisitory fanaticism. Period.

Typically when atheists looses an argument he resort to hurling insults and blasphemy, ur next move is probably going to be blasphemy . . . Classic atheist tantrums!

Deep Sight:
At all events, I am certain that the mere mention of the word "God" or some person's reference in a poem to another person "praying to God" hardly qualifies as official endorsement of any known religion.

You are smarter than this.

Logicboy03:

You are smarter than this.

Hey boy! I wish you a happy and prosperous new year. As for "smart," I think I am only somewhat smart at deceiving people with a little writing. In real life, I make disastrous decisions, a thing i'll be hoping to change next year. Tata.

Deep Sight: At all events, I am certain that the mere mention of the word "God" or some person's reference in a poem to another person "praying to God" hardly qualifies as official endorsement of any known religion.

As such, the removal of the line/ word is at best, the worst form of delusional paranoia, and at worst, the atheistic version of medieval oppressive inquisitory fanaticism. Period.

What? Comunistic, totalitarian atheism in America?
You are free to donate money for them to sue the school. Nairaland can house your ignorance but courts do not grant ignorance as a defense.


References to praying to god are religious. End of.

Logicboy03:

What? Comunistic, totalitarian atheism in America?
You are free to donate money for them to sue the school. Nairaland can house your ignorance but courts do not grant ignorance as a defense.

Lol. Happy new year bro. I norr dey argue again from this year.

I read something recently: "No argument has ever resolved anything in history or ever proven any point. Only results and events do."

Period!

Stalwert: where are these guys running to? it must have occur to them that their argument are not cogent indeed!

Well then, could you raise a cogent argument of your own then, hmmm?

As for the assignment, he wants me to read a thread with @ola in it. Ha ha, no. I wouldn't ask that of anybody, really..

Stalwert: where are these guys running to? it must have occur to them that their argument are not cogent indeed!

In general, evangelical atheists do not do cogent arguments . . . . .

Logicboy03:
You lie to make your point? Christians these days.

Isn't it interesting how anything that doesn't echo your opinion is a lie these days

Enigma:

This is precisely why it was necessary to go into much trouble (including unpleasant but necessary heated exchanges) on that thread where I took the pains to explain the real meaning of "separation of church and state". As I said then, many of the evangelical atheists who shout "separation of church and state" are quite ignorant of the real concept while some others are duplicitous and seek to use it to destroy any trace of religion wherever they can get away with it.
https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/4#10838785

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/13#10999290

etc



Edited

Lol, sometimes I just shake my head.

The bolded is the one that worries me more. . . . . .It keeps reminding me of the return of atheist regimes and how they killed people in the name of no-religion.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, sometimes I just shake my head.

The bolded is the one that worries me more. . . . . .It keeps reminding me of the return of atheist regimes and how they killed people in the name of no-religion.

Killed people in the name of no religion?

wiegraf:

Killed people in the name of no religion?

I wonder myself.

Christianity has been the bloodiest religion ever. Killing people since the 6th century. The only way the christians like Anony can console themselves is to believe the delusion that atheists like Stalin killed in the name of "no God" while the muslims killed more in their Jihad.

wiegraf:

Killed people in the name of no religion?

Yes

Mr_Anony:
Yes

How?

Logicboy03:

I wonder myself.

Christianity has been the bloodiest religion ever. Killing people since the 6th century. The only way the christians like Anony can console themselves is to believe the delusion that atheists like Stalin killed in the name of "no God" while the muslims killed more in their Jihad.

All you have to do to make your claim solid is to show from scripture how following Christ justifies killing. You can claim that Christianity is bloody all you want but you will never see a part of scripture where Jesus Christ whom we emulate killed anyone rather he prayed for those that killed him. . . . .and so did Stephen when he was being stoned to death.

Christ teaches us to love our enemies, to bless those that curse us and to pray for those that despise us and abuse us. If anyone claims to kill in the name of Christ, he/she does so in direct violation of Christ's teaching and therefore cannot possibly be a Christian.

The same is not true for atheists like Mao's followers who burnt down buddhist temples and put their monks to death while chanting "religion is poison!" or shall we talk about Vladmir Lenin who starved his own people seizing both their crops and their seeds saying that the famine will break their trust in God.

Let me read you a quote from Lenin:

The present moment favours us.....With the help of all those starving people starting to eat each other, who are dying by the millions and whose bodies litter the roadside all over the country, it is now and only now that we can - and therefore must - confiscate all church property with all the ruthless energy we can muster...our only hope is the despair engendered in the masses by the famine which will cause them to look at us in a favourable light, or at the very least with indifference
- Vladmir Lenin in a letter to the polit bureau March 19, 1922

wiegraf:

How?

read my response to logicboy above

Wiegraff; How did atheists kill people in the name of no religion

Anony; Christ didnt say we should kill anyone therefore christians can kill in the name of christ without any effect on christianity.

Mr_Anony:
All you have to do to make your claim solid is to show from scripture how following Christ justifies killing. You can claim that Christianity is bloody all you want but you will never see a part of scripture where Jesus Christ whom we emulate killed anyone rather he prayed for those that killed him. . . . .and so did Stephen when he was being stoned to death.

Beautiful bro, now all you need do is show me how atheist scripture justifies killing....

How many times has it been pointed out to you there's no such thing as atheist scripture, hmmm? Last I checked we don't have any books we hold as the infallible word of "no god" in which "no god" performs genocides for mysterious reasons. Come to think about it, theists don't have such a book by default. Some do of course, christians, yes?

Logicboy03: Wiegraff; How did atheists kill people in the name of no religion

Killing for a religion when you don't have a religion is a bit puzzling

Logicboy03: Wiegraff; How did atheists kill people in the name of no religion

Anony; Christ didnt say we should kill anyone therefore christians can kill in the name of christ without any effect on christianity.

very poor attempt at a strawman (or is it that your comprehension ability is that poor?). Perhaps you should have read the whole post down to where I talk about Mao Zedong and Lenin.
Maybe we'll ignore the part where you are trying to convince us that if for instance wiegraf kills people in your name when you haven't encouraged him in any way to do so, we should still insist that following your orders caused wiegraf to kill people. How do you think really?

wiegraf:

Killing for a religion when you don't have a religion is a bit puzzling

what part of killing for no religion don't you understand?

Mr_Anony:
what part of "killing for no religion" don't you understand?

The bolded, genius


Edit: and address my post, rather than misdirect. Best you can possibly do is claim some atheists are religious. No argument there, people in korea that believe their dear father put 9 hole in ones on first attempt are religious, their gods are just a bit different. But to claim they killed in the name of atheism... Take a step back and think about how stoopid you sound. Dogma, 4king where? I wouldn't be berating you if it has not been pointed to your silly fundamental a$$ over and over and over...