(January 20, 2019 at 9:57 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 9:25 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The colonies were unanimous, not the people in them.

So you don't consider the Declaration of Independence valid? The original 13 states were unified.

By your logic it would mean that absolutely 100% of every single person living in the colonies agreed with Independence from Britian. Obviously that is not the case.

(January 20, 2019 at 10:23 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 9:57 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: So you don't consider the Declaration of Independence valid? The original 13 states were unified.

By your logic it would mean that absolutely 100% of every single person living in the colonies agreed with Independence from Britian. Obviously that is not the case.

Not at all. That's not my America.

(January 20, 2019 at 1:40 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 19, 2019 at 10:35 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: A fair number of people wanted to stay with the Crown in 1776. NOT unanimous.

Declaration of Independence was signed unanimously.  In fact, it says "unanimous" on he actual document.  This is a replica, as you can barely see it on the original since the whole document has faded a lot.

---

(January 20, 2019 at 7:52 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: It isn't preaching Communism. He is employing a scurrilous tactic known as Red-baiting. He is attempting to discredit atheists by associating them with communists. He is using an intellectually dishonest ploy to divert attention away from what is, in actuality, a constitutional issue. This is because he can't rationally defend his claims on constitutional grounds.

Do you ever have facts?  You seem to speak out of your behind most of the time.  Maybe actually bring something to the table if you have something instead of whine about other people.  Even many of the atheists today understand the relationship between atheism and communism.  I get it though. You don't want to associate it with yourself because it's an ugly history, but we all bear that burden in some form or another.  If he wants to push communist ideals, then why assume it's something else?   Here is a video by Putin acknowledging your history.  Does it mean I think you're a mean ol' atheist?  No, not necessarily, but it does show the connection.

Title - Putin: Communism Was a New Religion Created by Atheists With Lenin as Its Saint

As I have pointed out above, you have still not defended your views upon constitutional grounds. Again, you have engaged in Red-baiting to avoid the real issue. It is unconstitutional for the national, state or local governments to fund or promote religion in any form. Ken Ham's Ark Museum is clearly an institution promoting the theological premises of Creationism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

(January 21, 2019 at 8:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 1:40 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Declaration of Independence was signed unanimously.  In fact, it says "unanimous" on he actual document.  This is a replica, as you can barely see it on the original since the whole document has faded a lot.

---

Do you ever have facts?  You seem to speak out of your behind most of the time.  Maybe actually bring something to the table if you have something instead of whine about other people.  Even many of the atheists today understand the relationship between atheism and communism.  I get it though. You don't want to associate it with yourself because it's an ugly history, but we all bear that burden in some form or another.  If he wants to push communist ideals, then why assume it's something else?   Here is a video by Putin acknowledging your history.  Does it mean I think you're a mean ol' atheist?  No, not necessarily, but it does show the connection.

Title - Putin: Communism Was a New Religion Created by Atheists With Lenin as Its Saint

As I have pointed out above, you have still not defended your views upon constitutional grounds. Again, you have engaged in Red-baiting to avoid the real issue.

But...but...he posted a YouTube video!  If that's not a devastating argument, I'm sure I don't know what is.

Boru

(January 21, 2019 at 2:28 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 10:23 pm)LostLocke Wrote: By your logic it would mean that absolutely 100% of every single person living in the colonies agreed with Independence from Britian. Obviously that is not the case.

Not at all. That's not my America.

That sentence you tacked on at the end..... makes no sense.

This is a simple concept/question.
Was 100% of the colonial population in support of separating from Britain? Yes or no.
That's the ONLY thing that is at issue here.

(January 21, 2019 at 2:28 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Not at all. That's not my America.

(January 21, 2019 at 8:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(January 20, 2019 at 1:40 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Declaration of Independence was signed unanimously.  In fact, it says "unanimous" on he actual document.  This is a replica, as you can barely see it on the original since the whole document has faded a lot.

---

Do you ever have facts?  You seem to speak out of your behind most of the time.  Maybe actually bring something to the table if you have something instead of whine about other people.  Even many of the atheists today understand the relationship between atheism and communism.  I get it though. You don't want to associate it with yourself because it's an ugly history, but we all bear that burden in some form or another.  If he wants to push communist ideals, then why assume it's something else?   Here is a video by Putin acknowledging your history.  Does it mean I think you're a mean ol' atheist?  No, not necessarily, but it does show the connection.

Title - Putin: Communism Was a New Religion Created by Atheists With Lenin as Its Saint

As I have pointed out above, you have still not defended your views upon constitutional grounds. Again, you have engaged in Red-baiting to avoid the real issue. It is unconstitutional for the national, state or local governments to fund or promote religion in any form. Ken Ham's Ark Museum is clearly an institution promoting the theological premises of Creationism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Dude, stop your crying.  I don't owe you anything and I haven't avoided anything.  There are other people I have been trying to respond to, so trying to appease you is about the least of my concerns.  You seem to do this in all the threads.  Tell people they've made some error, while at the same time being lazy and never producing anything of your own to suggest otherwise.  But hey, if you really think I'm not trying to engage the material, then I would be happy to do a 1-on-1 debate with you, so you can end your fits of pandering and get the attention you seem to think I owe you.  Just let me know.  If not, go back to the end of the line where you and your nonsense belong.  In other words, "Go back to the shadow.  You shall not pass"

---

(January 21, 2019 at 8:51 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 21, 2019 at 8:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: As I have pointed out above, you have still not defended your views upon constitutional grounds. Again, you have engaged in Red-baiting to avoid the real issue.

But...but...he posted a YouTube video!  If that's not a devastating argument, I'm sure I don't know what is.

Boru

Sometimes videos can teach us things, including how the world interprets atheism and what it means to many.  This may surprise you, but you views on atheism are in the minority when it comes to atheists.  Originally being an "atheist" just meant one thing, and now it can mean many things.

---

(January 21, 2019 at 10:13 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(January 21, 2019 at 2:28 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Not at all. That's not my America.

That sentence you tacked on at the end..... makes no sense.

This is a simple concept/question.
Was 100% of the colonial population in support of separating from Britain? Yes or no.
That's the ONLY thing that is at issue here.

Makes no sense to "you."  Our independence was declared unanimously.  If the signatures by those representing their state don't matter to you and you don't see them as being valid, then it is your choice.  But then we can rightfully toss out all your claims against the law or the U.S. Constitution, because if those men didn't have that authority, then how can you use principles that were established upon the words of those individuals to try to invalidate them?

Now back to your first remark that what I said "makes no sense."  It does make sense when you served your country and had the honor of being united with others for the sake of freedom.  When you understand that we all see each other as brothers and sisters, then you get while we see it as "ours", which includes me.  I'm blessed to still be a part of a community of people serving our country, and I try to serve them while they're serving others.  That's being united and that's my America.  Sharing in our freedom and taking on each others' burdens.

(January 21, 2019 at 1:35 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 21, 2019 at 8:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: As I have pointed out above, you have still not defended your views upon constitutional grounds. Again, you have engaged in Red-baiting to avoid the real issue. It is unconstitutional for the national, state or local governments to fund or promote religion in any form. Ken Ham's Ark Museum is clearly an institution promoting the theological premises of Creationism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

Dude, stop your crying.  I don't owe you anything and I haven't avoided anything.  There are other people I have been trying to respond to, so trying to appease you is about the least of my concerns.  You seem to do this in all the threads.  Tell people they've made some error, while at the same time being lazy and never producing anything of your own to suggest otherwise.  But hey, if you really think I'm not trying to engage the material, then I would be happy to do a 1-on-1 debate with you, so you can end your fits of pandering and get the attention you seem to think I owe you.  Just let me know.  If not, go back to the end of the line where you and your nonsense belong.  In other words, "Go back to the shadow.  You shall not pass"

---

Yes, you are avoiding something: the fact that this is a constitutional issue, which is how FFRF correctly lodged their complaint.

Yes, I have presented evidence to support this.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means that neither state, local or national government may take any actions which advance or prohibit religion, or prefer one religion over another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

There is no reason for a 1-on-1 debate. Address the real issue. If anyone is pandering here, it's YOU.

(January 21, 2019 at 11:22 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(January 21, 2019 at 1:35 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Dude, stop your crying.  I don't owe you anything and I haven't avoided anything.  There are other people I have been trying to respond to, so trying to appease you is about the least of my concerns.  You seem to do this in all the threads.  Tell people they've made some error, while at the same time being lazy and never producing anything of your own to suggest otherwise.  But hey, if you really think I'm not trying to engage the material, then I would be happy to do a 1-on-1 debate with you, so you can end your fits of pandering and get the attention you seem to think I owe you.  Just let me know.  If not, go back to the end of the line where you and your nonsense belong.  In other words, "Go back to the shadow.  You shall not pass"

---

Yes, you are avoiding something: the fact that this is a constitutional issue, which is how FFRF correctly lodged their complaint.

Yes, I have presented evidence to support this.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means that neither state, local or national government may take any actions which advance or prohibit religion, or prefer one religion over another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

There is no reason for a 1-on-1 debate. Address the real issue. If anyone is pandering here, it's YOU.

If you want to "real issue" addressed, then like I said, glad to debate you 1-on-1, then you can have all the time you want for me to respond.  Until then, sorry Gandalf.  The orcs are on are the move and I don't have time for wizards with silly tricks.

(January 21, 2019 at 11:28 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(January 21, 2019 at 11:22 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote: Yes, you are avoiding something: the fact that this is a constitutional issue, which is how FFRF correctly lodged their complaint.

Yes, I have presented evidence to support this.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment means that neither state, local or national government may take any actions which advance or prohibit religion, or prefer one religion over another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

There is no reason for a 1-on-1 debate. Address the real issue. If anyone is pandering here, it's YOU.

If you want to "real issue" addressed, then like I said, glad to debate you 1-on-1, then you can have all the time you want for me to respond.  Until then, sorry Gandalf.  The orcs are on are the move and I don't have time for wizards with silly tricks.

Nope. You have publicly stated that members of FFRF are nothing but nut jobs who should mind their own business. You have dishonestly tried to associate them with communism in order to discredit them (Red-baiting). You have dishonestly skirted the real issue, which is that the City of Charleston was in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, you have been publicly called out for your unsupported, outrageous statements. Now, either apologize for your dishonesty or address the issue on constitutional grounds.