FFRF is pissing off Ham and the Christians..... again.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

They were people.  Did you think they were penguins or something?

I don't understand that comment. Can you be clearer?

Boru

See picture below to see what penguins are.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Adorable.  But I don't get why you think I was confusing people with penguins.  Could you spell it out for me, please?

Boru

[polymath257]

They ARE free to go if they choose.  No one is stopping them.  The issue isn't whether people can take a religious holiday - of course they can, they have a constitutionally protected right to do so.  The government DOES ensure that they are free to go if they choose.

It isn't about the park and the museum.  It isn't about Ken Ham being a world-class dimwit.  It isn't about the right of people to go to these attractions.  It's about a local government violating the establishment clause.  That's all.

Boru

It's not violating anything.   It's nuts claiming it does.  If people want to go, they have the right to go.    Now if they demanded you go, then there would be a problem if you don't want to go, but those people clearly were interested in going.  Makes no difference if it was a museum or an atheist church.

Yes, if people want to go, they have the right to go. If they don't want to go, they have the right to not go. Nothing has changed in those rights.

But, the government doesn't have the right to sponsor such an event. The people don't have the right to expect the government to promote or advertise their trip. They can do their own advertising without the government getting involved. THAT is the whole issue here.

---

No they are not, you know nothing about them.

Yep.  Wacko cult.  Looks like they got to you already.

---

Why was the city government promoting a *religious* outing? That is what is illegal, not private citizens deciding to go to a non-sense theme park.

The people were promoting it.  It's not the business of the government to interfere.  It's an action of the people.  There are people in the government, if those people choose to do something, then let them choose.  That's what's known as freedom.

The government isn't supposed to be a power "over" the people, it's supposed to be a power "of" the people. 

People >/= Government

not

Government > People

The government is not there to tell them they have to go, but the government should ensure they are free to go if they choose.

No, the *government* was promoting it. That is the whole point. And yes, it isn't the place of the government to interfere one way or the other. But in this case, it did so.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Adorable.  But I don't get why you think I was confusing people with penguins.  Could you spell it out for me, please?

Boru

You asked what I was talking about.  Those are penguins.

Spell it out for you?  Sure

P-E-N-G-U-I-N-S

---

It's not violating anything.   It's nuts claiming it does.  If people want to go, they have the right to go.    Now if they demanded you go, then there would be a problem if you don't want to go, but those people clearly were interested in going.  Makes no difference if it was a museum or an atheist church.

Yes, if people want to go, they have the right to go. If they don't want to go, they have the right to not go. Nothing has changed in those rights.

But, the government doesn't have the right to sponsor such an event. The people don't have the right to expect the government to promote or advertise their trip. They can do their own advertising without the government getting involved. THAT is the whole issue here.

---

Yep.  Wacko cult.  Looks like they got to you already.

---

The people were promoting it.  It's not the business of the government to interfere.  It's an action of the people.  There are people in the government, if those people choose to do something, then let them choose.  That's what's known as freedom.

The government isn't supposed to be a power "over" the people, it's supposed to be a power "of" the people. 

People >/= Government

not

Government > People

The government is not there to tell them they have to go, but the government should ensure they are free to go if they choose.

No, the *government* was promoting it. That is the whole point. And yes, it isn't the place of the government to interfere one way or the other. But in this case, it did so.

People were promoting it.  They are part of the state, so they're allowed to do that.  The government can't force someone to go or penalize them for not going.

[brewer]

Yep, especially when it's accurate.

It is "logical fallacy" not "accuracy."

Not in this instance.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's a fallacy to claim a fallacy and not show why you believe it's a fallacy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Adorable.  But I don't get why you think I was confusing people with penguins.  Could you spell it out for me, please?

Boru

You asked what I was talking about.  Those are penguins.

Spell it out for you?  Sure

P-E-N-G-U-I-N-S

---

Yes, if people want to go, they have the right to go. If they don't want to go, they have the right to not go. Nothing has changed in those rights.

But, the government doesn't have the right to sponsor such an event. The people don't have the right to expect the government to promote or advertise their trip. They can do their own advertising without the government getting involved. THAT is the whole issue here.

---

No, the *government* was promoting it. That is the whole point. And yes, it isn't the place of the government to interfere one way or the other. But in this case, it did so.

People were promoting it.  They are part of the state, so they're allowed to do that.  The government can't force someone to go or penalize them for not going.

No.  As part of a government function (in this case, the website), they aren't allowed to do that. You seem to keep missing the fact that the town government AGREED that they were wrong to promote the trip.  No, if someone employed by the government decides they - on their own time and without using government resources - want to flog the trip, that's peachy.

Spelling out 'penguins' was cute.  But I was actually more interested in why you thought I was confusing people with penguins.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

It is "logical fallacy" not "accuracy."

Not in this instance.

Well if you agreed that's what it is, and it's defined by such, then obviously it's a logical fallacy.  Or do you get a special exception to using logical fallacies, so that you can say they don't count?

---

It's a fallacy to claim a fallacy and not show why you believe it's a fallacy.

Ummm, no.  Where did you come up with that?

Anyway, he already acknowledged it, but apparently believes it deserves some sort of exception.

[brewer]

Not in this instance.

Well if you agreed that's what it is, and it's defined by such, then obviously it's a logical fallacy.  Or do you get a special exception to using logical fallacies, so that you can say they don't count?

Yes I get a special pot/kettle exception.

[polymath257]

Adorable.  But I don't get why you think I was confusing people with penguins.  Could you spell it out for me, please?

Boru

You asked what I was talking about.  Those are penguins.

Spell it out for you?  Sure

P-E-N-G-U-I-N-S

---

Yes, if people want to go, they have the right to go. If they don't want to go, they have the right to not go. Nothing has changed in those rights.

But, the government doesn't have the right to sponsor such an event. The people don't have the right to expect the government to promote or advertise their trip. They can do their own advertising without the government getting involved. THAT is the whole issue here.

---

No, the *government* was promoting it. That is the whole point. And yes, it isn't the place of the government to interfere one way or the other. But in this case, it did so.

People were promoting it.  They are part of the state, so they're allowed to do that.  The government can't force someone to go or penalize them for not going.

Were they promoting it as part of their official capacities? Did they use their official titles in the promotion? if so, that is not allowed.

I am a state employee. As such, I cannot promote a specific religious view in my official functions. On my own time, however, I can. In the same way, when I am at work, I cannot engage in political campaigning. I can, however, when I am away from my official post.

Do you see the differences?