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

[T0 Th3 M4X]

When you have no argument, call names.

There's no point in arguing with a POE.  You might as well argue with a wall.  Actually, arguing with a wall would be more worthy of my time.  At least the wall wouldn't argue in bad faith.

Ahhh, inflating yourself doesn't make you sound intelligent, but I guess if you can fool one or two people, then maybe you will have accomplished your mission.

[Nakara]

Imagine the outrage if this was organized (at taxpayer expense) as a trip to a mosque or museum dedicated to Islam.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Imagine the outrage if this was organized (at taxpayer expense) as a trip to a mosque or museum dedicated to Islam.

Now we should discriminate against Muslims?

If a Muslim lives in the United States, then they are part of the state.  They should be provided with opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If they pay taxes, then all the more reason to include them.  No need for censoring them.  If they want to travel to a mosque, then let them travel to a mosque.  I'm not a Muslim, but I know I would go on such a trip if I was invited, and would be happy to chip in for the cost.  It's not that we have to disagree on some of the details, but we can still appreciate our freedom to believe as we choose and to share with others.

[Brian37]

Imagine the outrage if this was organized (at taxpayer expense) as a trip to a mosque or museum dedicated to Islam.

Now we should discriminate against Muslims?

If a Muslim lives in the United States, then they are part of the state.  They should be provided with opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If they pay taxes, then all the more reason to include them.  No need for censoring them.  If they want to travel to a mosque, then let them travel to a mosque.  I'm not a Muslim, but I know I would go on such a trip if I was invited, and would be happy to chip in for the cost.  It's not that we have to disagree on some of the details, but we can still appreciate our freedom to believe as we choose and to share with others.

Nobody is saying we should. Where did you get that from? There are people would and do discriminate against Muslims, and they would argue the violation of the establishment clause. Nobody is talking about you personally.

FFRF isn't  discriminating, they are saying what the founders did, that it causes the least problems when you keep government neutral.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Now we should discriminate against Muslims?

If a Muslim lives in the United States, then they are part of the state.  They should be provided with opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If they pay taxes, then all the more reason to include them.  No need for censoring them.  If they want to travel to a mosque, then let them travel to a mosque.  I'm not a Muslim, but I know I would go on such a trip if I was invited, and would be happy to chip in for the cost.  It's not that we have to disagree on some of the details, but we can still appreciate our freedom to believe as we choose and to share with others.

Nobody is saying we should. Where did you get that from? There are people would and do discriminate against Muslims, and they would argue the violation of the establishment clause. Nobody is talking about you personally.

FFRF isn't  discriminating, they are saying what the founders did, that it causes the least problems when you keep government neutral.

No that's not what the founders did.  The founders wanted just the opposite.  A government for the people, by the people.  Not a government that makes the people its subjects.

FFRF is pushing communism.  We don't need their censorship or them telling us what we can or cannot do.  People can think and decide for themselves.

[Brian37]

Nobody is saying we should. Where did you get that from? There are people would and do discriminate against Muslims, and they would argue the violation of the establishment clause. Nobody is talking about you personally.

FFRF isn't  discriminating, they are saying what the founders did, that it causes the least problems when you keep government neutral.

No that's not what the founders did.  The founders wanted just the opposite.  A government for the people, by the people.  Not a government that makes the people its subjects.

FFRF is pushing communism.  We don't need their censorship or them telling us what we can or cannot do.  People can think and decide for themselves.

The founders DID NOT want a theocracy, they did not want religious pecking orders.

Their attitude was to agree to either let it all in, or agree to keep it all out. The problem with our right wing is that they will NOT agree to let it all in, because when you call them out on it, they suddenly make the setting neutral. 

Our right wing wants a religious pecking order.

AND DONT YOU dare bring up the BULLSH*T argument of communism. THAT is not what FFRF wants.

FYI if you knew a damned thing about Russian history you'd know religion never left Russia, not even under Stalin.

[Nakara]

Imagine the outrage if this was organized (at taxpayer expense) as a trip to a mosque or museum dedicated to Islam.

Now we should discriminate against Muslims?

If a Muslim lives in the United States, then they are part of the state.  They should be provided with opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  If they pay taxes, then all the more reason to include them.  No need for censoring them.  If they want to travel to a mosque, then let them travel to a mosque.  I'm not a Muslim, but I know I would go on such a trip if I was invited, and would be happy to chip in for the cost.  It's not that we have to disagree on some of the details, but we can still appreciate our freedom to believe as we choose and to share with others.

Errr...where exactly did I say we should discriminate Muslims?

I’m just trying to point out that there would likely be public outcry (doubtfully just from atheists) if a tax-payer funded parks and recreation department organized this trip for a mosque instead.

Muslims (and anyone for that matter) have every right to visit a mosque.

The government simply has no business in organizing and using taxpayer funds for religious activities.

[Brian37]

https://www.google.com/search?q=Stalin+a...66&bih=657  Take your pick. The Russian Orthodox church supported Stalin.

Same damned  crap wit Cuba. Castro did not get rid of religion,

These are churches in CUBA...


https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHB...vjANibe5sM

Authoritarianism isn't about oppressing religion, but oppressing dissent wherever it comes from. If you kissed the ass of the dictator, he'd leave you alone.

---

And just so you know, Stalin tried to avoid war with Hitler at first, but, he needed the support of the Russian Orthodox Church to get enough support to fight Hitler, whom FYI ruled over a nation of German Christians. So that war between Germany and Russia was fought between German and Russian Christians.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

It's a bald assertion without support, and thus a fallacy.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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?

---

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

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

It's a bald assertion without support, and thus a fallacy.

Says you.  He acknowledged it even.  Just claimed he was justified in applying it because he felt it was true.

Fallacies don't mean the original idea was necessarily right or wrong.  It just suggests the newly presented idea doesn't support the matter (yay or nay) already being discussed.

For example, you call someone a "moron."  They may or may not be a moron, but that doesn't mean that within their moronity they didn't make a non-moronic statement.