Ken Ham petulantly stamps his feet at reality, internet replies, "this is stupid."

[YGninja]

Ken Ham, creationist and secret toddler, isn't happy that legitimate people sometimes acknowledge Charles Darwin's contributions to science, especially when they are congressmen, and want to issue Darwin Day resolutions on February 12th. He's so upset, in fact, that he has declared February 12th Darwin Was Wrong Day, because he is a petty and insipid man-child who can't let people he disagrees with have the last word on any topic. If Darwin had written that the sky was blue, Ham would be demanding that the government acknowledge that it's actually pink.

Well, as is usual for Ham's dishonest little schemes, this one has backfired in a rather lovely way, as Twitter begins populating itself with derisive uses of #DarwinWasWrongDay, showing that while Ken Ham doesn't understand science, the internet does. No doubt in a day or two Ham will be moaning about secularists attacking his religion on Twitter, in a brazen show of intolerance. Pretty ironic for a man embroiled in a court case over brazen discrimination against non-christians.

He's an insipid man-child?

What like...
Atheists demand stop to nativity scenes at Christmas?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/...t-threats/

Atheists demand apology after video sent out by chancellor highlighting importance of religion in a democracy?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...54365.html

Atheists demand removal of religious painting at school?
http://toprightnews.com/?p=6348

[Chad32]

No. Wanting religious icons taken off of public land, and calling out someone for thinking christianity has anything to do with democracy is not the same as suing the state for not funding a theme park that restricts employees to Ken's sort of christian, or trying to start an anti Darwin day.

[Dystopia]

I think this should be in the humour section because I laughed my ass off this shit

[Esquilax]

He's an insipid man-child?

Yes.

What like...
Atheists demand stop to nativity scenes at Christmas?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/...t-threats/

Like atheists reminding the government that they need to obey the law? The precedent is there: either all religious views get a space, or none do. What this really is, is a bunch of christians arguing that they should be able to violate the constitution whenever they want; I agree it's not an amazingly important issue, but history shows that if we give theists an inch they'll take a yard. Look to your own side's sense of entitlement before you start pointing fingers.

Atheists demand apology after video sent out by chancellor highlighting importance of religion in a democracy?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...54365.html

Oh, you mean the one that starkly implied that if you aren't religious, you're immoral and prone to criminality? Can't imagine what would be offensive in there. You do seem in love with only telling half the story, don't you?

Atheists demand removal of religious painting at school?
http://toprightnews.com/?p=6348

Again, establishment clause. You're trying to call us petty for wanting your side to obey the law; I think that says more about you and your underhanded misrepresentations than it does about the contents of the atheist movement.

Not to mention, your entire argument here is one giant tu coque fallacy. Good job, Mr Cogent.

[SteelCurtain]

It's not all a joke; the toilets do flush.

Yeah, but gravity's just a theory, so...

[The Valkyrie]

He's an insipid man-child?

Yes.

What like...
Atheists demand stop to nativity scenes at Christmas?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/...t-threats/

Like atheists reminding the government that they need to obey the law? The precedent is there: either all religious views get a space, or none do. What this really is, is a bunch of christians arguing that they should be able to violate the constitution whenever they want; I agree it's not an amazingly important issue, but history shows that if we give theists an inch they'll take a yard. Look to your own side's sense of entitlement before you start pointing fingers.

Atheists demand apology after video sent out by chancellor highlighting importance of religion in a democracy?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...54365.html

Oh, you mean the one that starkly implied that if you aren't religious, you're immoral and prone to criminality? Can't imagine what would be offensive in there. You do seem in love with only telling half the story, don't you?

Atheists demand removal of religious painting at school?
http://toprightnews.com/?p=6348

Again, establishment clause. You're trying to call us petty for wanting your side to obey the law; I think that says more about you and your underhanded misrepresentations than it does about the contents of the atheist movement.

Not to mention, your entire argument here is one giant tu coque fallacy. Good job, Mr Cogent.

Amazing how they forget the whole "separation" thing.

Yes, Ken Ham is a whining little fraud, liar and conman.

[Tonus]

I tend to forget to celebrate "Ken Ham is an ignorant prick Day" because I have better things to do, and also because you can celebrate that pretty much any day you choose.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ken Ham, creationist and secret toddler, isn't happy that legitimate people sometimes acknowledge Charles Darwin's contributions to science, especially when they are congressmen, and want to issue Darwin Day resolutions on February 12th. He's so upset, in fact, that he has declared February 12th Darwin Was Wrong Day, because he is a petty and insipid man-child who can't let people he disagrees with have the last word on any topic. If Darwin had written that the sky was blue, Ham would be demanding that the government acknowledge that it's actually pink.

Well, as is usual for Ham's dishonest little schemes, this one has backfired in a rather lovely way, as Twitter begins populating itself with derisive uses of #DarwinWasWrongDay, showing that while Ken Ham doesn't understand science, the internet does. No doubt in a day or two Ham will be moaning about secularists attacking his religion on Twitter, in a brazen show of intolerance. Pretty ironic for a man embroiled in a court case over brazen discrimination against non-christians.

He's an insipid man-child?

What like...
Atheists demand stop to nativity scenes at Christmas?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/...t-threats/

Atheists demand apology after video sent out by chancellor highlighting importance of religion in a democracy?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...54365.html

Atheists demand removal of religious painting at school?
http://toprightnews.com/?p=6348

Maybe you guys should pray for your little god to steer the Supreme Court more to your tastes?

I mean, shit, he's the maker and ruler of the entire Universe. Certainly he can seat five Justices on the bench who agree with him, right?

Right?

Until then, you are ruled by the Constitution and the state and federal laws appertaining. Don't like it? Get out. We won't miss you, I promise.

[YGninja]

He's an insipid man-child?

Yes.

What like...
Atheists demand stop to nativity scenes at Christmas?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/...t-threats/

Like atheists reminding the government that they need to obey the law? The precedent is there: either all religious views get a space, or none do. What this really is, is a bunch of christians arguing that they should be able to violate the constitution whenever they want; I agree it's not an amazingly important issue, but history shows that if we give theists an inch they'll take a yard. Look to your own side's sense of entitlement before you start pointing fingers.

Atheists demand apology after video sent out by chancellor highlighting importance of religion in a democracy?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...54365.html

Oh, you mean the one that starkly implied that if you aren't religious, you're immoral and prone to criminality? Can't imagine what would be offensive in there. You do seem in love with only telling half the story, don't you?

Atheists demand removal of religious painting at school?
http://toprightnews.com/?p=6348

Again, establishment clause. You're trying to call us petty for wanting your side to obey the law; I think that says more about you and your underhanded misrepresentations than it does about the contents of the atheist movement.

Not to mention, your entire argument here is one giant tu coque fallacy. Good job, Mr Cogent.

You are misinterpreting the law and if you had any semblance of critical thinking you'd realise it.

1: Separation of Church and state is not a law, it appears no-where in the constitution.

2: "wall of separation between the church and the state" was a phrase originally used in letter by Thomas Jefferson. The point was to support the Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The phrase was only ever used to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

3: The establishment clause is again to protect the religion of the people from government interference. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This gives you no grounds to remove religious paintings from a majority Christian school. If the government were to do that, they would be breaking the law.

4: If you engaged your brain for two seconds, maybe you'd ask yourself why...


a: Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."
b: The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
c: God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
d :As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
e: Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
f: The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
g: Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
h: Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
i:Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
j: Our national anthem mentions God.
k: The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
l: The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
m: Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
n: Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
o: The Bible was originally used as a textbook in all schools in the USA, since its founding.


Whats more likely: that the very people who made this law as you imagine it, immediately went about breaking the law they just made, continually and repeatedly on a national scale for two centuries, during which no-one raised any objection? Or you have interpreted the law wrong?

[KevinM1]

The separation of church and state is not a law, but legal precedent. Whatever the original intent of the phrase was is moot now. As a matter of legal interpretation, Esquilax is right on. While it's not mentioned in the Constitution, neither is god. And the Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document.

The Supreme Court does feature carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments. It also features carvings of Confucius, Solon, Hammurabi, Augustus, Charlemagne, Napolean, and many others.

Oath swearing is done to the beliefs of the person swearing in.

Monuments are a reflection of history. That they mention god or bible verses only reflects the beliefs of those people.

In God We Trust only became the national motto in 1956 as a direct result of the Red Scare. It was literally just a way to differentiate ourselves from those atheistic commies. While the phrase slowly propagated on coin currency from the 1880s or so on, the national motto was originally the secular E Pluribus Unum. Which is still used on our national seal.

The national anthem does not mention god. The poem does, in the 4th stanza (I believe), but the actual song based on the 1st stanza makes no mention of it.

The rest is just a mishmash of tradition and controversy avoidance, because everyone knows the nations' panties would get in a twist if a president didn't mention god during their inauguration.