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

[T0 Th3 M4X]

July 4th, 1776.

Surprised you had to ask.  The people became unified as the state.

 

You choose to be enslaved.  Not me.

Tinfoil hat alert 

It's okay man.  I know a lot of other people who have a submissive nature.  It just doesn't jive as a personal choice for many of us.

[brewer]

Exactly when (time frame) have we lived in a unified nation? And more importantly, unified in what?

July 4th, 1776.

Surprised you had to ask.  The people became unified as the state.

That's not the unified you originally alluded to.

And if that's all you originally meant, then we are unified now.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

July 4th, 1776.

Surprised you had to ask.  The people became unified as the state.

That's not the unified you originally alluded to.

And if that's all you originally meant, then we are unified now.

Wrong again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

A fair number of people wanted to stay with the Crown in 1776. NOT unanimous.

[Gwaithmir]

But you're preaching communism.  If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a...

How is asking if the government allows or prevents you from seeing Ham's Ark equal to preaching Communism??

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.

[LostLocke]

How is asking if the government allows or prevents you from seeing Ham's Ark equal to preaching Communism??

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.

I kinda figured as much.

The only way freedom of religion would come into question is if....
A- The government prohibited people from going to Ken's Ark. (Which is what he seems to think we want, even though no one said that.)
B- The government forced everyone to go to Ken's Ark.
Since the government currently has a "go, don't go, we don't give a shit" approach, freedom of religion is not in question.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

---

How is asking if the government allows or prevents you from seeing Ham's Ark equal to preaching Communism??

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

[LostLocke]

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.

Once again.....



The conversation boiled down is...
"The fight for independence from Britain was not unanimous."
"Look, the Declaration of Independence was signed unanimously. So it was unanimous!"
"..... Who the fuck said anything about the Declaration of Independence?...."

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Declaration of Independence was signed unanimously.  In fact, it says "unanimous" on he actual document.

Once again.....

So what are you saying?  You can't refute it directly?  Got it.

It's okay, I understand your position.

"I don't know how to respond, so post picture." 

[brewer]

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.

Hot damn. Look at all those unanimous native american signatures. 

It's easy to get "unanimous" when you pick and choose.