Okay, so I'm going to start off by telling a story;
I live in a small (slowly growing) town in Southern IL. The same guy has been mayor here for longer than I've been alive. In our town, we have a square (literally) and on this square are several businesses (banks, Band equipment, a bar, etc) and our town's Civic Center. Now, a year and a half ago, our mayor wanted to put a statue of himself in the town square (where the town owns a plod of property that has park benches, shrubberies, etc and a large clock tower). Recently, he changed his mind and decided that he would put a large statue of the Ten Commandments in the same place.
A couple weeks ago, in a city council meeting, several people pointed out that this was against church/state things. The mayor fought against that, but eventually let it die for a couple days. Afterwards, he announced that he'd sold that plot of line (probably not even 10x10 ft) to a local church - and then donated money back to them as a "good will gesture", allowing the church to retain that property and erect the statue of the Ten Commandments anyways.
So then there was a rally/protest, and several people came, including some "big dogs" from Chicago-area. It was all over the news, and while this area is dominatly conservative it appeared to get enough attention.
Since then, I haven't heard whether it's still going up or not, but I'm curious what your guys' opinions about this is. This is totally wrong - whether or not it's "right", he bypassed the system by selling it to the church.
In an eight player game, is anything good? Don't you just sit there countering combos until someone genesis waves for 42 after all the blue players tap out fighting over a bribery?
Okay, so I'm going to start off by telling a story;
I live in a small (slowly growing) town in Southern IL. The same guy has been mayor here for longer than I've been alive. In our town, we have a square (literally) and on this square are several businesses (banks, Band equipment, a bar, etc) and our town's Civic Center. Now, a year and a half ago, our mayor wanted to put a statue of himself in the town square (where the town owns a plod of property that has park benches, shrubberies, etc and a large clock tower). Recently, he changed his mind and decided that he would put a large statue of the Ten Commandments in the same place.
A couple weeks ago, in a city council meeting, several people pointed out that this was against church/state things. The mayor fought against that, but eventually let it die for a couple days. Afterwards, he announced that he'd sold that plot of line (probably not even 10x10 ft) to a local church - and then donated money back to them as a "good will gesture", allowing the church to retain that property and erect the statue of the Ten Commandments anyways.
So then there was a rally/protest, and several people came, including some "big dogs" from Chicago-area. It was all over the news, and while this area is dominatly conservative it appeared to get enough attention.
Since then, I haven't heard whether it's still going up or not, but I'm curious what your guys' opinions about this is. This is totally wrong - whether or not it's "right", he bypassed the system by selling it to the church.
Well, first of all, this guy pretty clearly thinks he's king of your town if he's going to put a statue of HIMSELF in town square. Best vote that loser out.
I mean, on what basis is he donating ground to the church and on what basis is he giving the money back to them?
Because he can't just do whatever he wants with public funds. That's not his money to give freely. Nor can anyone argue that's not religious endorsement, state-sponsored religious endorsement in fact.
No, like I said in my story - it was public property. It was property of the town, surrounded by businesses, roads, etc.
Yes, the transaction of the property was legal means. It went through a local real estate agent.
@Highroller: I see where you're coming from, but the money that he donated was less than the amount of the amount that the church bought it for, from what I understand. Let's say the church bought it for X amount of dollars, he gave them back [X-Y] in donations. I'm not sure what the basis of the donation was for - but apparently he does this frequently. According to one of the papers, he donates small amounts frequently out of his own pocket. Whether or not this donation was personal or public, I'm not sure. I assume it was personal like all his previous ones.
In an eight player game, is anything good? Don't you just sit there countering combos until someone genesis waves for 42 after all the blue players tap out fighting over a bribery?
So, wait as mayor he donated public land to a church, using his money?
The fact he used his money doesn't justify anything, that is an incredible abuse of powers, and he should be booted out for that. If it wasn't a church what if it was a grocery chain, his own business, or something else?
That's what I question, and I'm not even getting around to the legality of putting the 10 commandments on government land.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
I'm no lawyer, but it seems like it would be illegal to use these kinds of measures to circumvent the constitution.
Kind of like I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to make an old Burlington Coat Factory two blocks from ground zero a historical site to circumvent the first amendment.
While selling land to a church may or may not be legal, this case demonstrates clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, even if he had not donated to the church, others should also have had the right to buy the property. In any case, he is clearly a moron who should be voted out.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity and boycotting overpriced singles. Sig this to join the cause for a more affordable Magic the Gathering.
Techincally he can't just sell public land like that. it would have to be approved by committee among other things.
if the sale of the land or plot went through all the legal channels then not much can be done about it.
if he donated public funds to the church then that would be an issue and a big one. if he donated private funds to the church not much can be done about it.
the nex thing that has to be looked at is what use the church has for it and such. it could get a little complex, but if everything was approved by the needed committee's and boards for the sale of the property then not sure what else can be done.
once the sale is final the church owns the property and has the right to do whatever they want with it in accordance to your city codes.
sticky situation all the way around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
It is a pain in the rear. we had some people donate land for us to build a church. we have the land but it took months of paper work and other things in order to get the building zone changed.
more so cities hate selling land to church's as they are exempt from property taxes.
there is more to the story that what is being told.
In an eight player game, is anything good? Don't you just sit there countering combos until someone genesis waves for 42 after all the blue players tap out fighting over a bribery?
Seems really similar to the San Diego cross on Mt. Soledad
So yeah, pretty clear violation of the separation of church and state.
Really, am I the only one that thinks its kind of pathetic that people want to circumvent the body of law that kept us from going down the one religion path that many European countries did in an effort to put one religion over the other?
If it would be unconstitutional for the government to build a particular monument, it would surely be also unconstitutional for the government to transfer land to some private organization for the purpose of building that particular monument. Any action taken by the government with the goal of advancing a particular religion runs into the same First Amendment issues, whether that action is constructing a monument, or transferring land.
Seems really similar to the San Diego cross on Mt. Soledad
So yeah, pretty clear violation of the separation of church and state.
The cross that was placed out in the middle of nowhere as a monument to veterans? That one's more of a "bad choice on monument design" than an issue of religion. The other court houses with the ten commandments hypothetically would've been fine if they had set up stuff such as the Roman Ten Tables to secure the idea of things that inspired western law. However, I'll agree when its specifically religious in nature and only deals with one aspect of the panoply in the history it's stupidly religious.
As for this actual case, depending on how big the property is. Why can't they just put up a statue of some town hero? Some soldier, some politician, some inventor, something that's in good taste you'd expect people to want to see.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The "monument to veterans" bit was a later addition, originally it was just a cross. Even then, that doesn't actually solve the problem of having religious iconography on public land.
The relevance though, is when the city of san diego solve the land that the base of the cross was on to a private interest, even though the rest of it was still government land.
If it would be unconstitutional for the government to build a particular monument, it would surely be also unconstitutional for the government to transfer land to some private organization for the purpose of building that particular monument. Any action taken by the government with the goal of advancing a particular religion runs into the same First Amendment issues, whether that action is constructing a monument, or transferring land.
Yep that will be interesting to see. if there is no stipulation that the church do anything with the land then i don't see how they cannot sell it.
now it would be pretty stupid if the church was to put something up right away but if they sell the land outright with no stipulation then not much can be said about it.
state and cities sell land to people and organizations all the time even churches.
here is what i don't get. where is the so called tolerance to religion that people claim to have?
Seems tolerant to anything but christianity to me. (no this isn't direct at your personally just a general statement).
i have been constantly seeing religious tolerance we need to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs. yet when it comes to christianity that seems to fall off the mark. the so called tolerance goes out the window.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
America is predominantly christian, we see the vast majority of objectionable behavior coming from people trying to put 10 commandments or giant crosses up, if there were muslims putting up giant crescent moons or jews/buddhist/etc trying to put stuff up on public land then we would be stopping those as well, however I cannot think of a single non-christian equivalent to the aforementioned bits. Can you?
Mystery, the "selling land" business is often times the local government selling a very small plot of land, like 20-100 square feet, in the middle of an otherwise publicly owned area. Often times, again, its is after the object in violation of the first amendment has already been constructed. This is an attempt to cover their asses and try to make a loophole to their violation of the constitution. This is not being unfair to christians, it is simply that christians are the ones who keep doing it.
Yep that will be interesting to see. if there is no stipulation that the church do anything with the land then i don't see how they cannot sell it.
now it would be pretty stupid if the church was to put something up right away but if they sell the land outright with no stipulation then not much can be said about it.
state and cities sell land to people and organizations all the time even churches.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with selling land to a church or anyone else. The point is intent, however. Whether it's written or not, there's clearly a tacit understanding that the church will be erecting a monument that the government itself could not.
here is what i don't get. where is the so called tolerance to religion that people claim to have?
Seems tolerant to anything but christianity to me. (no this isn't direct at your personally just a general statement).
i have been constantly seeing religious tolerance we need to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs. yet when it comes to christianity that seems to fall off the mark. the so called tolerance goes out the window.
Imagine that instead of a public square, we were just talking about the front yard of some church. Surely no one would object to them putting a monument up on their own initiative on their own property. The only reason people are objecting is because it's the government doing it, it has nothing to do with it being a Christian thing.
The only reason it seems like Christianity isn't being tolerated is because Christians are the only people in this country who see the government as an agent of their own beliefs, and seek to co-opt it to make unconstitutional expressions of those beliefs. If this mayor likes the commandments so much, he should just donate his money to his church, and have them put up a monument. Why does he feel the need to make it a government project?
Sure, there's nothing wrong with selling land to a church or anyone else. The point is intent, however. Whether it's written or not, there's clearly a tacit understanding that the church will be erecting a monument that the government itself could not.
I agree it does come down to intent. which is why i call this dicey at best. I don't think they are going to do it, or at least sell it to the church.
it could be sold to an outside organization, but we will have to wait and see.
Why does he feel the need to make it a government project?
actually from what i have read it wasn't him. It was another member of the town that saw a similar monument when he was in indiana. He came back and petitioned that something similar be put into the center of town.
it happens that the city council agreed.
if there were muslims putting up giant crescent moons or jews/buddhist/etc trying to put stuff up on public land then we would be stopping those as well, however I cannot think of a single non-christian equivalent to the aforementioned bits. Can you?
Eh i am not to sure about that. not that i disagree, but if you look at christmas time it is the worst. cities hang all sorts of other religious items in the name of diversity but they put a manger scene somewhere and here comes the lawsuits and the cry's of 1st amendment.
i think there is a double standard that goes on when people argue religion. other religions = diversity and tolerance, but christian is always a violation of the first amendment.
could be wrong but that is just how it seems.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
actually from what i have read it wasn't him. It was another member of the town that saw a similar monument when he was in indiana. He came back and petitioned that something similar be put into the center of town.
it happens that the city council agreed.
Well, whoever it was. Why don't they just go have their monument at their local church? I never understand the need to have it be a government-sponsored affair. If I went to my local government and asked that some sort of atheism monument be erected, they'd laugh me out of the place.
Eh i am not to sure about that. not that i disagree, but if you look at christmas time it is the worst. cities hang all sorts of other religious items in the name of diversity but they put a manger scene somewhere and here comes the lawsuits and the cry's of 1st amendment.
i think there is a double standard that goes on when people argue religion. other religions = diversity and tolerance, but christian is always a violation of the first amendment.
could be wrong but that is just how it seems.
Well, when they hang all sorts of stuff, it's because they're going for the "open forum" rule, whereby the city invites people to set up whatever displays they want, and so since no one belief system is being favored, it's all gravy.
You'll notice that there's never a town that sets up -just- a star and crescent or -just- a giant menorah. If that ever happened, I can assure you it'd be just as much a 1st amendment issue as when someone wants to use the city to set up -just- a nativity.
Well, whoever it was. Why don't they just go have their monument at their local church? I never understand the need to have it be a government-sponsored affair. If I went to my local government and asked that some sort of atheism monument be erected, they'd laugh me out of the place.
i don't know i am not that person. i guess they saw the one in that other town and thought i would look nice in theirs? who is to say.
You'll notice that there's never a town that sets up -just- a star and crescent or -just- a giant menorah. If that ever happened, I can assure you it'd be just as much a 1st amendment issue as when someone wants to use the city to set up -just- a nativity.
i can't find it but there was a lady that sued NYC for doing just that and lost. they claimed they were sponsering a religion but it was diversity and tolerance of other people beliefs. she sued to include a star or something similar.
i can't find it to long ago i guess. it has been a couple of years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
She sued to include the star, because the cross/manger scene was already there.
This happens all the time.
The general point though, is that Christians are not being discriminated against when they get held to the same standards that everyone is supposed to follow.
I am going to try to say this as peacefully and equably as I can. Your perception is the result of a confirmation bias about your own belief structure. The fact of the matter is that Christianity, for some time, has been a religion in search of persecution.
any proof or evidence to back this up with? i mean real proof or evidence not opinion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Hrmm...I could try, but somehow I doubt that anything I dug up would appear as anything other than evidence of persection, not evidence of Christians seeking persecution.
Since you're pretty much refusing to talk to him about it, how about if I ask the same question.
I'm interested in any kind of evidence you may have showing that Christians are seeking persecution, and that is the only reason why it seems like they are being persecuted more.
A few guidelines of your evidence (so you don't accuse me of shifting the goalpost when you fail to meet these):
1) If its something that the the Christians would have done either way (with or with hostility) it does not constitute seeking persecution.
2) Behaving in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs and inconsistent with rules and regulations does not constitute seeking persecution -- it constitutes attempting to exercise freedom of religion.
Have at it. i want to see this evidence.
(To be honest -- I think that what you said is your opinion and isn't based in something concrete. Prove me wrong.)
The public display of the ten commandments (Judeo-Christian) depends on the content.context. In a display of historical significance of the impact of religion on law, or the inspiration of the founding fathers point that rights are given by God, then the posting is acceptable. Otherwise, no.
I'm interested in any kind of evidence you may have showing that Christians are seeking persecution, and that is the only reason why it seems like they are being persecuted more.
I got to say the whole "War on Christmas" thing that keeps coming up year after year smacks of trying to be a victim.
The whole "poor Christians, being criticized for trying to circumvent separation of church and state" line is a freaking joke. At best it is a tu quoque fallacy. Mostly it's just deflection because there's no real defense for the actions being criticized.
mystery45 hasn't figured out that the US, unlike other countries, has explicit separation of church and state in its constitution, and is predominately Christian, so violation of that doctrine is done by (surprise, surprise) Christians. It also happens to be that the guys in government offices with the power to make use of loopholes that allow them to circumvent separation of church and state in the first place happen to all be Christians (easier for a Christian to get elected, which is an aside, but worth noting).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I live in a small (slowly growing) town in Southern IL. The same guy has been mayor here for longer than I've been alive. In our town, we have a square (literally) and on this square are several businesses (banks, Band equipment, a bar, etc) and our town's Civic Center. Now, a year and a half ago, our mayor wanted to put a statue of himself in the town square (where the town owns a plod of property that has park benches, shrubberies, etc and a large clock tower). Recently, he changed his mind and decided that he would put a large statue of the Ten Commandments in the same place.
A couple weeks ago, in a city council meeting, several people pointed out that this was against church/state things. The mayor fought against that, but eventually let it die for a couple days. Afterwards, he announced that he'd sold that plot of line (probably not even 10x10 ft) to a local church - and then donated money back to them as a "good will gesture", allowing the church to retain that property and erect the statue of the Ten Commandments anyways.
So then there was a rally/protest, and several people came, including some "big dogs" from Chicago-area. It was all over the news, and while this area is dominatly conservative it appeared to get enough attention.
Since then, I haven't heard whether it's still going up or not, but I'm curious what your guys' opinions about this is. This is totally wrong - whether or not it's "right", he bypassed the system by selling it to the church.
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier
Well, first of all, this guy pretty clearly thinks he's king of your town if he's going to put a statue of HIMSELF in town square. Best vote that loser out.
I mean, on what basis is he donating ground to the church and on what basis is he giving the money back to them?
Because he can't just do whatever he wants with public funds. That's not his money to give freely. Nor can anyone argue that's not religious endorsement, state-sponsored religious endorsement in fact.
So yeah, this is absolutely in the wrong.
Yes, the transaction of the property was legal means. It went through a local real estate agent.
@Highroller: I see where you're coming from, but the money that he donated was less than the amount of the amount that the church bought it for, from what I understand. Let's say the church bought it for X amount of dollars, he gave them back [X-Y] in donations. I'm not sure what the basis of the donation was for - but apparently he does this frequently. According to one of the papers, he donates small amounts frequently out of his own pocket. Whether or not this donation was personal or public, I'm not sure. I assume it was personal like all his previous ones.
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier
The fact he used his money doesn't justify anything, that is an incredible abuse of powers, and he should be booted out for that. If it wasn't a church what if it was a grocery chain, his own business, or something else?
That's what I question, and I'm not even getting around to the legality of putting the 10 commandments on government land.
"I've always been a fan of reality by popular vote" - Stephen Colbert (in response to Don McLeroy)
GPolukranos, Kill ALL the Things!G
Kind of like I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to make an old Burlington Coat Factory two blocks from ground zero a historical site to circumvent the first amendment.
Special thanks to Maelstrom Graphics for the signature.
Check out the Robin Hood Morality Test!
I'm a 6 - a de facto atheist.
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity and boycotting overpriced singles. Sig this to join the cause for a more affordable Magic the Gathering.
if the sale of the land or plot went through all the legal channels then not much can be done about it.
if he donated public funds to the church then that would be an issue and a big one. if he donated private funds to the church not much can be done about it.
the nex thing that has to be looked at is what use the church has for it and such. it could get a little complex, but if everything was approved by the needed committee's and boards for the sale of the property then not sure what else can be done.
once the sale is final the church owns the property and has the right to do whatever they want with it in accordance to your city codes.
sticky situation all the way around.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
more so cities hate selling land to church's as they are exempt from property taxes.
there is more to the story that what is being told.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/08/illinois-town-mulls-10-commandments-monument.html
so far this is all that has been reported on anywhere.
right now it is just a proposal before the city council. it looks like they would approve it though.
as for the sale of the land i can't find anything.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
http://www.wsiltv.com/p/news_details.php?newsID=10873&type=top
Thanks to DarkNightCavalier
So yeah, pretty clear violation of the separation of church and state.
Really, am I the only one that thinks its kind of pathetic that people want to circumvent the body of law that kept us from going down the one religion path that many European countries did in an effort to put one religion over the other?
The cross that was placed out in the middle of nowhere as a monument to veterans? That one's more of a "bad choice on monument design" than an issue of religion. The other court houses with the ten commandments hypothetically would've been fine if they had set up stuff such as the Roman Ten Tables to secure the idea of things that inspired western law. However, I'll agree when its specifically religious in nature and only deals with one aspect of the panoply in the history it's stupidly religious.
As for this actual case, depending on how big the property is. Why can't they just put up a statue of some town hero? Some soldier, some politician, some inventor, something that's in good taste you'd expect people to want to see.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The relevance though, is when the city of san diego solve the land that the base of the cross was on to a private interest, even though the rest of it was still government land.
Yep that will be interesting to see. if there is no stipulation that the church do anything with the land then i don't see how they cannot sell it.
now it would be pretty stupid if the church was to put something up right away but if they sell the land outright with no stipulation then not much can be said about it.
state and cities sell land to people and organizations all the time even churches.
here is what i don't get. where is the so called tolerance to religion that people claim to have?
Seems tolerant to anything but christianity to me. (no this isn't direct at your personally just a general statement).
i have been constantly seeing religious tolerance we need to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs. yet when it comes to christianity that seems to fall off the mark. the so called tolerance goes out the window.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Mystery, the "selling land" business is often times the local government selling a very small plot of land, like 20-100 square feet, in the middle of an otherwise publicly owned area. Often times, again, its is after the object in violation of the first amendment has already been constructed. This is an attempt to cover their asses and try to make a loophole to their violation of the constitution. This is not being unfair to christians, it is simply that christians are the ones who keep doing it.
Sure, there's nothing wrong with selling land to a church or anyone else. The point is intent, however. Whether it's written or not, there's clearly a tacit understanding that the church will be erecting a monument that the government itself could not.
Imagine that instead of a public square, we were just talking about the front yard of some church. Surely no one would object to them putting a monument up on their own initiative on their own property. The only reason people are objecting is because it's the government doing it, it has nothing to do with it being a Christian thing.
The only reason it seems like Christianity isn't being tolerated is because Christians are the only people in this country who see the government as an agent of their own beliefs, and seek to co-opt it to make unconstitutional expressions of those beliefs. If this mayor likes the commandments so much, he should just donate his money to his church, and have them put up a monument. Why does he feel the need to make it a government project?
I agree it does come down to intent. which is why i call this dicey at best. I don't think they are going to do it, or at least sell it to the church.
it could be sold to an outside organization, but we will have to wait and see.
actually from what i have read it wasn't him. It was another member of the town that saw a similar monument when he was in indiana. He came back and petitioned that something similar be put into the center of town.
it happens that the city council agreed.
Eh i am not to sure about that. not that i disagree, but if you look at christmas time it is the worst. cities hang all sorts of other religious items in the name of diversity but they put a manger scene somewhere and here comes the lawsuits and the cry's of 1st amendment.
i think there is a double standard that goes on when people argue religion. other religions = diversity and tolerance, but christian is always a violation of the first amendment.
could be wrong but that is just how it seems.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Well, whoever it was. Why don't they just go have their monument at their local church? I never understand the need to have it be a government-sponsored affair. If I went to my local government and asked that some sort of atheism monument be erected, they'd laugh me out of the place.
Well, when they hang all sorts of stuff, it's because they're going for the "open forum" rule, whereby the city invites people to set up whatever displays they want, and so since no one belief system is being favored, it's all gravy.
You'll notice that there's never a town that sets up -just- a star and crescent or -just- a giant menorah. If that ever happened, I can assure you it'd be just as much a 1st amendment issue as when someone wants to use the city to set up -just- a nativity.
i don't know i am not that person. i guess they saw the one in that other town and thought i would look nice in theirs? who is to say.
i can't find it but there was a lady that sued NYC for doing just that and lost. they claimed they were sponsering a religion but it was diversity and tolerance of other people beliefs. she sued to include a star or something similar.
i can't find it to long ago i guess. it has been a couple of years.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
She sued to include the star, because the cross/manger scene was already there.
This happens all the time.
The general point though, is that Christians are not being discriminated against when they get held to the same standards that everyone is supposed to follow.
any proof or evidence to back this up with? i mean real proof or evidence not opinion.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Since you're pretty much refusing to talk to him about it, how about if I ask the same question.
I'm interested in any kind of evidence you may have showing that Christians are seeking persecution, and that is the only reason why it seems like they are being persecuted more.
A few guidelines of your evidence (so you don't accuse me of shifting the goalpost when you fail to meet these):
1) If its something that the the Christians would have done either way (with or with hostility) it does not constitute seeking persecution.
2) Behaving in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs and inconsistent with rules and regulations does not constitute seeking persecution -- it constitutes attempting to exercise freedom of religion.
Have at it. i want to see this evidence.
(To be honest -- I think that what you said is your opinion and isn't based in something concrete. Prove me wrong.)
I'm all ears.
I assume this is what you meant?
I got to say the whole "War on Christmas" thing that keeps coming up year after year smacks of trying to be a victim.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
mystery45 hasn't figured out that the US, unlike other countries, has explicit separation of church and state in its constitution, and is predominately Christian, so violation of that doctrine is done by (surprise, surprise) Christians. It also happens to be that the guys in government offices with the power to make use of loopholes that allow them to circumvent separation of church and state in the first place happen to all be Christians (easier for a Christian to get elected, which is an aside, but worth noting).