Comments on: Penn State’s Cross-Like T-Shirt Draws Complaints

By: flyingmonkey

flyingmonkey — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:19:46 +0000

Hey Rhayader, is atheism a non-prophet organization?

And can you insure yourself against Acts of God?

By: Rhayader

Rhayader — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:02:48 +0000

You know that such clause was written to avoid an official denomination like it happened in England, not to jettison God out of the government.

Oh I do, huh? Thanks for filling me in on what I know.

Again, if you really apply what you’re saying, then we could base laws on Islam or atheism if there was enough support. Would you really be OK with that? Answer honestly.

And, about non sequiturs, aren’t those things that only the very bright can say and don’t understand?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

It’s a nonsensical remark that doesn’t fit properly into the conversation. Like in comment #15 when you said I “apparently don’t” understand my own point.

By: L Rivera

L Rivera — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:51:22 +0000

Oh, come on Rhayader. You know that such clause was written to avoid an official denomination like it happened in England, not to jettison God out of the government. You wish it meant what you say.

And how come you can push for laws that fit whatever your philosophy of life is, but I can’t do the same?

And, about non sequiturs, aren’t those things that only the very bright can say and don’t understand?

By: Rhayader

Rhayader — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:40:51 +0000

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

A law based on religion clearly violates the first amendment. Showing a preference for one religion by definition gives short shrift to other religions. You’d see this plain as day if we were to base a law on Islam, which is no different constitutionally than basing a law on Christianity.

And what have I said that could possibly be classified as incoherent or a non-sequitur? Again, show me the quote.

By: L Rivera

L Rivera — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:37:12 +0000

It’s not that tough to reply to incoherent non-sequiturs, I am getting plenty of practice replying to yours. And nope, it’s not required by the Constitution, unless of course you refer to one of those legislations from the bench used to override what the Constitution says, or just to what you wished the Constitution said.

By: FedUp

FedUp — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:33:09 +0000

I saw the shirt and one of the creators on Fox and Friends this morning. It was a great shirt and I’d love to have one also.

The fact that we here in the land of the free have to cater to a few malcontents over the good of the many just shows how far we have sunk into the mire.

Penn State should just tell those few to ;look somewhere else!

I guess those same few would be horrified at all the crosses at Arlington Cemetary!

Sign me, disgusted!