[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Is that counting the pigs and chickens? It's more like a hick village, not even worth notice.

can just fuck off if they live there?

That seems kind of...rude. Those non-God believers have every right to live without Jesus being pushed down their fucking throats as anyone else

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]If there are nontheists who like living there and have a problem with the new "city" status, then they need to speak up.

Out of a total village population of ~4700 in rural Alabama, I really doubt there are many or even any nontheists.

Let's save the outrage for places where people are actually being foisted upon by aggressive theists. There are plenty of them.

it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980731/-Christian-community-threatens-violence-against-atheist-student#

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Carry on. I'll keep my powder dry for now.

I won't quote the "when they came for the X, I was not an X, so I said nothing" because I don't think you care. I don't think that you would care if this was enacted in a city of 1 million, or 7 million.

If the people of the town want it, who cares?

The thing about democrats...we kind of *do* care about people, especially minority groups who may be adversely affected by such measures.

beaming with pride that so many great scientific minds and philosophers claimed to be christian. It made sense for them to claim that when you look at the alternatives they faced.

I don't care if it's population is 47, 470, 4700, or 47,000. When elected officials foist their beliefs on their constituents, in opposition to establish law and the Constitution, a fight should ensure.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Who do you fight then?

is that okay? I mean, everyone wants it, so who does it harm?

What if there was this thing called the Constitution? Maybe the town should read about it, because they really seem to have no clue what it is, what it stands for, and what it allows or doesn't allow.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]But you have fun. I'll move on to other, more egregious offenders.

a town of 47,000? 4 million? 400,000?

A religious minority in a town of 4700 is just as demeaned by this act, and I'd say even MORE demeaned, than a religious minority in a larger city or town.

But it's good to know that you don't care about that.

And how is the slavery thing a bad analogy? The people want it, let 'em have it, right?

There is a reason that we have the laws and the rights and freedoms that we have in this country. It is what makes this country what it is. It does not matter if every single person in that town believes in God and agrees with the city council. One of the principles that this country was founded on was a separation of church and state. This move was a thumbing of the nose to that principle. What they do in private is their business, but they cannot put forth a declaration like this.

that folks can make out their property tax checks to "God?"

rather than make a point that this is a really bad thing for any town or city to do, regardless of the population, you Why make a point when you can crack a joke? And some people wonder why so many non-theists have an issue with religionists and their lack of care about church/state separation issues. Eh? who cares?

Enjoy.

that you promise the non-theists regularly you take !very seriously! when it's obvious that you're only interested in things that make religion look good, and haven't really got a problem with the things that makes religion look bad. If you had a problem with this action, you would have said so. Over 50,000 posts leads me to believe you say many things.

You got up in arms because someone "disrespected" a photo in your treasured Interfaith group. THAT WAS SERIOUS STUFF. I mean, saying a bad thing about a picture...how horrible! How offensive!

But encroaching theocracy...hey, joke time! he he he heh ehehehehe

So I'll say it again real slow

You get very upset when anti-theists and others point out that we (anti-theists and others) don't feel that you (and other religionists) take certain issues regarding religion seriously. Such as the separation of powers. Such as bad things done by the church, in the name of the church, or bad things done by the religious, in the name of religion.

You (yourself, as well as other religionists) assure us repeatedly that you DO take these things seriously. That they ARE a source of stress for you (yourself, as well as other religionists).

I say that is not true because you got so much more upset over what you felt was disrespect for a photo of gender-segregated worship (in interfaith), yet not a peep (except for joking comments) here about a real issue regarding religion, namely, the separation of church and state. It was more important, based on your heated responses, that a PHOTOGRAPH was insulted, rather than the Constitution. You were much more vocally upset at the DESCRIPTION of a photograph than the REALITY of the non-believers (or Non-Christians) in this town in Alabama.

So when you assure us that these are real issues that you take seriously, we can't help but not believe you, as your posts in this thread have proven. You are only upset when someone says something bad about religion, and hardly upset when religion does something to earn bad things being said about it

and read it again. I think I was pretty clear as to what my point was. Did I use a white font by mistake? Is it not showing up???

The City Council of Winfield Alabama passes a resolution dedicating the city to God.

Someone posts a joke.

Justin laughs.

You go all meta on him, exhibiting more outrage at him than you do the City Council of Winfield.

How'd I do?

I suppose I should have used the smilie for the humor-impaired.

You are laughing at jokes about a town declaring to be the property of God, even though this is against what this country was founded on. But you have no opinion about this declaration being wrong, or stepping on the rights of all citizens. I don't expect outrage if you can't build that up, but the least you could do is state that this is not acceptable. Stand up for the separation of church and state.

My opinion is that it is wrong and a violation of the law.

But that was not what this was about. This was about attacking me.

where there is only the shadow of a tree branch. You got instantly defensive just because of who responded to you. I read the exchange and figured out what was meant without problem. I did not see an attack, I just saw the desire to have you respond to the matter in the OP.

And thank you for doing that.

Serve the damfools right.

I am SO angry with all this FOISTING©, by believers and non-believers alike!

... than a hypocrite.