Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes
- Thread starter Captain X
- Start date
Liberals right now:
the ability to form a mob almost instantly about anything has the disavantage that there is little staying power and little concenrtation. That means if you weather the storm when their on offense they will soon peter off. Right now were just waiting until those manic mob swings hit enough people to form a critical mass that takes them down.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Since Bear Ribs is handling the double-standards with Islam in schools, I'll handle this side of things.
This article covers things fairly well:
Church in the U.S. Capitol
Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War. Below is a brief history of the Capitol's use as a church, and some of...
wallbuilders.com
Some key excerpts:
"Then, on December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the Capitol building as a church building. The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson."
(Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1853), p. 797, Sixth Congress, December 4, 1800.)
"City of Washington, June 19. It is with much pleasure that we discover the rising consequence of our infant city. Public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock by the Reverend Mr. Ralph. "
(Federal Orrery, Boston, July 2, 1795, p. 2. )
"Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor. "
"U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” 7 Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” 8 She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” 9 Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” 10 Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather. 11"
This is particularly relevant, because Thomas Jefferson himself was not actually a Christian. Yet he held that Christian ethos and community was so crucial to a healthy society, that he would attend, because he believed that if he expected other citizens to follow and uphold Christian values, he must set an example of doing so himself.
To make it clear, Even the most outspoken agnostic/gnostic among the Founding Fathers supported and actively participated in church services within government buildings.
The idea that the establishment clause bars practice of Religion by government employees is wholly an invention of the modern secular left and atheists, and is specifically trying to weaponize that in order to drive Christianity out of government, so that they can control all institutions and levers of power.
Court cases and SCOTUS disagree with you, and with this take on the Establishment Clause.
Also, I have not said it bared exercise of religion of public employees, it just made it so they cannot push their religion as part of their governmental duties. Which is what teachers leading prayer in class, no matter the religion, is considered as by the courts.
That you do not understand that difference, and cannot accept that the highest court in the land have ruled in opposition to your view of what the Establishment Clause is about, is not my problem.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Here you are, shifting the goal posts again. Apparently I accidentally edited this out of the quote of your post I put in, but you said this:
"You can call that 'state atheism' if you wish, but the fact is the Founders of the US wanted a secular nation and a secular gov for good reason."
Which my above post demonstrates is categorically untrue.
The 'Supreme Court ruling' things that clearly contradict the constitution is nothing new.
And activist court blatantly contradicting what is clearly written in the constitution does not change the truth of the document, or the history of the US. Of course, the state shouldn't be involved in the running of schools either, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
I do agree that state employees should not be pushing their religion on others. That's part of why I'm sick of functional atheism being pushed in schools. A teacher praying is not 'pushing religion' on students.
A more refined distinction needs to be made with a teacher 'leading prayer.' If a teacher says 'Now let's all pray,' that is inching across the line. If the teacher says 'Now is a time for prayer, or if you prefer thoughtful and respecful silence,' that's acceptable.
The crap anti-Christian activists have been getting up to for decades now shows it's not actually about avoiding establishment of a religion, it's about establishing atheism as the only acceptable ideology to govern from.
And we've seen the fruit of that in decades of violence and academic failure in inner-city schools, and more fruit being borne now in the growing crisis of school groomers.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Sobek
Disgusting Scalie
Holy shit that second one has to be made up, it's too powerful to be real.
300 million people chances are it is real
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Please tell me this one’s fake.
Because, really, anyone who believes some silly dances and lazy lip-syncing will change SCOTUS’s mind (especially when it’s safe to say they don’t even use TikTok!) needs a reality check. If Kavanaugh still ruled to overturn it after being doxxed and nearly assassinated, then this won’t change his mind, either.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Wonder what these partisans say when people reply to them with their own words from a while back? Probably block them or just not respond, if I were to guess.
That fact you actually believe that science and fact based education is 'state pushed atheism' shows you do not have a perspective that can be rational about this.
And then you go on to smear SCOTUS for disagreeing with your take, despite the fact that the court just overturned Roe V Wade and upheld the 2A as an individual right outside the home, not just for the 'militia'.
SCOTUS knows better than you what is Constitutional or not, and they disagree with your view on what the Establishment Clause is about and what it's lines/limits are.
You can rage and seethe about 'state pushed atheism', but SCOTUS is the final word on the Constitutionality of a law.
And they could be fixed only on one target at the same time.If you want change target,you need some time to brainwash them.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
If they bother to respond at all, it's usually with some variation of "I hate you".Wonder what these partisans say when people reply to them with their own words from a while back? Probably block them or just not respond, if I were to guess.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
For pointing out their hypocrisy, I’m guessing.
(And, in so doing, they tacit admit that they are indeed hypocrites who’ve traded principle for power.)
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Lets take it from the top, shall we?
And don't think anybody missed that when I asked you what evidence would satisfy you, we got crickets. Don't want to be tied down to any fixed goalpost and on record so you can't move it some more? You're not arguing in good faith here, you've moved the goalposts so far it's completely impossible to meet your standards, an event that gets no pushback won't show up in the news at all for us to see.
You might as well say that child abuse isn't happening because the abusers in all the news articles were caught, how about ones that weren't caught? Got any articles on those? Eh? I'm not trying to clown you, you've clowned yourself with your ever-changing demands going to such an extreme.
As for the appeal, look it up yourself, I normally do a lot of legwork but I'm under no obligation to supply you information for arguments I haven't ever made. You asked if a Muslim was ever allowed to pray in front of the class, I showed you vastly more. I can see no possible reason you're worried about appeals in the courts unless it's to find something else to quibble about and move the goalposts even more.
And getting back to the main point we've moved so far from, are Christians treated the same way? If there was a class where every student, regardless of faith, was required to say Catholic prayers and their grades reduced if they didn't, would there be only a handful of minor news articles about it or would this be all over the place? Do schools provide prayer rooms for Christian students as they do Muslims on the taxpayer's dime?
Ha ha, as if.
www.foxnews.com
www.whatsgoingonnews.net
www.dailysignal.com
*Much like Epstein's island was just a vacation spot, and Cuties was just about kids dancing.
Wow, look at the goalposts continuing to move, we've gone from "Show me a Muslim Teacher allowed to pray" to "There aren't enough cases" to "They're just learning about Muslim History*" to "It was just Roleplaying" to "Well it got some pushback."
And don't think anybody missed that when I asked you what evidence would satisfy you, we got crickets. Don't want to be tied down to any fixed goalpost and on record so you can't move it some more? You're not arguing in good faith here, you've moved the goalposts so far it's completely impossible to meet your standards, an event that gets no pushback won't show up in the news at all for us to see.
You might as well say that child abuse isn't happening because the abusers in all the news articles were caught, how about ones that weren't caught? Got any articles on those? Eh? I'm not trying to clown you, you've clowned yourself with your ever-changing demands going to such an extreme.
As for the appeal, look it up yourself, I normally do a lot of legwork but I'm under no obligation to supply you information for arguments I haven't ever made. You asked if a Muslim was ever allowed to pray in front of the class, I showed you vastly more. I can see no possible reason you're worried about appeals in the courts unless it's to find something else to quibble about and move the goalposts even more.
And getting back to the main point we've moved so far from, are Christians treated the same way? If there was a class where every student, regardless of faith, was required to say Catholic prayers and their grades reduced if they didn't, would there be only a handful of minor news articles about it or would this be all over the place? Do schools provide prayer rooms for Christian students as they do Muslims on the taxpayer's dime?
Ha ha, as if.
School bans Christian Club... again
For the second year in a row, the Long Island, New York high school has denied students the right to form a Christian club.
www.foxnews.com
LGBT-promoting teacher bans cross necklaces in class
Officials at Hillsborough County Public Schools in Tampa, Florida are being asked to stop the bullying by a math teacher who is an open advocate for the LGBT lifestyle and has, among other things, banned students from wearing cross necklaces in her classroom.The nonprofit legal group Liberty...
www.whatsgoingonnews.net
High School Bans Students From Praying in Free Time
A Colorado high school bans students from praying, singing Christian songs, and discussing religious topics in their free time.
www.dailysignal.com
*Much like Epstein's island was just a vacation spot, and Cuties was just about kids dancing.
That was not what I claimed/asked.
"If a Muslim was ever allowed to pray in front of the class" is your claim, not mine.
I said "Show me public schools which allowed Muslim teahcers to pray in front of their classes."
You conflate any Muslim prayer in a public school, even by Muslim students, with me talking about teachers violating the Establishment Clause by trying to push a religion on students.
You showed that there are a few out there who have done things that definitely are questionable in terms of the Establishment Clause, and are definitely inappropriate for teachers to do if they only mean to teach history.
You also are willing to grab all these other links, but when I ask you for the additional links about the court case you first used to show things might be happening, you just got other links. I wanted to see the full court ruling and why they ruled as they did.
I am willing to admit I had not heard of instances like this before. But you conflate wanting more information to understand context of how widespread it is and what sort of outcomes have happened with 'goal post moving'.
As well, I am not willing to take every source at face value when some of them seem to inflate small instances into some sort of Muslim invasion, and have obvious detachment from reality (Muslim pushed homosexual agenda, for example).
This is how I feel as well, and what I have been trying to say as I ask for more info about it, because I had not seen this stuff before. The Establishment Clause is fucking important, and no religious group should get favored treatment by the state.
But these days it seems a lot of people are just looking for reasons to rant at me.