CHURCH act 2012 in the House...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2012, 07:46 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2012 07:55 AM by craniumonempty.)
CHURCH act 2012 in the House...
Trying to weasel in any way they can. They are trying it because of the historical angle and possibly trying to whittle away more at the separation of church and state.

Congressional Hope for Uniform Recognition of Christian Heritage (CHURCH) Act of 2012 was introduced by Texas Rep. Louie Gohmart on March 8 according to the article.

http://www.goddiscussion.com/94502/house...t-of-2012/

I say if they want to be historically accurate, then they should list the slaves they owned.

A theist and an atheist go to heaven.
theist: "See! There is a heaven."
atheist: "So, you consider heaven a joke too?"
------
Defy gravity... stand up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2012, 09:58 AM
RE: CHURCH act 2012 in the House...
Sneaky? No. Fundies are too dumb for that.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
25-03-2012, 10:17 AM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2012 02:57 PM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: CHURCH act 2012 in the House...
sneaky by the fact it won't get a lot of publicity. They are sneaky in that they make so many ludicrous bills that people don't notice each one. That's politicians for you.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lilith Pride's post
25-03-2012, 10:57 AM
RE: CHURCH act 2012 in the House...
Yeah, they are probably not deliberately sneaky (like in a concerted, intelligent way), just that there are so many highly passionate fundies coming from all side and in any angle they can. Also sneaky in that some are at least learning something, as this is probably and angle that was taken because of the Supreme Court's decision (or not even approaching the issue... I'm not sure they've ever had to argue over it) to keep the depictions of Moses and some hints at the 10 commandments on the Supreme Court building because of historical significance toward law-giving. So, it's an intelligent move in a way, but still trying to step on the rights of others by religious preference (or non-preference).

It's funny that many proponents of a "Christian nation" quote the very same people that fought so hard for a secular one. Well, funny in the sad sort of way.

A theist and an atheist go to heaven.
theist: "See! There is a heaven."
atheist: "So, you consider heaven a joke too?"
------
Defy gravity... stand up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2012, 03:25 PM
RE: CHURCH act 2012 in the House...
(25-03-2012 07:46 AM)craniumonempty Wrote:  Trying to weasel in any way they can. They are trying it because of the historical angle and possibly trying to whittle away more at the separation of church and state.

Congressional Hope for Uniform Recognition of Christian Heritage (CHURCH) Act of 2012 was introduced by Texas Rep. Louie Gohmart on March 8 according to the article.

http://www.goddiscussion.com/94502/house...t-of-2012/

I say if they want to be historically accurate, then they should list the slaves they owned.
If they want heritage shouldn't they be teaching the native american religion?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: