You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 06, 2016, 12:21:26 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)  (Read 8893 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #125 on: September 15, 2015, 10:37:57 AM »
I am hopeful, because the federal judges are also behind them - and as much as Wallace pissed and moaned about it, desegregation happened once the feds came in.

Offline Jagerin

  • They/Them Pronouns || Alpha Raptor || Fandom Monarch || Estrous Twinkle Particle || Kho's Murdoc || Nic's Scully
  • Champion
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2008
  • Location: A melancholy town where we never smile.
  • Black roses and Hail Mary's can't bring you back.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 20
Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #126 on: September 15, 2015, 10:55:11 AM »
Popped up on my Facebook feed today:


Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #127 on: September 15, 2015, 11:06:55 AM »
In the longer term the least controversial solution would be to rewrite the statute to allow some form of "conscience clause" where if a clerk objects a deputy can give authority instead of them.
There's a reason I said "least controversial" rather than necessarily "best" or "simplest". A solution that makes no practical difference but allows those who do feel that their religious beliefs or morals are being compromised to take a measure of comfort should avoid issues from both sides. ...
I see quite a bit of potential for such a "conscience clause" to lead to controversy, as I think many people would construe it as meaning that any act motivated by religious belief should be treated as a religious act and recognized as such.

Some people might find such an interpretation desirable or even sensible, but I fear the more people are allowed to justify their actions with a simple "I believe in X, therefore I must do Y", even if that goes clearly beyond what might be prescribed and asked for by their religion, the more trouble there will be. People are free to believe whatever they want, but there are good reasons that how they act can be regulated by law. Sometimes I feel the boundary between believe and act is already too thin. Lets not weaken it any further.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #128 on: September 18, 2015, 09:30:22 PM »
Well, I have been waiting to see this woman's name in the news again. I didn't think it would take long before she reappeared.

Seems she has been altering the marriage licenses that come from her office. She has removed her name, all mention of the county she is clerk for, and references to the clerks. She left only the one clerk's name that has been issuing the licenses as ordered by the judge but not his title or place for his signature, just his initials. This could render all of the licenses issued invalid - and this defiant act pits her against the judge since he ordered her not to interfere with her deputies issuing the licenses.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawyer-deputy-clerk-kim-davis-may-be-violating-judges-order-n430116

Offline Cycle

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #129 on: September 18, 2015, 10:12:08 PM »
She's an idiot.  If she does something to render the licenses invalid, not only will she be violating the Federal Judge's Order, she'll be committing multiple misdemeanors.  KRS 402.990.

Honestly, Kim Davis has an over-inflated sense of self.  The power to marry comes from the State of Kentucky, not her, not her office.  As the County Clerk, she has a duty to the issue marriage licenses.  KRS 402.080.  It is not a power.  It is a responsibility. 

Really, all a County Clerk does is (a) hand out an application form; and (b) record such forms when they are completed.  These are simple clerical tasks.  Kim Davis is not personally condoning, approving, or supporting the marriage of A and B every time someone from her office issues a marriage license.


Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #130 on: September 21, 2015, 08:48:15 PM »
Even as a christian I think she got what was coming, there is a clear seperation between church and state. Believe what you want, but you have a job to do. Doesnt matter if your christian, muslim, jewish; She was voted into her position by the community, and did not provide her services to members of the community, as appointed by LAW. She broke that oath, that law, and went to jail. I dont see any injustice here, in what the authorities did. In fact, the authorities were the only people here I see doing their job. *Cue drum beat, ta ta chsshh.*

On the other hand, I do believe there are things that could have been done to make accommodations for her. If restaurants in the uk are forced legally by law, to make accommodations for Muslims, allowing the Muslims to refuse to serve ham or allowing them to chose when they can pray at any given time. (Which is crap actually, they in fact can stay on the clock, as they randomly decide to pray during a lunch rush.) Hell, british government is even considering to issue a mandatory prayer room in most establishments for muslims employees. If britian can accommodate for Muslims, then I am certain america can accommodate for christians. Just have some one along side her be appointed specifically for homosexual marriage licenses, or appoint someone else entirely and fire her.

Offline Cycle

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #131 on: September 21, 2015, 09:25:37 PM »
Well, there is actually a very easy accommodation.  All Kim Davis needs to do is nothing.  Literally, nothing.

Stand there and watch Brian Mason, the deputy clerk, issue marriage licenses.  Don't mess with the form.  Don't say you are "withholding" your authorization.  Just literally do absolutely nothing.

Mason, as a deputy clerk, already can do everything Kim Davis can do as County Clerk.  It's built into Kentucky law.  KRS 61.035.  Davis doesn't need to "authorize" anything.  Mason can "authorize" the licenses himself.

Kim Davis is creating problems for herself because she wants to deny same sex couples marriage licenses.  Plain and simple. 

« Last Edit: September 21, 2015, 09:26:55 PM by Cycle »

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #132 on: September 21, 2015, 10:41:27 PM »
Well, that is basically what I already said.

Quote
Just have some one along side her be appointed specifically for homosexual marriage licenses, or appoint someone else entirely and fire her.

So ya, she is just creating problems for herself. Thank you for agreeing. That said, the law was shimshambled and forced through the pipeline outside of our congress and without giving her a hot second to think about things. So of coarse she made a brash, and stupid decision without any time to think and ponder her religious beliefs versus her legal duties. She had no time because a federal judge said, "Ya, this shit be legal now." Without congress. I actually find this all funny, people are more concerned with some dumb christian housewife that= broke her vow's of taking state law above religion. Over, a federal judge that gave his middle finger to our congress, and got away with it because a majority agree that gays should get married. Yes, I agree with the law. But have people lost the memo on how our government works? Congress is issued a bill or legislation to pass into a law. A judge is only there to interpret guilt, or punishment based on a law. He cant just wave his magic hand and say, "I say it, thuss makeith so!" And it be ok because our president said, "Cool bro. I agree." Never mind the fact that each state can chose wether or not to uphold laws congress issue out, meaning any country wide law that must be upheld by all is bullshit. We have different self governing states for a reason. But know what, white chick is more important then shameful and shady government behavior. It's not like we are supposed to have a democracy or anything right? Any law made outside of our congress, is just playing wrong. I dont care HOW many people vote for it. A system is in place, dont break it, work it.

Point is, when I say accommodations, what I mean is. She literally had this change thrusted upon her, without her religious beliefs considered. Because, fuck Catholics! am I right? (Edit; That part is literally a joke, I dont mean fuck catholics and I dont really think any one is hating on them.) It may be her job to uphold law before church but the state should have thought of her before she had to go to jail for any length of time. This could have all been avoided if the state remembered that, oh yeah, she has a strict faith in god.However, on the same note she could of avoided it for herself if she called in a few sick days and tried to talk with her bosses about it.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2015, 10:49:16 PM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Cycle

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #133 on: September 21, 2015, 11:08:34 PM »
That said, the law was shimshambled and forced through the pipeline outside of our congress and without giving her a hot second to think about things.

Obergefell originally filed suit way back in 2013.  There were intermediate appellate decisions.  The briefs were filed with the Supreme Court early 2015, and oral argument took place in April 2015.  This didn't come out of the blues.

Quote
I actually find this all funny, people are more concerned with some dumb christian housewife that= broke her vow's of taking state law above religion. Over, a federal judge that gave his middle finger to our congress, and got away with it because a majority agree that gays should get married.

Actually, that's what's set forth by Article III of the Constitution.  Congress has the power to make laws.  But the Supreme Court has the power to decide if a law is valid--including State laws.  That's been the way things work for hundreds of years.

Quote
Point is, when I say accommodations, what I mean is. She literally had this change thrusted upon her, without her religious beliefs considered. ... This could have all been avoided if the state remembered that, oh yeah, she has a strict faith in god.However, on the same note she could of avoided it for herself if she called in a few sick days and tried to talk with her bosses about it.

No no.  She didn't need to call in sick at all.  She could have done nothing.  Literally, just do nothing.  That accommodation was available to her from day one.


Offline eBadger

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #134 on: September 22, 2015, 04:10:55 AM »
She had no time because a federal judge said, "Ya, this shit be legal now." Without congress. I actually find this all funny, people are more concerned with some dumb christian housewife that= broke her vow's of taking state law above religion. Over, a federal judge that gave his middle finger to our congress, and got away with it because a majority agree that gays should get married. Yes, I agree with the law. But have people lost the memo on how our government works? Congress is issued a bill or legislation to pass into a law. A judge is only there to interpret guilt, or punishment based on a law. He cant just wave his magic hand and say, "I say it, thuss makeith so!" And it be ok because our president said, "Cool bro. I agree." Never mind the fact that each state can chose wether or not to uphold laws congress issue out, meaning any country wide law that must be upheld by all is bullshit. We have different self governing states for a reason. But know what, white chick is more important then shameful and shady government behavior. It's not like we are supposed to have a democracy or anything right? Any law made outside of our congress, is just playing wrong. I dont care HOW many people vote for it. A system is in place, dont break it, work it.

Your misunderstanding of the American system of government makes my head hurt. 

From the top:

Not just A judge.  A majority of the supreme court judges. 

The judges are nominated by the president, who was in turn popularly elected, so although indirectly they are a manifestation of the only national popular vote in the US.  They are then confirmed by the Senate, comprised of popularly elected representatives; it's not simply a rubber stamp, they can and have rejected nominations. 

A judge's primary role isn't to interpret guilt, and they are only allowed to do so for minor violations.  Guilt is determined by a jury.  A judge's role is to interpret and apply the law (who can speak?  what questions can be asked?  what evidence can be submitted?  and, most critically: what does the law say is legal and not legal?  Which is a very different question from guilt). 

You can try to argue against judicial review as an inherent part of our constitution, but it's been explicitly interpreted as such since 1796.  Nor is the interpretation of the law something we can just skip and do without. 

The states do not have the option to uphold laws as they see fit.  That is laid out explicitly in the bill of rights (10th amendment).  There was also that whole Civil War thing to sort the issue out once and for all. 

We are not supposed to be a democracy.  We are certainly trending that direction ever since Andrew Jackson (who was kind of a dick) but the founders pretty much loathed the entire notion.  Note that you never get to vote on ANY of the laws that congress passes.  We are a republic, in which we have representatives, and those include the judges no less than congress. 

Note also that, however the Supreme Court interprets previous law, Congress has the ability to write new law.  It is completely within their power to pass a new law or amendment banning what the Supreme Court permitted.  The fact that none has been introduced should tell you a LOT about how Congress as a whole feels about the issue. 

Also, the gay marriage ruling IS based on a decision by both congress AND the states: specifically, it was crafted and proposed by the 39th congress in 1866 and became the 14th amendment (equal protection) when ratified by 3/4 of the states as of 1868.  And it was a direct descendant of the Freedman's Bureau Bills enacted by President Lincoln.  So yes, there is a system, every branch had a part, so did the states, and it was followed perfectly. 

By the way, you can thank the same process for the end of segregation in the US, the right to abortion and birth control, the right to a defense attorney, right to inter racial marriage, need to be informed of your rights when arrested, protection of non-citizens under US law, criminalizing sexual harassment, ending sodomy bans and legalizing same-sex conduct. 

This could have all been avoided if the state remembered that, oh yeah, she has a strict faith in god.

Consideration was exactly what occurred across several levels of court and years of proceedings.  Just because you didn't see the news doesn't mean nothing was happening.  This was generally seen as imminent since the 2013 judgment that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.  Why should people wait further for their rights to be respected? 

Beyond that, why should the state take her personal faith into account?  Why is that more important than the law, or other people's rights?  Do I avoid a speeding ticket when rushing to prayer at a certain time (what if I hit a car or run someone over who interfered with my need to pray?)  Can I avoid paying taxes because I don't recognize the legitimacy of a secular nation?  Perhaps cook a bit of LSD because it helps me connect to my spirit guide?  ...or maybe just not allow any blacks into my restaurant because they're the Cursed Sons of Ham?  Fire all the gays because sodomy?  Have all the pregnant and menstruating women leave stores where I shop because unclean?  How's that accommodation - they can just shop somewhere else for a while, I'm getting my religious beliefs on here. 

There were many ways open for her to practice her own, personal belief in god (like not marrying another woman).  Violating the rights of others is no longer a personal issue, it is a public issue, and for those we are happily not ruled by the church.  The issue is only magnified when a public official violates the law (consider the outrage if a police officer used his authority to shut down a church because it practiced a faith that contradicted his own). 

Honestly, the joy of seeing such a great advance in civil rights has been severely tempered by the tragedy of seeing every argument supporting segregation brought out and dusted off, and eagerly espoused by a nation that should be better by now. 
« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 04:24:45 AM by eBadger »

Offline Sara Nilsson

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #135 on: September 22, 2015, 05:00:29 AM »
ebadger.. if i wasnt married... ^^ so.. can I adopt you? that was beautiful

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #136 on: September 23, 2015, 02:30:25 AM »
A Judge does not MAKE a law, he can not chose wethor or not to pass one. Only our congress can put a law through. To do so outside of congress is shady at best. I dont think the law is wrong, I think how it was formed was wrong. Plain and simple, you can not go behind congress. A president cant make a law permanently, only temporary. A judge cant make a law. CONGRESS decides if the law should go through.  If they wanted the law properly in place, make a legislation and send it to congress, but... Oh ya,Obama doesnt like doing that. He is to busy forcing his legislation through.(Edit: I am speaking of Obama care, which is basically forced through congress on only 51 votes.) A judge is as i said, only there to interpret the law as they see fit. Plain and simple. Never said he was their to determine guilt all the time, so I am not stupid I know how a jury works. But he does interpret guilt sometimes when their is a crime that DOESNT need a jury. I was not wrong, nor needed correction. He interprets the law. AND CAN NOT MAKE ONE. He interprets proper punishment based upon the crime. Honestly, the law really was pipped down. No other way to see it. It was forced down the pipe line. Im not saying the judge is on the wrong side of history, but it is dumb if we all act like it is all fine and peachy. That he dint GO AGAINST HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. I know, for I am going to college for law. What he did was shady, but because of how our culture works, it is ok.

Like how poptart kid got kicked out of school and continued to face charges for biting the toasty treat into the shape of a gun, but muslim kid gets to go see the president for 'inventing a clock.' When really he grabbed a 70's clock, took it apart, put it together inside a suitcase, and quite obviously had the intention to prank. I know (Edit: That he didnt invent a clock, I am not saying I 'know' he intended to prank. That is simply a opinion. he is 14, it is what 14 year old boys sometimes do, pranks.), because there are actual people with this kind of knowledge, saying it was a old 70's clock on youtube.

Quote
The states do not have the option to uphold laws as they see fit.  That is laid out explicitly in the bill of rights (10th amendment).  There was also that whole Civil War thing to sort the issue out once and for all.

I was not meaning they dont have to abide the law, I meant states have a choice on how to handle it. Each individual state is it's own being, a part that makes the whole and functions for it'self. The country is built upon this fact. A state can make it's own laws, but congress can overrule them. States have their own freedom to work the way they wish. and GOVERN THEMSELVES. The president doesnt run every nook and cranny, states as I said, govern, them, selves. Congress only rears it's head in sometimes.

Quote
Note also that, however the Supreme Court interprets previous law, Congress has the ability to write new law.  It is completely within their power to pass a new law or amendment banning what the Supreme Court permitted.  The fact that none has been introduced should tell you a LOT about how Congress as a whole feels about the issue.

Oh god.... *Rubs his temples.* Again, I feel as though your thinking I am against gay rights. I am for the law, it is just shoddily put in place is all. Though yes, your right. At any, ANY moment congress can say no. But they wont. And I believe they will continue in silence on the matter, not saying no. But not yes either, and this is why. Though, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say they agree with the law. It is also just as likely they dont abolish the law because they dont want to be on the wrong side of history in a current culture of progressive Parana's that will eat the very soul of their social life if they even dare to say no to the law. And thus, ruin their political careers. Basically, yes or no is a shot to the foot for every congress man/women. For they have both the aggressive left and the aggressive christians eyeing them at the moment. (Though honestly if I were them id be more afraid of the left ha ha. Christians are like loud toy dogs, while the left are effective battle hardened pit fighters. Ready to verbally school ya. *Fist bumps Anita Sarkesian.* Girl knows how to handle a mob, gotta give'er that.)

Quote
Consideration was exactly what occurred across several levels of court and years of proceedings.  Just because you didn't see the news doesn't mean nothing was happening.  This was generally seen as imminent since the 2013 judgment that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.  Why should people wait further for their rights to be respected? 

Beyond that, why should the state take her personal faith into account?  Why is that more important than the law, or other people's rights?  Do I avoid a speeding ticket when rushing to prayer at a certain time (what if I hit a car or run someone over who interfered with my need to pray?)  Can I avoid paying taxes because I don't recognize the legitimacy of a secular nation?  Perhaps cook a bit of LSD because it helps me connect to my spirit guide?  ...or maybe just not allow any blacks into my restaurant because they're the Cursed Sons of Ham?  Fire all the gays because sodomy?  Have all the pregnant and menstruating women leave stores where I shop because unclean?  How's that accommodation - they can just shop somewhere else for a while, I'm getting my religious beliefs on here. 

There were many ways open for her to practice her own, personal belief in god (like not marrying another woman).  Violating the rights of others is no longer a personal issue, it is a public issue, and for those we are happily not ruled by the church.  The issue is only magnified when a public official violates the law (consider the outrage if a police officer used his authority to shut down a church because it practiced a faith that contradicted his own). 

Honestly, the joy of seeing such a great advance in civil rights has been severely tempered by the tragedy of seeing every argument supporting segregation brought out and dusted off, and eagerly espoused by a nation that should be better by now.

At this point you will see humility for I do see I was wrong. Sorry, just as a christian it is to easy to think people are having a war with you. Here in college I am surrounded by the left, particularly feminists. And while not all are like this. Most people assume based on my religion I am immediately a over privileged bigot that hates gays, and hates abortion. But I am pro choice, pro life but more so choice (Therefor a womans body is her own temple. Do what you will. I just feel life should have a chance, but not gonna force that on any one.) I honestly get over defensive sometimes, but I do understand that my views dont conform with the rest of society these days. I actually just wish sometimes people would listen. Learning isnt an echo chamber of the same ideas, thats not how social science should work. It is a plethora of ideas, people debating their own opinions but also taking on another's perspective and pondering it. Even if you dont agree with it. Thats how social learning is done, but with the knee jerk reactions every one. Including me sometimes, give. Not many really learn anything any more. Becouse we are so worried about being right we forget we may be wrong sometimes. Edit: Im not saying you knee jerked, but I am saying in terms of partialy defending Kim. I did. So, for that I am sorry. She did really deserve what she got, I never denied that. But I did somewhat try and defend her position. Which really was not right.

Edit: Also I went off subject actually. So also sorry about that, lets continue to speak of Kim Davis. This is not about the law, but more so how she broke the law.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 02:55:02 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Caehlim

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #137 on: September 23, 2015, 02:55:04 AM »
Like how poptart kid got kicked out of school and continued to face charges for biting the toasty treat into the shape of a gun

Actually the child was suspended, resumed schooling, remained at school for the rest of the year and was then transferred by his parents to another school for his next year's schooling. He was neither kicked out nor ever faced any sort of charges, beyond school disciplinary procedures. The current appeal was from the child's family attorney Robin Ficker, challenging to have the suspension removed from the child's school records. However the hearing examiner, Andrew Nussbaum, denied this appeal stating that;

“As much as the parents want this case to be about a ‘gun,’ it is, rather, a case about classroom disruption from a student who has had a long history of disruptive behavior and for whom the school had attempted a list of other strategies and interventions before resorting to a suspension. Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making ‘meow’ cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same.”

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #138 on: September 23, 2015, 03:08:59 AM »
Actually the child was suspended, resumed schooling, remained at school for the rest of the year and was then transferred by his parents to another school for his next year's schooling. He was neither kicked out nor ever faced any sort of charges, beyond school disciplinary procedures. The current appeal was from the child's family attorney Robin Ficker, challenging to have the suspension removed from the child's school records. However the hearing examiner, Andrew Nussbaum, denied this appeal stating that;

“As much as the parents want this case to be about a ‘gun,’ it is, rather, a case about classroom disruption from a student who has had a long history of disruptive behavior and for whom the school had attempted a list of other strategies and interventions before resorting to a suspension. Had the student chewed his cereal bar into the shape of a cat and ran around the room, disrupting the classroom and making ‘meow’ cat sounds, the result would have been exactly the same.”

Oh, well my knowledge on Poptart kid is completely from the grapevine so I didnt know that. Only looked up mister Muhamid (Not a racist slur, his last name is muhamid I believe.) due to the fact his case involved a possible bomb threat rather then Poptart kids case. Where I just laughed and said, "Wow teachers are to progressive these days, reminds me of that girl sent home for a 80's wonderwomen lunchbox becouse it was degrading to women. Ha ha" And brushed it off. lol.

Oh heres that lunchbox that sent the girl home:



Though maybe in that teachers head, she thought it was demeaning to women becouse it stated lovely as Aphrodite first, valuing buety over mind. Or something equally as ridiculous. I dont care how 'offensive' you think it is, if it is not WW slaying a Minotaur with blood everywhere then the kid shouldn't have missed a day of learning over the dang thing.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 03:11:08 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Caehlim

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #139 on: September 23, 2015, 03:30:00 AM »
Only looked up mister Muhamid (Not a racist slur, his last name is muhamid I believe.) due to the fact his case involved a possible bomb threat rather then Poptart kids case.

Yes, Ahmed Mohamed is the child's name. I've been attempting to find more information about whether the story about the clock being a re purposed 1970s clock is true or not, but have yet to find any reliable sources.

Quote
Where I just laughed and said, "Wow teachers are to progressive these days, reminds me of that girl sent home for a 80's wonderwomen lunchbox becouse it was degrading to women. Ha ha"

Actually the unsubstantiated claim of the Redditor who published those pictures was that the lunchbox was considered too violent, with superheroes considered to "solve their problems using violence"

The letter


However I should note that even the original version of this story is completely unverified. You can see the Snopes page on it for details.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #140 on: September 23, 2015, 03:48:25 AM »
Well here allow me to help. Here is a article on the Daily Beast, and after reading it the article was confirmed in my opinion by a youtube video I can not fined again. But the video did get exposure on hanity, sometime before or after a kid was brought onto Hanitty over a viral video about Mohamed's clock.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/nerds-rage-over-ahmed-s-clock.html . Basically Engineers at first glance AND upon further analysis determined the clock to be a re purposed one. Malicious intent to be assumed, if not an intentional hoax then at the very least trying to get extra credit over something I can do with what little engineering skills I have.

Also thanks for confirming I partially got the name right. Mohamed, not muhamid. >_< Lol.

Edit: Again however, off topic lol.

Edit: Also found the video, it is actually linked into the article.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 03:54:30 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline Caehlim

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #141 on: September 23, 2015, 04:26:44 AM »
Well here allow me to help.

Thankyou, it was so annoying trying to search for that since it was a "hoax bomb" so searching for it being a hoax brought up all the original articles. I had a look at the article and the original article on Artvoice.com that it was referring to (here). I have to admit that it's fairly persuasive.


Online LisztesFerenc

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #142 on: September 23, 2015, 06:51:32 AM »
Sorry, just as a christian it is to easy to think people are having a war with you. Here in college I am surrounded by the left, particularly feminists.

  Where as atheist have to grow up in a country where:

The money says "In God we trust", which is the national motto of the united states.

Despite representing about 16% of the population in recent years, and by most studies on the topic that I know of having on average a higher IQ than a religious people, no president has ever been confirmed as having any belief other than Christian, and only 3% of the Senate.*

Politicians are sworn in on the bible. In court people swear to tell the truth with their hand on the bible.

The Pledge of Allegiance references "One nation under God"

  So if you as a Christian can feel like people are waging a war on you because you are surrounded by leftist ideology at University, how is an Atheist meant to feel?

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #143 on: September 23, 2015, 07:23:43 AM »
A Judge does not MAKE a law, he can not chose wethor or not to pass one. Only our congress can put a law through. To do so outside of congress is shady at best. I dont think the law is wrong, I think how it was formed was wrong. Plain and simple, you can not go behind congress. A president cant make a law permanently, only temporary. A judge cant make a law. CONGRESS decides if the law should go through.  If they wanted the law properly in place, make a legislation and send it to congress, but... Oh ya,Obama doesnt like doing that. He is to busy forcing his legislation through.(Edit: I am speaking of Obama care, which is basically forced through congress on only 51 votes.) A judge is as i said, only there to interpret the law as they see fit. Plain and simple. Never said he was their to determine guilt all the time, so I am not stupid I know how a jury works. But he does interpret guilt sometimes when their is a crime that DOESNT need a jury. I was not wrong, nor needed correction. He interprets the law. AND CAN NOT MAKE ONE. He interprets proper punishment based upon the crime. Honestly, the law really was pipped down. No other way to see it. It was forced down the pipe line. Im not saying the judge is on the wrong side of history, but it is dumb if we all act like it is all fine and peachy. That he dint GO AGAINST HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. I know, for I am going to college for law. What he did was shady, but because of how our culture works, it is ok.

Like how poptart kid got kicked out of school and continued to face charges for biting the toasty treat into the shape of a gun, but muslim kid gets to go see the president for 'inventing a clock.' When really he grabbed a 70's clock, took it apart, put it together inside a suitcase, and quite obviously had the intention to prank. I know (Edit: That he didnt invent a clock, I am not saying I 'know' he intended to prank. That is simply a opinion. he is 14, it is what 14 year old boys sometimes do, pranks.), because there are actual people with this kind of knowledge, saying it was a old 70's clock on youtube.

I was not meaning they dont have to abide the law, I meant states have a choice on how to handle it. Each individual state is it's own being, a part that makes the whole and functions for it'self. The country is built upon this fact. A state can make it's own laws, but congress can overrule them. States have their own freedom to work the way they wish. and GOVERN THEMSELVES. The president doesnt run every nook and cranny, states as I said, govern, them, selves. Congress only rears it's head in sometimes.

Oh god.... *Rubs his temples.* Again, I feel as though your thinking I am against gay rights. I am for the law, it is just shoddily put in place is all. Though yes, your right. At any, ANY moment congress can say no. But they wont. And I believe they will continue in silence on the matter, not saying no. But not yes either, and this is why. Though, I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say they agree with the law. It is also just as likely they dont abolish the law because they dont want to be on the wrong side of history in a current culture of progressive Parana's that will eat the very soul of their social life if they even dare to say no to the law. And thus, ruin their political careers. Basically, yes or no is a shot to the foot for every congress man/women. For they have both the aggressive left and the aggressive christians eyeing them at the moment. (Though honestly if I were them id be more afraid of the left ha ha. Christians are like loud toy dogs, while the left are effective battle hardened pit fighters. Ready to verbally school ya. *Fist bumps Anita Sarkesian.* Girl knows how to handle a mob, gotta give'er that.)

At this point you will see humility for I do see I was wrong. Sorry, just as a christian it is to easy to think people are having a war with you. Here in college I am surrounded by the left, particularly feminists. And while not all are like this. Most people assume based on my religion I am immediately a over privileged bigot that hates gays, and hates abortion. But I am pro choice, pro life but more so choice (Therefor a womans body is her own temple. Do what you will. I just feel life should have a chance, but not gonna force that on any one.) I honestly get over defensive sometimes, but I do understand that my views dont conform with the rest of society these days. I actually just wish sometimes people would listen. Learning isnt an echo chamber of the same ideas, thats not how social science should work. It is a plethora of ideas, people debating their own opinions but also taking on another's perspective and pondering it. Even if you dont agree with it. Thats how social learning is done, but with the knee jerk reactions every one. Including me sometimes, give. Not many really learn anything any more. Becouse we are so worried about being right we forget we may be wrong sometimes. Edit: Im not saying you knee jerked, but I am saying in terms of partialy defending Kim. I did. So, for that I am sorry. She did really deserve what she got, I never denied that. But I did somewhat try and defend her position. Which really was not right.

Edit: Also I went off subject actually. So also sorry about that, lets continue to speak of Kim Davis. This is not about the law, but more so how she broke the law.

Bold part is mine...

Let me see if I can explain this so you'll understand. There was laws concerning the protections that a married couple possess, benefits a married couple have, etc. These did NOT extend to same sex couples who were barred from having the civil union known as "marriage" because they happened to be two men or two women. What the Supreme Court did is sit down and decide that it is wrong to bar a couple from those same protections, benefits, etc just because the couple happened to be two men or two women. They did not "pass a law" or "make a law". They, and this is the key word here, interpreted the law of the land to include homosexuals.

Which is just and fair.

People need to get over this kick that the Supreme Court passed a law. They did not. They interpreted an already existing law to include the discriminated against group.

And I hear all the time how the world is waging war against Christians - to the point that it makes me sick. Do you see Atheists out in force screaming about how something is a sin? Do you see Pagans refusing to pass out marriage licenses to gay couples? Do you see Wiccans out demanding that we put their deities back in the government? Nope. Just Christians. I am honestly coming to the point of believing that most Christians want to be the maligned group - the mistreated - the victims. "There's a war on Christianity!" "There's a war on Christmas!" (Pagan holiday there btw - just in case you didn't know) "You took prayer from the schools!"

If Christians stopped trying to force everyone to believe like them maybe they'd stop feeling persecuted.

Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #144 on: September 23, 2015, 09:37:38 AM »
The subject is not about a war on christians, but on KIM DAVIS. I didnt mean for how I feel to pull you two off subject but by all means do go back to it. In fact because we have the judge thing being commented on again, even if it is based upon my own comment. (And your rebuttal is fairly well pointed out about that miss.) I am bowing out. It is fairly obvious I am pulling people away from the actual discussion. So please, forget anything I said and move on, sorry.  If you feel you must comment me back on this, pm me, we need to stop talking about these kinds of things here. And talk about kim davis, it is about her and what she did. Not the gay marriage law, how it was past, and the feelings of my fellow, admittedly over sensitive Christians. (Please god dont think I am overtly sensitive like them. >_< I actually take hits fairly well.)

  Where as atheist have to grow up in a country where:

The money says "In God we trust", which is the national motto of the united states.

Despite representing about 16% of the population in recent years, and by most studies on the topic that I know of having on average a higher IQ than a religious people, no president has ever been confirmed as having any belief other than Christian, and only 3% of the Senate.*

Politicians are sworn in on the bible. In court people swear to tell the truth with their hand on the bible.

The Pledge of Allegiance references "One nation under God"

  So if you as a Christian can feel like people are waging a war on you because you are surrounded by leftist ideology at University, how is an Atheist meant to feel?

Dude, there are a number of things going on in the world against christians. Though that is not the case we need to be talking about. I do understand how atheism gets a bad rep from people, but do you honestly think atheists dont knock down on christians? It's a hungry ideological world out there, and everyone thinks their right and every one else is wrong. Wow, so the country was made by christian- oh wait. They weren't ACTUALLY christian, believe it or not most our founding fathers were as close to atheist as you can get at the time. Hence the fact that religion, and god comes SECOND to law and government. If this country were truly made to be all christianed up as you say, then there would be our god above law and government. (Look up our atheist founding fathers, while your at it, look up christian revisionists. No I am not even trying to be mean, seriously look it up it's mind blowing information. I found it fun to discover.) The motto is a hit or miss thing use it or dont, your choice. No one said you had to use the motto or your un american. In fact, christian revisionists any one? Aside from the fact that we make you swear an oath unto god, which is more so for legal reasons rather then believing in god. Your just mainly swearing to tell the truth under a court of law, think of it more so as the phrase I swear to god I am telling the truth, and your good. Our country is made up to focus on a government for the people, by the people. Under god? Well, look at those revisionists I spoke of before. I think that part has a little to do with them. So ya, looks like the things are stacked against christians being, dun dun dun... The ones forcing their beliefs. Edit: But atheists try to force their ideas to, just not as aggressively. *Billboards, youtube, etc.) Its not more so forced as it is opinions being thrown out their more, but there are a fair number out their aggressively being atheist.

 
Quote
So if you as a Christian can feel like people are waging a war on you because you are surrounded by leftist ideology at University, how is an Atheist meant to feel?

Well, I dont know. You tell me how they feel? I dont presume to understand who you are, or they are. I do say this is a smart answer, perhaps I am far wiser then you originally anticipated? Lol.

Iniquitous: I dont pretend what other Christians do is pretty. I in fact find it impossible to have a dialogue with my mom, because... Get this. Believe it or not, I am actually unchristian. OH ya, I am actually treated like an idiot by both sides, anywhere I go. Wooohooo! Because I have faith in god, but also disagree with that tid bit of same sex, and believe in pro choice. As you can imagine I am a highly unpopular person in social circles! Yay for me. I m not trying to put a pitty me here, really I am not. If there is a war, We started it. The problem I find is, people judge me on my faith alone, judge me if one or two opinions do not mirror their own ideology, so I am automatically an idiot even if I share a lot of the same opinions. Christians are judged as a whole. Atheists are judged as a whole. Feminists are definitely being judged as a whole right now! Dam are they being judged, just look at that new southpark episode and the online war surrounding it. Something I mainly want to point out is, we shouldnt judge each other as a whole because we disagree with a few things. Sorry if calling it a war on christians angers you, but it's how a lot feel. So is how someone feels really going to disgust you? Personally id suggest not letting such things bother you, though I should in turn reflect on this whole post and say the same thing to myself. Not let these things bother me. The thing is, a lot do feel they are under threat. For a few logical, and many ilogical reasons. But they do, cant change that. As for me, I only used it as a phrase. I dont personally feel there is a war on Christians as a whole, the use of such rhetoric was ill placed on my part. It is only so much that my faith is as of late a subject of defining me. Even though people shouldnt assume it does. Which is funny as hell actually, the same people who fight to try and stop oppression and bias, are fucking bias to me. For being a white, christian, over-privileged male that is ciss scum. Well, get told it enough times it has to be true right ?  :o . Sadly most atheists I meet are big headed, think they know everything and treat me like a lowly mind un deserving of their presence. In fact, I go out of my way to keep my faith out of a conversation, believe it or not atheists bring it up to me almost all the time trying to tell me how I am wrong. Most want the conversation. But not to have discourse, but to try and verbally 'serve' me. Id love to make an atheist friend, who wants to actually talk with civility. Assuming you are atheist id appreciate you being a first. You seem highly articulate ^_^ .  Oh! How about that Bill Nye debate. ;) Served that dude hardcore, always hated it when fellow christians try to throw in ridiculous creationist theories on evolution. Gah. >_< . Actually have my own thoughts on the matter in case your interested.

 
Quote
Do you see Atheists out in force screaming about how something is a sin? Do you see Pagans refusing to pass out marriage licenses to gay couples? Do you see Wiccans out demanding that we put their deities back in the government?

No but I do see muslims beheading Christians, but honestly they are a threat to you to. Us being the great satan and all! :P HEY! Maybe we should join forces? lol. Listen Christians are no saint, in fact they also did the Inquisition if you want to point that out. Oh! Dont forget the crusades ;) . But neither are wickens (Religios practices being barbaric at the time of it's creation.) or Muslims. (Read their bible. Sharia law, real shit, pretty scary ideas. Befriend your neighbor, so you can kill them if they dont worship Alla. Thats the jist of that part of the Muslim bible. Also to this day the real misogynist society demeaning women, not america or the UK.) While we are at it look at any group in human history, including atheists and yes feminism. And tell me it doesnt have it's bad eggs saying, advocating, and doing fucked up shit. If you actually do think atheists or feminists are innocent. No true scotsman fallacy. See me for one second say a real christian wouldn't do this or that? Nope, because I recognize our faults. Have this whole time.

Actually one final note. Did one solitary, insignificant comment really throw you two in such discord? Away from the subject at hand? Gosh, I know I am not innocent but I did try to pull things back before you both comented. If you dont like the idea of war on christians so much send a lengthy pm next time. We are legitimately throwing this thread out of the atmosphere of it's original purpose. lol. No seriously I dont mind continuing, but not here. Pm, or make a thread. Ill be answering back so no worries. ^^
« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 09:48:07 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Online LisztesFerenc

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #145 on: September 23, 2015, 09:53:16 AM »
Well, I dont know. You tell me how they feel? I dont presume to understand who you are, or they are.

  Try and imagine you were in such a situation. You lived in a country were the money bore the saying "There is no God, we must trust ourselves and each other". Christians were underrepresented in the Senate, the % of Christian there being a fifth of what the national %-tage was, and the national motto was "No Gods, only mortals" (it's a motto, you can just choose not to use it).

  This is what its like being an Atheist in a nation like the US with all the references to Christianity how do you think you would feel in the above scenario? Here's the thing: not mentioning God isn't atheist, its agnostic at best, neutral. Mentioning God (or indeed Gods) as not existing is atheist.

Your just mainly swearing to tell the truth under a court of law, think of it more so as the phrase I swear to god I am telling the truth, and your good. Our country is made up to focus on a government for the people, by the people.

  So why isn't it "Before this court, I swear to tell the truth"? Why does God and the bible need to be brought into it?

Dude, there are a number of things going on in the world against christians.

  I know, but you referenced feeling being attacked because you were surrounded by leftist ideology in Uni, not because of what was happening in other countries.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 09:58:46 AM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Cycle

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #146 on: September 23, 2015, 10:01:13 AM »
A Judge does not MAKE a law, he can not chose wethor or not to pass one. ...  A judge is as i said, only there to interpret the law as they see fit.

Again, the Supreme Court was not penning legislation here.  Rather, when it handed down the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, it struck down a (group of) laws as unconstitutional.

The central issue in Obergefell was a conflict between two laws:  a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage, and the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court found the 14th Amendment trumped the state law.  And so, the state law bans on same-sex marriages were invalidated.  This left a situation where there is no ban on same-sex marriages, meaning that said marriages can proceed.

What the Supreme Court did was and is perfectly within the scope of Article III. 

Quote
I was not meaning they dont have to abide the law, I meant states have a choice on how to handle it. Each individual state is it's own being, a part that makes the whole and functions for it'self. The country is built upon this fact.

This is incorrect.  Each state can make certain laws, but must all abide by Federal laws--as well as the Constitution.  Each state operates not as an individual, but as part of a whole, operating for the whole.  Hence the "United" part of U.S.A.


Offline Garuss Vakarian

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #147 on: September 23, 2015, 10:14:59 AM »
  Try and imagine you were in such a situation. You lived in a country were the money bore the saying "There is no God, we must trust ourselves and each other". Christians were underrepresented in the Senate, the % of Christian there being a fifth of what the national %-tage was, and the national motto was "No Gods, only mortals" (it's a motto, you can just choose not to use it).

  This is what its like being an Atheist in a nation like the US with all the references to Christianity how do you think you would feel in the above scenario? Here's the thing: not mentioning God isn't atheist, its agnostic at best, neutral. Mentioning God (or indeed Gods) as not existing is atheist.

  So why isn't it "Before this court, I swear to tell the truth"? Why does God and the bible need to be brought into it?

  I know, but you referenced feeling being attacked because you were surrounded by leftist ideology in Uni, not because of what was happening in other countries.

Against my better judgement I cant help but respond, but do please continue this in pm. This is not about Kim Davis, even if we are talking about her religion.

Any way.

As I can imagine it would be pretty crappy. Hmm, do you remember me bringing up the Christian Revisionists? I think it is quite pertinent to bring up. They have a lot to do with how christianity got so ingrained in government. Christians as a whole just played ball. So, a world without those revisionists would probably see a country that meets things fairly half way, as it is a country where we both halve a right to exist.

Point taken, though I was mainly using it as I said, as a phrase or expression to express how I feel I am being treated. But it came off as rhetoric. As I stated it was poorly placed. Honestly I dont feel their is a war on christians, in this country at least.



Cycle: OMG, I need to stop commenting on what I started. >_< Has nothing to do with Kate. Pm me if you want to continue. Thank you. Sorry! Really all my fault for exploding things out of context, not theirs. T_T . To comment back you simply just circle jerked from what I said about states governing themselves and twisted it against what I was saying in spite of us both saying, literally, the exact same thing. States Govern themselves, but work to form the whole. Literally, basically, already said that. But again, off point. Pm me, I implore you. I implore all! Kate davis. Please read subject tag, Kim Davis. I know she is such a bore to talk about, and what she did is really crappy but you all knew what you were getting into in joining this discussion! So let's talk about her, as much as we would like to go on fit's in alternate directions, we should talk about her.... Man things are gonna be boring again. Maybe she is not so special to talk about after all? Lol.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2015, 10:17:30 AM by Garuss Vakarian »

Offline eBadger

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #148 on: September 24, 2015, 02:01:46 AM »
ebadger.. if i wasnt married... ^^ so.. can I adopt you? that was beautiful

Yes!  You would be the coolest mom. 

A Judge does not MAKE a law, he can not chose wethor or not to pass one. Only our congress can put a law through. To do so outside of congress is shady at best. I dont think the law is wrong, I think how it was formed was wrong. Plain and simple, you can not go behind congress.

That's correct, judges don't make laws; I'm glad you, me, and the supreme court all agree on that.  As I stated above, the law in question is the 14th amendment, passed by congress, ratified by enough states to become law as of 1868 (and incidentally by Ohio in 1867).  It states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The issue was that one member of a same sex couple, married in Maryland, was terminally ill.  Ohio would not recognize the marriage as valid, due to their ban on same sex marriage.  That interfered with various issues from medical care to inheritance to simple memorials.  Obergefell therefore sued to have the ban overturned and his rights as a married partner restored.  The question put to the supreme court was not creating a new law, but whether denying the right of marriage to homosexuals violated their equal protection under the law.  Their conclusion was that yes, it did. 

A president cant make a law permanently, only temporary.

I won't go into depth on this, but it's incorrect.  An executive order has the force of law (the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order) and no inherent expiration (the FBI was created by executive order, for instance). 

Honestly, the law really was pipped down. No other way to see it. It was forced down the pipe line. Im not saying the judge is on the wrong side of history, but it is dumb if we all act like it is all fine and peachy. That he dint GO AGAINST HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS. I know, for I am going to college for law. What he did was shady, but because of how our culture works, it is ok.

Is this an 'actively going to school' or an 'I intend to some day' sort of thing?

I'd respond to the rest of your objection, but you did it nicely yourself:

A state can make it's own laws, but congress can overrule them.

And that's exactly what happened. 

I am for the law, it is just shoddily put in place is all.

I'm sorry, this is...ah!  This line is why I HAD to respond to you.  As a historian, this makes my eyes bleed a little. 

The law is the 14th Amendment.  It's five paragraphs long, and took three years to complete.  It ended the Civil War and re-unified the nation.  It ended slavery.  It signaled that changes would have to be made to the very fabric of society, but also made clear that the south would be readmitted as equals.  It has served as the legal basis for nearly every advance in civil rights since, and proves to still be at the forefront 150 years later.  The equal rights clause drives directly to the heart of what is America; that every person is equal, that all have the same fundamental right to life, liberty, property and protection, without qualification or prevarication. 

Most of the Constitution is election procedures, federalism, checks and balances; all brilliant, but fuck it all.  The soul of our ideals and philosophies is the 14th Amendment.   

So no, it is not a damn bit shoddy. 

Though honestly if I were them id be more afraid of the left ha ha. Christians are like loud toy dogs, while the left are effective battle hardened pit fighters.

Yes, wanting to get married.  Brutal, that.  Merciless killers, like the Roman gladiators of old.  Christianity, on the other hand, has its hands completely clean of blood.  Arf arf. 

Sorry, just as a christian it is to easy to think people are having a war with you.

A quick litmus test for this sort of thing is to reverse the situation.  If a gay bureaucrat banned marriage for everyone who is Christian, citing religious issues, would that be acceptable? 

If there's a war on, it's because one side of the civil rights conflict is constantly putting the Christian Bible at the forefront of every debate.  Were I Christian, I would take issue with them, not the left. 

Im not saying you knee jerked, but I am saying in terms of partialy defending Kim. I did. So, for that I am sorry. She did really deserve what she got, I never denied that. But I did somewhat try and defend her position. Which really was not right.

No need to apologize for defending her; trying to see the best in someone is a fine quality, and speaking up when you perceive injustice is admirable.  We need more of that.  I just disagree with your reasoning and don't feel you have a good understanding of the facts. 
« Last Edit: September 24, 2015, 03:28:52 AM by eBadger »

Offline Sabre

Re: Kim Davis, Marriage Licenses, etc. (split from News)
« Reply #149 on: September 24, 2015, 08:19:36 AM »
The subject is not about a war on christians, but on KIM DAVIS.

The two seem inextricably linked by now, given her audience and support. Christian revisionism, dominionism, or Christian nationalism, however one might describe it, has adopted this cause as part of a narrative of a war on Christianity in America.

Quote
The motto is a hit or miss thing use it or dont, your choice. No one said you had to use the motto or your un american.

In fact it was adopted repeatedly in US history as a statement about what is and is not American, first against the Confederates and then against the Soviets. It again was confirmed after the invasion of Iraq, and in 2011 during the heated debate over Florida's Dixie County Courthouse's Ten Commandments monument. The motto has a history of affirmation of what it is to be American that makes it unique.

Quote
So ya, looks like the things are stacked against christians being, dun dun dun... The ones forcing their beliefs. Edit: But atheists try to force their ideas to, just not as aggressively. *Billboards, youtube, etc.) Its not more so forced as it is opinions being thrown out their more, but there are a fair number out their aggressively being atheist.

If we took the national motto mentioned above as an example, only something like 6 representatives voted against it. The difference between atheist, or really any minority or progressive group, and Christian projection of belief is that the latter can legislate, whereas the former must rely on judicial review.

Quote
Sorry if calling it a war on christians angers you, but it's how a lot feel. So is how someone feels really going to disgust you?

That is the whole point of calling such things 'war' in the first place. It draws a line in the sand, manipulating feelings for a militant response, and categorizes an enemy, in this case as aggressors. For minorities who felt besieged by the majority, it's a categorical reversal of their whole world view.

Quote
or Muslims. (Read their bible. Sharia law, real shit, pretty scary ideas. Befriend your neighbor, so you can kill them if they dont worship Alla. Thats the jist of that part of the Muslim bible.

Before asking others, are you sure you've read it yourself? Or, like the very phrase 'war on Christianity', have you taken someone's word as gospel, so to speak?