bullets13

this whole analogy makes no sense. but the one part I would bring out of it is "if they don't want a God or want to believe that one doesn't exist, or that it is a made up being... great....but that doesn't mean our REAL (or made up) GOD should not be allowed to be worshipped." and my response is that nobody is telling you not to worship God... nor are they trying to keep you from doing so. again, the only thing Christians are not being allowed to do is expose Christianity to others who do not want to be exposed, or who's parents do not want them to be exposed to it. School, a place where children MUST go based on law, is not the place to do so anyway. There are measures in place to ensure that Christian students have the right to worship, both alone and in groups while at school, so apart from Christians just REALLY feeling like their Christianity puts them above following the Constitution, I don't really understand what they feel like they're losing when they aren't allowed to expose people who aren't interested in their beliefs.

My dad and I got off of our lease, which sucks, but we were having some issues with the owner. We should get on a new lease next year, but I'll have some hunting opportunities (we got drawn for two draw hunts through TPWD) and with a buddy and in-law, but it sucks being at their mercy to hunt at their convenience. I was hoping I'd have some deer on my new property in Fannett, but where I am is slim pickings, while I've seen big bucks a few miles down the road. if you guys get anything noteworthy, be sure to post some pics.

what difference does it make? if you don't believe it exists, you still don't want your kid ingrained with it at school, anymore than you would if you were muslim. why do Christians who don't believe in evolution not want their kids to hear about it in science class? If it doesn't exist in their mind, they should not care, right?

although differently worded, it is one of the six purposes of the constitution listed in the preamble.

All that said, I think that programs like Hawks For Christ and other similar clubs are valuable and important, and do have a place in schools. It is just important that schools make sure that they are operated in ways that are constitutionally fair to those who are not interested in being involved.

The wedding cake argument is a tough one for me, to be honest, but it's not the same issue. Denying someone.a service because of their sexuality is on one hand, the same as denying service because they're black, which is completely wrong. In this one instance, however, I actually agree with you. Because if you're a Christian who has strong beliefs about homosexuality, I think it's reasonable to deny this particular service, as it goes against the cake maker's religious beliefs. This is similar to a church choosing not to perform a same sex wedding. On the flip side, if a restarant owner denied service to homosexuals, I would have a huge problem with it, as eating is not something that he could claim as a pillar of his religion reserved only for heterosexuals. All that being said, denying someone a service based on religion is completely different than denying someone the right to force religion at a place where the government forces other people to go, or at an event sponsored by a place that is an extension of the government. The government does not have the power to stop individuals from partaking in religion, as this is their right, no matter where they are. But it does have the power to keep the majority, no matter their beliefs, from trampling on the rights of the minority. And when people claim their rights are being violated because they are not allowed to pray over a loud speaker or a school is not allowed to sponsor a Christian event, they're making a claim to rights that they in fact do not have.

I hear a lot of these statements, but then every time I see one of these "anti-Christian bigots" actually doing something, at least locally, it's because Christians are violating the constitution. I've never seen any of them trying to stop a church from having church, or even kids being able to worship at school. Children are always allowed to pray at school, can meet in groups and pray, are provided places to do so, can wear Christian shirts, etc. etc. But a public school, which is a public entity, may not endorse religion or religious activities. And IMO, a 2nd grader is not old enough to make that sort of decision on his own. So while it's great for a kid who's grown up in the church that his school is violating the constitution in the name of Christianity, it's not so great for the child who's parents don't agree with the religion, or God forbid would like for the child to grow a little older and then choose for himself. As long as the school clearly separates itself from promoting the program, then I don't see a problem. As Mat said, perhaps parents could organize it. I personally think a parental permission slip for children that age should be necessary, so that no parent who doesn't want a child to attend has to worry about their child being influenced into going. But seriously, enough with the "woe is me" victim card from Christians on this issue. the only right being taken away is that of forcing religion onto others, and lets be honest, if China Elementary advertised an Atheist activity on their FB page, the same people who are unhappy now would be even more unhappy, even though it would be the exact same thing.

I wish. when I checked back an hour or so later it was corrected.

When kbmt12 originally reported this, they had a pretty ridiculous typo in the first sentence of the report, which I found quite ironic. I have to figure out how to post pics with the new setup and I'll post a screenshot.

You've only experienced it from the left because no matter what someone from the right puts on this site, all righties immediately embrace it as fact and see no reason to criticize it. Some of the righties on here criticize lefties all the time, and yes some of the lefties do the same to the right. But righties outnumber lefties probably 25-1 on here, which is why I say it comes from that direction much more. So in that, at least, you and I are in agreement.

I was a member of HFC in high school, and it's a great program. I'm all for separation of church and state, but also for the freedom for students to worship. I think in this case their is probably a realistic gripe just in the fact that there's no way a 3rd grader is organizing their events. Which means a teacher is, made all the more obvious by the fact that their FB page has promoted the events. This is in fact unconstitutional as it is then sponsored by the school. The district has probably done the right thing by cutting the FB page, and if they take steps to find a way to ensure that the school is not promoting it, there should not be any more problems.

I don't think I'd qualify as a spelling Nazi. However, I would be lying if I said I didn't roll my eyes when one of the "commoners" on here goes on a rant about how stupid the "libtards" are, all the while completely oblivious to a clear grammar error, improper use of a word (their/there/they're, to/too/two, etc), or bad misspelling that's not an obvious smartphone autocorrect. There is the occasional liberal on here guilty of the same thing, but based simply on numbers it's not nearly as prevalent.

[Hidden Content]

I know that eventually this will get out of hand and probably get locked eventually, but we haven't had a good church/school debate in awhile.  What are your thoughts with Hawks For Christ, the threatened lawsuit against them, and HJ's actions that have been taken.

Sure. Both presidents did poor jobs, but both were given way to much credit for destroying the country from the opposing party.

send him to jail. period. don't let him plead it way down to some weak misdemeanor and probation. let him at least serve a couple of months. it's a life lesson he needs now. the kind of kid who would do something like this to a teacher is the same kind of kid who would shoot a clerk during a robbery (just my opinion). He has no respect for other people.

and all that being said in the previous post, you're still doing what the original poster did... giving WAY too much credit to how things were when Obama took over, and being way too overdramatic about how bad things actually are now.

only conservative Christians and those who share their viewpoints love 'Murica. Yeah, I get it. But seriously, too often conservative Christians confuse conservative Christian values with "American values". Sorry, but the two are not exclusively linked.

He made an allusion that implied that the country was perfect at the start of Obama's presidency, and is now a barren wasteland. My point in its entirety being that neither one of these is anywhere close to accurate.

you were there and know the true story? if not, then explain how you know it was an inaccurate headline, and also how you know she's using sexual orientation to gain leverage in a money grab. I'm not saying you're wrong, just curious how you seem to know so much about the situation.

Huh? This really doesn't make sense to me. A) your analogy would make it seem that our country was in perfect shape when Obama came into office, which it was not (I'd have a hard time saying it was even in decent shape). B ) your analogy would make it seem that our country is in terrible shape now, which again it isn't. I don't think Obama has been good for our country, but that doesn't change the fact that things weren't good already when he took over, or the fact that all of the predictions that he was going to destroy our country aren't accurate either.

I have no issues with marijuana being legalized, as it's no worse than alcohol. But I do have a problem with it being bought with food stamps, loophole or not.

The problem being if it came out, it was going to be a big deal. At least he was able to do it on his own terms.

Shovel is right about Sam being undersized for his position, but he's a very talented player.  Jerry may have had some ulterior motives in picking him up, but realistically Sam is likely good enough to play for the Cowboys this year, and the position he plays fits into their general defensive scheme.  I personally don't care what his sexual orientation is, nor do I care that he chose to tell the world.  As long as his play on the field is judged by his ability, he'll be given a fair shake.  if he can't cut it, then he shouldn't be given extra chances because he's gay.  on the flipside of that, if he can cut it, he shouldn't be given less chances because he's gay.  we'll see what happens.

I think that most people understand that a very high percentage (proportional to the general population) of professional female athletes are gay.  It's not a shock when we find out that another one is.