User Profile: blinknight


Member Since: January 17, 2013


123 To page: Go
  • October 4, 2015 at 8:45am


    Yes, cling to that desperate talking point so I will explain for the third time.

    The 1st Amendment applies to all levels of government and to all government institutions. You trying to pull just the Establishment portion out of context and pretending it does not also apply to everything else covered by it is amusing.

    You are doing this because, as I said, if you had to look at the entire thing in context then your argument falls completely apart. If it has to be ‘congress specifically’, and does not apply to all levels of government, then all of your 1st Amendment rights are subject to the whims and dictates of state and local government or the administrators of public instiutions.

    Univerities get sued all the time for infringing on free speech rights, and by your logic, the university should get to trample all over them because it ‘wasn’t congress’ that did it.

    The subject is not being ‘changed’, it’s being explained to you with a full understanding and not the context talking point you are clinging to.

  • October 4, 2015 at 8:38am


    Sure, after decades of rulings.

  • October 4, 2015 at 7:15am

    It took me a bit to find something on your level that you’re going to dismiss anyway. Did you want actual links to scientific studies? I can provide them, but you won’t be able to read them, and probably wouldn’t be able to understand them anyway.

    That is not a rimshot at your intelligence, but simply a statement that scientific studies tend to be full of jargon and ideas that only other researchers were meant to understand properly.

    About 5 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association, whom I’m sure is on on the conspriacy against what you want to think, indicated that ‘conversion therapies’ not only did not work but actually caused harm to peoples mental health. If people are just making a ‘choice’, why would this be the case, and what evidence do you have to support that?

    When did you choose to be straight? What were the factors? See because I never choose to be straight, I just started finding the opposite sex attractive at that ‘age’. It never entered my mind to be anything else.

    Why do you think people would choose to be gay if they could? They like being rejected by family? Possibly beat up in school? Constantly told they’re probably child molestors by ignorant idiots? Why would anyone put up with that by by ‘choice’?

  • [-1] October 4, 2015 at 7:00am


    As I just explained to you.

    The 1st Amendment applies to all levels of government and to all government institutions. If you are going to claim it does not apply equally at all levels, then how much of your freedom of speech can we infringe upon? How much of your freedom of the press can we infridge upon? How much of your freedom to petition government can we infridge upon?

    If it wasn’t congress, but some local government or government institution that did it, would it make it ‘okay’ to do those things?

  • October 4, 2015 at 6:38am


    No, what secularism actually is, not what you’ve convinced yourself it is because you feel threatened by it. The only people who feel threatened by secularism are religious fundamentalists. Everyone else understands that religious matters have their time and place, and that individual religious expression is fine, but that religion and religious ideas do not have to be ominpresent and in all things.

    Your local grocery store is secular. Your local car dealer is secular. Your government is supposed to be secular.

  • [-3] October 4, 2015 at 5:54am

    The 1st Amendment applies to all levels of goverment and in all government institutions.

    A religious display, and this is one, constitutes a violation of the Establishment clause, as the courts have ruled over and over again.

  • [-3] October 4, 2015 at 4:22am

    ‘He can’t mention’

    Sure he can, if he’s actually there. He can wear a shirt with those same verses on it, or if he has a car parked at the school it could have a sticker with those verses on it.

    What he can’t do is establish a display that remains there.

    Responses (6) +
  • [-1] October 4, 2015 at 4:21am

    ‘I think a space which does not promote or deny any religion is an atheist space, because I’m nuts’

    That is precisely how you sound.

  • [-2] October 4, 2015 at 4:19am

    It’s a public school and therefore cannot have religious material like that. It doesn’t matter how minor or harmless it is. The rule has to be absolute.

  • [-1] October 4, 2015 at 4:17am

    Did it ever occur to you that since the courts keep ruling in particular ways that maybe “they” might be on to something?

  • [10] October 3, 2015 at 5:13pm


    No, it is a lack of belief. I lack belief in gods, I’m an atheist. If you want to believe in a god, that’s entirely up to you.

    You are more than free to put up any display you want on private property, and anyone who tells you that you can’t is wrong. The removal of things from public property is due to the Establishment clause, and not just to spite you. They would be just as inappropriate if they said ‘There Is No God’ or were from another religion.


    Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive ideas. Most atheists are agnostics. An atheist is a person who lacks belief in gods, due to lack of evidence, while agnosticism is a claim of knowledge.

    Put simply: Most atheists do not believe in gods, but do not claim that no gods exist, if they did, they would be gnostic atheists, and there can be gnostic and agnostic theists too.

  • [1] October 3, 2015 at 5:07pm


    The more you try to claim ‘logical fallacy’ without understanding what they are, the stupidier you’re going to look. You’re not the first person who has done this here.

  • October 3, 2015 at 5:06pm

    ‘I don’t like it so it doesn’t count!’

    Well assuming you are married, it’s just a sick parody of true marriage in my opinion, so there.

  • [2] October 3, 2015 at 5:05pm

    SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly since the 1800s that marriage rights are a really thing that do exist.

  • [3] October 3, 2015 at 5:04pm


    That’s your definition of marriage, based largely on a religious concept that you want to defend because you have a problem with gay people, and to suggest that people need only give up who they are and live a lie to gain ‘equality’ is just nonsense.

    Let’s reverse it. Let’s pretend that gay marriage is legal but heterosexual marriage is not. How stupid would it sound for somebody to tell you ‘oh just marry somebody your own gender’

    What’s that? You want to marry the person you love? Well too bad.

    And if you’re going to argue that gay people couldn’t get married in a lot of places until recently, you’re just being dishonest, which is all you’re doing anyway.

  • [3] October 3, 2015 at 5:01pm


    Being gay is not a choice, but being a Christian is, so by your logic, those Christians oppressed by Muslims could just stop being Christians.

    And gay people are not pedophiles you absolute idiot. By far and away the most common type of abuse is men who prey on girls, does this make straight pedophiles?


    Once again, you would appear to not even know what a logical fallacy is. It’s not just that something is ‘illogical’, but follows a particular set of criteria. Go look up a list of logical fallacies and try understanding how dumb you are to just declare ‘logical fallacy’ without saying which one it is.

    In your case: a logical fallacy most certainly is not logic that you are too stupid to follow.

  • [-2] October 3, 2015 at 4:57pm


    Oh there you go being stupid again. If you’re going to claim that homosexuals haven’t been severely oppressed then you are really delusional. They were criminals until a few decades ago, forced to live in the shadows out of fear of what would happen to them.

    If Christians were being treated even half as badly, you would purely raging about the oppression.

  • [20] October 3, 2015 at 3:43pm

    Demonstrating once again.

    If the Palestinians would disarm, there would be no more violence.

    If the Israeli would disarm, there would be no more Israel.

    As I like to helpfully remind people. If the situation were reversed and the Palestinians were the ones with the powerful military and Israel were the ones in the West Bank/Gaza, do you think they’d show the same restaint?

    Hell no, they’d be carpet bombing everything and rolling tanks from one end to the other.

    Israel doesn’t wipe out the Palestinians because it doesn’t want to, Palestinians don’t wipe out Israel because they can’t.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-8] October 3, 2015 at 3:34pm

    ‘ hostile toward believers’

    Yeah, how dare they have a problem with people who have a long standing tradition of severely oppresing them, and how dare they have a problem with the attempt by said people to continue doing that.

    The nerve of some people.

    Responses (8) +
  • October 3, 2015 at 3:33pm

    ‘Making an accurate correlation between bigots who tried to lash out against people based on race and were no longer legally allowed to do it… and bigots who tried to lash out against people based on sexual orientation and are no longer legally allowed to it… Makes me uncomfortable’

    Responses (5) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love