CommentsDisplaying Lesbian Packing Hollow Points's 10 most recent comments.

Wild Video: Alleged Teacher Goes Ballistic, Beats Christian Ministry Workers With Her Purse Following Church vs. State Debate

June 19, 2013 at 1:37pm

In reply to Karama.

So, since you have the freedom of speech, you can be forced by law to speak when it is against your interests?

So, since you have the freedom of press, you can be forced by law to write when it is against your interests?

So, since you have the freedom of religion, you can be forced by law to worship when it is against your interests?

That is what people who want to use the law to promote their favourite religion, be it Christianity, Islam, or what have you, really mean when they make the vapid argument that there is no freedom FROM religion. All freedoms TO come with their flipside freedoms FROM. You can’t have the one without the other. They are inseparable.
Wild Video: Alleged Teacher Goes Ballistic, Beats Christian Ministry Workers With Her Purse Following Church vs. State Debate

June 19, 2013 at 1:03pm

In reply to Lesbian Packing Hollow Points.

@ LTB:
I never said that Atheism is NOT a religion. In fact, I now say the precise opposite. Atheism is a religion.

@ Devon Reye:
Feel free to use it yourself.

@ LTB (again):
Note that the 1st Amendment says nothing about the established religions themselves. It says that Congress (and by extension via the 14th Amendment, all levels of government, barnone) shall make NO LAW which “respects” the establishment of religion. It doesn’t matter if this is a Christian Nation. No law may be passed which uses the authority of government to enforce that religion.

@ You Gotta Be Kidding:
A qualified “No.” The qualification being that you not be a government official directing the actions of others to join you. If you are not a government official, a lone actor or a private official for instance, then your actions cannot be construed to be respecting an establishment of religion by a government official. Likewise, if you are a government official, which a public school teacher is, like it or not, but you are not directing the actions of others, your students, for instance, then your religious exercise cannot be construed to be respecting the establishment of religion by a government official, but merely a government official privately practicing their religion in a place which happens to be public. Note that that means you take the accoutrement of your religious practice with you when you leave. No setting up crèches on the town square and then leaving them there.
Wild Video: Alleged Teacher Goes Ballistic, Beats Christian Ministry Workers With Her Purse Following Church vs. State Debate

June 19, 2013 at 12:21pm

Okay, for the hard of thinking, here’s everything the First Amendment has to say on the topic of religion.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

No, the phrase, “wall of separation of church and state” does not appear here. It appears in a letter penned by the hand of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists who were afraid the other Christians were going to pass laws mandating the government establish a preference for one form of Christianity over their own. I’ll take Tommy J.’s word on what the Constitution means over any contemporary “experts”.

Christianity has no place in public schools, any more or less so than Judaism, Islam, Atheism, Hinduism, Paganism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shinto, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or any other faith-based cultural traditions. No one is free to use the authority of the state to make the exercise of their religion easier where they claim their exercise of their religion means they have authority to force their religious views and/or practices upon you in a public place. And no, the absence of religious practices in the public square does not mean the public square is being used to demonstrate Atheism.

Atheism is not the absence of religious practice, and the absence of religious practice is not Atheism.
Caught on Dashcam: Transgender Woman Flashes Police Officer After Dancing Topless on Side of the Road

June 19, 2013 at 9:38am

In reply to TXVET48.

Funny. I thought plastic surgeons thrived on the opposite proposition.
Your Kids Could Be Playing a ‘Simpsons’ Game with Buried Anti-NRA, Anti-Gun Messages

June 18, 2013 at 5:33pm

I knew there was a reason I swore off wasting any time watching The Simpsons 25 years ago.
This Is Why You Never Threaten a Man’s Daughter…

June 18, 2013 at 11:13am

My question is why does the file photo at the top of this article show a proper 1911 .45ACP, while the file photo on the front page shows a 1911 with a 9mm conversion kit installed? Note the smaller inner circle at the muzzle indicating that the actual barrel in that handgun is not the full-sized .45ACP type.
There’s an Actual Pagan Academy in NYC Training Adults to Become Real-Life Witches

June 17, 2013 at 3:15pm

In reply to Lesbian Packing Hollow Points.

@ Locked:
Never let it be said that LPHP ever passed up the opportunity to jab a sharpened rhetorical stick in the eye of any supremacists, especially religious supremacists.
Proof-of-Citizenship Voter Law Struck Down by Supreme Court — and Guess Who Voted with the Majority

June 17, 2013 at 11:31am

In reply to Lesbian Packing Hollow Points.

move = most

mea culpa
There’s an Actual Pagan Academy in NYC Training Adults to Become Real-Life Witches

June 17, 2013 at 11:20am

“There’s an Actual Christian Seminary in NYC Training Adults to Become Real-Life Priests”

If the above “headline” would not be newsworthy, then I fail to see how the headline of this story makes this story any more newsworthy. This is a non-story wasting Blazers’ time and mindspace on trivial matters. Worse, they are trivial matters masquerading in the text as matters of vital interest. T’would be better to have another sea lion just wanted to be petted story than this twaddle.
Proof-of-Citizenship Voter Law Struck Down by Supreme Court — and Guess Who Voted with the Majority

June 17, 2013 at 11:14am

You have to be a citizen in order to vote, but the government can’t require proof of citizenship in order for a person to use a form only useful for registering to vote?

That is the move mutilated form of illogic I’ve yet heard from the high court, even more so than “It’s a tax. It’s a fine. It’s a tax that’s fine.”