User Profile: Modern_Cicero


Member Since: June 01, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] July 21, 2014 at 3:42pm

    Don’t mistake this alienation and condemnation as having anything to do with Christianity, because it doesn’t. Jesus never carried signs saying, “You’re Going to Hell,” or, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”. Did He talk about sin? Sometimes. Did He encourage repentance? Invariably. Did He have compassion? Absolutely. You can read about Him for real in the Gospel of John, about two thirds of the way through any Bible.

  • [1] July 21, 2014 at 3:04pm

    You don’t really own your property any more. You rent it from the government and in most places it charges a rate where within 100 years your family ends up paying more than the value of the property just to remain on it. It at any point you don’t pay the rent, the government will sell it out from under you. This is unconstitutional; it assumes all property belongs to government in violation of the Declaration and the Bill of Rights.

  • [1] July 20, 2014 at 11:47pm

    They should have. Obama has borrowed $24,000 in just my name in just 5 1/2 years. To see how much he’s borrowed in your name, divide 310 million (the population of the U.S.) into 7.5 trillion (the amount the federal government has borrowed in just five years under Obama). Enough of that borrowed 7.5 trillion is being given to friends and channeled back to DNC coffers to be having a significant impact of party funding. So to go to Google or Bing to type in the phrase “7.5 trillion divided by 310 million” to see how much Obama has borrowed in your name.

  • [1] July 20, 2014 at 1:06am

    The police should have kept shooting.

  • [5] July 20, 2014 at 12:57am

    Where did you get that from? The article doesn’t even mention religion.

    Responses (4) +
  • [1] July 19, 2014 at 1:51am

    Yeah, it’s called the 2nd Amendment. Apparently the state Chris Christie is governor of doesn’t recognize that. Then again Chris Christie supports Common Core one-size-fits-all progressive values education, amnesty for illegal aliens and having schools instead of parents provide kids with dinners, so it’s no surprise.

  • July 18, 2014 at 6:37pm

    A wall of separation between church and state would be full freedom of religious expression for anyone, any place, anytime. What Atheists are trying to knit is not a wall but a building – the Official National Church of Humanism – in clear violation of the First Amendment.

  • [5] July 17, 2014 at 1:27pm

    Quick! Get her to speak about social justice or education!

  • [1] July 16, 2014 at 5:42pm

    Virginia State Law written by Thomas Jefferson and still on the books:

    “Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do….our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right.”

  • July 16, 2014 at 5:36pm

    J-Mo, by your own standard then non-Theists are have the right to have blind faith in abiogenesis and an ex-nihilo self creating universe at their homes and places of assembly, but their faith based philosophies of evolution, multiverse, panspermia, etc., should be prohibited on all government property because at issue is the involvement of government in the promotion of religion. Your blind faith informs your beliefs on origins, on daily decision making and on morality. ~That~ my friend, is the very definition of religion.

    But you know that we both have the right to speak freely about our beliefs, on government property or not, because it is a right belonging inherently to the people

  • July 16, 2014 at 5:29pm

    J-Mo, if you wish to promote ~your~ religion, non-theism, go for it! Just don’t use the auspices of government and taxpayer money to do so. According to the principles simply acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, all of us have the inherent right to freedom of expression – in a government office, out of a government office, on the street, in the home, on the beach, in the water. If you give the invocation, like the fellow in this story, you have a right to free expression. If I give the invocation, I have the same right.

  • July 15, 2014 at 7:26pm

    State religion is a government enforced religious position, like the Anglican Church of Britain or the Catholic Church of Spain.

    Ironically, the government actively promoting Naturalism and Humanism, while prohibiting other world views ~does~ constitute an establishment of religion, in violation of First Amendment (because it establishes an official position and prohibits others).

    Naturalism and Humanism are blind faith in a self generating universe and in abiogenesis, neither of which has been observed. That blind faith informs beliefs regarding origins, daily decision making and morality. That is the very definition of a religion. Well, excuse me if I say keep your manifesto off of my children and out of my government cemetery. If you want to present it as an alternate position in school or as a monument on public property, go right ahead. You have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But if you want to prohibit other positions, you’re violating the plain wording of the First Amendment, and any judge who agrees with you is revisionist and promoting Living Document fallacy (which is really just lawlessness).

  • July 15, 2014 at 7:14pm

    Son you didn’t read a thing I just said. You’re calling your blind faith in a self-generating universe and in self-generating life “science”, when it’s really simply belief and philosophy.

    Think I’m wrong? Show me the proof of ex nihilo universe generation, and of evolution. You’ll point to observed similarity and facts and say those observations prove your hypothesis, when they could just as easily be construed and pointing towards a position advocating design.

    Then you’ll bring up the two philosophical arguments I listed.

    Did you even read those?

  • [1] July 15, 2014 at 7:11pm

    J-Mo, if you interpret the beginning clause of the First Amendment as banning religious expression – because people may listen to the expression and feel compelled to follow it – rather than as simply prohibiting a national denomination like there was in Britain and almost every European power at the time of our founding, then you would need to also interpret the next clauses as being banned behavior as well.

    The same logic should be applied to either the entire First Amendment or to none of it.

    If, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, is interpreted as erecting a wall of separation prohibiting religious expression on government property, then by the ~exact same logic~, “[Congress shall make no law] abridging the freedom of speech” must be interpreted as meaning speech should be banned on government property too. Because someone might listen to it, consider it. Or even possibly be influenced by it!

    And so, applying your interpretation of the first clause of the First Amendment to the second clause, we have just outlawed the State of the Union Address, speeches on the House and Senate floors, and every other type of speech in government.

    The same logic would have to follow for, “[Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom] of the press”. Because someone might see or hear the press coverage and be influenced by it, feel oppressed by it, or be offended by it. Et

  • July 15, 2014 at 7:01pm

    J-Mo, the public schools are a monument to religious Naturalism and Humanism, based on blind faith in an ex nihilo self-generating universe and randomly self-generating life, neither of which has ever been observed. The arguments on behalf of this blind-faith are all philosophical – “We’ve never observed God” = non sequitur. As I’ve already pointed out we don’t observe universe formation or abiogenesis. “There are multiple exclusive explanations of God, therefore none is correct” = argumentum ad logicam (look it up). Those are philosophical arguments. Yet you incorrectly claim your philosophy is science and therefore insist on forcing it on everyone else. Your blind faith informs your thoughts on origins, on daily decision making and on morality. That is the very ~definition~ of religion. And, because you view nature and life as mythically self-creating, your teachings in our schools are resulting in an explosion in paganism, European occult and First Nation animism.

    Practice your Naturalism and Humanism in your own backyard. If you want to put up a monument to it on government property using donated money, that’s fine with me. You have freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

    Don’t criticize mine.

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] July 15, 2014 at 6:43pm

    Hitler, Mussolini and Franco all governed according to atheistic Darwinist principles. Because of “Hume’s Guillotine” (please look it up) secular ethicists may never make a claim to any form of absolute morality. They can never ultimately ~condemn~ the acts of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

    Christians have built more hospitals, schools and service oriented missions than atheists could ever dream of. Atheists on the other hand have built Marxists tyrannies and abortions clinics which have led to the deaths of hundreds of millions.

  • July 15, 2014 at 6:37pm

    Forcing the monument to be removed would be the actual violation of the First Amendment because it would, “prohibit the free exercise thereof”. It would also amount to a legal national respect towards religion giving deference towards Naturalism / Humanism, which would constitute a further violation of the First Amendment.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] July 15, 2014 at 6:11pm

    The 5 most dangerous types of foot apparel
    1. Shoes
    2. Sandals (also Footwear)
    3. Boots
    4. Heels
    5. Derringers

  • [1] July 15, 2014 at 5:59pm


  • [37] July 15, 2014 at 3:17pm

    I have a friend who keeps threatening to go into lesbian bars so he can say he’s, “a lesbian trapped inside of a man’s body,” and then start hitting on the girls.

    I wonder how much “tolerance” the good old GBLT crowd would have with that? They could have no grounds for protest. He’d be doing exactly what they’re advocating.

    “Hey babe! How ~you~ doin’!…”

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go