FFRF getting involved in the Bryant High School situation.

The FFRF has sent a letter to Bryant High School in Arkansas about the football coach organizing a prayer service for the football team.

FFRF Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott sent an August 22 letter to Bryant Public Schools Superintendent Randy Rutherford requesting he cancel the team religious worship service.

The school is violating the Constitution by endorsing and promoting a religious event. The school will trample on the Constitution by allowing the school- and coach-sponsored “Bryant Hornet Football Team Worship” to be held as planned.

“Bryant Public Schools has a duty to remain neutral toward religion,” Elliott wrote. “By one of its employees scheduling a religious service for a school athletic team, the district has breached that duty.”

The letter itself is a lovely piece of work.  Here are their demands at the end of the letter:

Coach Calley‘s actions are a clear violation of the Constitution. He may not organize a religious worship service for his team, nor may he invite players to attend such a service. Bryant Public Schools must take immediate corrective action, including instructing Coach Calley to cancel this team event. The District must educate Coach Calley and all District employees that they may  not lead, encourage, or participate in student religious activity. Please inform us in Writing at your earliest convenience of the steps the District is taking to remedy these violations.

When you’ve got the nuts, you bet ‘em.  If your opponent is dumb enough to call with nothing at that point, you just let ‘em lose.

Here’s hoping the superintendent will realize what a foredoomed lawsuit this would be and doesn’t punish the students for the coach’s errors by wasting dollars earmarked for education.  Of course, I doubt the prayer meeting was something of which the superintendent was ignorant, yet it has been allowed to occur every year.  So just knowing that it’s illegal hasn’t been enough…but maybe the threat of being caught will motivate him.

  • Criamon

    “When you’ve got the nuts, you bet ‘em.”

    Is that what you told Ed when he crushed you?

    (ducks)

  • Stephanie

    Seriously?! You must be a nut! You need to do your research and get your facts straight before you go posting stuff like this! The constitution plainly states that the people who live in this country have the freedom of religion!! A clear violation of the constitution?! You are just stirring up trouble! This directly affects me because I’m in Bryant, Arkansas. Since when does someone in Wisconsin get to dictate how we live all the way down here in Arkansas?! I just heard about this and I couldn’t believe it! Please mind your own business and let us continue to do things the way that we have always done them. Please leave Bryant, Arkansas alone. We have a saying down here in the south: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I’ll be praying for you. Thank you.

    • Fred Lunjevich

      Stephanie, freedom of religion doesn’t extend to forcing a specific religion on others, especially in a tax payer funded school. Just replace “Christianity” in this story with “Islam” and tell us how you would feel about that situation. Somehow I doubt you’d be a fan of Islamic prayers being forced on students. Besides that, the author is merely reporting on a situation in Bryant of a constitutional violation reported by a member of your town.

      • Stephanie

        Fred, I respectfully receive your comment. I just don’t understand why someone in Wisconsin has a say about what happens in Arkansas. I have honestly never posted a comment to something like this before but this is personal. I attended Bryant Public Schools from 2nd grade through graduation and prayer has always been a welcome part of football games. I don’t agree that one person or a small group of people should have authority over the beliefs of the majority of the people. We have rights as well. Why should our rights be taken away to accommodate a small number of people who just one day decide that they don’t like it and wish to change it. We are now being told to discontinue what we believe in and have always done. I will never understand this. Our rights are taken away so they can have theirs. This just does not make sense to me.

        • Fred Lunjevich

          Hi Stephanie. No one is taking away rights here. No one is telling you what you can or cannot believe. You can believe as you choose and the first amendment guarantees that. However, this issue is a question of context. For this to make sense really consider if this was an issue of a prayer from another religion. Is it the right of someone to pray over a football game to Allah? Would you be happy sitting in on such a prayer? What if you were in the minority? Should you just be expected to take accept it because the majority wants the Islamic prayer? If your answer is to no then I politely ask why your right to public prayer doesn’t extend to other faiths? People of any faith are free to practise their religion in private, at home and at church but you can’t force people who are not of your faith to participate in your religious ritual in a public situation.

        • phantomreader42

          You do not have a right to hijack the government and steal tax money to promote your sick death cult to a captive audience on public property. You never had any such right. Whoever told you you did is a liar and a traitor, and you are an idiot for believing them.

        • 23cal

          Stephanie:

          “I just don’t understand why someone in Wisconsin has a say about what happens in Arkansas.” That’s easy. They are both part of AMERICA. The Constitution covers the entire country. That is why Americans in Wisconsin have a say about what happens in Arkansas.

          “….. prayer has always been a welcome part of football games.” You can’t speak for everyone. I have no doubt that you and most people who want to appear to be Christian think it is welcome, but not everyone is either you or someone who wants to appear to be Christian. I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever how many agnostics, atheists, Wiccans, Jews,and so on have not welcomed it at all, but have been intimidated into silent acceptance…..by people like you.

          “I don’t agree that one person or a small group of people should have authority over the beliefs of the majority of the people.” Take it up with the Supreme Court. They are the ones who have the authority to make that call. They have clearly made it on the side of protecting the rights of the minorities. I might also note they do not have authority over your beliefs, unless your “belief” includes forcing your preferred faith onto others through the government by way of the schools.

          “We have rights as well.” You do indeed. Using the government to force your faith onto others is not one of those rights.

          “Why should our rights be taken away….” No one is taking away your rights. They are putting a stop to illegal actions. You do not have a right to perform illegal actions.

          “I will never understand this.” NO, you won’t. To understand that would require the empathy of putting yourself into the shoes of a minority. It would require more respect for the Constitution and for established jurisprudence than the selfishness of having something just because you want it. It requires accepting that in America there is legally no special privilege for Christianity. It requires grasping that getting away with illegal actions for a period of time doesn’t mean that you get to continue getting away with them forever.

        • baal

          Hi stephanie,

          When one (and it is pretty much just the local dominant protestant sect more often than not) religion gets to have its prayers heard by the school body, that’s a privilege*. While you all have enjoyed that privilege for a while, it’s time to show greater respect for everyone else and not invoke that privilege. I understand it feels like a loss to you but it feels like freedom to the non-believers and believers of other faiths.

          *privilege, you get something that others don’t and it’s essentially free to you.

        • DavidMHart

          “I just don’t understand why someone in Wisconsin has a say about what happens in Arkansas.”

          Let’s imagine that, say, the Arkansas legislature passed a law that banned black people from voting. Let’s also imagine that this law was extremely popular among most of the population of Arkansas. Black people living in Wisconsin might be motivated to speak out against this blatant violation of the 15th Amendment, and worried that if it wasn’t challenged, then other states might be motivated to pass similar laws, and then they too might be disenfranchised.

          I presume you are able to see in this cartoonishly obvious case why, when the constitution is violated in one state, people in another state shouldn’t be obliged to mind their own business.

          Well, just as black people have the same constitutional right as every other racial group not to be disenfranchised on the basis or race, so atheists have the same constitutional right as every other position-regarding-religion not to have the government favour any religious viewpoint over another.

          The 1st Amendment jurisprudence has clearly and consistently decided that, while individuals have the right to believe in as many or as few gods as they like, and to worship those gods peacefully in their own time, the government, including those who are employed by the government – eg staff at state schools are prohibited from endorsing one religious viewpoint over another while speaking for the branch of government they work for. This is why having the school coach lead Christian prayers is unconstitutional. It is also why it would be unconstitutional for an atheist coach to insist on the team members not saying prayers individually before a match, or a Muslim coach insisting on praying in the name of Mohammed. Don’t knock the separation of church and state; it protects you just as it protects us.

          I will never understand this. Our rights are taken away so they can have theirs. This just does not make sense to me.

          What right, exactly, are you asserting? If you think that you have a right, as a Christian, to have the coach lead everyone in Christian prayers, you must also concede that Muslim team members have a right to have the coach lead everyone in Muslim prayers. Substitute ‘Hindu’, ‘Zoroastrian’, ‘Buddhist’, ‘Shintoist’ etc, and in a sufficiently multicultural team, you’d never make it onto the field, the time for the match would be over before you were all done praying. Heck, you’d even have to concede that atheist team members had a right to have the coach lead the team in a public affirmation of everyone’s non-belief in gods, if they wanted. Why should they be left out?

          Of course, the only practical solution that is fair to everyone is for none of the above to happen – and in fact that is what ought legally to happen, since no one has a constitutional right to have the government favour his or her religious viewpoint over other religious viewpoint, and they certainly don’t have the right to have government employees employ pressure, however subtle, to compel anyone else to join in their particular religious activities.

          No one’s rights are being taken away. The only thing that is being taken away is one group’s privilege which was never legally theirs, but which they have been able to get away with because no one has called them on it until now.

          Do you understand now?

    • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

      Violations of church/state separation affect everyone.

      The Constitution specifically prohibits the government, in this case an agent of the government like a teacher or a coach, from using their position to promote any religion.

      Case law has rendered this issue moot. The Supreme Court, empowered by the Constitution to rule on the constitutionality of government agents promoting religion, has made decision after decision in favor of church/state separation and against conjoining religion with government.

      And, no, we can’t leave it alone because it affects us all, whether you live in Arkansas or Wisconsin, Maryland or Oregon.

      Your attitude, and the coach’s actions, are what is broke. And we aim to fix it.

      • Steve Willy

        Shut your butt you neck bearded megadouche. Your teeth are showing.

        • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

          Awwwww, how cute!

          I saw what you did: instead of actually addressing my points, you threw out a childish, school-yard, cry-baby taunt!

          You could have refuted each point I made, citing case law and legal precedent, quoting famous Americans and statesmen, and roundly defeated me.

          Instead, you pathetically insult me …. and expect me to, what, …. cry? … admit defeat due to your obviously learned position?

          I guess you made the best choice available to you – not the choice a rational, skilled debater would choose, and not the choice a rank novice in the debating arts would choose, but the choice a foolish child who thinks that bullying and calling names is the height of sophistication.

          Too bad you couldn’t at least show a little wit or style, but unsurprisingly you acted liked a petulant child.

          Be quiet, kid, the adults in the room are talking…..

          • Steve Willy

            I didn’t know Neckbeard State had a law school now. Is it ABA accredited?

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            Awwwwwwwwww, Stevie!

            Again with the lack of any substantive reply to my points. Are you scared, Stevie? Scared that insults are all you can give to a serious discussion?

            Try reading for comprehension:

            The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings have overwhelmingly supported Church-State Separation.

            I know, I know, you could educate yourself on these matters or spew insults like a child, and you chose to spew.

            Unfortunate, really. You could be a better person than you are. You could actually respond to the points I’ve raised.

          • Steve Willy

            You must have been editor of the law review at the Neckbeard State School of Law. I’m sure you will breeze through the bar exam in the State of Hitchen-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling megadouchery.

          • baal

            Steve Willy, I’m looking at your neck. It’s totally bearded. This makes you the neckbeard and your comments prove you’re totally neckbearded.

          • Steve Willy

            I think you tacitly know that its time for you to stfu. Search your heart, you know it to be true.

          • baal

            Your usage of “tacitly” is non-standard and misuse of “tacitly” has got to be the most neckbearded thing I’ve read today. My heart, on the other hand, is warm. Why you ask? ’cause my heart has it’s own Steve Willy Neckbeard keeping it warm. And, this is a little aggressive for me, I want to make you stfu from all your holes. (hrm, stricken portion is just too weird even for me, must be that you bring out my neckbeard in its full glory and bloom)

            Anywhooo, I like it when folks have opinions that are founded on something. All you do is hurl insults. It doesn’t help whatever side you’re representing.

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            I see you’re still failing to address any of my points, little boy. All you have are insults. Cry, little Stevie, cry out your hatred! It’s all you have.

    • infidel1000

      Yeah, Stephanie. Seriously. Why is it that most southern baptist types all seem to have just awakened from a 150 (or 236) year nap? Instead of calling them “born again”, I suggest we call them “born yesterday”.

    • Derrik Pates

      Freedom of religion doesn’t mean “we get to do whatever we want in furtherance of our religion”. It’s a public school. That’s run and funded by the government. The same government that gets our tax dollars. Yours and mine. How would you feel if it was any religion that wasn’t Christianity? Somehow I’m guessing if that teacher was “encouraging” his students to go to a Muslim or Baha’i or Hindu religious gathering, you would be saying “b-b-but separation of church and state!” Same rules apply.

  • Steve Willy

    Wow, you guys have really opened my eyes. Articles like this really blow my mind. You make some powerful points, except … let’s put the Hitchens-Dawkins Kool-Aid down for a while and look at reality: Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality…. Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life.
    Indeed, why are you even bothering to comment at all? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’
    2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.

    In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.

    Finally, is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who doesn’t drag themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged onto this site in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? Let me translate that to neckbeard: you are unoriginal, you are wrong, and you are an ass.

    • DavidMHart

      “you are unoriginal”

      …says the guy who has just copypasta’d his stock rant for the umpteenth time despite it having almost nothing to do with the content of the blogpost.

      • katiehippie

        “Hitchens-Dawkins Kool-Aid” No fair, I never got any of that. Is it good? Does it go well with alcohol?

        • madcapfeline

          Everything goes well with alcohol. ;)

        • Derrik Pates

          Well, if Hitch is involved, it has to go well with Johnnie Black.

    • phantomreader42

      Neckbeard Stevie chanted:

      Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality

      Do you have any idea what these phrases refer to, or are you just sitting there repeating them while masturbating? All of your idiotic mantras have been refuted multiple times, you’re just too stupid and dishonest to notice, and too lazy and unoriginal to stop posting the same tired nonsensical rant. Your worldview lies shattered at your feet, neckbeard, the shards lost in the puddle of your own filth you wallow in. Fuck off, worthless delusional spambot.

    • phantomreader42

      You can’t even be bothered to make shitty arguments, you just regurgitate the names of other people’s shitty arguments without including any content, as if those names are magical incantations. Just as with your chanting of “neckbeard”, the incantations don’t work, but you’re apparently too stupid to notice that.

      The shitty arguments you can’t be bothered to even try justifying have already been dealt with, so your worldview lies shattered at your feet, even if you’re too dishonest to admit it. So I won’t bother refuting that idiocy again, since you won’t acknowledge it anyway.

      But why don’t YOU shoot YOURSELF in the face, brain-dead-troll-formerly-known-as-Thorgasm? Why should anyone feel the need to justify their life to you? You’re just a delusional spammer who can’t even pretend to make a meaningful argument! YOU are the one who is projecting your own utter worthlessness onto everyone else. You don’t know anything about anyone, but you delude yourself into thinking you’re qualified to advocate suicide (and yes, that IS what you are doing, you lying sack of shit) because the only reason you haven’t put a bullet through your tiny brain is that you’re waiting for the voices in your head to give you permission to slaughter the infidels and bathe in their blood. News flash, asshole, not everyone is as stupid, lazy, dishonest, hateful, willfully ignorant and miserable as your sick death cult makes you.

      In addition to the obvious fact that they aren’t true, your religious delusions have not made you honest, or kind, or smart, or happy, or moral. So what the fuck are they good for?

      • Steve Willy

        Are you going to pretend this is something other than an unrestrained neck bearded ad hominem attack? I thought yours was supposed to be the side of reason and logic. What you have offered here is atheism’s equivalent of a fire and brimestone sermon.

        • phantomreader42

          ad hominem” is not a fancy Latin word for “insult”. “Neckbeard” is not a magical banishing spell. “Reason” and “logic” are terms with actual meanings, not mystical talismans you can invoke to stop atheists from mocking you for saying stupid shit. The shitty arguments you use as a mantra without the slightest interest in understanding them have already been torn to bloody shreds, many times, but you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge the existence of the comments refuting them. You have nothing to offer but lies, stupidity, and incessant chanting of “neckbeard”. To say that you’re full of shit would be an insult to shit, which is at least useful as fertilizer. you aren’t capable of communicating, you just regurgitate idiotic phrases that you think are magic. You’ve dedicated your entire existence to attacking atheists, but you’ve never even spoken to a single one, just preached nonsense hoping it would make everyone bow down and worship you, then whined like a spoiled child when people don’t fall for your garbage.

          • Steve Willy

            I think you tacitly know that its time for you to stfu. Search your heart, you know it to be true.

          • Zinc Avenger

            Hehe you abbreviated “fuck”, you said a naughty word. BAD WORD!

          • islandbrewer

            Hey Neckbeardio! You forgot the gratuitous and undefined neckbeard wildcard!

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            Wow, I’m awed by your extremely persuasive arguments. What logic! What debate ability! What a limp Willy!

            Try again or maybe try to post something remotely valid to support your position, which quite frankly seems to be pathetically reduced to “you” + “stfu.”

          • phantomreader42

            Misquoting a fictitious murderer does not give you magical mind-reading powers, Neckbeard Stevie. The projection is strong in you.

          • Steve Willy

            And the Hitchens-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling megadouchery is strong in you, you balless dweeb.

          • phantomreader42

            How would you know if someone was parroting Hitchens or Dawkins (who, as much as it may shock you, are separate people)? You’ve clearly never read anything either of them wrote, or listened to anything either of them said. Then again, you clearly never read anything ANYONE writes, or listen to anything ANYONE says. Aside from some feeble attempts to misapparopriate phrases, I’ve never seen any of your posts show the slightest sign that you even READ whatever you’re pretending to respond to. You just preach to the voices in your head and randomly babble about neckbeards. Are you even capable of reading for comprehension? Or at all, for that matter? Are you even a human being, Neckbeard Stevie, or just a poorly-programmed spambot?

          • islandbrewer

            Wait, you forgot “neckbeard” again! Did someone fiddle with your code, Chatbot Steve Willy?

        • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

          Stevie, Stevie, Stevie,

          At least try to be clever with your insults. They barely make the grade above kindergarten.

          Perhaps you could present a viable argument to support your side but I expect that ability is as stunted as your skill at insults.

          • Steve Willy

            The time is always right to do right. There is still time for you to do the right thing here. Get the Hell away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. You Hitchens-Dawkins parroting basement dwelling megadouche.

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            The time is always right for you, Stevie, as well. Perhaps this is a long shot but just maybe you could learn a little about Church-State Separation. Learn, Stevie, learn. It’s the right thing to do. Set aside your pathetic childish insults and engage with other people intelligently.

          • Steve Willy

            Hey Bare Mullets aka Harry Neckman, Esq., I see that you are into case law. “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. City of Warren, 707 F.3d 686, 694 (6th Cir. 2013), quoting Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313; 72 S. Ct. 679 (1952).

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            I see your one case, raise and call:

            http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

            U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
            (arranged by date)

            McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
            Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

            Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
            Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

            Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
            Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) – Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

            Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
            State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state’s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

            Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
            Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state:
            1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
            2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
            3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

            Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
            Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

            Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
            State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

            Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
            Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of “creation science” in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

            Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
            Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

          • Steve Willy

            Does Neckbeard State School of Law teach that infidels.org is legally authoritative? You might have more trouble with the bar exam than I first thought. Citing infidels.org is a bit like citing the Bible to prove God’s existence. “Jesus is imaginary this I know, for infidels.org tells me so!” You are as mindlessly dogmatic as the fundamentalists you rail against. Its time to find that quiet place, Neckbeard, Esq., and rethink your life.

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            Hey Stevie,

            I can’t believe that even you are so dense. I was not quoting infadels.org, but merely showing where I got the info from. It’s known as citing sources.

            In each of these 9 Supreme Court cases listed above (yes, they actually exist, feel free to look them up), the Separation of Church and State was upheld by the Supreme Court.

            Educate yourself on these 9 Supreme Court cases. They totally blow your position out of the water.

            You are the “mindless dogmatic” one. You can’t even admit when you are wrong and so are reduced to petty insults, showing your extreme lack of moral character. Perhaps you should rethink your life and become a more honest, less ignorant person. Your religious beliefs have not made you a better person. In fact, you’re worse because of them.

          • Steve Willy

            Did you cut and paste that rant from infidels.org too?

          • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

            Did you read up on those 9 Supreme Court cases that destroy your position? I’m guessing not, since you still refuse to admit you are wrong.

            Be a better person, Stevie. Quit insulting people who are trying to educate you. You can be more honest, all you have to do is make the change to the better for yourself.

        • JohnH2

          Steve Willy,

          I was under the impression that Christian side was supposed to be one of loving ones neighbor as oneself, blessing and loving ones enemies, and forgiving those that treat one poorly. The Holy Spirit is supposed to fill one with love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, and gentleness. I ask you to consider whether the tone and content of your comments are filled and express those things. Is it light and truth that you are trying to shine so brightly so that others see the goodness and glorify God, or perhaps is your light darkness?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X