Bill O'reilly Cries over Atheist Display at Washington State Capitol

[Tsudo]

Yes it does. Again, his point was that even if that last part on the plaque was not there, there still would have been a huge cry fest. Do you really think there wouldn't have been?

If there was, would it be any more or less valid (as alluded to) than the cry fest that caused the sign to go up in the first place?

Do you believe the sign would have gone up had a nativity scene not been there?

It all started because someone got offended and it trying to retaliate.

[JAGERBOY]

If there was, would it be any more or less valid (as alluded to) than the cry fest that caused the sign to go up in the first place?

Do you believe the sign would have gone up had a nativity scene not been there?

It all started because someone got offended and it trying to retaliate.

Right, because we've been dealing with this blatant biased bs for years! Are you kidding me? If there is nothing wrong with making religious statments about reality , then there should also be nothing wrong about making non-religious statements about reality.

There are only 3 solutions,

1. create a space on government property for EVERY SINGLE religious or non religious belief system

2. Only endorse or represent ONE religious belief system (Christianity)

3. Or just don't endorse or represent ANY religious or non religious beliefs systems

Which one seems the most realistic and fair?

[Tsudo]

Right, because we've been dealing with this blatant biased bs for years! Are you kidding me? If there is nothing wrong with making religious statments about reality , then there should also be nothing wrong about making non-religious statements about reality.

There are only 2 fair solutions, create a space on government property for EVERY SINGLE religious or non religious belief system....or just don't endorse/represent ANY of them. Which one do you think is more realistic and fair?

What statement was made? A nativity scene asserts nothing.

[JAGERBOY]

What statement was made? A nativity scene asserts nothing.

Please quote my edited version and Ill reply.

[Centurions]

Right, because we've been dealing with this blatant biased bs for years! Are you kidding me? If there is nothing wrong with making religious statments about reality , then there should also be nothing wrong about making non-religious statements about reality.

There are only 3 solutions,

1. create a space on government property for EVERY SINGLE religious or non religious belief system

2. Only endorse or represent ONE religious belief system (Christianity)

3. Or just don't endorse or represent ANY religious or non religious beliefs systems

Which one seems the most realistic and fair?

The 2nd one because we live in a democracy where the majority should get what it wants. If the majority is Christian, than we shouldn't have to hide our nativity scenes because a few gay emos don't like it.

[bamatank]

Right, because we've been dealing with this blatant biased bs for years! Are you kidding me? If there is nothing wrong with making religious statments about reality , then there should also be nothing wrong about making non-religious statements about reality.

There are only 3 solutions,

1. create a space on government property for EVERY SINGLE religious or non religious belief system

2. Only endorse or represent ONE religious belief system (Christianity)

3. Or just don't endorse or represent ANY religious or non religious beliefs systems

Which one seems the most realistic and fair?

The 3rd, obviously.

[tenthirtytwo]

My point was simply this: justifying the public outcry over the sign because it insults religion is a red herring. While it may be true that the sign does insult religion, it is not why it is being protested. It is not why the public is having a ****fest over it.

They are freaking out because it is an atheistic sign next to a nativity scene. Period. And whether that atheistic sign said "all religious nutjobbers need a lobotomy" or "atheists believe there are no gods", the reaction would be more or less the same.

Billdo made many helpful suggestions like "they could have waited until after Christmas to put it up" and "they could have put it away from the nativity scene". That is true, they could have. But wouldn't the sign still have been just as insulting to religion? If so, why would that be any better?

[JAGERBOY]

The 2nd one because we live in a democracy where the majority should get what it wants. If the majority is Christian, than we shouldn't have to hide our nativity scenes because a few gay emos don't like it.

If you would have bothered to watch the second video, then you'd know that we have laws and the constitution that protects the minority from the majority. Also, you can put up 10,000 nativity scenes in your front yard if you want to, thats not the problem. Its when the GOVERNMENT starts doing that. The government represents everyone, not just one segment of society.

[Anticrombie315]

he said the teachings of Jesus. you quoting the old testement is useless. you do realize that christians don't believe in killing homosexuals and those committing adultry right?

That's right, they get to choose which parts to follow, and which parts to take as 'metaphors'. I forgot.

And I was speaking on Christianity as a whole when I said that no good came out of it. He decided to make it about Jesus because Jesus was a "good guy". The fact that nothing bad can be said about Jesus doesn't make Christianity "good".

[SDMuscleBuddy]

The 2nd one because we live in a democracy where the majority should get what it wants. If the majority is Christian, than we shouldn't have to hide our nativity scenes because a few gay emos don't like it.

That is not how a free society works. Majority rule does not apply here. This is a government Of, By, and For The People. All people, not just some of them. Religions, in this country, are social institutions and as we are all equally free to join the religion of our choosing, all religions should have equal access to public property. We can only have true religious freedom if we allow access to all religions, or none of them. Take your pick.

[Aran]

That's right, they get to choose which parts to follow, and which parts to take as 'metaphors'. I forgot.

And I was speaking on Christianity as a whole when I said that no good came out of it. He decided to make it about Jesus because Jesus was a "good guy". The fact that nothing bad can be said about Jesus doesn't make Christianity "good".

the laws you quoted are the laws that governed the nation of israel back several thousand years ago. it's an historical matter..neither taken as a command for christians nor as "metaphors."

and no, he decided to make it about jesus because the nativity scene and the christmas holiday are celebrating his birth.

[KRANE]

Right, because we've been dealing with this blatant biased bs for years! Are you kidding me? If there is nothing wrong with making religious statments about reality , then there should also be nothing wrong about making non-religious statements about reality.

There are only 3 solutions,

1. create a space on government property for EVERY SINGLE religious or non religious belief system

2. Only endorse or represent ONE religious belief system (Christianity)

3. Or just don't endorse or represent ANY religious or non religious beliefs systems

Which one seems the most realistic and fair?

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:3-4

You have a lot to learn!!

To be fair, the atheistic sign didn't just say, "there is no god." It went on to say that religion, "was a myth, a superstition, that hardens hearts, and enslaves minds." That sounds like a slap in the face; just like I'm sure atheists don't like it when they are told they have hardened hearts, are condemned to hell, and eat babies, etc.

Then maybe they should read the Bible? It's full of examples of non believers and how they conducted their lives before the word of salvation appeared. If you find that type of existance preferable, then by all means join their group. But it's one thing not to believe in God, it's another to actively turn people away from him. That's Satan's oldest and greatest weapon; and only the most evil of men would support such a thing.

Of all the sins man is capable of there is none greater than that level of corruption.

I can't argue "good" with you, because for one, you are a moron, and for two, you have nothing to counter with other than the bible.

For someone that has all the answers you certainly resort to name calling soon enough. Fortunately, I'm grown up enough to know what my limitation and abilities are. In any event, that's what the ignore function is for.

You should also keep in mind that sticking your head in the sand while standing on a railroad track won't stop tha which is inevitable. Sooner or later the train is going to come. You can either make a decision, or get run over.

But I would define good is "healthy for society", and plenty of what the bible teaches is arguably unhealthy for society.

There are a lot of lessons in the Bible, but Jesus only taught good. If you want to know what good is...follow him!

[JAGERBOY]

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:3-4

You have a lot to learn!!

I don't get how that relates to what I posted. Care to elaborate?

[KRANE]

I don't get how that relates to what I posted. Care to elaborate?

For what? Entertainment purposes? Since you've already made up your mind, my words would fall on death ears. That's why I keep it short and sweet.

[Tsudo]

Then maybe they should read the Bible? It's full of examples of non believers and how they conducted their lives before the word of salvation appeared. If you find that type of existence preferable, then by all means join their group. But it's one thing not to believe in God, it's another to actively turn people away from him. That's Satan's oldest and greatest weapon; and only the most evil of men would support such a thing.

I'm not exactly sure what prompted this...I don't find that type of existence preferable. I'm content with my relationship (and how it continues) with the Lord.

[JAGERBOY]

For what? Entertainment purposes? Since you've already made up your mind, my words would fall on death ears. That's why I keep it short and sweet.

Then whats the point of posting? I've taken speech and business communication courses, and one thing I've learned that is if your audience isn't clear on what you've said, you have failed at delivering a successful speech.

[KRANE]

Then whats the point of posting? I've taken speech and business communication courses, and one thing I've learned that is if your audience isn't clear on what you've said, you have failed at delivering a successful speech.

That probably the most educated thing I've ever heard you say. And you're absolutely correct. However, sometimes it's not possible to says everything you want/should say. In those case, you have to limit the wording to a point where it envoke some measure of contemplation rather than feeding someone everything you think they sould know. That's why everything I write is not always completely forthecoming. In addition, you have to take care not to insult your "audience"--or the person you're addressing--while still getting as much of the message across as you can.

Nevertheless, in this type of communication (rhetorical speak?) sometimes it's not necessary to say it all in words, rather, to lead the person (the horse) to do some thinking on his own. Remember, it's not always what you say that counts--sometimes, it's what you don't say!

Did you get all that...uhh, Scotty?

[NJlifter88]

bill o'reilly is a dumbass. hes on the air because his abrasive personality is good for ratings. thats all.

[ryan250]

bill o'reilly is a dumbass. hes on the air because his abrasive personality is good for ratings. thats all.

one of the main reasons for moving out of my house was the clashing views with my parents. every night they watch this douchebag and i just couldn't hold back my thoughts. so frustrating. his views remind me from someone back in the era of 1950. scary that majority of americans get there information from news like this.

[NJlifter88]

one of the main reasons for moving out of my house was the clashing views with my parents. every night they watch this douchebag and i just couldn't hold back my thoughts. so frustrating. his views remind me from someone back in the era of 1950. scary that majority of americans get there information from news like this.

hes not even meant to be "news"... really. hes just a tv personality that gives his own opinion about the news. i don't even think he should be considered a professional. hes just a contrary douche that a lot of people relate to.

as others have said, his analysis of the nativity scene/atheist sign, is clearly off. meghan kelly, who i usually think is the same neo-con voice in the media as o'reilly, made that very clear. it says right in the constitution that the state is not supposed to respect any establishment of religion. if they'e going to put up a nativity scene, you're opening the door for anybody with any belief to do the same. if you think other people voicing their opinion is offensive, don't put up the nativity scene so that its in everybody's face.

if you have a nativity scene as the only "religious" theme in a state building, it serves to imply that the state is affiliated with the church. as much as o'reilly wants to believe this is true, he stops just short of saying it because everybody knows its not true.

[ryan250]

hes not even meant to be "news"... really. hes just a tv personality that gives his own opinion about the news. i don't even think he should be considered a professional. hes just a contrary douche that a lot of people relate to.

as others have said, his analysis of the nativity scene/atheist sign, is clearly off. meghan kelly, who i usually think is the same neo-con voice in the media as o'reilly, made that very clear. it says right in the constitution that the state is not supposed to respect any establishment of religion. if they'e going to put up a nativity scene, you're opening the door for anybody with any belief to do the same. if you think other people voicing their opinion is offensive, don't put up the nativity scene so that its in everybody's face.

if you have a nativity scene as the only "religious" theme in a state building, it serves to imply that the state is affiliated with the church. as much as o'reilly wants to believe this is true, he stops just short of saying it because everybody knows its not true.

What if this was done by a private organization, a church or on someones lawn? Then I would have to agree with o'Reilly that it isn't justified.



ROFL

[NJlifter88]

What if this was done by a private organization, a church or on someones lawn? Then I would have to agree with o'Reilly that it isn't justified.



ROFL

lol... gotta say he did a pretty good job live considering his state of mind. thats what they're paying him for (not quality, well developed opinions).

but yeah... private institutions have the right to decide what goes on their property and are allowed to discriminate. the rules change in a public setting.

[KRANE]

bill o'reilly is a dumbass. hes on the air because his abrasive personality is good for ratings. thats all.

Hey whatever brah. Like him or not, his show is consistantly at the top in his bracket.

[Anticrombie315]

Hey whatever brah. Like him or not, his show is consistantly at the top in his bracket.

That says something about society these days. Pretty awful.

[NJlifter88]

Hey whatever brah. Like him or not, his show is consistantly at the top in his bracket.

i agree with you. hell i used to watch him every night. but i didn't watch it to develop a perspective, just strictly for entertainment to see what the guy thinks about things. thats how it should be treated... not as your outlet for news.

[PROTEIN_PARTY]

O'Rly is a ****ing tard.. and I'm a republican

I don't like what religious nuts and rednecks have done to conservatism