So much for the constitution.....

[Maddhattter]

Ya, you mad, just a little. LOL

Being consistantly pro-God isn't being a hypocrite.

No argument there. Never implied that was how you are being a hypocrite.

Of course, promoting the reaffirmation of the unconstitutional motto "In God We Trust" is being hypocritical when you imply that it's somehow patriotic.

As expected, the "H" moniker as been trotted out yet again, ad nauseum.

Can the naysayers to religious beliefs really not comprehend how foolish they look for believing themselves to be fit to judge anyone else.

Not judging, as the label is not an opinion when it's demonstrable.

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

If he makes the claim that he supports the constitution(which he hasn't done in this thread but has in others) and supporting this motto, than he is, by definition, a hypocrite.

To directly answer you question, no more so than supporters of religious beliefs comprehend how foolish they look for believing in something which cannot be differentiated from nothing.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

The current administration has been skirting the constitution for 2 years by using "executive powers" to appoint czars and enact laws. At this point, separation of church and state are the least of my concerns...really.

You don't honestly think it started with Obama, do you?

[Vertnut]

You don't honestly think it started with Obama, do you?

As far as the czars, yes. Skirting the constitution, no. Are you picking a fight?

[BERNIE MOSFET]

As far as the czars, yes. Skirting the constitution, no. Are you picking a fight?

Not really trying to pick a fight, just want to point out that both parties have been doing it. Czars have been around for a long time; Bush Jr. appointed many.

[Denny]

No argument there. Never implied that was how you are being a hypocrite.

Of course, promoting the reaffirmation of the unconstitutional motto "In God We Trust" is being hypocritical when you imply that it's somehow patriotic.



Not judging, as the label is not an opinion when it's demonstrable.

hyp·o·crite
noun \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

If he makes the claim that he supports the constitution(which he hasn't done in this thread but has in others) and supporting this motto, than he is, by definition, a hypocrite.

To directly answer you question, no more so than supporters of religious beliefs comprehend how foolish they look for believing in something which cannot be differentiated from nothing.

A patriotic Christian is about as good as it gets. LOL

Seriously, though, "In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, God Bless America, etc."

It never states which God. God for me is different than God for you. The absece of God is your god.

Saying it out loud, I can see why you're mad. That must suck!

[The King]

To directly answer you question, no more so than supporters of religious beliefs comprehend how foolish they look for believing in something which cannot be differentiated from nothing.

This is an admission that you look foolish. We're making progress here, albeit by baby steps.

[Maddhattter]

A patriotic Christian is about as good as it gets. LOL

Seriously, though, "In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, God Bless America, etc."

It never states which God.

This apologetic has already been covered in this thread.

God for me is different than God for you. The absece of God is your god.

The absence god is not my god. I trust in no god or gods.

Saying it out loud, I can see why you're mad. That must suck!

Why?

[The King]

As far as the czars, yes. Skirting the constitution, no. Are you picking a fight?

In addition to the czars, don't forget the 12-member behind closed doors politburo that komrade obammy championed late last summer.

[Vertnut]

Not really trying to pick a fight, just want to point out that both parties have been doing it. Czars have been around for a long time; Bush Jr. appointed many.

It depends on what they are appointed to do and the power they are given by the POTUS.

[Maddhattter]

This is an admission that you look foolish. We're making progress here, albeit by baby steps.

When quote-mined, I can see how you can come to that conclusion. However, in context, it is an admission that judging people makes people look foolish.

It was explained and demonstrated how the post you were responding to was not a judgement, but a demonstrable behavior on Denny's behalf.

[Denny]

This apologetic has already been covered in this thread.

My God > your no-god

The absence god is not my god. I trust in no god or gods.

You don't even trust your no-god?

Why?

You got me, I wouldn't know.

[Maddhattter]

My God > your no-god

How?

You don't even trust your no-god?

LOL

You got me, I wouldn't know.

Then why did you say that you can see why I'm mad or make the claim that it must suck?

[Denny]

I just imagine it would suck to have a lesser no-god that you don't even trust, but I'm not quite sure how bad it would suck since my God > your no-god. All I know is that it would suck. I can see why you're mad.

My God's invitation is always there for you, though.

[Maddhattter]

I just imagine it would suck to have a lesser no-god that you don't even trust, but I'm not quite sure how bad it would suck since my God > your no-god. All I know is that it would suck. I can see why you're mad.

If you know that it would suck, then you should be able to know why.

My God's invitation is always there for you, though.

Must have gotten lost in the mail. You'd think with all the capabilities attributed to it, it wouldn't use the postal service to send the damn thing.

[mustangguy289]

I'm pro truth, things that are not proven are not true.

.

You made both your mom and dad take a DNA test to prove they were your parents didn't you?