Should certains Christmas Carols be banned from schools?

Scruffy, you are embarrassing yourself. Stop it.

major bean wrote: Scruffy, you are embarrassing yourself. Stop it.

I guess we're through here then. I'm sorry you can't back up your statements or explain your positions more thoroughly.

Have a nice day.

Scruffy, you have not gone back to the previous posts to see who introduced the atheist subject and the discussion that followed. If you have reviewed then you have backed out on the offer to admit that you lied about me introducing the subject.
So, the rest of your posts are obfuscation to hide from the fact that you have made a fool of yourself by your disingenousness.
Goodnight.

p.s. blue hair is more manly.

major bean wrote: I just read the short bio of Madalyn Murray O'Hair given at Wikipedia. Her life is a mirror of most liberals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

So, Pineguy, what was her life? Did it only consist of atheism? If so, she would a rather one dimensional person, wouldn't she? But that is what you zeroed-in on about her, not me.

That Wiki article was rather lengthy to be only about atheism. You are trying very hard to say that atheism is what I was emphasizing whenever I posted the link. Rather odd of you to connect a dot in that way.

I grew up in Texas during all this and yes, it was her life. It was her sole mission. She never spoke of anything else.

I did not reference all of Texas or your life of experiences and rememberances of O'Hair. I only linked to the Wiki article. You spoke of atheism and O'Hair. It must have stung quite a bit.

What do you think of the beginnings of the debate of school/religion? Was O'Hair not the beginning? Did not everything spring from the Supreme Court decision involving her and her son?

The only thing about O'Hair was atheism. You said it was a mirror of most liberals.

If you weren't referring to her atheism, as you claim, what WERE you referring to when you tried to connect her and most liberals?

If you read anything about her and the early 60s Supreme Court decision you'd already know the answer to your question.

Major Bean- you seem to throw insults around, demean and belittle those who disagree with you then get all up in your butt when people take offense. If you really think you are conducting a just and fair conversation then you really are delusional. You in no way model the behavior of the man whose birth you seek to honor. You should be ashamed, but I know you are not. That is why we pity those in your household with whom you make disagree- if you subject those who love you to this treatment they really deserve our pity.

Pineguy wrote: The Democratic Party traces its origins to the inspiration of Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792. There is nothing in the Democratic platform about atheism.

Today's Democrats can't even begin to trace their party back to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and other Republicans of the day. Thomas Jefferson rescued the nation by placing it back on it's natural republican tack and away from the Federalist notions of an all powerful and controlling central government. Today's Democrat is more closely related to Alexander Hamilton, a High Federalist, than Thomas Jefferson, who was demonized for being republican in his ideals.

In today's understanding of the terms, Jefferson would be more closely associated with the Republican or Libertarian parties since he was a champion of small government, low taxes and states rights. He also was well known as one who thought that no general government debt should be incurred that the current generation of people could not pay off themselves. He would have been horrified by the multigenerational debt that the general government has rung up, as well as the use of the general government to address and support the individual welfare of the citizens.

No Pineguy, today's Democrat wouldn't even consider elevating JFK as their presidential nominee. To pretend otherwise is simply to ignore the obvious.