Then why are you here if it's not for war?
Advertisement
by Forum-Rper » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:17 pm
by USS Monitor » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:18 pm
Italian-Australia wrote:I am reminded of another case where someone refused to obey a court order, and that was this Kentucky Clerk case. Now if people are going to flame this clerk for not following a court order, but not flame this woman for not following another court order. Then I'm calling all these people out as hypocrites!
by Forum-Rper » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:19 pm
by Italian-Australia » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:19 pm
by Socialist Tera » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:20 pm
by Forum-Rper » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:20 pm
Italian-Australia wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:No one is flaming, thought the "atheistic scum" comment was probably borderline.
Not that you have thread ownership in any way.
Well there was that case where that person said something about throwing javelins into Christianity. Sounds like a flame to me. Now, if it were me and I were directed to a non-likeminded counsellor. I could understand not wanting to have anything to do with it. But you can't be expected to say "screw the courts" and not expect any backlash. I have a feeling this case will sort itself out.
by AiliailiA » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:21 pm
Wallenburg wrote:What. The. Fuck.
The courts aren't supposed to mandate Christianity. We kind of have a Constitution that should protect us from that.
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
by Damaged Priseis » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:22 pm
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:23 pm
USS Monitor wrote:Italian-Australia wrote:I am reminded of another case where someone refused to obey a court order, and that was this Kentucky Clerk case. Now if people are going to flame this clerk for not following a court order, but not flame this woman for not following another court order. Then I'm calling all these people out as hypocrites!
Go read the constitution.
by The Alma Mater » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:24 pm
Damaged Priseis wrote:I agree with it. A brush-up on the bible can be good for you.
by AiliailiA » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:24 pm
Damaged Priseis wrote:I agree with it. A brush-up on the bible can be good for you.
Cannot think of a name wrote:"Where's my immortality?" will be the new "Where's my jetpack?"
Maineiacs wrote:"We're going to build a canal, and we're going to make Columbia pay for it!" -- Teddy Roosevelt
Ifreann wrote:That's not a Freudian slip. A Freudian slip is when you say one thing and mean your mother.
by Wallenburg » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:24 pm
Ailiailia wrote:Wallenburg wrote:What. The. Fuck.
The courts aren't supposed to mandate Christianity. We kind of have a Constitution that should protect us from that.
Actually, I don't see why a court-appointed counsellor can't offer to pray with the person referred to them. That would help some people, quite a large minority if not actually most people, and the counsellor is supposed to be helping.
The client should also be able to say "no thankyou" and that be the end of it.
by Wallenburg » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:25 pm
Damaged Priseis wrote:I agree with it. A brush-up on the bible can be good for you.
by Empire of Donner land » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:25 pm
Damaged Priseis wrote:I agree with it. A brush-up on the bible can be good for you.
The Collected Entries Of Me In A Nutshell
"Donner: A chill guy who has no chill" - Esgonia
"Everything is wrong. Everything" - URA
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:26 pm
Damaged Priseis wrote:I agree with it. A brush-up on the bible can be good for you.
by USS Monitor » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:26 pm
Italian-Australia wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:No one is flaming, thought the "atheistic scum" comment was probably borderline.
Not that you have thread ownership in any way.
Well there was that case where that person said something about throwing javelins into Christianity. Sounds like a flame to me. Now, if it were me and I were directed to a non-likeminded counsellor. I could understand not wanting to have anything to do with it. But you can't be expected to say "screw the courts" and not expect any backlash. I have a feeling this case will sort itself out.
by Italian-Australia » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:26 pm
by Greed and Death » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:27 pm
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:27 pm
by Forum-Rper » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:28 pm
Italian-Australia wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Prepare for accusations of being atheistic scum with appalling double-standards.
Ok, I have tried to be accommodating and I have recently kept my comments non-partisan, see my post on how it would work now. But you are beating a dead horse in that smug "I'm better than you manner" so stop that, or else we really will have a problem.
by Haldasia » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:28 pm
by USS Monitor » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:29 pm
Ailiailia wrote:Wallenburg wrote:What. The. Fuck.
The courts aren't supposed to mandate Christianity. We kind of have a Constitution that should protect us from that.
Actually, I don't see why a court-appointed counsellor can't offer to pray with the person referred to them. That would help some people, quite a large minority if not actually most people, and the counsellor is supposed to be helping.
The client should also be able to say "no thankyou" and that be the end of it.
by The Alma Mater » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:29 pm
Haldasia wrote:Already people, we got ourselves another blown up case of everyone's fucking up here. The councilor shouldn't have forced the mother to pray or do other religious things. The mother shouldn't have just stopped going to the meetings.
by Italian-Australia » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:29 pm
by USS Monitor » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Cyptopir, Ethel mermania, Evil Zarolandia, Floofybit, Sagrea, Sarolandia, Statesburg, Valrifall, Xind
Advertisement