‘Violates the U.S. Constitution’.    Tough crag jihad supporters to back to were you came from, then you wont have that problem.



Muslim parents in Dearborn, Michigan are distressed over a ridiculous ordeal after elementary school students received flyers promoting an Easter Egg hunt (http://toprightnews.com/muslims-say-that-easter-egg-hunt-violates-the-u-s-constitution/) at a local Presbyterian church. The parents say the egg hunt “violates the U.S. Constitution”.The Muslims told the Detroit Free-Press that they were concerned about the religious implications of Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church’s “Eggstravaganza!”


Damn they sound like liberals!




http://patriotupdate.com/muslims-say-easter-egg-hunt-violates-u-s-constitution/ (http://patriotupdate.com/muslims-say-easter-egg-hunt-violates-u-s-constitution/)

They do sound like liberals!

Muslims and liberals goosestepping into the future shouting "Heil Hitler" as they march their opponents to the ovens!

D2Dingbat, you and doofas-bm sound like the Islamophobic, hate-mongering, right-wingnuts you really are.

"[Muslim] [m]oms and dads say the advertising of the "Eggstravaganza!" event at Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church in Dearborn is a "clear violation" of the separation of church and state — and that teachers paid for by the taxpayer should not be promoting activities organized by a church."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/easter-egg-hunt-flyer-angers-public-school-parents-article-1.1748110

i think the muslims need to chill....but can you imagine how insane the teabagger reaction would be if some muslim teachers promoted some muslim religious activity that honors Mohammed to their classes of school kids!!  and that flyers were handed out to all the kids to show up at some party celebrating mohammed?

scott_free,

I beg to differ. Dearborn's Muslim parents were well within their right to vociferously remind the Christian citizenry of the Constitution's  Establishment Clause (separation of Church and State). No. They don't need "to chill." But I agree with you when you say that Dearborn's Christians would be livid if a public school encouraged their children to participate in an event sponsored by that city's Muslim community.

yeah, they could.  and they were.  but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.  it was an easter egg hunt...how is that really some sort of religious activity?  was the easter bunny god's chosen bunny?  chill.  geez.  it is like giving presents to each other at christmas or singing christmas songs...big ass deal, unless they are forced to do so.  but what kid hates the idea of getting presents?  and singing any kind of song when you are a kid is fun.  chill.  it is like going into a bar and they are playing country music, and everybody seems to be digging it.  will you be that jerk that takes over the juke box and play rap or heavy metal just because you can?

Question: "What is the origin of the Easter bunny and Easter eggs?"

Answer: It is thought that the word Easter comes from a pagan figure called Eastre (or Eostre) who was celebrated as the goddess of spring by the Saxons of Northern Europe. A festival called Eastre was held during the spring equinox by these people to honor her. Of interest is the word’s relation to east (ost in German). The name for a celebration of the sunrise and a change of season was eventually applied to the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Christ and the new era He heralded.

The goddess Eastre’s earthly symbol was the rabbit, which was also known as a symbol of fertility. Since rabbits and hares give birth to large litters in the early spring, it’s understandable that the rabbit is the symbol of fertility.

The legend of the Easter Bunny bringing eggs appears to have been brought to the United States by settlers from southwestern Germany. The German tradition of the Easter Bunny or “Oschter Haws” migrated to America in the 1800s, likely accompanying German immigrants, many of whom settled in Pennsylvania. Over the past 200 years, the Easter Bunny has become the most commercially recognized symbol of Easter.

In legend, the Easter Bunny, also called the Easter Hare and the Spring Bunny, brings baskets filled with colored eggs, candy, and sometimes toys to the homes of children on the night before Easter, in much the same way as Santa Claus is said to deliver presents on Christmas Eve. The Easter Bunny will either put the baskets in a designated place or hide them somewhere in the house or garden for the children to find when they wake up in the morning, giving rise to the tradition of the Easter egg hunt.

Should Christian parents allow their children to participate in traditional activities that refer to the Easter Bunny? This is a question both parents and church leaders struggle with. There is nothing essentially evil about the Easter Bunny, unless it is used to promote the goddess of spring or fertility rites. What is important is our focus. If our focus is on Christ and not the Easter Bunny, our children will understand that, like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny is merely a symbol. As with Christmas, Easter should be a time to reflect upon and celebrate the incarnation, the resurrection and the risen Christ.

why focus on that bullshit?  we don't know if any of that happened, especially his magic virgin birth story. total bullshit.  we do know that bunnies exist and it is fun for kids to find easter eggs.  that is what we should focus on.  and instead of believing fairy tales about virgin births and fake deaths and people rising from the dead, why not focus on the christian thoughts and actions attributed to Jesus and try to live up to that high standard, not mumbo jumbo crap straight out of Grimm's Fairy Tales?

Can you believe this coming from the self ordained "I KNOW" now claims he don't know. what's with you hodaddyscott, memory loss?

I don't know if any of that happened,  <-- says Mr "I KNOW' !

1965hawks didn't know you were a muslim until you replied to the post, so you were offended by America's children hunting eggs, unlike you muslims we in America don't train our children to wear suicide vest packed with explosives and blow themselves up in a crowded location!

In pagan religions, eggs represented fertility, birth and rebirth. More generally, they symbolize springtime. Kids typically tend to associate Easter eggs with candy and people in rabbit costumes.

For 136 years, the president of the United States and his family have hosted the "Christian" White House Easter Egg Roll.



(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/QeXv0sB5vrSFJDtcjQNBag--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/White-House-Easter-Getty-Images-Mark-Wilson.jpg)


http://news.yahoo.com/now-muslim-parents-complaining-flyers-easter-egg-hunts-125007042.html;_ylt=A0LEVxO8b_pWIHcAB5JXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEydHE5MWxuBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDQjE3OTNfMQRzZWMDc3I-


Must be a Muslim rabbit, lol...

For 136 years, the president of the United States and his family have hosted the White House Easter Egg Roll.

If People like 1965hawks get their way Islam will become the only religion in America.

 You hawks sound like the uneducated hate fill negro that hates anything and everything connected to America, by the way now we also know you're an Islamic nut job to boot.

if you foolish morons knew anything about the separation of church and state as specified in the Constitution, you would know hawks is right, if you also had an IQ and could read above a 4th grade level.  what you dumbfucks want is for this country to be more like muslim countries, you assholes.  try to think. 

As everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.   The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

Nowhere is this more important than with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: forbidding an official establishment of religion is something quite different from the much looser, imprecise term “separation of church and state.” The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

The Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.”


http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/


James Madison, 1789-JUN-7 "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience."

the actual separation of church and state is clearly, unambiguously CLEARLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION, ALONG WITH OTHER STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FOUNDERS WHERE THEY CLEARLY SAID SO AS WELL.  these guys actually did know how to write.  if they wanted the state to be inferior to the whelms of some religion or another, and not clearly superior to any religious views, they could have clearly stated so.  just like you clownish oafs claim you want to be strict originalists, in real life you do not.  have someone you trust who has gotten his college degree in Remedial English read this...then explain it to you using diagrams, cartoons and a series of grunts and clicks, since you apparently cannot grasp basic English. 

The First Amendment-

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


if the founding fathers had not wanted to separate religion from government, they would never have written THE FIRST AMENDMENT...DUH...

no matter how the right tries

their religious beliefs stay out of the mainstream

just lazy, gullible sheep dog herd mentality exhibited by teabaggers who actually believe the Founding Fathers did not really want our country to be secular....read these comments, most of them written BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED....if you can. 


The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion". This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
   
from James Madison- the Chief Architect of the Constitution (all written before the Constitution was ratified)-

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.  The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." 1784 James Madison
         
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."       - 1785


"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation.  During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.  What has been its fruits?  More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."    - 1785


John Adams  The second president of the United States was John Adams, lawyer and diplomat. Adams' public career lasted more than 35 years. He was second only to George Washington in making a place for the young United States among the nations of the world. In his devotion to the country he was second to none
Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe, Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation.  But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"    -letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning.  And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY?  The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded.  But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
                  - letter to John Taylor

               
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
             

"Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?"    -letter to Thomas Jefferson

"God is an essence that we know nothing of.  Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."
          
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
         
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there  were no religion in it."

Thomas Jefferson:

The most famous ‘out of context’ religious quote of Thomas Jefferson is to be found in the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. Around the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial, in large gold letters, is the quote: “I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD, ETERNAL HOSTILITY AGAINST EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN.” The quote was taken, completely out of context from a letter that Jefferson wrote to Dr. Benjamin Rush September 23, 1800. The quote put in its original context says just the opposite of the pious sentiment it is made to say. In his letter to Dr. Rush Jefferson is talking about the Christian clergy who were working against his being elected President by saying Jefferson was an infidel. The complete quote says: “The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their (the Christian clergy) hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” So we see that in his letter Jefferson is saying that the “tyranny over the mind of man” that he is opposed to are the schemes of the Christian clergy, and the god he is referring to is the god of Deism, not the god of the Christians.

As everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.   The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

Nowhere is this more important than with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: forbidding an official establishment of religion is something quite different from the much looser, imprecise term “separation of church and state.” The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

The Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.”


http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/ (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/)

Boy, some people need to take a chill pill...

Watch out everyone...the volcano known as snott_free will blow soon...

The unhinging has begun.

Scott, if the Muslims were that offended, I would think they would just not go...

i already said that, stupid.  can you folks even read?  it is illegal for a public school to promote any religious observance but only even the most clueless teabaggers believe the Easter bunny is a religious symbol!!  like the ones arguing stupid ass points like jerkwater who believes we do not live in a secular nation governed by laws, not by goofy religious interpretations of any certain or group of religions.  what a fucking idiot. 

Yes, Scott Muslims are against abortion but only if the child is Muslim all others must be killed!  Republicans are against all abortions not only a select few!  Democrats target a select few just like Muslims!

Yes, Scott Muslims are supportive of the death penalty for all who dare question Islam and all infidels!  Republicans don't want to dictate the beliefs of others!   Democrats always seek to dictate the beliefs of others!

Yes, Scott Muslims insist the Muslim Church is the state and no, Republicans do not believe any church should be the state!  Democrats believe the worship of the state is paramount!

Wrong, Scott Muslims believe only Islam should be taught in schools as do democrats!  Republicans want all or no religious instruction!

Wrong, Scott Muslims believe women should have no rights while Republicans treat women as equals!  Democrats believe women must be given preference!

Yes, Scott Muslims believe all gays should be executed upon discovery!  Republicans have never executed anyone upon discovery for being gay!

Obama is for all consuming and encompassing government that Islam endorses!

The democrat party is most compatible with Islam!

in re: Reply #14

"As everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution. "

Arguing that the term "separation of church and state appears" nowhere in the Constitution does not mean that the concept of separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution.

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson) and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause) and Free Exercise Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause) of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States) which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States

in re: Replies #10, 11, and 15

Easter egg hunts aren't the issue here. At issue here is a public school's endorsement of an event sponsored by a religious organisation. Muslim parents in Dearborn had ample reason to be offended by a tax-supported entity's advertising an event at a Christian church--a blatant violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which explicitly prohibits one religion or denomination being favoured over another.

 

i think the muslims need to chill....but can you imagine how insane the teabagger reaction would be if some muslim teachers promoted some muslim religious activity that honors Mohammed to their classes of school kids!!  and that flyers were handed out to all the kids to show up at some party celebrating mohammed?
 
Yet another typical "moronic" reply from the board Morons.   Why don't you complete idiots ever put things into proper context?  Moron Hoosier says: "...can you imagine how insane the teabagger reaction would be if some muslim teachers promoted some muslim religious activity that honors Mohammed..."
 
Now, here's the proper context: "What would happen if American Christians in Afghanistan complained that Muslims were praying on school property and demanded it stop?" 
 
And then the Hoosier doppelganger Muslim says "gee, can you imagine how insane the Muslim reaction would be if some Christian teacher promoted some Christian religious activity that honors Jesus to their classes?"  (as if this was supposed to be meant as a ridicule to other Muslims.)
 
 
So tell us Morons, how do you think that would work out?  American Christians going to Afghanistan and telling Muslims they can't pray wherever they want?

You guys don't have a brain cell between you.  And if you did you pansies wouldn't even fight to see who gets it.
 
 

what a dumb ass argument, even for you.  not every muslim here immigrated recently from the middle east, you idiot. many have converted over the years. do you think ivanka trump was born a jew in israel, moron?  or sammy davis, jr?  and this is the United States, dildo.  Religious preference does not matter one bit, no matter how much you wish it did, boy.  we have separation of church and state, as the first amendment clearly states.  it is entirely possible that many kids, in this country, even in red states, as we live and breathe, are being taught by americans who are.....wait, for it....muslims!!!!  and if a christian teacher in a public school can promote some christian church's easter egg hunt, it should be just as appropriate for a muslim teacher in that same school to promote some kid's activity that her mosque is having to celebrate the arrival of spring or some other non-specific religious event aimed at giving kids a place to go and have a good time.  why are you so mean spirited and bigoted?  and why do you compare this country and its clear separation of church and state to muslim countries, that have no separation?  and why do stupid bitches want our country to be more like muslim countries?  why do you try to pretend we are a christian nation and there is no separation of church and state even mentioned in the constitution, you incredibly dumb bigot?

First Mosque in the USA 1930's was in ROSS North Dakotawww.ministers-best-friend.com/First-Mosque-in-USA-1930s-ROSS-Nort...The First Islamic mosque in the U.S.A. was located about one and one half miles east of Ross, North Dakota. It was a rural mosque located about one half mile ...The Mother Mosque of America - Mosque in Cedar Rapids ...islam.about.com › ... › Islam › Mosques & Holy PlacesWhen it was first completed, the mosque looked much like a rectangular two-story schoolhouse or country church, with no obvious Islamic architectural elements ...American Muslims in the United States | Teaching Tolerance ...www.tolerance.org/.../american-muslims-united-state...Teaching ToleranceMohammed Alexander Russell Webb, an early American convert to Islam, established a mosque and mission in New York City in 1893. The first mosque ...

Yes, Scott Muslims are against abortion but only if the child is Muslim all others must be killed!  Republicans are against all abortions not only a select few!  Democrats target a select few just like Muslims!

Yes, Scott Muslims are supportive of the death penalty for all who dare question Islam and all infidels!  Republicans don't want to dictate the beliefs of others!   Democrats always seek to dictate the beliefs of others!

Yes, Scott Muslims insist the Muslim Church is the state and no, Republicans do not believe any church should be the state!  Democrats believe the worship of the state is paramount!

Wrong, Scott Muslims believe only Islam should be taught in schools as do democrats!  Republicans want all or no religious instruction!

Wrong, Scott Muslims believe women should have no rights while Republicans treat women as equals!  Democrats believe women must be given preference!

Yes, Scott Muslims believe all gays should be executed upon discovery!  Republicans have never executed anyone upon discovery for being gay!

Obama is for all consuming and encompassing government that Islam endorses!

The democrat party is most compatible with Islam!

jim:  "What would happen if American Christians in Afghanistan complained that Muslims were praying on school property and demanded it stop?" [sic]

Your argument has a serious flaw, jivin' jim. American Christians in Afghanistan have no right to complain about Muslims praying in Muslim schools. But the US Constitution gives Muslims in the United States the right to complain about teacher-led prayers in public schools, and the right to complain about a public school advertising an Easter egg hunt at a Christian church.

   

Nothing was meant to establish a religion of any kind.  It was informational.

duke_john: Nothing was meant to establish a religion of any kind.

You're attacking a straw man, DUMB_john. There was no intention to establish a religion.

It was informational.

No, Dumb_john. It was a blatant example of a public school's blatant violation of the Establishment Clause. Not surprisingly, that violation greatly offended Muslims sending their children to that public school; and they were well within their rights to voice their opposition to that school's action.

You're fucking stupid to come to that conclusion, hawkiepoop.

You are a foreigner not trained in American English and your support for all things Muslim and hate for all things Christian speaks volumes.

The Constitution only speaks to the establishment of religion...true.

So, there was nothing done to force anyone to take part in anything beyond what they were comfortable with.

Yet, someone got their panties in a knot.  What a bunch of dumbasses...

takncarabizniz: [T]here was nothing done to force anyone to take part in anything beyond what they were comfortable with.

Sorry, Ms Takn. You're mistaken again. The issue here isn't whether Muslim students would be forced to participate in an Easter egg hunt. At issue here is a tax-supported, public school allowing the flyers advertising a church-sponsored  Easter egg hunt to be distributed at that school. That's an endorsement of religion by a state-supported establishment, a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause and, evidently, something Muslim parents in Dearborn clearly understood.
 

What religion does having an Easter egg hunt establish!

What religion becomes the State religion!

What religion is the State funding via taxation?

Can you answer that, 1965hawks?

LOL THE ASSHOLES ON THE LEFT FAIL LOGIC ONCE AGAIN. FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO "ESTABLISH" ANYTHING THEY WOULD HAVE TO PASS LEGISLATION, A FRIGGIN LAW YOU DIMWITS NOTHING IN HANDING OUT PAMPHLETS ESTABLISHES ANYTHING YOU ILLOGICAL IGNORANT DOLTS!!!!!

Hawk, what's the difference handing out flyers for a kids Easter egg hunt or providing lists of voting locations that include churches?

D2D: What religion does having an Easter egg hunt establish! *

None. But the question is irrelevant; no one in this thread has argued that an Easter egg hunt establishes a religion. Isn't  that right, D2Doofas?

What religion becomes the State religion! *

A religion becomes a state religion when it is established by law as the only official religion of a state. By the way, a recent poll showed that a majority of you right-wingers want Christianity to become the official religion of the United States.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/poll-57-percent-republicans-christianity-national-religion

What religion is the State funding via taxation?

None that I'm aware of. Do you know of any, D2Daffy

Can you answer that [sic], 1965hawks?

I answered those questions, D2Debunked. So now your DUMB ass can take a seat and shut the fuck up.

* And by the way, in English grammar direct questions end with question marks [?], not with exclamation points[!], you misinformed ass clown.

Local5th: Hawk, what's the difference handing out flyers for a kids Easter egg hunt or providing lists of voting locations that include churches?

Local5th, explain why you believe there's no difference between handing out flyers, in a public school, that advertise a church-sponsored Easter egg hunt and providing lists of polling stations that include churches. 

1965hawks admits there is nothing wrong with Easter egg hunts and that they do NOT violate the Constitution!

I'm not the one raising the issue of separation of church and state Hawk.

upyrwazoo: LOL THE ASSHOLES ON THE LEFT FAIL LOGIC ONCE AGAIN. FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO "ESTABLISH" ANYTHING THEY WOULD HAVE TO PASS LEGISLATION, A FRIGGIN LAW YOU DIMWITS NOTHING IN HANDING OUT PAMPHLETS ESTABLISHES ANYTHING YOU ILLOGICAL IGNORANT DOLTS!!!!![sic]

upyrwazoo,

In addition to the obvious fact that your keyboard remains stuck in the "Caps Lock" setting, and the obvious fact of your atrocious grammar, it's also obvious that you--and our forum's other misinformed right-wing loons--really don't understand what is actually stated in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

The First Amendment's (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti) Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

Local5th: I'm not the one raising the issue of separation of church and state Hawk.[sic]

What's your point, Local5th? What does what you posted above have to do with your question I answered? Explain how the two are relevant.

1965hawks says the prohibition on prohibiting the free exercise of religion is a meaningless part of the First Amendment!

Local5th, your question was argumentative, not really a question at all. I don't waste my time attempting to answer argumentative questions. So I responded by asking you to explain the premiss of your argument. I asked you to explain why you believe there's no difference between handing out flyers in a public school that advertise a church-sponsored Easter egg hunt, and providing lists of polling stations that include churches.  You didn't answer my question. 

There is definitely a problem between the Muslim culture and Modern civilization... one is doing atrocities and the other is being led by liberal assholes.

mebbe so but at least liberals doan use lies to invade innocent countries

and create 35,000 american casualties

and blow a trillion dollars on a fake war

3 Out of 4 U.S. Military Deaths in Afghanistan Occurred Under Obama (http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/10/15/3-4-u-s-military-deaths-afghanistan-occurred-obama/)

making up yer own facts is a royal prerogative

but

you ain't no royal

Who is making up facts, cass-hole?  Obama is a disaster, that's a fact.

in re: Replies #41 and #45

D2Duplicitous: 1965hawks admits there's nothing wrong with Easter egg huntsand that they do not violate the Constitution.

But, if truth be told, 196hawks never maid the claim that there's something wrong with Easter egg hunts and that they violate the Constitution. Isn't that right, D2Dimwit?

1965hawks says the prohibition on prohibiting the free exercise of religion is meaningless part of the First Amendment.

No, you D2DUMB little bitch. Here's what 1965 says: you really don't know the meaning of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. Truth is, you don't know what the hell you're talking about; you're simply babbling nonsense out your ass again, just like you always do here. Anyone who would imply that an Easter egg hunt(!) is a "religious" event (as you're attempting to do here) obviously doesn't understand the meaning of "free exercise of religion" as used in the First Amendment.

That is not what you say in reply #25!

no, you are the goddamn liar when you claim he did, lying asshole.  our naval forces were attacked in international waters by north vietnamese naval forces and they were attacked by Navy jets as they tried to get back to North Vietnamese waters.  liar.  why are you such a liar, asshole?

Our navy provoked an attack by NV PT boats. We suffered no casualties or damage. The second claimed attack was a lie.

Why the fuck is horseshit duddy defending LBJ when she dodged the draft to fight in LBJ's war based on lies.

Of course it isn't D2Dimwit. In reply #25 the topic is separation of Church and State. In reply#53 the topic is the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Seems 1965hawks doesn't know what he posts!

Bizarre!

So why doesn't little Miss D2Dingbat point out exactly what she's babbling about and then either refute or debunk my argument rather than continuing to post ambiguous insinuations.

LOL HOOTY BOUGHT INTO THE GULF OF TONKIN LIE, IT WAS LBJS EXCUSE TO LEGALLY COMMIT COMBAT TROOPS TO NAM ALTHOUGH THEY HAD BEEN DOING THAT FOR A FEW YEARS BY ASSIGNING COMBAT TROOPS TO NAM TDY FROM HAWAII!

As everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.   The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

Nowhere is this more important than with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: forbidding an official establishment of religion is something quite different from the much looser, imprecise term “separation of church and state.” The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

The Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.”


http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/ (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/)

you don't even know what the word modicum means, repeating chickenshit.  how many times you going to post this debunked bullshit, boy? the constitution clearly separates the state from the church, and the church from the state, in the First Amendment.  you and whoever the hell dumbass bitch you keep quoting, are too stupid to know the difference between a certain phrase being stated in the Constitution and the actual separation of church and state being guaranteed by the Constitution when it contains these words:

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress (the government) shall make no law establishing any religion (separating the state from any church), or prohibiting the freedom of exercising his religion (praying, going to church, baptizing his kids, facing mecca twice a day, wearing a hajib or burka or whatever the hell muslim women wear, wearing a little beanie like jews wear, growing a beard if you are muslim or jewish orthodox (unless your boss says no), circumcizing your male sons, etc.)-  which separates religion from state control. 

why aren't you embarrassed by how stupid you are?

The Constitution forbids government sponsorship of religious activities. Flyers advertising a church-sponsored activity were handed out at a public school--a taxpayer-supported (government)establishment. Muslims in Dearborn were offended and rightfully so. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits governmental endorsement of any establishment of religion. That clause is the basis for the concept of separation of Church and State.

The First Amendment's (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti) Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause



 

Letting someone know about a wholesome activity sponsored by a local church is not establishing any religion.

Ge, you Muslims are a touchy bunch.

why do you think jerkwater is a muslim, besides the fact he is so anti-gay, wants the church to have power over the state, wants religion to be taught in schools, loves him some capital punishment, incredibly anti-choice and believes women are inferior and should be controlled by the state?  oh, wait!!  that is why!!  he might be!!  he sure does believe in the same bullshit crap they do!!

Why do you think you are intelligent and that your opinion means anything, scott toilet paper?

duke_john: Letting someone know about a wholesome activity sponsored by a local church is not establishing any religion.

No one said that an Easter egg hunt establishes a religion. But allowing the distribution of flyers advertising a church-sponsored activity at a public school (a taxpayer-supported establishment) violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which prohibits government actions which unduly favour one religion over another. Evidently, Muslims in Dearborn, MI, have a better understanding of what's in Constitution than a certain right-wingnut in New Jersey. Isn't that right, racerba?

   

If the public school printed the fliers, that would be a different story, Kuss Marani Ka.  You aren't smart enough to know the difference.

You Muslims are easily offended.

Yup. Chances are they would be offended had they been excluded too.

A local public school has established an emergency off-site evacuation procedure to a church a few blocks away.  What will the lefties do if they found out?

duke_john: If the public school printed the fliers, that would be a different story.


A local public school has established an emergency off-site evacuation procedure to a church a few blocks away.
Apparently, you're attempting to interject a "different story" (read, red herring) into this  discussion. Isn't that right, DUMB_john?

LOL

Separation of church and state,
hmaaar.  Even someone as stupid as you should be able to connect the dots.

A red herring is even bringing up separation of church and state in this instance.

Using churches as voting stations of safe sites for schools or handing out fliers for Easter egg hunts does not establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

As everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.   The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

you don't even know what the word modicum means, repeating chickenshit.  how many times you going to post this debunked bullshit, boy? the constitution clearly separates the state from the church, and the church from the state, in the First Amendment.  you and whoever the hell dumbass bitch you keep quoting, are too stupid to know the difference between a certain phrase being stated in the Constitution and the actual separation of church and state being guaranteed by the Constitution when it contains these words:

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress (the government) shall make no law establishing any religion (separating the state from any church), or prohibiting the freedom of exercising his religion (praying, going to church, baptizing his kids, facing mecca twice a day, wearing a hajib or burka or whatever the hell muslim women wear, wearing a little beanie like jews wear, growing a beard if you are muslim or jewish orthodox (unless your boss says no), circumcizing your male sons, etc.)-  which separates religion from state control. 

why aren't you embarrassed by how stupid you are?

Local5th: Using churches as voting stations of sic] safe sites for schools or handing out fliers for Easter egg hunts does not establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Local5th, stop trying to alter the facts to suit your bogus argument! Did I argue that using churches as polling stations or for "safe sites for schools" established a religion or prohibited the free exercise of religion? No. I argued that handing out flyers that advertised a church-sponsored event at a public school--an establishment supported by taxpayer dollars and, therefore, a government entity--can be interpreted as government endorsement of religion, a clear violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. And for that reason I argued that Muslim's in Dearborn had probable cause to be offended and to the right to complain that the school in question had endorsed a church-sponsored activity, an obvious violation of the separation of Church and State.   

you don't even know what the word modicum means


Having trouble understanding again, hooty?

As everyone with even a modicum(limited)of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.   The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

If you want a clear violation of the Constitution, this should do:

5 Public Schools That Have Installed Muslim Prayer Rooms (http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Muslim-Prayer-in-Schools-Religion-Students/2015/03/25/id/634403/)

The First Amendment:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.

The way liberals read the first Amendment:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the  Liberal's freedom of speech, or of the Liberal press; or the right of the Liberal's people peaceably to assemble, and Liberal's to petition riot until the Government gives in for a  redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.

Remember, in liberal world liberals are always correct and everyone else is pure evil!

sweetwater5s9: What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

When a public school (an establishment of government) in Dearborn, Michigan, allowed flyers advertising a church-sponsored event to be handed out on its premises, it was--in effect--"respecting an establishment of religion." In this case, the establishment of religion was a local Presbyterian church. 

It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

It would do you well to actually know what the fuck you are talking about when you are trying to argue a point in this forum, sweetwater5s9.

Follow your own advice, hawkie.

1965hawks will never do that!

He will never give a straight forward answer to any question!

D2D: The First Amendment:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.

The way liberals read the first Amendment:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the  Liberal's freedom of speech, or of the Liberal press; or the right of the Liberal's people peaceably to assemble, and Liberal's to petition riot until the Government gives in for a  redress (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#REDRESS) of grievances.

Remember, in liberal world liberals are always correct and everyone else is pure evil!

Wow! D2Dingbat is on a D2Doofas liberal roll today. Liberal. Liberal. Liberal. Liblah Liblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....

Shut the fuck up, you loony conservative!

HAHAHAHAHAHA

1965hawks admits I have one, again!

And for that reason I argued that Muslim's in Dearborn had probable cause to be offended and to the right to complain that the school in question had endorsed a church-sponsored activity, an obvious violation of the separation of Church and State.   

You yourself argue that Easter is a pagan holiday hawk. You saying now you were wrong?

Holding a Easter egg hunt at a church has about as much to do with religion as voting at a church. Only paranoid fools think it's a secret plot to convert them.

No comment yet from our Islamic poster:


5 Public Schools That Have Installed Muslim Prayer Rooms (http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Muslim-Prayer-in-Schools-Religion-Students/2015/03/25/id/634403/)

Local5th: You yourself argue that Easter is a pagan holiday[,] hawk.

And I stand by that argument, Local5th. Easter is a continuation of pagan rituals and so is Christmas. In fact, Christianity itself has pagan origins.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/cmas1.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_33.htm

You saying now you were wrong?

No that's what you are saying, Local5th.

Holding a Easter egg hunt at a church has about as much to do with religion as voting at a church.

You're altering the facts again, Local5th. There was no Easter egg hunt held at the school. Was there? And voting at a church is not considered a religious observance or ritual. Is it, Local5th?

Only paranoid fools think it's a secret plot to convert them.

Muslim parents in Dearborn (not paranoid fools) had complained of attempts to coerce their children into adopting Christianity.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/easter-egg-hunt-flyer-angers-public-school-parents-article-1.1748110

As everyone with even a modicum(limited)of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.   The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text.

It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.”

Nowhere is this more important than with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: forbidding an official establishment of religion is something quite different from the much looser, imprecise term “separation of church and state.”

The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens.

It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

If you want to go by the Constitution, law and the USSC since 1789.

hawkiepoop thinks concessions to the Muslim faith is quite acceptable.

You always get it wrong, DUMB_john. Muslims in Dearborn didn't demand concessions Islam; they were offended by Christians violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Remember?

“My son, who was studying the Constitution, stated that he felt that schools and churches shouldn’t be mixed,” explained Moughni about his children a daughter, 7, and son, 9, at one of the schools where the flyers promoting an April 12 event at the Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church were distributed during school class time.

“I asked them if they wanted me to do something about it and they both said yes. So I did. I used my First Amendment right and freedom of speech to convey my displeasure with the school distributing flyers for events being held at a church. I used my Facebook page and found out that I wasn’t the only parent that felt it was wrong.”

Oh, I remember what was written.

But, your silence on public school concessions to Islamic prayer in school that I posted elicited absolute silence from you, you fucking two-faced racist.

i think the muslims need to chill....but can you imagine how insane the teabagger reaction would be if some muslim teachers promoted some muslim religious activity that honors Mohammed to their classes of school kids!!  and that flyers were handed out to all the kids to show up at some party celebrating mohammed?
 
Who cares what Muslims teach in their own schools in the Middle East?  They'd be pissed if Christians tried teaching Christianity in their schools in the Middle East, so YES we would have that same RIGHT to be pissed if they tried to teach Islam in schools in the United States.
 
This is what it looks like to actually be in proper context and compare apples to actual apples.  Try it sometime...
 
 
As far as the Easter Eggs, Muslims can kiss bunny-butt.... And go flog themselves..

In "refutation" 1965hawks link to three anti-Christianity/religion sites filled with the kind of mindless invective he so dearly loves!

Just another loss for 1965hawks!

i know you are not living in reality, but there are teachers in our public schools who are muslim!!  yes!!  it is true!  and there are a certain percentage of kids going to public school, who are also, wait for it, muslim!!  if a christian school teacher can talk about an upcoming event at her church tied to Jesus directly or indirectly that is designed for kids to go have fun at, like an easter egg hunt, for example, CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW INSANE THE TEABAGGER REACTION WOULD BE IF SOME MUSLIM TEACHER, HERE IN THIS COUNTRY OBVIOUSLY, PROMOTED SOME SIMILAR MUSLIM RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY TO THEIR CLASSES BEING HELD AT THEIR MOSQUE?  are you so confused you thought i meant muslim teachers in muslim countries?  THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PROMOTE ISLAM IN THEIR SCHOOLS, GOOFY.  THAT IS WHAT YOU TEABAGGERS WANT IN OUR COUNTRY-  SCHOOLS AND LAWS TO BE CHRISTIAN IN NATURE AND TO SUPERSEDE THE SECULAR CONSTITUTION AND THE SECULAR FOUNDATION OF THIS COUNTRY...you are secret muslims.  for shame...for shame...

horseshit duddy keeps posting the same cartoons and memes, as if it somehow validates his crap.

how is what i just posted a cartoon or a meme, dumbass?  it is pure fact.  which part of those facts about muslims and how republicans tend to agree with them is not true, lying asshole with shit for brains?  why not name one, stupid bitch, so i can shove the truth right down your huge gaping piehole?  you chickenshit liars spew nothing but easily debunked right wing talking points, and when asked to name one, you start crawfishing like the chickenshit stooges you are.  name one lie, bitch.  or shut the fuck up.  you got that, ankle biter?

horseshit duddy keeps posting the same cartoons and memes, as if it somehow validates his crap.

And what the fuck is that doing in a "separation of church and state" thread.

Yes, Scott Muslims are against abortion but only if the child is Muslim all others must be killed!  Republicans are against all abortions not only a select few!  Democrats target a select few just like Muslims!

Yes, Scott Muslims are supportive of the death penalty for all who dare question Islam and all infidels!  Republicans don't want to dictate the beliefs of others!   Democrats always seek to dictate the beliefs of others!

Yes, Scott Muslims insist the Muslim Church is the state and no, Republicans do not believe any church should be the state!  Democrats believe the worship of the state is paramount!

Wrong, Scott Muslims believe only Islam should be taught in schools as do democrats!  Republicans want all or no religious instruction!

Wrong, Scott Muslims believe women should have no rights while Republicans treat women as equals!  Democrats believe women must be given preference!

Yes, Scott Muslims believe all gays should be executed upon discovery!  Republicans have never executed anyone upon discovery for being gay!

Obama is for all consuming and encompassing government that Islam endorses!

The democrat party is most compatible with Islam!

D2D: Muslims are against abortion but only if the child is Muslim all others must be killed[;] Muslims believe women should have no rights.


D2Deceiver, where does the Qu'ran make those claims?

http://quran.com/

Republicans do not believe any church should be the state[.]

Republicans want Christianity to be the religion of the state. Remember, D2Deluded?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/poll-57-percent-republicans-christianity-national-religion









 

 
That's pretty dumb and an outright lie. 

To: duke_john and Local5th
in re: replies #102 and #103.

A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/poll-57-percent-republicans-christianity-national-religion

Why are you calling those Republicans liars?

No, I am calling you a liar, hawkiepoo, and the bogus poll you cite.

duke_john,

You're confused again. Your calling me a liar doesn't prove the survey's result a lie. Does it?

hawkiepoo, you're confused again.  Just because you say a biased web site appears to confirm your skewed viewpoint does not make it truthful.

duke_john,

Instead of babbling about me and what I believe, and insinuating that the evidence I provided lacks merit, , why don't you present evidence that refutes the polls findings? Where's you evidence to disprove the claim that over half of Republicans polled in a survey want to ignore the US Bill of Rights and make Christianity the state religion?

https://www.rt.com/usa/235567-republican-survey-christianity-national-religion/

 

Where's your evidence to prove that you are intelligent and pose facts to discuss?

duke_john:Where's your evidence to prove that you are intelligent and pose facts to discuss?

Firstly, I don't pose facts, I post them. However, I can understand how those facts pose a problem to your pseudo-intelligence and pretentious intellect.

And here's that evidence you're ignoring:

 https://www.rt.com/usa/235567-republican-survey-christianity-national-religion/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/poll-57-percent-republicans-christianity-national-religion

Remember now, debunked_john?

 

You are a poser.  Your "facts" are bogus.

Wow, a socialist propaganda site and a Putin propaganda site!

1965hawks is consistent in his choice of propaganda!

Wow! D2D is our forum's consistent ass clown, always babbling some dumb shit about "propaganda sites" but never presenting evidence to refute what's found on those sites.

D2D, take a seat and shut the fuck up, you foolish child!

 

As everyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Constitution knows, the term “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution.   The metaphor of a “wall of separation” comes from a letter President Thomas Jefferson penned to a group of Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut—a dozen years after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. The phrase is not mentioned in the Constitution’s text or in any of the debates leading to its ratification.

What the Constitution’s First Amendment does say is that government shall make no law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is well to attend to the actual words of the Constitution.

Nowhere is this more important than with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: forbidding an official establishment of religion is something quite different from the much looser, imprecise term “separation of church and state.” The Constitution only forbids government sponsorship and compulsion of religious exercise by individual citizens. It does not require hermetic “separation”—implying exclusion—of religion and religious persons from public affairs of state.

The Supreme Court has abandoned entirely the misleading metaphor “separation of church and state.”


http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/ (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/10/1920/)

 
Really?

Are you really that delusional and dishonest?

Sad!