Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Judge rules against atheist attacked in costume [View all]darkstar3
(8,763 posts)72. Still doesn't change the fact that CH's statement was factually correct.
It was here on DU.
And the place isn't more civil, it's just less busy. The old agitators are still agitating, they just have a smaller audience.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
and here the jewish community were all upset at the idea of neo-nazis marching in skokie
unblock
Feb 2012
#5
According to the statute, it appears they might have both been guilty of harassment.
humblebum
Feb 2012
#6
Going out as Zombie Mohammed in a Halloween parade is harassment? Explain how.
2ndAmForComputers
Feb 2012
#17
Of course not. There wouldn't be religious wars or religious-inspired terrorism if you were.
2ndAmForComputers
Feb 2012
#84
And, of course, there has never been any atheist-inspired terrorism or war making.
humblebum
Feb 2012
#86
CH was right, you are incoherent. That didn't even make sense at all in context.
darkstar3
Feb 2012
#103
You are right, in that your responses are irrational and illogical, and do not align with reality.
cleanhippie
Feb 2012
#59
It wasn't a draw, a believer ATTACKED an non-believer, and a judge let him go.
cleanhippie
Feb 2012
#60
Your characterization of my "blind hatred of non-believers" I find offensive. Criticism is
humblebum
Feb 2012
#62
You keep telling yourself that, rug. You will convince yourself eventually.
cleanhippie
Feb 2012
#45
Considering your visceral rejection for anything religious is now seeping onto your view of DU,
rug
Feb 2012
#49
AND? How does that change the fact that the shit was posted and allowed to stand?
darkstar3
Feb 2012
#66
FReedom of speech, freedom of expression. I see no problem. As long as you don't yell "fire" in
demosincebirth
Feb 2012
#11
terrorist act in the name of his religion, typical bullying from a person insecure in his beliefs nt
msongs
Feb 2012
#14
It appears that the judge was far from unbiased in this case and should have recused himself.
cbayer
Feb 2012
#25
If only it were that simple. The judge BLAMED the victim, and called him names.
cleanhippie
Feb 2012
#26
Are you objecting to name-calling or the fact that a magistrate did the name-calling?
rug
Feb 2012
#38
If you read this as my defending this decision you should reacquaint yourself with the word obtuse.
rug
Feb 2012
#88
A man assaulted another man because he was violently intolerant of "blasphemy",
darkstar3
Feb 2012
#67
I hide behind no one. I simply don't mind mentioning it when I find parallels
darkstar3
Feb 2012
#102
Now I'm beginning to think you have an overly glossy screen and a brightness problem.
darkstar3
Feb 2012
#114