Comments on: FFRF Loses major case in Supreme Court http://atheists.org/blog/2007/06/25/ffrf_loses_major_case_in_supreme_court A Blog of Atheist Thought Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:05:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: punkskeptic http://atheists.org/blog/2007/06/25/ffrf_loses_major_case_in_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-61496 punkskeptic Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-61496 goddamn... religion just continues to fuck up the country. goddamn… religion just continues to fuck up the country.

]]> By: writerdd http://atheists.org/blog/2007/06/25/ffrf_loses_major_case_in_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-61497 writerdd Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-61497 Yes it is still breaking the law. This just goes to show why we cannot, under any circumstances, allow another Rethuglican president to be elected. We must get keep them from getting more reactionary idiots in the Supreme Court.<br /> <br /> What we should do, in huge numbers, is stop paying our taxes. Fat chance, though, huh? Yes it is still breaking the law. This just goes to show why we cannot, under any circumstances, allow another Rethuglican president to be elected. We must get keep them from getting more reactionary idiots in the Supreme Court.

What we should do, in huge numbers, is stop paying our taxes. Fat chance, though, huh?

]]> By: amyg113 http://atheists.org/blog/2007/06/25/ffrf_loses_major_case_in_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-61499 amyg113 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-61499 This makes me sick to my stomach. This makes me sick to my stomach.

]]> By: podry http://atheists.org/blog/2007/06/25/ffrf_loses_major_case_in_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-61500 podry Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-61500 Ughh! Ughh!

]]> By: tarma http://atheists.org/blog/2007/06/25/ffrf_loses_major_case_in_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-61501 tarma Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-61501 This is certainly bad news - but, according to a statement by Lynn, at least this ruling only affects money from a White House discretionary fund being used to promote the faith-based initiative. Lynn said that it "is important to note that this ruling applies to only a few situations. Most church-state lawsuits, including those that challenge congressional appropriations for faith-based programs, will not be affected." I hope that is the case.<br /> <br /> I agree completely that electing another Republican as President will further push the Supreme Court in this direction. As an Independent, I suppose I will be voting once again for the lesser of two weevils. I hate it.<br /> This is certainly bad news – but, according to a statement by Lynn, at least this ruling only affects money from a White House discretionary fund being used to promote the faith-based initiative. Lynn said that it “is important to note that this ruling applies to only a few situations. Most church-state lawsuits, including those that challenge congressional appropriations for faith-based programs, will not be affected.” I hope that is the case.

I agree completely that electing another Republican as President will further push the Supreme Court in this direction. As an Independent, I suppose I will be voting once again for the lesser of two weevils. I hate it.

]]>