Really? Prove it.

Philosophy can only be proven to ones self.
Not that I'm a philosopher. Hell I am barely a philanderer.

I think it works around the same, I honestly don't feel pressure from any group. I would think most atheists keep quiet because they don't really give a shit about negative identification. That is my reason and every atheists (which are the majority of people I am around) reason that I know of.

It's just another ad. People are as likely to respond to it as any other.

I'm not planning on spending a weekend at Jack Frost/Big Boulder, either, and I see that billboard a lot more often.

It's true.
I've been craving the taste of McSemen for days... [cellar link]

Dana I missed this originally, only catching the end of it on the news. I think it's great. In the quoted article, the one thing that made me laugh out loud - yes literally - was that the anti quote came from a Merkin! I bet they couldn't find an English person within walking distamce who was prepared to criticise it :)

Merkin?

I liked this bit:

Doomsday is coming! Head for the covers!!

Pontius Pie-late?

1) A pubic wig
2) A mop for cleaning out a cannon

Look, Paul -- that's probably less because of any ideas in here than your generally Michael Newdow tone. You know you'd come off like him.

I don't know who that is, much less come off like him. I am me. A defender of liberty and freedom and a man who recognizes the limitations on the powers of our government. A man who wishes freedom and liberty for everyone, but who demands that his government only champion that freedom for our own people. Others must earn it for themselves. That doesn't make me a tyrant, or a person who supports or condones tyrants. It makes me a true libertarian and a good American patriot, unlike anyone who supports the war in Iraq.

I think it was a reference to an American, after some thought.;)

I didn't remember him either, so I Googled him. . .

Judge dismisses attempt to ban prayer from inauguration

Got me wondering what the cellarites think of this. I know there is a large contingent of athiests/agnostics here.

The US treats religion from the standpoint of making sure free exercise is allowed, not removing every aspect of religion from the government. This means that the government will not establish an official religion, sponsor a specific religion with tax money, or prevent the free exercise of a religion. It does not prevent the mention of religion within oaths or other minor things like that. There is a valid argument that it prevents the construction of expensive monuments to fictional books with taxpayer money, but that is another issue.

I don't see any reason to change the oath.