Hello, overboard much?

[jeny]

Thank goodness they reversed their decision.

http://www.kron.com/Global/story.asp?S=1098386

[wendy]

They would have lost that one in court.

Hey..what's the deal with a SF site picking up all those Kentucky stories? Do they think Kentucky is overseas or something? ::)

[jeny]

They would have lost that one in court.

Hey..what's the deal with a SF site picking up all those Kentucky stories? Do they think Kentucky is overseas or something? ::)


I don't know...maybe KRON 4 is an affiliate or something. It's no longer NBC so who knows.

Also, nothing interesting local except Laci Peterson.

What?!?

[jeny]

What?!?


HUH??!!?! ;D

That was about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm assuming that this guy is probably studying to be a minister because of Robertson's involvement. My big question is whether these people would have been as upset if he was an athiest.

[guido]

That was about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm assuming that this guy is probably studying to be a minister because of Robertson's involvement. My big question is whether these people would have been as upset if he was an athiest.


Do you think his scholarship would have been taken away if he was an atheist?

That was about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm assuming that this guy is probably studying to be a minister because of Robertson's involvement. My big question is whether these people would have been as upset if he was an athiest.


Do you think his scholarship would have been taken away if he was an atheist?


I don't think so. There is a difference in promoting religion and studying religion. What difference in this case would it make if the guy was a born-again or an atheist? The only difference I can see I don't think Pat Robertson would have helped the atheist. ;)

[guido]

That was about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm assuming that this guy is probably studying to be a minister because of Robertson's involvement. My big question is whether these people would have been as upset if he was an athiest.


Do you think his scholarship would have been taken away if he was an atheist?


I don't think so. There is a difference in promoting religion and studying religion. What difference in this case would it make if the guy was a born-again or an atheist? The only difference I can see I don't think Pat Robertson would have helped the atheist. ;)


You missed the point. They tried to take away his scholarship; I won't go so far as to say they did it because he was Christian, but he IS Christian. Yet, we both can agree that if he were atheist, they would have never even tried.

That was about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm assuming that this guy is probably studying to be a minister because of Robertson's involvement. My big question is whether these people would have been as upset if he was an athiest.


Do you think his scholarship would have been taken away if he was an atheist?


I don't think so. There is a difference in promoting religion and studying religion. What difference in this case would it make if the guy was a born-again or an atheist? The only difference I can see I don't think Pat Robertson would have helped the atheist. ;)


You missed the point. They tried to take away his scholarship; I won't go so far as to say they did it because he was Christian, but he IS Christian. Yet, we both can agree that if he were atheist, they would have never even tried.


I agree about the atheist part and no I didn't really miss the point, the only reason they changed their minds even after Pat Robertson stepped in was because they knew they were wrong. I agree their first reaction was because he was a Christian. Had they continued they surely would have lost in court, that and the attention that Pat Robertson put on it caused them to do the right thing after all.

[guido]

That was about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm assuming that this guy is probably studying to be a minister because of Robertson's involvement. My big question is whether these people would have been as upset if he was an athiest.


Do you think his scholarship would have been taken away if he was an atheist?


I don't think so. There is a difference in promoting religion and studying religion. What difference in this case would it make if the guy was a born-again or an atheist? The only difference I can see I don't think Pat Robertson would have helped the atheist. ;)


You missed the point. They tried to take away his scholarship; I won't go so far as to say they did it because he was Christian, but he IS Christian. Yet, we both can agree that if he were atheist, they would have never even tried.


I agree about the atheist part and no I didn't really miss the point, the only reason they changed their minds even after Pat Robertson stepped in was because they knew they were wrong. I agree their first reaction was because he was a Christian. Had they continued they surely would have lost in court, that and the attention that Pat Robertson put on it caused them to do the right thing after all.


I'd like to think that Robertson would have done it in either instance. His track record, however, would probably prove to be an obstacle. Suffice to say, a real Christian should do it in either instance, but in the interest of equality, the government must.

That was about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'm assuming that this guy is probably studying to be a minister because of Robertson's involvement. My big question is whether these people would have been as upset if he was an athiest.


Do you think his scholarship would have been taken away if he was an atheist?


I don't think so. There is a difference in promoting religion and studying religion. What difference in this case would it make if the guy was a born-again or an atheist? The only difference I can see I don't think Pat Robertson would have helped the atheist. ;)


You missed the point. They tried to take away his scholarship; I won't go so far as to say they did it because he was Christian, but he IS Christian. Yet, we both can agree that if he were atheist, they would have never even tried.


I agree about the atheist part and no I didn't really miss the point, the only reason they changed their minds even after Pat Robertson stepped in was because they knew they were wrong. I agree their first reaction was because he was a Christian. Had they continued they surely would have lost in court, that and the attention that Pat Robertson put on it caused them to do the right thing after all.


I'd like to think that Robertson would have done it in either instance. His track record, however, would probably prove to be an obstacle. Suffice to say, a real Christian should do it in either instance, but in the interest of equality, the government must.


It never should have even come up should it? Too much PC involved.

[guido]

No, it shouldn't have come up, but sometimes it's good for things like this to happen. It reminds people that their rights aren't always taken away from them.