The Evils of Atheism

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#69 Aug 26, 2013
lol wrote:
<quoted text>Well ok since you insist, the atheist want to block "religious groups" right to be tax exempt, yet they themselves have the same status, can you say hypocrite? They want the teachings of monkeys are our ancestors yet block prayer in schools.
Another of the Evils of Theism

Do you think that if you keep repeating the same lies, that they will become true, or that everyone will believe you. This is a FAUX NEWS tactic that a lot of people caught on to a long time ago. It has never worked with people willing to investigate the facts.
lol

Jackson, TN

#70 Aug 26, 2013
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong on so many accounts:
Prayer is still allowed in school, and it's never been banned. It's Government-Led prayer that is unconstitutional, because it allows the government to favor one religion over another religion or no religion. It also allows the government to tell all students of various faiths and non-faiths when to pray, how to pray. and to which god to pray. It's illegal plain and simple.
I assume your "teachings of monkeys" is meant to be teaching evolution, which is a scientific fact, and it should be allowed to be taught in science classes. If you keep your religious beliefs, i.e. creationism and ID, from being taught in science classes, we'll keep science out of your Sunday Schools. Agreed?
The tax exempt status of nonprofits is not exactly the issue of late. For one thing, It's the different paperwork filing requirements.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/18643...
Read about the FORM 990:
"In exchange for the significant advantage of retaining tax exemption, all 501(c)(3) organizations except churches must file an annual, onerous Form 990 with the IRS. These forms are available to the public, and reputable charities now place 990 forms on their websites for easy access.
Tax-exempts report to the public on what they do with donations, financial oversight policies, salaries of top employees, how much of the income is used for fundraising versus mission or management, etc. Most active nonprofits, such as FFRF, hire a certified public accountant to prepare the form, incurring significant accounting.
“Don’t get us wrong. We think the cost and transparency is worth it,” says FFRF co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor.“We’re grateful for the privilege of the government designating donations to FFRF as deductible for income-tax purposes. But since we began filing these forms in 1978, we’ve been acutely aware that churches don’t play by the same rules, yet get equal or better privileges.”
Dan Barker, FFRF co-president, asks,“What do churches have to hide? Why don’t they want to be accountable to the public?”"
There is also another discriminatory
And then there is the Church politicking provision that these certain non-profits are doing illegally.
So no, it's not just the tax exempt status of various non profits that is the issue.
Your wrong again, prayer is banned in schools, it was never government led prayer. The U. S. Supreme Court issued two bans on prayer in public schools. The first ban came in 1962 and the second was issued in 1963. The bans were the result of a court case sponsored in part by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She was but one of the litigants in the lawsuit, but her name became synonymous with the case and the promotion of atheism. The ban not only outlawed prayer in public schools but it also banned Bible reading in public schools.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was the founder of American Atheists, Inc. which not only sought to ban prayer in public schools but also actively promoted atheism and the continued separation of church and school. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was born in 1919 and mysteriously disappeared in 1995. It is assumed that she was murdered and her body was discovered in 2001.
In addition to be credited with the banning of prayer in public schools, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is also credited with trying to petition the U.S. government and the FCC to ban the use of the word "God" on the airways. However, unlike the ban on prayer in public schools this proposed ban is an Internet hoax, and her organization denies the rumors that this petition to ban the use of the word "God" on the airways was her doing.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair is survived by her son William J. Murray, the president of the Religious Freedom Coalition in Washington D.C. Unlike his mother who fought to ban prayer in public schools, William J. Murray is a strong Christian who fights for the rights of Christians around the world.
lol

Jackson, TN

#71 Aug 26, 2013
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong on so many accounts:
Prayer is still allowed in school, and it's never been banned. It's Government-Led prayer that is unconstitutional, because it allows the government to favor one religion over another religion or no religion. It also allows the government to tell all students of various faiths and non-faiths when to pray, how to pray. and to which god to pray. It's illegal plain and simple.
I assume your "teachings of monkeys" is meant to be teaching evolution, which is a scientific fact, and it should be allowed to be taught in science classes. If you keep your religious beliefs, i.e. creationism and ID, from being taught in science classes, we'll keep science out of your Sunday Schools. Agreed?
The tax exempt status of nonprofits is not exactly the issue of late. For one thing, It's the different paperwork filing requirements.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/18643...
Read about the FORM 990:
"In exchange for the significant advantage of retaining tax exemption, all 501(c)(3) organizations except churches must file an annual, onerous Form 990 with the IRS. These forms are available to the public, and reputable charities now place 990 forms on their websites for easy access.
Tax-exempts report to the public on what they do with donations, financial oversight policies, salaries of top employees, how much of the income is use
And then there is the Church politicking provision that these certain non-profits are doing illegally.
So no, it's not just the tax exempt status of various non profits that is the issue.
The U. S. Supreme Court issued two bans on prayer in public schools. The first ban came in 1962 and the second was issued in 1963. The bans were the result of a court case sponsored in part by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She was but one of the litigants in the lawsuit, but her name became synonymous with the case and the promotion of atheism. The ban not only outlawed prayer in public schools but it also banned Bible reading in public schools.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was the founder of American Atheists, Inc. which not only sought to ban prayer in public schools but also actively promoted atheism and the continued separation of church and school. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was born in 1919 and mysteriously disappeared in 1995. It is assumed that she was murdered and her body was discovered in 2001.
In addition to be credited with the banning of prayer in public schools, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is also credited with trying to petition the U.S. government and the FCC to ban the use of the word "God" on the airways. However, unlike the ban on prayer in public schools this proposed ban is an Internet hoax, and her organization denies the rumors that this petition to ban the use of the word "God" on the airways was her doing.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair is survived by her son William J. Murray, the president of the Religious Freedom Coalition in Washington D.C. Unlike his mother who fought to ban prayer in public schools, William J. Murray is a strong Christian who fights for the rights of Christians around the world. CAN U SAY BANNED
lol

Jackson, TN

#72 Aug 26, 2013
Now to evolution"How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter …[it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."
Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.
Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954.
That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.
So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution with a basic law of science. In order to sustain his humanistic explanation of the origin of life, he must accept the exploded, unscientific theory of spontaneous generation. And the big question is this: Why is he so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible? A miracle of creation is required in either case. Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wald's impossible act. Let any reasonable mind contemplate the alternatives for a moment. Doesn't it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life than it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce it?
lol

Jackson, TN

#73 Aug 26, 2013
How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter …[it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."

Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.

Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?

Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954.

That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible
lol

Jackson, TN

#74 Aug 26, 2013
The "common ancestor" that evolution demands has never existed. There is not a "missing link." Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry! Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their blood is different. Their chromosomes don't jibe. Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.

But when we start comparing humans with monkeys, we get even more impossible differences than those among the simian types. In fact, these differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of "after its kind." The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded, developing humans.

It has already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species changes. Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming their scales into feathers and their front feet into wings. Other reptiles supposedly should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds. Did they find those thousands of multi-changing creatures? Not one! No matter what particular strata they sifted through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within their own families, just as God decreed. If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with combination features of two or more species. Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin confessed:

"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record" (Life and Letters, vol. 3, p. 25).

How interesting! Then why insist that it had to be that way? This is one of the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory. Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. The creationist is not surprised at all. His Bible told him it would be that way, and he hasn't been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.
lol

Jackson, TN

#75 Aug 26, 2013
And finally church records is none of no ones business except the memebers of the church which fyi they have access to it. Remember separation of church and state

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#76 Aug 26, 2013
lol wrote:
<quoted text>The U. S. Supreme Court issued two bans on prayer in public schools. The first ban came in 1962 and the second was issued in 1963. The bans were the result of a court case sponsored in part by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She was but one of the litigants in the lawsuit, but her name became synonymous with the case and the promotion of atheism. The ban not only outlawed prayer in public schools but it also banned Bible reading in public schools.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was the founder of American Atheists, Inc. which not only sought to ban prayer in public schools but also actively promoted atheism and the continued separation of church and school. Madalyn Murray O'Hair was born in 1919 and mysteriously disappeared in 1995. It is assumed that she was murdered and her body was discovered in 2001.
In addition to be credited with the banning of prayer in public schools, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is also credited with trying to petition the U.S. government and the FCC to ban the use of the word "God" on the airways. However, unlike the ban on prayer in public schools this proposed ban is an Internet hoax, and her organization denies the rumors that this petition to ban the use of the word "God" on the airways was her doing.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair is survived by her son William J. Murray, the president of the Religious Freedom Coalition in Washington D.C. Unlike his mother who fought to ban prayer in public schools, William J. Murray is a strong Christian who fights for the rights of Christians around the world. CAN U SAY BANNED
Again it was government sponsered prayer that was litigated.

She is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending OFFICIAL Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. This came one year after the Supreme Court prohibited OFFICIALLY sponsored prayer in schools in Engel v. Vitale.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#77 Aug 26, 2013
lol wrote:
Now to evolution"How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter …[it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."
Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.
Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?
Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner of Harvard University, states it as cryptically and honestly as an evolutionist can:
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation." Scientific American, August 1954.
That statement by Dr. Wald demonstrates a much greater faith than a religious creationist can muster. Notice that the great evolutionary scientist says it could not have happened. It was impossible. Yet he believes it did happen. What can we say to that kind of faith? At least the creationist believes that God was able to speak life into existence. His is not a blind faith in something that he concedes to be impossible.
So here we are, face to face with the first contradiction of evolution with a basic law of science. In order to sustain his humanistic explanation of the origin of life, he must accept the exploded, unscientific theory of spontaneous generation. And the big question is this: Why is he so violently opposed to the spontaneous generation spoken of in the Bible? A miracle of creation is required in either case. Either God did it by divine fiat, or blind, unintelligent nature produced Wald's impossible act. Let any reasonable mind contemplate the alternatives for a moment. Doesn't it take more faith to believe that chance could produce life than it does to believe infinite intelligence could produce it?
It looks like the above was taken from a Creo-Crap website:

www.sabbathtruth.com/free.../how-evolution-fl...

Creationism is not science, and neither is I.D. And these religious precepts should not be taught in public schools. Teach it in your bible and/or sunday schools, but my taxpayer dollar should not be used to promote a pseudo-science.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#78 Aug 26, 2013
lol wrote:
The "common ancestor" that evolution demands has never existed. There is not a "missing link." Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same animal ancestry! Even chimpanzees and many monkey groups vary tremendously. Some are smart, others dumb. Some have short tails and some long. Some have no tails at all. Their teeth vary in number. A few have thumbs and others do not. Their genes are different. Their blood is different. Their chromosomes don't jibe. Interestingly enough, apes only breed with apes, chimpanzees with chimpanzees, and monkeys with monkeys.
But when we start comparing humans with monkeys, we get even more impossible differences than those among the simian types. In fact, these differences constitute another unanswerable support for the Bible rule of "after its kind." The fact that some monkeys can be trained to smoke a pipe, ride a scooter, or even hoist a test tube in a laboratory does not prove that scientists are evolved animals, or that monkeys are retarded, developing humans.
It has already been stated that evolutionists expected the fossil record to support their theory of species changes. Their doctrine demanded vast numbers of scaly reptiles transforming their scales into feathers and their front feet into wings. Other reptiles supposedly should be changing into fur-bearing quadrupeds. Did they find those thousands of multi-changing creatures? Not one! No matter what particular strata they sifted through, all the fossils were easily recognized and classified within their own families, just as God decreed. If the evolutionary doctrine were true, the strata would be teeming with hundreds of millions of transition forms with combination features of two or more species. Not only so, but there would have to be millions upon millions of observable living links right now in the process of turning into a higher form. Darwin confessed:
"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record" (Life and Letters, vol. 3, p. 25).
How interesting! Then why insist that it had to be that way? This is one of the marvels of those who cling to a traditional theory. Even the most ancient fossil forms in the lowest fossil beds have stubbornly retained the same features of their modern counterparts, and it is amusing to listen to the exclamations of surprise by the evolutionists. The creationist is not surprised at all. His Bible told him it would be that way, and he hasn't been forced to puzzle over contradictory evidence.
Even if you were able to completely disprove evolution, which neither you nor your Creo-Crap websites have yet to do, you would still not have proved that your "god did it", or even that your god is real. So, you are wasting your time trying to discredit any science.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#79 Aug 26, 2013
lol wrote:
And finally church records is none of no ones business except the memebers of the church which fyi they have access to it. Remember separation of church and state
This is part of the ongoing litigation, because it's discriminatory to allow one set of non-profits to have to abide by one set of laws and yet let another not have to abide.

Only The Dude Abides.
really

Jackson, TN

#80 Aug 26, 2013
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It looks like the above was taken from a Creo-Crap website:
www.sabbathtruth.com/free.../how-evolution-fl...
Creationism is not science, and neither is I.D. And these religious precepts should not be taught in public schools. Teach it in your bible and/or sunday schools, but my taxpayer dollar should not be used to promote a pseudo-science.
and my tax dollar should not pay for your so called science of evolution b/s either. take it out of school as well, pushing your beliefs on me and mine is not right either
really

Jackson, TN

#81 Aug 26, 2013
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if you were able to completely disprove evolution, which neither you nor your Creo-Crap websites have yet to do, you would still not have proved that your "god did it", or even that your god is real. So, you are wasting your time trying to discredit any science.
just like your evolution b/s cant either, so your wasting your time as well moron. Darwin was a quack like most of the morons you put soo much trust in
really

Jackson, TN

#82 Aug 26, 2013
MrDesoto1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is part of the ongoing litigation, because it's discriminatory to allow one set of non-profits to have to abide by one set of laws and yet let another not have to abide.
Only The Dude Abides.
you want separation and its in the constitution, and again it is seen by members of the church,so technically its not hiding like you claim. But typical atheist, you whine about everything. SO where do I find your financial records at? or any atheist organization for that matter

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#83 Aug 26, 2013
And now we can see even more of the Evils of Theism, by the spread of a disease from a megachurch.

Measles Outbreak Traces To Vaccine-Refusing Megachurch

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2...

Thanks Auntie for sharing this in another thread!

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#84 Aug 26, 2013
Another of the Evils of Atheism: Imposing your religious beliefs on the general population and stereotyping others.

For example:
really wrote:
<quoted text>wow see whining, you atheist are the biggest titty babies ever, And as far as alcohol, it's killed more lives than any other thing, it should be banned, but you morons wont push for that cause its what you idiots love to do

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#85 Aug 26, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>just like your evolution b/s cant either, so your wasting your time as well moron. Darwin was a quack like most of the morons you put soo much trust in
Sorry, but I don't use God of the Gaps Fallacies.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#86 Aug 26, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>you want separation and its in the constitution, and again it is seen by members of the church,so technically its not hiding like you claim. But typical atheist, you whine about everything. SO where do I find your financial records at? or any atheist organization for that matter
I'm not a non-profit organization, but you can find The FFRF's FORM 990 on their website. Like they said, they have nothing to hide; however, your churches apparently are hiding something.

http://ffrf.org/about/year-in-review

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#87 Aug 26, 2013
really wrote:
<quoted text>and my tax dollar should not pay for your so called science of evolution b/s either. take it out of school as well, pushing your beliefs on me and mine is not right either
What else would you and your religion impose on the public school system - eliminate germ theory?
really

Jackson, TN

#88 Aug 26, 2013
MrDesoto1 wrote:
Another of the Evils of Atheism: Imposing your religious beliefs on the general population and stereotyping others.
For example:
<quoted text>
do you atheist only feel like you won when you try to make everything about you and your lies? Alcohol is a personal belief,many are killed by it everyday. But with monkey brains like you have, you can not comprehend that

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Violent Counter Protesters Are To Blame 9 min GnFnR 58
Jackson walk Phase 2 - the Bemis Mill (Oct '16) 27 min Crony 900
Tiny Hands Nation 27 min Clayton 1
Gang-drugs 30 min Truthinshortsupply 13
Easier way to get to Lexington from Jackson 47 min jane 20
Los Portales new building? 2 hr Bum 36
Wiccans or Pagans in the Jackson area 3 hr please 30
Am i the only one? 4 hr 123abc 19

Jackson Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson Mortgages