He's probably blaming the shooting on the violence found in the Super Mario Brothers, Donkey Kong, and Pac-Man games kids are playing on their Atari 2600 consoles.

^LOLz!!!

No he looked into a crystal ball into the future....or so he thought!

The Teapublican Congress needs a new Magic 8 Ball for X-Mas because the one they are using is broken and stuck....on NO!

xxx...your right ...they have it stuck on NO....No new spending....Merry Christmas!

So go right ahead and destroy the country. Great plan! Privatize every fncking thing! And then bill it to whats left of the taxpayers GREAT PLAN! Talk about hand me downs!

Pat,

If only that were true. The Tea Party Caucus is a big fan of new spending on shiny toys for the Defense Department. They want to cut spending on the least among us and continue looting the Social Security and Medicare trusts to finance fighter jets and warships we simply do not need.

Social Security and Medicare are not in deficit, for the taxes and bonds dedicated to these programs pay for them and will continue to do so for at least another dozen years. It is the rest of the budget, led by defense, that is in deficit this year and every year for the last 30 years.

Happy Holidays to all, and may we all wake up to find grown-ups in Congress when they return on the 26th.

#56.6 I have to turn in, but I share your hope about the grown ups. I may not be skeptical about God, but Congress is another matter. LOL Good night all.

Good night India.....

A couple dozen Republicans should join with the Democrats and elect Dick Lugar Speaker of the House. He is available and knows how to get things done.

Perhaps, But these guys can't agree on which way to turn a doorknob!

2014? Good night, everyone.

Nice Avatar India! Nite....

Bob Seger/Against the Wind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=e2efTlU36Tw

Sorry I don't see it...But I'm not a tweeter!

Believe this.... they will let you know.....

O.B.S. I can see what you do,but most can't They are blind from the eye's they pluck out.

Locked-out Crystal Sugar workers and families receive holiday gifts

19 December 2012

GRAND FORKS, N.D. - As the lockout’s second Christmas approaches, food, toys and financial contributions have been pouring into the Red River Valley in support of workers and their families whom Crystal Sugar Company shut out from their jobs more than 16 months ago.

Most recently, Teamsters and Laborers union semi-trailer trucks have been delivering donated toys and food in Fargo, Grand Forks, Hillsboro, Crookston, and Drayton. A delivery was also made to locked-out Crystal Sugar workers in Mason City, Iowa.

The food and toys were collected by Operation Christmas Solidarity, sponsored by the Saint Paul Regional Labor Federation and American Income Life. Union volunteers are unloading the trucks at each stop.

http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?news_6_5396

Very RIGHTWING and VERY big government welfare queens. You see, R's do believe in welfare payments, just not for those nasty poor folks.

"Are there no workhouses?"

I also should have said what they get paid for that work?

Lest ye forget, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon that destroyed so many lives also!

If we mandate prayer in school, remodel every school to have only one fortified entrance, and place an armed police officer at every school we will spend hundreds of billions a year and punish kids refusing the majority prayer only to have wackos shoot up school buses or private schools or preschools or little league games or....

Both Graham and LaPierre are parasites in the body politic.

The Second Amendment does not give everyone the right to have any 'arms' they want in their home. Machine guns, grenade launchers, nerve gas, and nuclear weapons are all banned ARMS. People-hunting weapons such as the AR-15 and anything with a clip of more than 6 should be banned outside of well-regulated gun ranges as well. Anyone needing more than 3 shots to drop a deer or intruder should not handle guns.

If you are selling portable life rafts, then it is entirely sensible to make the argument that the thing that will save a drowning person in a flood is for a good person with a boat to stop them from drowning.

Denying the value of pre-emptive social policy- in this case of flood control measures like dams, levies and sound land management policy- can be an effective strategy of decisively painting a society into a corner. In such situations where there are few options other than the ones that will profit a narrow group of people, insuring there will be repeat disasters can be exceptionally lucrative.

This is really good for disaster capitalists- the ones ready to enter the 1% by selling you a life raft backpack.

Naomi Klein has much more to say about the mechanics and economics of disaster capitalism in her book Shock Doctrine.

Unleash the BEAST!

feed the beast! Screw that FEED THE BEAST!

Ok. That means our solor system could be like, one tiny atom in the finger nail of some giant being. This is to much! That means one tiny atom in my fingernail.....could be one little tiny universe.

Could I by some pot from you?

The evidence-based (scientific) view of the universe has been evolving since man first looked into the night skies and wondered what it all meant.

Prior to the 1920's the accepted view was that the Milky Way Galaxy was the entire universe, and that while it rotated it was constant in span and content. This is why Mr. Einstein created his cosmological constant, to 'correct' his calculations that otherwise indicated an expansionary universe. When Mr. Hubble proved that there were other galaxies and that the Universe was expanding Mr. Einstein stated that everything known about the universe had changed.

This is the basic difference between evidenced-based philosophy (science) and scripture-based philosophy (religion). Science regularly admits it is wrong, accepts new information, and grows.

That means our solor system could be like, one tiny atom in the finger nail of some giant being.

What? Not at all. Electrons around nucleus of protons and neutrons are nothing like planets around suns. The forces are different, and the physics are vastly different. For example, do planets appear and disappear in probabilistic locations within shells around the sun?

If you are in interested in current thinking on the physical cosmology behind what I was describing, take a look at the Multiverse article I pointed to- it has a wealth of citations. In regards to the mathematics especially, a more rigorous treatment may be found by following the link to the Scientific American 2003 article by Max Tegmark.

This is the basic difference between evidenced-based philosophy (science) and scripture-based philosophy (religion). Science regularly admits it is wrong, accepts new information, and grows.

Let us note that the question of whether the universe is infinite in either time or space is not a question science can answer. We can make statements about the observable universe only, and can construct theoretical models for how the universe may be infinite or finite, but to answer the question with science would require complete information about the universe.

It is true the various models of finiteness or infiniteness can be disproved as logically inconsistent or impossible (eg the mini worlds within worlds within worlds pothead idea), but other more plausible models will take their place. In the end we will never know. Some questions are like that, but that does not by definition mean they are unworthy of consideration, or taking a position on.

Science for example has nothing to say about ethics. It cannot. Yet it is a matter of significant importance for society, and it is imperative that people think through their moral positions.

But this digresses considerably from the smug humor in the press about the Mayan notion of cyclical view of time. As long as there is any model that admits of a universe infinite in time or space, it is mathematically plausible that each of us (exactly, as we are this moment) are re-emergent properties of the universe.

In this Christmas season, even if we think of Jesus as just some really nice progressive man who tried to right wrongs done to oppressed people of his time, getting crucified for it- We can still think of his as eternally recurring- an immortal principle of the universe always being born into the world to communicate to his fellow people about the power and importance of love, peace and empathy. So apart from his holiness, one could admit of his "immortality".

Merry Christmas to you all. Bon Nadal. It is a good time to celebrate the birth of goodness in the world regardless of your spiritual views.

The fact that we can posit an infinite number of theories which cannot be proven or refuted does not make them equally valid.

People are imperfect beings. Everything we know or will ever know is wrong. The point is not to be right, but to be less wrong. And the most effective means of judging the validity of our theories is to compare them to observables.

So, when judging the wisdom of the ancients, I would have to say that prophecies made by a culture that could not predict its own collapse due to exhaustion of its resource base are highly suspect.

Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics would kinda preclude cyclic evolution of the universe. Feel free to disprove the work of J.W. Gibbs if you believe otherwise.

Happy Holidays to all! Remember the reason for the season -- it is cold and dark this time of year so we need to drink and sing away the blues!

Dear John Messerly: As you have missed quantum physics time and space doesn't exist. So in that LEFT and RIGHT doesn't either. A + B doesn't equal C And 123 Only makes 6 in a state of mind.

But don't worry God thinks rocks a alive!

My advice to you.......is to start drinking heavily.

It is unfair to dismiss what I wrote as contradictory to such simple laws of physics. Really, you are seriously misinformed about the physics being discussed if you think the Second Law has any relevance. Please read before speaking- in particular, familiarize yourself with the 4 basic sets of multiverse hypotheses if you want to have a serious discussion.

So, to turn in back on you, if you think the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves multiverse theory, then feel free to write letters to the large number of physicists advocating them who have a solid understanding of the 2nd law and understand that it does not offer the fatal objections you seem to believe it does.

Let's not have such a simple minded discussion.

XXX OOO. Same objection. Take a look at the bubble universe variation. Specifically these are space-time bubbles with possibly alternate cosmological constants. Explaining what this means to a lay audience make the ideas opaque to them, or requires too much space. I believe I fairly conveyed the flavor of the ideas by using ideas from classical physics that most people understand. As a point though, space-time has no necessary linkage to quantum theory. It's author, Einstein for example had little regard for quantum theory. So really your ignorance of the subject was rather plain by your dismissive remark. I request you be more careful in the future when belittling the thoughts of others.

Wow. My Ph.D. in Physics never included discussions of this type. I stand in awe, fellows.

Everything we know or will ever know is wrong. ( ref 73.4)

That puts me in my place, sure enough. Why bother saying anything to anyone ever again, or reading anything, or getting out of bed in the morning? A difficult starting point for any reasonable discussion among one's fellows.

Luckily most people of good will are probably laughing with their friends and family over richly spiked egg nog and sugar cookies and redolent candles. They won't let even the whispers of nihilism on this otherwise reasonable blog intrude on their happiness.

Does this mean there's no Santa Claus?

Knucklebump: I own dozens of guns and I would gladly give them all up if it would bring back just one of those kids/teachers. But it won't.

It means that the probabilistic outcome of people taking particular actions have consequences.

In one bubble universe, with a slightly different set of random quantum events during the Bush administration, the assault weapon ban is not just renewed but strengthened requiring the registration of everyone authorized to be in possession of the registered weapon. Adam Lanza's mother is unable to purchase the Bushmaster he used, and Lanza fails his psychological examination when he attempts to get authorized to be in possession of his mother's Glock and Sig Sauer.

The reason why the assault weapon ban is strengthened is not due to magical thinking or moral ambivalence. It happens because people summon the moral courage based on unprovable ideas about what is good and evil.

There is no scientific basis for moral values, but this fact does not imply the only alternative basis is a theistic or religious- it could be based on another metaphysical system. Sam Harris has attempted to prove there is a scientific basis for morality, but all he achieved is semantic sleight of hand, redefining moral values to mean what is good for the flourishing of sentient life. Science is about Facts not norms.

To believe Santa Science will deliver anything else under the Christmas tree for the dead children of Shady Glen is quite simply a delusion.

In another bubble universe Lanzas mom would have locked up her guns as far away from her mentally ill son as possible.

The reason an assualt weapon ban would not have made a difference is that she could have owned a Ruger 10/22 .22 caliber rifle with a 10 round clip. It is one of the most popular hunting rifles on the market. Adam could of just carried 20 or 30 of the 10 round clips and done just as much damage. It takes less that 5 seconds to remove and replace the clip.

The comments I made on the other thread were an attemp to prove that a reasonable discusion about guns (or anything) is impossible because all I have to do is present an opposing veiwpoint and I will be attacked with name calling and small penis jokes (not by you). I went on a conservitive blog that same day and presented them with an opposing viewpoint and guess what? I was a communist, food stamp collecting, dope smoking hippie. Go figure.

You seem like a smart guy. Maybe if both sides could stop screaming for a second we could work this out. I just can't help but feel ashamed to be an adult in this country right now.

I suppose I have attitudes towards guns typical of people who also grew up in largely rural areas around forests. My experience is largely with more obsolete bolt action, revolver or breach load type guns. I have to confess I don't understand what you are trying to suggest with your prediction about the ineffectiveness of sensible gun control measures on Lanzas. Are stop signs and safeties on a guns also worthless since they can be ignored and are not 100% effective at preventing all tragedies? No, so although I agree there is no guarantee it would have stopped Lanzas, the data shows that such measures do succeed in dramatically reducing the incidence of deaths due to guns.

So either I don't understand your point, or you are plainly mistaken about the statistics on the effectiveness of these measures.

Certainly a parent would be prudent if they considered the worst possibilities around a child growing gradually more unbalanced, but I don't see that it is reasonable for a mother to take seriously the idea her son would be capable of such heinous crimes.

So what objection would you have to the requirement that the registration list each person authorized to be in possession of the firearm, and that to gain such yearly re-authorization that they submit to a brief interview with a licensed mental health professional? What objection would you have that this be a national registry with uniform federal standards, administered by the FBI?

I know some regard this as a slippery slope, but it seems to me this concern is driven by unreasonable fear. Firearms have a lot of sensible uses and such a policy is not part of some nefarious plot to take them away from anyone of sound mind.

I have to confess I don't understand what you are trying to suggest with your prediction about the ineffectiveness of sensible gun control measures on Lanzas

I could be completely wrong here, but it seems to me that the point that KnuckleBump is trying to get at is that in these "bubble universes" whatever may have happened is mostly irrelevant. But, in your example, you say that each person would have to have an examination in order to be authorized to use the gun. What makes you think that an authorization would matter to him if he planned to shoot up an elementary school? Sensible gun control really relies on the consumer being sensible enough to obtain a gun legally.

Let's say that he had been on this registry. How would you know if he had stolen the gun? That would imply that a cop or some other official with access to the registry would have to see him and identify him, most likely without probably cause. (As I would assume that he didn't just carry the guns around in the open.) I don't know all of the details of what happened, but I imagine that no alarm was risen by him until he got to the school. Further than that, just because someone would be on a registry wouldn't necessarily mean that someone around them wouldn't simply teach them to how to use the gun. So, lack of knowledge of the gun wouldn't really be relevant at that point. Basically, it all boils down to one law isn't going to stop someone whose ultimate end result will break many laws. As in most cases, its the people that are doing things illegally that are ruining it for everyone else.

I think you are arguing for policy reform? In which case

I get the argument against stop signs. They are a bad idea because they don't prevent all accidents. Reductio ad absurdum

Please show me why your argument applies to guns but does not apply to stop signs.

Or are you against stop signs and gun safeties too?

Factually, not only were owners and guns registered in Australia, with military style weapons and large clips and drums banned, but there was an enormous gun buyback program. In the decade before the ban, 11 massacres. Since 1998 when it passed? None.

Gun deaths down 56%.

So if you don't buy that your argumentation is fallicious, just look at the facts.

You have neither an argument nor facts to stand on.

No one said stop signs are a bad idea? I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I've read this entire post three times and still have yet to see anyone make either of those claims.

Stop signs and gun safties are great ideas, but not when people don't use them. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, because I feel that you're attempting to disprove people by reacting to assumptions that you've made about what they're saying.

I'm not saying that gun violence wouldn't go down, I'm just saying that your bubble universe theory isn't that easy to grasp because all it is, is a bunch of "what-ifs". Most people don't follow what-if, they base their life on what now because people don't generally react to things until the worst has already happened. Automobile accidents would also go down if people didn't drink and drive, but we're not arguing to ban alcohol anymore. We advocate responsible drinking, just as we would like to advocate responsible gun ownership. Even if you're a responsible gun owner, if someone steals a gun from you and shoots you with it before you can tell anyone, how is that going to effectively stop a crime? If someone takes a gun out of a locked cabinet/ storage to protect themselves, is overpowered and killed, and the perpetrator steals the gun and runs off to commit more acts of murder how would anyone know that is happening until they're shooting at other people or have it out in the open? I don't understand what you're trying to prove, as I never said that gun reform was a bad idea. I simply stated that there was a hole in the way you explained it. I understand your point, but it appeals to logic and human beings seldom are 100% logical beings. Rules and patterns don't always apply to people. Also, to assume that the outcome of Austraila would be the same outcome here is also a little ambitious in my opinion. There are cultural differences in attitude that have to be factored in. All things in human nature are situational and relative. Emotions are unexplainable, and I would argue that emotions are the root of a lot of gun crimes.

As far as your needing to have some comparison to a stop sign... unless you have a a monitor watching every single stop sign all day and all night, you're not going to catch everyone who runs a stop sign. Let's say that every person, once they runa stop sign, has to register in some database, in order to make sure that they never ran a stop sign again, you would have to have some kind of monitoring system that works both with the vehicle and the stop sign in order to make people stop doing it completely. Something that will never happen is stopping crime completely.

Again, I'm not sure what argument you think I'm trying to make, but I think you're defending a position that no one is arguing with you about.

Thank you both for proving me wrong. I guess a reasonable discusion can take place.

John, you and I will probably will not agree on most things. But I think if we each slide a little closer to the middle we just might hear what the other side is trying to say.

I do own guns( penis size is average to slightly above) but the NRA most certainly does not speak for ME. I would be willing to listen to anything that might prevent another Sandy Hook.

I hope you and yours have a very Merry Christmas (or Merry Whatever) and that God, or the Universe or Fate keep you safe. Peace.

p.s. I was watching Animal House when I started posting. Ever see it?

If by sliding to the middle, you mean adopting a more centrist way of viewing politics, I don't think it is necessary to move to the middle to understand other people. I understand many (but not all) rural type gun owners because I grew up with them. So does Michael Moore (He holds an NRA marksmanship award). And his ideas about sane gun policy are probably to the right of mine. That's even though I am a big believer in Christianity and personal responsibility. The Right has no claim on those themes- in fact I would argue their policies are fundamentally about un-Christian evasion of any form of responsibility.

About movies, I have odd tastes. Working on the violence and Christmas thing, I watched the Christmas cheer of DieHard, then I was drawn to reminders of playful combat at company Christmas Parties by watching some Jane Austen movies. The ability to engage in such dialog is largely a lost art. In my nostalgia, these Christmas parties are populated with Dorothy Parkers, Kate Hepburns, and Lizzie Bennets trading witty barbs. EG: what Parker said about Hepburn: "She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B."

Or Bennet at an Austen party:

Elizabeth Bennet: I wonder who first discovered the power of poetry in driving away love?
Mr. Darcy: I thought that poetry was the food of love.
Elizabeth Bennet: Of a fine stout love, it may. But if it is only a vague inclination I'm convinced one poor sonnet will kill it stone dead
Mr. Darcy: So what do you recommend to encourage affection?
Elizabeth Bennet: Dancing. Even if one's partner is barely tolerable.

Merry Christmas to you. There are many gifts of the season- the greatest of which is often the renewed opportunity to engage your relatives with close quarter sincere dialog- especially with those who share radically different viewpoints. It is a difficult but rewarding dance of social connection.

Tellbaby- Multiverse theory has to do with an introduction to understanding spiritual thoughts which are not incompatible with science. It has implications for situation demanding moral action such as the ongoing killing of children with guns. (One every 3 hours- America accounts for 87% of all children gun deaths per year). I don't think you got the basis of the idea, but it is a spiritual argument I don't think you are especially interested in. If you have specific questions, I would be happy to go into them, proceeding at the point where you got lost.

Regarding the subject you do seem to be interested in, the argument you presented in 73.13 is of this form: Public safety policy X does not guarantee that recent tragedy Y would not occur, therefore policy X doesn't work. This is an ancient fallacy of argument called Reductio ad absurdum:

• Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.
• Assault weapons restrictions are ineffective, if they were, there would be no deaths from assault weapons.
• Stop signs are ineffective, otherwise there would be no deaths at intersections.

My point is not about gun control specifically. I am pointing out to you that the type of argument you are making is invalid, whether you are applying it to gun control or any other subject- regardless which side you favor.

Perhaps it would be illuminating to you to read the "Reductio" article linked to above.

Again, I'm pretty sure we aren't at odds here.

Apparently I don't grasp this "multiverse theory" in the context of this discussion, and maybe that's why I can see any baring it has on this conversation. It seems to me that speculating about an 'alternate space and time' in which a former president did something different and then using that the explain your stance on a current situation doesn't make any sense. I understand your point, but in my eyes that doesn't give leverage to either side of the issue. It's just a theoretical what-if to me. It appeared to me that you were backing your position with a what-if postulation, so I simply did the same.

I was simply trying to reiterate what I thought Knucklebump was saying. And as far as implementing any laws or new legislation, I'm not inherently against it because I don't plan to carry a gun any time soon, so it's otherwise irrelevant to me. I'm not making an argument that they won't work, I'm simply saying that you can't simply take the result of a different culture and guarantee it will be the same here. Most people that are against guns appear to want a simple solution to gun violence, and there isn't one, regardless of any theory that either of us can throw out there. Mindsets have to change, not laws. People are not as predictable as a formula. You're obviously well-versed in science, and that's fantastic for you, but I stand by my original point that you can't just explain situations like this with a mathematical/ scientific formula and ignore the individual circumstances of every case.

What he said.

If you look at the first posting at the head of this thread 73.1, you will see no mention of the gun issue. The thread including the multiverse stuff has to do with the Mayan calendar news item, not gun violence.

There was a digression into gun violence to illustrate moral imperative of action, and its relationship to the Being of the existence one finds oneself in. That is a theological spiritual issue, and I could as well have used some other compelling moral question of the moment. It was simply for illustration. Brian Greene discusses some of the multiverse theory in this youtube- see especially 2:30. In one Nova "Fabric of the cosmos" episode he specifically goes into details of the "multiple-versions-of-ourselves" idea.

Yes- People are not forumulaic, human choice and responsible action defines who we are. That is not to deny that some of the variations on this theory suggest nihilistic conclusions- portraying human choice as mechanical Schrodinger's cat situations of defining our existence. I don't find them especially compelling and I suspect you would share that kind unpleasant reaction to them. I don't know if you know that Cat thought experiment, but if you do, there is one string theory variation that says that each of these decisions might create a separate branched existence. I find it exceptionally difficult to swallow, but it might be the way things are. If multiverses seem implausible, the incredible number of versions of existences from this sort of quantum state branching is wildly wildly implausible.

John Messerly, bravo! a voice for reason. it doesn't take a multiverse to prove any of your assertions about gun control/licensing/registration it only takes that most uncommon of things - common sense.

just because a single law or action will not guarantee the prevention of an act by one individual ever does not mean that it won't help reduce the incidence of such actions by the population as a whole.

reasonable actions, such as nationwide gun safety laws would be a start. without nationwide laws, purchase in a lax state allows transport to a state with strict controls. closing the gun show/private sale loophole is a must.

waiting periods and psychological testing prior to obtaining a permit/license to own would seem to be a good thing too. this should include testing of all persons in the home where the gun is kept/controlled. this may help in instances where, like Newtown, the shooter got his hands on someone elses guns.

limiting clip/magazine sizes is not unreasonable. anyone who hunts should be able to bring down an animal with a single shot. if they cannot, either they need more range time or they need to be more shot-selective. i'm perfectly willing to allow three-shot magazines to allow for error though. three-shot weapons also seem good enough for bird hunters.

none of these things will prevent all gun violence but each measure should help make it less likely that a massacre will recur. it might also be a good idea to educate people in risk assessment. it's not that likely that someone will murder you in your bed.

I'm a SHE not a HE.

But thank you.

Interesting... I remember briefly discussing the cat thought experiment in a philosophy class of all places. It still eludes me to be honest, though I have to say it's a concept worth thinking about.

If we all have an unlimited right to posses arms (not bear them in an organized military unit, as stated in the Second Amendment), then I have the right to brew Sarin gas. Because, in the event of societal breakdown with its attendant rival militias, I want my militia to be able to exterminate all others.

Oh, and while making fission bombs is far more expensive they are not an impossibility. One would have to direct the seizure of a large electric generating facility, such as a hydroelectric dam, but in the event of societal breakdown that is feasible (especially if a militia uses nerve agents to clear the dam first).

Still care to trumpet an unrestricted right to posses any and all arms? The Second Amendment does not mention guns...

Happy Clappy!

Complete lunacy over a simple human organ--the skin.

I often wonder how soon "Friends over the phone", would become instant enemies, if the 'off' color of their skin was found out by one, or the other?

Isn't Adam Lanza proof that finding out the color of his skin meant nothing compared to the color of his heart - black, and no one could see the warped and fearful brain that made such changes to so many lives.

I'm glad that someone else sees this.

While the shooting in Sandy Hook was horrible, I can't help but feel a twinge or sadness over the hindu temple that recently went through the same trajedy, and was off the air in less than a week. Why is this the final straw? I am deeply saddened by the loss of children in such a senseless manner, but why is this shooting more worthy of discussion than any of the other shootings of the past 10 or so years?

I think atheists have given up on Graham because there's just no point.

I think atheists know better than to attack the words of a religious leader. When a man who has built his life around religion speaks of religion, he has that right. When a man who speaks for a nation that is not 100% in religious agreement, that is when the problems arise. I'm not implicating these actions are right or wrong, but it does make sense to me that a minority group would speak out when they feel that their belief system is being challenged or degraded. The struggle for religious freedom is no less important/ taken care of than the struggle for equality for the sexes or marriage equality. Also, the Westboro church group was allowed to protest during the funerals in Connecticut, I don't see an reason why Atheists are wrong in getting upset that matters of our nation revolve around god.