Some Christians Angry at Obama’s ‘Nonbelievers’ Statement

Religion • Views: 3,713

When Barack Obama said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers” in his inaugural speech, he ran afoul of many fundamentalist Christians, who reject this kind of inclusiveness and think atheists are Satanic imps from hell: Obama’s Nonbeliever Nod Unsettles Some.

With that one line, the president “seems to be trying to redefine American culture, which is distinctively Christian,” said Bishop E.W. Jackson of the Exodus Faith Ministries in Chesapeake, Va. “The overwhelming majority of Americans identify as Christians, and what disturbs me is that he seems to be trying to redefine who we are.”

Earlier this week, Jackson was a guest on the popular conservative Christian radio show ‘Janet Parshall’s America,’ where a succession of callers, many of whom identified themselves as African-American, said they shared the concern, and were perplexed and put off by the president’s shout-out to nonbelievers.

Jackson said he and others have no problem acknowledging that “this country is one in which everybody has the freedom to think what they want.” Yet Obama crossed the line, in his view, in suggesting that all faiths (and none) were different roads to the same destination: “He made similar remarks in the campaign, and said, ‘We are no longer a Christian nation, if we ever were. We are a Jewish, Hindu and non-believing nation.’”

Not so, Jackson says: “Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don’t think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation.” …

The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president’s reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. “It’s important to understand the heritage of our country, and it’s a Judeo-Christian tradition,” period.

(Hat tip: AP.)

Jump to bottom

654 comments
1 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:54:30am
2 Only The Lurker Knows  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:54:35am

I am an Imp from hell? Wow, I never knew.

3 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:55:13am

Any comment from Rev Wright?

4 Sheila Broflovski  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:56:09am

I think Obama opponents really need to choose their battles wisely. And freaking out over the inclusion of non-believers is not wise.

5 Digital Display  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:56:12am

re: #2 Bubblehead II

I am an Imp from hell? Wow, I never knew.


The party never starts till the Imps from Hell show up....

6 anti-looter  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:56:36am

But the US that had Christian origins is NOT the US that Obama envisions - not news IMO.

7 yesandno  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:56:45am

Cannot deny their existence.............


Yet once again we get a speech that is all inclusive, everyone is equal, etc.....

8 Truck Monkey  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:57:14am

It doesn't really matter what they say. I think the anointed one said it best:
"I won".

9 rwmofo  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:57:14am

President Richard Pryor

This is apparently from the late 70s. Starts out slow, but gets going at about the 3:30 mark.

10 jaunte  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:57:33am

From these numbers, it looks like we are
"Christian and Secular, Jewish and All Other"...
[Link: www.adherents.com...]

11 Sharmuta  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:58:05am
The Rev. Cecil Blye, pastor of More Grace Ministries Church in Louisville, Ky., said the president’s reference to nonbelievers also set off major alarm bells for him. “It’s important to understand the heritage of our country, and it’s a Judeo-Christian tradition,”’ period.

What about our Greco-Roman heritage of democracy and republicanism?

12 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:58:15am
13 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:58:46am

re: #6 anti-looter

But the US that had Christian origins is NOT the US that Obama envisions - not news IMO.

As offensive as these statements are I have to chuckle that twice now it has been African American leaders pushing back against Barry in the last week.

14 Only The Lurker Knows  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:00:00am

re: #5 HoosierHoops

Unfortunately, this is one party that I have to pop in and out of as I am at work and it's calling me now. bbiaw

15 Erik The Red  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:00:02am

re: #7 yesandno

Cannot deny their existence.............

Yet once again we get a speech that is all inclusive, everyone is equal, etc.....

Whats next? Child molesters, murderers, thief's and adulterers. Make it all inclusive you wannabe. Prick.

16 lawhawk  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:00:08am

I really wish people would get more upset with the massive porkfest that Obama and the Democrats are about to foist upon the American people in the name of stimulus than this.

Still, that people are getting upset over this shows that the pixie dust and all the unicorns in the world aren't going to keep the masses happy for very long. President Obama has to lead, and he's quickly finding that where he wants to lead, not all want to follow.

17 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:00:18am
18 opnion  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:00:27am

Ya know, I regret that he is the President at all, but he is the President of everybody.

19 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:00:59am

i think it shows his huge ego.
that he considers himself the great unifier.
that he can bring all the world together.
it really shows how little he actually knows abt people. and human nature.
he is a silly arrogant fool.

20 Pete(Detroit)  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:01:04am

re: #5 HoosierHoops

The party never starts till the Imps from Hell show up....

Nominate for rotating title - if they were still used. Hm, when did THAT stop?

21 jaunte  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:01:29am

re: #17 buzzsawmonkey

" a mad blog rabble, never satisfied..."

22 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:01:34am

re: #11 Sharmuta

What about our Greco-Roman heritage of democracy and republicanism?

Long forgotten - you're talking about Ancient History, thats of no relevance today!

///

23 opnion  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:01:50am

John King on CNN just posed the question, "Was it right to ever imprison the detainees at Gitmo?' WTF?

24 twincitiesgirl  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:02:07am

Christians I know are upset by the inclusion of Isa in Rick Warren's inaugural
prayer. Why in the world would anyone be upset in acknowledging unbelievers as part of this country? It's this type of narrow minded and hateful thinking that will turn many people away from any faith in God, not lead them to it.

25 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:02:10am

You mean it is wrong for the POTUS to acknowledge certain groups of people that make up the nation he presides over?

So, what other demographic cross-sections are off limits for the President?

26 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:02:27am

#4 Alouette

I think Obama opponents really need to choose their battles wisely. And freaking out over the inclusion of non-believers is not wise.

Correct. You look silly if you get to worked up over a relatively minor statement. If social conservatives want to go after Obama right away, they should use the money being spent on abortions in other countries, when our own nation is running trillion dollar deficit. Seems like a mixed up priority.

27 gman  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:02:29am

re: #11 Sharmuta

What about our Greco-Roman heritage of democracy and republicanism?

Exactly. Let's keep focused on the fundamentals, what holds us together.

28 Taqiyyotomist  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:02:32am

re: #20 Pete(Detroit)

Look right above the lizard in the upper right corner...

29 Sharmuta  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:02:50am

Democratic and republican forms of government are just as much a part of our heritage and pre-date Christianity. Why is this always ignored?

30 ornery elephant  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:03:15am

Perhaps this was a clever positioning by Obama to get himself out of those pesky trips on Sunday morning to Church and he can get back to his normal routine of big fuzzy slippers, a hot cup of coffee, watching himself on Meet the Depressed and rereading Saul Alinsky strategies on spreading the wealth.

31 newsjunkie_ky  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:03:16am

"think atheists are Satanic imps from hell"
Missed that quote in the article.

But this one sure caught my eye:

"His mother would have been proud,"’ Buckner said, referring to the fact that Obama’s mother was not a church-goer.

Wonder how many AAs that voted for the 0 are now starting to regret that vote? Now that they know a little more about him.

32 karmic_inquisitor  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:03:44am

What he should have said is

"We are a nation of thinking, rational people along with absolute idiots who can't help but let their emotions run their lives. Boy am I lucky there are more of the latter than the former."
33 opnion  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:04:17am

re: #24 twincitiesgirl

Christians I know are upset by the inclusion of Isa in Rick Warren's inaugural
prayer. Why in the world would anyone be upset in acknowledging unbelievers as part of this country? It's this type of narrow minded and hateful thinking that will turn many people away from any faith in God, not lead them to it.

Thet may be upset becuse Isa is how Jesus is referred to in Islam. That reference is to Jesus as a Muslim Prophet.

34 n in wi  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:04:19am

Look at some of the things Thomas Jefferson said regarding atheism.

35 Pete(Detroit)  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:04:36am

re: #16 lawhawk

I really wish people would get more upset with the massive porkfest that Obama and the Democrats are about to foist upon the American people in the name of stimulus than this.

NO doubt! It's nice that people are starting to to see that the emperor's clothes are thin in spots, but dammit, people, his whole ass is hanging out here!

36 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:04:58am
37 mfarmer1  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:05:02am

Satanic imps from hell, unite!

38 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:05:14am

re: #29 Sharmuta

Democratic and republican forms of government are just as much a part of our heritage and pre-date Christianity. Why is this always ignored?

You could almost argue that the Judeo-Christian heritage would have never been possible without first having the Greco-Roman heritage that led to democracy and the republic.

39 Prikolno  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:05:19am

Change is already on the way.

40 CharlieBravo  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:05:25am

Most people voted for him - they are what he says they are. And they will be whatever he wants them to be.

41 TypicalWhiteLiberal  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:05:36am

As a non-believer, I appreciated Obama saying that after recently learning about a 1987 interview with George H W Bush:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

That having been said, rephrasing the third clause to "Buddhists and non-believers" would have sounded just as 'epic', and I'm kinda wondering why The One didn't include the other major religion? Seemed like a huge oversight.

42 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:05:58am
43 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:06:02am
44 Syrah  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:06:03am
" . . . the popular conservative Christian radio show 'Janet Parshall's America,' . . ."

Must be a real barn-burner of a radio show.

I never heard of it.

I suspect we will see lots of this type of article in the future. The left is defining their opposition by conflating the kook fringe to be the ideological center of the opposition to everything the left thinks and wants to do.

Welcome to the Brave New World.

45 opnion  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:06:20am

re: #36 ploome hineni

according to the Geneva conventions these fighters, not in uniform can be shot on the field

and after questioning, thta is exactly what should have happened to them


Would have been in accord with the Geneva Conventions & taken away the political football, but I do believe that our guys got info out of them

46 twincitiesgirl  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:06:44am

re: #33 opnion

Thet may be upset becuse Isa is how Jesus is referred to in Islam. That reference is to Jesus as a Muslim Prophet.

Yes, I'm fully aware of that, I don't think it should have been used since it has a completely different meaning in Islam than it does in Christianity.

47 Blackacre  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:07:01am

Everybody sing:

We are the world
We are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day
So let's start giving
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives
It's true we'll make a better day
Just you and me

/

48 Pete(Detroit)  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:07:08am

re: #28 Taqiyyotomist

Look right above the lizard in the upper right corner...

ah! and a perfect place for the 'the party starts' line! Excellent!

49 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:07:11am
50 Erik The Red  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:07:35am

No one can be the all and everything for everyone. He is either very arrogant or very naive and stupid. Pick your base and your true beliefs and do the job.

He will not do a second term!

51 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:07:40am

I was far more upset by President Obama's saying that we had a duty to "the world."

I don't have a "duty" to anyone except myself and my family. I have responsibilities as a citizen to my community and my country, but I don't owe "the world" anything.

52 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:08:17am
53 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:08:24am
54 opnion  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:08:29am

re: #46 twincitiesgirl

Yes, I'm fully aware of that, I don't think it should have been used since it has a completely different meaning in Islam than it does in Christianity.

I missed your point. I just went back & reread your post, sorry.

55 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:08:47am
56 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:08:57am

I think part of the issue is not that there is anything wrong with non-believers, it's those that organize into atheist groups are generally anti-Christian bigots.

Thank about white power groups. There's nothing wrong with being white, but I have yet to run across a white-power group that isn't racist.

57 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:09:36am
58 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:09:47am

re: #38 psyop

You could almost argue that the Judeo-Christian heritage would have never been possible without first having the Greco-Roman heritage that led to democracy and the republic.

Erm - the one relates to the political form of the state, and its governance (Greco-Roman), the other to the faith-related attitudes.

I know this is a big simplification, and there are of course philosophical influences and cross-overs, but I believe its more useful to keep the distinction.

59 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:09:57am

re: #3 loppyd

Any comment from Rev Wright?

"Naw naw naw, god damn America."

60 opnion  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:09:58am

re: #49 ploome hineni

as I said

after questioning...2weeks max

set an example

Two weeks & you probably have all of the intel that your going to get.

61 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:10:49am
62 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:13am
63 gman  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:15am

re: #29 Sharmuta

Democratic and republican forms of government are just as much a part of our heritage and pre-date Christianity. Why is this always ignored?

It's not attractive if you can't use it to gain or hold power. The only reason why Bishop Jackson is upset is because he feels a part of his traditional power base is slipping away.

64 twincitiesgirl  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:30am

re: #54 opnion

I missed your point. I just went back & reread your post, sorry.

sokay...not to worry. Many Christians are ticked off with Warren though.

65 Ojoe  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:30am

Ah well, everyone has a belief; and nefarious beliefs will creep in un-noticed if you don't pick good ones; & Obama doesn't get this.

Man we are in for a rocky ride.

66 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:36am

re: #56 Dave the.....

I think part of the issue is not that there is anything wrong with non-believers, it's those that organize into atheist groups are generally anti-Christian bigots.

Thank about white power groups. There's nothing wrong with being white, but I have yet to run across a white-power group that isn't racist.

Have you come across any Black Power Groups that aren't racist? IMO by nature any group that classfies itself by race is racist. How could it be otherwise?

67 Pete(Detroit)  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:48am

re: #50 Erik The Red

No one can be the all and everything for everyone. He is either very arrogant or very naive and stupid.

You assume it's either / or? Seems to be both, to me.
Just sayin'

68 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:49am

But on the other side of the debate, the left stays truely classless until the end.

Inauguration Day: The Movie" was a box office smash Tuesday at the Riverview Theater in Minneapolis.

Combining pomp, politics and popcorn, the movie theater put America's new president on the silver screen with a free viewing of Barack Obama's inauguration.

....................

.......and hissed and booed when the cameras turned to their favorite villain, outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney.
No one threw a shoe, but the face of the outgoing vice president on the screen prompted the crowd to break into a chorus of "Nah, nah, nah, nah. Nah, nah, nah, nah. Hey, hey, hey, goodbye."

When a commentator said outgoing President George W. Bush believed that the judgment of history would redeem his administration, many in the audience shouted, "Hah!"

When evangelist Rick Warren delivered the invocation, dozens in the audience stood up and turned their backs in protest of Warren's opposition to gay marriage.

There were cheers when the camera showed moving vans taking the Bush family's possessions from the White House.

[Link: www.twincities.com...]

69 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:50am

re: #46 twincitiesgirl

Yes, I'm fully aware of that, I don't think it should have been used since it has a completely different meaning in Islam than it does in Christianity.

But would the common-or-garden variety of Obamadulators know this difference?

I think not, sadly.

70 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:11:57am

re: #34 n in wi

Look at some of the things Thomas Jefferson said regarding atheism.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Jeffferson

71 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:12:17am

re: #59 kansas

"Naw naw naw, god damn America."

US OF KKK A!

72 Ojoe  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:12:33am

re: #57 ploome hineni

how many people teach their children about the responsibilities these kids have to their family and home?

All Scouting families teach this.

73 CharlieBravo  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:12:36am

re: #36 ploome hineni

Faced with the choice of taking a combatant prisoner and later facing ACLU attorneys explaining why -- or not taking a prisoner. That is the question. Seen many new captives lately?

74 n in wi  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:12:40am

re: #51 goddessoftheclassroom

I was far more upset by President Obama's saying that we had a duty to "the world."

I don't have a "duty" to anyone except myself and my family. I have responsibilities as a citizen to my community and my country, but I don't owe "the world" anything.

But if all are needs are meet by the state,won't we have time to serve our all powerful, all knowing, Government?
/// do I need to?

75 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:12:50am

"Satanic imps"? I'm offended. "Imp" just sounds so... iightweight.

76 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:12:58am

re: #71 loppyd

US OF KKK A!

Has anyone seen my sheet?

77 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:01am

re: #58 yma o hyd

Erm - the one relates to the political form of the state, and its governance (Greco-Roman), the other to the faith-related attitudes.

I know this is a big simplification, and there are of course philosophical influences and cross-overs, but I believe its more useful to keep the distinction.

I meant specifically the creation and development of this nation. Without the foundational philosophy of a republican democracy, the balance of religious freedom with secular rule, you could certainly make a case that the glorious experiment in freedom our founders embarked upon would have fizzled.

78 n in wi  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:02am

re: #62 ploome hineni

hamas is handing out money

where the fk is hamas getting money?

Bailout finds

79 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:11am

Kansas, agree. You could make a case for the NAACP up until about 1970.

80 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:11am

Religious intolerance? Shocka!

81 n in wi  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:22am

re: #78 n in wi

Bailout finds

S/B funds

82 gman  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:33am

re: #56 Dave the.....

I think part of the issue is not that there is anything wrong with non-believers, it's those that organize into atheist groups are generally anti-Christian bigots.

Thank about white power groups. There's nothing wrong with being white, but I have yet to run across a white-power group that isn't racist.

You think atheists form groups because they are against christians? huh?

83 dreader1962  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:42am

I'm an atheist, and I don't think that it was necessary to include 'non-believers' in the list of what he mentioned. I think that it's a bit absurd for any atheist to be upset over not being included in a list of that sort.

If atheists want to join the whiners for being 'excluded', they wind up sounding just like the Buddhists, Scientologists, Wiccans, Satanists, etc., etc. etc.

Also, to try to come up with a list of significant religions to placate a constituency is just asking for trouble - this is what America has become. I'm not freaked out if someone calls this a Christian nation. To deny the reality that anywhere from 75-80% of the country identifies themselves as Christian kind of calls into question an atheist's respect for a worldview based in reality.

84 mfarmer1  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:52am

re: #41 TypicalWhiteLiberal

As a non-believer, I appreciated Obama saying that after recently learning about a 1987 interview with George H W Bush:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

That having been said, rephrasing the third clause to "Buddhists and non-believers" would have sounded just as 'epic', and I'm kinda wondering why The One didn't include the other major religion? Seemed like a huge oversight.

That quote seems really fishy. I seriously doubt he actually said that about atheists.

85 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:53am

re: #75 Occasional Reader

"Satanic imps"? I'm offended. "Imp" just sounds so... iightweight.

You must not have been plagued by too many Satanic imps if you think they're lightweight.

86 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:57am

re: #15 Erik The Red

Whats next? Child molesters, murderers, thief's and adulterers. Make it all inclusive you wannabe. Prick.

Come again? Atheists are somehow analogous to child molesters and murderers?

87 itellu3times  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:13:59am

re: #38 psyop

You could almost argue that the Judeo-Christian heritage would have never been possible without first having the Greco-Roman heritage that led to democracy and the republic.

I don't much follow that either, care to expand?

88 Sharmuta  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:14:29am
Not so, Jackson says: “Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don’t think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation.

We're a secular nation that allows all of these beliefs to co-exist in relative peace and harmony. Quite unique and special in it's own right. The First Amendment has allowed this country to avoid sectarian strife to become the greatest nation on earth. God Bless our Founders- they were truly revolutionaries and far ahead of their time.

89 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:14:32am
90 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:08am
91 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:18am

re: #11 Sharmuta

What about our Greco-Roman heritage of democracy and republicanism?

* * * *
This Kentucky guy appears to be an idiot! Doesn't he know his home town's most famous boxer Cassius Clay converted to islam in the 1960s and is known around the world as Mohammed Ali the Greatest?

How can any American be unaware of who's teaching what to whom at the local mosque which has been there oh since 1960!

Oh, and today marks the 16 anniversary of the islamist courier in Northern Virginia who shot & killed a couple people near the CIA headquarters on Jan. 25, 1993, a week after President Bill Clinton took office.

(Amir something or other, from Pakistan, but living in Reston, Northern jihadist Virginia)

92 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:20am

re: #85 Charles

You must not have been plagued by too many Satanic imps if you think they're lightweight.

Well, a big enough gang of 'em, sure, you're talking real weight.

93 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:25am
94 rwmofo  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:25am

re: #76 kansas

Has anyone seen my sheet?

Hey, where's Senator Byrd?

95 twincitiesgirl  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:27am

re: #69 yma o hyd

But would the common-or-garden variety of Obamadulators know this difference?

I think not, sadly.

Agreed, they wouldn't know and probably wouldn't care. Here's an interview from 2004 that spells out what Obama believes:
Obama: I have a deep faith

96 Sharmuta  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:28am

re: #80 Killgore Trout

I left something for you at the end of the Texas Creationism thread.

97 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:31am

re: #65 Ojoe

Ah well, everyone has a belief; and nefarious beliefs will creep in un-noticed if you don't pick good ones; & Obama doesn't get this.

Man we are in for a rocky ride.

Heh.
That reminds me of a favourite GK CHesterton quote:
'The trouble with atheists is not that they believe nothing - its that they will believe anything.'

98 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:36am
99 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:15:59am
You think atheists form groups because they are against Christians? huh?

Can you name an atheist organization that doesn't mock and attack Christianity? Whose goal isn't to destroy Christianity? I never come across one.

100 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:16:12am
101 itellu3times  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:16:21am

re: #70 avanti

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Jeffferson

Hey, I like that.

102 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:16:30am

re: #66 kansas

Have you come across any Black Power Groups that aren't racist? IMO by nature any group that classfies itself by race is racist. How could it be otherwise?

Aww - you cannot be racist if you're not white.
Only whites can be racist!

///

103 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:17:18am

re: #89 taxfreekiller

McCain is running for re-election for his Senate seat in two years, he used Chris Wallace this morning to tape his first stump speech, all's a sudden he is a conservative.

re: #93 taxfreekiller

Democrats hand out money.
Hamas hand out money.

Follow the money.

Can I have some money?

104 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:17:31am

Whether you believe in G-D or not is not the question. The question is that he proclaims to believe, but the opposite is beginning to show, this is the real him. He lied to get elected. Why? He needed our(believers) votes.

105 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:17:42am
106 itellu3times  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:17:46am

re: #93 taxfreekiller

Democrats hand out money.
Hamas hand out money.

Follow the money.

Yessir!

Unless I get a better offer, ...

107 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:17:48am

re: #23 opnion

John King on CNN just posed the question, "Was it right to ever imprison the detainees at Gitmo?' WTF?

* * *
They'd rather we each adopted a GITMO terrorist and gave them American love in our homes. Each one teach one. You know, love the (terrorist detainee) one you're with.

108 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:17:52am
109 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:18:09am

By the way, USA Today trumpets Obama's mention of "non-believers" as one of his many, glowing, hopey changey "historic firsts". And I know for the fact this isn't so. None other than George W. Bush made an inclusive reference to Americans who "don't believe in any religion" in one of his State of the Union addresses. I'll have to look around for a link.

110 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:18:47am

re: #102 yma o hyd

Aww - you cannot be racist if you're not white.
Only whites can be racist!

///

A friend of brother's roomed with a black guy freshman year who pledged an all black fraternity. One of the rules during his pledge period was that we was not allowed to speak to any white people.

111 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:09am

re: #50 Erik The Red

No one can be the all and everything for everyone. He is either very arrogant or very naive and stupid. Pick your base and your true beliefs and do the job.

He will not do a second term!

he may not make it thru the first.
he might implode. he is so thin skinned.
he bristles and flounders and squirms like such an unbalanced person.
look how childish he is, lashing out at ie rush.
rather than focusing on the big issues.
he can not take criticism or tolerate opposing views.
he is too used to being revered and praised. he has seldom encountered obstacles.
now is unable to adapt. he may be too defensive to learn.

112 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:17am

re: #7 yesandno

Cannot deny their existence.............
Yet once again we get a speech that is all inclusive, everyone is equal, etc.....

So, what you are saying is that we exist, but we are not equal? What part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do you not understand.

Jerk.

113 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:23am

re: #98 buzzsawmonkey

But it's the first three letters of "important," "imperious," "impudent," and so many other useful words.

Are you speaking to me in the imp-erative voice?

114 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:34am

re: #29 Sharmuta

Democratic and republican forms of government are just as much a part of our heritage and pre-date Christianity. Why is this always ignored?

* * * *
Illiteracy, innumeracy, idiotic public schooling and no decent discussion about What Makes America Different in the home!

How about we talk about this at Thanksgiving, instead of talking Turkey?

115 Truck Monkey  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:38am

re: #62 ploome hineni

hamas is handing out money

where the fk is hamas getting money?

The American taxpayer. The EU. The UN. The Red Cross and Red Crescent. N. Korean counter fitters. Iran. Almost everyone in the world except other Arabs.

116 Anna  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:39am

Its called Buyers Remorse.

First was the Pro-Lifers who bought into Obama's spiel only to see him re-instituted US government funding of abortion overseas. He is losing their vote over this.

Then it was his stance vis-a-vis Israel against Hamas. More support gone.

Now its members of the Christian denominations who are upset over how inclusive Preisdent Obama is. More supporters lost.

At this rate, the one who pandered to everyone will have no one to turn to when he needs help. And the opinion polls do show a 15 point drop.

The Presidency is way above Obama's pay-grade.

117 gman  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:41am

re: #99 Dave the.....

Can you name an atheist organization that doesn't mock and attack Christianity? Whose goal isn't to destroy Christianity? I never come across one.

I think you're being too general, though. Using reverse logic that would be the same as saying "name one religion whose goal isn't to destroy atheism." I can name quite a few actually.

118 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:44am
119 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:19:58am

re: #99 Dave the.....

Can you name an atheist organization that doesn't mock and attack Christianity? Whose goal isn't to destroy Christianity? I never come across one.

Funny, an atheist group is a group who gets together in their common belief of non-belief.

120 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:20:02am

re: #109 Occasional Reader

And I know for thea fact

(The satanic imps made me do it)

121 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:20:11am

re: #111 nyc redneck

he may not make it thru the first.
he might implode. he is so thin skinned.
he bristles and flounders and squirms like such an unbalanced person.
look how childish he is, lashing out at ie rush.
rather than focusing on the big issues.
he can not take criticism or tolerate opposing views.
he is too used to being revered and praised. he has seldom encountered obstacles.
now is unable to adapt. he may be too defensive to learn.

perfectly stated.

122 Erik The Red  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:20:32am

re: #86 Occasional Reader

Come again? Atheists are somehow analogous to child molesters and murderers?

No! I was trying to point out that he wants to be all inclusive. Sorry if I did not express that well.

123 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:20:33am

re: #111 nyc redneck

he may not make it thru the first.
he might implode. he is so thin skinned.
he bristles and flounders and squirms like such an unbalanced person.
look how childish he is, lashing out at ie rush.
rather than focusing on the big issues.
he can not take criticism or tolerate opposing views.
he is too used to being revered and praised. he has seldom encountered obstacles.
now is unable to adapt. he may be too defensive to learn.

...and as much as the MSM is in the tank, the WH Press Corps aren't going to play nice for very long. Huge egos.

124 rwmofo  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:20:34am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

By the amount they're willing to pay for porn.

/

125 Ojoe  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:20:53am

re: #90 ploome hineni

Scouts are now uncool & it is hard to get kids to join the troop. Sometimes their parents stop them.

126 Truck Monkey  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:20:58am

re: #66 kansas

Have you come across any Black Power Groups that aren't racist? IMO by nature any group that classfies itself by race is racist. How could it be otherwise?

NAACP?

127 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:21:02am

re: #102 yma o hyd

Aww - you cannot be racist if you're not white.
Only whites can be racist!

///

Well, yeah, here in Bizarro World./

128 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:21:26am

re: #87 itellu3times

I don't much follow that either, care to expand?

Check out my #77

Our founders had a useful and previously successful form of rule to use as the foundation of the country they were trying to build.

The genius of this nation is not the bare-bones democratic philosophy, nor the great faith of the founders, it was the way they combined the two.

Had they not used their Greco-Roman heritage to put valuable concepts of government in place, what is to say they would not have had the same fate of many nations that based their founding on their religious heritage?

129 jaunte  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:21:30am

re: #99 Dave the.....

Here's an interesting thought on that:

"Why should anyone join an "atheist" organization? Simply put -- they don't exist. The very good reason of why most atheists would never dream of joining an atheistic organization is because most atheistic organizations are not atheistic at all, they're shills for ideological commitments other-than-atheism. And when I say other-than-atheism, I of course mean self-described leftist organizations. Humanism, vegetarianism, identity politics, and all sorts of patent nonsense go under the umbrella of atheism, as any jaunt around the net or an appearance at your local atheist organization will show you."
[Link: www.positiveatheism.org...]
130 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:21:31am
131 esch  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:22:01am

re: #104 jainphx

Whether you believe in G-D or not is not the question. The question is that he proclaims to believe, but the opposite is beginning to show, this is the real him. He lied to get elected. Why? He needed our(believers) votes.

David Alan Grier said it best 'Don't screw this up'. Once he begins to fail and his lies/deceit/total incompetence become obvious, I believe black Christians will then HAVE to turn on him. This is going to get really, really ugly.

132 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:22:23am

re: #30 ornery elephant

Perhaps this was a clever positioning by Obama to get himself out of those pesky trips on Sunday morning to Church and he can get back to his normal routine of big fuzzy slippers, a hot cup of coffee, watching himself on Meet the Depressed and rereading Saul Alinsky strategies on spreading the wealth.

* * **
Yes, Sally Quinn the atheist in charge of "On Religion" in the WashPost, recommended the Obama family attend the National Cathedral because it's a great place for people of little or no faith!

(paraphrased loosely, but look it up yourself)

Keeping up appearances!

133 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:22:35am

re: #110 loppyd

A friend of brother's roomed with a black guy freshman year who pledged an all black fraternity. One of the rules during his pledge period was that we was not allowed to speak to any white people.

Blimey - how do they get away with that!

Its the same here, we have for example an 'Association of Black Police Officers' ... yeah, combat racism by being racially exclusive.
The mind boggles.

134 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:22:44am

re: #122 Erik The Red

No! I was trying to point out that he wants to be all inclusive. Sorry if I did not express that well.

There's appropriately all-inclusive, and inappropriately so. To my mind, mentioning non-believers in a list of "who we Americans are" is appropriate. Mentioning child molesters would not be so. Do you believe differently?

135 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:22:45am

re: #126 Truck Monkey

NAACP?

NAACP is racist. Wanting only to promote those of one race. Otherwise it would be the NAAP. Leave out the C and I'm OK with it.

136 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:22:45am

re: #118 buzzsawmonkey

If he, like most American blacks, had some white ancestry somewhere back in the family tree, that means he couldn't even talk to himself.

True.

This was at UMASS Amherst - history of tension there.

137 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:23:19am

re: #118 buzzsawmonkey

If he, like most American blacks, had some white ancestry somewhere back in the family tree, that means he couldn't even talk to himself.

I would suspect there's a good many white Americans, particularly in the south, who just may have a little black ancestry somewhere in the family tree.

This is a true story - several years ago, there was a court case here in Louisiana.

A woman had been brought up "white", always thought of herself as "white", married a white man, had white children - and at some point she needed her original birth certificate, got it and discovered - her birth certificate listed both her parents as "black" and she was also listed as "black".

She was completely surprised. A smidgeon of black ancestry, so little that it could not be seen in any of her features or those of her parents.

She went to court to try to have her birth certificate changed, which I thought was silly. I don't recall the outcome.

138 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:23:34am

re: #96 Sharmuta

Thanks. Added to my favorites.

139 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:23:42am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

I can't speak for a atheist, I'm agnostic, but I use my brain.

140 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:23:50am
141 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:24:15am

re: #134 Occasional Reader

There's appropriately all-inclusive, and inappropriately so. To my mind, mentioning non-believers in a list of "who we Americans are" is appropriate. Mentioning child molesters would not be so. Do you believe differently?

Well said.

142 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:24:17am

How does one do a linky to a previous comment?

143 VegasRick  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:24:18am

re: #135 kansas

NAACP is racist. Wanting only to promote those of one race. Otherwise it would be the NAAP. Leave out the C and I'm OK with it.

What color are those people anyway?

144 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:24:40am

re: #133 yma o hyd

Blimey - how do they get away with that!

Its the same here, we have for example an 'Association of Black Police Officers' ... yeah, combat racism by being racially exclusive.
The mind boggles.

How about the Congressional Black Caucus? Among other things, they caucus on how their votes will impact the black community - not the whole community.

145 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:24:46am

gman,

Kind of makes the point the Atheism is a religion. With each trying to convert the other. But I stand by my point. I have yet so see a mainline Christian mock, attack and belittle Atheists like they do to Christians.

Want a test? Go to any newspaper that has a comment section. If the story relates to religion, or steers that way, watch the comments.

146 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:24:58am
147 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:13am

re: #142 psyop

How does one do a linky to a previous comment?

click the comment number - the comment will appear in a page by itself.
copy the url and use that as your link.

148 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:17am

re: #143 VegasRick

What color are those people anyway?

Who cares? Advance all people.

149 Blackacre  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:22am

re: #113 Occasional Reader

Are you speaking to me in the imp-erative voice?

150 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:32am

re: #116 Anna

Its called Buyers Remorse.

Snip-snip

At this rate, the one who pandered to everyone will have no one to turn to when he needs help. And the opinion polls do show a 15 point drop.

The Presidency is way above Obama's pay-grade.

Latest poll.

151 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:33am

re: #132 alegrias

* * **
Yes, Sally Quinn the atheist in charge of "On Religion" in the WashPost, recommended the Obama family attend the National Cathedral because it's a great place for people of little or no faith!

(paraphrased loosely, but look it up yourself)

Keeping up appearances!

I love National Cathedral. But Sally Quinn is on to something. In their gift shop, they have books for children about Islam. Um, guys... can't you even validate your OWN religion?!

152 rawmuse  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:41am

re: #9 rwmofo

President Richard Pryor

This is apparently from the late 70s. Starts out slow, but gets going at about the 3:30 mark.

That is a great bit, I think it was from from about 1990, no?

153 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:43am

re: #62 ploome hineni

hamas is handing out money

where the fk is hamas getting money?

* * *
Hamas makes money from cigarette sales in the US, where they buy low in low-tax states, and sell high, pocketing the difference for Hamas.

154 TypicalWhiteLiberal  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:48am

re: #84 mfarmer1

Here's a link, you can spot the interview around the web in many places. I was surprised, to say the least.

155 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:58am
156 Sharmuta  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:58am

re: #145 Dave the.....

Did you read all of last night's creationism thread?

157 n in wi  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:25:59am

re: #111 nyc redneck

he may not make it thru the first.
he might implode. he is so thin skinned.
he bristles and flounders and squirms like such an unbalanced person.
look how childish he is, lashing out at ie rush.
rather than focusing on the big issues.
he can not take criticism or tolerate opposing views.
he is too used to being revered and praised. he has seldom encountered obstacles.
now is unable to adapt. he may be too defensive to learn.

For him to respond to Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity,in an official role is a good indication of what you say being accurate.

158 Haverwilde  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:26:06am

re: #29 Sharmuta

Democratic and republican forms of government are just as much a part of our heritage and pre-date Christianity. Why is this always ignored?

Democracy: Greek in origin
Senate: Roman
Republic: Roman

Masculine leadership and Divine right of control: Pre-Chrisitian but perpetuated by the Roman Church (of which I am a member.)

We are nation founded on Greek and Roman Classical values.

"All of Western Civilization is but a footnote on Plato."

159 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:26:13am

I wasn't thrilled by the shout out from O nor am I particularly insulted by the resulting outrage. I've been called much worse on LGF. It doesn't hurt my feelings or surprise me.

160 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:26:19am

re: #153 alegrias

* * *
Hamas makes money from cigarette sales in the US, where they buy low in low-tax states, and sell high, pocketing the difference for Hamas.

really?

161 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:26:40am

re: #111 nyc redneck

I really do wonder how he's going to do at one of the big international meetings, G7, for example.

Those other heads of state have not drunk his Kool-Aid, are not overly fond of him (Sarkozy, for example), and have to do the best for their country, not for PB0.
Sure, they'll give him the benefit of doubt - but one things for sure, he'll not be able to dazzle them as he dazzled the voters. They're hardnosed professionals, with more experience than he has.

Will be very interesting indeed ...

162 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:27:15am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

Oh I suspect that he/she just goes through life, trying things, hit or miss, it if hurts, don't do it, if it's tastes bad, don't eat it, if it's sharp, don't run it across your face, you know, all those base animal instincts. Don't worry, give us enough time and we will evolve right out of existence.
/

163 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:27:17am

Jefferson was a Deist, and the separation of Church and State was an important point for the founding fathers. It's amazing how often these simple facts are distorted by those with particular axes to grind.

[Link: www.sullivan-county.com...]

I think it was fine, that Obama mentioned non-believers. We usually get nothing but angry abuse, but there are a helluva lot more of us than publicly admit it, for obvious reasons.

164 The Big C  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:27:54am

More evidence that no matter how much you to try to please everyone, someone will always find a way to be offended. If Obama had left out the phrase "non-believers" there would have been some other clowns whining about that. Even if he had just used the phrase "everyone" then someone would be saying "you mean neo-Nazis and the KKK as well?".

The media is lazy, and it doesn't take much work to find a predictable group that is offended by anything. Double points if it makes "conservatives" look bad.

165 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:27:54am
166 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:27:56am

re: #129 jaunte

Here's an interesting thought on that:

Damn. From an admittedly quick skim of that article, it sounds like I could have written it.

167 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:28:02am
168 newsjunkie_ky  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:29:07am

re: #144 loppyd

How about the Congressional Black Caucus? Among other things, they caucus on how their votes will impact the black community - not the whole community.


They've done a pi$$ poor job helping the black community. I'm kinda glad they don't want to help all communities.

169 Sharmuta  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:29:10am

re: #158 Haverwilde

Democracy: Greek in origin
Senate: Roman
Republic: Roman

Masculine leadership and Divine right of control: Pre-Chrisitian but perpetuated by the Roman Church (of which I am a member.)

We are nation founded on Greek and Roman Classical values.

"All of Western Civilization is but a footnote on Plato."

I would like to think it's ignored due to ignorance on the part of most, but in some cases I know it's ignored because it's problematic to certain agendas.

170 albusteve  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:29:11am

re: #163 garycooper

Jefferson was a Deist, and the separation of Church and State was an important point for the founding fathers. It's amazing how often these simple facts are distorted by those with particular axes to grind.

[Link: www.sullivan-county.com...]

I think it was fine, that Obama mentioned non-believers. We usually get nothing but angry abuse, but there are a helluva lot more of us than publicly admit it, for obvious reasons.

I think atheist sounds more genuine than non-believers which in fact is not true anyway....imo

171 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:29:39am

re: #147 reine.de.tout

Thanks!

172 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:29:45am

Jaunte, good link. Maybe that's my point. The Atheists that join Atheist groups, are really hard core leftists who want to attack traditional America.

173 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:29:50am

re: #144 loppyd

How about the Congressional Black Caucus? Among other things, they caucus on how their votes will impact the black community - not the whole community.

Wonder why nobody is pointing out that this surely must be unconstitutional?

174 jaunte  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:06am

re: #145 Dave the.....

Some people are inclined to bother others and get them to believe the same way they do. Other people keep to themselves. These common human tendencies are expressed across all belief systems. We tend to notice the noisy persuaders.

175 albusteve  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:06am

re: #167 buzzsawmonkey

You...you...luthier, you!

worse yet...non=luthier!

176 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:08am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

We don't, we just rape and murder wantonly.

[rolls eyes]

177 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:20am

re: #165 ploome hineni

both the atheist and the agnostic are ignoring the question

I answered you in re: #162

178 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:22am
179 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:22am

re: #65 Ojoe

Ah well, everyone has a belief; and nefarious beliefs will creep in un-noticed if you don't pick good ones; & Obama doesn't get this.

Man we are in for a rocky ride.

i agree, and that is, as a "non-believer".
i don't need that moron pandering to me.
and i say that as a christian-atheist.
i'm struggling w/ my lack of faith. if he had any understanding of the human condition today, he wouldn't try to ingratiate w/ such a disparate groups of people. .

180 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:24am

re: #155 buzzsawmonkey

The excellent Robert Duvall did a film on this topic some years back, with James Earl Jones. He's a Southerner who has always been at least casually racist, and he finds out he has a brother in Chicago--Jones--who is just as anti-white as he is anti-black. They manage, slowly, to come to terms with each other.

I forget the title of the film.

"A Family Thing"

I saw the movie and loved it.

181 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:41am

re: #167 buzzsawmonkey

You...you...luthier, you!

No, he's not a Lutheran, he's an atheist. Pay attention!

182 itellu3times  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:44am

re: #128 psyop

Aha, so you mean the specifically American religious freedom and society based on Judeo-Christian ideals, was enabled in large part by Greco-Roman ideas of popular governance. OK fine.

It was a little confusing because the western European dependence on Judeo-Christian ideals was much older and flourished under various monarchies as well.

183 Anna  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:30:47am

re: #150 avanti

Avanti, as in the car I take it, that is nice, but be better to see the exact breakdown of whom Gallup polled. Democrats vs Independents vs Republicans to see if the sampling was skewed in anyway.

Watching this train wreck start early makes me wish for Bubba 'I Feel your Pain' Clinton.

184 Erik The Red  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:31:09am

re: #134 Occasional Reader

There's appropriately all-inclusive, and inappropriately so. To my mind, mentioning non-believers in a list of "who we Americans are" is appropriate. Mentioning child molesters would not be so. Do you believe differently?

Sorry if I touched a nerve. Bad choice of an analogy. The point I am trying to make is he can not be everything to everyone. He has no real integrity and has no direction or view of how he see's the USA going forward. All he believes in are the ratings and hero worship.
Again no offense meant.

185 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:31:15am
186 n in wi  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:31:21am

We may be off track with assuming his inclusion of "non-believers" in his speech was not referring to non-believers in HIM.
He has a Messiah complex to the nth degree.


I started out typing this as sarcastic, but I'm not so sure it is.

187 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:31:28am

OT:

KENNEDYS LIVID AS GOV ASKED CAROLINE TO 'LIE'

An "apoplectic" Kennedy family is seething over the rough treatment that heiress apparent Caroline got from Gov. Paterson's office and is spoiling for revenge, several sources close to the clan have told The Post.

"The governor's going to pay for this," said a well-placed Democrat. "Ted is furious. The family is furious. The Kennedys are now against the governor."

I wonder if they were apoplectic when Teddy killed a woman? Or when Teddy's nephew got caught committing statutory rape with a minor? Or when Patches crashed his car while shitfaced and high on sleeping pills?

188 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:31:41am

re: #162 Walter L. Newton

Oh I suspect that he/she just goes through life, trying things, hit or miss, it if hurts, don't do it, if it's tastes bad, don't eat it, if it's sharp, don't run it across your face, you know, all those base animal instincts. Don't worry, give us enough time and we will evolve right out of existence.
/

Atheists are typically very "moral" people, with a lot of empathy for their fellow men. We also have access to the same moral tracts that believers draw from, and we don't have to pay any attention to the crazy parts.

189 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:31:43am

Sharmuta

Did you read all of last night's creationism thread?


Dave stays away from those threads. I think I checked in on one, maybe yesterday, way into it. By then the subject had changed. Hey, was it the cat thread?

190 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:31:56am

re: #145 Dave the.....

Atheists are possibly among the most hated demographics in American society....
Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists

Atheists are generally not liked and mistrusted. People here have frequently made the statement that atheists are amoral sociopaths. It's pretty common.

191 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:31:56am

re: #173 yma o hyd

Wonder why nobody is pointing out that this surely must be unconstitutional?

would be racist to do so.

192 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:32:13am

re: #173 yma o hyd

Wonder why nobody is pointing out that this surely must be unconstitutional?

FEAR.

193 gman  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:32:20am

re: #145 Dave the.....

gman,

Kind of makes the point the Atheism is a religion. With each trying to convert the other. But I stand by my point. I have yet so see a mainline Christian mock, attack and belittle Atheists like they do to Christians.

Want a test? Go to any newspaper that has a comment section. If the story relates to religion, or steers that way, watch the comments.

Every large group has their own extreme branches, sects, etc.
I think those are the people you are referring to. I don't believe all atheists are out to get christians and vice- versa. Unfortunately, the extreme periphery of the group oftentimes give the whole group a bad name.

194 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:32:20am
195 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:32:21am

re: #188 garycooper

Atheists are typically very "moral" people, with a lot of empathy for their fellow men. We also have access to the same moral tracts that believers draw from, and we don't have to pay any attention to the crazy parts.

And of course, you realize I was being snarky with Ploome, right?

196 itellu3times  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:32:22am

re: #158 Haverwilde

"All of Western Civilization is but a footnote on Plato."

Hardly. Plato was no democrat, nor republican.

197 newsjunkie_ky  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:33:04am

WTH is sally 'plastic face' quinn doing on Fox News Sunday?

198 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:33:09am

re: #185 buzzsawmonkey

Why do you need Chinese food to do that?

Our only rule is, "do as [General] Tso wilt".

199 TypicalWhiteLiberal  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:33:29am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

I always go by "and it harm none, do as you will." That first clause covers a lot of ground, but is obviously subject to some personal interpretation.

200 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:33:33am
201 MandyManners  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:33:50am

re: #155 buzzsawmonkey

The excellent Robert Duvall did a film on this topic some years back, with James Earl Jones. He's a Southerner who has always been at least casually racist, and he finds out he has a brother in Chicago--Jones--who is just as anti-white as he is anti-black. They manage, slowly, to come to terms with each other.

I forget the title of the film.

A Family Thing.

202 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:33:53am

re: #194 ploome hineni

that is what I have no respect for them

Noted.

203 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:04am

re: #197 newsjunkie_ky

WTH is sally 'plastic face' quinn doing on Fox News Sunday?

Is she talking about how excited she is for parties to be back in vogue in d.c.?

204 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:05am

there's another thing abt. him pandering to non-believers.
his socialist agenda does better when people leave traditional religious practices and worship the state.
he is encouraging non-believers just by mentioning them.

205 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:11am
206 Cheese Eating Victory Monkey  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:14am

His message was clear - an upgrade of the Muslim image in America. The unclear message is whether he wanted to take down the Jews a notch.

If he wanted to be multicultural and equate all religions as the same, he could have said "all the religions across the land". I can't help but be a bit suspicious why he put Muslim before Jewish.

207 kansas  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:31am

re: #190 Killgore Trout

Atheists are possibly among the most hated demographics in American society....
Gallup Polls & Other Surveys on American Attitudes Towards Atheists

Atheists are generally not liked and mistrusted. People here have frequently made the statement that atheists are amoral sociopaths. It's pretty common.

I'm not sure why anyone should know if a person is an atheist or not. Much like I think what you do in your bedroom is your business, I think what you chose to believe or not believe is your business and frankly if you are secure in it, just STFU about it.

208 mfarmer1  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:32am

re: #154 TypicalWhiteLiberal

Here's a link, you can spot the interview around the web in many places. I was surprised, to say the least.

Yeah, I just poked around a bit and saw it all over the place. Admittedly, many of the sites were suspect, but I didn't see it anywhere being refuted. Nothing at snopes.

Surprising indeed. Disappointing as well. Had I known that I would not have voted for him in 1988. 1992? Um, er...I went with the Larry King candidate.

209 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:32am

re: #131 esch

Can't be soon enough for me. real damage can be done that may not be correctable.

210 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:52am

re: #194 ploome hineni

well....I guess that question is too complicated, so all I get are cutsie phrases, so much for any notion of intellectual honesty
that is what I have no respect for them

Of course, it's not at all possible that your question is not intellectually honest, and no matter what answer anyone would give you, you would manage to diminish that comments validity.

211 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:57am

re: #169 Sharmuta

I would like to think it's ignored due to ignorance on the part of most, but in some cases I know it's ignored because it's problematic to certain agendas.

I tend to think that poor education is most of the reason.

Although, I suppose the omission of certain histories and ideas from various curricula could in and of itself be part of an agenda...

212 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:34:59am

re: #151 Occasional Reader

I love National Cathedral. But Sally Quinn is on to something. In their gift shop, they have books for children about Islam. Um, guys... can't you even validate your OWN religion?!

* * * *
It's a beautiful building. John Bolton gave a great eulogy for Jeanne Kilpatrick. There's a moon-rock from NASA in one of the rose windows up in the clerestory.

But as to being a cathedral where Christianity is central? Oh no, that's so--separatist! Unequal!

And Yes. As for me, I validate I'm an INFIDEL (Nonbeliever of Mohammed)!

213 MandyManners  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:35:02am

re: #199 TypicalWhiteLiberal

I always go by "and it harm none, do as you will." That first clause covers a lot of ground, but is obviously subject to some personal interpretation.

Doesn't that come from Satanism or Wicca?

214 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:35:08am

re: #196 itellu3times

Hardly. Plato was no democrat, nor republican.

"We're a really free Republic, other than the slaves."

215 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:35:12am

re: #165 ploome hineni

both the atheist and the agnostic are ignoring the question

what is the question?

216 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:35:18am
217 rwmofo  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:35:31am

re: #152 rawmuse

That is a great bit, I think it was from from about 1990, no?

He mentions James Harris & Huey Newton, plus that looks like a very young Robin Williams standing in the back (he doesn't speak, which likely wouldn't be the case by 1990) right at the beginning. These references, the hair-dos (hair-don'ts) and the way they're dressed appear to be from the late 70s to me. I could be wrong.

218 VegasRick  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:35:32am

re: #188 garycooper

Atheists are typically very "moral" people, with a lot of empathy for their fellow men. We also have access to the same moral tracts that believers draw from, and we don't have to pay any attention to the crazy parts.

Really?

219 RoyalCanadian  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:35:40am

I am not upset by the inclusion of non-believers. I do note how the big O framed the various religious brands into his required vote demographics. In the next election he can get the most votes by dividing the Judeo-Christina cultural block. "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers” splits apart the Judeo-Christian bloc which is the best defense against cultural suicide. I hope Obama does not succeed in splitting Christians and Jews by getting muslims between them as he did in his statement. If we are going to maintain "our" western democratic values we are going to have to maintain "our" close and protective relationship.

220 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:35:50am

re: #200 Killgore Trout

Where do Atheists Get Their Morality From?

Oh come on Killgore, that link is NOT intellectually honest. Give it a break.
/

221 rawmuse  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:36:02am

I simply find no inspiration in the thesis that all of Life is simply an accident of carbon based chemistry. Nothing to write stirring verse about there.

222 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:36:23am

re: #220 Walter L. Newton

Heh.

223 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:36:48am

re: #146 ploome hineni

what are the criteria you use to determine morality

/maybe I am not articulating clearly

or are you just being flippant?



Mostly individual conscience which comes form a lot of sources, some from parents, some from philosophy, some from the world religions. For me, it's basically Karma, Golden rule stuff.

224 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:36:54am

re: #195 Walter L. Newton

And of course, you realize I was being snarky with Ploome, right?

Yes, I got you. Sorry I constructed such a confusing post--I just woke up. We atheists get to stay up late Saturdays, and sleep in on Sundays. ;)

225 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:37:04am

re: #201 MandyManners

A Family Thing.

Wasn't that the one with Archie Bunker?

/

226 Haverwilde  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:37:17am

re: #165 ploome hineni

both the atheist and the agnostic are ignoring the question

The same way you did. You developed much of your morality or lack there of before you were developmentally able to understand religion. It is part and parcel of the process of being a member of society. You develop that morality as you develop speech, language, and your comprehension of the world.
You may use your religion as a guide now; but you like non-believers have a far more complex notion of morality thanks to the society in which you llive.

227 MarineGrunt  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:37:35am

re: #23 opnion

"Was it right to ever imprison the detainees at Gitmo?' WTF?

No, the battlefield captives should not have been taken there in the first place, if you catch my drift.

228 newsjunkie_ky  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:37:53am

re: #203 loppyd

Is she talking about how excited she is for parties to be back in vogue in d.c.?


Sorry, I've totally tuned her out. As a mother, I've perfected this technique.

229 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:38:09am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

I get everything I need from the Pocket Obama.
/

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

230 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:38:20am

re: #212 alegrias

It's a beautiful building. John Bolton gave a great eulogy for Jeanne Kilpatrick. There's a moon-rock from NASA in one of the rose windows up in the clerestory.

Also, a Darth Vader gargoyle. And a carving on a pew of a snake with the face of Hitler. Lots of cool stuff.

231 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:38:22am

re: #210 Walter L. Newton

Of course, it's not at all possible that your question is not intellectually honest, and no matter what answer anyone would give you, you would manage to diminish that comments validity.

OR, it is possible that Ploome's question is intellectually honest, and before assuming it isn't, perhaps it would be nice if someone gave a response to see what happened.

And, an argument with whatever response is given is not necessarily an attempt to diminish the comment's validity.

232 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:38:44am

re: #218 VegasRick

Really?

Yes, really.

233 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:38:46am

re: #228 newsjunkie_ky

Sorry, I've totally tuned her out. As a mother, I've perfected this technique.

:) got it.

234 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:38:55am

re: #160 loppyd

really?

* * *
Truly! It's been reported they catch these guys with cars full of cheap cigarettes bought in the South, to re-sell in the North where generally taxes are higher on cigarettes.

They pocket the difference and send their US Greenback dollars to jihadi causes such as Hamas.

Dirty nicotine traffickers for allah.

235 gman  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:39:18am

re: #229 Walter L. Newton

I get everything I need from the Pocket Obama.
/

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

you got to be kidding me. Lol

236 Randall Gross  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:39:29am

One of the real benefits atheists enjoy in the US: they can shop unbusy markets, see movies in deserted theaters, enjoy prime seating at any restaurant as long as they get it done before 11 am on any Sunday.

237 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:39:34am
238 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:39:50am

re: #231 reine.de.tout

OR, it is possible that Ploome's question is intellectually honest, and before assuming it isn't, perhaps it would be nice if someone gave a response to see what happened.

And, an argument with whatever response is given is not necessarily an attempt to diminish the comment's validity.

I gave her an answer, in a light hearted, look at yourself first, sort of way, which she ignored. Her lost, not mine.

239 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:39:52am
240 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:40:15am

I think a big reason Atheists are hated by many is because that the most vicious anti-Christian bigots tend to win. Example, suing schools to stop them from singing traditional American Christmas carols. Or Atheists that work for my employer got them to ban use of the word "Christmas" in any company correspondance, internal or external. Also notices went out that things like hanging garland in public areas is forbidden.

Or in Wisconsin...a two year public college starts their spring break on Good Friday. An Atheist is looking at suing them...to force classes to be held on Good Friday.

241 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:40:16am

re: #234 alegrias

* * *
Truly! It's been reported they catch these guys with cars full of cheap cigarettes bought in the South, to re-sell in the North where generally taxes are higher on cigarettes.

They pocket the difference and send their US Greenback dollars to jihadi causes such as Hamas.

Dirty nicotine traffickers for allah.

lovely

242 iLikeCandy  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:40:41am

re: #109 Occasional Reader

By the way, USA Today trumpets Obama's mention of "non-believers" as one of his many, glowing, hopey changey "historic firsts". And I know for the fact this isn't so. None other than George W. Bush made an inclusive reference to Americans who "don't believe in any religion" in one of his State of the Union addresses. I'll have to look around for a link.

I distinctly remember this, too. And I'll also have to look around for a quote.

If Bush said what he said to Sherman, then he had an admirable change of view.

243 jaunte  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:40:45am

re: #236 Thanos

They just have to go back after noon in Texas to buy beer.

244 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:41:00am

re: #213 MandyManners

Doesn't that come from Satanism or Wicca?

I believe so.

And TWL's illustration shows the larger point; "atheism" is not a belief, it's an absence of a belief. Asking "where do atheists get their morality from" is like asking "where do blue-eyed people get their morality from".

245 MarineGrunt  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:41:06am

re: #36 ploome hineni
Exactly.

246 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:41:22am

re: #238 Walter L. Newton

I gave her an answer, in a light hearted, look at yourself first, sort of way, which she ignored. Her lost, not mine.

Well, perhaps she was (and is) looking for a serious answer.
Just maybe.

Anyhow, some serious responses have been given now.

247 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:41:24am

re: #4 Alouette

I think Obama opponents really need to choose their battles wisely. And freaking out over the inclusion of non-believers is not wise.

How so? Last I heard, non-believers are the most reviled religious category in the US, and small in number. These "opponents" count on religious extremists (of the Christian variety) for support. Does gathering support by pointing to a small minority religious category, and demonizing them sound familiar to anybody in here?

Do non-believers suddenly have clout I don't know about, these days? Is it because they are associated with communism (although the most anti-communist, pro-American group in existence is decidedly atheist), and socialism is becoming "cool" (as long as you don't call it socialism)?

It is an odd fact that while the Republican/Conservatives are thought of as the "most Christian", the most religious group in the US is the African-Americans. They're overwhelmingly Christian, and overwhelmingly Democrat.

248 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:41:29am

BBIAM

249 Randall Gross  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:41:31am

re: #243 jaunte

They just have to go back after noon in Texas to buy beer.

Or Kitty Litter in some bizarre counties.

250 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:41:35am

re: #121 reine.de.tout

:D

251 rawmuse  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:41:56am

re: #242 iLikeCandy

The phrase he used was "those of no faith".

252 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:42:12am

re: #243 jaunte

They just have to go back after noon in Texas to buy beer.

Moral of the story: Buy beer on Saturday.

253 itellu3times  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:42:14am

re: #214 Occasional Reader

"We're a really free Republic, other than the slaves."

And the philosopher king.

Not to mention that on science, western civilization is basically the story of overturning every single thing that Plato and Aristotle took as explanations. At least they questioned, and reasoned, but they didn't much experiment. Lot of talk, not so much action.

254 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:42:25am

re: #231 reine.de.tout

OR, it is possible that Ploome's question is intellectually honest, and before assuming it isn't, perhaps it would be nice if someone gave a response to see what happened.

And, an argument with whatever response is given is not necessarily an attempt to diminish the comment's validity.

There have been several non-snarky responses to the question. See, e.g., Killgore's link. I felt just as weary at seeing the question as Walter did, because I've been through this song and dance before.

255 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:42:43am

re: #187 loppyd

OT:

KENNEDYS LIVID AS GOV ASKED CAROLINE TO 'LIE'


I wonder if they were apoplectic when Teddy killed a woman? Or when Teddy's nephew got caught committing statutory rape with a minor? Or when Patches crashed his car while shitfaced and high on sleeping pills?

* * *
Hush Loppy,
You're talking about Pres. Obama's holy sanctified patron saints the Kennedys!

You wouldn't want them to declare a holy fatwa against you!

256 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:43:01am

re: #243 jaunte

They just have to go back after noon in Texas to buy beer.

Any professional drinker , living in a area which has Sunday laws about not selling booze, is moral enough (see, I'm keeping with the topic) to do all that booze shopping on a Sat. night before midnight.
/

257 VegasRick  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:43:02am

re: #232 garycooper

Yes, really.

"Atheists are typically very "moral" people, with a lot of empathy for their fellow men. We also have access to the same moral tracts that believers draw from, and we don't have to pay any attention to the crazy parts."


That is a pretty broad brush my friend. Thanks for your empathy and and understanding my stupid need to pay attention to the "crazy parts".

258 newsjunkie_ky  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:43:11am

re: #240 Dave the.....

I think a big reason Atheists are hated by many is because that the most vicious anti-Christian bigots tend to win. Example, suing schools to stop them from singing traditional American Christmas carols. Or Atheists that work for my employer got them to ban use of the word "Christmas" in any company correspondance, internal or external. Also notices went out that things like hanging garland in public areas is forbidden.

Or in Wisconsin...a two year public college starts their spring break on Good Friday. An Atheist is looking at suing them...to force classes to be held on Good Friday.

Agree, but I don't hate atheists. I hate what they are doing to this Country, though.

259 jaunte  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:43:12am

re: #249 Thanos

That's odd. What behavior is that law trying to govern?

260 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:43:14am

re: #183 Anna

Avanti, as in the car I take it, that is nice, but be better to see the exact breakdown of whom Gallup polled. Democrats vs Independents vs Republicans to see if the sampling was skewed in anyway.

Watching this train wreck start early makes me wish for Bubba 'I Feel your Pain' Clinton.

I only replied with a poll to a comment about a poll. I know we tend to only trust polls that we like.`If one does show a big drop in Obama's approval, there will be fewer questions about Gallup's methods.

261 rwmofo  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:43:23am

re: #172 Dave the.....

Jaunte, good link. Maybe that's my point. The Atheists that join Atheist groups, are really hard core leftists who want to attack traditional America.

Ever notice how this bunch comes out of the woodwork during the Christmas season and does everything they can to ruin our Christmas? We've mostly forgotten about it now, but they'll be back and they'll be hitting harder next year.

Plus, expect people like Alan Colmes to cheer-lead their cause.

262 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:43:34am

re: #254 Occasional Reader

There have been several non-snarky responses to the question. See, e.g., Killgore's link. I felt just as weary at seeing the question as Walter did, because I've been through this song and dance before.

Yes, I saw them.

We all go through a song-and-dance at different times, about different things. It is indeed wearying - it is also just what happens in life sometimes.

263 Daisy  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:43:34am

It makes me laugh that Obama identifies himself as another Lincoln. Obama is a people pleaser par excellance (hence his phony baloney 'inclusiveness') - seriously different from the principled (and terrifically unpopular in his own time) Lincoln.

264 jaunte  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:01am

re: #252 reine.de.tout

re: #256 Walter L. Newton

It's a law only affecting extremely bad planners.

265 Sharmuta  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:02am

re: #259 jaunte

That's odd. What behavior is that law trying to govern?

Egyptian paganism?

266 iLikeCandy  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:05am

re: #240 Dave the.....

I think a big reason Atheists are hated by many is because that the most vicious anti-Christian bigots tend to win. Example, suing schools to stop them from singing traditional American Christmas carols. Or Atheists that work for my employer got them to ban use of the word "Christmas" in any company correspondance, internal or external. Also notices went out that things like hanging garland in public areas is forbidden.

Or in Wisconsin...a two year public college starts their spring break on Good Friday. An Atheist is looking at suing them...to force classes to be held on Good Friday.

I think that's the general reason many beliefs and ideologies get themselves hated. Some, of course, are truly hateful.

267 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:24am

re: #239 buzzsawmonkey

There once was a carbon-based life form
That through course of time assumed my form
But then Al Gore decreed
To continue, I'd need
To complete an "Existence-Why?" form.

Your verse left me shaken, but not stirred. I really Bonded with you there.

268 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:30am
269 TypicalWhiteLiberal  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:32am

re: #213 MandyManners

Doesn't that come from Satanism or Wicca?

It's heavily used by Wiccans, yes (I wouldn't know about Satanists - that stuff always seemed too juvenile to both investigating).

Regardless of the source I think it provides some moral clarity for non-believers, which is what ploome was asking.

270 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:32am
271 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:37am

re: #197 newsjunkie_ky

WTH is sally 'plastic face' quinn doing on Fox News Sunday?

* * *
She wants to be seen & heard, and FOX is where the cable tv public is in big numbers!

Remember when Hillary needed voters, she went to where the voters where? Fox News, which other democrats boycotted.

272 Randall Gross  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:46am

re: #259 jaunte

That's odd. What behavior is that law trying to govern?

I'm really not sure, but there are some old blue laws in a county or two around Dallas that in theory ban the sale of kitty litter on Sunday, one of the locals told me about them years ago but I don't know the logic or illogic behind them.

273 AuntAcid  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:44:52am

"An "apoplectic" Kennedy family is seething..."

...so "seething" is what they do when they are sober or off their meds.
Good to know.

274 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:45:37am
275 Christopher Luebcke  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:45:41am

re: #263 Daisy

It makes me laugh that Obama identifies himself as another Lincoln. Obama is a people pleaser par excellance (hence his phony baloney 'inclusiveness') - seriously different from the principled (and terrifically unpopular in his own time) Lincoln.

When did he identify himself as Lincoln? That seems to be something a lot of other people are trying to do, but I haven't heard him make anything like that comparison himself.

276 itellu3times  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:45:56am

re: #221 rawmuse

I simply find no inspiration in the thesis that all of Life is simply an accident of carbon based chemistry. Nothing to write stirring verse about there.

But why not?

A sunset is just some planets and stars, but it's beautiful all the same. Nothing but some atoms and nuclear fusion, some gravity and momentum at work, but it does not follow that it's not worth a second glance.

277 iLikeCandy  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:46:00am

re: #251 rawmuse

The phrase he used was "those of no faith".

Thank you. Yes.

278 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:46:02am

re: #246 reine.de.tout

Well, perhaps she was (and is) looking for a serious answer. Just maybe. Anyhow, some serious responses have been given now.

Ploome has asked this question a number of times before, and she has been given serious answers.

Just maybe, IMO, she is trying, like she tends to do, trying to bait certain Lizards into an argument.

Of course, that's my opinion.

279 realwest  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:47:15am

re: #150 avanti
How stupid is it to poll Obama's approval rating as POTUS after he's been on the job for only 3 days?

280 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:47:42am

re: #229 Walter L. Newton

I get everything I need from the Pocket Obama.
/

[Link: www.amazon.com...]

Oh. My. [non-belief]

The Quotations of Chairman Obama. The little blue book. Just fucking wonderful.

281 Erik The Red  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:47:43am

There is some tension here today between a few regular and long time posters. Is it the stress of 44's first 6 days in office or is the whole religion issue playing a part?

Remember Lizards we are all on the same side. We may disagree on somethings but we have a very long 4 years ahead. Stay focused on the really important issue. To save the future for our children and grandchildren.

282 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:48:02am

re: #240 Dave the.....

I think a big reason Atheists are hated by many is because that the most vicious anti-Christian bigots tend to win. Example, suing schools to stop them from singing traditional American Christmas carols. Or Atheists that work for my employer got them to ban use of the word "Christmas" in any company correspondance, internal or external. Also notices went out that things like hanging garland in public areas is forbidden.

Or in Wisconsin...a two year public college starts their spring break on Good Friday. An Atheist is looking at suing them...to force classes to be held on Good Friday.

Interesting point. These idiots bother me, too. I was raised Catholic, grew up in a Christian town with lots of Christmas display, and I love the whole idea of Christmas Spirit, even if it does get commercialized into ridiculousity at times. I also love it when the Jewish people in my neighborhood decorate their homes with blue and white lights, for the holiday season.

283 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:48:03am

re: #278 Walter L. Newton

Ploome has asked this question a number of times before, and she has been given serious answers.

Just maybe, IMO, she is trying, like she tends to do, trying to bait certain Lizards into an argument.

Of course, that's my opinion.

Well, I can't deny that the baiting does indeed occur from time to time.

PLOOMIE - I love you anyway.

284 Killgore Trout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:48:13am
285 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:48:14am
286 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:48:25am

re: #272 Thanos

I'm really not sure, but there are some old blue laws in a county or two around Dallas that in theory ban the sale of kitty litter on Sunday, one of the locals told me about them years ago but I don't know the logic or illogic behind them.

Years ago in Virginia, one could only buy beer and wine on Sundays, sold in a grocery store, after 1 PM. That always annoyed me because I like to shop on my way home from church at noon.

One time I bought a bottle of wine. The clerk was one of my students, a Southern Baptist. She looked disapprovingly at my purchase and said something about wine being "sinful." I smiled and replied, "Jesus's first miracle was turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana, so I don't think He minds."

287 Digital Display  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:48:33am

re: #279 realwest

How stupid is it to poll Obama's approval rating as POTUS after he's been on the job for only 3 days?

Well you got to start some where my friend.. :)

288 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:48:43am

re: #268 ploome hineni

any every other topic on these thread are new and never repeated?

a new song and dance on every thread so you donlt get weary?

You've had multiple, sincere replies to your question. You haven't attempted to engage any of them. I wonder why not.

289 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:49:01am

re: #272 Thanos

I'm really not sure, but there are some old blue laws in a county or two around Dallas that in theory ban the sale of kitty litter on Sunday, one of the locals told me about them years ago but I don't know the logic or illogic behind them.

It's not trying to prevent any sort of activity with kitty litter. It's the fact that the kitty litter is classed with certain other items which are not to be sold on Sunday, such as hardware, home improvement stuff etc. In Texas (at least when I lived there in the 70-80), there was whole sections of department type stores roped off on Sundays.

290 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:49:35am

OR. Disagree. Atheism is a religion. You can't be a believer in Atheism and a believer in Christianity (or another religion). They are mutually exclusive.

I am a White-American. I am not an Absence-of-color-American.

291 Gella  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:49:35am

re: #240 Dave the.....

i think reason is, too much of political correctness

292 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:50:26am

re: #41 TypicalWhiteLiberal

You have a link from a reputable source for that? Otherwise it is 'net dreck and has no credibility.

O says one thing that makes some sense when he included non-believers, and the fringe has apoplexy. This is about as disgusting as hearing Rev. Wright spew his brand of theology.

The FMSM will use this to further marginalize any reasonable opposition.

293 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:50:34am

re: #284 Killgore Trout

Here's some more reading if you're interested.....
The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick

Part 2: Game Theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma

The Roots of Morality I: Refuting Relativism

Ahhhhhhhh, more intellectually dishonest links, save me!

294 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:50:34am
295 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:50:57am

re: #6 anti-looter

But the US that had Christian origins is NOT the US that Obama envisions - not news IMO.

The President of the US is not supposed to HAVE a vision for the religious future of the country. I haven't really seen one from Obama. He's a socialist, but he has used the church in the Black communities he has risen from as ends to his means.

I hope you're not hinting at the "the Constitution is founded on Christianity" tin-foil hat stuff that so many on the Right try to push.

296 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:51:05am

re: #257 VegasRick

"Atheists are typically very "moral" people, with a lot of empathy for their fellow men. We also have access to the same moral tracts that believers draw from, and we don't have to pay any attention to the crazy parts."


That is a pretty broad brush my friend. Thanks for your empathy and and understanding my stupid need to pay attention to the "crazy parts".

Sorry, meant no offense. Feel free to blood-sacrifice as many animals as you like, even your son, if the Voice Of God tells you to do so.

297 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:51:58am
298 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:52:07am

re: #279 realwest

How stupid is it to poll Obama's approval rating as POTUS after he's been on the job for only 3 days?

Ask Gallup,`they've been doing early polling since Eisenhower. I think 100 days would make more sense, but again, I just posted it after the comment that his approval rating was down 15% made me look.

299 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:52:14am

re: #262 reine.de.tout

Yes, I saw them.

We all go through a song-and-dance at different times, about different things. It is indeed wearying - it is also just what happens in life sometimes.

Look: A Jew who is asked for the umpty-millionth time by some ignoramus "so you people are all rich, right?" is under no moral obligation to give a non-snarky, thoughtfully detailed response. I feel the same way about the "how can atheists have any morality" question.

300 esch  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:52:25am

re: #281 Erik The Red

This is all too true. People of conservative bent need to focus on the larger conservative issues and leave the ideological sniping to the leftists.

I'm certain I'm not the only one that often doesn't feel welcome at the party, in spite of being very conservative.

301 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:52:25am

re: #273 AuntAcid

"An "apoplectic" Kennedy family is seething..."

...so "seething" is what they do when they are sober or off their meds.
Good to know.

* * *
Seething (and apoplexy) is not cool for non believing infidels, but for the allahu ackbar set and their enablers.

302 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:52:36am

re: #296 garycooper

Sorry, meant no offense. Feel free to blood-sacrifice as many animals as you like, even your son, if the Voice Of God tells you to do so.

Christians are not required to make blood sacrifices at all. The ultimate one had already been made.

303 Muadib  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:52:43am

I'm free to choose. That's why I love being an American.

304 proud to be an infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:53:38am

I am an Evangelical Christian and I certainly did not get the impression that Obama was trying to re-define American culture nor was he saying we were a nonbelieving nation. These people are reading into what he said! He just said that we are a nation of Christian, Jews, Muslims and nonbelievers, something to that effect. I believe that to be true and I certainly don't think that George Bush would have disagreed with that statement. He probably was trying to throw a bone at Michael Newdow so he wouldn't come back and try to sue him for mentioning God and including prayer in his inaugural ceremony while excluding atheists. Newdow has tried pulling that crap before!

305 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:53:43am
306 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:53:55am

re: #182 itellu3times

Aha, so you mean the specifically American religious freedom and society based on Judeo-Christian ideals, was enabled in large part by Greco-Roman ideas of popular governance. OK fine.

It was a little confusing because the western European dependence on Judeo-Christian ideals was much older and flourished under various monarchies as well.


Certainly, but in many cases you could say it flourished in spite of a particular government rather than because of it.

The beauty of America is that it allowed freedom of religion without fear of persecution or domination (philosophically, at least) by the government.

I stand by my original statement that this would make a great argument (not the mean kind, the kind where you argue a point, refine your position, argue again, and hopefully learn a little something!)

307 AuntAcid  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:53:56am

re: #279 realwest

How stupid is it to poll Obama's approval rating as POTUS after he's been on the job for only 3 days?


How stupid is it that the MSM has transformed into a 24/7 Obama cam?

308 Haverwilde  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:54:01am

re: #297 ploome hineni

Okay, I gave you an answer. So do you want to 'discuss' it, or 'argue about' it?

309 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:54:15am

re: #104 jainphx

Whether you believe in G-D or not is not the question. The question is that he proclaims to believe, but the opposite is beginning to show, this is the real him. He lied to get elected. Why? He needed our(believers) votes.

he does not seem the least bit spiritual to me.
his main concern is advancing himself.
i think he used the racist church to get votes.
when they are a liability. under the bus they went.
religion seems like political opportunity for him.
i can't say he is a non-believer, but he seems like a self promoter above all else.

310 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:54:41am

re: #257 VegasRick

Indeed.
That is the one thing I truly loathe about these modern atheistis (yeah, there were atheists before the 21st century!): its this need to belittle Christians, and only Christians.
They don't dare to say things like that to Muslims ...

Generally - I'm not interested in what someone believes or not, provided they follow the laws of my country and don't try to patronise or belittle me for my faith. Since I refrain from trying to missionarise my fellow citizens, I expect the same treatment from them.

311 Anna  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:54:42am

re: #260 avanti

No problem Avanti. Perhaps should not have tossed in that reference. Polls are like arseholes. Both get probed and both tend to produce waste.

312 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:55:18am

re: #299 Occasional Reader

Look: A Jew who is asked for the umpty-millionth time by some ignoramus "so you people are all rich, right?" is under no moral obligation to give a non-snarky, thoughtfully detailed response. I feel the same way about the "how can atheists have any morality" question.

Well, I thought the question wasn't "how can atheists have any morality", but "where" do atheists find their moral code.

Of course atheists can have a "morality". I didn't see that questioned. I saw a question about the source of the morality.

313 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:55:20am

re: #285 buzzsawmonkey

It's enough to make you blew lunch.

Dig this customer review!

A Bible for Thinking People

An amazing book of such depth and meaning which transformed my thinking. His message rings true and allows me to understand life, politics and human nature as I could never have imagined. The nation and world will come to see his intellect and brilliance as a shining hope and deliverance from the old way of doing things. I've passed these out to my employees and they have been very grateful for the time spent together discussing and understanding Barracks message of hope. My daughter has even taken hers to Girl Scouts, leading her troop in reciting passages. It gives such hope for the future. I hope all will see the glory and majesty in his truths. Help those around you to understand. Hopefully my wife will turn from her old ways and see the light. Never give up HOPE!

Free association: I suddenly wonder if I have enough ammo stockpiled.

314 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:55:26am

re: #279 realwest

How stupid is it to poll Obama's approval rating as POTUS after he's been on the job for only 3 days?

* * *
Dear Real, Sir!

I LOVE this minute by minute rating of Pres. Obama. May his numbers "bomb." Let's see the measure of his character when the going gets rough.

No pity party for Pres. Obama.

President Bush was polled (and Gored) BEFORE he even took office, and poll-axed for eight years.

Turnabout is fair play, and let the popularity dropping begin!

315 Haverwilde  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:55:31am

re: #308 Haverwilde

I didn't think you would. Well I am off to church. See you lizards in a couple of hours.

316 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:56:42am

re: #299 Occasional Reader

Look: A Jew who is asked for the umpty-millionth time by some ignoramus "so you people are all rich, right?" is under no moral obligation to give a non-snarky, thoughtfully detailed response. I feel the same way about the "how can atheists have any morality" question.

Clever, put the ball right back in her court. Good answer.

317 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:56:44am

re: #314 alegrias

* * *
Dear Real, Sir!

I LOVE this minute by minute rating of Pres. Obama. May his numbers "bomb." Let's see the measure of his character when the going gets rough.

No pity party for Pres. Obama.

President Bush was polled (and Gored) BEFORE he even took office, and poll-axed for eight years.

Turnabout is fair play, and let the popularity dropping begin!

If I could give you a zillion dings for that I would!

318 alegrias  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:56:54am

re: #280 Occasional Reader

Oh. My. [non-belief]

The Quotations of Chairman Obama. The little blue book. Just fucking wonderful.

* * * *
For all the Nonbelievers in China!

Remember there is no religion but Maoism in Mao's little book.

319 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:56:57am

Thinking that there is no morality without religious instruction can only undermine religion, whose laws if they are enforced by men are a framework for justice, not in themselves the motivation of those who keep the laws. In other words I will acknowledge a good thing and avoid a bad thing because that is simply how I and most people are predisposed, not only because there is (necessarily) a social system of reward and punishment.

re: #194 ploome hineni

well....I guess that question is too complicated

so all I get are cutsie phrases

so much for any notion of intellectual honesty

that is what I have no respect for them


Ploome dismisses a pertinent answer, a central point: atheists do have morality. Where they get it from might be interesting, but the answer is not "religion". I've watched Ploome fail totally to withstand any discussion of the issue, instead ignoring valid points with catty one-liners, and know from past experience that this is routine conduct for Ploome. Many people I can disagree with respectfully. In this case even if I agreed I would strugglle to summon any respect.

320 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:57:01am
321 stevieray  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:57:22am

To me, the fascinating thing is not the specifics of this particular case -- christian vs. atheism -- but the rude awakening of yet another group who truly believed Barack was talking directly, and only, to them.

The next few months are going to be filled with people like that. People who have that confused, just punched-in-the-gut look of confusion and disbelief of their faces, as they realize they are not Obama's favorite child, and the next four years are not going to be one birthday party after another for their little demographic.

As long as it was just talk, Obama was very good at convincing folks he agreed with them... the other stuff was just chaff for the masses... but the stuff he said that you agreed with..? Well, that was the true Obama.

Many rude awakening already... many more to come.

322 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:57:26am
323 esch  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:57:34am

re: #313 Occasional Reader

Free association: I suddenly wonder if I have enough ammo stockpiled.

All hail obaMao!

And people think I'm exaggerating about Obamanauts taking matters into their own hands.

324 Abu Al-Poopypants  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:57:43am

The next time atheists show up at my door trying to tell me that there's no supernatural being, and leaving behind little pamphlets... will be the first time.

325 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:58:15am

I was pleased by Obama's inclusion of non-believers. It's just a fact that atheists make up a certain percentage of the population. Why deny it?

Not so, Jackson says: “Obviously, Jewish heritage is very much a part of Christianity; the Jewish Bible is part of our Bible. But Hindu, Muslim, and nonbelievers? I don’t think so. We are not a Muslim nation or a nonbelieving nation.” ...

America is a secular nation that welcomes people of all beliefs, or no belief; it is not constitutionally a Christian nation. Don't like it? One word, Mr Jackson - EMIGRATE.

326 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:58:24am

re: #316 Walter L. Newton

Clever, put the ball right back in her court. Good answer.

Well, again:
Well, I thought the question wasn't "how can atheists have any morality", but "where" do atheists find their moral code.

Of course atheists can have a "morality". I didn't see that questioned. I saw a question about the source of the morality.

I see Ploome has thanked Killgore for the links - I know I will be reading them, just out of curiosity, and I also thank him.

327 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:58:43am
328 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:59:38am

re: #313 Occasional Reader

Free association: I suddenly wonder if I have enough ammo stockpiled.

Barf bags would be even better ...

329 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:59:50am

re: #310 yma o hyd

That is the one thing I truly loathe about these modern atheistis (yeah, there were atheists before the 21st century!): its this need to belittle Christians, and only Christians.
They don't dare to say things like that to Muslims ...

Okay, brace yourself: "Islam sucks". There, an atheist said it!

330 reine.de.tout  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:59:50am

re: #320 ploome hineni

lol backatcha.

331 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:59:55am
The next time atheists show up at my door trying to tell me that there's no supernatural being, and leaving behind little pamphlets... will be the first time


You mean like the Sierra Club (Dave thinks they are neo-Pagen nature worshippers)

332 realwest  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:59:58am

re: #244 Occasional Reader
Well ok then, Mr. smartypants, where do BROWN eyed people get their morality from, hmmmm?!
:)

333 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:00:50am

re: #320 ploome hineni

Look Ploome, you are not fooling anyone here, not on this topic. You've been called out by a number of Lizards on this thread, you have gone this route before, in regards to this topic, and you simply come back, over and over, asking the same questions and refusing to discuss anything that anyone refers you to.

334 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:00:59am

Or next time the Jehova Witnesses sue my community to change the name of our "Winter Concert", will be the first.

335 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:01:02am

re: #10 jaunte

From these numbers, it looks like we are
"Christian and Secular, Jewish and All Other"...
[Link: www.adherents.com...]

As encouraged as I get by such polls, I think they're referring to the "No Religion" category from a major poll that was done. I think what that mostly means is that they are not member of, or believers in, an organized church. I suspect many of them believe in a "higher power", have all kind of different "home-grown" ideas about God, and that some just too busy to worry about it. The people that actually identify themselves as agnostics or atheists may be much smaller in number. OTOH, it could be that atheists don't self-identify because of the widespread antipathy towards them. Kinda like how liberals don't like to identify themselves as liberals, and socialists (like He-Who-Must-Be-Fawned-Over) deny being socialists.

336 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:02:09am

re: #318 alegrias

* * * *
For all the Nonbelievers in China!

Remember there is no religion but Maoism in Mao's little book.

I guess I take some comfort from the fact that there are only five customer reviews; three are basically "WTF?!", one is CLEARLY satire, and the one I quoted above... maybe satire, though I think not.

337 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:02:20am

re: #311 Anna

No problem Avanti. Perhaps should not have tossed in that reference. Polls are like arseholes. Both get probed and both tend to produce waste.

Yep ,I just recall reading LGF in the weeks leading up to the election and seeing all the polls are wrong comments except when one "outer" would show McCain making a big move on Drudge. Believe, if the polls would have favored McCain the leftie sites would be doing the same, it's human nature to look for the silver lining.

338 2SoonOld2LateSmart  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:02:55am

Somebody stimulate me.

/gawd knows I need it.

339 AuntAcid  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:02:56am

re: #302 goddessoftheclassroom

Christians are not required to make blood sacrifices at all. The ultimate one had already been made.

Snake handling is optional too.

340 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:02:59am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

i think there is an innate sense of right and wrong in most people.
certainly the 10 commandments had to spring from something already stirring in human beings.
religion has fine tuned what was evolving in our minds from being social animals for hundreds of thousands of yrs.
it is abt. the pragmatic need to 'get along'. and survive.

341 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:03:07am

re: #336 Occasional Reader

I guess I take some comfort from the fact that there are only five customer reviews; three are basically "WTF?!", one is CLEARLY satire, and the one I quoted above... maybe satire, though I think not.

I ordered a copy. They are on back order right now. I'll give LGF all the poop as soon as I get it.

342 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:03:07am
343 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:03:20am

re: #329 Occasional Reader

Okay, brace yourself: "Islam sucks". There, an atheist said it!

Heh.
Ye're perfectly safe saying it here!

Would you say it on a Friday afternoon, in front of a mosque of your choosing, just as they come out after Friday prayers?

AFAIK, our valiant proponents of atheism don't ever debate on TV with Muslims. Interesting, innit?

344 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:04:05am
345 realwest  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:04:21am

re: #271 alegrias

re: #197 newsjunkie_ky

WTH is sally 'plastic face' quinn doing on Fox News Sunday?

* * *
She wants to be seen & heard, and FOX is where the cable tv public is in big numbers!

Remember when Hillary needed voters, she went to where the voters where? Fox News, which other democrats boycotted.


Yeah, and look how well that worked out for Hillary!
;')

346 Roger  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:04:45am

Knowing how many men it takes to kick your ass is a great source of morality. --altered from Ron White material

347 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:04:50am

re: #306 psyop

As I see it the European democracies mutated from some form of Monarchy AFTER the US had been established and been around for a few decades (WWI). While our Founding Fathers were influenced in their thinking by Monarchy, the US was a Democratic Republic from the beginning, and had no comparable modern government as a role model.

Only the US has freedom of religion (1st Amendment) written into the founding document.

348 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:04:58am

re: #342 ploome hineni

I think LanceKates has returned as WalterNewman
GO HAVE SOME LUNCH WALTER /feh

Ok Ploome, I don't give two shits what you say, what you call me, what you think of me, but fucking dammit, get the name right. Walter L. Newton.
/

349 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:05:21am

re: #18 opnion

Ya know, I regret that he is the President at all, but he is the President of everybody.

Maybe you should send him a note to remind him. Didn't he just start a political organization since getting elected (some kind of national service deal)? I guess he doesn't feel POTUS is a full-time job.

350 gadlaw  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:05:58am

re: #312 reine.de.tout

Well, I thought the question wasn't "how can atheists have any morality", but "where" do atheists find their moral code.

Of course atheists can have a "morality". I didn't see that questioned. I saw a question about the source of the morality.

The source of morality for people who do not accept words written thousands of years ago -words which includes any number of unacceptable views of morality by 'our standards' now is in fact the Society we live in. No big mystery.

351 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:06:00am

re: 270 buzzsawmonkey

re: #199 TypicalWhiteLiberal

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

I always go by "and it harm none, do as you will." That first clause covers a lot of ground, but is obviously subject to some personal interpretation.

The actual line is, "An it harm none...etc."

"An" is an archaic form of the word "if," not a misspelling or "ye olde" version of "and."

I find it interesting that in answer to the question of how an atheist determines what is moral the answer given is a Wiccan/pagan saying.

The Middle English or early Modern Englis phrase "ye olde" is better rendered "ýe olde" or "þe olde" and is pronounced the olda.

352 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:06:53am

re: #300 esch

This is all too true. People of conservative bent need to focus on the larger conservative issues and leave the ideological sniping to the leftists.

I'm certain I'm not the only one that often doesn't feel welcome at the party, in spite of being very conservative.

I'm a Conservative, I will never be a Republican.

353 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:07:28am

re: #320 ploome hineni

/it is called creating a red herring

I am surprised at you

Again, you've had multiple, sincere responses. You did not attempt to engage any of them*. I think that shows your agenda here pretty damn clearly.

*Unless your calling me an "asshole" counts as engagement, of course.

354 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:07:48am

re: #310 yma o hyd


That is the one thing I truly loathe about these modern atheistis (yeah, there were atheists before the 21st century!): its this need to belittle Christians, and only Christians.
They don't dare to say things like that to Muslims ...

Massive, massive ignorance. Ever heard of Theo Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Ibn Warraq, Steven Weinberg, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet,Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Pat Condell....the list goes on and on.

355 loppyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:08:03am

Yikes.

*backing out of this thread and heading to grocery store*

356 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:08:15am

re: #353 Occasional Reader

Again, you've had multiple, sincere responses. You did not attempt to engage any of them*. I think that shows your agenda here pretty damn clearly.

*Unless your calling me an "asshole" counts as engagement, of course.

She called me LanceKates, waaaaaaaa.......

357 Abu Al-Poopypants  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:08:21am

re: #348 Walter L. Newton

fucking dammit, get the name right. Walter L. Newton.
/

Can we call you "L."?

358 VegasRick  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:08:24am

re: #296 garycooper

Sorry, meant no offense. Feel free to blood-sacrifice as many animals as you like, even your son, if the Voice Of God tells you to do so.

Nor do I when I say , Go fuck yourself.

359 realwest  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:08:55am

re: #298 avanti
Nah, if Gallup was honest the answer would be cause we get paid to do it!

360 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:09:12am

re: #332 realwest

Well ok then, Mr. smartypants, where do BROWN eyed people get their morality from, hmmmm?!
:)

Depends. The Brown-Eyed Girl, for instance, gets her morality by laughing and a-running hey, hey, skipping and a-jumping.

361 Anna  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:09:23am

re: #355 loppyd

Probably a smart move till the radioactivity dies down, doubt the rancor will unless Luke Skywalker shows up.

362 proud to be an infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:09:36am

re: #82 gman

You think atheists form groups because they are against christians? huh?


Actually, YES they do! Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. That is at least one group that formed to counter Christian tradition and expression.

363 Abu Al-Poopypants  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:09:57am

re: #355 loppyd

Yikes.

*backing out of this thread and heading to grocery store*

Where, in my state because of blue laws, you're unlikely to be able to purchase alcohol of any kind 7 days a week.

364 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:10:06am

re: #314 alegrias

* * *
Dear Real, Sir!


No pity party for Pres. Obama.

President Bush was polled (and Gored) BEFORE he even took office, and poll-axed for eight years.

Turnabout is fair play, and let the popularity dropping begin!

Bush had spectacular poll ratings after 9-11, political capital to do most anything. America embraced the war in Afghanistan, but he stubbed his toe with Iraq, not all of it his fault.
I've often wondered if he'd been a bit less anxious to invade, and vetoed a few`spending bills, how it would have turned out. He's a good man, I personally believe he was not well served by some of his advisers.

365 realwest  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:10:31am

re: #307 AuntAcid
Well, there is that!

366 TypicalWhiteLiberal  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:10:32am

re: #292 FurryOldGuyJeans

You have a link from a reputable source for that? Otherwise it is 'net dreck and has no credibility.

Your comment prompted me to do some more digging, and the best rundown of the authenticity of the statement is the Wikiquote discussion page on H.W.

Synopsis: that the interview happened and that Sherman was present is a matter of record. However, the quote is *only* sourced to Sherman in an interview where no cameras or recording devices were present; there is no hard audio/visual evidence of H.W. Bush saying that. It's worth noting that substantial amounts of followup with his PR team in the years since failed to ever produce the denial one would expect. For this reason Wikiquote lists it as attributed - it's definitely more than 'net dreck, but you couldn't prove its authenticity in a court of law.

Under the circumstances, I'm inclined to think he did say it, but I'm no longer adamant on the point.

367 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:11:03am

re: #343 yma o hyd

AFAIK, our valiant proponents of atheism don't ever debate on TV with Muslims.

Hitchens and Ayaan Hirsi Ali being notable exceptions.

But in general, I agree, most prominent self-declared atheists are left-wing shills, and cowards.

368 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:11:56am
369 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:12:07am

re: #320 ploome hineni

I've seen several rational and sincere replies, yet you haven't seemed to want to accept them or even acknowledge they have been put forth. I don't personally agree with what has been the non-snarky replies, but it is all too easy to see why so many throw back snark at you since you seem to just want to act all superior.

370 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:12:22am

re: #362 proud to be an infidel

Actually, YES they do! Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. That is at least one group that formed to counter Christian tradition and expression.

Separation of Church and State is not just an American tradition, it's part of the constitution.

371 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:12:33am

#362 Proud

Actually, YES they do! Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. That is at least one group that formed to counter Christian tradition and expression.

Look at the anti-Christian hate groups that operate out of Madison Wisconsin (also a town with some anti-Semitism). They roam around the country looking for ways to attack Christianity.

372 realwest  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:13:03am

re: #314 alegrias
Again with the "Sir" - geez ya know I'm really not that old (crosses fingers behind back!).
"Turnabout is fair play, and let the popularity dropping begin!"
Amen! Er, I mean, absolutely!

373 RubyTuesday  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:13:31am

Easy, greasy. Not all Christians are....
Oh why beat our heads against the walls trying to define and defend ourselves? Just like any other "group" we have idiots and zealots and do-nothings.
Some of us dumb, Bible-thumping hicks GET IT that America was founded with the belief that everyone can have his/her own beliefs. Some of us are just doing what we were sent here to do - to love as Christ did. Step over the rest if you need to, but don't lump all Christians into one pile.

374 Daisy  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:13:46am

re: #275 Christopher Luebcke

You could be substantively correct in that he never came right out and said, "I'm another Lincoln". However, the first time I ever heard him speak (after Kerry, at that Democratic convention) he identified himself closely w/Lincoln .. and he's not gone to any trouble to correct the misrepresentation of the 'amazing similarity' by the MSM.

375 nyc redneck  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:14:22am

re: #352 FurryOldGuyJeans

I'm a Conservative, I will never be a Republican.

ditto.

376 jaunte  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:14:32am

Now I can't get Van Morrison out of my head.

377 VegasRick  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:15:18am

re: #310 yma o hyd

Indeed.
That is the one thing I truly loathe about these modern atheistis (yeah, there were atheists before the 21st century!): its this need to belittle Christians, and only Christians.
They don't dare to say things like that to Muslims ...

Generally - I'm not interested in what someone believes or not, provided they follow the laws of my country and don't try to patronise or belittle me for my faith. Since I refrain from trying to missionarise my fellow citizens, I expect the same treatment from them.

Updinged.

378 Occasional Reader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:15:21am

re: #368 ploome hineni

I didn;t call you an asshole..I actually read what you post, usually very well thought out

I do apologize for that misunderstanding. I saw "OR" as a reference to me. I was mistaken.

My larger point stands. Both Walter and I interpreted your question as simply an intellectually-dishonest attempt to pick a fight. Your lack of any substantive engagement with any sincere response proves our instincts were correct.

379 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:17:12am

re: #336 Occasional Reader

I guess I take some comfort from the fact that there are only five customer reviews; three are basically "WTF?!", one is CLEARLY satire, and the one I quoted above... maybe satire, though I think not.

The last time I checked the amazon page for that there were no reviews, only one customer discussion down near the bottom of the page. The reviews make me think no one has actually purchased and read the thing.

380 realwest  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:19:40am

re: #360 Occasional Reader
"All along the waterfall, with our hearts a jumping"!

381 psyop  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:19:40am

re: #347 FurryOldGuyJeans

As I see it the European democracies mutated from some form of Monarchy AFTER the US had been established and been around for a few decades (WWI). While our Founding Fathers were influenced in their thinking by Monarchy, the US was a Democratic Republic from the beginning, and had no comparable modern government as a role model.

Only the US has freedom of religion (1st Amendment) written into the founding document.

Right, precisely. It was a Democratic Republic from the beginning. Thus my point. You could make an argument that this country would have not been the resounding success it turned out to be without its Greco-Roman heritage (i.e. democracy) applied to its Judeo-Christian heritage.

You could take the same J-C heritage and combine it with communism, as was done in the Jamestown colony. It failed miserably, and led to the the REAL first Thanksgiving after they changed to a free-market based economy.

382 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:19:44am

re: #41 TypicalWhiteLiberal

As a non-believer, I appreciated Obama saying that after recently learning about a 1987 interview with George H W Bush:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman: Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

That having been said, rephrasing the third clause to "Buddhists and non-believers" would have sounded just as 'epic', and I'm kinda wondering why The One didn't include the other major religion? Seemed like a huge oversight.

The story seems believable to me, and I think "W" may have harbored similar sentiments (always leaving out the kind of mention Obama included, for example), but keep in mind that this was an interview by an atheist who might have had an axe to grind. I don't think there are other "H.W." quotes that are very revealing of his attitude towards atheists. So there's no real verification of the story that I've ever heard of.

383 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:19:49am

re: #362 proud to be an infidel

Actually, YES they do! Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. That is at least one group that formed to counter Christian tradition and expression.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is definitely not a group of atheists, and their purpose is NOT to "counter Christian tradition." They do exactly what their name says, and they are also opposed to Islamic infiltration of government and schools:

[Link: www.au.org...]

384 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:19:54am

Sam Harris - Misconceptions About Atheism

385 debutaunt  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:21:09am

re: #92 Occasional Reader

Well, a big enough gang of 'em, sure, you're talking real weight.

How many imps in a giggle?

386 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:21:11am

re: #378 Occasional Reader

I do apologize for that misunderstanding. I saw "OR" as a reference to me. I was mistaken.

My larger point stands. Both Walter and I interpreted your question as simply an intellectually-dishonest attempt to pick a fight. Your lack of any substantive engagement with any sincere response proves our instincts were correct.

And I said this above, but it's because Ploome has done this before, many times over. When you have a reputation for baiting Lizards, then any time you open your pie-hole, you motive is suspect.

And in Ploomes case, it's always the same motive, ergo...

387 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:21:51am

re: #281 Erik The Red

Amen!

388 proud to be an infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:22:17am

re: #164 The Big C

More evidence that no matter how much you to try to please everyone, someone will always find a way to be offended. If Obama had left out the phrase "non-believers" there would have been some other clowns whining about that. Even if he had just used the phrase "everyone" then someone would be saying "you mean neo-Nazis and the KKK as well?".

The media is lazy, and it doesn't take much work to find a predictable group that is offended by anything. Double points if it makes "conservatives" look bad.


Very well said!

389 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:22:33am

Charles, when of the few times I disagree with you. What would motivate someone to form/join a group, then go to a small town 300 miles away that they have never heard of before, and sue them to remove a monument to veterans that has been standing for 60 years, because part of the monument contains a cross?

Another then bigotry and hatred, I can't think of any.

390 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:22:48am

And a very good point from that article:

The controversy over Byron Excelsior's lessons on Islam has quickly become a rallying cry for several Religious Right groups, many of whom have expressed indignation over the inclusion of Islamic teachings in a public school classroom. TV preacher Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, for example, has called the activities an "outrage" and a "gross violation" of the law.

"It is ironic that the Religious Right would condemn religious lessons in a public school," concluded AU's Lynn. "I completely agree that these lessons appear to be unconstitutional, but I always thought Religious Right leaders wanted more religion in schools, not less. I guess this demonstrates that when they argue for more religion in the classroom, what they really want is their version of Christianity."

Yep.

391 Timbre  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:23:05am
392 Daisy  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:23:08am

re: #275 Christopher Luebcke

When did he identify himself as Lincoln? That seems to be something a lot of other people are trying to do, but I haven't heard him make anything like that comparison himself.

PS to my #374, There is, of course, the Lincoln Bible he used at the Inauguration.

393 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:23:27am

re: #374 Daisy

You could be substantively correct in that he never came right out and said, "I'm another Lincoln". However, the first time I ever heard him speak (after Kerry, at that Democratic convention) he identified himself closely w/Lincoln .. and he's not gone to any trouble to correct the misrepresentation of the 'amazing similarity' by the MSM.

His admiration of Lincoln is based largely of him being inspired by him. If you are inspired by Reagan for example, it does mean you think you are another Reagan. The media tends to drive the Kennedy link more then anything else, and he's no Kennedy, nor Lincoln. We don't have any idea who he'll be compared to yet.

394 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:23:36am

re: #358 VegasRick

Nor do I when I say , Go fuck yourself.

That's the good old Christian spirit!

Good suggestion, btw. :)

395 realwest  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:24:19am

re: #376 jaunte
Wow, juante, you must have a really big head! LOL!
Here, maybe this will help: [Link: www.imeem.com...]

396 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:26:04am

re: #366 TypicalWhiteLiberal

Your comment prompted me to do some more digging, and the best rundown of the authenticity of the statement is the Wikiquote discussion page on H.W.

Synopsis: that the interview happened and that Sherman was present is a matter of record. However, the quote is *only* sourced to Sherman in an interview where no cameras or recording devices were present; there is no hard audio/visual evidence of H.W. Bush saying that. It's worth noting that substantial amounts of followup with his PR team in the years since failed to ever produce the denial one would expect. For this reason Wikiquote lists it as attributed - it's definitely more than 'net dreck, but you couldn't prove its authenticity in a court of law.

Under the circumstances, I'm inclined to think he did say it, but I'm no longer adamant on the point.

He may very well have said it, but without an actual record it all boils down to the reliability of one man's memory. And that has as much credibility for me as all the other 'net dreck rumors, slim to none.

GWB didn't deny a lot of the crap his opponents threw at him repeatedly. A lack of denial doesn't mean there is something to a lie. It could be that the man's staff thought it so egregiously false it was not worthy of acknowledgment, let alone a denial.

397 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:26:29am

Fine speech from the Prez on secularism:

398 VegasRick  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:28:26am

re: #394 garycooper

That's the good old Christian spirit!

Good suggestion, btw. :)

Where did I say I was a Christian, I am a believer, and I will stand and fight for my right to do that. Just as I would fight for your right not to believe, just don't belittle me for my beliefs.

399 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:28:55am

re: #370 Jimmah

Separation of Church and State is not just an American tradition, it's part of the constitution.

"Separation of Church and State" is never mentioned in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, nor the other Amendments. It is first found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson:

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

400 FurryOldGuyJeans  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:28:56am

re: #390 Charles

And a very good point from that article:

Yep.

This is nothing but trying to establish a very sectarian Christian Theocracy.

401 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:28:59am

re: #56 Dave the.....

I think part of the issue is not that there is anything wrong with non-believers, it's those that organize into atheist groups are generally anti-Christian bigots.

Thank about white power groups. There's nothing wrong with being white, but I have yet to run across a white-power group that isn't racist.

I'm trying to imagine what an "anti-Christian bigot" is. Is that someone who assumes that a Christian believes in Christ and his teachings - just because they're Christian?

402 Sunlight  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:30:26am

re: #310 yma o hyd

Would that I could upding this more than once!

403 Timbre  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:31:03am

I understand nothing and I don't understand nothingness. (A hopeful agnostic.)

404 gman  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:31:53am

re: #389 Dave the.....

Charles, when of the few times I disagree with you. What would motivate someone to form/join a group, then go to a small town 300 miles away that they have never heard of before, and sue them to remove a monument to veterans that has been standing for 60 years, because part of the monument contains a cross?

Another then bigotry and hatred, I can't think of any.

again, you're painting with a wide brush

405 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:32:10am

An anti-Christian bigot is someone who has such a hatred of Christianity, that they find even secular symbols that have roots in Christianity, offensive.

The traditional American Christmas tree, for example.

406 RubyTuesday  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:32:13am

re: #399 David IV of Georgia

THANK YOU

407 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:33:08am

re: #389 Dave the.....

Charles, when of the few times I disagree with you. What would motivate someone to form/join a group, then go to a small town 300 miles away that they have never heard of before, and sue them to remove a monument to veterans that has been standing for 60 years, because part of the monument contains a cross?

Another then bigotry and hatred, I can't think of any.

I'll take a stab at it. They know as our founders did, that religion and government must remain separate. Jews, atheists and others died to protect those ideals and they lie in that government cemetery with the big Christian cross.
You might feel differently if it was a large star of David, or a pentagram.

408 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:33:38am

re: #302 goddessoftheclassroom

Christians are not required to make blood sacrifices at all. The ultimate one had already been made.

Good point. Although, it should be noted, the crucifixion of Christ does not meet the standards of blood sacrifice as set down in the Old Testament.
---------------------------
[Link: www.messiahtruth.com...]

And so, we are to believe that Jesus dying on the cross fulfilled the requirements of a blood sacrifice.

There are a number of requirements for a sacrifice to be valid or it is completely disqualified and will be an abomination to G-d. These requirements are as follows:

1. The sin offering must be brought forth by the person seeking atonement, and slaughtered either by the sinner or by the priest.
2. Death must be caused by a sharp, perfect blade cutting across the neck, resulting in blood loss and swift death.
3. The offering must be physically unblemished.
4. In the case of mammal offerings (bulls, lambs, etc.) the offering must be less than one year old.
5. In the case of mammal offerings, the mammal must have cloven hooves and chew cud.
6. The sacrifice must be brought at the Temple
7. The sacrifice must have its blood taken by a priest and sprinkled on the altar.
8. The sacrifice must be salted.

Since Jesus did not fulfill even one of the eight precepts listed above, it's clear that his death could not be the atoning sacrifice Christians claim it is.

409 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:33:52am

re: #399 David IV of Georgia

"Separation of Church and State" is never mentioned in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, nor the other Amendments. It is first found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson:

That's true of the phrase "separation of church and state", but the idea comes from the first amendment.

Or would you argue that America is, constitutionally, a Christian State?

410 proud to be an infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:34:41am

re: #383 Charles

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is definitely not a group of atheists, and their purpose is NOT to "counter Christian tradition." They do exactly what their name says, and they are also opposed to Islamic infiltration of government and schools:

[Link: www.au.org...]

Perhaps they don't define themselves as atheists but my gut feeling is that a sizable majority of people in this group are indeed atheists.

411 Timbre  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:34:48am

re: #310 yma o hyd

Indeed.
That is the one thing I truly loathe about these modern atheists (yeah, there were atheists before the 21st century!): its this need to belittle Christians, and only Christians.
They don't dare to say things like that to Muslims ...

Generally - I'm not interested in what someone believes or not, provided they follow the laws of my country and don't try to patronize or belittle me for my faith. Since I refrain from trying to missionaries my fellow citizens, I expect the same treatment from them.

I agree with your second paragraph completely. But your first paragraph is incorrect: Christopher Hitchens chastises (belittles) Muslims loudly and often.

412 Jinx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:35:03am

This is just another attempt to minimize and demonize Christians by pointing out some people who do not want to acknowledge atheists. By bringing this to light, and the manner in which it was brought, it trivializes the rest of Christianity.

Yet another part of a malicious trend to silence normal Christianity.

413 Sunlight  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:35:05am

re: #383 Charles

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State is definitely not a group of atheists, and their purpose is NOT to "counter Christian tradition." They do exactly what their name says, and they are also opposed to Islamic infiltration of government and schools:

[Link: www.au.org...]

I actually know these guys:
[Link: www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...]

I've found them to have become increasingly strident, which can dilute their effectiveness. BUT they pretty much say what LGF says, but regarding military rather than schools.

414 Dave the.....  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:35:24am

If a town was 90% Jewish, and has a Star of David up, I would not travel to that town and sue them to force them to remove it.

I would not travel to San Francisco and sue them to force them to abide by my beliefs.

I would not travel to Seattle to sue them to remove the statue of Lenin that is up.

415 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:35:29am

re: #398 VegasRick

Where did I say I was a Christian, I am a believer, and I will stand and fight for my right to do that. Just as I would fight for your right not to believe, just don't belittle me for my beliefs.

So, what do you believe in? I apologize for the glib cracks earlier. People are free to believe whatever they like, in this country.

416 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:35:57am

re: #70 avanti

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Thomas Jeffferson

TJ was awesome. Here we are, over 200 years later, and a politician can't say this stuff any more - it's too advanced! These guys were centuries ahead of their time.

417 VegasRick  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:36:15am

re: #408 garycooper

Good point. Although, it should be noted, the crucifixion of Christ does not meet the standards of blood sacrifice as set down in the Old Testament.
---------------------------
[Link: www.messiahtruth.com...]

And so, we are to believe that Jesus dying on the cross fulfilled the requirements of a blood sacrifice.

There are a number of requirements for a sacrifice to be valid or it is completely disqualified and will be an abomination to G-d. These requirements are as follows:

1. The sin offering must be brought forth by the person seeking atonement, and slaughtered either by the sinner or by the priest.
2. Death must be caused by a sharp, perfect blade cutting across the neck, resulting in blood loss and swift death.
3. The offering must be physically unblemished.
4. In the case of mammal offerings (bulls, lambs, etc.) the offering must be less than one year old.
5. In the case of mammal offerings, the mammal must have cloven hooves and chew cud.
6. The sacrifice must be brought at the Temple
7. The sacrifice must have its blood taken by a priest and sprinkled on the altar.
8. The sacrifice must be salted.

Since Jesus did not fulfill even one of the eight precepts listed above, it's clear that his death could not be the atoning sacrifice Christians claim it is.

What is your major malfunction asshole? Believe or don't believe whatever the fuck you want to, leave others to believe what they want to. What is your problem?

418 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:36:16am

re: #309 nyc redneck

You are exactly right. He's a lying deceitful man, that will and does say anything and do anything, for power. Oh my I just described the Democrapic Party.

419 brookly red  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:37:44am

Unbelievers... is that code for some one who didn't vote for him? I am not good with code...

420 theatheistjew  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:39:17am

23% of Canadians are now atheist. Numbers are growing, same with the USA, though not as high..........yet.
Obama was smart to include non believers in the statement. 15-20% of those who voted for him probably were atheist or agnostic.

421 Daisy  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:39:46am

re: #393 avanti

His admiration of Lincoln is based largely of him being inspired by him. If you are inspired by Reagan for example, it does mean you think you are another Reagan. The media tends to drive the Kennedy link more then anything else, and he's no Kennedy, nor Lincoln. We don't have any idea who he'll be compared to yet.

I don't care if he's inspired by Lincoln nor not (and, btw, I don't think he is, given Lincoln's principles concerning liberty and justice and Obama's lack thereof) .. but I do find it more than cringe inducing when he identifies himself as another Lincoln.

422 lostlakehiker  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:41:29am

Atheism didn't come up. Atheism is different from nonbelief. An atheist takes nothing on faith, except----the premise that there is no God.

A nonbeliever doesn't take that on faith either.

423 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:42:48am

re: #319 Dom

Wait. I'm trying to understand! Asking where someone gets their morality is silly? Morals have to come from somewhere, and as such should be explained, and explainable.

424 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:44:15am

re: #410 proud to be an infidel

Perhaps they don't define themselves as atheists but my gut feeling is that a sizable majority of people in this group are indeed atheists.

Most of them are from various faiths that realize that government endorsement of any one faith is just wrong headed and dangerous. The Pilgrim's fled Europe to escape religious persecution for opposing state religion, and they fear that here.

425 theatheistjew  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:45:13am

re: #422, if you want to know what an atheist thinks, you should ask him or her. You obviously don't.
An atheist is simply someone who says No to the question do you believe in God.
An atheist simply sees no evidence that God exists or needs to exist. No faith is required.

426 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:45:37am

re: #422 lostlakehiker

Depends how you define Atheism. I take it to mean 'lacking belief in a god' - which I think is the literal meaqning of the word. So to me there's no distinction between Atheism and non-belief.

427 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:47:10am

re: #409 Jimmah

That's true of the phrase "separation of church and state", but the idea comes from the first amendment.

Agreed.

Or would you argue that America is, constitutionally, a Christian State?


I would argue that American culture is largely Judeo-Christian and in that sense we could be referred to a Christian State.
But if by the term "Christian State", you mean a Christian theocracy, we are not.

I self-identify myself as a Christian, but if America ever became a Christian theocracy, I think I would almost surely hate the result.

428 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:47:25am

re: #405 Dave the.....

An anti-Christian bigot is someone who has such a hatred of Christianity, that they find even secular symbols that have roots in Christianity, offensive.

The traditional American Christmas tree, for example.

Fair enough! Christmas trees - and even the story "A Christmas Carol" - don't have any significant religious meaning. Hell, even the holiday itself - the Church admits it has no clue when Christ's birthday was, and was just hijacking somebody else's holiday. It's all very silly.

How 'bout manger scenes on govt property? It cracks me up every year when I drive by churches that are on the proverbial "public square" that don't have one, while the religious fascists are determined to plant one on the front lawn at City Hall - claiming they need to do so in order not to impair their religious practices. Just trying to sort out if I'm an "anti-Christian bigot"...

429 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:47:37am

re: #422 lostlakehiker

...An atheist takes nothing on faith, except----the premise that there is no God...

What! So all the science that goes behind a lot of atheists reason that they don't believe is just moot? In your way of stating it?

Even if you don't believe the science backs up the possibility that there is no god, you can't just make the blanket statement that an atheists bases his understanding of a universe without a god as purely faith.

You say that because it's how you would LIKE an atheist to me defined. That doesn't work. You can't define something by untruths and then use your untruths to knock it down.

That's called setting up a strawman.

430 theatheistjew  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:47:37am

re #423: Wait. I'm trying to understand! Asking where someone gets their morality is silly? Morals have to come from somewhere, and as such should be explained, and explainable.
********************************
Morality is totally explainable and has evolutionary roots. That is innate morality. There is also cultural morality (laws) which are different from region to region.

Just look at the morality of chimps, and you can see the innate parallels in what we call morality in humans.

431 proud to be an infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:48:34am

re: #390 Charles

And a very good point from that article:


Yep.

I think what pees off many Christian leaders is not so much that they'd rather have THEIR version of Christianity taught in schools but that they feel there is a double standard in that Islam and the Koran can be taught in the classroom under the guise of cultural studies whereas the Bible and Christianity are considered a violation of church and state and therefore banned.

432 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:48:59am

re: #423 jainphx

What are you not understanding? Perhaps a different post, since I never said that. I said it might be interesting, and that the answer is not religion. Please expand.

433 infidelinc  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:50:11am

re: #351 David IV of Georgia

You've got it backwards, first came morality then came fables. I would think that morality is much more easily determined once you remove the imaginary characters. It's a mistake and a disservice to the concept of morality and ethics to be mixed up with superstition.

434 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:50:12am

re: #416 Optimizer

TJ was awesome. Here we are, over 200 years later, and a politician can't say this stuff any more - it's too advanced! These guys were centuries ahead of their time.

As I've pointed out, many of our founding fathers could not get elected today, damn lucky they wrote the constitution to restrain the majority from overwhelming the rights of the minority.

435 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:50:46am

re: #408 garycooper

This is why it is claimed that the significance of Christ coming and sacrifice was missed by some. if you would read further you would see that all sacrifice was a prelude to HIS sacrifice. I believe this and wish that all would find solace in being set free.

436 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:53:10am

re: #433 infidelinc

You've got it backwards, first came morality then came fables. I would think that morality is much more easily determined once you remove the imaginary characters. It's a mistake and a disservice to the concept of morality and ethics to be mixed up with superstition.

Disservice? In your opinion, right. I don't care where someone gets their morality from, as long as they have it. I get mine from natural sources, not a god, but I would not deny anyone a supernatural source for their morality.

437 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:53:27am

re: #427 David IV of Georgia

We seem to be agreed then that the idea of the separation of church and state is part of the American constitution, and that Christianity is not, being instead the religious tradition of the majority of Americans up to this point.

I self-identify myself as a Christian, but if America ever became a Christian theocracy, I think I would almost surely hate the result.

If America ever became a Christian state, or a Muslim State, or even an atheist State it wouldn't be America anymore, having violated one of it's most important founding principles.

438 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:55:20am

re: #410 proud to be an infidel

Perhaps they don't define themselves as atheists but my gut feeling is that a sizable majority of people in this group are indeed atheists.

If you want to believe that I can't stop you, but I happen to know a Catholic priest who belongs to the AU. Pretty sure he's not an atheist.

439 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:56:58am

re: #431 proud to be an infidel

I think what pees off many Christian leaders is not so much that they'd rather have THEIR version of Christianity taught in schools but that they feel there is a double standard in that Islam and the Koran can be taught in the classroom under the guise of cultural studies whereas the Bible and Christianity are considered a violation of church and state and therefore banned.

Really? So you think Pat Robertson would be fine with Islam being taught if Christianity were given equal time?

440 proud to be an infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:57:00am

re: #424 avanti

The Pilgrim's fled Europe to escape religious persecution for opposing state religion, and they fear that here.

So why should I be persecuted for EXPRESSING my religion?

441 proud to be an infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:57:59am

re: #439 Charles

Really? So you think Pat Robertson would be fine with Islam being taught if Christianity were given equal time?

Yes I do.

442 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:58:08am

re: #83 dreader1962

...
Also, to try to come up with a list of significant religions to placate a constituency is just asking for trouble - this is what America has become. I'm not freaked out if someone calls this a Christian nation. To deny the reality that anywhere from 75-80% of the country identifies themselves as Christian kind of calls into question an atheist's respect for a worldview based in reality.

What you're missing is that when someone call the US "a Christian nation", what they're getting at is a claim that the US belongs to them. Someone who says that is invariably in denial of Separation of Church and State (which means they are against a founding American principle), and they are looking to use the power of government to promote their faith and impose their will upon you. They even invent phoney revisionist history to claim they have the right to do this. They're looking to make you a second-class citizen.

443 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:59:18am

re: #432 Dom

Maybe I misunderstood, but they are taking Ploime to task for asking where Atheist get their morals, this should be easily answered , if they knew. Not disparaging those who don't believe, but it sounds to me like a reasonable question.

444 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:01:38am
445 proud to be an infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:01:41am

re: #438 Charles

If you want to believe that I can't stop you, but I happen to know a Catholic priest who belongs to the AU. Pretty sure he's not an atheist.

Well, I say a "sizable" majority. Not all of them.

446 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:01:49am

re: #434 avanti

The constitution was wrote to protect the people from Government, that government doesn't enslave it's people.

447 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:03:15am

re: #443 jainphx

Maybe I misunderstood, but they are taking Ploime to task for asking where Atheist get their morals, this should be easily answered , if they knew. Not disparaging those who don't believe, but it sounds to me like a reasonable question.

I don't know where people get morality from. If atheists were immoral the answer would apparently be "from religious beliefs", but they aren't, so it cannot be. As a topic for investigation - the moral impulse - it certainly isn't a silly question, but in support of religion it has no bearing at all.

448 Sunlight  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:03:23am

Scroll through some of these:
[Link: www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...]

and click on the video from Dec 27. Really pretty unbelievable.

449 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:03:30am

re: #436 Walter L. Newton

I think the feature of the human psyche that makes morality 'go' - the capacity for empathy - must be present no matter where they 'get it' from. This capacity evolved as competing groups and tribes learned that success meant being nice towards and dealing fairly with your kin and fellow team members in whom you share a common interest/fate. There are individuals who lack this capacity - we call them sociopaths. No amount of bible study or ethical counselling is going to cure them.

450 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:04:11am

re: #408 garycooper

The crucifixion of Jesus does not constitute a 'blood sacrifice'!

This is, if I may use strong language, a perversion of the Christian belief.
Yes - pietists in the 17th adn 18th centuries went on about how His blood washes away sins - but that is not how His death was seen and understood by the Apostles.

The whole point of Jesus' death is not that he died - it is that He was resurrected.

These talks about 'blood sacrifice' are, imho, intellectual games which have nothing to do with Christian faith and much to do with attempts at trying to avoid the substance of it.

451 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:04:34am
452 SixDegrees  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:05:09am

re: #414 Dave the.....

If a town was 90% Jewish, and has a Star of David up, I would not travel to that town and sue them to force them to remove it.

I would not travel to San Francisco and sue them to force them to abide by my beliefs.

I would not travel to Seattle to sue them to remove the statue of Lenin that is up.

What would you think if the District Court in the city of Dearborn erected a large monument to the Koran at the entrance? Or displayed passages from it behind the judge's bench?

Bishop Jackson sounds exactly like a member of the Taliban, with the trivial exception of his particular faith. His view are fundamentally, profoundly anti-American, and stab directly at the heart of a nation founded on the principle that anyone living here is free to believe what they want, say what they want and act as they want without coercion, interference or belittlement by those who hold political power.

Bishop Jackson and his ilk make me puke.

453 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:05:14am

I guess I should have typed written instead of wrote sorry.

454 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:06:34am

re: #88 Sharmuta

We're a secular nation that allows all of these beliefs to co-exist in relative peace and harmony. Quite unique and special in it's own right. The First Amendment has allowed this country to avoid sectarian strife to become the greatest nation on earth. God Bless our Founders- they were truly revolutionaries and far ahead of their time.

All good, but I would quibble at the phraseology at the beginning. I would make a distinction between the nation and the nation's govt.

Perhaps I'd say "we have a secular form of government that allows..." We have a fairly religious nation, and - ironically - this is probably because of Separation of Church and State. The British have an official state religion, that is promoted by the state, and they're about as unreligious as they come!

455 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:08:27am
456 avanti  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:08:39am

re: #440 proud to be an infidel

So why should I be persecuted for EXPRESSING my religion?

You should not and can not be persecuted, the constitution protects you. What private, non government sanctioned expression of your religion is being persecuted exactly ?

457 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:08:42am

re: #449 Jimmah

I think the feature of the human psyche that makes morality 'go' - the capacity for empathy - must be present no matter where they 'get it' from. This capacity evolved as competing groups and tribes learned that success meant being nice towards and dealing fairly with your kin and fellow team members in whom you share a common interest/fate. There are individuals who lack this capacity - we call them sociopaths. No amount of bible study or ethical counselling is going to cure them.

I agree. My point above was simple. Where as I don't get my morality from a religion, at the same time, I have no problem with a person who does.

I don't like to hear atheists suggested that there is something wrong with getting morals from some belief in the supernatural.

458 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:11:29am
459 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:11:45am

re: #97 yma o hyd

Heh.
That reminds me of a favourite GK CHesterton quote:
'The trouble with atheists is not that they believe nothing - its that they will believe anything.'

You mean like in pregnancy without sex, a staff turning into a snake, and rising from the dead?

460 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:11:57am

re: #447 Dom

This is exactly why it is stated "G-D planted knowledge of hisself in all of us" what one does with that knowledge or 'FEELING" is up to the individual. Sometimes I thing we argue past each other, instead of hitting home runs, a few singles would be sufficient.

461 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:15:21am

re: #457 Walter L. Newton

I don't like to hear atheists suggested that there is something wrong with getting morals from some belief in the supernatural.

I agree that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, but nevertheless, there can be a hell of a lot wrong with it. It depends who your law-giving god happens to be, and/or how zealous the community of believers you are brought up among are. Islam, and the Phelps family are fine illustrations.

462 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:16:23am

re: #459 Optimizer

You act like pregnancy without sex is impossible, if man can cause this, why not G-D?

463 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:16:30am

re: #99 Dave the.....

Can you name an atheist organization that doesn't mock and attack Christianity? Whose goal isn't to destroy Christianity? I never come across one.

It would be hypocritical of an atheist organization to promote Christianity, and there is certainly a point to their trying to counter profoundly anti-atheist Christian teaching, but you flatter yourself that all organizations have to be about you.

464 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:18:14am

re: #463 Optimizer

So then your answer is NO.

465 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:19:45am

re: #455 ploome hineni

Taking all these quotes literally (e.g. if one eats His body one will not die) is, imho, on the same level as the creationists who insist that God made the Earth in six days.

The Apostles were Jews, steeped in the theology of the Second Temple, as was Jesus Himself.
They were used to to the imagery and expressions used by the Prophets, in the Psalms, and in the later books.
it is a huge mistake to take these expressions, detached from their historical and intellectual background, and use them literally.

One example (tongue-in-cheek!): I know many Christians who died, although they went to Church regularly and participated in the Eucharist ... do I now have to stop believing?

466 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:19:52am

re: #461 Jimmah

I agree that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, but nevertheless, there can be a hell of a lot wrong with it. It depends who your law-giving god happens to be, and/or how zealous the community of believers you are brought up among are. Islam, and the Phelps family are fine illustrations.

Well, that's a circular argument. An atheist could get their "moral" from, oh, Charles Manson.

Of course it all depends on what the source is teaching. But we have enough examples of right and wrong to make decisions. That's all of life in general.

You sound like you're saying a belief in the supernatural is, well, sort of alright, but you've know something better.

Sounds like religion to me.

467 Charles Johnson  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:20:45am

re: #441 proud to be an infidel

Yes I do.

Very, very doubtful. Pat Robertson is a fanatic, and it's impossible to imagine him being fine with Islam being taught in schools alongside Christianity.

The Americans United for Separation of Church and State are consistent in their actions. They've pursued several cases where Islamic groups tried to push their teachings into US schools, and spoke out against US support for the Iraqi constitution which made Islam Iraq's official religion.

468 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:22:35am

re: #462 jainphx

You act like pregnancy without sex is impossible, if man can cause this, why not G-D?

And science has proven that the earth is many millions of years old. You ok with that too?

469 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:23:09am

re: #459 Optimizer

You mean like in pregnancy without sex, a staff turning into a snake, and rising from the dead?

Heh.
More like believing in the perfectability of mankind through socialism; healing through precious stones out on various places on the body; the influence of the moon on times to plant various vegetables ... the list goes on and on ...

Btw - only one being, Jesus, rose from the dead. Its not an everyday occurrence ...

;-)

470 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:23:15am

re: #104 jainphx

Whether you believe in G-D or not is not the question. The question is that he proclaims to believe, but the opposite is beginning to show, this is the real him. He lied to get elected. Why? He needed our(believers) votes.

So only a non-believer would acknowledge non-believers among the citzenry? Reminds me of the bigotry talk earlier on this thread.

As far as BHO's real beliefs, I read a convincing piece (on American Thinker, IIRC) that made him sound like a pantheist, to me. He certainly
doesn't meet the criteria many would suggest for "Christian". Basically, he tries to take all sides at once with his personal religion, too.

471 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:24:29am

re: #469 yma o hyd

Heh.
More like believing in the perfectability of mankind through socialism; healing through precious stones out on various places on the body; the influence of the moon on times to plant various vegetables ... the list goes on and on ...

Btw - only one being, Jesus, rose from the dead. Its not an everyday occurrence ...

;-)

What happened to Lazurus?

472 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:24:45am

re: #468 Walter L. Newton

Don't change the argument, but since you asked, you are giving science G-D like qualities, are you all right with that.

473 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:25:58am

re: #471 Walter L. Newton

What happened to Lazurus?

He died again, later. Lazarus was resurrected temporarily, his body was not transformed.

474 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:26:18am

re: #469 yma o hyd

I guess you never heard of Lazaras.

475 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:28:21am

re: #472 jainphx

Don't change the argument, but since you asked, you are giving science G-D like qualities, are you all right with that.

No, because science can prove itself, with repeatable outcomes.

476 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:28:42am

re: #473 yma o hyd

By saying his body was not transposed, are you saying you believe?

477 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:29:04am

re: #469 yma o hyd

Heh.
More like believing in the perfectability of mankind through socialism; healing through precious stones out on various places on the body; the influence of the moon on times to plant various vegetables ... the list goes on and on ...

Btw - only one being, Jesus, rose from the dead. Its not an everyday occurrence ...

;-)

And Jesus was the one who raised him. Jesus also raised someone's daughter (I'm sorry, the exact details are hiding in my mind).

My earlier point about the blood sacrifice is that it is symbolic. Garycooper, Jesus was not a human sacrifice. I believe St. Paul made that analogy in later letters.

478 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:29:10am

re: #469 yma o hyd

Heh.
More like believing in the perfectability of mankind through socialism; healing through precious stones out on various places on the body; the influence of the moon on times to plant various vegetables ... the list goes on and on ...

Btw - only one being, Jesus, rose from the dead. Its not an everyday occurrence ...

;-)

OK, so if I told you I was abducted by extraterrestrials, but it only happened ONCE...

Anyway, to get more contemporary, St. Al is supposedly religious, and he's got a lot of people (including religious ones) believing that SUV will create a new holocaust. Neither theist nor atheist has a monopoly on believing really stupid, absurd things.

479 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:30:09am

re: #460 jainphx

This is exactly why it is stated "G-D planted knowledge of hisself in all of us" what one does with that knowledge or 'FEELING" is up to the individual. Sometimes I thing we argue past each other, instead of hitting home runs, a few singles would be sufficient.

You reminded me: I was very inspired a few years ago by R' Michal Twerski who told me that when according to B'reishit God said "let us make Adam (Adam/man/earth) in our image" and went on to create Adam in His image, he left us to fulfill the remainder of the pledge, to make the world spiritual as we were then. And that is mankind's purpose. We also learn from this that we are already in God's image, but that we are not spiritually whole if we are not by choice also God's companions. (That is for me an inspiring extrapolation from a literal reading but shouldn't be used to judge whether or not someone is making the grade. Rather it reinforces my goodwill and my faith in our ability to do good things, to uplift the world despite any disagreements. Since God declared that intention on our behalf and at the moment of mankind's inception it should perhaps be the most credible prophecy there is. That's a good thing. Not many people think of me as religious but I keep the above in mind. Good on Rabbi Twerski.)

480 swamprat  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:30:45am

re: #448 Sunlight

Scroll through some of these:
[Link: www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...]

and click on the video from Dec 27. Really pretty unbelievable.

As Christian with (largely) pagan family, and Atheist friends, I am puzzled as to the "violation". Because the guy being filmed had an opinion and expressed it off base? What is the outrage? There are Buddhist chaplains, Baptist chaplains. He said he can proselytize to those who come to him; this is not the same as him buttonholing everyone he comes across.

I seem to be missing something here.

I will pray for you.

481 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:30:50am

re: #476 jainphx

By saying his body was not transposed, are you saying you believe?

I did not say 'transposed', I said 'transformed'.
Pretty big difference, imho.

482 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:30:54am
483 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:31:10am

re: #473 yma o hyd

He died again, later. Lazarus was resurrected temporarily, his body was not transformed.

Sorry, no dice. You said "only one being, Jesus, rose from the dead." You never mentioned transformed. And what about Ezekiel, he was "transformed" without being dead?

484 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:31:53am

re: #483 Walter L. Newton

Sorry, no dice. You said "only one being, Jesus, rose from the dead." You never mentioned transformed. And what about Ezekiel, he was "transformed" without being dead?

Yes, he was. He was taken up to heaven.

These are the articles of our faith.

485 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:32:44am

re: #478 Optimizer

OK, so if I told you I was abducted by extraterrestrials, but it only happened ONCE...

Anyway, to get more contemporary, St. Al is supposedly religious, and he's got a lot of people (including religious ones) believing that SUV will create a new holocaust. Neither theist nor atheist has a monopoly on believing really stupid, absurd things.

Now that is just so true!

486 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:33:15am

re: #466 Walter L. Newton


Well, that's a circular argument. An atheist could get their "moral" from, oh, Charles Manson.

Of course it all depends on what the source is teaching. But we have enough examples of right and wrong to make decisions. That's all of life in general.

I know that. You've misunderstood me. I'm just fed up with believers claiming that their source of morals - a law giving god - is unimpeachable whereas atheists have nothing to base any moral system on. Whereas in fact,as I pointed out, following a law-giving god can lead to all kinds of moral problems.

You sound like you're saying a belief in the supernatural is, well, sort of alright, but you've know something better.

Sounds like religion to me

No. There is a difference between having an opinion about one ideas merits over another, and following a religion.

487 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:33:50am

re: #484 goddessoftheclassroom

Yes, he was. He was taken up to heaven.
These are the articles of our faith.

GOTC. I wasn't questioning your faith or the articles of your faith. I was questioning yma o hyd knowledge of his faith.

488 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:33:52am

re: #479 Dom

This (IMO) was the very first mention of the triune spirt of G-D, but regardless, a very well stated answer, it is uplifting.

489 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:34:24am

re: #481 yma o hyd

Yes I mistyped.

490 Salem  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:36:32am

As much as I appreciate getting props from our new President, I'm not sure it's worth it in the long run.

491 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:36:37am

re: #483 Walter L. Newton

Sorry, no dice. You said "only one being, Jesus, rose from the dead." You never mentioned transformed. And what about Ezekiel, he was "transformed" without being dead?

Sorry I didn't mention 'transformed' when I spoke about Jesus' resurrection!

Ezekiel did not, iirc, walk the Earth after he was taken up, he did not speak to people, did not eat a fish meal on the beach, and so on and so forth.
His body was thus not transformed.

492 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:37:49am

re: #488 jainphx

This (IMO) was the very first mention of the triune spirt of G-D, but regardless, a very well stated answer, it is uplifting.

Aha! Trinity! Let's not get into that one. :)

Anyway I've enjoyed this brief exchange, turned out you're playing peacemaker, can't argue.

493 Kosh's Shadow  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:39:05am

I have to say I'm bothered by Christian leaders saying that the US is "distinctively Christian", as I am Jewish.
The US should be able to welcome, and be comfortable, for people of all religions who don't want to change our society; the same for atheists. (Note I'm saying "people... who don't want to change our society", not "religions". I refer to Jihadists, not all people who identify themselves as Muslim or any other religion.) And there are some atheists who want to change our society; I reject them as well.

494 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:39:34am

re: #491 yma o hyd

Sorry I didn't mention 'transformed' when I spoke about Jesus' resurrection!

Ezekiel did not, iirc, walk the Earth after he was taken up, he did not speak to people, did not eat a fish meal on the beach, and so on and so forth.
His body was thus not transformed.

But scripture says he was taken bodily into heaven. How many "states" of being are there in heaven?

495 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:41:37am

re: #464 jainphx

So then your answer is NO.

Certainly the Objectivist organizations exist to promote reason, rights, and the morality required to accomplish that. They do not exist specifically to be atheist (that's derived from the devotion to reason), or to be against Christianity (although they point out how Christianity is very much counter to what they promote).

If Christianity were to fall by the wayside, they will still have a purpose to exist. They do not exist to take swipes at Christianity, just for the members to try reclaim their lives from religious and governmental tyrants.

So that's a "YES".

496 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:41:47am

re: #491 yma o hyd

Sorry I didn't mention 'transformed' when I spoke about Jesus' resurrection!

Ezekiel did not, iirc, walk the Earth after he was taken up, he did not speak to people, did not eat a fish meal on the beach, and so on and so forth. His body was thus not transformed.

And by the way, there is mention of Ezekiel walking the earth after being taken up.

497 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:43:01am

re: #471 Walter L. Newton

What happened to Lazurus?

St. Lazarus, Bishop of Kition, is considered the founder of the church in Cyprus. In 890 his body was moved from Cyprus to Constantinople to a newly erected church named after him.

498 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:44:06am

re: #493 Kosh's Shadow

I have to say I'm bothered by Christian leaders saying that the US is "distinctively Christian", as I am Jewish.
The US should be able to welcome, and be comfortable, for people of all religions who don't want to change our society; the same for atheists. (Note I'm saying "people... who don't want to change our society", not "religions". I refer to Jihadists, not all people who identify themselves as Muslim or any other religion.) And there are some atheists who want to change our society; I reject them as well.

I agree with you. Our laws and heritage are Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian. I also agree with "who don't want to change our society."

499 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:44:34am

re: #492 Dom

Shucks, you found me out. No not really just like the intellectual argument, only way to insure my faith is to hear both sides. Let me pose a question! Which came first the chicken or the egg? Atheist would say the egg, believers would say the chicken, it's an argument that gets right to the heart of G-D or no G-D.

500 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:46:04am

re: #497 David IV of Georgia

St. Lazarus, Bishop of Kition, is considered the founder of the church in Cyprus. In 890 his body was moved from Cyprus to Constantinople to a newly erected church named after him.

Of course. But the is no historical proof that this "body" was that of the actual Lazarus mentioned in the Greek scriptures. No any more proof than the many pieces of the true cross that exist around the world.

501 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:46:12am

re: #494 Walter L. Newton

But scripture says he was taken bodily into heaven. How many "states" of being are there in heaven?

'Taken bodily up' does not equate resurrection.

As for 'states of being in Heaven' - who knows? Anybody been thre and come back, except Jesus, who said he has prepared many rooms for all who believe in Him?

Heaven is another concept which has been taken up and utilised in Christendom (thats Christianity after Constantine). Point is - its not the end of the line. Where those prophets and saints and all who died are right now is more like the first station to what comes after.

As a brilliant English Bishop said - its not about life after death, in heaven, its about life after life after death: Resurrection, for all, and the marriage of Heaven and Earth ...

502 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:46:25am

Pat Condell (his latest I believe) on what happens when people are commanded to 'respect' other's beliefs, by law:

[Link: www.patcondell.net...]

503 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:48:13am

re: #493 Kosh's Shadow

Kosh don't take that personally Christianity sprung from Judaism, and as such you are my brother. I believe that in the end we will be in the same better place promised in both the TORAH and BIBLE.

504 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:48:19am

re: #499 jainphx

Shucks, you found me out. No not really just like the intellectual argument, only way to insure my faith is to hear both sides. Let me pose a question! Which came first the chicken or the egg? Atheist would say the egg, believers would say the chicken, it's an argument that gets right to the heart of G-D or no G-D.

Not if you have any understanding of science, logic and critical thinking. But that is not the issue on this thread, it's whether an atheist can have morals, developed apart from any belief in the supernatural.

505 Kosh's Shadow  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:49:29am

re: #503 jainphx

Kosh don't take that personally Christianity sprung from Judaism, and as such you are my brother. I believe that in the end we will be in the same better place promised in both the TORAH and BIBLE.

I was referring to Bishop E.W. Jackson, not any lizards. I have a different standard for public statements and quick statements in a blog.

506 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:49:36am

re: #501 yma o hyd

'Taken bodily up' does not equate resurrection.

As for 'states of being in Heaven' - who knows? Anybody been thre and come back, except Jesus, who said he has prepared many rooms for all who believe in Him?

Heaven is another concept which has been taken up and utilised in Christendom (thats Christianity after Constantine). Point is - its not the end of the line. Where those prophets and saints and all who died are right now is more like the first station to what comes after.

As a brilliant English Bishop said - its not about life after death, in heaven, its about life after life after death: Resurrection, for all, and the marriage of Heaven and Earth ...

Jesus was in "hades," "hell" and came back and made that statement. At least according to the Greek scriptures. Where was he, hell or heaven?

507 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:50:33am

re: #496 Walter L. Newton

And by the way, there is mention of Ezekiel walking the earth after being taken up.

Ye got me there - I'm still working hard on learning and understanding properly what the NT actually says, as opposed to what I've been taught in Sunday School. So my knowledge of the books of the OT are still a bit sporadic.

... not enough hours in the day, mun, simply not enough hours in the day ...

508 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:51:13am

re: #501 yma o hyd

'Taken bodily up' does not equate resurrection.

As for 'states of being in Heaven' - who knows? Anybody been thre and come back, except Jesus, who said he has prepared many rooms for all who believe in Him?

Heaven is another concept which has been taken up and utilised in Christendom (thats Christianity after Constantine). Point is - its not the end of the line. Where those prophets and saints and all who died are right now is more like the first station to what comes after.

As a brilliant English Bishop said - its not about life after death, in heaven, its about life after life after death: Resurrection, for all, and the marriage of Heaven and Earth ...

And it's interesting, you mention a post-Constantine Christianity and certain beliefs. Do you pick and choose what you accept from the Councils, and what you will ignore?

509 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:51:37am

re: #504 Walter L. Newton

Are you a scientist, and what genre are you a scientist of.

510 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:52:12am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

The best answer here was something like, "By using his mind". But let's ask the question, "How does a theist determine what is moral?" Ask another person, with a magical connection to a supernatural being? Consult ancient texts that were written by similar people too long ago to be relevant to numerous situations today? Establish your own connection with a supernatural being? Sure, they get some things right anyway, but certain rules of morality must come to the fore if any civilization is to endure. That's why they're commonplace regardless of the supernatural origin of choice.

511 BryanS  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:52:55am

re: #504 Walter L. Newton

Not if you have any understanding of science, logic and critical thinking. But that is not the issue on this thread, it's whether an atheist can have morals, developed apart from any belief in the supernatural.

Of course an atheist can have morals developed apart from any belief in the supernatural. Why is an appeal to a higher power necessary to develop morals? Now, one could disagree with the morals developed by said atheist--or is the question really "can they develop morals that are as good as those developed by the (fill in the blank) religion"?

512 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:53:30am

re: #509 jainphx

Are you a scientist, and what genre are you a scientist of.

Click on my name for info. And what does my profession have to do with my statements. Do you have to be an American to study French history? Why don't you judge my statement by what I say, not by some bucket you want to put me into.

Is that going to help you argue the point better?

513 twincitiesgirl  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:53:36am

re: #502 Jimmah

Pat Condell (his latest I believe) on what happens when people are commanded to 'respect' other's beliefs, by law:

[Link: www.patcondell.net...]

That's amazing in light of what happened just a few years ago to Theo Van Gogh.

514 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:54:24am

re: #506 Walter L. Newton

Jesus was in "hades," "hell" and came back and made that statement. At least according to the Greek scriptures. Where was he, hell or heaven?

Good question!
Both - because why would he tell the one robber on the cross that he'd be with Him in paradise that same day?

But it is an interesting point, on which one can speculate for all its worth. Fact is - we don't know. question then is; does not knowing this matter?

515 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:54:41am

re: #511 BryanS

Of course an atheist can have morals developed apart from any belief in the supernatural. Why is an appeal to a higher power necessary to develop morals? Now, one could disagree with the morals developed by said atheist--or is the question really "can they develop morals that are as good as those developed by the (fill in the blank) religion"?

What ever. Some here think that you can't have any sort of valid morals unless they were developed or filter through a supernatural belief in a god.

516 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:54:50am

re: #500 Walter L. Newton

Of course. But the is no historical proof that this "body" was that of the actual Lazarus mentioned in the Greek scriptures. No any more proof than the many pieces of the true cross that exist around the world.

Granted. But what information could be found that would constitute proof? And how would such proof be obtained?

If Jesus is who the Christians say he is, then it is likely that this is the Lazarus whom he raised. If Christianity is a fable, then undoubtedly this is not the Lazarus of Bethany mentioned in the Gospel.

517 vagabond trader  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:55:02am

Does anyone have the link for The Obama Little Blue Quotes Book? I thought I saved it and cannot locate it on Amazon.Thanks.

518 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:55:22am

re: #506 Walter L. Newton

Jesus was in "hades," "hell" and came back and made that statement. At least according to the Greek scriptures. Where was he, hell or heaven?

Jesus descended to the dead--not hell as in Satan's realm--until the third day, His resurrection. He did not ascend to heaven for another forty days.

519 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:56:47am
520 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:56:51am

re: #507 yma o hyd

The book speaks of many instances of people dead, to walk the earth. Jesus said at one point that G-D was the G-D of Moses and David, implying that thought they be dead yet they live.

521 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:58:01am

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

We had someone on here crying about atheist organizations allegedly being soley anti-Christian in purpose. Never mind that Christianity has demonized atheists as being "immoral" for centuries, with the phony claim that religion has a monoploy on morality.

522 BryanS  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:58:05am

re: #515 Walter L. Newton

What ever. Some here think that you can't have any sort of valid morals unless they were developed or filter through a supernatural belief in a god.

I know...I get that all the time if I ever tell people I do not believe in a god. I've never heard anyone give a convincing argument for why a supernatural belief in a god is necessary for morality.

523 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:59:59am

re: #514 yma o hyd

Good question!
Both - because why would he tell the one robber on the cross that he'd be with Him in paradise that same day?

But it is an interesting point, on which one can speculate for all its worth. Fact is - we don't know. question then is; does not knowing this matter?

Nothing in the Greek scriptures say he was in heaven after his death and before his resurrection.

Second point, he told the thief "I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise." it would be hard to tell the thief TOMORROW, since he would be dead.

And is paradise the same as heaven? The word in greek is the greek word that is used in place of the hebrew word paradise, ei: Eden. So, unless we start reading a lot into this, we can't claim that Christ was talking about Heaven.

And, above, you make it know that the concept of "heaven" is more suited to post-Constanine, it's getting complicated, isn't it.

524 swamprat  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:00:07pm

re: #512 Walter L. Newton

I enjoy your posts. You are informed about what is actually in the Bible, rather than what is said to be in the Bible. I find you to be a rather well informed atheist. (Apologies if I have misrepresented your beliefs.)

525 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:00:41pm

re: #512 Walter L. Newton

No, but you speak as an authority on the subject, and all else are wrong, I don't think you mean to come off that way, your argument are thought provoking, but there are Two sides.

526 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:01:56pm

re: #518 goddessoftheclassroom

Jesus descended to the dead--not hell as in Satan's realm--until the third day, His resurrection. He did not ascend to heaven for another forty days.

Sorry, the greek word is Hades, one of the same words we translate hell. Gehanna is the other (sp?)

527 Ron Shaw  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:02:18pm

How about a list of those he left out?

Some may feel slighted and were, I think.

How about;

Wiccans?

Satanists?

Buddhaists?

PETA?

Agnostics?

Diagnostics?

Scientologists?

Scientists in general?

Lawyers by and large?

...and such.

528 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:02:21pm

re: #508 Walter L. Newton

And it's interesting, you mention a post-Constantine Christianity and certain beliefs. Do you pick and choose what you accept from the Councils, and what you will ignore?

This is also an interesting point to discuss.
I don't think its about picking and choosing what I accept, according to my small knowledge to date, not being a theologian.

What it is about, for me, is getting rid of the centuries-old accretions to the image of Jesus which has been and still is being taught and preached in our churches. It is getting back to the Gospels, the letters, and try to understand what they really meant, for these early Christians. Why did they believe what they believed?
Why did this small group of people go out and lived changed lives? What was it that made them speak about Jesus they way they did?
Who really was this Jesus? Was he just another failed prophet, or another of those philosophers with a warm, fuzzy message?
Why were certain 'gospels' excluded from the Canon?

Thats what I've been reading up on and it is utterly gripping!

529 jamie  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:02:21pm

re: #511 BryanS

Now, one could disagree with the morals developed by said atheist--or is the question really "can they develop morals that are as good as those developed by the (fill in the blank) religion"?

I would certainly hope so. My wife and I are both Jewish, but she's a far more uncritical believer in the tenets of our faith than I am. While I consider myself Jewish, and practice the religion to at least your typical American degree (Rosh, Yom, and Passover), I can't get over what I believe to be large helping of manure in just about every religious text. Thus, I draw my own moral from a variety of sources, some religious, but many not.

530 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:03:37pm

re: #524 swamprat

I enjoy your posts. You are informed about what is actually in the Bible, rather than what is said to be in the Bible. I find you to be a rather well informed atheist. (Apologies if I have misrepresented your beliefs.)

No, not at all. Yes, I am very well informed. And I have no problem with religion or a belief in the supernatural, as long as 1) it doesn't harm me or someone, 2) no one tells me I am required to believe like them.

All other topics are open for a hearty discussion.

531 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:03:41pm

re: #526 Walter L. Newton

Sorry, the greek word is Hades, one of the same words we translate hell. Gehanna is the other (sp?)

Which is where the Greeks believe the dead went. There is no contradiction there. We agree, therefore, that it is not the same as hell in the sense of Satan's domain, do we not?

532 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:04:07pm

re: #513 twincitiesgirl

It's heartbreaking - a clear victory for murder and the threat of violence over the forces of reason.

533 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:04:20pm

re: #528 yma o hyd

This is also an interesting point to discuss.
I don't think its about picking and choosing what I accept, according to my small knowledge to date, not being a theologian.

What it is about, for me, is getting rid of the centuries-old accretions to the image of Jesus which has been and still is being taught and preached in our churches. It is getting back to the Gospels, the letters, and try to understand what they really meant, for these early Christians. Why did they believe what they believed?
Why did this small group of people go out and lived changed lives? What was it that made them speak about Jesus they way they did?
Who really was this Jesus? Was he just another failed prophet, or another of those philosophers with a warm, fuzzy message?
Why were certain 'gospels' excluded from the Canon?

Thats what I've been reading up on and it is utterly gripping!

Oh, that's simple, become a Jew.

534 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:05:13pm

re: #518 goddessoftheclassroom

Jesus descended to the dead--not hell as in Satan's realm--until the third day, His resurrection. He did not ascend to heaven for another forty days.

Ahem - where Jesus went after His ascension is somewhat different from the paradise where he took the robber - and we don't know what he did in Hell, but because He died, accepting death, he defeated the deceiver, the Satan.

535 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:05:31pm

re: #531 goddessoftheclassroom

Which is where the Greeks believe the dead went. There is no contradiction there. We agree, therefore, that it is not the same as hell in the sense of Satan's domain, do we not?

But Christians quote that Jesus said that he went away to prepare many houses for his believers. Was he in Hades or Heaven. Scripture never indicates he was in heaven, paradise what ever.

So, how was he preparing those rooms?

536 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:05:31pm

re: #462 jainphx

You act like pregnancy without sex is impossible, if man can cause this, why not G-D?

Well, it was 2000 years ago.

I'm pretty sure my point has been made.

537 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:06:40pm

"The Water of Life" - Pat Condell on morality, religion.

538 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:06:59pm

re: #520 jainphx

The book speaks of many instances of people dead, to walk the earth. Jesus said at one point that G-D was the G-D of Moses and David, implying that thought they be dead yet they live.

Yes, they live in the same way as all live - in that in-between station, before the Final Judgement, before resurrection and the marriage of Heaven and Earth.

539 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:07:05pm

re: #523 Walter L. Newton

My goodness but you do read his words, but want to ascribe your own definitions. Take his words or don't, but take them as written. Trying to rewrite the Bible isn't the answer.

540 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:07:40pm

re: #506 Walter L. Newton

Jesus was in "hades," "hell" and came back and made that statement. At least according to the Greek scriptures. Where was he, hell or heaven?

Troparion (short hymn) of the Paschal Hours:

In the grave bodily, in hell with the soul as God, in Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit wast Thou Who fillest all things, O Christ the Infinite.

541 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:08:23pm

re: #528 yma o hyd

That's why I am discussing these issues. Many believers in a certain "brand" of religion do not really know what their holy books really say, they don't study it in the original languages, they rely on what someone tells them.

542 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:09:17pm

re: #539 jainphx

My goodness but you do read his words, but want to ascribe your own definitions. Take his words or don't, but take them as written. Trying to rewrite the Bible isn't the answer.

Men wrote the bible, they admit to that in the books in question.

543 swamprat  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:09:59pm
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

written by Solomon:
Ecclesiastes chapter 9, verse 10.
An atheists' sentiment, but stated better than any atheist ever has, in my opinion!

544 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:10:17pm
545 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:11:06pm

re: #539 jainphx

My goodness but you do read his words, but want to ascribe your own definitions. Take his words or don't, but take them as written. Trying to rewrite the Bible isn't the answer.

And that's the normal "out" at this point. If you really don't know what's in the scripture, if you haven't studied the book like any other book, and put it under the lens of scholarship, then you're left with the old hoary claim that I am rewriting what's in there.

No, you don't know what's in there. You only believe what you think is in there.

546 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:11:24pm

re: #523 Walter L. Newton

And is paradise the same as heaven? The word in greek is the greek word that is used in place of the hebrew word paradise, ei: Eden. So, unless we start reading a lot into this, we can't claim that Christ was talking about Heaven.

I don't dispute your opinion but it is the position of someone who does not revere theological convention. To someone who prefers those conventions there is generally no argument about whether Eden means heaven.

re: #533 Walter L. Newton

Oh, that's simple, become a Jew.

Actually applying the same scepticism to the Jewish texts yields similar questions - as to the origin of the Torah and the integrity of the original text, as well as the rabbinical conventions that began to shape Judaism not long before the appearance of Jesus, and ever since the time of the Temple.

547 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:11:39pm

re: #478 Optimizer

OK, so if I told you I was abducted by extraterrestrials, but it only happened ONCE...

I should revise, given the "Lazarus" issue debated here...

OK, so if I told you I've abducted by extraterrestrials, but it only happened TWICE...

OK, I hope I'm done with that stuff now.

548 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:11:44pm

re: #535 Walter L. Newton

But Christians quote that Jesus said that he went away to prepare many houses for his believers. Was he in Hades or Heaven. Scripture never indicates he was in heaven, paradise what ever.

So, how was he preparing those rooms?

Jesus said (John 14:2):

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

It does not say that He is going to go there before His Resurrection. Jesus ascended into heaven beofre the deaths of any of the Apostles, so again, there is no contradiction.

The Nicene Creed simply says, "He descended to the dead." The Apostles' Creed says "He descended into hell." Neither says how long He stayed there.

549 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:12:29pm

re: #523 Walter L. Newton

Yep - it is complicated!
The Heavens are, as someone said, God's space, God's domain.
Paradise is where the dead are now, before the day of Judgement.
Jesus is with His Father - in the heavens, he is not in Paradise.

I don't want to proselytise or pimp a spin-off link - but a week or so ago I put a link up under 'Religion', which goes to a site with several videos answering just tehse questions.
the person answering is Bishop Tom wright, Bishop of Durham, England. He is the outstanding New Testamentarian of his generation.

550 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:12:59pm

re: #536 Optimizer

But if you believe in G-D, he was the creator, every thing stems from that. Man has found a way, but by magic, deny that the CREATOR was first.

551 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:13:50pm

re: #530 Walter L. Newton

No, not at all. Yes, I am very well informed. And I have no problem with religion or a belief in the supernatural, as long as 1) it doesn't harm me or someone, 2) no one tells me I am required to believe like them.

All other topics are open for a hearty discussion.

Just so!

552 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:14:44pm

re: #544 Iron Fist

The "preparing rooms" quote references His (Jesus') Father's (i.e. God's) House (Source). I've never heard anyone, anywhere, of any faith or lack of faith that professed to believe that God resided in Hell.

He died and went to Hades, Geheanna, the one and only words that we use for hell.

This is not a problem with scripture, this is a problem with Christianity which teaches a burning hell, and then can't reconcile the language and concepts with early 1st century concepts of the GRAVE.

So, you got yourself a big problem that you have to twist and turn to explain.

The plain meaning of scripture is he went to the grave for three days. And anywhere else Hades (or Sheol in the hebrew scriptures) is used, the term simply means grave, not some burning place of punishment.

553 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:15:51pm

re: #538 yma o hyd

In between or not, makes no difference as long as the end result is Redemption and eternal life. Waiting for the reaction to this, and am ducking already.

554 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:16:21pm

I have to get ready for the theatre, work, got a show at 6:00pm. BBlater tonight.

555 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:16:30pm

re: #533 Walter L. Newton

Oh, that's simple, become a Jew.

Becoming a Jew would mean to give up the belief that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, and did indeed rise from the dead.
It would mean that I give up on trying to do as He commands - uncomfortable as that often is.

556 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:16:39pm

re: #554 Walter L. Newton

gl

557 goddessoftheclassroom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:18:50pm

re: #554 Walter L. Newton

I have to get ready for the theatre, work, got a show at 6:00pm. BBlater tonight.

I'm sorry that you didn't have time to reply to my #548. I also wish you would have acknowledged my point in #531 before you raised another argument.

558 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:20:05pm

re: #542 Walter L. Newton

Yes men wrote the Bible, but here's the difference between your arguments and mine, the Bible and the Torah were written under the influence of the SPIRIT of G-D. You seem to infer that the words are from man and only man, something like science, if you will

559 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:22:37pm

re: #556 Dom

I meant to say, bal.

560 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:23:39pm

re: #545 Walter L. Newton

Now you give me thoughts of insult, please don't make the mistake of saying I don't read or understand the Holy Writ, thats an attitude that is beneath you. Your a much better person than that.

561 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:23:48pm

re: #552 Walter L. Newton

He died and went to Hades, Geheanna, the one and only words that we use for hell.

This is not a problem with scripture, this is a problem with Christianity which teaches a burning hell, and then can't reconcile the language and concepts with early 1st century concepts of the GRAVE.

So, you got yourself a big problem that you have to twist and turn to explain.

The plain meaning of scripture is he went to the grave for three days. And anywhere else Hades (or Sheol in the hebrew scriptures) is used, the term simply means grave, not some burning place of punishment.


Sorry you had to leave, but I have to say, just so!
This whole idea of a 'burning place of punishment' is also a much later accretion - and has led to many people rejection God and Jesus because they cannot and will not (rightly so!) belive in a tyrant who seems to delight in punishing people for whatever arbitrary transgressions.

It ain't so!
These transgressions, these punishemnts were an invention of much later priests who needed to exercise power over others, by instilling fear.

What is the one thing God and Jesus tell people again and again?
'Do not be afraid!'

Draw your own conclusions!

562 yma o hyd  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:26:21pm

Now I gotta go, Lizards.
Excellent debate - I hugely enjoyed it.
Thanks, everybody!

563 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:28:05pm

My understanding of the words used for hell in the scriptures is this:

Sheol = Hades (the place of the dead)
Gehenna = Tarturos (a place of punishment)

Tarturos (or, tarturus) is used a few places in the Greek scriptures to refer to hell specifically as a place of punishment and not merely as a place for the dead.

564 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:28:44pm

re: #552 Walter L. Newton

You err again Scripture say's (IN Christ own words) of his meeting with the beggar in PARADISE.

565 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:30:04pm

re: #519 Iron Fist

I'm sure an atheist could have a moral framework, but I'm not sure exactly why they would. I guess there could be some satisfaction for being "good" in a relative sense, but I know there's a lot more fun in being the bad guy. In general, our society attaches more respect to being a hard-core badass than it does to being a saint, more personal gain to being a crook than being a cop.

Moral acts - by definition - promote one's own personal happiness (happiness in the sense described by Aristotle). This is the same "happiness" being referenced in the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the DoI, BTW. The feel-good stuff one might think of as making you "happy" are usually self-destructive in the long term. What our society respects this week is irrelevant as to the question of what is moral.

566 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:30:14pm
567 Haverwilde  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:31:19pm

What happened to Ploome? All this discussion, and no intelligent interchange.
I guess Ploome took her Hynie and left.

568 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:32:06pm

re: #561 yma o hyd

Your right, but he added the caveat "to those who believe" the fear of death is no more.

569 SFGoth  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:35:23pm

I don't know who coined "Judeo-Christian" but philosophically, the two are very different (and I'm not referring to religious stuff per se). Judaism is teleological while Christianity is deontological. It sounds like Liberal, PC, newspeak. And if there is such a heritage, why did Christians persecute Jews for a couple millenia?

570 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:38:22pm

re: #550 jainphx

But if you believe in G-D, he was the creator, every thing stems from that. Man has found a way, but by magic, deny that the CREATOR was first.

And that's exactly the problem. One should start with the facts of reality, and apply one's mind to it. If you start off by surrendering your mind, and disregarding reality, it's irrational to expect a good result.

571 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:38:54pm

re: #519 Iron Fist

I'm sure an atheist could have a moral framework, but I'm not sure exactly why they would. I guess there could be some satisfaction for being "good" in a relative sense, but I know there's a lot more fun in being the bad guy. In general, our society attaches more respect to being a hard-core badass than it does to being a saint, more personal gain to being a crook than being a cop.

Obviously there's more personal gain in stealing a large sum of money than in working for a regular wage, but in fact society chases down and punishes crooks and doesn't tolerate that lawlessness. It seems very weak to attribute to the permission of society whatever low morals are abundant, when in fact nobody disputes basic principles that protect society - such as not stealing or murdering, not being "bad-ass". Society does tolerate irreligious behaviour - specifically any private consensual sexual act between adults - suggesting that we are guided by the Golden Rule: promoting the respect for others that we would want for ourselves, and not practising upon others what we would reject for ourselves. Yes, there are plenty of people who are attracted to personal gain at the expense of others and who manage to operate within the law, but I very much doubt your claim that society respects that above more considerate behaviour.

And hi, long time.

572 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:39:33pm

re: #569 SFGoth

The answer is in the BOOK, the spirit of the Antichrist is already at work in the world, the best place to attack, why yes it's the "CHURCH"

573 SFGoth  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:40:13pm

re: #519 Iron Fist

I'm sure an atheist could have a moral framework, but I'm not sure exactly why they would. I guess there could be some satisfaction for being "good" in a relative sense, but I know there's a lot more fun in being the bad guy. In general, our society attaches more respect to being a hard-core badass than it does to being a saint, more personal gain to being a crook than being a cop.

I'm sure someone who believes in a supreme being *could* have a moral framework, but I'm not sure exactly *why* they would. I guess there could be *some* satisfaction in having both a god who preaches peace and religious leaders who put that into practice, but there's a lot more fun in being the conquering religion and forcing people to accept the Truth, plus a little profit for your trouble.

The problem with argumentation is that when you begin with your premise, your argument often looks like crap. How about the fact that without an afterlife, preserving this life takes on more importance and therefore it is in everyone's best interest to "be polite" (i.e., moral)?

574 SFGoth  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:40:58pm

re: #572 jainphx

The answer is in the BOOK, the spirit of the Antichrist is already at work in the world, the best place to attack, why yes it's the "CHURCH"

In English please?

575 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:42:38pm

re: #570 Optimizer

And you are the arbiter that will pronounce who is surrendering ones mind. I take my solace in the Book, and am not ashamed of it. You are my brother with whom I will have to disagree.

576 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:46:39pm

re: #574 SFGoth

During WWII some countries were given over to the Germans without a shot being fired. The term Quisling came from this. The best place for the enemy of the living G-D to fight against him is in Church, with unsound Biblical teachings.

577 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:49:16pm
578 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:49:18pm

re: #575 jainphx

And you are the arbiter that will pronounce who is surrendering ones mind. I take my solace in the Book, and am not ashamed of it. You are my brother with whom I will have to disagree.

Don't try to lay that crap on me. You said it starts with "believing", and that's surrendering your mind. I don't even see why you would disagree with that. I'm not being the arbiter of anything.

579 David IV of Georgia  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:52:09pm

re: #569 SFGoth

I don't know who coined "Judeo-Christian" but philosophically, the two are very different (and I'm not referring to religious stuff per se). Judaism is teleological while Christianity is deontological. It sounds like Liberal, PC, newspeak. And if there is such a heritage, why did Christians persecute Jews for a couple millenia?

Deontological only applies to a few of the Christian denominations. Many Christians would not define their faith as a mere obligation to do what is good and moral.

During the periods of persecution of Christianity by the Roman authorities (c. 70 CE - 312 CE) some Jews, who had a protected status in Rome*, would turn in Christians whom they saw as practicing a bastardized form of their faith.

*During the Maccabean period, the Jews made an alliance with Rome. When Rome became a large empire, they chose to 'honor' this treaty by allowing the Jews to have a king and limited self-governance.

580 jainphx  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:53:31pm

re: #578 Optimizer

I don't know how to reply to anger, I was making a point that surrendering ones mind is in the eye of the surrenderer, My apologies if I offended you.

581 Mr Pancakes  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:56:05pm

Lazarus was transformed.

582 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 12:59:00pm

re: #577 Iron Fist

I looked up what you were meaning by Aristotle's definition of "happiness". That's pretty circular. You will be happy if you are moral and moral if you are happy.
This leaves unanswered what moral really is, or, for that matter what "happy" really means.
I don't see where you can get that "moral" acts are those which bring you "happiness" by definition. It may make a serial killer "happy" to chop hookers into hamburger, but I don't think anyone would call it "moral". Similarly, refraining from killing some SOB that is causing you problems may be the "moral" way to act, even though it makes yu "unhappy" to do so.

You're not really trying to suggest that killing people improves a serial killer's life? It might serve some pathological need, but clearly doing those things is destroying his life - his happiness - and is thereby immoral. The moral choice regarding the SOB is the one that leaves you better off - and therefore happier (unless he's about to kill you, in which case you have made an immoral choice). You're coming up with great examples that show the point well, and yet it seems like you're not getting it.

583 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:06:18pm

re: #580 jainphx

I don't know how to reply to anger, I was making a point that surrendering ones mind is in the eye of the surrenderer, My apologies if I offended you.

No, by definition when you chose to "believe" you are surrendering your mind. You religious types make a big deal about that, downright celebrate it - calling it a virtue. Heck, I've been to church...

If you weren't doing that, there wouldn't be such a thing as religion to even talk about.

OTOH, religious types are pretty good at denying "A is A", when it doesn't come out sounding the way they like.

584 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:06:59pm
585 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:08:03pm

re: #583 Optimizer

Why do you have to sound so on the attack? You're making some really nice points, no need for heated rhetoric.

586 Claire  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:08:29pm

re: #577 Iron Fist

I don't see where you can get that "moral" acts are those which bring you "happiness" by definition.

Well, most people's idea of happiness is NOT going to prison for the rest of one's life, NOT being shunned by neighbors as a monster, NOT having a hard time staying employed because you keep getting fired for bad character and laziness, NOT being disowned by one's family for being a irresponsible, selfish, undependeable, nasty person, you know, the usual stuff. But I guess there's always exceptions.....

587 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:12:57pm
588 anubis_soundwave  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:16:18pm

re: #109 Occasional Reader

By the way, USA Today trumpets Obama's mention of "non-believers" as one of his many, glowing, hopey changey "historic firsts". And I know for the fact this isn't so. None other than George W. Bush made an inclusive reference to Americans who "don't believe in any religion" in one of his State of the Union addresses. I'll have to look around for a link.

I thought I heard that same speech. We even discussed it here @ LGF.

/ remember: what Liberals say, conservatives do.

589 Sharmuta  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:18:11pm

*Where is that evil Sharmuta to ding down all these people of faith?*

590 Optimizer  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:19:50pm

re: #585 Dom

Why do you have to sound so on the attack? You're making some really nice points, no need for heated rhetoric.

It seemed to me there was a tone of "Who do you think you are to judge?" back in #575, which I took as a sort of ad hominum (calling me judgemental) to try to get away from the point, when there wasn't even any judging at all (and I wouldn't be shy or apologetic about doing so if I had).

But right now I have to go get after my kid to pursue her homework.

591 Maui Girl  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:20:41pm

re: #56 Dave the.....

I think part of the issue is not that there is anything wrong with non-believers, it's those that organize into atheist groups are generally anti-Christian bigots.

Thank about white power groups. There's nothing wrong with being white, but I have yet to run across a white-power group that isn't racist.

And don't forget about black power groups. Why is it always "white" gets singled out.

592 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:29:21pm
593 Maui Girl  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:35:04pm

Obama's entire inaugural speech was plagiarism to some degree. He said nothing new, nothing that hasn't been said before by some one else. Sure, the words got changed around abit but he's been called on about "copying" in his campaign speeches. It still just boggles my mind that this country elected a 47 year old, totally inexperienced man to uphold the highest office in the land.

594 So?  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:41:17pm

Anybody notice how Obama put Muslims before Jews?

“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus,

595 wiffersnapper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:49:29pm

And Obama Myth begins to show it's true colors.

596 soxfan4life  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:52:19pm

re: #593 Maui Girl

Obama's entire inaugural speech was plagiarism to some degree. He said nothing new, nothing that hasn't been said before by some one else. Sure, the words got changed around abit but he's been called on about "copying" in his campaign speeches. It still just boggles my mind that this country elected a 47 year old, totally inexperienced man to uphold the highest office in the land.

If they buy into the Global Warming myth, why is Obama's victory so surprising?

597 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 1:54:00pm

re: #592 Iron Fist

Hi!

The Golden Rule is probably the most concise definition of what is considered moral behavior in western culture. It is the way we should act, not necessarily the way we will act. And, of course, the Golden Rule is in a very real sense rooted in Christian doctrine (I'm aware of the Silver Rule in Hinduism that states similar things). Islam, of course, doesn't even pay lip service to the concept.

As far as what society "respects", the best example that I can think of is when Mickey mantle died. He had liver failure from too much drinking, and lung cancer from too much smoking. His primary "virture" was that he could play a game exceptionally well. The same week, Jonas salk died as well. Jonas Salk, inventor of the Salk vaccine against polio, and pioneer of the entire concept of vaccines against disease.

Taken objectively, there can be no doubt as to which man made the greater contribution to society. But Mantle got the press and adulation.
The most "repect", at least as I define the word.

And I could write much about the apparent character of the new President, especially about his associates and mentors.

The Golden Rule or something very like it can be evidenced everywhere, and not just since Christian doctrine (even in Islam, at least arguably). I don't want to argue that point in particular, but to emphasise that it or close variations are the starting point of any discussion on ethics, discounting as an imperative fear of the afterlife.

And regarding the example - media interest may well be a show of respect, but those in the spotlight usually get there following some sensational behaviour, rather than anything virtuous, and I would not regard media interest, even adulation, as a sign of popular respect. In fact it may amount to the opposite.

598 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:02:41pm

re: #310 yma o hyd

Indeed.
That is the one thing I truly loathe about these modern atheistis (yeah, there were atheists before the 21st century!): its this need to belittle Christians, and only Christians.
They don't dare to say things like that to Muslims ...

Generally - I'm not interested in what someone believes or not, provided they follow the laws of my country and don't try to patronise or belittle me for my faith. Since I refrain from trying to missionarise my fellow citizens, I expect the same treatment from them.

Umm...Christopher Hitchens is an atheist, and he seems to have no problems criticizing and condemning Islamofascism. Neither does atheist Ayan Hirsi Ali, and neither did atheist Theo Van Gogh. And there are others; these are just off the top of my head.

599 CPTSCI  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:12:54pm

Yay! Obama acknowledged that non-believers are a part of the club! Though he didn't go so far as to use the terrifying "A" word. Wee! I'm finally an American!

600 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:13:36pm

re: #254 Occasional Reader

There have been several non-snarky responses to the question. See, e.g., Killgore's link. I felt just as weary at seeing the question as Walter did, because I've been through this song and dance before.

Here's an excellent explication of nontheistic morality:

[Link: pinker.wjh.harvard.edu...]

And you can check into Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, too, as they are nontheistic religions.

As to the mention of the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm none, do what ye will."), it would seem on its face to be rather permissive and laissez faire - but it's not. 'harming none' is quite a strict discipline, forbidding the harming of ourselves, of others, and of this planet that we share.

Wicca also has the Law of Three, which states that whatever good or evil you do to others will be returned to you three times over. This is a karmic law thrice multiplied, and without the necessity of reincarnation, as it asserts that one is repayed in triple kind, in this lifetime, by one's family, friends and acquaintances for the good or evil one does to them. Interestingly enough, our social milieu (circle of friends) seems, sociologically speaking, to have at least three times as much effect upon us as we have upon it.

601 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:16:11pm

re: #290 Dave the.....

OR. Disagree. Atheism is a religion. You can't be a believer in Atheism and a believer in Christianity (or another religion). They are mutually exclusive.

I am a White-American. I am not an Absence-of-color-American.

Atheism is as much a religion as couch potatoism is a sport.

602 drool  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:17:41pm

#597 Dom,

Ever hear of "The Google"?

"None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”

It took about 20 seconds to find.

BTW, I am one of those "non believers".

603 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:26:41pm

re: #362 proud to be an infidel

Actually, YES they do! Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. That is at least one group that formed to counter Christian tradition and expression.

That assertion is true only if Christian tradition is theocracy. Oh wait; it was until a few centuries ago...

And if I recall correctly, its leader, Barry Lynn, is a Christian minister who doesn't want church and state entangled not only because of the damage such entanglement does to the state, but also because of the damage that it does to religion.

604 drool  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:27:35pm

Aplogies, Dom,

That was meant for Iron Fist who you were quoting.

605 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:33:39pm

re: #405 Dave the.....

An anti-Christian bigot is someone who has such a hatred of Christianity, that they find even secular symbols that have roots in Christianity, offensive.

The traditional American Christmas tree, for example.

Umm...Yule trees originate in Pagan tradition.

606 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:38:55pm

re: #412 Jinx

This is just another attempt to minimize and demonize Christians by pointing out some people who do not want to acknowledge atheists. By bringing this to light, and the manner in which it was brought, it trivializes the rest of Christianity.

Yet another part of a malicious trend to silence normal Christianity.

So a group of people attack another group of people who do not share their beliefs, and when the attacks are publicized, the publicizers are condemned for 'attacking' the attackers by publicizing their attack?

Isn't that kinda like the vicimization game that Palis play when their viciouis behavior towards Jews is publicized?

607 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:42:05pm

re: #424 avanti

Most of them are from various faiths that realize that government endorsement of any one faith is just wrong headed and dangerous. The Pilgrim's fled Europe to escape religious persecution for opposing state religion, and they fear that here.

Yeah, but the Pilgrims didn't learn the lesson. They became the Puritans, and did to others the very thing they fled from that others were doing to them.

608 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:54:32pm

re: #472 jainphx

Don't change the argument, but since you asked, you are giving science G-D like qualities, are you all right with that.

Actually, umm, no he isn't. Science simply figures out the natural causes of natural phenomena. It doesn't claim to stick its finger into the process from a celestial haven and supernaturally monkey around with the law of cause and effect.

609 Lincolntf  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 2:57:49pm

Whenever I see "some Christians" are mad at something it makes me laugh. Some Christians are always mad at something, just like some African-Americans are always mad at something. Some Jews are always mad at something. Some Muslims are always mad at something. Some Liberals are always mad at something. Some Atheists are always mad at something. Whatever the group, you'll always find a steadfast group of perepetual malcontents.
Obama's election is in perfect keeping with Christian ideals, despite whatever some web-baiting Preachers might say.
Christians lead by example, not by haranguing their opponents.

610 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:10:07pm

re: #519 Iron Fist

I'm sure an atheist could have a moral framework, but I'm not sure exactly why they would. I guess there could be some satisfaction for being "good" in a relative sense, but I know there's a lot more fun in being the bad guy. In general, our society attaches more respect to being a hard-core badass than it does to being a saint, more personal gain to being a crook than being a cop.

I would consider myself to be a much lesser person if I embraced doing good for my fellow human beings and avoided doing evil to them because a Big Sky Fella offered a pie in one hand called heaven while brandishing a club in the other hand called Hall and demanded that I do so, than if I simply embrace good works and avoided evil actions because it is the ethically decent, right and proper thing to do.

611 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:21:23pm
612 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:26:45pm
613 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:27:22pm

re: #611 Iron Fist

And where do you think that comes from? Most of Islam was cribbed from Jewish and Christian texts. There are parts of the Koran that aren't dedicated to the slaughter and subjugation of the Infidel. I judge them by what they do, which is often not in accordance with what they say.

Drool was correcting your statement -

Islam, of course, doesn't even pay lip service to the concept.

His/her correction stands.

614 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:30:12pm
615 Irish Rose  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:39:15pm

I'm a Christian, and I can say with complete honesty that some of the most kind, decent and "moral" people that I've ever encountered have been nonbelievers (atheists and agnostics).

I can also say with complete honesty that far too many of the fundamentalist Christians that I've encountered over the years have been nothing less than Godless, immoral, vicious power-tripping bullies.

616 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:40:12pm
617 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:41:03pm

re: #612 Iron Fist

But how do you determine what is "good" and what is "evil"?

Empathy. Put yourself in the shoes of the person you are considering doing something to. Is the experience you are lining them up for one you would like to have, or not? Would it make them feel nice or benefit them in some other way, or will it do the opposite? Will it hurt them or impoverish them? There's more to it than that of course but that's the basic element of it. This formula can't derive the really advanced stuff like the evil of making graven images or the evil of working on a sunday of course, but it's good for the 'basics' like murder, stealing, lying, cheating etc.

618 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:50:31pm

A special treat for die hards of this thread:

A short story by Jorge Luis Borges: Three Versions of Judas

part 1

There seemed a certainty in degradation.

- T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom

In Asia Minor or in Alexandria, in the second century of our faith (when Basilides was announcing that the cosmos was a rash and malevolent improvisation engineered by defective angels), Nils Runeberg might have directed, with a singular intellectual passion, one of the Gnostic monasteries. Dante would have destined him, perhaps, for a fiery sepulcher; his name might have augmented the catalogues of heresiarchs, between Satornibus and Carpocrates; some fragment of his preaching, embellished with invective, might have been preserved in the apocryphal Liber adversus omnes haereses or might have perished when the firing of a monastic library consumed the last example of the Syntagma. Instead, God assigned him to the twentieth century, and to the university city of Lund. There, in 1904, he published the first edition of Kristus och Judas; there, in 1909, his masterpiece Dem hemlige Frälsaren appeared. (Of this last mentioned work there exists a German version, Der heimliche Heiland, published in 1912 by Emil Schering.)

Before undertaking an examination of the foregoing works, it is necessary to repeat that Nils Runeberg, a member of the National Evangelical Union, was deeply religious. In some salon in Paris, or even in Buenos Aires, a literary person might well rediscover Runeberg's theses; but these arguments, presented in such a setting, would seem like frivolous and idle exercises in irrelevance or blasphemy. To Runeberg they were the key with which to decipher a central mystery of theology; they were a matter of meditation and analysis, of historic and philologic controversy, of loftiness, of jubilation, and of terror. They justified, and destroyed, his life. Whoever peruses this essay should know that it states only Runeberg's conclusions, not his dialectic or his proof. Someone may observe that no doubt the conclusion preceded the "proofs". For who gives himself up to looking for proofs of something he does not believe in or the predication of which he does not care about?

The first edition of Kristus och Judas bears the following categorical epigraph, whose meaning, some years later, Nils Runeberg himself would monstrously dilate:

Not one thing, but everything tradition attributes to Judas Iscariot is false.

(De Quincey, 1857.)

619 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:52:23pm

part 2

Preceded in his speculation by some German thinker, De Quincey opined that Judas had betrayed Jesus Christ in order to force him to declare his divinity and thus set off a vast rebellion against the yoke of Rome; Runeberg offers a metaphysical vindication. Skillfully, he begins by pointing out how superfluous was the act of Judas. He observes (as did Robertson) that in order to identify a master who daily preached in the synagogue and who performed miracles before gatherings of thousands, the treachery of an apostle is not necessary. This, nevertheless, occurred. To suppose an error in Scripture is intolerable; no less intolerable is it to admit that there was a single haphazard act in the most precious drama in the history of the world. Ergo, the treachery of Judas was not accidental; it was a predestined deed which has its mysterious place in the economy of the Redemption. Runeberg continues: The Word, when It was made flesh, passed from ubiquity into space, from eternity into history, from blessedness without limit to mutation and death; in order to correspond to such a sacrifice it was necessary that a man, as representative of all men, make a suitable sacrifice. Judas Iscariot was that man. Judas, alone among the apostles, intuited the secret divinity and the terrible purpose of Jesus. The Word had lowered Himself to be mortal; Judas, the disciple of the Word, could lower himself to the role of informer (the worst transgression dishonor abides), and welcome the fire which can not be extinguished. The lower order is a mirror of the superior order, the forms of the earth correspond to the forms of the heavens; the stains on the skin are a map of the incorruptible constellations; Judas in some way reflects Jesus. Thus the thirty pieces of silver and the kiss; thus deliberate self-destruction, in order to deserve damnation all the more. In this manner did Nils Runeberg elucidate the enigma of Judas.

The theologians of all the confessions refuted him. Lars Peter Engström accused him of ignoring, or of confining to the past, the hypostatic union of the Divine Trinity; Axel Borelius charged him with renewing the heresy of the Docetists, who denied the humanity of Jesus; the sharp tongued bishop of Lund denounced him for contradicting the third verse of chapter twenty-two of the Gospel of St.

Luke.

These various anathemas influenced Runeberg, who partially rewrote the disapproved book and modified his doctrine. He abandoned the terrain of theology to his adversaries and postulated oblique arguments of a moral order. He admitted that Jesus, "who could count on the considerable resources which Omnipotence offers," did not need to make use of a man to redeem all men. Later, he refuted those who affirm that we know nothing of the inexplicable traitor; we know, he said, that he was one of the apostles, one of those chosen to announce the Kingdom of Heaven, to cure the sick, to cleanse the leprous, to resurrect the dead, and to cast out demons (Matthew 10:7-8; Luke 9:1). A man whom the Redeemer has thus distinguished deserves from us the best interpretations of his deeds. To impute his crime to cupidity (as some have done, citing John 12:6) is to resign oneself to the most torpid motive force. Nils Runeberg proposes an opposite moving force: an extravagant and even limitless asceticism. The ascetic, for the greater glory of God, degrades and mortifies the flesh; Judas did the same with the spirit. He renounced honor, good, peace, the Kingdom of Heaven, as others, less heroically, renounced pleasure.1 With a terrible lucidity he premeditated his offense.

620 Aye Pod  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 3:53:15pm

part 3

Many have discovered post factum that in the justifiable beginnings of Runeberg lies his extravagant end and that Dem hemlige Frälsaren is a mere perversion or exacerbation of Kristus och Judas. Toward the end of 1907, Runeberg finished and revised the manuscript text; almost two years passed without his handing it to the printer. In October of 1909, the book appeared with a prologue (tepid to the point of being enigmatic) by the Danish Hebraist Erik Erfjord and bearing this perfidious epigraph: In the world he was, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not (John 1:10). The general argument is not complex, even if the conclusion is monstrous. God, argues Nils Runeberg, lowered himself to be a man for the redemption of the human race; it is reasonable to assume that thesacrifice offered by him was perfect, not invalidated or attenuated by any omission. To limit all that happened to the agony of one afternoon on the cross is blasphemous.3 To affirm that he was a man and that he was incapable of sin contains a contradiction; the attributes of impeccabilitas and of humanitas are not compatible. Kemnitz admits that the Redeemer could feel fatigue, cold, confusion, hunger and thirst; it is reasonable to admit that he could also sin and be damned. The famous text "He will sprout like a root in a dry soil; there is not good mien to him, nor beauty; despised of men and the least of them; a man of sorrow, and experienced in heartbreaks" (Isaiah 53:2-3) is for many people a forecast of the Crucified in the hour of his death; for some (as for instance, Hans Lassen Martensen), it is a refutation of the beauty which the vulgar consensus attributes to Christ; for Runeberg, it is a precise prophecy, not of one moment, but of all the atrocious future, in time and eternity, of the Word made flesh. God became a man completely, a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of being reprehensible - all the way to the abyss. In order to save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which together weave the uncertain web of history; He could have been Alexander, or Pythagoras, or Rurik, or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: He was Judas.

In vain did the bookstores of Stockholm and Lund offer this revelation. The incredulous considered it, a priori, an insipid and laborious theological game; the theologians disdained it. Runeberg intuited from this universal indifference an almost miraculous confirmation. God had commanded this indifference; God did not wish His terrible secret propagated in the world. Runeberg understood that the hour had not yet come. He sensed ancient and divine curses converging upon him, he remembered Elijah and Moses, who covered their faces on the mountain top so as not to see God; he remembered Isaiah, who prostrated himself when his eyes saw That One whose glory fills the earth; Saul who was blinded on the road to Damascus; the rabbi Simon ben Azai, who saw Paradise and died; the famous soothsayer John of Viterbo, who went mad when he was able to see the Trinity; the Midrashim, abominating the impious who pronounce the Shem Hamephorash, the secret name of God. Wasn't he, perchance, guilty of this dark crime? Might not this be the blasphemy against the Spirit, the sin which will not be pardoned (Matthew 12:3)? Valerius Soranus died for having revealed the occult name of Rome; what infinite punishment would be his for having discovered and divulged the terrible name of God?

Intoxicated with insomnia and with vertiginous dialectic, Nils Runeberg wandered through the streets of Malmö, praying aloud that he be given the grace to share Hell with the Redeemer.

He died of the rupture of an aneurysm, the first day of March 1912. The writers on heresy, the heresiologists, will no doubt remember him; he added to the concept of the Son, which seemed exhausted, the complexities of calamity and evil.

621 dreader1962  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 4:35:09pm

re: #165 ploome hineni

both the atheist and the agnostic are ignoring the question

Not ignoring the question; I had to go over to my mother's place to help her out. You know, atheists CAN be moral - your posts seem to be an attack on my innocuous (and frankly, pro-Christian) post.

I derive my morals from my philosophy, which I have given quite a bit of thought to. As far as being atheist, I will admit that many atheists seem to actively pursue the destruction of religion. I really don't consider them atheists when they do this - I can only guess as to their motives. I don't try to 'convert' anyone - my sister is a fundamentalist Christian and I don't have a problem with that.

I would only object if I was forced to go to a church or forced to show allegiance to the dominant religion. That does not happen in America. I claimed atheist as my religious preference throughout most of my Army career. I only encountered a couple of situations where this was commented on, and at no time did I feel 'oppressed' or felt that my career would suffer for it.

As for the person who has responded to me, he seems to have an agenda beyond what I posted. I will not get involved in a religious argument where I am put on the defensive as a 'bad' person because I'm an atheist.

622 SpaceJesus  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 4:56:32pm

yes, let's ignore pagan Greek, Roman and German influences in our government/judicial system that were tempered by the great minds of the Enlightenment generation which advocated a secular society. (hat tip to the few American and European masons though too.)

Clearly though, the witch-hunting intolerant Puritans are the true founders of the United States.

623 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:04:13pm

Shucks, I've been a discriminated against minority since I was a teenager and while I might think it would be nice if people (some people) would grow up and be prepared to elect an atheist (black or white or whatever) president in the next hundred years, I won't see it in my lifetime.

Truth is, I wouldn't want to be president of the likes of Jesse Jackson and friends.

624 Seax  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:08:35pm

Re. Some Christians angry ...etc
That's why America is so MUCH better than a heck of lot
of other so-called 'civilised' countries.
Christians ( and any body else for that matter) can have
a public forum to openly discuss their pet hates
without the danger of getting murdered, multilated
and their family slotted as well.
AND that's why people emigrate to the USA
instead of Iran.
Just my 2 cents worth.

625 SpaceJesus  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:12:10pm

re: #624 Seax

Re. Some Christians angry ...etc
That's why America is so MUCH better than a heck of lot
of other so-called 'civilised' countries.
Christians ( and any body else for that matter) can have
a public forum to openly discuss their pet hates
without the danger of getting murdered, multilated
and their family slotted as well.
AND that's why people emigrate to the USA
instead of Iran.
Just my 2 cents worth.


is this a haiku or something

also I have no idea what you're trying to say.

626 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:13:00pm

re: #612 Iron Fist

But how do you determine what is "good" and what is "evil"? Why should your definition of them be any more "truth" than mine? Without something above the mere human, it is merely your opinion.

There's no reason for me to make it mine.

If it makes you happy to be happy, then by all means, be happy. The irony is that the atheists are usually the ones who ask that question, as justification for their behavior that doesn't completely jive with the societal definitions.

I do not conceive of good and evil as cosmic categories, but as human ones. There is no good or evil in the vast unpopulated cosmos. There is no good or evil in the natural world. Hurricanes and earthquakes are not good or evil; they simply ARE. Likewise, predators, such as wolves and lions, are not being evil towards their prey.

But we, unlike rocks or rattlesnakes, are self-consciously aware, and that allows us to reflectively make individual choices, rather than just blindly responding to externally obtaining circumstance due to the combination of the conditioning of our histories and our genetically instinctual predispositions. We can self-consciously choose to do good or ill to others. But in what circumstasnces does such the attribution of such good and evil to our actions inhere?

When people ignore the humanity of others, and treat them not as other people with rights to be respected, but as things to be used without regard to how they feel about it for one's own purposes, that is evil. This definition covers murder, rape, enslavement, theft, fraud, and lying, among many other human wrongs.

We must share this world with self-aware others who are similar to but not identical to us, in a manner that allows for the greatest amount of liberty, prosperity, and safety to manifest. This requires that we follow Immanual Kant's two ethical principles: universalizability and reversibility. Would it be a good thing for others to do this action to me if the situation were reversed? Would it be a good thing if everybody did this thing? Morality is the logical consequence of knowing how we want to be treated, and then transferring this understanding into the imagined moccasins of every individual we meet, and into all of them together.

627 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:15:41pm

re: #598 Salamantis

Umm...Christopher Hitchens is an atheist, and he seems to have no problems criticizing and condemning Islamofascism. Neither does atheist Ayan Hirsi Ali, and neither did atheist Theo Van Gogh. And there are others; these are just off the top of my head.

You forgot me :)

628 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:21:38pm

re: #584 Iron Fist

With no belief in an afterlife, there is no real reason not to do whatever you enjoy as long as you can get away with it. This would seem to mean that morality derives from temporal power. If it feels good, do it, but only as long as you can stay out of prison, or at least off death row.

Can you tell us how that perspective differs from the concept of going to hell, instead of death row?

It seems to me that you think you wouldn't know right from wrong if it wasn't for the possibility of damnation (or that you are being watched all the time).

629 SpaceJesus  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:24:18pm

re: #626 Salamantis

We must share this world with self-aware others who are similar to but not identical to us, in a manner that allows for the greatest amount of liberty, prosperity, and safety to manifest. This requires that we follow Immanual Kant's two ethical principles: universalizability and reversibility. Would it be a good thing for others to do this action to me if the situation were reversed? Would it be a good thing if everybody did this thing? Morality is the logical consequence of knowing how we want to be treated, and then transferring this understanding into the imagined moccasins of every individual we meet, and into all of them together.


I declare this man/woman winner of the discussion.

630 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 5:56:12pm
631 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:02:34pm

Well good for Obama for being inclusive. The few Christians who took offense need to get over themselves, in my opinion. This is not a Christian nation. "Jesus Christ" doesn't appear anywhere in either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution. "Under God" was imposed on our currency during the cold war, which has long since ended. I'm tired of reading about whiny Christians and how their precious feelings are being offended because they are forced to acknowledge that the nation doesn't revolve around their narrow beliefs. They can sod off.

632 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:07:56pm

re: #631 eclectic infidel

I'm tired of reading about whiny Christians and how their precious feelings are being offended because they are forced to acknowledge that the nation doesn't revolve around their narrow beliefs. They can sod off.


Why did you generalise to "whiny Christians", surely knowing that you would offend many non-whiny Christians with the comment. I'm tired of being shown up by whiny Jews, but I don't want to see that phrase come from a non-Jew, I'd take it for generalising, and your name links to a Lag B'Omer event. I think you should know better.

633 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:10:55pm

re: #93 taxfreekiller

Democrats hand out money.
Hamas hand out money.

Follow the money.

I wonder how much money went into Saudi pockets during the Bush administration. How much aid went to the land of Saud by means of foreign policy perpetuated by President Bush?

The GOP is not innocent in this regard.

634 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:15:07pm

re: #632 Dom

Why did you generalise to "whiny Christians", surely knowing that you would offend many non-whiny Christians with the comment. I'm tired of being shown up by whiny Jews, but I don't want to see that phrase come from a non-Jew, I'd take it for generalising, and your name links to a Lag B'Omer event. I think you should know better.

Please include more of my post:

"The few Christians who took offense need to get over themselves, in my opinion."

Read: "the few Christians" Sure, I knew this had the possibility to offend but I did include the above sentence with this in mind. I'm not going to sugar coat how I feel about a few who consistently whine up a storm when their precious beliefs are challenged. These few whiners are still cordially invited to sod off.

635 Dom  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:17:14pm

re: #634 eclectic infidel

Please include more of my post:

"The few Christians who took offense need to get over themselves, in my opinion."

Read: "the few Christians" Sure, I knew this had the possibility to offend but I did include the above sentence with this in mind. I'm not going to sugar coat how I feel about a few who consistently whine up a storm when their precious beliefs are challenged. These few whiners are still cordially invited to sod off.

I still don't like the phrase but the explanation is fair enough. You weren't saying what I inferred, I apologise.

636 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:24:33pm

re: #108 ploome hineni

how does an atheist determine what is moral?

I gave you one less. It is a relevant question, no less than asking how one with religious beliefs can determine the same.

The simple answer is that we have but one life to lead, and we have it within us to decide how to do so. From my perspective it is simply that some people have been taught that that the only way to do so is because they have been told it is so. The fact that they may not then consider "why" makes them no less moral, and there is nothing inherently wrong in following direction.

In the final analysis, it is not up to us to decide if we are good or bad, it is up to those we live with.

637 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:30:00pm

re: #598 Salamantis

Umm...Christopher Hitchens is an atheist, and he seems to have no problems criticizing and condemning Islamofascism. Neither does atheist Ayan Hirsi Ali, and neither did atheist Theo Van Gogh. And there are others; these are just off the top of my head.

On reflection, I'll replace myself as nominee with my favorite atheist, Mark Twain, if only for the cool quotes he offered.

638 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:31:12pm

re: #612 Iron Fist

But how do you determine what is "good" and what is "evil"? Why should your definition of them be any more "truth" than mine? Without something above the mere human, it is merely your opinion..

It's probably worth noting that as an atheist myself, I view all definitions as "human made," that is, without the influence of a supernatural entity. When someone tells me that they get their morality from G-d, that instantly translates to me that they get their morality from opinion based on experience, learning, human interaction, etc, Due to their faith, they attribute such a morality a greater authority, when in reality, all they have is themselves for the origin of such thoughts. To put it bluntly, Man invented God, and uses God as a means to an end; Man is responsible for not only his actions, but for the morality that led him to those actions in the first place.

639 [deleted]  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:49:44pm
640 Achilles Tang  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 6:57:35pm

re: #639 Iron Fist

Referencing the above post, I could elaborate too, but I'll stand by:

In the final analysis, it is not up to us to decide if we are good or bad, it is up to those we live with.

You can do what the hell you want with yourself if on a desert island and nobody will judge you, but if you find amusement in pulling wings off flies, I'm sure there is even something in you that will question it. Call it evolution if you will.

641 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:06:30pm

re: #632 Dom

Why did you generalise to "whiny Christians", surely knowing that you would offend many non-whiny Christians with the comment. I'm tired of being shown up by whiny Jews, but I don't want to see that phrase come from a non-Jew, I'd take it for generalising, and your name links to a Lag B'Omer event. I think you should know better.

Because the non-whiny Christians, which are a distinct majority, don't typically bitch and moan about their precious feelings being offended. They generally aren't that narrow.

642 Salamantis  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 7:18:07pm

re: #639 Iron Fist

re: #628 Naso Tang

Fair enough, I did ask how you would determine "good" and "evil", and you explained that pretty well. I can see how you could think that way. I fail to see why I should accept those definitions for myself, absent the Divine. My life will be over soon enough, in the grander scheme of things. I don't much care what most people think of me, and haven't really cared since I was a kid. The idea that I would draw some form of opprobrium for behaving in an "evil" matter is somewhat amusing. To begin with, it doesn't always work that way. At the end of his life, Tookie Williams got quite the ovation from certain quarters, despite (or perhaps because of) how vile his life had been. Vile, of course, being a value-judgment based on my concept of morality which isn't necessarily like yours. I don't think you've made a strong argument as to why I should accept your definition of good and evil over any other.

In my original post on this matter, I said that I guess I can see how an atheist could be "moral", but that I didn't understand the why of it. As I said, in the grand scheme of things I will be dead in the passage of a relatively short span of time. This is simply true. Nobody gets out of life alive. I have no offspring whose welfare I am required to (or would see self-interest in) promote after the advent of my death. Absent something greater than myself, I see no reason to do anything other than promote my own self-interest. Any "good" that I might happen to do would simply be incidental. Only a fool tries to always do "evil". "Evil" will not always coincide with what is most advantageous to me. To the extent that it harms me, I am not adverse to avoiding "evil".

But I see no inherent value in doing "good", especially if by doing "good" I am harming my own self-interest. Absent any Divine presence, there is nothing particularly more noble about Mother Theresa than there is about Josef Stalin. By their own judgments, both were doing "good". As an example of this, I once had an instructor who thought that Josef Stalin was the greatest leader in the 20th Century. Stalin brought the Soviet Union from a feudal, agrarian society into a competitive industrial nation. He killed some 20 million people in doing so, but them's the breaks. Absent religious doctrine, this is a valid positi9on to hold.

Josef Stalin was not operating according to my enumerated criteria. He was using (and abusing) people as means to an end outside themseves, rather than treating them as an end in themselves. He was treating them as things to be manipulated and callously employed, not as people whose subjectivities should be respected.

On earth, sometimes, bad deeds get rewarded, and good deeds get punished. Unresolved injustice and unrecognized virtue happen. Troubling, but true. Perhaps this is the reason that Eastern faiths saw the need to create the concept of Karma, and why Western religions require Heavens and Hells (or else admit to an absentminded, less-than-omnipotent, or not entirely benevolent God).

643 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:08:07pm

re: #417 VegasRick

What is your major malfunction asshole? Believe or don't believe whatever the fuck you want to, leave others to believe what they want to. What is your problem?

Whoa, horsie! Major over-reaction! I'm glad I walked away from this thread earlier. In the old days, this was the kind of shiz that led to me being banned.

Religion is the Hot Topic. I get it. I've gotten it for a long time, in Real Life. Took me a little longer, to get it in Interweb-Life.

644 garycooper  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:21:56pm

re: #477 goddessoftheclassroom

And Jesus was the one who raised him. Jesus also raised someone's daughter (I'm sorry, the exact details are hiding in my mind).

My earlier point about the blood sacrifice is that it is symbolic. Garycooper, Jesus was not a human sacrifice. I believe St. Paul made that analogy in later letters.

I know, Goddess. He was never meant to be a "human sacrifice," according to any ancient ritual laws. I've forgotten more Biblical-scholarship than I remember, from my collegiate days when I knew EVERYTHING, and used to argue with my Jesuit priest uncle about the finer points. After a childhood education in Catholic schools, I took a senior-level college course at the U of Mich., where I had to read the Oxford Bible in its entirety, with annotations. I still have that Bible, with my notes attached. Of course, nowadays, with the internet, you can answer any Biblical question in ten seconds, but back in the early '80's you had to know how to read, and look things up.

645 devil in baggy pants  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 8:25:56pm

Could someone please show me where anyone quoted in that article said that non-believers are "Satanic imps from hell" ?

Touchy, touchy.

646 Scion9  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 9:06:01pm

re: #452 SixDegrees

What would you think if the District Court in the city of Dearborn erected a large monument to the Koran at the entrance? Or displayed passages from it behind the judge's bench?

Didn't read the whole thread but...there is a relief of Mohammed on the Supreme Court building, so your passages from the Koran behind a Judge's bench aren't too far from reality. Regardless, I wouldn't have an issue with it one whit. A wall carving doesn't dictate the laws of the land. If the person sitting on that bench was ruling as a Sharia Jurist rather than a secular Judge, then there would be a problem.


His view are fundamentally, profoundly anti-American, and stab directly at the heart of a nation founded on the principle that anyone living here is free to believe what they want, say what they want and act as they want without coercion, interference or belittlement by those who hold political power.

Our second President must have been 'profoundly anti-American' then, as he did not believe that anyone was free to say what they wanted without literal imprisonment by those who hold political power.

Now, I don't endorse John Adams vaguely euroconservative stance, but he certainly was not 'profoundly anti-American'. Nor are modern day neofascists, communists or religious reactionaries, etc. I don't think Madison or Jefferson would have gotten very far (such as Presiding over the nation, or being allowed to draft the Constitution) were they quite so puritanical (such as Thomas Paine, who essentially ruined himself by defining the absoluteness of his political philosophy, on a moral level).

When you qualify what is American, or Anti-American based on the criteria on what one must endorse to fit into the 'American' category you essentially are taking a stab at the heart of a nation that was founded on the principle that anyone living here is free to believe what they want, say what they want and act as they want without coercion, yada, yada.

You are free to speak and believe as you will, but if you don't believe in the 1st Amendment, then you are Anti-American (a label that contains considerable amount of associated baggage) apparently as the 1st Amendment intended...?

The same could be applied to every bit of the Constitution, associated Amendments and other assorted federal legal codes. If you don't believe in the IRS, progressive income taxes, and discretionary federal budgets well you are profoundly Anti-American. Of course, not many here would probably agree with that.

There are a lot of ironic, 'profoundly Anti-American' stances, such as Pro-Life that go against the federal governments narrative on what is 'American'.

The most ironic being that a theist must apparently subvert their theology to embrace a greater American label; to join a political collective, which includes subverting their theology in order to embrace a free exercise of religion. How very dichotomous.

From where I'm standing groups like the Amish are a lot more 'pro-American' than the rest of us, in living their lives outside of considerations for the will and whims of the polity. The concept of a broad, sweeping political collective, which to be a part of, one must endorse on a philosophical level (and on a wholly subjective one at that unless it is being advocated we need to subscribe to every mandate of the federal government as if it was a moral stance) is 'profoundly Anti-American'.

647 Dasher  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 10:29:20pm

re: #19 nyc redneck

i think it shows his huge ego.
that he considers himself the great unifier.
that he can bring all the world together.
it really shows how little he actually knows about people. and human nature.
he is a silly arrogant fool.

Maybe he has only had to lead the sheep from his community organizer days.

648 Smorgasbord  Sun, Jan 25, 2009 11:17:12pm

When Obama said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers,” I had to agree with him. There are nonbelievers. I call myself a neutralist. I don't know if there is a god or not, but if there is, I am in serious trouble.

649 Proud to be an Infidel  Mon, Jan 26, 2009 4:16:49am

re: #456 avanti

You should not and can not be persecuted, the constitution protects you. What private, non government sanctioned expression of your religion is being persecuted exactly ?

Not me personally BUT there have been attempts by atheist groups to stifle religious EXPRESSION. In 2004, Michael Newdow tried suing President Bush for mentioning God in his inaugural address. Fortunately, the Supreme Court threw out the lawsuit citing a President's right to free speech. They've also tried deeming roadside crosses as unconsitutional which were placed by the loved ones of people killed in car accidents. Once again they failed. So there have been attempts by atheists to stifle even private, nongovernment sanctioned religious expression. With the wrong judges in place (or right in their case), they will keep at it until they start winning some of these cases.

650 Aye Pod  Mon, Jan 26, 2009 8:04:59am

Soccermom: another stealth downdinger.

651 Claire  Mon, Jan 26, 2009 10:03:03am

re: #649 Proud to be an Infidel

So there have been attempts by atheists to stifle even private, nongovernment sanctioned religious expression.

Both examples you cite are not private non-government sanctioned. Bush's was government sanctioned, (he represents government in speeches) but he was not officially promoting one religion over another or establishing some policy simply by mentioning God.

The second example is the argument that the crosses are on publicly owned land on the sides of the roads. The argument would be if you can't have a creche in front of city hall, you can't have a cross on public land. I don't agree with this argument and don't have a problem with the crosses at all anymore than I would have a problem with a cross in a military graveyard.

652 fredo malmstein  Mon, Jan 26, 2009 11:12:16am

Freedom Of Religion also means freedom from religion. That's the American way. If I choose not to participate in organized religion and do not believe in a deity or higher power, that is my choice as an American. Unlike most hyper-religious people I know, I do not try to proselytize or browbeat anyone regarding their beliefs.

That's why America remains the greatest country I've ever had the pleasure of living in.

653 Flavia  Mon, Jan 26, 2009 11:35:22am

re: #240 Dave the.....

I think a big reason Atheists are hated by many is because that the most vicious anti-Christian bigots tend to win. Example, suing schools to stop them from singing traditional American Christmas carols. Or Atheists that work for my employer got them to ban use of the word "Christmas" in any company correspondance, internal or external. Also notices went out that things like hanging garland in public areas is forbidden.

Or in Wisconsin...a two year public college starts their spring break on Good Friday. An Atheist is looking at suing them...to force classes to be held on Good Friday.

And non-Xians see all these things that you see as your right to be anti-non-Xian bigotry on your part. No one is telling you that you can't practice your religion; we're telling you that you can't do it on our dime - such as in PUBLIC school, & other publicly owned places.

654 Flavia  Mon, Jan 26, 2009 11:38:50am

re: #408 garycooper

Another reason he couldn't qualify is because he was supposed to have been human. We Jews sort of frown on that sort of thing....


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ...
teleskiguy
3 weeks ago
Views: 828 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0