Prayer complaint puts city in hot seat

Council likely to alter invocation

By Mike Wiggins, The Daily Sentinel

Published June 10, 2008 at 7:17 p.m.

Text size

More Local News

Comments

June 11, 2008

5:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

yaakovwatkins writes:

Congress has had opening prayers since the beginning of the country. The state legislature has opening prayers. In 1983 the Supreme Court ruled it legal. This is not an issue.
June 11, 2008

5:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

jr_mcmillin writes:

Atheist group wants the council to: "Issue a policy letter to the Grand Junction Ministerial Alliance asking that it be as inclusive and multidenominational as possible in selecting clergy for invocations, and that the clergy give only nonsectarian prayers containing no reference to specific deities." In other words, limit your freedom of speech to suit us, or we'll take you to court. Both the council and GJMA should stand pat with their current practice. I fail to see a problem with an organization asking for guidance in making wise decisions. My guess is next they'll want the local AA chapter to modify their program. After all, AA is a Christian based program.
June 11, 2008

7:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

JLS writes:

Seems reasonable to me to ask that the prayer not be focused on a specific religion. It should be general, and not invoke specific deities... BTW that is how the US Congress conducts it's "approved" prayer.
June 11, 2008

7:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

RegusPatoff writes:

The real irony here is that the atheist group is asking the government to step in and make a law against practices (freedom of religion and freedom of speech) that are protected from government interference. See the real problem? Doesn't "free exercise thereof" apply to the citizens serving on the City Council if THEY so choose to pray voluntarily? If there are non-Christians serving on that council, there is NOTHING stopping them from either not participating or offering up prayers consistent with their beliefs.

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Folks, this is a democracy, where 50.1% gets to make the rules... and if the folks actually serving on the City Council in Grand Junction are okay with the opening prayers, then outside groups need to sit down and shut up. This, along with most other claims disguised as "imposing Christianity on others" is NOT a violation of the First Amendment, but it is an issue of abusing the First Amendment. To my knowledge, there have never been any laws made by a Federal or State Congress that violate the First Amendment EXCEPT those that say that prayer cannot be conducted by a government group or agency. See, Grunt, THAT works both ways too.
June 11, 2008

7:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

LingLingfor_prez writes:

Atheist groups offend me. Hold the prayer in a side room? Why don't the atheists go to a side room? There can be reasonable guidelines without going overboard here.
June 11, 2008

7:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Art writes:

RegusPatoff has it wrong. This is not a democracy where 50.1% gets to make the rules. It is a republic where everyone's best interests are to be served. If it were a democracy as RP thinks then we would still have segregated rest rooms and laws against inter racial marriages. We need to remember that we have to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Your religious beliefs can not be forced down my throat.
June 11, 2008

7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

hogarm writes:

Not only should the Grand Junction city council continue praying, but they also should hire someone knowledgeable about what God wants. Someone like Pastor Hagee. He has taught us that God sent hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for a homosexual parade the city had scheduled. "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death." Lev. 20:13.
We need knowledgeable God-talkers like Pastor Hagee to know when God is serious and when he will let us slide. "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas … they shall be an abomination unto you: … ye shall not eat of their flesh." Lev. 11:9-11. Even though the sections of New Orleans where many of the homosexuals live was largely untouched, and the fishing industry was virtually wiped out. Shrimp and oyster fishing was once a billion dollar industry in New Orleans. So we need Pastor Hagee to tell us when God is serious and when he is kidding.
I’m sure the City Council members who hear voices in their heads know the difference between God’s voice and Satan’s voice. I wonder if they can recognize when Satan is imitating God’s voice?
This is very serious in this part of the country where so many people eat Rocky Mountain oysters. I’m pretty sure they don’t have fins and scales. If we don’t pray for guidance before city business, how will we know?
June 11, 2008

8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Matthew 6:5 - 7

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly
June 11, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Grunt
You may have missed the point.
I'm a non-believer. The point is Jesus didn't support public prayer. Read the scripture.
June 11, 2008

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

jr_mcmillin writes:

Marine Grunt writes: "Why can't any of you recognize that there are people who are tired of this christian dominated society and with this being AMERICA, we have the right to say "Enough!" Your group has had a grip on this Country for too long and we want to assert our Rights! Any attempt to show ANY Rights that christians do not believe in get this kind of over-reaction!"

I ask you Devil Dog: Since you do have the right to complain about prayer, does that mean we have to blindly accept your complaint and fore go our rights and beliefs? I think not. This country was founded on Christian principles and values. If people want to pray, it's their God given and constitutionally given right to do so. If the city council wants to start their meetings with prayer, it's their constitutional right (Supreme Court 1984) to do so. If atheist do not want to hear a prayer before a meeting starts, it's their right to delay entering until the prayer is over. Also I wonder if, while receiving in-coming, you had a problem with your fire team members praying for God to keep them and you safe? My experience in fire fights is that prayers were always welcomed and never scoffed at.
June 11, 2008

8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

uskam writes:

Once again, this land was based on freedom OF religion, not FROM religion. Atheists (a term which means against God - my question - if there is no God, why are you against Him?) only make up 14% of the population. 86% have some sort of faith-based values. Hey - 14% - get over yourselves! Don't tell me what not to believe in and I won't tell you what to believe in. I doubt that you could keep that deal because of your internal anger.
June 11, 2008

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Oh, oh.. someone got MarineGrunt going on his "sky fairy" rant again!

Actually, every once in a long while I agree with MarineGrunt!

I do think prayers should be offered, but in a separate chamber before the start of business. Those who want to participate can and those who do not don't have to feel "oppressed".

By all means, stay away from any multi-cultural, ecumenical, all-encompassing "spirit" prayers. If that is what the athiests want, give them a separate chamber as well.

Everyone is happy and it all takes place before gov'ment bid'ness.
June 11, 2008

8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

jr_mcmillin writes:

My bust! Supreme Court 1983.
June 11, 2008

9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

I wonder if the Athiests lodging the complaint even live in Grand Junction?

Usually, this is the anti-Christian travelling road show that scours the country looking for small towns with no budget to handle these kind of lawsuits.

They roll in from NY, LA, or Boulder; threaten costly lawsuits; leave after scaring a bunch of little old ladies; then pat themselves on the back for being so "progressive".

Don't these anti-religious-thought-Nazi's have anything better to do with their time?
June 11, 2008

9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

TC writes:

Actually uskam, Atheist comes from the root theist or God. Atheist literally means without God. I'm not a Atheist because the very word recognizes God. I'm a non-believer. As such I have absolutely no problem with public prayer. Personally I think it's a good thing. And I agree with Cowboy. Please no new-agey crap. If you're going to pray get ahold of an old timey Baptist or something to do it for God's sake.
June 11, 2008

9:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Grunt, your beliefs shouldn't be shoved down other's throats as well. Just because you believe in one thing doesn't mean others have to blindly follow. The right to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of religion is just that, a Constitutional right. During the city council meetings, they are not practicing religion or forcing it on anyone. It's a prayer before the city council meeting starts, so it's not an issue of it being during meeting time. Government cannot discriminate and prevent members from saying a prayer since it would violate freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that discriminating against religious groups or beliefs is unconstitutional. For example, a school that allows clubs to use school property for meetings would also have to allow religious clubs the same freedoms. Grunt, I think you need to learn more about the Constitution and about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech isn't something that only works for you in a way that you want it to. What a friggin' crybaby!
June 11, 2008

9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

PonchoVia writes:

If you like religion in gvernment go live in a country where the government is a theocracy. The Mideast has lots of them to choose from. Enjoy! But keep your irrational ghost worship out of the US government. Thanks.
June 11, 2008

9:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

TC -

I respect your position and admire your post.

I couldn't agree more. Either believe or not and let the other guy do what they want in their own sideroom.

Leave the new-agey stuff behind and get on with the business at hand. These people have better things to deal with.
June 11, 2008

9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

PonchoVia - Do you really think you live in a Theocracy?

Like I've said to every Athiest I talk to - Believe, or don't believe in whatever you want. Just spare me the flailing around about Theocracy and the church running your life.

Why do you guy always have to start in with the ridiculous "sky fairy", "ghost worship" remarks?

It just makes your position look weak and feeble-minded if all you can do is name-calling.
June 11, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

I, for one, would like to know the point of praying before a meeting? What is that supposed to accomplish? Same thing with swearing on a bible before giving testimony. People are still going to lie and look out for their best interests whether they involve god or not. Besides, if you're asking for guidance from god, why do you have to ask him? Shouldn't he know that already?

IT's incredible what so many people will believe.
June 11, 2008

9:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

sqjnk writes:

i want to start a session of the city council with a prayer to the omniscent one, he whose noodley appendages stretch across time and space. I'm of course speaking of the one and only true deity...the flying spaghetti monster. may he bless us all with noodles cooked just right and may we bask in the glory of his saucy goodness. amen
June 11, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

jr_mcmillin writes:

Cwillyrun1......... Nice post! All I'll add is: DITTO
June 11, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

MarineGrunt-

First. It's "pray", not "prey".

Second. I AGREE that prayer should NOT have to take place before the entire assembly, but should be available if desired BEFORE government business in a separate chamber.

As far as falling numbers in church are concerned - you should be dancing with glee! This is a sign of the US moving in a post-Christian direction.

Of course, those church numbers are exploding around the World (China, Africa, South America, even Russia) where they have had their fill of the alternative.
June 11, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Okay, I'm not Christian, but even I think this is ridiculous.

1. The prayer is being conducted BEFORE official business is commenced, so the argument of "tax dollars being used for it" doesn't apply.

2. No one is being "forced" to participate or even listen. There is not even any indication of retaliation for those who don't wish to participate. Therefore the argument of being free "from" religion is null and void.

Are you saying that no one is allowed to pray on government property? Or that you can only do so if it is non-verbal? Either way, that is a clear violation of the freedom of religion.

I may not agree with what these folks are doing, but that doesn't mean I have the "right" to take it away from them. Just like I don't have to like what other folks have to say, but have to support their right to say it.

It's easy to support the rights of others when we agree with what they are doing, but not so easy when you don't, is it?
June 11, 2008

9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

So, the Freedom of Speech only extends to the religious sect?

No, but Freedom of Stupidity extends to everyone.
June 11, 2008

9:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

pjmama and her ilk state that these folks who don't want superstitious beliefs pushed upon them while in a captive audience are "intolerant".

hypocrisy at its finest.
June 11, 2008

9:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

farsidefan writes:

TC, great post from Matthew. Grunt I agree with some of what you say. My solution would be a minute of silence so those that wish to pray may do so silently and then get on with the meeting. If you want to pray go ahead. If not, you have a moment of silence.
I believe more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other cause. Crusades, Inqusition, etc.
Did you know that Colonel Chivington who led the raid at Sand Creek Massacre here in Colorado was actually a Methodist minister ? How about the massacre that the Mormons completed by wiping out the wagon train of homesteaders that were traveling across Utah ?
This continues today with the Islamic Extremeists.
June 11, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

You're right MarineGrunt. The knee jerk Christian finds it easy to point to the bible to justify their (frequently) un-Christian behavior but seem to have a tough time with the other (more difficult) parts like taking care of the poor, loving your neighbor, etc. If so many Christians practiced what they preach, you would never see another homeless person on the street. Rich Christians would give up large portions of their wealth to help the less fortunate (instead of swindling more and more money out of their ignorant flocks). It's quite clear that they can't even follow the quote from the BIBLE above about not praying in public.

In all fairness, all people are hypocritical to some extent; it's called being human. But wrapping up your hypocrisy in religion or even patriotism must be the greater sin. Disgusting.
June 11, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Steph says - "seem to have a tough time with the other (more difficult) parts like taking care of the poor, loving your neighbor, etc"

Are you serious?!

The Christian Church has founded more schools, more hospitals, and far more charity organizations than any other movement in history.

How many hospitals have the Athiests founded?

What was the name of the hospital YOU were born in?
June 11, 2008

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Domino writes:

RegusPatoff writes:

"Folks, this is a democracy, where 50.1% gets to make the rules... and if the folks actually serving on the City Council in Grand Junction are okay with the opening prayers, then outside groups need to sit down and shut up. This, along with most other claims disguised as "imposing Christianity on others" is NOT a violation of the First Amendment, but it is an issue of abusing the First Amendment. To my knowledge, there have never been any laws made by a Federal or State Congress that violate the First Amendment EXCEPT those that say that prayer cannot be conducted by a government group or agency. See, Grunt, THAT works both ways too."

You have our government completely wrong. There is no tyranny of the majority. In fact, Madison feared this. The rights of the minority (those of the 49.9%) are protected in the American system of government.
June 11, 2008

9:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Different story... same old positions.

To my Christian brothers and sisters out there; keep the faith.

To my athiest brothers and sisters out there; to believe or not believe is your CHOICE. Good luck with that.
June 11, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Yes, Cowboy63. Do you think all the church-created hospitals, schools, etc. would have been created if they weren't bringing in a LOT of money to the Church? If I remember right, ST. Josephs, St. Lukes, et al. have crucifixes in each room and a chapel in the building. Weren't these hospitals all run by nuns when they were formed? I don't know that answer; maybe you can tell me. The point is, these organizations would never have been built if they weren't giving some benefit to the Church. Where in the Bible does Jesus say that he would never give help to someone unless he got something out of it?
June 11, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

sqjnk writes:

"The Christian Church has founded more schools, more hospitals, and far more charity organizations than any other movement in history."

as long as we're throwing out hyperbole...
the christian church has also caused more genocides, destruction of cultures and racism than any movement in history.

there's the problem, religion is a double edged sword, and depending on whose wielding it, it can be used to defend and stand up for what is right, or used to destroy and enslave. christianity, like most religions has done a lot of both.
June 11, 2008

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

MG- Let's look at your interpretation of having a right as meaning also having the right FROM. Let's use another example. Someone is on the street corner expounding on his religion's beliefs. Does my right of religion, and being free FROM, mean that he no longer has the right of speech and religion? No, particularly when I have the option to WALK AWAY. No one forces me to stand there and listen to him. My right to being free FROM is not infringed upon if I CHOSE to stay there and listen- I am voluntarily relinquishing that right.

There is no difference. You are interpreting that being free FROM means you have the right to impose your right over anyone, anytime, and anywhere. In other words, that your rights supersede everyone else's. And that simply is not so.

Like I said, it's easy to support the rights of others when you agree with them, but no so easy when you don't.
June 11, 2008

10:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Steph - You didn't answer the question:

What was the name of the hospital you were born in?

What was the name of the last hospital you were in?

What is the name of the organization that shows up at every national disaster? (hint: it has a red cross in it's logo)

Just learn how to graciously concede a point when you know it is true. You'll sound a lot more grown-up that way.
June 11, 2008

10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

We're supposed to be discussing the right to speech, not whether religion is beneficial, but...

Part of the reason I left Christianity was precisely because of what is being mentioned on this board:
1. Hypocrisy of Christians and the Church in general. Most Christians I've met espouse one set of ideals, but live another, yet seem to think they so superior than others. It's worse in the Church- popes consorting with prostitutes, priests abusing children, and so forth.
2. Look at the atrocities committed in the name of religion- Crusades, Inquisition, forcible conversion of "heathens", etc. If I were Christ, I'd be ashamed of what was done in my name.
3. Christianity has historically been used as a tool to control the masses, and a way to raise money. Look at the medieval period- the church basically WAS the government.
4. Christians interfere where they have no business. For example, birth control has nothing to do with salvation!

I think the harm Christianity has done far outstrips the good. It would be the other way around if Christians would allow for the right of others to live the way they wish. It's one thing to minister to those who are receptive, but quite another to force it down the throats of those who are not.
June 11, 2008

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Charles_B wrote - "All you have is your Bible as your "proof"."

Here's a little biblical action for you:

"EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess..."

that includes you.
June 11, 2008

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"To my athiest brothers and sisters out there; to believe or not believe is your CHOICE"

you know it, cowboy, but you're not addressing the lack of CHOICE this captive audience has in regards to listening to others chant about their beliefs in the supernatural.

why is it again that these folks can't go to a taxpayer funded meeting and be free from your religion?
June 11, 2008

10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Cowboy63. I was born in Valley View Hospital in Thornton. I have not been in a hospital since having my tonsils out at Children's. Now, maybe you will be so good as to answer my questions.

The Red Cross does much good work but do you remember how corrupt the upper echelons were during Katrina? Do you know how much money they take in as opposed to how much they put out? Are you really so dim to not realize these are BUSINESSES?

Also, please tell me where it says in the Bible that Jesus would not help people if he didn't receive some $$ benefit from it.

ARe you also aware that groups like Salvation Army offer food and shelter to homeless people BUT ONLY after they've sat through a sermon? They have also worked against liberal groups (including gays).

One last question, Cowboy. When was the last time you gave a sizable amount of money or offered food and shelter to someone standing on the corner of an intersection with a cardboard sign? Be honest now.
June 11, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

jay, my man - You should read my earlier posts.

I AGREE WITH YOU. Any kind of prayer (Christian or otherwise) should be done BEFORE any government business and on PRIVATE time in a separate area.

I want to hear about all the traumatic Christian oppression non-believers have suffered in their lives?

(Did some mean old churchlady take you by the ear and make you say, "now I lay me down to sleep..."?)
June 11, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

sqjnk writes:

yo cowboy...i'm not bowing or getting down on my knees. here's some counter questions for you

what religion does the klu klux klan align itself with?
What religion was hitler?
which religion has often used "heathen" as an excuse to murder?
which religion has been paying out millions to those children who were abused while it looked the other way?

"Just learn how to graciously concede a point when you know it is true. You'll sound a lot more grown-up that way."

their is light and dark within all.
June 11, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

MarineGrunt, " If atheist do not want to hear a prayer before a meeting starts, it's their right to delay entering until the prayer is over."
Your correct. But, could the christians not do the same? Why must the non-believers leave?"

Actually, anyone who doesn't want to pray or doesn't want to hear it, has the option of being late to the meeting! No one is forcing it down anyone's throat. Or better yet, the prayer session should start 5 min before the scheduled meeting time so it won't be during government business time. They can consider it their potty break.
June 11, 2008

10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Any kind of prayer (Christian or otherwise) should be done BEFORE any government business and on PRIVATE time in a separate area."

yes...like in homes and/or churches, cars, etc. no need to bring superstitious rituals to a public meeting place. simply not necessary. they are more than welcome to indoctrinate their own friends and children on their own time, in their own homes, churches, cars, backyards, etc.
June 11, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

yo, sqjnk - "their is light and dark within all"

First. It's "there", not "their".

"What religion was Hitler?" -

If you think he was a Christian; you might want to know the answer before you ask the question.
June 11, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

I like farside's suggestion of just having a moment of silence. Silence is golden....
June 11, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

"I want to hear about all the traumatic Christian oppression non-believers have suffered in their lives?"

How about the last 7.5 years with an idiot who believes god talks to him daily and has run our country into the toilet?

BTW, you haven't answered my questions.

"Just learn how to graciously concede a point when you know it is true. You'll sound a lot more grown-up that way."

That's clever, coming from a person who believes in fairy tales.
June 11, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

MarineGrunt - ???

I concede logical points all the time; like EARLIER IN THIS SAME POST where I agreed with the concept that prayer should not be done on government time.

If you bothered to make any sense (as opposed to your usual rant) you might be taken seriously.
June 11, 2008

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

He hasn't answered my questions either MarineGrunt.
June 11, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

MarineGrunt,

I see many posters here that probably agree with me. I guess this is an issue for Grand Junction, anyway.
June 11, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

sqjnk writes:

i do know the answer...

Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth, and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church.

http://www.infidels.org/library/moder...

Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." Years later, when in power, he quoted those same words in a Reichstag speech in 1938.

Three years later he informed General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church, and the church never left him.

"Just learn how to graciously concede a point when you know it is true. You'll sound a lot more grown-up that way."

you know what i meant, pointing out gramar mistakes is petty.
June 11, 2008

10:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Grunt, your simplemindedness about this subject is really getting old. One thing, it's written in the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights, that a person has the right to freedom of speech (one of the many amendments to the Consitution). Maybe you took the social studies class at Overland with the teacher who was actually covering political science instead of geography!

Nowhere did I say that a particular group doesn't have any rights under the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but twist it how you may, you still lose out. Freedom of speech is absolute for any group, not just those you wish it to be applicable to. For one, you believe it shouldn't be in your government, and as the "government" goes, it's not. But government contains citizens, and their rights do apply whether you agree with it or not. Again, a simpleminded view on this has failed you. If people like you had their way, we could end up like those in the middle east, where Christians are persecuted for their beliefs and they're not allowed to practice their religious beliefs because it doesn't fit with what one group believes. Nobody is stopping you from practicing your religious beliefs, or lack thereof, so get off the horse and quit trying to dictate your beliefs onto others.

By the way, I'm not religious...... so the generic labeling you're trying to apply to everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't working. Quit being so sensitive and whiny!
June 11, 2008

10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Steph - said "How about the last 7.5 years with an idiot who believes god talks to him daily and has run our country into the toilet?"

That's the extent of the tortuous Christian oppression you have to offer?

(btw: haven't the democrats been in control of the house and senate the last two years?)
June 11, 2008

10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

cowboy...are you really trying to say that christians don't oppress folks?
June 11, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Charles-B/MG: I work for the gov't, so I'm a little more aware of the rules than are you. First, rights aren't solely reserved to private property- which is why prayers can be conducted on gov't property, such as during senate, military functions, etc. Second, you seem to be missing the fact that it is being conducted PRIOR to the conducting of official business.

Your comparison is apples and oranges. So, if I'm sitting in my cubby at work, I'm not allowed to discuss with a co-worker my beliefs (whether religious or not) during my 15-min morning break (mandated by law)? Just because I work on gov't property? Nope, your rationale doesn't fly. Just because I'm a government employee working on government property doesn't mean I automatically lose all my rights (whether speech or religion) as a private citizen. Even in the military we didn't- they were simply restricted to *the minimum necessary* to avoid conflict with our job. Same applies here.
June 11, 2008

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Steph, your post at 10:48........ can you elaborate more on how you've been oppressed by religion with Bush in power? How has his religious beliefs interrupted your basic rights, and how has his daily conversations with God oppressed you? What's your definition of "oppression"??
June 11, 2008

11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

No Cowboy, that's not the only one I can think of. I just thought, wrongly, that you would get the point. Is the last 7.5 years not enough for you?

OK, how about priests telling me when I was 6 years old that I was going to burn in hell for all eternity if I lie to my parents?

How about constantly begging my family to give them money for people in the Phillipines when the pope could sell off one of his gowns and feed hundreds of people?

How about having been told that if I don't follow the teachings of Christ, that I'm less than a human?

How about Christian families not letting their young children play with my young children because we are not "Christians?" Not to mention that 5 year olds have no concept of this and just feel like they are not good or there's something wrong with them because they're not invited to their playmates parties?

Do you want me to go on?
June 11, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

I keep hearing about all the vast evils of organized Christian oppression.

All of the churches I've been in lately are busy organizing bake sales, youth rummage sales, car washes, etc. (All of these have to do with things like raising money to feed the poor and boring stuff like that.)

I must have missed the post in my local bulletin that was talking about the beheadings or synagogue burnings happening this week?
June 11, 2008

11:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"All of the churches I've been in lately are busy organizing bake sales, youth rummage sales, car washes," teaching bigotry against gays, etc...

no oppression there...
June 11, 2008

11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

jay - did someone not let you into a church because you are gay?

find a different church, you'll be welcome.
June 11, 2008

11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Steph, I experienced some of the same things you did growing up. That does not mean all Christians are hypocrits or enjoy instilling fear in others. I have overcome the guilt from the church and don't live in the past. Consider yourself a better person if you can rise above all that.
June 11, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Steph, just like every race..... just like both genders...... in religion, there's good and bad people. You have a choice to listen to the good people and avoid the bad people or people you don't agree with. But just because there's some bad people in a certain group doesn't mean labeling everyone in that group the same way is fair or just. It's not.

I have a question..... what do you think about John F. Kennedy as a President?
June 11, 2008

11:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Heidi, nice post at 11:11. I completely agree with you. :)
June 11, 2008

11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Okay,Cwillyrun1. Are you a complete fool to have to ask this? HOw about he's done such harm to our country by following his Christian "father?"

How about starting a disasterous needless war killing 4000+ Americans (some of whom I knew) who were only trying to fight for their country? They were the best of the best and he sent them to their deaths needlessly.

How about the economy being in the toilet and paying the prices we are paying for food and oil?

How about opening the door for even more ignorant or crooked Christians to make their voices heard or have positions of power?

How about making this great country a laughingstock across the world?

How about not paying attention to so many warnings about 9/11 and not doing anything about it because he was more concerned about giving tax breaks to the rich? Is there any other reason this administration was initially against a commission to find out what happened? As I said before, all people are human but wrapping your hypocrisy up in a flag or religion is the lowest of the low.

How about the money and power that's been given to Christians over the past 7.5 years to fight gay marriage?

Maybe you can tell me, how come Christians are both pro-life and pro-war and guns?
June 11, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

cwilly, your following post almost mirrored mine.
June 11, 2008

11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

MarineGrunt -

"I guess we both suffer form the same illness! I am cool with that if you are!"

That will have to do for now, Bro. I bear no ill will towards you or anyone else I disagree with on this string.
June 11, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Grunt, you don't have a right to not be offended. Nobody is stopping you from stating your opinions, so your rights aren't being violated. Freedom of speech means that if a citizen in government decides to practice religion, they can without fear of being persecuted. If someone, like you for instance, decides to practice atheism, you can without fear of being persecuted. Your rights on this subject are the same as anyone else.
June 11, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

cwilly, I'll share my cookie with you if MarineGrunt will allow it. Do I have a choice, Grunt, on what kind it is?
June 11, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

CWillyrun1, you are right about being both good and bad people. I just consider people who try to shove religion down other's throats are bad people. You asked me what oppression I suffered. That's why I told you about the lousy Christians I've met. There are, no doubt, good ones but one never hears of them.

As an earlier poster said, Religion has caused more pain in the history of the world than good. If you've studied the history of religion in teh world, you'll see that people have never stopped killing and fighting other people on the basis that THEIRS is the real god. Once catholics finished fighting the other religions, they started fighting each other (Lutherism, Protestantism, CHurch of England, etc.)

JFK, well let's see. He was a progressive, incredibly intelligent president who was taken out before his time. Had to deal with (once again) religious nuts who were salivating anti-communists. He screwed around with Marilyn Monroe. Was brutally murdered and nobody really knows for sure who or why it happened. More?
June 11, 2008

11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

MG-

1. Being an elected official is no different than being a government employee; once again, it does NOT mean the person automatically loses their rights as a private citizen. Let me explain this again, though you should understand it if you were (or are) in the military. Any right that *conflicts* with their duties is restricted *to the minimum necessary*. For example, though I hate it, a military member can be a member of the Klu Klux Klan, they are simply restricted from participating while they are active duty. In this case of prayer, there simply is no conflict between what is being done by these individuals in their private capacity before they start official business in their official capacity. So, unless you can come up with some justified rationale, the fact that these are elected officials on gov't property is completely irrelevant.

2. You asked "where are you rights on this subject"- the better question might be, why should your rights supersede everyone else's? I asked this before, and you didn't answer. Rights are not unlimited. Yours end where others' begin.
June 11, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'm not gay, cowboy...married and expecting our first...i'm just giving an example of some of the hatred, bigotry and oppression so graciously offered the world on behalf of our superstitious brothers and sisters.
June 11, 2008

11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Cwillyrun1 - good post @ 1120. Put it quite nicely. Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms should not be confused with the "right" not to be offended (under the guise of "freedom _from_ ...").
June 11, 2008

11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

50.1% makes the rules. Not really. It takes two thirds majority in the senate to over rule a presidents veto. Second, if laws are passed by a senate majority and signed by the president they can still be overturned by the supreme court if deemed unconstitutional. This why we have checks and ballances in this country so the majority does not always rule. Just because the majority wants something does not always mean they will get it.
June 11, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Steph, is President Bush the only one to blame for the way our country is right now? And what, other than your opinion, makes you think it's all because of his religious beliefs?

You talk about soldiers dying needlessly, but who forced those soldiers to join the Army, Marines or any service? They knew it was possible they'd actually have to go fight, that serving in the military meant they might have to put their lives on the line. I wonder, how do you feel about the million + Iraqi citizens that died at the hands of Hussein, or the acid baths one family member would endure to keep the rest of the family in line? While I don't want any soldier to die, maybe you should get a better picture of what the soldiers over there fighting think about it. Some like the idea that they're actually helping people to have better lives. For all the reasons why going to war was flawed, there's also legitimate reasons for being over there. I imagine by your logic, that if you were around when Pearl Harbor was attacked, you'd say we shouldn't go to war because servicemen might needlessly die, and why go to war with Germany when they weren't the ones that attacked American soil!

Maybe you didn't know Steph, but in Europe, there's riots over the price of gas. How is Bush responsible for what's happening there? The price of oil is due to OPEC and oil speculators, not the government. By going to alternative fuels using food products, and with the price of food delivery going up due to oil prices, the economony will be affected.

Steph, why didn't Bill Clinton do something about Osama binLaden when he knew many times where he was at? He could've prevented 9/11 as much as the Bush administration could've. Ollie North, in the Iran-Contra hearings in the late 80's, declared before a Congressional hearing that he was fortifying his house because of concerns about him and his family being killed. As he was ridiculed by the Democratic congressman for that statement, a question was asked who could make him that afraid. He said, "Osama binLaden". 8 years of Clinton in power, and Clinton knew binLaden was a danger. Don't lay it all at the feet of the Bush administration when it goes a lot further back than that!

Can you tell me how there's non-Christians that are pro-life, pro-war and pro-guns? Everyone has different beliefs, and if they don't fit yours, deal with it.
June 11, 2008

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Heidi........ I'll share that cookie with you! :)
June 11, 2008

11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Steph, JFK was a devout Catholic..... one of the Christians you despise. I think he mixed his religious views in with his responsibility as President.
June 11, 2008

11:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

kbmoney08 writes:

Steph,

You've made some of the best points on this thread.

Christianity is a terrible mental disease. Cowboy will keep on praying and keep getting nothing because prayer is absolutely futile. Christianity should have no place in government whatsoever, and those who think it hasn't affected public policy in the country are ignorant in more ways than one.
June 11, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

kbmoney08 writes: "Cowboy will keep on praying and keep getting nothing because prayer is absolutely futile."

How big of you to be the judge of what prayer avails one person or another.
June 11, 2008

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

kbmoney08 writes:

Cowboy,

Keep on keepin' on with prayer. Guess I'll see you in heaven? Oh, wait... nope, I sure won't. It's NOT REAL.
June 11, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

A lot of so-called traditions are slowly being phased out. We no longer keep slaves. We allow women to vote. The signs proclaiming "No Irish" have disappeared. Spitoons in city hall have vanished. Cigars and cigarettes are no longer puffed during public meetings. We don't burn trash in public. Children don't work in factories. Jews aren't segregated or run out of towns. America is slowly becoming a more enlightened country, step by step. Opening civic functions with invocations is another outdated tradition we can do without. We're a nation of mixed beliefs and having a secular government is a recognition of that, as well as a sign of respect for all people.
June 11, 2008

12:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Cwillyrun1, The people who joined the military did so to protect and support this country. Fighting in Iraq is not protecting or supporting this country. Many of them joined after 9/11 only to find themselves sent to a different war that didn't have to be fought. Why didn't we keep going after bin Laden?

Regarding 9/11, why don't you read about the August 2001 PDB and see how clear it was that the terrorists were going to use airplanes to crash into American landmarks. 9/11 happened on W's watch, not Clinton. He was in power more than a year and half before it happened. Can you imagine the Repugs if it had happened during Clinton's presidency????

Bush's religion is responsible because he's said (many times) that he only listens to his Christian "father" and knows that everything he does in "his" service. He's convinced he's right because of this. It's a shortcut to thinking. You need more?

Anyone who would support Bush after what he's done has absolutely no credibility and cares more for their fairytale beliefs than the health of this country. The most heartening thought is that history will be extremely unkind to W and his followers/apologists.
June 11, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

Cowboy, JFK was indeed Catholic (which, if I remember right, caused quite a stir with non-catholic Christians at the time). He was ALSO an intelligent man and his religion was not the primary reason for his decisions. Unlike a very dangerous idiot that we all know.
June 11, 2008

12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

steph: "As an earlier poster said, Religion has caused more pain in the history of the world than good."

But is religion always the cause, or just the excuse?

When a man gets drunk watching the Broncos lose, and gets mad and smacks his woman around, is it the Broncos fault? Or, was there something in the booze bottle that caused him to want to beat on her?

Or is he just a mean jerk throwing his weight around, and the alcohol lowered his inhibition, while the Broncos became his excuse: "She deserves it because she should know not to irritate me when the Broncos lose a big game like this."

Most wars are about power, getting power and taking away power; religion is generally a tool that is used to get people to fight in a war for power. And that's all I have to say about that.
June 11, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Steph writes:

I would also recommend The Commission. It's a new book solely about the forming of the 9/11 Commission and the White House's stonewalling and trying to control what was discovered.
June 11, 2008

1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

zweebil....... maybe you should post that comment to MarineGrunt, making the same stupid remedial BS rant before you did. He's the one that said the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are NOT the same. What I said is that the amendment guaranteeing our freedom of speech is in the U.S. Constitution specifically. Try reading the posts, and try really hard to remember who wrote what. It's not that difficult! How do you expect to be taken seriously when you're just a level above Alzheimer's?

Just so you know, labeling me as conservative isn't working because I'm moderate. I'm independant, and believe both Democrat and Republican politicians fail Americans. I can't fault you having Alzheimer's for that mistake, so maybe it's schizophrenia? Either way, you're wrong. Fact of the matter is, Bill Clinton could've done something back then and he didn't. Guess he was too busy porking Monica, right?
June 11, 2008

1:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

Steph, JFK certainly did inject his beliefs into his responsibility as President. It's just that one is okay when it fits your opinion and the other is not when you don't like the person. If you like reading, read up on that part of Kennedy. I have several books on him I can loan you.

I don't agree with everything Busy does, but since the war in Afghanistan and Iraq started, American soil has not been attacked again by terrorists. What explanation do you have for that?

I wonder.... are you one of the people that deludedly believes the government blew up the twin towers?
June 11, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

bs alert:

"Just so you know, labeling me as conservative isn't working because I'm moderate. I'm independant"

getting deep in here, cwilly...please try to keep the discussion intellectually honest...or just honest if you can't be intellectually valid.

i find these discussions nearly always take the same course. first, the fundamentalists complain that it's always been this way because we're a "christian nation". after this myth is debunked, the discussion inevitably moves on to the american talibanesque whining that it's "intolerant" not to allow them to push their beliefs in the supernatural on others. once that position has been proven invalid, the superstitious among us always try to take another run at making the ridiculous case that there is no separation of church and state in america.

predictably irrelevant.
June 11, 2008

1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

sldfkd writes:

Ok, this is getting old. First of all, why should this atheist group care? They claim they don't have a religion, so it's not like praying is offending their religion! If anyone should be offended, it's the muslims, or some other religion that's not being treated exactly like Christianity. If it is offending the atheists, then, quite frankly, they are religious, their religion being anti-religion. Second point: All of you here are treating atheism as if it's the universal "neutral" point. Well, Atheism is far from proven, so at the present moment, atheism is simply another religion, and therefore it should not be given rights different from other religions. I suggest that all the different religions can have their own seperate room to pray in at the beginning of the meeting, and since Christianity is the largest religion, I don't see why they shouldn't have the main room!

But I agree, keep away from all the dumb modern spirit universalism crap.
June 11, 2008

1:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I think the non-believers in this particular God are being offered the wrong choices. Participate of keep silent leaves out the best choice there is. While the Christians are praying, the others should loudly sing the words from "Louie, Louie".

If asked to shut up or leave, then religion is truly outed in this example. If their singing is taken as a lack of respect to God then the whole thing becomes about forcing folks to respect old Jehovah and his improbable son.

Pray in the parking lot, or better yet pray in your heads.
June 11, 2008

1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

sorry...i also forgot the predictably ridiculous cries of "atheism is a religion!!!"
June 11, 2008

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

jay writes: "sorry...i also forgot the predictably ridiculous cries of "atheism is a religion!!!""

Atheism is a religion - the religion of Self as God.
June 11, 2008

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

For Marinegrunt. Boy you are a glutton for punishment from the religious ones. I admire your stamina.

Many of us, me included, carry a lump of resentment toward Christian behaviors, especially those that effected us personally. I would love to see them driven to worship only in: their homes, churches, cars, schools, private property, heads, closets and all other non public property.

That is never enough for them; so we get public lead or imposed prayers whenever we let them have an inch.

A moment of silence is okay then? Why? As I mentioned, music is so soothing and uplifting. Why not sing an Irish song during the prayer?

Could it be because of the Christian disapproval that we would see on their pinched little faces? Or the shooshing we would get? or the angry remarks to shut up or leave the room?

I think this is funny, the Christians looking for little tiny puffs of persecution.
June 11, 2008

1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

nope...atheism is not a religion...no more than the intolerance of bigotry can be defined as bigotry itself.

nice try though
June 11, 2008

1:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

zweivierzwei comes on this thread with a vengeance. But he is making perfectly good sense when he is not hurling creative insults! Very entertaining!
June 11, 2008

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

what do you think the american version of the taliban have been trying to do, toenee?
June 11, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

rgiscard writes:

Sqjnk:

Ramen!
June 11, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

zweivierzwei, actually it was the comments directed to NotCharles_B that I was referring to!
June 11, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Atheism is the Religion of Self.
June 11, 2008

2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Actually, I'll revise that: Atheism is the worship of self.
June 11, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Question: How do you know someone’s CHARACTER?
Answer: You observe his/her behavior OVER TIME.

Christians are NOT warmongers. They are NOT haters. They are NOT power-seekers in the secular world. ANYONE WHO CONSISTENTLY BEHAVES THAT WAY IS NOT A CHRISTIAN.

Jesus taught us LOVE, not hate. The only time He showed anything approaching anger was when the moneylenders in the temple defiled it – His Father’s house. He showed love to people of all types, including many categorized as sinners. We are to follow His example. We are to live in the world, but maintain our ethics and values. YOUR SECULAR LAW allows us to do that, and allows us to protest what we consider immoral. It also allows us to try and influence others to vote in support of our values. If we get a significant majority, and the courts agree, we can get laws passed the same as you can.

Christians are taught to love the sinner, but hate the sin. It’s hard, but we try. That’s better than most of you do – you hate us just for being Christians. You insult our intelligence, our faith, and our God. That’s bigotry to the max!

For those folks who will start whipping out the Old Testament – forget it. Jesus lives and He eliminated almost all the old laws, except for the 10 Commandments. He superseded them. I won’t argue it with you. You are free to read it differently, and you’ll be wrong. Too bad.

I submit to you:
- There has NEVER, in modern times, been a single war started by a true Christian. There have been a lot of wars started by self-proclaimed Christians for reasons of political power, influence, and – of course – greed. But NEVER for a truly “holy” reason. This includes a so-called Catholic Hitler, the POLITICAL Catholic-Protestant wars in Ireland, and the POLITICAL war called the Crusades. They were all POLITICAL wars.
- Anyone who starts a war “in the name of Christ” is NOT a Christian, by definition.
- There have been true atrocities committed in the name of various religions – absolutely
- There have also been BILLIONS of small acts of kindness and compassion – mostly unnoted and unheralded – provided by compassionate people in churches, mosques, and synagogues over the millennia.

And – before you start off on “a 2000-year-old fairy tale” let’s check YOUR beliefs by answering one simple question:

Where did everything – all matter and energy in the universe – come from?

And, I want an answer that meets the same scientific standards you would hold us to in answering to our beliefs. None of this “It came from nowhere. It was always there and always will be there. “ PROVE IT, the same as you want us to prove the existence of God.

I’ll save you some typing – YOU CAN’T.

You can only respond the same as us: We have faith. So do you, whether you like it or not. We have faith in God, you have faith in whatever.

That’s FINE with us. Believe what you want. But STOP CALLING US NAMES and insulting our God just because we don’t have the same faith you do.
June 11, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Rather, atheism requires a leap of faith that everything in the universe can and will be discovered and understood through reason. "

not so much. i'm an atheist and simply don't believe in the supernatural.

how is that a "leap of faith"?
June 11, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Man! P_Denver -

When you lay it down... you lay it down STRONG!
June 11, 2008

2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

"not so much. i'm an atheist and simply don't believe in the supernatural.

how is that a "leap of faith"?"

This is the funniest thing I've read today.
Believe-to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so.
Faith-belief that is not based on proof.
Discuss.
June 11, 2008

2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Yes, zweivierzwei, the more I get to know you, the more I understand you. Balance is the key!
June 11, 2008

2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I`m a Lacacluest and I am getting darned tired of being ignored here with my suggestions that those who disapprove of public prayer lead by an elected person, should sing.

Why should nonbelievers be asked to leave the room, stand silently or go along with this?

Why can`t they sing or recite the periodic table of elements.?

Does no one see any humor in this or am I destined to be the only poster who can offer something different to think about?
June 11, 2008

2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

me2 is a person, too! Everyone quit ignoring me2!

"Why can`t they sing or recite the periodic table of elements.?"

Probably because they are agnostic, rather than athiest, as zweivierzwei differentiated above.
June 11, 2008

2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Atheism requires, by default, a belief that reason will uncover and understand everything in the universe."

really? who says? you? i will certainly lean towards science to explain the unexplained phenomenon in the universe over bedtime stories about supernatural beings...but you're still not making the case that atheism is a religion.

can't be done.

as i said before...being intolerant of bigots does not make one a bigot. not believing in religion does not make one religious.

as i mentioned before, we see this type of desperate rationalization as part of the predictable progression during these type of discussions...by the way...did we skip the obligatory attempt to say that there is no separation of church and state or did someone already debunk that religious right myth today?
June 11, 2008

2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

Religion-a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
June 11, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Heidi, thank you, I used to get such insulting remarks thrown my way. Have I become boring or irrelivent lately?

Just kidding, I post, therefore I am. Libra ergo sum.
June 11, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

jay writes: "being intolerant of bigots does not make one a bigot."

Maybe not, but it definitely makes you intolerant.

You're equally guilty of the same close-mindedness you acuse others of.
June 11, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Spencer writes:

An agnostic is simply someone who believes that all these different religious beliefs are "unknowable". How can anyone argue with that? Can you prove your religious beliefs are true? How can they be anything but belief in the "unknowable"?
June 11, 2008

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol...cowboy, fantastic example of the kind of pourous argument about which i'm speaking.
June 11, 2008

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Kinetic1 writes:

Why are we praying anyway?! GET TO WORK!!
June 11, 2008

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

jay - ???

First. It's "porous", not "pourous".

I don't even think you know what the hell you're talking about anymore.
June 11, 2008

2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

me2,
"I used to get such insulting remarks thrown my way."

This is not the time and place to offend you. Be happy.
June 11, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

zweebil......... here you go, short bus. This is from Grunt at 9:28 am. I don't believe I have to post it, since you're having a hard time with your mental shortcomings, I'll help you!

("Grunt, I think you need to learn more about the Constitution and about freedom of speech."
Bill of Rights! Bill of Rights is what you were looking for here. Maybe you should take a remedial Social Studies class!!)

Does that help? I mean, if you want someone to read it to you, just ask. You want to talk about credibility, how do you have any when you can't even get this small piece of information correct? I don't think it'd be hard for you to get a helmet and a handicap sitcker! Let's try this, the Constitution is separate from the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments. They are not one and the same, even if they go together. Is that a good enough explanation for you?

Another thing, don't assume what I am since you are truly clueless. I'm more of a Libertarian than anything, and I believe in less taxes and less government. That automatically disqualifies me as Democrat or liberal since I believe people should help themselves out instead of expecting the government and everyone else to bail them out. That's what Democrats believe in! Republicans and conservatives are for big business, and I'm not really for that either.

I wonder, why should anyone be jealous of Bill's BJ, as you put it? Monica's fat and ugly, and that's what Bill's attracted to (See Hillary Clinton). Maybe that's what you like, but not everyone shares that view. What he did was not take the White House and the Presidency seriously. I mean, it's like a little boy his first time trying to get away with it with his parents downstairs. Regardless, Bill Clinton did NOTHING to get binLaden when he knew where he was at, and please stop with the excuses of why he didn't. Blaming the Republicans is pathetic and typical of liberals and Democrats, just like it is on the opposite side of the fence. As I said, both parties are failing America!

About the atheists and their complaint..... get a life.
June 11, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

Me2 - I will use the moment of silence suggested earlier to daydream about what song you are singing. ; )

The belief system I use is the "Golden Rule" - all it requires is personal responsibility.
June 11, 2008

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ashley writes:

I don't believe there should be a prayer. But I also don't believe all religious folks are the root of all evil. Nor do I believe non-religious people are evil. We're all just people, all believing what we choose. I'll continue not believing in God, and you continue not trying to make me believe in God. Then we can all get along and play nice, yes? Right up there with freedom of religion is separation of church and state. I won't encroach on your right to believe in God if you don't encroach on my government. There will always be people who bleat that religion is going to kill us all, just as there will always be people who wail about an overabundance of the stuff. You can't change it, so let's all just step back and take a breath.
June 11, 2008

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Laugh all you want, jay, but it seems to be true.

You are biased against Christians, because you believe that ALL Christians are bigots, who employ "desperate rationalization" to make their case.

Bias is the belief, bigotry is the action.

It follows then that you totally discount any comment, concern, complaint, or suggestion by a Christian.

Are you saying that you don't believe all Christians are superstitious idiots, worshiping some weird phantom in the sky? Therefore, anything they propose is pure lunacy?

That sure sounds like intolerance to me.
June 11, 2008

3:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cwillyrun1 writes:

nice post pajama, the same people accusing Bush's people of taking it away would like to do the same to others.

jay, sorry to burst your bubble, but I vote for whoever I think is the best choice, regardless of party affiliation. You be the sheep for your favorite party, and I won't stop you.
June 11, 2008

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

this is an absolutely ridiculous statement, pjmama:

"Why would anyone want to deny a fellow American their 1st Amendment rights?"

i see a lot of folks who believe that they shouldn't have others' superstitious beliefs forced upon them while in a captive, taxpayer funded audience...but i don't see anyone denying a fellow american their 1st amendment rights.

"You are biased against Christians, because you believe that ALL Christians are bigots, who employ "desperate rationalization" to make their case."

do you know what a strawman argument is, p?

you're in danger of using one with that statement.

i am not intolerant of the bigotry of ALL christians because not ALL christians are bigots...just those who are opposed to giving all americans equal rights.

and yes...i'm intolerant of bigotry...but that doesn't make me a bigot.
June 11, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

me2: I do not think people should sing the periodic chart of the elements as the invocation at the beginning of a meeting, because there are 'element agnostics' who believe that all matter and energy arises from Earth, Wind and Fire, and I do not want that particular musical group to ever be granted equal time. Because that would lead to the Tower of Power, then the Village People, and finally of course, the Agnostic Apocalypse. Sing at your own peril.
June 11, 2008

3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"jay: Are you actually calling for these people to be silenced? Don't you realize that puts you on a footing with Hitler and Stalin? What on earth are you thinking? The SCOTUS has ruled time and again that prayer is protected speech.
Think about what you are saying! Do you believe in the Constitution or not??? If you do, then you should be defending 1st Amendment rights, not attacking them."

what in the world are you talking about? those folks who choose to put their belief in the supernatural may do so on their own time, in their own places of worship. where did i ever say they couldn't? what they DON'T have the right to do, however, as established, is attempt to indoctrinate a captive audience with said supernatural beliefs.

do you really not understand the difference?
June 11, 2008

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

freedomfighter1 writes:

There is a time and place for everything. Religous cermonies and prayers should not be practiced during goverment exercises or meetings. Those religous goverment employees need to practice their faith based practices on their own time and in there own places. This includes public places, but not during time that they have attributed to speaking for the people.
June 11, 2008

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Charles B-

"Using your logic, if my "religion" tells me I should take a dump on the table before conducting business, does that mean I have a right to do so during the prayer before these council meetings?"

Nice try. That is when a health issue would trump the freedom of religion right. Reference my post to MG about rights not being unlimited.

"There is an implicit endorsement of the Christian religion when *just prior to conducting their official business* there is a Christian prayer. Do you deny that?"

Yes, I do. Gov officials, military, and elected officials are prohibited from explicit endorsement, such as advocating for a political party while in uniform, etc.

Arguing "implicit" endorsements is opening a can of worms, since that is in the eye of the beholder, so anyone could claim that just anything is an "implicit" endorsement. This goes along the lines of "I can say that I know what you're thinking/intending, even though I don't have any proof".

A ludicrous parallel, but just as valid as this situation, would be "I know so and so is a congressman, and he was videotaped drinking during lunch which is technically during government hours, so that means the gov is endorsing drinking".

Or you could argue the same implicit endorsement when an organization helps sponsor an event on base for families of deployed troops (i.e. helping with care packages) even when the flyer states "sponsored by but not an official endorsement of" etc. "Implicit" endorsement critics would argue "oh, Office Depot helped sponsor this event, so the gov't is implicitly endorsing their products".
June 11, 2008

3:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

By the way -- in case someone gets the wrong idea from my 2,999 word rant above (if anyone bothered reading it), I AM NOT in favor of prayer before any public session! Like may of the non-religious in these postings, I believe prayer has a time and place, and it is not part of a secular event. Public prayer in a non-religious setting is inappropriate.

I am looking for is thoughtful respect from others, the same as I afford them, regardless of their viewpoints.
June 11, 2008

3:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"There is a time and place for everything. Religous cermonies and prayers should not be practiced during goverment exercises or meetings. Those religous goverment employees need to practice their faith based practices on their own time and in there own places. This includes public places, but not during time that they have attributed to speaking for the people."

That's right, freedomfighter, when one walks through that door, one loses all rights guaranteed by the constitution. That means not only do I not have the right to free speech or religion, but I don't have the right to life or liberty, all because I chose to become a public servant. Further, per your post above, every US citizen is not entitled to their rights in "public" places, so you can't just get rid of those pesky laws, such as right to assembly (at least the police will be happy that they don't have to worry about public demonstration permits and presence anymore) or right to free speech and religion in public. *sarcasm*

All of you need to look up the laws on workplaces and rights. I have repeated it ad nauseum, and you continue to ignore it- your rights are only restricted where it conflicts with your job. First, there is nothing about prayer that really has anything to do with their position. Second, when these representatives are engaged in prayer, they have not yet begun official business, so therefore are NOT a acting in their official capacity at that moment.

I find it ironic that I'm not a Christian, yet am arguing on their behalf. Do you know why? Because even though it might not be an exercise of a right that I agree with, I understand that the next time someone's right is trampled on, it could be YOURS or MINE. So unless there is a VALID (and I haven't seen one yet on this board) and compelling reason to justify why these folks should have their rights abrogated, then you don't have a leg to stand on and are just complaining about something you either don't like or are simply offended by.
June 11, 2008

4 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

By the way, what do they want to pray about or for? Maybe they should pray that most of us never step anywhere near their courthouse!
June 11, 2008

4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies: Earth, Wind and Fire, the Tower of Power, and the Village People? Pretty crafty there. Plus, it shows your age.
June 11, 2008

4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

pjmama...are you trying to say that there's no separation of church and state in america? if so...you might be completing the far religious right's procedural list when confronted with the fact that they don't have the right to attempt to indocrinate a captive audience...
June 11, 2008

4:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Heidi, better to be insulted, than ignored. O train, I will sing City of New Orleans, and I am thankful to know about element atheists. lol, that really made my day. Personally I have never believed in Argon, but that is just me.

Christians want respect for their chosen moment. Now show some for the singers who stand there doing a little song for you.

I can just see that happening.
June 11, 2008

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'll ask again, pjmama, et al...how is not allowing people to spout on about their beliefs in the supernatural at a taxpayerfunded meeting denying anyone free speech?
June 11, 2008

4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

steel, because only conservative rednecks go to NASCAR races.
June 11, 2008

4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

steel, do you have a confederate flag on your pickup ;)
June 11, 2008

4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

pjmama...after seeing your ilk continually and horribly intellectually brutalized about your willful ignorance in regards to the separation of church and state...i wouldn't want to stick around for the carnage either.

thanks for playing.

steel...people are also "denied" from yelling fire in a theater...is that also a 1st amendment issue or are you going to stick with pjmama and try to make the case that there is no separation of church and state in america and thus people can't be free from your religion in a captive audience.
June 11, 2008

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

jay writes: "pjmama...after seeing your ilk continually and horribly intellectually brutalized about your willful ignorance in regards to the separation of church and state...i wouldn't want to stick around for the carnage either."

...but be sure to remember that jay is neither a bigot nor intolerant - he just has all the answers

(and how dare anyone disagree with him!)
June 11, 2008

4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

No offense, steel.
June 11, 2008

4:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

there you go, cowboy, you may get it yet...as we've established...to point out ignorance does not make one ignorant. to point out bigotry does not make one a bigot. to point out intolerance...well...you get the idea...

by the way...is being intolerant of bigotry or willful ignorance a bad character trait or just inconvenient for you?

oh...and don't pout just because it predictably always comes down to cornering you fundamentalists on the whole separation issue.
June 11, 2008

4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Charles_B

Thank you for the explanation.

I absolutely respect your approach. You may be right on target -- and I may be wrong. I don't think so, but I may be.

In my own logic chain, when I asked myself that question I came up with only one of two rational options: "always was" and "created". There very well may be a third that my mind can't imagine right now.

I chose to believe -- without proof -- the "created" answer. Again -- I could be wrong. So, what are the consequences?

If you're right, I've wasted my life trying to live by a set of morals and behaviors that tell me to love others (and at least tolerate those I can't love!), do good things, and acknowledge my Creator. If I'm wrong, when I die, it ends.

I assume you live your life basically the same way -- do no harm, help those in need, live a good live. When you die, it ends.

But . . . what if I'm right? When I die, I am promised Heaven -- whatever form it takes. I think that will be nice.

If I'm right, when you die, I'm not sure what happens. I truly hope for the best. Maybe there's a second-chance lottery I don't know about. I truly wish ill upon no one.

Anyway, that's why I believe what I believe. I do not think I am morally superior to anyone. I don't think I'm intellectually inferior to anyone.

I don't think other faiths are inferior to mine -- they may get to their Heavens other ways. I don't know, or concern myself with those details. I have enough trouble trying to consistently live my life as I think it should be lived.
June 11, 2008

4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

I always respect P_Denver's posts!
June 11, 2008

4:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

p, that's a very nice way of looking at it and i think if all christians (or folks of any faith for that matter) would hold to your example and "live by a set of morals and behaviors that tell me to love others (and at least tolerate those I can't love!), do good things, and acknowledge my Creator" then the world would be a better place.

the issue arises when the pure teachings of religions like islam and christianity are bastardized by those seeking to further an agenda of hate, ignorance and bigotry. i hope that we see less of the bigotry and hate and a lot more of the love...whether in the mideast or the midwest.

in the meantime, i think the only responsible stance (whether you have "faith" or not) is to denounce those who preach the type of message that give those like dobson and the taliban a bad name.
June 11, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

jay, it's always a good day when, at the end, you and I can agree on principles. And I absolutely agree with your last post. Thanks.

And thanks for the kind words from the others, too.
June 11, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

I think we have spent more time and effort on this than the city council in GJ spends on important matters.

Heidi, I always say the brain God gave me won`t let me believe in anything. What a quandry, but I am just as happy as if I had good sense.

this went better than many I have seen. Not too many posts removed per day.
June 11, 2008

5:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i understand your position, z, but can't agree in principle that atheists' acknowledgements of the negative ramifications of religion (regardless of why those ramifications exist) means that their logic is "tainted".

of course there are those who generalize and believe that ALL muslims are terrorists or ALL christians are abortion bombers...but i don't really think you can paint the vast majority of atheists with that brush as most are educated enough not to believe in such ridiculous generalizations.

on the contrary, i think if more people were to take religions with a grain of salt and adopt from them the teachings based on love rather than some of the teachings based on hate, bigotry and ignorance, that the world would be a lot better off.

maybe if more people pointed athiestic skepticism towards their belief structures, we'd have to deal with a lot fewer who tend to propagate the aforementioned ramifications.
June 11, 2008

5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

wow writes:

I'm not a believer, but this is total nonsense.
Where is it written that anyone must stop doing something harmless, just because it annoys or offends someone else who chooses not to do it?
Life is full of things that we are capable of ignoring. Other people praying is none of my business, because I choose not to participate.
Athiests, show a little tolerance, please. You are every bit as rabid as the preachers that disgust us.
June 11, 2008

5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

NotUrFriend writes:

Marine,

Your hatred for people of belief is profound and rather disgusting. Your dislike is public knowledge, but if your saying everyone else is forcing they're beliefs down one's throat, the only one here seems to be you.

You prabably can tell, but I'm a believer. I dont care rather you believe or not, its not my business. It is my business when you rant and rave stupidly about your 'proudness' in your hatred, and intolarents of other peoples choices, public or otherwise.

Christians the same as suicide bombers? are you retarded or is your name a lie? I have several friends in the middle east (Iraq) who would happily kick your ba**s in at that stupid, profoundly uneducated comment. Maybe a hundred years ago...But hey? welcome to 'modern' society, where we dont need to burn you at the stack for being a 'witch' (unbeliever). I challenge you to find a pastor publically endorsing the killing of innocent people...oh? wait, in th middle east (and now parts of Europe, and here) you see it happening more and more based on "middle eastern *un-named* culture. You seem sure on history, learn modern history before you open your stupid trap, you uneducated religious hating coward.

Have a good one.

Isaac
June 11, 2008

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

z, when you say, "That conflation causes confusion, and this confusion taints the subsequent arguments/logic.", what "conflation are you talking about? as i said before, you're attempt to attribute this type of generalizing to athiests as a whole is ridiculous. did you have another "conflation" in mind? if not, then the point still stands...the logic is anything but "tainted".

wow, where is it written that we can not be free from religious indocrination while in a captive audience? are you so intolerant that you'd think it acceptable to take my rights FROM religion away from me?
June 11, 2008

5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

P_Denver writes:

Charles_B, actually, no. I had not studied this. Thanks for the education! That's one of the main reasons I read these posts, and why I value the input from people who have totally different viewpoints from me.

I'm happy to say I actually came up with my question and answer on my own. I feel a little better knowing someone of historical note had similar thoughts.

The article did not list any definitive rebuttals (other than Voltaire). I'll search for more, but do you have any particular favorites?

And, once again, I'm not suggesting anyone change anything they believe because of me. That would be true hubris. I was just letting people know where I stand so that when I express an opinion they know where I'm coming from. I feel I owe them that.
June 11, 2008

6:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so again, z, we've already discussed the conspiracy theory about the generalizing atheists hords...do i need to repost it?

is that it?
June 11, 2008

6:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

your position is based on a conspiracy theory about a gross generalization, z.

are you surprised i don't agree with it?
June 11, 2008

6:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

like i said before, you simply can't support your "theory" (how's that) without the use of a gross, inaccurate generalization...so...again...are you surprised that i don't agree with you?

it's not as if we're both logically looking at the same issue and have just come up with different credible theories...yours is based on an inaccuracy...so the whole agree to disagree scenario really isn't a good description of what we're doing is it?
June 11, 2008

7:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

just as long as we can agree that your position is invalid because you can't establish it without having to resort to a generalization, z.

do you know what a strawman argument is?
June 11, 2008

7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Thank goodness for religion, otherwise you guys might be getting bored by now. Aren't you getting hungry? I would be ravenous!
June 11, 2008

7:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

wow writes:

Heidi?? That you girl? In the middle of a dogfight again, I see. Religion is almost the world's oldest form of entertainment for good reason. Still, all the animosity over when, where, how and whom is a tad overbearing. This specific case of prayer at work is harming no one.
June 11, 2008

7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Hi, wow! Long time, no see. I have missed you. It was probably healthy for you to stay away.
I don't know how much these guys really care about religion. It's the debate they love, and they are good at it!
I agree that a moment of silence wouldn't hurt, and neither would a prayer 5 min before the formal assembly.
June 11, 2008

7:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

I wonder if any of the self proclaimed athiests now consider themselves agnostic. Great argument there, 242!
June 11, 2008

7:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

wow writes:

Been taking a long needed break from this craziness. Went camping and got recharged. It is COLD up there, lemme tell ya.
I think praying in assembly is the point. My own personal feeling is that they feel like they should "go to god" as a team. I have no problem with that, as such. I think it's silly, and would be put off by it if I was attending, but that's my problem, I figure.
I am polite enough to respect the beliefs of others, and keep my opinions to myself in that setting. I mean, if they asked the group assembled permission to pray, I'd shrug. I don't have to join in.
The problem with politics and religion is both are littered with people who do one thing while preaching another. Then we mix the two...I think it's strangely appropriate.
June 11, 2008

7:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

You can't please everyone all of the time, and it seems that you can't please anyone any of the time anymore. It just takes a little tolerance sometimes for us all to get along. This world would be boring if we were all alike, so we need to embrace the differences. Well, maybe some of them. Not on Mondays, definitely. Not if I am in a bad mood. Not if they are standing in my way and especially if they get in my way in traffic!!!
June 11, 2008

7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

242, I haven't seen any open conversions.

wow, I was supposed to go hike Mt Rainier with some friends last week. They barely missed the storm that took a life yesterday.
June 11, 2008

7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

wow writes:

And definetely not if they are on a cell phone or applying make up.
Differences, shmifferences.
Fact is, I have earthly pressures and issues, and no time to try to please yet another innattentive, arrogant man, be he real or imaginary.
Hell is not my concern, and frankly I can't abide anyone telling me what to do.
That's why Atheism is the religion for me.
June 11, 2008

7:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

wow writes:

Mnt. Rainier in Washington?? Thought you were local.
June 11, 2008

7:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

zweivierzwei, Are you ever totally in a bad mood, or are you up and down? Maybe you just take it out on the people here and so you are perfectly nice to your friends. I'm sure there is still a little feistiness!
June 11, 2008

8:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

I am local. I cancelled my trip. I wonder if they say those lesbians kissing when they were there in Seattle.

Honest and direct wow...tell it like it is! Maybe I don't have enough arrogant, rude, and obnoxious people in my life so that's why I have been hanging out here lately. Or maybe I am just trying to escape reality.
June 11, 2008

8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

wow writes:

LOL, could be some type of boredom induced psychiatric condition. That's what it is for me. That and I missed you especially.

What lesbians?
And more importantly, what god do they worship?
Bawahahaha.
June 11, 2008

8:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Here's the story: (it was at the Mariners' stadium)

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

It made huge national news. I don't know about any gods, but apparently, they worship each other!
June 11, 2008

8:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Have a lemon drop martini for me! Gute Nacht!
June 11, 2008

8:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

wow writes:

Forgive my ignorance...I've been on self imposed CNN blackout. No news of any kind since May 25th. I feel much better now, though.
Thought we were past the whole lesbians kissing in public thing.
Did they pray in public? If so, they gotta be stopped.
June 11, 2008

8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

RegusPatoff writes:

Man... did you guys totally blow this discussion a million miles off target or what? There is still the issue of legislation being requested to prohibit an act of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It's not about what your personal beliefs are, this is an issue of once again ripping the First Amendment to shreds. Study the document folks.
June 11, 2008

8:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

freedomfighter1 writes:

Fiesty
I understand your disagreement with my earlier comment. I have read and understood your "freedom" speech and how your intrest is in protecting their right to assembly and freedom of religion. As my handle implies, I too am concerned for rights and the freedom of speech. However, religion has been used throughout centuries to oppress and subject people. It has been the reason for many wars and millions of deaths. I do not care that those "goverment" officials were Christians, Muslims or Jews (I'd much rather have a Buhdist or other peaceful religious affiliated representative). It is not the prayer as much as it is a public display of religion and goverment. I would hope that "goverment" officials making decisions concerning my life and community, would incorporate in any way religious principals or beliefs. I, think religion is a destructive and negative force. I do not want it mixed in any fashion with my goverment. I have the right for church (religion) to be seperated from my goverment and the decisions made concerning my freedoms and liberties.
June 11, 2008

8:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

wow, total cleansing! Don't allow any more infection to warp your mind. Oh yeah, it's already warped....but in a good way!

If you read the story, you will find that there are some missing pieces of evidence. They were actually offering the Mariner gods a gift of their garlic fries. When approached by the Christian usher, they tried to cover it up by kissing, which only made it worse. Wrong god, wrong sex....
June 11, 2008

10:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Heidi, haven't you straightened people out on this one yet? OK, here it is then:

I am a Christian believer, but I don't see this as a freedom of religion issue. I think the objection of the Godless, hellbound athiests ;-) is just that religious expression should not be part of the official proceedings at a public governmental function like a council meeting. Seems reasonable enough to me. Even as a believer, I know I would get a little irritated if every time I needed to deal with a government employee, I had to wait and let them pray first.

Now if a city councilman wants to speak and state his position and quote chapter-and-verse as his reason for what he thinks, that is a freedom of religion issue. But religious expression should not be sponsored by the government per se.

Jesus taught that we shouldn't pray in public for show anyway. So stop screaming at these heretical athiests on their march to eternal damnation, and say a prayer (in private) for them.

254 posts and counting! Gimme that old time religion debate!
June 11, 2008

10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

sldfkd writes:

Well, it all boils down to this. If you are an atheist, you believe that nothing whatsoever happens when people pray. They are just saying words, nothing else is happening. So if someone gets up and makes an announcement, he's essentially done the same thing as someone who is praying. Because all that's happening is that words are being spoken! That's where your example of dumping on the table falls apart: Taking a dump in public places is considered offensive in this country. Saying nonsensical words to some far off guy who doesn't even exist isn't offensive, unless you're crazy. If I stood up before the meeting and started a one-way conversation with my mother (who's not at the meeting), would you seriously be offended? Try looking at it from other angles, without your religious bias.
June 11, 2008

10:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

sldfkd writes:

Oh, and Russell's teapot theory falls apart at this point: Obviously it is completely irrational and crazy (by the world's standards) to believe in a flying teapot that we can't see! But don't you think it's a bit of a jump to say that no such teapot exists? You are still putting your faith in something. Namely, modern science and reasoning, that states it's irrational to believe in a flying teapot. Granted, it's not as big of a jump, but there is no way to not put your faith in something or other.
June 12, 2008

2:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

brisonc writes:

"is just that religious expression should not be part of the official proceedings at a public governmental function like a council meeting. Seems reasonable enough to me. Even as a believer, I know I would get a little irritated if every time I needed to deal with a government employee, I had to wait and let them pray first."

But this is not the case. The prayer is being offered before official business starts. So there is no issue there.

"Now if a city councilman wants to speak and state his position and quote chapter-and-verse as his reason for what he thinks, that is a freedom of religion issue. But religious expression should not be sponsored by the government per se."

No, this is a 1st Amendment freedom of speech issue. Not an issue of religion. Just because what is being spoken are religious words doesn't make it a religious event. It is personal opinion or viewpoint on an issue. There is nothing wrong with this. If it bores you or angers you then you should reflect on if you have a tolerance problem. The solution is not to tell someone to SHUT UP. Get tolerant.

"Jesus taught that we shouldn't pray in public for show anyway."

But is this what those praying on the council are actually seeking? Are they demanding that everyone be in the room before the prayer? No. So how does that point apply? It doesn't
June 12, 2008

2:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

brisonc writes:

"However, religion has been used throughout centuries to oppress and subject people. It has been the reason for many wars and millions of deaths."

Freedom Fighter. You are ignoring some of the worst purgess and massacres that were done in the name of the secular state? Ever heard of someone named Lenin or Mao or Pol Pot or Stalin or Trotsky?

All of these were secular revolutions where the rulers wished to put their utopian state in place of God and purging(killing) anyone who spoke out in disagreement or defiance. Millions upon millions were killed by these Communist and Socialist revolutionaries in search of the perfect, secular society.

So how is it that religion is the greatest killer of the masses?

Just remember, those who kill always do it in the name of some idea. It could be a religous idea or a secular idea and history shows the worst of both. So "religion" can't be tarred as the worst culprit in history of war and violence. Sorry.
June 12, 2008

2:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

brisonc writes:

"It is not the prayer as much as it is a public display of religion and goverment. I would hope that "goverment" officials making decisions concerning my life and community, would incorporate in any way religious principals or beliefs. I, think religion is a destructive and negative force. I do not want it mixed in any fashion with my goverment. I have the right for church (religion) to be seperated from my goverment and the decisions made concerning my freedoms and liberties."

"Public displays of religion" are perfectly legal if not part of Govt. Business and if this is taking place before the meeting is officially called to order, then it isn't part of Govt. business, but merely a group of people taking part in an activity before a meeting? What if they were talking about their favorite football team before the start of a meeting? Would that offend you? No?

You can certainly refrain from joining in, but you can't tell others to SHUT UP just because you do not wish to partake or join in this private activity before the meeting.

Now if this really bothers you then you have the political tool of "ELECTIONS" and not voting for those particular councilmen you know like to pray before meetings. That is certainly your right, but your idea that religious people can't hold public office unless they only speak secular words just isn't backed by the Constitution.

You only come off an an intolerant person and not someone with a legitimate point. Get tolerant of religious people.
June 12, 2008

3:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

brisonc writes:

"CWillyrun1, you are right about being both good and bad people. I just consider people who try to shove religion down other's throats are bad people."

So forcing humanistic, secular ideas down people's throats is just fine? Such people would be good people? Please explain.

"You asked me what oppression I suffered. That's why I told you about the lousy Christians I've met. There are, no doubt, good ones but one never hears of them."

Then look for them. You just contradicted your own point.

"As an earlier poster said, Religion has caused more pain in the history of the world than good. If you've studied the history of religion in teh world, you'll see that people have never stopped killing and fighting other people on the basis that THEIRS is the real god."

OK, now take the word God and replace it with "truth". You will then find many non-religious movements that killed millions in the name of their understanding of truth or human perfection. The Socialist and Communist revolutions in Russia and China come to mind as well as in Cambodia with Pol Pott. Millions upon millions died in these revolutions that were meant to set up the "perfect society" of human equality without religion.

this only proves that religion alone isn't the cause of tyranny, but rather a lust for power coupled with a talent for manipulating the masses. Sometimes the tool is religion, but sometimes it is other tools; envy, nationalism, desire for utopia.

"Once catholics finished fighting the other religions, they started fighting each other (Lutherism, Protestantism, CHurch of England, etc.)"

But this is true of most movements whether secular or religious. We are dealing with the issue of "human nature" here and not religion per se. Religion is used as an excuse, but not the main cause. If you took religion completely out of it, there would be other ideas that mankind would use as an excuse to find severe disagreements and to start wars. THAT is history.

"JFK, well let's see. He was a progressive, incredibly intelligent president who was taken out before his time."
Actually, he was losing support in large numbers which is why he went to Dallas on that particular day to make a speech and meet with people to try and save his political butt.

"Had to deal with (once again) religious nuts who were salivating anti-communists." Yes, but this was political, not religous.

"He screwed around with Marilyn Monroe. Was brutally murdered and nobody really knows for sure who or why it happened. More?"

This has nothing to do with the issue.
June 12, 2008

5:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

LOUIE writes:

This today, hot off the presses: the Lord has begun to seperate the wheat, by throwing to the winds of eternity, the reason of man; that to be kept and that to be disgaurded. How foolish is mankind to walk away from His infinate creator; you who can not even measure His universe.
June 12, 2008

8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies:

"Heidi, haven't you straightened people out on this one yet?"

One who needs straightening out should not attempt to straighten anyone else out.

"Even as a believer, I know I would get a little irritated if every time I needed to deal with a government employee, I had to wait and let them pray first."

Maybe the government employees should do what Bill Maher accuses GWB as doing: make a quick decision and pray to God later that he has made the right decision.
June 12, 2008

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

I'll concede brisonc's point: If the prayer is announced and completed BEFORE the meeting is convened (and the meeting is started on time), then what's the atheist objection?

But this still leaves open the potential Hebrew/Islamic/Hindu/Buddist/Wicca/whatever objection for equal time, if the prayer is pointedly Christian. And for Christians, I reiterate that Christ said not to make a show of praying in public - it's supposed to be private. Hypocracy only fuels the fires of atheism.

Point #2 also taken: Yes, freedom of speech is the primary issue concerning whether or not a person may express their religious belief at a forum such as a Council meeting (not freedom of religion).

Finally, I had to look up the meaning of the word 'conflation' because of this thread. Bunch of frickin' eggheads! ;-)
June 12, 2008

8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

PajamaPulitzer-

Ref your 11 Jun 1605 post, that's exactly what I posted several times about how easy it is to support rights when it's something you agree with, but much harder when it's something you don't.

We walk a fine line when we try to guarantee everyone's rights. We must always scruntize carefully when we decide to restrict someone's right, to ensure we are doing so to the minimum necessary and that it is truly justified.

When I was in the military, one of the best lines I heard (and agreed with), was that "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
June 12, 2008

8:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

But Heidi, don't you think that if we had to be straightened out first before we could post our warped views, these comment threads would be awfully silent? It's all about me conflating my imperfect ideas with yours, so to speak.
June 12, 2008

9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies,
Ah, yes, it's the ones that need the most straightening out that are the most entertaining!
I see your day has been productive so far. You were able to put your new word in a sentence!
June 12, 2008

9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"OK, jay. It is obvious that you are anything but amicable, or even rational, for that matter."---zweasel

i'm not amicable just because i blew holes in your "theory"?

i either have to agree that your point may be valid or i'm not rational?

make stronger points....or at least don't pout about it when your weak ones get shot down.

"I reiterate that Christ said not to make a show of praying in public - it's supposed to be private. Hypocracy only fuels the fires of atheism."

great point, davies.

the hypocrisy of some religious folks absolutely fuels the ire of those who aren't hindered by a belief in the supernatural.

we are still coming back to the same place. why do these folks at a taxpayer funded meeting feel they have the right to indoctrinate those around them with their superstitious beliefs? what is the problem with simply asking them to keep their private lives private and not force them on a captive audience?

why can't those folks at the meeting be free from religion while their on gov't property on gov't time?
June 12, 2008

9:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Thanks Jay. I differ on the perspective of faith being a hindrance though. I've thought that it must be really difficult to be an atheist. You actually have to place your hope in mankind to do the right thing, or at least do enough right to 'keep a lid on this place' we call Earth. Scary thought.

Plus conversely, all the evil in this world, the atheist must believe originates only in man, rather than from the Dark Dude and his minions. No hope of redemption for one's own misguided acts of evil. Seems very discouraging.
June 12, 2008

9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I don't find reality "discouraging", davies. i'd prefer just to come to terms with the fact that some humans are simply not nice people...rather than take comfort in a superstitious belief that they are really good folks just being influenced by a goblin that lives underground.

i'd rather accept an uncomfortable truth than cling to a comfortable lie.
June 12, 2008

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

jay,

"i'd prefer just to come to terms with the fact that some humans are simply not nice people...rather than take comfort in a superstitious belief that they are really good folks just being influenced by a goblin that lives underground."

It is my opinion that if those not so nice people didn't have the goblin to blame, they would blame someone or something else. Not much personal responsibility there.
June 12, 2008

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Well, like Pontius Pilate said: "What is the truth? We both have our truths." Or something like that.

Your reality, your truth, is apparently what your five senses detect. That does not preclude the existence of other things.

Peace, bro.
June 12, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

true that, davies. as i've said all along...is it possible that the supernatural exists? sure. is it as probable as what science and reason tells us exists. not right now. that may change down the road when your god decides to prove his existence...like we can prove the existence of say...evolution...but until then...i'm going to go with the more probable vs. the possible solution.

heidi...it is true that personal accountability is a big factor in my decision to be an atheist. i believe that we should hold folks personally accountable for their actions...rather than allow them to say "god made them do it" or "the devil made them do it" or "the barking dog next door made me do it".
June 12, 2008

10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

I dunno. Somehow those little incessantly yapping dogs and the phrase 'justifiable homicide' seem to go together in my mind ;-)
June 12, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies,

That makes me think of how the Make My Day law came into play in a town where I used to live. It was all over a barking dog and how a man was denied his sleep because of it. He apparently shot the large dog with a pellet gun, probably just irritating him. The owner figured it out and confronted the sleepless man at his front door with a very large stick. The dog owner was shot dead on the neighbors porch. The shooter was taken into custody but released later due to the Make My Day Law.
June 12, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"No, jay, you refuse to even try to see where I am coming from"--zweasel.

nope. wrong. go back and take a look at the posts. i was happy to consider your position...and happily pointed out that it was invalid because its foundation is built upon an inaccurate generalization. now you're pouting because i won't overlook the fact that your position is invalid because of said reasons.

like i said...come up with stronger points or at least don't pout about it when your weak ones get shot down.
June 12, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

242: You were so mellow, and now you're fighting side is back up. If you get too argumentative, they just tend to dismiss you or shut down. But I know you gotta do what you gotta do...
June 12, 2008

11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

still pouting zweasel?

your position is invalid. period. come to terms with it.

it doesn't make you a bad person. i doesn't mean i "won".

it just means that your position is invalid.

happens to everyone...but don't insult me because i pointed it out to you okay?
June 12, 2008

11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

FU writes:

You guys are clueless. Everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the only real god. Look it up. (he's just as realistic as Jesus)
June 12, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

FU...oh, no, that must mean that I am eating God at this moment! Would that be Holy Communion?
June 12, 2008

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

FU writes:

Yes Heidi, a much tastier and easier to follow religion.
June 12, 2008

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

242, perhaps that is the fluttering I feel in my stomach right now. Here I thought it was due to the lemon drop martini I had last night. Your mention of vodka gave me a craving.
June 12, 2008

11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Here, things started out well, but when I started to successfully use logic to deconstruct atheism, they become broken records"

here we see zweasel, having tried to make a point using an invalid argument based on an inaccurate generalization, resort to lying.

why the lie, z?
June 12, 2008

11:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

zweivierzwei - don't try. Most athiests and evolutionists (like Jay), don't seem to realize that they hold onto their ideas with such a tenacity and refusal to consider challenging concepts that it does, indeed, qualify as "faith".

Look at evolutionary science. There is a whole field of what is called 'problematica' artifacts- artifacts that disprove the evolutionary theory due to their presence where they supposedly could not exist. When confronted with them, even after they have been authenticated, rather than acknowledge that their theory is incorrect or even modify it in anyway, they simply label them as 'problematica' and IGNORE them.

For example, look at the case of the Permian tracks found in New Mexico by an acknowledged evolutionist. In 1987, paleontologist Jerry MacDonald discovered a wide variety of fossilized tracks from several different species of animals and birds, located in a Permian strata. Among the various fossilized tracks were the clear prints of a human foot. However, the Permian strata has been dated from 290 to 248 million years ago- millions of years before animals, birds, dinosaurs, and yes, man, was supposed to exist. In July 1992, the Smithsonian Magazine even did an article on these tracks called "Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts". The magazine acknowledged the mystery, acknowledging "what paleontologists like to call, 'problematica.'" It described what appeared to be large mammal and bird tracks that, "evolved long after the Permian period, yet these tracks are clearly Permian." While it is commendable that MacDonald and the Smithsonian clearly acknowledge the existence of these tracks in a strata that contradicts the current evolutionary theory, it is noteworthy that they highlight only the mammal and bird prints, and don't mention the human footprint found with them. Further, interestingly enough, since these tracks been discovered, evolutionists have not tried to argue their authenticity or debunk them. They hope by ignoring them, their significance won't be noted. Reminds you of a religious fanatic- holding onto their ideas despite reality smacking them in the face.

And this is just ONE of numerous, authenticated, and validated cases. I was amazed to discover just how many of these 'problematica' artifacts existed- rather than being scarce oddities, there is a plethora!
June 12, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

mina says, "Most athiests and evolutionists (like Jay), don't seem to realize that they hold onto their ideas with such a tenacity and refusal to consider challenging concepts that it does, indeed, qualify as "faith"."

really?

another generalization?

no surprises there.

fiesty, how is holding someone accountable for the invalid nature of their position, "refusing to consider challenging concepts"?

is "challenging concepts" code for inaccurate statements?

fiesty, we've done the dance on evolution before...and have discredited any of the "problematica" propaganda that you posted.

care to take another shot? I"m always down for a little debunking session.
June 12, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

My God will surely smite your pitiful Flying Spaghetti Monster god, and then what will become of Heidi? I fear she will be tormented by (Heidi you guessed it) wiggling, writhing pasta- reptilian creatures, for her irreverance. And she's the only one that my God may even bother with, as some of you are clearly too far Lost In Space, just like the sniveling Doctor Smith. Oh the humanity! I will try to remember all of you at the next City Council meeting that I attend.
June 12, 2008

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

Heidi - before your spaghetti & meatballs, did you say grace? ...or did you say a grace for every possible religion?...or did you have a moment of silence?
June 12, 2008

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"it can be fun to throw logic back at them to see where it goes"

again, why the lying, zweasel? your "logic" was found to be anything but. why continue to pretend otherwise. do you think by resorting to willful ignorance about your own position's shortcoming that they will somehow evaporate? furthermore, we've already debunked the atheism as a religion myth above...maybe you should take a look instead of refusing to acknowledge that point as well.

"Interesting about the problematica, but it does not disprove evolution"

this is the most accurate statement you've made to date as far as I can tell.
June 12, 2008

12:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The logic of atheism being a religion is quite airtight"

really?

well then by all means make your case. try not to resort to using generalizations or conspiracy theories this time...as they will once again invalidate your position.
June 12, 2008

12:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

are you going to try to successfully establish your position (unlike last time) or are you just going to continue to run from your own rhetoric, z?
June 12, 2008

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies,
It seems the first time I met you, you threatened me with reptiles. I should be declared a saint since I conquered a false god. Therefore, the gates should be wide open for me.
Although I did forget to say grace before my meal, O_Train, I asked for forgiveness afterwards. So all is well.
June 12, 2008

12:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

242, Why is it that you have some many cute names for Charles_B, but jay is just "jay"?
June 12, 2008

12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

" If you refuse to consider any other points of view beside your own, that is not my problem either."

why are you lying again, zweasel?

can you post an exampel of my not considering another point of view? I considered your proposal...pointed out why it was invalid...and have endured your insults and whining ever since.

can you make the case for your last "theory" that atheism is a religion or not? i'd be happy to consider your point of view...but will warn you that if there are holes in your logic...i will certainly point them out accordingly.

if you can't...just concede the point, stop pouting, and move on, okay? no need to go all psycho on me because i pointed out the fallacy in your position yesterday.
June 12, 2008

12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Jay-ded. JFKrazy. Jayzed and Confused?

Heidi, Jay is hard to make cute names out of. If you're such a saint, help him out.
June 12, 2008

12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

242,
Remember your first comment you made to me the other day, relating me to a fascist? I suppose we got off on the wrong foot. But you still didn't mess with "Heidi".
June 12, 2008

12:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies,
Saints do no such thing. They only deal with important, immortal things.
June 12, 2008

12:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Heidi: Oh! Getting all high and mighty now are we? That really IS "hard to get"...
June 12, 2008

12:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

lol...what did i say about going psycho after getting cornered, zweasel?

again...if you don't like your positions getting shot down...post better ones...and if not...at least have the decency not to pout about it.
June 12, 2008

12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Jay-

1. You twisted my statements. I am making the observation that atheists/evolutionists and religious fanatics have something in common- the desire to hold until their belief with the same intensity (faith) and tendancy to ignore contradictory evidence. I provided problematica artifacts as an example for evolutionists.

2. You can't have discredited ANY problematica artifacts, since we have never discussed them! (I only learned about their existence in the past four months!) How can you say something so blatantly false?? What we HAVE discussed is the evolutionary *theory* in general, and some of its perceived weaknesses. (Contrary to what you think, you never conclusively discredited any of them. As I recall, several other posters even commented on how I had "won" the debate.) We NEVER discussed problematica artifacts.

3. Problematica artifacts are, by definition, those artifacts ACKNOWLEDGED and validated by scientists/archaeologists, with the conclusion they cannot be explained. Therefore, any "discredited" artifact would no longer be considered problematica.

In the case of the Permian footprints, are you saying that YOU are more qualified than the Smithsonian?? I find that extremely hard to believe. MacDonald had them authenticate and validate the tracks through testing- and they did. His report was peer reviewed, and not ONE objection or explanation came up.
June 12, 2008

1:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"Interesting about the problematica, but it does not disprove evolution either."

zweivierzwei- actually it does, at least our understanding and dating of it. If you have bird and mammal tracks appearing BEFORE the dinosaur that is supposed to be their ancestor, it sort of shows that the theory (as currently espoused) is wrong. One of the collaborating scientists from the Smithsonian stated that given these tracks, we need to "throw our evolutionary theory out the window and start again".
June 12, 2008

1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"You twisted my statements. I am making the observation that atheists/evolutionists and religious fanatics have something in common- the desire to hold until their belief with the same intensity (faith) and tendancy to ignore contradictory evidence."

no i haven't. you are still inaccurately generalizing that atheists "ignore contradictory evidence".

pointing out the invalidity of a particular position isn't "ignoring contradictory evidence"...it's crossing off the list of possibilities that which does not hold up under credible scrutiny.

"You can't have discredited ANY problematica artifacts, since we have never discussed them!"

my sincerest apologies. we had another poster with the same rhetoric go through this exercise with the results mentioned. we debunked all of the "problematic" myths and established that while they may raise additional questions...they in no way refuted the scientific consensus behind evolution.

if you have peer reviewed information regarding "Permian footprints"...by all means post the article in the scientific journal in which the peer review process is detailed and i'd be happy to take a look.

z...can you identify the "strawman argument" you think i've made?
June 12, 2008

1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

that's what i thought, z. asking you to provide credible info to support your positions isn't "fundamentalist".

do you mind if i ask if you have a college education?
June 12, 2008

1:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies, you're the one that left me on that other thread.
June 12, 2008

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Hmm, jay, let me get this right. Person has a theory. Then evidence is found (and validated) that questions the validity of that theory. Rather than address the questions it raises, the person simply labels it 'problematica', calls it "puzzling", and goes on with business as usual. You don't call that ignoring it (the contradictory evidence)?? Baloney!
June 12, 2008

1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"ignoring an argument that defeats you is fundie behavior"

okay...i believe you're talking about willful ignorance, right?

can you give me an example of me "ignoring an argument" or are you lying again?

fiesty...you've constructed a strawman argument...specifically because i haven't ignored ANY credible evidence to the contrary...making your point invalid.

if you have credible evidence that you think refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution, i'd be happy to take a look at your links. please post some.

now...having said that...if i can blow holes in your "evidence"...that is not ignoring the evidence...it is simply dismissing information that doesn't withstand credible scrutiny...much like zweasel's arguments have.

understand the difference between vetting info and ignoring it?
June 12, 2008

1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

This is an example of how you twist things Jay. I didn't say YOU ignored a specific example; I provided problematica as an example of how evolutionists do. They have credible evidence that is contradictory to the evolutionary theory, admit it, but then simply label it as "puzzling" and ignore it. (This is usually after they fight every step of the way, arguing that the artifacts are "rare" anamolies, claim they "must" be a hoax without any rationale, or argue that there "must" be an error with the carbon dating.)

Now, if you want to get into specifics, I have provided you an example with the credited Permian tracks. The bird and animal tracks were found in Permian strata, which is dated BEFORE dinosaurs appeared (which is supposed to be their ancestor). So, there are several possibilities. Either the evolutionary theory is wrong about when dinosaurs first appeared, or dinosaurs are not the ancestor of birds and these animals. Either way, there is a glaring error with the evolutionary theory- when it happened or even worse, HOW it happened.

I can give you more cases. You may be surprised at how many authenticated artifacts there are, and at the level at which they were validated- Smithsonian is just a start, others include the Museum of Natural History in London, and even the US Geologic Survery.
June 12, 2008

1:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Saint Heidi:

Didn't neither. And besides, the sun was on my screen.

I thought of a good mockname for you. But I'm afraid you wouldn't speak to me, so I'm just holding it in reserve, all innocent-like, because I'm a good Christian.
June 12, 2008

2:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies, Someday, in a fit of hipocracy, you will make it known.

Now you have me wondering. Shall I say something offensive to get it out of you?
June 12, 2008

2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Go for it! And are you deliberately mocking my previous misspelling of hypocrisy, which jay corrected earlier?
June 12, 2008

2:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Jay. I didn't say YOU ignored a specific example; I provided problematica as an example of how evolutionists do"

and this is a generalization...kind of like "All Iranians are evil".

therefore...your point is invalid.

"Now, if you want to get into specifics, I have provided you an example with the credited Permian tracks."

if you posted a link i missed it...please do so as i'd love to take a look.

zweasel...still no clue what you're "establishing" with this emotional rant of yours:

"But, since you have a problem with logic, apparently, I will start even further back. The point of religion is to explain the unexplainable in the universe. If one rejects that there is anything beyond humanity with comprehension of the universe (like, maybe, gods?), then, it becomes clear that humanity is capable of understanding all in the universe. Humanity uses reason to make sense of the perceptions of the universe as supplied by our sensory organs, and uses this information to compartmentalize the universe. Yet, if there is no higher consciousness, then humanity's reason is the highest form of understanding. Thus, humanity is capable of using reason to explain all in the universe that cannot be explained, and to discover that which has not been discovered (the former statement's logical corollary). However, there is no evidence that humanity through reason can indeed discover and understand everything in the universe. Due to the lack of evidence, it REQUIRES a leap of faith to continue to accept the original premise. Any system of belief that requires a leap of faith can be reasonably described as a religion."

like i said...i have no idea what you're "establishing here. which "position" are you "proving" with this post? I don't see anything about your "theories" regarding my "willful ignorance" or evidence of any "strawman arguments".
June 12, 2008

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

You got me, davies. I guess I was typing too fast. Thanks for pointing out my imperfections. Maybe I am not a saint after all.
June 12, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

palm writes:

Now what in the world do they have to be offended by? They don't believe in God so why don't they just let it be and go on instead of "woe to me cause I don't believe" Don't believe but leave those alone that do. You have nothing to be offended by if there is no God dudes. It's Not like you all can't ignore what isn't real to you Geez. Grow up and move on like Christians do you all. Simple
June 12, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Whoa, hold on now Jay:

jay quoted: "Jay. I didn't say YOU ignored a specific example; I provided problematica as an example of how evolutionists do"

Then jay wrote: "and this is a generalization...kind of like "All Iranians are evil". "therefore...your point is invalid."

One, if someone's argument cites a valid instance in which a certain group of people appear to be mistaken about something, the fact that the argument may have incorrectly or inprecisely identified the group of people in question (all versus some) does not invalidate the entire point of the argument. The group of people can be re-defined, and the argument still stands.

Two, not all generalizations are necessarily wrong and therefore demonstrably invalid. Perhaps all Iranians ARE evil, because all Iranians are human, and all humans are inherantly evil (except Tom Petty, who is not Iranian).

If you pull the 'invalid argument' trigger too quickly, you show your own apparent bias.
June 12, 2008

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Jay, you say the fact that I'm using a "generalization" invalidates the argument. Sorry, but it doesn't. I think it's pretty pathetic that you're trying to use semantics and minutate, which have NOTHING to do with the substance of the argument, as rationale to "invalidate" an argument!

However, in rebuttal- it's NOT a generalization. Evolutionists, as a career field, HAVE specifically created a category called 'problematica' whose sole purpose is to label artifacts into that they can't explain. By doing so, and using it, they ARE deliberately trying to ignore them!

However, those are a very few, rare scientists who DON'T ignore these artifacts, and try to change theories to accomodate them. Know what happens? They end up labeled kooks and their reputations are tarnished.

I already provided you the source information earlier; you want me to do ALL the work for you? ("Petrified Footprints: A Puzzling Parade of Permian Beasts" by Jerry MacDonald, Smithsonian, July 1992. To be even more specific, it's Vol. 23, Issue 4, p. 70-79.) I checked it out at the library; an exercept is available here: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/...
June 12, 2008

2:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

davies, the fact remains that fiesty's point is invalid because all evolutionists aren't ignoring evidence that refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution. i know that she likes to believe that, but that doesn't make it so...and using generalizations to attempt to prop up a weak argument isn't going to help.

i would, however, love to read some LINKS about this "plethura" of evidence that refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution. i think the fiesty's confusion arises when she mistakes the vetting of noncredible, nonviable or nonpeer-reviewed info that doesn't hold up to rigorous scientific scrutiny with "ignoring" that evidence. just because your evidence has been found to be anything but credible doesn't mean that it's being ignored.

zweasel...so that little diatribe is your "proof" that establishes your position that atheism is a religion.

gotcha.

wow.

i'm with charlesb...do you really expect us to take this stuff seriously?

i guess i won't hold my breath for your "proof" that i've used a strawman argument.
June 12, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

davies- thanks, you beat me to the punch, and put it more concisely than I as to why Jay's argument was wrong regarding invalidating an argument. I also found your comment about jumping the gun revealing a bias to be a VERY good observation!
June 12, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies:

"and all humans are inherantly evil (except Tom Petty, who is not Iranian)."

Inherently, not inherantly. Now we're even! That's the first time I corrected someone's spelling. You guys are corrupting me!
Since you worship Tom Petty, I will assume you worship Mary Jane.
June 12, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

" Evolutionists, as a career field, HAVE specifically created a category called 'problematica' whose sole purpose is to label artifacts into that they can't explain."

as i've said repeatedly...PLEASE post some links so i can read them.

if your above statement is true, however, then it cleanly refutes your own position that all evolutionists are "ignoring" evidence to contrary....because how can they create a whole category for information they're "ignoring"?

again....just because this "plethura" of mythical evidence to the contrary that you consistently refuse to link has been found to NOT refute the scientific consensus behind evolution, does not mean that it is being "ignored"...that is simply untrue...again...according to your own statement above.
June 12, 2008

2:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

This round goes to fiesty. Anyone who disagrees is invalidated by my decree.

I have to go back to lighthearted banter now, and think of some way to re-engage Heidi in this thread. She's laid the guilt trip on me, just like the first time I blurted at her.
June 12, 2008

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Jay-

"the fact remains that fiesty's point is invalid because all evolutionists aren't ignoring evidence that refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution."

Fine, if it makes you happy, the *vast majority* are (vs "ALL" which, by the way, I don't believe I ever used)- hence the establishment of a category for these artifacts, plus the fact that none of them have been serious invesigated (beyond establishing their validity) nor has there been any attempt to revise the evolutionary theory.

"i would, however, love to read some LINKS about this "plethura" of evidence that refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution. i think the fiesty's confusion arises when she mistakes the vetting of noncredible, nonviable or nonpeer-reviewed info that doesn't hold up to rigorous scientific scrutiny with "ignoring" that evidence. just because your evidence has been found to be anything but credible doesn't mean that it's being ignored."

Hmm, you just made yourself look like an idiot, spouting off this nonsense, since in my original post about the Permian tracks I gave you: 1) specific details regarding the artifacts and their discovery, which you could look up, 2) already gave you one source about this evidence from an accredited scientific institution so you could look it up, including the exact date of the publication as well as the article's title 3) one specific example where the artifacts were peer-reviewed so you could see it, 4) the fact that the evidence was found to be both authenticated and credible by the experts, and 5) the issues it raised as a result and the admission by the field's applicable experts that it could not be explained. I even offered to give you more such artifacts if you wanted.

Instead, you spout off derogatory comments, are lazy and don't bother to look it up, and we're supposed to take your evaluation seriously?? Please. Like I said before, give me ONE good reason I should take YOUR evaluation over experts in this field and from a recognized, prestigious institution like the Smithsonian.
June 12, 2008

2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

alright, zweasel...if i point out why your rant is invalid as "proof" of your position that "atheism is a religion" will you pout and whine about it like the last time i did this or are you going to be an adult about it and move on?

davies...it's tough to argue that fiesty hasn't just shot a hole in her own logic here...
June 12, 2008

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'm not lazy, fiesty...i just want you to post a link that supports your claims. i've tried googling "permian footprints" and the smithsonian in order to research your position that this is peer reviewed evidence that refutes evolution and got nothing.

i'm asking for help because i'm truly interested in seeing what information you have that supports your position.

PLEASE post a link.
June 12, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"as i've said repeatedly...PLEASE post some links so i can read them... refuse to link.."

Refuse, my *ss! I already gave you one source to look up, and you were too lazy to do it! Or, you could simply google "problematica" or "out of place artifacts", and you'll come up with a ton. I suggest adding the word "validated" so you can find the legitimate ones. A good starting point for several of the validated cases are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_p...

"if your above statement is true, however, then it cleanly refutes your own position that all evolutionists are "ignoring" evidence to contrary....because how can they create a whole category for information they're "ignoring"?"

There's a difference between creating a label for something you can't explain and then ignoring it, and actively investigating the consequences and ramifications of it. Surely even you can see that.
June 12, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Jay, the last line of my 242 post has a link. Or google "macdonald permian july 1992 smithsonian", I found a ton like that.
June 12, 2008

3:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Some good books on problematica (aka out of place [OOP] artifacts) are:

- "Forbidden Archeology" by Michael A. Cremo
- "The Hidden History of the Human Race" by Richard L. Thompson
- "Technology of the Gods: The Incredible Sciences of the Ancients" by David H. Childress
- "Civilization One: The World is Not as You Thought It Was" by Christopter Knight and Alan Butler
- "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings: Evidence of Advanced Civilization in the Ice Age" by Charles H. Hapgood
- "Secrets of the Lost Races: New Discoveries of Advanced Technology in Ancient Civilizations " by Rene Noorbergen
- "Everything You Know Is Wrong: Human Origins" by Lloyd Pye
- "Dead Men's Secrets" by Jonathan Gray
June 12, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

You should also check out the around 17 amazing maps that have been found and validated, which have information that the cultures of the time could NOT have- given that the oldest known civilization is believed to be no more than 6,000 B.C. and did NOT have trans-sea capability.

For example, check out the Piri Re'is map- it was found in 1929 in the Imperial Palace in Constantinople. It is painted on parchment and dated 919 A.H. (in the Islamic calendar), which corresponds to 1513 AD. It is signed by an admiral of the Turkish Navy named Piri Ibn Haji Memmed, also known as Piri Re'is. According to Piri Re'is, the map had been assembled from a set of 20 maps drawn in the time of Alexander the Great.

The Piri Re'is map is amazing since it shows the correct coastline of Antarctica as it was *under the ice*. The last time the particular area shown in the Piri Re'is map was free of ice was more than 5,000 years ago. That particular geography should have been unknown to the civilizations of the time...

Professor Charles Hapgood, of Keene College, contacted the US Air Force in 1960 to have them review the map. There is a copy of the letter provided in his book "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings", on pg 244:

"Your request for evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis World Map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed.

The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsula is reasonable. We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.

The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the Seismic profile made across the top of the ice cap by the Swedish-British-Norwegian Antarctic Expedition of 1949.

*This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap*.

The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick. *We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.*"
June 12, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Hyedi: Ay allmoest mist yore lasst poest. Itt wuz funy two, but whoose Mary Jane? and eye wuznt kurrecting yore speling, I thaught yoo wuz kurracting myne, inn thatt winkly wae of yores. and ay doent wurshipp Tom Petty, unles thay wood plae hiz muzic att tha kounsel meatings, in wich caes eye thynk it wood bee ohkay wyth God, whoo bleses Amarica.
June 12, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'm not trying to be obtuse here, fiesty, but i've seen only one link from you...to a wikipedia article...that contained these "validated cases":

The Maine Penny found in Blue Hill, Maine. An 11th century Norse coin found in an American Indian shell midden. Over 20,000 objects were found over a 15-year period at the Goddard site in Blue Hill. The sole OOPArt was the coin.[3][4] One hypothesis is that it may have been brought to the site from a Viking settlement in Newfoundland, not by Norsemen but by seagoing Indians.

The Iron pillar in India, dating around to AD 423.

The Antikythera mechanism, a geared device manufactured ca. 100 BC, believed to be an orrery for predicting the motion of the sun, moon and planets.

Tablets and artifacts discovered in Glozel, France in the 1920s and '30s, some of which were inscribed with an unknown, undeciphered alphabet

i am sorry if i'm missing something...but that link in no way supports your position that evolutionists are "ignoring" evidence that refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution.

i've googled "problematica" and likewise...have been unable to find anything at all that supports this apparent conspiracy perpetrated by the ranks of evolutionary scientists the world over. i perused a lot of sites that talked about creationism...but no evidence whatsoever that supports your theory.

if that is all you have, i think it's safe to say that you can't make the case you've stated. that said, i am very interested in reading LINKS you feel have the information that supports your position.

zweasel, your opinion about why you believe "atheism is a religion" is laughable at best. as charlesb said, it might play well among the uneducated folks you hang with at bible class, but it doesn't play here:

i'll repost charles comments because they sum it up pretty well:

"Putting aside the fact that atheism doesn't "reject that there is anything beyond humanity with comprehension of the universe", it just doesn't follow that humanity is then "capable of understanding all in the universe" even if that were true."

is there anything about that comment that confuses you? would you like to discuss those inadequacies in your opinion piece?
June 12, 2008

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

we're back to the same place, zweasel.

the ignorance of your position has been exposed and instead of conceding as much and moving on, you've once again resorted to insults and childish tantrums.

i thought you said you weren't going to pout this time?

fiesty, i've googled the additional books you've listed and the "map stuff"....i still see no evidence whatsoever that the "vast majority" of evolutionists are "ignoring" evidence that "refutes" evolution.

if you have links that provide information to the contrary...please post them now...otherwise is it too much to ask for you to concede the point?
June 12, 2008

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

mytwosense writes:

RegasPatoff misinterprets Amendment I, which I'll repeat:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This amendment was put in place in part because the early settlers from England who came to America had laws in place that could actually put someone to death for not following their brand of Christianity. Seriously, if you practiced Catholicism, the Calvinists considered you a heretic, and punishment could include execution, public flogging, or exile.

So the amendment was made to prevent any one religion from superceding another in this country, particularly in the realm of legal power.
June 12, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

anyway...z...can you refute the holes in your "theory" or not? are we done here?

fiesty...i found a website linked to the one you provided on wikipedia.

http://www.s8int.com/index.html

is your position based on the belief in creationism? is that why you seem to believe in this conspiracy theory about evolutionists supressing evidence that god made the earth?
June 12, 2008

4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies,

That took much more effort that writing in English. I am impressed! I have decided that I have nothing meaningful or intelligent to add to this string. I can't even fathom how a spoon can have consciousness. I may have to do some research on that. It may be quite interesting. In the mean time, I will leave the floor to those who are enjoying the debate.

btw...When I was a young girl, I went to that scout camp in Iowa that was leveled by a tornado. Another natural disaster from which I escaped!
June 12, 2008

4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Heidi: I agree. You know this morning when I scanned down this thread, it seemed relatively civil, especially since it concerned religion. But now... maybe tomorrow there will be a third consecutive nail gun story, and we can relax a little again.

As for your disaster avoidance, that is kind of something isn't it? I think that those sainted nuns who were so kind to you before are still looking over you ;-)
June 12, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"There are no holes in my theory"

are you serious?

did you not read charlesb's posts about it?

is this the willful ignorance kicking back in?
June 12, 2008

4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies, what makes you think the nuns were kind to me? They were so mean! They didn't allow pert remarks in the classroom. I had a comment on the back of a report card in third grade that I made pert remarks. It sounded like it meant smart or intellingent so I was proud to show my parents. They weren't fooled. They completely ignored the A's!
June 13, 2008

6:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Charles B- just because some creationists cite those books on their website does not make the books any less valid.

Jay- you might need to actually READ the books, since the archaeologists wrote them (in many cases, in the 60s and 70s) and many don't have online sites. Not everything is online you know! I have now given you a reference source from the Smithsonian, books detailing discoveries by archaeologists, an online link, and directions to finding more information. That seems pretty copious to me! Another good site is http://forbiddenhistory.info

To answer your question, no, my objections are NOT based upon creationist ideas- even if they were, it would NOT invalidate the artifacts discovered. Further, I've only cited/referenced a few of the artifacts- there are so many that I could post over 50 messages here. That answers your objection. Additionally, most of them do refute the evolutionary theory- for example, many artifacts, such as footprints or cave drawings, place human beings before or concurrently with dinosaurs. Or the numerous MANUFACTURED objects and human remains discovered in coal- yet coal formed during the Carboniferous period, 280 to 345 million years ago. Then there are the relics, such as the South American miniature gold space shuttle dated over 2,000 years ago, which show that previously human beings have achieved (and in some cases surpassed) our current level of technology. The map I cited is also but one example that man was civilized far longer than evolutionary science espouses.
June 13, 2008

7:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

RegusPatoff writes:

mytwosense...
No, I did not misinterpret the First Amendment. I'm very, very clear on its meaning. The First Amendment was not put in place to keep one religion from "superceding another" as you state. It was very purposefully put in place to keep the government from establishing a state religion, such as the Church of England, and from suppressing speech and ideas. It was designed to keep religion and speech free from all government interference. If you do any type of historical research, you will also discover that the intent was not to keep government free from religious influence... quite the contrary.

The issue in GJ is STILL that one group, who doesn't like what another is doing, is attempting to get the government to pass some sort of legislation to stop the first group from doing something that is protected from government interference. Doesn't that, in fact, violate your idea of one group "superceding" another?

What the First Amendment DOES allow in this case, is that if the atheist group can show that they have been willfully harmed in anyway, they can petition the government for compensation (see the "redress of grievances"?). They cannot, by the very wording of the Amendment, ask for legislation to be drawn up to prohibit what the City Council is doing. That's what EVERYONE misses.

Thanks for your opinion.

mytwosense wrote:

RegasPatoff misinterprets Amendment I, which I'll repeat:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This amendment was put in place in part because the early settlers from England who came to America had laws in place that could actually put someone to death for not following their brand of Christianity. Seriously, if you practiced Catholicism, the Calvinists considered you a heretic, and punishment could include execution, public flogging, or exile.

So the amendment was made to prevent any one religion from superceding another in this country, particularly in the realm of legal power.
June 13, 2008

7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"is that why you seem to believe in this conspiracy theory about evolutionists supressing evidence that god made the earth?"

Jay-

Where are you pulling this from? I never said or implied any such thing. What I AM saying is that the current evolutionary theory has some fundamental flaws; these artifacts are concrete proof of that. Since you don't see how they "refute" the evolutionary theory, let me spell it out for you:

First, let's look at what the evolutionary theory (not just the biological portion) says (in general terms!):

1. Evolution is the process of change from one organism to the next. Through this mechanism of change, complex organisms evolve from simpler organisms.

2. Life on earth appeared in the following order:
a. Microscopic organisms
b. Plants and fungi (500 million years ago)
c. Arthropods and other animals
d. Amphibians (300 million years ago)
e. Reptiles/Dinosaurs (230 million years ago)
f. Mammals (200 million years ago)
g. Birds (100 million years ago)
h. Hominids (6-7 million years ago)
i. "Modern" Man (195,000 years ago)
j. Man's First True Civilization (6-3,000 B.C.)

However, the artifacts directly contradict both the supposed evolutionary order (for example, bird and animal tracks appearing BEFORE reptiles) and man's supposed age/civilization (manufactured artifacts, such as nails and screws, appearing in coal that was formed 280-345 million years ago).

At a bare minimum, evolutionists need to revise their timeline. However, given evidence that birds and mammals appeared before reptiles, they also need to consider the possibility that their premise is wrong. However, I highly doubt they have the integrity to do either of these things.
June 13, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Jay- since you can't seem to get a copy of the Smithsonian article, here is a link to a transcript of the article: http://www.forbiddenhistory.info/?q=n...
June 13, 2008

7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Charles B-

Your links were worthless. They picked on one or two little items they had an issue with, but ignored the validated cases, such as the Permian tracks. How convenient! Even so, it doesn't invalidate the whole book.

You say I haven't backed up any, yet I posted the Smithsonian validated tracks (showing bird/mammal tracks that contradict the evolutionary theory of progression and timeline), as well as an artifact validated by the US government (showing that man had knowledge he couldn't have according to the evolutionary theory of man's age and progress). I even gave you links and sources so you could research further for yourself! Gosh, you spout off such nonsense sometimes!
June 13, 2008

8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Heidi: One last comment on this thread, in case you check it again: In one of your comments somewhere you said something about how you "survived" 10 years of Catholic school, and were (I think) essentially agnostic today because of said schooling. So I connected the dots and figured that you may not remember too many of the Sisters very fondly. (Reminded me of that nun in the Blues Brothers movie...) so yeah I was being smart-alecky again ;-)
June 13, 2008

9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies,

I believe I used the term "Recovering Catholic". I fear that the nuns don't think too fondly of many of their past students. My fifth grade teacher, Sister Edna, suffered a nervous break down, spent several weeks in a hospital, and retired from teaching. I believe that too much control can cause one to rebel.

My favorite line was:
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun......

Come out virginia, don’t let me wait
You catholic girls start much too late
Aw but sooner or later it comes down to fate
I might as well be the one

They showed you a statue, told you to pray
They built you a temple and locked you away
But they never told you the price that you pay
For things that you might have done.....
Only the good die young
Thats what I said
Only the good die young x2

You might have heard I run with a dangerous crowd
We ain’t too pretty we ain’t too proud
We might be laughing a bit too loud
Aw but that never hurt no one

Come on virginia show me a sign
Send up a signal I’ll throw you the line
The stained-glass curtain you’re hiding behind
Never lets in the sun
Darlin’ only the good die young
(woah x5 )
I tell ya
Only the good die young x2

You got a nice white dress and a party on your confirmation
You got a brand new soul
Mmmm, and a cross of gold
But virginia they didn’t give you quite enough information
You didn’t count on me
When you were counting on your rosary
(oh woah woah)

They say there’s a heaven for those who will wait
Some say it’s better but I say it ain’t
I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints
The sinners are much more fun...

You know that only the good die young
Oh woah baby
I tell ya
Only the good die young, x2

(just music here, saxaphone? )

You say your mother told you all that I could give you was a reputation
Aww she never cared for me
But did she ever say a prayer for me? oh woah woah

Come out come out virgina don’t let me wait,
The catholic girls start much too late
Sooner or later it comes down to fate
I might as well be the one,
U know that only the good die young

Im telling u baby
Only the good die young x2
Only the gooooooooooooooood
Only the good die young
Only the gooooooooooooooood
Only the good die young
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo oooooooooo...

by Billy Joel
June 13, 2008

10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

I always liked that song, not the refrain so much as the verses. But I don't think the Pope would like them playing that one at the Grand Junction City Council meetings.

Later on Joel eventually did a song called River of Dreams that I interpreted to mean he was 'born again'. He'll probably never be the congregating-every-Sunday type, but there were pretty cool, kind of mystical lyrics in that song, talking about walking through the desert of truth and so on. Of course, I know he's had a few little driving incidents since then too, but nobody's perfect eh?
June 13, 2008

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

fiesty, i've continued to research the "sources" you've cited and have consistently run into a bit of a laughable attempt by the creationist community to imply or outrightly state that evolutionists are "ignoring", as you say, "evidence" that in their minds refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution.

i haven't seen anything that supports your theory that the vast majority of evolutionists are ignoring contrary evidence that refutes evolution.

it is obvious that you are very passionate and dedicated to this religious based cause. i admire your tenacity, but question your bias on the matter.

zweasel...you seem to be, like fiesty, confusing the dismissal of invalid points with "ignoring" evidence.

not the same thing.
June 13, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Jay- what a crock! There is nothing "creationist" about a SMITHSONIAN article detailing the discovery by an EVOLUTIONIST about evidence that contradicts the evolutionary theory. Calling names doesn't discount its validity.

And if you honestly don't believe evolutionists aren't ignoring evidence that contradicts their opinion, then why haven't we heard a reasonable explanation to say, the Permian footprints? Hmmm? I mean, it was almost 16 years ago! Nor have they accounted for some of the other 'problematica' (to use their own terminology). You can't just label something and forget about it.

And considering I'm agnostic, I resent your "religion-based" assumption. To investigate (which you have NOT done, as evidenced by the fact that I had to get the transcript for you- you want everything neat and tidy on the web, [so that you can discount it], rather than going and getting an actual book) scientific anamolies is not religious. You remind me of one of the scientists who MacDonald contacted for collaboration, who refused to come out and look at his discovery because it "must" be a hoax or a mistake in dating. Why let reality interfere with your opinions?
June 13, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

fiesty, we've done the hide your faith shell game in the past.

you're obviously a creationism supporter who is trying hard to try to seem credible in this area. i've seen you do the same thing while trying to justify your bigoted position on homosexuality.

like i said...i admire your tenacity, but let's do away with the theatrics.
June 13, 2008

11:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

ROFLMAO! Jay, your last post is laughable. Is that really the best you can do? Such a weak and transparent attempt! Just because you don't like my position on an issue, you accuse me of being a creationist (since you think it's an insult). When I inform you I'm agnostic, you jump to the unfounded assumption that I must be "hiding my faith". How ridiculous!

It is so typical for these blogs- I just wish folks would make up their minds. One minute I'm a conservative, the next a flaming liberal. One minute I'm a heretic, the next a creationist. Well, make sure you share your opinion to those who have called me a heretic on the other blogs because I've called the bible a work of fiction and listed the reasons why. Matter of fact, better point it out to those I upset with my 11 Jun 1019 post on this blog.

Hate to break it to you, but *discrediting the person does NOT discredit the argument raised.* You use this tactic alot. So, if a scientists, who happens to be a creationist, finds evidence you don't like, are you going to discredit it too?

Wait, we have the answer to that already. You dodged the question about the artifacts validated by the Smithsonian. Wow, I guess according to you, we should discredit those artifacts too- the Smithsonian "must" be creationists too!

P.S. I have a wealth of archeology books at home. From what I see, archeology is one field where they haven't quite caught up to the times- most do NOT have web sites, nor have the older archeology books from the 60s or 70s have their material online. Just because something is not on the web, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't valid.
June 13, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

fiesty, i find it laughable indeed that you imply that it's just a coincidence that you just happen to champion far religious right stances on homosexuality and creationism.

i'm not discrediting you at all...i'm just not buying the ruse.

once again...the information you've provided has failed to support your conspiracy theory about the "vast majority of evolutionists" "ignoring" evidence that refutes evolution and supports creationism.

that doesn't make you a bad person...just ideologically blindered.
June 13, 2008

11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

daives, I don't remember the lyrics of River of Dreams. Talking and walking through the desert of truth? Maybe it was the mystical drugs he was on.
Well, here we are again, with our intermittant, meaningless interruptions to the serious debate at hand.
June 13, 2008

11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Jay-

No more dodging. Let's just look at the two examples I've already posted.

1. Permian Tracks. These tracks were found in situ by a recognized archaeologist (also an evolutionist), and validated by the Smithsonian who did a follow-up article on it. The authenticity of these tracks are not in doubt, nor is the credibility of the discovery or archaeologist involved. Given this:

a. How do you explain the fact that bird and animal tracks were found in Permian strata from 290 to 248 million years ago?

b. How do you explain the lack of mainstream archeology to explain these tracks, or incorporate the knowledge into their theory?

c. They have had 16 years to acknowledge or do something with the knowledge, yet have not done so. Does this not qualify as ignoring the evidence?

d. These tracks refute, at a minimum, the timeline given by evolution, and at a maximum, refute the assumption that birds/mammals evolved from amphibians/reptiles. Do you acknowledge that, and if not, why not?

2. Piri Reis Map. This map was authenticated, and after being contacted by a professor in 1960, determined by the U.S. Cartographic Section that the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap (prior to what level of civilization man had currently evolved to).

a. How do you explain the fact that "primitive man" had knowledge, that according to the evolutionary theory, he should not have had at that time? The U.S. Cartographic Office even stated in 1960 that they "have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513."

a. Even the U.S. Cartographic Office, after extensive study, stated that they "raise extremely important questions affecting geology and ancient history, questions which certainly require further investigation". Why has this not been done in the past 40 years? Certainly seems as if it is being ignored.
June 13, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"fiesty, i find it laughable indeed that you imply that it's just a coincidence that you just happen to champion far religious right stances on homosexuality and creationism."

Ridiculous- who's generalizing now?? YOU need to look up the definition of a hypocrite.

I disagree with the evolutionary theory, due to scientific flaws with it, as well as the authenticated evidence that contradicts it. That doesn't make me a creationist, who believes some nebulous God in the sky created the earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago.

As far as homosexuality goes, you obviously haven't read my posts. I have made it clear that I have no problem with homosexuality, that people should be free to be happy as long as it involves consenting mentally-capable adults. (This is not a position most christians agree with!) My sole issue was homosexual marriage, because I believe we open a whole can of worms when it comes to recognizing alternative marriage lifestyles. I've also made it quite clear that I think believe marriage belongs in the realm of the church, not by the government.

Now, once again, instead of trying to discredit me, and thus my arguments, why don't you try to focus on the issues being discussed here? Just like you say you're not falling for a "ruse", neither am I.
June 13, 2008

11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I disagree with the evolutionary theory, due to scientific flaws with it, as well as the authenticated evidence that contradicts it."

again, fiesty, you have failed to provide ANY information that refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution.

period. this has nothing to do with your obvious religious beliefs. this has to do with you not being able to provide information that supports your theory.

stating otherwise isn't doing your credibility any favors.

and i'm fully aware that you just happen to spout ridiculous talking points straight from the religious fundamentalist handbook on homosexuality.

as i said...you can try to hide your faith in an attempt to appear more credible on these subjects...but i for one find it very hard to believe that you just happen to read straight from the far religious right playbook.
June 13, 2008

11:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Jay-

blah, blah, blah. You are a broken record. You state that I "have failed to provide ANY information that refutes the scientific consensus behind evolution". Yet I HAVE posted evidence that refutes the timeline of evolution and possible evolution itself- the Permian footprints. It was even acknowledged by a proponent of evolution itself!

Also, please explain how reading Smithsonian Magazine, seeing something like this, and thinking it questions evolution qualfies as "religious belief". Wow, they must be passing out science magazines from the competitors at church!
June 13, 2008

11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Heidi: "Well, here we are again, with our intermittant, meaningless interruptions to the serious debate at hand."

Best laugh I'll have all day! The debaters are nice to just ignore us though. And at least we're in the ballpark of religion, just like the 'evolution' discussion.

fiesty and jay: As I've said, I'm Christian, albeit a little unconventional, but I don't really "get" the ones who deny evolution based on their faith. I honestly don't think the majority of Christians see a big conflict between evolution and the Bible. I mean, there are lots of Christian science teachers, you know? But concerning humans anyway, I do believe it's still the THEORY of evolution; a theory that most of us agree appears to be largely correct, but that's not quite the same as saying it is a proven scientifc LAW.

I think the Mormons/Latter Day Saints believe that Jesus came to Earth from outer space. Seriously, and I'm not mocking them either - it's as plausible as immaculate conception. My point being, it doesn't really matter to me how he got here. Might affect whether you have a flying saucer in your Nativity Scene though I guess ;-)
June 13, 2008

12:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

ok fiesty...come back and see us when you have actual evidence that refutes the broad scientific consensus behind evolution. so far you haven't provided any. oh...and by the way...JSTOR should shed some light on the reclassification of the permian footprints you've been championing.

until then...keep the "faith".
June 13, 2008

12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies,

"Might affect whether you have a flying saucer in your Nativity Scene though I guess ;-)"

Best laugh I'LL have all day!

I think that movie "Snakes on a Plane" combines those two Jesus arrival beliefs. The flying saucer stopped at the Garden of Eden, picked up the talking snake, flew around for millions of years, then landed in Bethlehem. The snake had somehow transformed into the almighty Jesus baby. The North Star that the three Kings followed was actually the flying saucer hovering over the stable.
June 13, 2008

12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Well yes, that could be it allright, but I must say that I am shocked that YOU introduced snakery into the conversation this time.

And maybe that North Star/flying saucer could also have possibly traveled back in time, hovered over a group of ape monkeys who were just chillin' in a verdant field somewhere, shined down a light beam on the two smartest ones of them, which burned off a lot of their body hair, and then finally a deep baritone voice was heard to say "I name thee Adam and Eve!"

And then, before the saucer took off, out dropped the original bad-a$s snake of them all, to the sound of a baritone voice chuckling.

So you see, the Bible and the theory of evolution are BOTH right! Hey - I'm going to make some poison Kool Aid and start my own CULT!!!
June 13, 2008

1:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

242: Yeah! We'll start by picketing the Grand Junction City Council meetings for the right to do the invocation in accordance our opposing but deeply held spiritual beliefs, and we'll be at each other's throats in no time!
June 13, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

zweivierzwei - yep, you're right about Jay. He accuses others of generalizing, then does it himself. He makes unfounded assumptions/accusations about others. He ignores what he doesn't have an answer for, and says arguments are "invalid" without giving creditable reasons why. His sole modus operandi in arguments is to either discredit the person of the opposing viewpoint (falsely believing this discredits their arguments) or to nitpick some minor trivia (believing that invalidates the entire argument). What makes it doubly appalling is how he masquerades behind the facade of an open mind and logic. I see now that I have been completely wasting my time.

btw, you and Davies are on to something. I've joked with my family about starting The Church of the Brainwashed, to help "save" the victims of the Christian Church. ;-)
June 13, 2008

1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

don't pout kids. you both failed to provide information that supported your arguments. zweasel twice.

trying to lame the blame for those failures at my feet isn't going to play either.

you both spout the same kind of religious fundamentalistic talking points.

if you want to try to hide your faith in an attempt to add credibility to your invalid positions...by all means do so...but what does that say about the strength of your faith?

i don't know if i'd hold a faith that i was too ashamed to admit when confronted with the weaknesses in its dogma.

fiesty...if you have ANY LINKS that support your position about conspiracy amongst the "vast majority" of evolutionists...i'm all ears...otherwise, please concede the point.

zweasel...i thought we'd agreed that once you failed to address the failures in your logic that you wouldn't whine about it anymore. why the flipflop?
June 13, 2008

1:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Hear ye! Hear ye! Where do I fit in amongst all this?? After all, I had a little input. What is all this holy war nonsense? I was good enough to battle with the Flying Spaghetti Monster but not good enough to belong to your organizations? Freedom of Religion goes out the door.........
June 13, 2008

1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Why Heidi, you are the Most Exalted Supreme Muse of Nonsense, the center of all official dogma. With your own statue, and nuns have to genuflect. Oh and you also get to dictate the Holy War weapons.
June 13, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Well Zwei, if Heidi joins your cult, I'm going to be like Puff the Magic Dragon, cancel my cult, slink into a cave, and the Holy War is off. This is what the Kool Aid is for.
June 13, 2008

2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

davies, dogma, really? I thought you said I was ambivalent.

Sorry for the outburst. I hadn't eaten lunch yet.

zweivierzwei, I'm all for tax free donuts, beer, and slurm. Will there be services every day? Now an amalgamated chuch would be just the choice for an ambivalent person such as I.
June 13, 2008

2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

"Slurm" sounds pornographic and evil. The Church of Flying Saucer Snake Dieties declares slurm consumption (or emittance) to be a Supreme Apostacy, punishable by spanking or death, depending on the offender.
June 13, 2008

2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

zweasel/fiesty...if you don't want to be thought of as fundies, maybe you guys shouldn't use religious fundamentalist talking points to try to substantiate your far religious right positions.

just a thought.
June 13, 2008

2:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

sorry, davies, there were no offerings from you. Although supreme leadership is enticing.
June 13, 2008

2:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

davies writes:

Mmmmm, lemon-lime, delicious...
June 13, 2008

2:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

dismissing atheism as a religion is a fundamentalist mythical talking point that we've debunked here, zweasel.

oh...and please tell me how I am "generalizing" by pointing out that you and fiesty are trying to establish far religious right positions using fundamentalist talking points
June 13, 2008

2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

zwei4zwei,

Yes, amalgamated is a fun word, kind of like concoction! It sounds as though the elders may have too much control. You know what too much control can do.

davies, you may be the Slurm Queen. I think I will stick to drinking beer. Or if a lemon drop martini is an option, I will have that.
June 13, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Heidi writes:

Cornucopia fits right in there. What a plethura of fun words!

We are really on to something here. We all need to have an informal meeting to plan how to have fun tax free!
June 13, 2008

3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"you made generalizations about me and fiesty being christians"

no i didn't, zweasel. i made an observation that i don't believe that two folks who are trying to use far religious right talking points in order to establish fundamentalist positions are in fact, not fundies.

that's not a generalization.

you can try to deny that's what happened, but again, it's not going to do your credibility here any favors.

furthermore, your invalid position in regards to atheism being a religions has been shot down because it had HUGE holes in the logic upon which is was based...nothing more nothing less.

we're back to the same place we were two days ago. you have failed to provide proof that substantiate your ridiculous positions and instead of accpepting that fact, are pouting and throwing an insult-laden tantrum like a five year old child.

i gave you full opportunity to establish your position using sound logic and you failed. don't blame me for your own intellectual shortcomings.
June 13, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

there you go again zweasel...throwing a tantrum because of your intellectual failings.

when did accountability for one's own rhetoric go out the window on the far right?
June 13, 2008

6:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

"The other thing you mentioned were "Permian tracks", by this I assume you mean the Paluxy River "footprints" (google it) supposedly bird and mammal tracks found in the Permian layer. They are a known fraud."

No, not the Paluxy River footprints. IF you had looked up the Paluxy River, it supposedly had human and dinosaur footprints together, and was located in TX. Per my post, the Permian tracks were bird and mammal tracks, and were found in NM. Further, unlike the Paluxy River footprints which are in dispute, the Permian tracks are not. So you can forget your convenient "fraud" statement. I have provided you the scientific publication where their discovery was published, and even a link to the text of the article.

Regarding your idiotic excuse to ignore folks who are attempting to debunk evolution, even the Smithsonian and evolutionist "discoverer" called these tracks "puzzling" and "problematica for the evolutionary theory". Even though you and Jay would like to just dismiss these tracks, you can't when even respectable mainstream scientists and establishments admit they contradict the evolutionary theory.
June 13, 2008

7:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

jay-

1. I'd LOVE to see you back up, with specifics, how Z and I are "trying to establish far religious right positions using fundamentalist talking points". Regarding both Z and me, you are pouting like a child. We have told you that we both are not Christian, so you jump to and stick with the fact that we "must" be "hiding our faith". Prove it.

2. Let's see, I'm discussing scientific discoveries (which have been validated, and not in dispute) and their ramifications to the evolution theory. Z has discussed the observation that atheism is a "religion" in it's own right. Let's look at those.

a. You state that because the Creationists and I are using the same arguments. That is in error. We may reference some of the same proof, but are deriving a vastly different answer. They use it to claim that it proves some nebulous guy in the sky created the earth in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. I concur with the establishment that reviewed it, that it conflicts with the evolutionary theory. To demonstrate your fallacy another way, are you a white male? If so, 100% of the KKK are white males, so you must be a member of the KKK. No, don't deny it, don't hide your beliefs, I know what you are.

b. Regarding your little spat with Z, given that atheism meets the definition of 3 of the 6 definitions of a religion given by dictionary.com ("body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices"), Z would apparently be right. btw, I have not seen ONE fundamentalist christian statement by Z.

3. In your response, no generalizations, no sweeping statements, nothing vague- a specific, applicable answer is all that's needed.
June 14, 2008

11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Charles- nice try with the debunk. However, your link focuses solely on the proposed "human" footprint. I don't care about that. That's arguable, and rightfully so- which is why I didn't mention it at all, nor does the article. Notice, however, the supposed debunk *ignores* the bird and animal tracks. These are NOT in dispute; they are clear, and exist in a strata millions of years before their supposed ancestor.

You obviously didn't do your research. You want a credible source? Go to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/... and register for a free account. Do a search- you'll get the full text of the article there. Also, you obviously didn't read the article:

"The fossil tracks that MacDonald has collected include a number of what paleontologists like to call "problematica." On one trackway, for example, a three-toed creature apparently took a few steps, then disappeared--as though it took off and flew. "We don't know of any three-toed animals in the Permian," MacDonald points out. "And there aren't supposed to be any birds." He's got several tracks where creatures appear to be walking on their hind legs, others that look almost simian. On one pair of siltstone tablets, I notice some unusually large, deep and scary-looking footprints, each with five arched toe marks, like nails. I comment that they look just like bear tracks. "Yeah," MacDonald says reluctantly, "they sure do." Mammals evolved long after the Permian period, scientists agree, yet these tracks are clearly Permian."

Your argument that problematica doesn't mean the theory of evolution is false is incorrect; until revised, the evidence contradicts the theory of evolution as currently stated, and it can't be considered valid until these artifacts are accounted for. Or are you saying scientific theories should ignore contradictory evidence and still be considered legit? YOU are dodging the fact that these tracks were found by a creditable individual, validated by a scientific institution, and are beyond repute. Their impact to the evolutionary theory is quite clear- even in the article, which tries to downplay them, states that "conventional theories about precisely who was walking around in Permian times, and how they did so, will end up being revised, perhaps extensively".

No, I wasn't "skirting" the map. What was it you wanted to know? My point was that it contradicts the supposed state of man's civilization, a fact even the US Cartographic section affirms. Evolutionary science is not restricted just to biology, in case you didn't know.
June 14, 2008

11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Oh, and you and Jay's attitude of "It's not online, so it must not be credible" is a load of cr*p.
June 14, 2008

1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

still waiting on that "proof" that substantiates any of your far religious right positions zweasel and fiesty.

still waiting.

until then...lying fundies is what you still are....
June 14, 2008

2:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Just like we are still waiting for the proof that we are "far religious fundies". And insults just make you lose credibility.
June 14, 2008

5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

btw Jay, you are a hypocrite- because YOU are a bigot when discussing those you THINK are bigots. Despite being corrected multiple times, despite my negative postings on religiously based blogs (such as the bible blog), and without a justifiable basis (other than what you "think"), you persist in calling me names such as "your religious far right" etc. In doing so, you reveal your own bias, prejudice/bigotry, and hypocrisy. You are so hate-filled that I actually feel sorry for you. You were even called out on it by others in different blogs.

You claim it's because you think I share their viewpoints; however, you fail to realize that people may support the same cause but for different reasons (in this case, religious motivation versus scientific reasoning) while utilizing the same evidence. I look at the evidence and then evaluate it as contradicting the theory; whereas the creationist has an their own religiously based theory and they are actively looking to prove their own preconceived notion.

Your "logic" is shaky; that's like saying because you are a proponent of gay marriage, you must be a flaming liberal who supports the ACLU and flag burning. Or, any white male who comes from the South MUST be a member of the KKK, and is "hiding" it when he denies it.

But I'm just about done with you and CharlesB. You are so convinced that you, and only you, know the "truth", that you have become blind and frankly scary- look at the whole egotistical "you must be hiding your faith" when told I'm agnostic, and the continuing to throw out insults. Your bias even blinds you when responding to arguments. Look at you and CharlesB- I pointed out the bird and animal tracks found in the permian strata, yet you two 1) ignored the Smithsonian evaluation, 2) confused "frauds", and 3) tried to debunk the whole issue by bringing up something in the tracks that I (or the article) never brought up!
June 15, 2008

1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Dictionary.com defines a bigot as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". Prejudice is defined as " an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason".

Jay, this is you. You repeat ad nauseum to those you disagree with that they are "religious far right", yet can't substantiate that assessment. You assume, when no one can, the motivations of another's heart- i.e. your "religious motivated" comments. Even when a person tells you they are an atheist or agnostic, you are so convinced you KNOW that you actually accuse them of "hiding their faith", without basis and totally contrary to the evidence (for example, same person who slams christianity).

This is my last post to you. I will no longer talk to or about you or anything you post. I ask for the same courtesy. If you see a post of mine that you disagree with, please keep it to yourself. I don't want to waste my time with someone who is totally blinded by their preconceptions.

Home › News › Local News

Prayer complaint puts city in hot seat

Council likely to alter invocation

By Mike Wiggins, The Daily Sentinel

Published June 10, 2008 at 7:17 p.m.

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs