Woman to Woman

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 07:59 AM | Link to this

A few excerpts from George Washington’s farewell address seem to be appropriate here…

With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It seems to me that Mr. Washington was wise beyond his years, thank God. It’s too bad that ‘modern’ Americans refuse to listen to his sage advice.

By Carlton Wyatt

January 29, 2007 08:16 AM | Link to this

Shaunti’s kind seem to think anyone who doesn’t bow to their beliefs and kiss the fundamentalist behind is “hostile to people of faith”. No, Shaunti, your kind is hostile to people who value freedom from tyranny. I am an atheist and I really couldn’t care less if a cross is displayed somewhere, a nativity is on the courthouse lawn, etc. It doesn’t offend me. If some religious peoples want to pay for and erect these things, as long as they don’t force me to bow to them, I have no problem with them. However, it is the implied “you must obey” demands that are often behind these acts that I do object.

I ask the “people of faith” a question: do you think it pleases your God that you, in effect, force other people to worship it by fiat? Is your public display of piety really necessary for your faith?

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 08:49 AM | Link to this

Carlton,

Does the public display of the 10 Commandments, crosses and/or nativity scenes force you to do anything? I think not.

Would those that wish the total elimination of religious symbols also remove the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery?

Should we eliminate the daily prayers in Congress, a practice that has been observed since 1775?

The fact remains that this nation was founded on the principles of Christianity, and Christian charity. That charity is what opened the doors of America to immigrants from around the world of many different faiths. In America today you can choose to practice ANY religion, or no religion at all, but to demand that Christians censor themselves or their faith for fear of offending someone of a different faith, or no faith at all, is preposterous.

By Brian Curtis

January 29, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Guy: And no one’s been saying that “offense” is the reason for requiring religious neutrality—that’s a popular red herring offered by religious zealots.

This nation was NOT, in fact, founded on Christian principles… if it were, we would have a religious government. In fact, the principles we were founded on specified the exact opposite: NO government involvement in, or endorsement of, religion in any way whatsoever. Those are Enlightenment principles established by deist founders who knew the hazards of a non-secular government.

Christianity has played a role in our history, and we should acknowledge it. But then, so did slavery.

By Joe

January 29, 2007 09:17 AM | Link to this

Public space uses public funds. If a religious object, is in need ( a questionable idea at best) of public display, then the private funds, generated by private donations can erect and maintain such displays.

There is no reason any public space, of any kind, warrants the display of religious things.

This nation, until recently, has protected religion; not only from resecution but also itself. There is one simple concept here. Keep Your God out of My God’s face.

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this

Brian,

I take it the words of our 1st President are altogether bogus then? Let me repeat what I posted earlier, or at least a snippet of it. You can read the rest by simply scrolling up.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

That sounds quite Christian to me…

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

Keep Your God out of My God’s face

But my God is the right one and yours isn’t. Joking.

Those items like a Ten Commandment Monument in a government building reek of Idolatry, but what do I know? LOL

I am for keeping religious-artifacts out of the public sector in the future, however I am not for chiseling/sand-blasting crosses out of older granite buildings, if any exist.

By Mara

January 29, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

(sigh)

Guy Pinestra - Does the public display of the 10 Commandments, crosses and/or nativity scenes force you to do anything? Well, yes…it does. The display of the Decalogue on the courthouse lawn forces me to wonder if I’ll be governed and judged under the law, as mandated by the government, or under God’s Law. Per ex-judge, the saintly Roy Moore -

“The Ten Commandments are the divinely revealed law”

“…I think that we’ve got a basic discrepancy here between the rule of law versus the rule of man”

“…the state must acknowledge God and that our freedoms flow from that God, the Judeo-Christian God”

so you see, even Judge Roy Moore admits the point that having the 10 Commandments in-your-face is to demand the acknowlegement of the Judeo-Christian God as the fountainhead of American freedom. Which you may agree with but many of the rest of us believe that America was founded “of the people, for the people and by the people”. Not by the God of Abraham, the Gods of the Hindu, or the Moon Goddess Selene.

Would those that wish the total elimination of religious symbols also remove the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery

this is always tossed out there by the “MY-god-is-‘Merika’s-god” crowd. Nobody thinks that allowing crosses to mark the graves of dead American Christians is anywhere near the same as posting the Cross behind those who’s job it is to judge or govern Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists, and Wiccans. (What is a shame though is that it was only a few months ago that soldiers who were devout Wiccans were allowed to have the Pentagram inscribed on their marker) These crosses are a symbol of private belief not a marker of the belief of the State. To bad you can’t see the difference.

Should we eliminate the daily prayers in Congress, a practice that has been observed since 1775

Yes, unless we ensure that ALL denominations, religion, and sects get at least one chance to officiate.

By lovelyliz

January 29, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

If you allow one, you have to allow all. Who do you think will be the first to lose it when Menorahs, Bhagavad-Gita and Pentagrams start showing up?

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 09:50 AM | Link to this

from wikipedia regarding the LaJolla Mount Soledad cross: (italics below.) interestingly it was never a Korean War Memorial until people contested it being on public land and then suddenly PRESTO a Korean War Memorial materialized. I would think the Jewish War Veterans could argue where is their hill, with a Menorah?.

On August 21, 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union representing the Jewish War Veterans of the United States filed a separate lawsuit against the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, charging that the continued display of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross on federally owned land unlawfully entangles government with religion and asks the Court to rule the 29-foot tall display be removed from Mt. Soledad Natural Park[45].

By Mara

January 29, 2007 09:51 AM | Link to this

Joe - There is no reason any public space, of any kind, warrants the display of religious things

there are some historical markers that deserve public funding that are/were religious sites…The Old North Church, Ebenezer Baptist Church, The Alamo, just to name of few. But those places are of import to all Americans versus, as you meant, those displays that are solely of religious importance.

By The72John

January 29, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports

That sounds quite Christian to me…

Really? Where is Christianity mentioned? The word Washington uses is “religion”. Not “Christ”, not “Jesus”…”religion”.

You see, you make the usual error that modern-day evangelicals often make when trying to twist the religious and ethical sensibilities of the founding fathers into an endorsement of modern fundamentalism. You misunderstand - either deliberately or through ignorance - the context of religion in the late 18th century.

I won’t go into all the details - the role of the Enlightenment in creating a rational, ethical view of religion, the ongoing feud between various religious factions an denominations - unitarians, deists, trinitarians, congregationalists…Suffice it to say that the “bible-believing, Jesus-as-best-bud-and-savior” theology did not exist.

Instead, most educated men embraced some form of rational religion, whether strict Deism or something that contained the primary tenets of Deism with nominal nods to Christian theology. The idea of God or Providence as less an active force - the forbiding father of many of today’s more conservative denominations - and more of a causative force was prominent.

So, when Washington (and many of the other Founding Fathers) refer to God or Providence, this is what they are referring to - a Divine force or Presence that gave shape to the universe but is neutral in terms of its development and progression. When they refer to “religion” they are referring, not to the superstitious or supernatural trappings wrapped around it but to the underlying ethical structures.

By Brian Curtis

January 29, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Many of the founders thought religion was essential to a personal sense of morality and good for society’s well-being… and yet, they made no effort to institutionalize religion INTO government itself. In fact, they did the opposite.

And praising the virtues of religious morality doesn’t sound any more “Christian” than it does “Jewish,” “Hindu,” or any of a dozen other beliefs.

By Renee

January 29, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

Mara, Chilao, excellent comments.

I’m not for taking a historic building down that may have a cross or biblical verse chiseled into it, however, I am totally against the display of the ten commandments or any similar Christian display. Church and State should be kept separate and this country was not founded on the basis of Christianity.

While I will agree that a large majority of Americans probably do practice some form of Christianity (the number of denominations in themselves are dumbfounding) this is also a country of diversity. We have so many people who practice other religions, and ~gasp~ some that have absolutely NO belief at all.

Some Christians are so arrogant to think their way is the only way and of course any governmental building is guided by their belief. I mean which Christian belief prevails. Baptist, Methodist, Church of God in Christ, Holiness, Catholic, the list goes on and on…..

By chuck

January 29, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

You want to talk about a heinous lie, maybe you ought to take a history class BC.

This nation was NOT, in fact, founded on Christian principles… if it were, we would have a religious government. In fact, the principles we were founded on specified the exact opposite: NO government involvement in, or endorsement of, religion in any way whatsoever. Those are Enlightenment principles established by deist founders who knew the hazards of a non-secular government.

If this were in fact true, why did we not have a single religious liberty case until 1940, some 153 years after the Constitution was written? Were there no religious displays on public property until then? Was the Bible not taught in EVERY public school prior to then? I wonder what caused this?

HMMMMMMMM. Maybe it was the Constitution itself which has as its only statement on religion in the first amendment:

CONGRESS shall MAKE NO LAW concerning the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE thereof.

HMMMM. CONGRESS can’t ESTABLISH a National religion and force people to join it AND it cannot prohibit the free exercise OF RELIGION.

I read that to mean that it applies to…I don’t know…CONGRESS. So I guess that means that the Supreme Court CAN MAKE LAWS PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION!?!?!

THERE’S ONLY ONE PROBLEM WITH THAT. Laws are made by ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS. NOT by the Supreme Court. It’s funny to me that there was not ONE case decided against religious freedom until the 1940’s AFTER Roosevelt stacked the court with liberal activist judges. I guess that wasn’t put into the Constitution until the 1940’s?

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

don’t we have this discussion about once in month in one form or another?

whether we like it or not, the history of this nation is rich with religious meaning. one needs look no further than our currency, our pledge, our declaration of independence or the words of the framers to understand the involvement of religion in the formation of this country.

we can try to write religion out of our history, and say things about how our nation was founded on the principle of “complete religious neutrality” (as though some foggy concept of religious neutrality from our government is the same as “freedom of religion” or that anything less will somehow create an “establishment of religion”).

we can paint the people who recognize the historical significance of religion in the founding of this nation as a bunch of roy moore worshiping zealots, and try to say real brainy things like “of the people, by the people, for the people”.

but when we say things like that, and when we quote lincoln, we may want to use that whole quote: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

because anything else would be intellectually dishonest, and we wouldn’t want to do that, now would we?

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

I’ve no desire to espouse any one religion over another. I couldn’t care less if Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans or anyone else proudly displays the icons of their faith.

John, you said, “Really? Where is Christianity mentioned? The word Washington uses is “religion”. Not “Christ”, not “Jesus”…”religion”.”

At that point in our history, what was the OVERRIDING religion practiced? Protestant Christianity. The 10 Commandments were the supreme MORAL law of the Founders and anyone who disputes that is not paying attention.

And this, “Suffice it to say that the “bible-believing, Jesus-as-best-bud-and-savior” theology did not exist.”

You’ll have to provide some sort of reference if you want to convince me of that.

Here’s what a quick Google search reveals…

“President George Washington was an Episcopalian. He was a member of the Episcopal Church, the American province of the Anglican Communion, which is a branch of Christianity, and which is usually classified as Protestant.

Washington and the family he was raised in were originally Anglicans. The Episcopal Church was not officially founded as a separate province within Anglicanism until 1789, after the American colonies proclaimed independence from Great Britain. Prior to the American Revolutionary War, the Episcopal Church was part of the Church of England, so Washington was originally a member of the Church of England.

While he was President, Washington attended Christ Church (an Anglican/Episcopalian congregation) in Philadelphia.”

It seems a little disingenuous to claim that Christ had nothing to do with it when he attended Christ Church

By SusieHomeMaker

January 29, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Sure. IF you also display the Star of David, whatever the Wiccan symbol is, the muslim religious symbol, the Jehovah Witness symbol, the Celt symbol……. u get the picture. If you’re gonna do it for one, do it for all. There are more than just Christians who reside in America.

By Mara

January 29, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Hey Renee! “excellent comment” right back atcha for the “which Christian belief prevails” question.

John - kudos on the explaination of the relationship between Rational Enlightenment and Religion. Let us not forget “The Jefferson Bible”, or that he not only owned a copy of the Koran, he studied it and encouraged his son (nephew) to learn about all religions.

lovelyliz - don’t you know that ONLY christian symbols are allowed? Anything else would be…un-american :^)

By chuck

January 29, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

The following is a letter from Washington’s grandaughter who lived with the Washingtons. I’m just putting in a couple of excerpts, but you can read the entire letter at:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

Sir,

I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give you the information, which you desire.

Truro Parish [Episcopal] is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church [the church where George Washington served as a vestryman], and Woodlawn [the home of Nelly and Lawrence Lewis] are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed [supported and contributed to] largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother…

He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect.

I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, “that they may be seen of men” [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].

My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution.

She (Martha Washington)never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity [happiness in Heaven].

Is it necessary that any one should certify, “General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?” As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, “Deeds, not Words”; and, “For God and my Country.”

With sentiments of esteem,

I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis

By Mara

January 29, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

“When the crisis came, Jefferson, Paine, John Adams, Washington, Franklin, Madison, and many lesser lights were to be reckoned among either the Unitarians or the Deists. it was not Cotton Mather’s God to whom the author of the Declaration of Independence appealed, it was to ‘Nature’s God.’ From whatever source derived, the effect of both Unitarianism and Deism was to hasten the retirement of historic theology from its empire over the intellect of American leaders, and to clear the atmosphere for secular interests” — The Rise of American Civilization,” by Charles A. and Mary R. Beard.

“Washington rarely attended, as we have seen, any church but the Episcopal, hence, if any denomination of Christians could claim him as an adherent, it was this one. Yet here we have two of its most distinguished representatives, pastors of the churches which he attended, the one not knowing what his belief was, the other disclaiming him and asserting that he was a Deist.” ” The Rev. Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our earlier statesmen and presidents, and who thoroughly investigated the subject of their religious beliefs, in his sermon already mentioned affirmed that the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected — George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson — not one had professed a belief in Christianity.” — “Six Historic Americans” by John E. Remsburg

I wholeheartedly recommend the “Six Historic Americans” to anyone wanting to read a historically accurate account of the lives of our most famous founding fathers.

By chuck

January 29, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

Yes john: kudos on the explaination of the relationship between Rational Enlightenment and Religion. Except that it is a load of crap. I know all of you libs would like to beleive this but it just isn’t true. It’s nothing more than historical revisionism.

Even Franklin himself the most noted “deist” of the founders expressed doubt many times and often spoke of the necessity of God’s laws being used to direct human behavior.

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

Another explanation for Jefferson’s possession of a Koran could have been a desire to know his enemies. It was during Jefferson’s presidency that the U.S. took on the Muslim slave-traders and pirates on the Barbary Coast of Africa in war.

For example, prior to Jefferson’s Presidency, in a 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

That sounds pretty familiar, doesn’t it?

But I digress.

I’m not advocating restrictions on ANY religion, but I do protest the stifling of the most prevalent one, who’s tenets of hard work, charity and humility are indeed the underpinnings of this nation.

By The72John

January 29, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

George Washington was an Anglican, yes. He was also a member of the church’s Vestry, a governing body that served as the county court. Membership on the Vestry was required to hold a variety of political powers. However, numerous letters and diaries from Washington’s parish priest and others who attended the same church indicated that Washington never took Communion, and in fact generally left before the Eucharist portion of the service began.

At that point in our history, what was the OVERRIDING religion practiced? Protestant Christianity. The 10 Commandments were the supreme MORAL law of the Founders and anyone who disputes that is not paying attention.

Again, you confuse the current incarnation of fundamentalist evangelicalism with the practice of religion during the Enlightenment. However, a little application of reason and logic clearly dispells the myth that the 10 Commandments were the supreme “moral” law of the Founding Fathers. In fact, the Constitution is directly counter to many of the 10 Commandments. Of the 10, only 3 are codified into law - proscriptions against murder, theft and false witness. Those that speak to religious observations are absolutely excluded by the 1st ammendment.

Much has been made of the fact that Washington and many of the other Founding Fathers were Freemasons. What often gets overlooked is that Freemason principles are not compatible with Christian orthodoxy. Freemasons were Unitarians, in that they did not acknowledge the Trinity. God was divine - Christ was not. Freemasons were also Universalists, meaning they believed that all relgions ultimately offered a path to God.

Certainly, Christian ethical structures were important in Western civilization. However, that doesn’t mean that when our founding Statesmen (or even Lincoln) spoke about God or a Creator, or Providence, that they were referring exclusively to the Christian concept of God.

By kimberly

January 29, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Q: What do angry, militant “Chritians” and Jesus Christ have in common?

By The72John

January 29, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this

Except that it is a load of crap. I know all of you libs would like to beleive this but it just isn’t true. It’s nothing more than historical revisionism.

Yes Chuck. I have no doubt that you wholeheartedly believe that. Just like you believe in Dinosaur eggs on the Ark. Consider the source.

By Brian Curtis

January 29, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Well done, 72John. Saved me the trouble of making essentially the same points.

The net result is this: If America truly practiced the sort of “Christianity” embraced by the Founders (who were careful not to require any such thing), a lot of modern-day zealots and Bible-thumpers would be dismayed at how anti-Jesus this “Christian nation” would be. Jerry Falwell would NOT be sitting in the Oval Office, but rather locked up in an asylum (not a bad thing, necessarily).

Their “Christian” faith doesn’t really bear much resemblance to yours, folks. Better quit while you’re ahead.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

For example, prior to Jefferson’s Presidency, in a 1786 meeting in London of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the Tripolitan ambassador to Britain, Jefferson and Adams met with Ambassador Adja to negotiate a peace treaty and protect the United States from the threat of Barbary piracy.

Can we also include in that comment the fact that Jefferson let the Tripolitan amabassador know the USA should NOT be considered a Christian nation? Because if my recollection of history….LOL And here I thought it was just the pagan libruls who engaged in revisionist history. Of course that also a Rush-ism, (report the facts, but leave out the more important actual DETAILS that would change the perception of the comment).

Hi Renee.

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this

It’s easy to see the effects of historical revisionism in many of the comments on this blog.

We find a letter from Washington’s granddaughter saying one thing, and an opinion of one “The Rev. Dr. Wilson, who was almost a contemporary of our earlier statesmen and presidents…” saying the opposite.

I tend to believe the one who lived with him.

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

sigh…where have all the moderates gone?

By chuck

January 29, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

Mary R. Beard, a historian in her own right, was particularly interested in feminism and the labor movement and wrote a number of works on the subjects, notably Women’s Work in Municipalities (1915), A Short History of the American Labor Movement (1920), On Understanding Women (1931), and Woman as Force in History (1946).

Charles Beard, much criticized as a radical in his earlier years.

No liberal bias here.

By Brian Curtis

January 29, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

BBB: No one’s denying that religion has played an important role in our nation’s history; you’re right, such a claim would be dishonest.

The question is, to what degree should public/governmental space be devoted to the displays and symbols of one particular religion, in a system where government is supposed to stay neutral and secular on the issue?

That’s a point that can be fairly debated… but only once we dispense with absurd claims like “This is supposed to be a Christian nation” and “The founders were all fundamentalist Southern Baptists like me.”

By Archie

January 29, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Good job Mara with your 9:51 am post because you did make some important distinctions. The way the topic question is phrased it makes you take a yes or no position but it is really not a yes or no question. I say yes to the topic question but with some qualifications. Religion should not be shoved down anyone’s throat. I have no problem complimenting people on the blog or in person that do not share all of my beliefs and I went to church yesterday. This is new spin on an old argument hopefully the discussion will not bog down.

By chuck

January 29, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

The Christ A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence John E. Remsberg

Remsberg concluded that Christ didn’t exist. HMMMMM think maybe he had a reason for denying the FAITH of the Founding Fathers?

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

brian - certaily you can see a certain amount of humor in the fact that mara and so many others rant “of the people, by the people, for the people” in an argument against religion, while the quote from lincoln specifically references god?

By Mara

January 29, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

chuck - if ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest man on earth. Try learning a bit about deism, the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason before giving us your half-assed opinions, m-kay? Now let’s play “Dueling Cut-n-Paste”, shall we? I mean, since you don’t believe that any of us know what we’re talking about…

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/johnremsburg/sixhistoricamericans/chapter4.html

“At the age of eighty-four, just previous to his death, in reply to inquiries concerning his religious belief from Ezra Stiles, the President of Yale College, [Franklin] wrote as follows”:

“Here is my creed: I believe in one God, the Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.”

This is pure Deism. Paine and Voltaire would have readily subscribed to every one of the above six articles of faith. Compare the creed of Franklin with the creed of Paine.

“Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.”

“It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.” - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/paine-deism.html

“It is not improbable that Franklin had much to do with shaping the Deistic belief of Paine. Parton says: “Paine was a resident of Philadelphia, a frequenter of Franklin’s house, and was as well aware as we are of Dr. Franklin’s religious opinions. Nor is there much in the ‘The Age of Reason” http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm to which Franklin would have refused to assent.” (Life of Franklin, Vol. ii., p. 553).

By kimberly

January 29, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

Q: What do angry, militant “Christians” and Jesus Christ have in common?

Um, that’s not a knock-knock joke. Anybody know? For years I have attempted to find a resemblence. If there is one, it eludes me.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

sigh…where have all the moderates gone?

Maybe you talked them into buying/speculating in Stocks-and-bonds and they are now all busy being DayTraders(probably not QUITE what you had in mind, but). LOL

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Can we also include in that comment the fact that Jefferson let the Tripolitan amabassador know the USA should NOT be considered a Christian nation? Because if my recollection of history….

I’d really like to read that somewhere other than on this blog. Could you provide some sort of source for that statement?

By Brian Curtis

January 29, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

BBB: True, it’s ironic.

I rather doubt the discussion will get to the point of appropriate degrees, though… we’ve got a lot of diehard fundies and Bible-thumpers who still want a “Christian nation,” and they’ll insist on the supposed fundamentalist leanings of the Founding Fathers till the cows come home.

By The72John

January 29, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

sigh…where have all the moderates gone?

What is immoderate about historical accuracy? I acknowledge that Christian ethics were important to the FFs, just as I recognize that the supersitious trappings were not. In fact, I acknowledge that Christian ethics represent some what is best about mankind, exactly like many of the Founding Fathers did - exactly like Thomas Jefferson did when he re-wrote the Gospels to remove anything supernatural attributed to Christ, instead presenting him as a great ethical champion.

However, suggesting that Christian ethics influenced the Founding Fathers does not then mean that they would have favored a religious government. Their writings clearly indicate otherwise. Just like many people of Faith today of all stripes believe that their Faith is PRIVATE reject the idea of the government using symbols of a specific religion.

Truly, I fail to see how that is in any way “immoderate”. Perhaps you can…Elighten me.

brian - certaily you can see a certain amount of humor in the fact that mara and so many others rant “of the people, by the people, for the people” in an argument against religion, while the quote from lincoln specifically references god?

Why does “god” have to be co-opted by a specific group of Christians? If anything is immoderate, it’s that you seem bent on emphasising ONE interpretation of God when there are so many possible ones. God exists for many people free of any specific orthodoxy or cannon.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Q: What do angry, militant “Christians” and Jesus Christ have in common?

I thought you meant there was no A: for “answer”.

By The72John

January 29, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this

The Barbary Treaties

Source - Yale Law School. Article 11 is the relevant passage.

By Jack

January 29, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Hi All. Can’t stay, just wanted to say “Hey”

They should display all.

:)

By chuck

January 29, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

WRONG AGAIN BC. Nobody on this blog has claimed that the founders were “Southern Baptists” but people HAVE claimed that they were not Christians, and those statements are blatantly false with a few exceptions.

Regardless of that, the only thing that SHOULD matter is what the Constitution SAYS. The Constitution does not address the issues that have been discussed here at all. Specifically, it says NOTHING about any INDIVIDUAL state or LOCAL government having religious displays of any kind. The Constitution is COMPLETELY SILENT ON THAT TOPIC. Why then are these issues taking up so much of our time and effort? Not because CONGRESS has made a law. In fact NO LAW HAS BEEN MADE AT ALL, by Congress or by ANY state. We are arguing over this because THE COURTS HAVE MADE LAWS. Not one of you has attempted to answer the question:

If, as you say, the founders were so adamant about the separation of Church and State, why were there no objections to a MULTITUDE of Christian practices that they both participated in and observed that were both carried out AND PAID for with government dollars? Why did they stand still for SECTARIAN prayers to open EVERY session of Congress? Why did they agree to be sworn in with their hand on the Christian Bible and Swear to defend the Constitution “So help me GOD”?

Why was there not ONE SINGLE case concerning the supposed “establishment clause” prior to the appointment of a liberal Supreme Court by FDR?

You cannot answer those questions with any amount of intellectual honesty because it would force you to acknowledge that the founders ACTUALLY MEANT WHAT THEY SAID in the CONSTITUTION. AND that they did not mean what Liberal justices meant when they perverted the establishment clause.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Thanks 72JOhn, It was something I remembered from way back but did not have the research saved handy. LOL(Like I book mark everything I have read since childhood. .LMAO)

but a search on jefferson we are not a christian nation tripolitan ambassador yields The Treay of Tripoli, and it was probably John Adams(not Jefferson) who made the comment to the Tripolitan ambassador.

My bad. oooops, wrong person. LOL

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

They should display all.

ALL religious artifacts or just the more popular ones?

hmmmm. slippery slope indeed.

By Best regards

January 29, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Check this: http://www.dreipage.de/userdaten/21279160/html/cialis.html >cialis

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

take a deep breath, john. i wasn’t talking about finding a moderate position about what exactly all of the framers believed. i was talking about a more moderate position between the fundie bible thumpers and the “secular absolutists”.

Why does “god” have to be co-opted by a specific group of Christians?

john, where have i mentioned christianity in any of my posts today? i haven’t. i’ve simply discussed religion. you are confusing my comments about religion with others on the blog who believe that references among our founding fathers, or lincoln, concerning religion must have been about christianity. i am not the author of those statements, so you are arguing against something i did not say.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

and why did Andrew Jackson have a drunken bash inviting plenty of common people, with free HARD cider for all? LOL Does that mean we should all be drunks?

quote of the week: Huckabee, on Meet the Press, discussing his ‘humble’(his term) beginnings in the same town as Clinton, Hope, Arkansas. and explaining why the best politicians are ones who have risen from the bottom to the top:

we have too many people (in politics) who were born on third base and think that they have hit a triple.

By boring boring

January 29, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

What a boring topic. There are so many other important things to talk about, and wasn’t this a topic before?

Scary news: Birth-control pills are now less effective at preventing pregnancy. In September, for example, the FDA warned women that Johnson & Johnson’s birth control patch Ortho Evra could raise their chances of developing blood clots in the legs and lungs. Johnson & Johnson markets a number of traditional contraceptives, including its top-selling birth control pill, Ortho Tri-Cyclen.

Thank you NARAL Pro-Choice America & all the women who stood up against Walmart who would not cover birth control for emplyees, but paid for Viagra without any problem at all.

“We applaud the women who had the courage to file a lawsuit against Wal-Mart and bring public attention to this disparity. But we cannot forget that almost half the states in this country do not ensure that health insurance companies cover birth control equally with other prescription drugs – leaving women often struggling or unable to access contraception. As the nation’s largest employer, Wal-Mart’s announcement should send a strong message that ensuring women’s access to birth control is a commonsense policy that Americans support.” Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America

Currently, 24 states do not require insurance coverage for contraception. Several years ago family-planning supporters in Congress were able to win “contraceptive equity” for federal employees - but anti-choice lawmakers have systematically blocked a similar benefit for American women nationwide.

Wal-Mart still allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they personally oppose birth control – leaving the door open for women to lose access to their legally prescribed medication due to a pharmacist’s personal beliefs.

So really any religious symbols should not be anywhere except in their own churches. They are a symbol of oppression. Anti birth control ! Pro-Penile! That’s what those symbols scream.

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

I rather doubt the discussion will get to the point of appropriate degrees, though…

on that, brian, i wholeheartedly agree.

By The72John

January 29, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

take a deep breath, john

There is no need to be rude or patronizing, now is there?

By Brian Curtis

January 29, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Chuck: I believe they meant for the Constitution to be amended… and it has been. And they meant for the judiciary to interpret how to properly apply its principles to specific cases… and they have done so.

You’re trying to apply your narrow interpretation of the Constitution’s wording and claim that it represents “what it actually says.” But history proves you wrong; the judiciary has gone back in forth in interpreting the Constitution’s principles, including the redefinition of black as citizens rather than property; the recognition of women’s right to vote; the right to privacy; the application of First Amendment rights to new forms of communication (e-mail, telephone, etc.); and on and on.

That’s exactly what the judiciary is FOR. The fact that you don’t like how they do their jobs doesn’t mean that they’re not doing it—just as the Founders intended.

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

no, and my comments were intended to be neither. you were laying into me over (i) a topic i wasn’t referring to and (ii) something i didn’t say.

i think you know my commentary well enough by now to know that i (generally) don’t casually toss grenades - and that i didn’t mean to toss one at you. if that’s how it came across, my mistake.

By The72John

January 29, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

If, as you say, the founders were so adamant about the separation of Church and State, why were there no objections to a MULTITUDE of Christian practices that they both participated in and observed that were both carried out AND PAID for with government dollars? Why did they stand still for SECTARIAN prayers to open EVERY session of Congress? Why did they agree to be sworn in with their hand on the Christian Bible and Swear to defend the Constitution “So help me GOD”?

This is why

Again, neither prayer nor references to God are exclusively Christian. Religious observation, interestingly enough, happens in all religions. All religions pray and all religions believe in either God or, less frequently, Gods. So…how is this Christian?

By The72John

January 29, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

*no, and my comments were intended to be neither. you were laying into me over (i) a topic i wasn’t referring to and (ii) something i didn’t say. *

(i) I certainly wasn’t “laying into you”. (ii) You certainly seemed to be commenting on the topic.

Perhaps you could be more specific next time. Something a little more substantive than a heaved sigh of frustration at the lack of moderation and a discussion of specific points would be more conducive to discussion. Unless, of course, all you’re interested in is feeling superior.

By The72John

January 29, 2007 01:01 PM | Link to this

Bla - that was a low blow of my own. Apologies.

Kids, I’m out for the rest of the afternoon. Will pick this back up tomorrow.

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this

john - you took my comment on lincoln and his quote and said “why does god always have to be co-opted by christians.” you then went on to say i was guilty of being immoderate by insisting on one interpretation of god. i have not said anything remotely close to that. so yes, while i’ve discussed the topic, your point against me was over something i never said. just like you, i prefer to not have words put in my mouth.

thank you, though, for future reference i’ll take your advice and be more specific.

for the record, my postings on this blog have nothing to do with feeling superior. i come here from time to time for an exchange of ideas. i like debate. i enjoy hearing what others think. sometimes it is funny. sometimes it is thought provoking. most of the time it is inbetween.

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this

Bla - that was a low blow of my own. Apologies.

fair enough, john. all is good on my end. let’s move on.

By Mara

January 29, 2007 01:18 PM | Link to this

chuck - nice semantics sideslip there, chuck. Remsburg does indeed deny the existance of “THE Christ” but he has no problem saying that Jusus Christ may have indeed existed.

“Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist.”

Are you saying that “The Miraculous Water-Walking Jesus”, “The Abracadabra-Loaves-and-Fishes Jesus”, and “The Necromantic-Arise-From-the-Dead Jesus” story’s are more plausible than a good, honest, moral man named Jusus who wandered around telling everyone to be kind, generous, and helpful to each other? Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in the Miracles either, does that make him suspect?

But that all is pretty much beside the point in that the discussion is about making Christianity the prefered religion of the American nation by promoting and subsidizing the display and dissemination of it’s symbols and ideology.

Those of us who believe that the United States was founded as a home for ALL religions as opposed to being a Christian republic will continue to contest the subsidization of christian beliefs by the government, while those who think that their religion should have special consideration from that same government simply because they are the predominent group will continue to push for that supremacy of place. There’s not much sense in even discussing it because each group believes that they are right and the other is very, very wrong. (yes, I include myself in that statement because I do believe in the ideals of “seperation of church and state” as well as my belief of “freedom of religion” includes “freedom from religion”)

Last cut-n-paste of the day (from me, anyway)

*Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

By Kevin

January 29, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this

BBB

We have no moderation in these discussions because both sides have dug their trenches and stockpiled them with weapons. If anyone wanders out of the trenches into the middle ground, they quickly find themselves in no-man’s land where their arguments are shot down by both sides.

I am ashamed to admit that I am as guilty of this behavior as anyone.

Speaking of moderation, where is 2D?

By GOB

January 29, 2007 01:39 PM | Link to this

This nation was NOT, in fact, founded on Christian principles…

Well, Brian, the country did had slaves, women had virtually no rights, and those that “founded” the various states either killed or forcibly removed those who were on the land they wanted.

That is actually quite biblical…

By blablabla

January 29, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

trust me, kevin, i know how it works. i know i sometimes fail at this, but i try to trade ideas, understand opinions, and ask questions more than sling mud.

i guess i’m just naive in my hope that we can disagree without hating each other. some clearly can disagree in a civil manner; others do not or cannot. the latter both concerns and worries me.

By chuck

January 29, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

NOPE, nice try john, but the term has only been used by the courts since 1963. It wasn’t “customary” when they started doing it. It BECAME customary after thaey had done it for some time.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 01:49 PM | Link to this

can I play Constitional Authority here for a minute, since I would not be the first to do so here?

Since I can find nothing in the Constitution that says Religious Artifacts should be displayed prominently on Government grounds, I can only assume it is UN-Constitutional. Just trying to apply the same logic that other Constitional Authority-types apply here.

But since I am NOT a Constitional Authority, I’m just playin’, like I said. LOL

By chuck

January 29, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

There you go again gob, proving my point from last week to which you never responded:

By chuck

January 26, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

Gob, I can’t even remember the last time you made an “argument” of ANY KIND. Most of your posts are stupid little one liners parroted from one of your boy friends BC, or 72john, or the like, so pardon me if I just YAWN. You definitely bore me. Get an original thought and we’ll talk.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

obviously I cut/paste that Constitutional Authority after the first mis-spelling.. LOL

It’s just that I listened to the start of GNR Civil War recently….LOL

wha we have har is a failu to communcate

By chuck

January 29, 2007 02:07 PM | Link to this

Actually Chilao, you are a Contitutional SCHOLAR compared to some of these Cretins. You actually helped to prove my point though. The 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution answer that point:

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution does NOT prohibit the display of religious instruments then that right belongs INDIVIDUALLY to each state. If a STATE were to prohibit the display then I would be hard pressed to argue the point. The problem is that it was not a STATE, it was the Supreme Court. In order for the state to issue such a law, it would have to pass muster with the VOTERS of that state. The Supreme Court claiming that authority for itself, USURPS individual rights and self-determination of the states. I would think that the Liberals among us would be in favor of individual liberty…Oh that’s right, they only want liberty fo people that think like them.

By Boring II

January 29, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

They should call this blog “Boring Christian discussions” instead of Woman to Woman.

Women don’t give a rats a$$ about this topic. This blog should be moved to the religious section of the AJC. Or start banning silly religious ranting. File those with the pornography links the writers love to leave posted for everybody to see.

By GOB

January 29, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

There you go again gob, proving my point from last week to which you never responded:

Chuck - As you know, I am now a teacher, so I am only able to check in during my planning, if I even have time then. I find it very interesting that someone who is supposed to be teaching finds time to post on a blog as much as you do. When do you actually teach?

Also, are you trying to argue that slavery, oppression of women, etc are NOT biblical? You clearly take the old testament literally (see dinosaur eggs on the ark), so why would you deny that those things I mentioned are biblical? Or are those the parts you choose to ignore or pretend arent there?

By chuck

January 29, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

Hey Boring II. You have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to completely AVOID this blog.

By chuck

January 29, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this

Gob, gob, gob. You can’t argue with someone who NEVER ACTUALLY MAKES A POINT. You also can’t have a discussion about the Bible with someone who knows NOTHING about it.

BTW, slavery and oppression of women is decidedly NOT BIBLICAL.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Chuck, I see no mention of Religious Articles in the public sector, in either of those amendments. not there.

LOL, (I’m just trying to parrot the Nothing in the Constitution about Social Security, Medicare, etc folk).

ain’t nothing there about having them in the courthouse, so it must be forbidden.

By Chilao

January 29, 2007 02:31 PM | Link to this

Women don’t give a rats a$$ about this topic

But many(okay, SOME) Christian women DO, otherwise their kids might end up murderers and rapists(Thank you, Diane).

If you do not see a cross when you enter the Post Office, you might not be able to control yourself when that cute clerk comes to the window. LOL

By Boring III

January 29, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

Chuck this blog has gone downhill for the last 6 months because the conversation is always about religion. Long biblical quotes BORING long heated arguments about words written thousands of years ago by barely evolved humans. BORING How anybody can think that words that have been twisted & manipulated by so many should EVEN have a place in todays world? Religion is the reason women have had little or no individual rights till since I’ve been alive. Even today religious people cause women to suffer because of the obsession they have with owning & deciding the destiny of women’s wombs. (but not men’s Viagra needs) Religion set the standard that has made it very difficult for a woman have any real position of power. I want a woman president now.

You guys rant so much religious garbage it really belongs in a different section of this newspaper instead of a woman’s blog.

The writers of this blog need to stop with the stupid religious topics. If they can’t control themselves please rename this blog to: “Religious Women speak (but not too loud or proud or when the men are talking)”

By Silent Majority

January 29, 2007 02:54 PM | Link to this

Now this is indeed, a tough one. I do not believe that anyone should be forced to bow down to anyone else’s idea of what God is or what God should look like. Based on this alone it would suffice it to say that a symbol could/should not be placed in a public facility.

HOWEVER, the flip to this is that no one should be forced to spend the rest of their days suppressing their religious beliefs either. I think it safe to say that the law has done back flips to accommodate the smaller portion of society that agrees with the thought of removing any and all religious symbols from society as a whole. Brave move actually considering that the majority strongly believe in a Christian value system and highly value a religious symbol to be prominently displayed everywhere.

In short, not having a religious symbol in a pubic facility is fine. Probably makes a more fair society. Practice what we legally preach and all that. However, I don’t want those that oppose religious symbols to make a mistake quite a few special interest groups do at every turn either.

By this I also mean to includereligious, sexual, race, creed, or others that really wish to push “special rights/treatment” not “equal rights/treatment”.

Case in point;

Hire the best for the job, not the darkest, whitest, or sexiest…this means dropping afirmative action and any other “special interests” groups including gay, right wing, left wing, industrial, what have you except for the mentally and physically handicapped. Just seems like common sense here? Treat all with respect, not just those that whine about the lack of it Apply the press equally and not just to those that they favor. Hold the press accountable for a change. Legally and financially.

In short, you can’t stop there. You will have to go all the way.

I think it more wise for us of a any religious mindset to simply be secure in our thoughts and beliefs. To not feel that we have to apologize for them, and to know that the God we know understands our challenge in these times. All this despite the fact he instructs us to take his message forward. There are numerous other, more successful ways to do this. The fact that a cross is not going to be on the State Capital’s steps is not going to dissuade me in my beliefs one little bit and it probably shouldn’t dissuade yours either.

I would only humbly ask that in order to respect this request would it be too much if I were to ask the same respect when it comes to my beliefs? That if you see me silently pray in a restaurant before a meal you try not to be offended? That if I pray for the departed and soon to be departed you won’t take affront to that? That if I believe there is a Heaven and a Hell you won’t expend newsprint trying to prove I am wrong and if you do, have the decency to let me respond?

In return, I promise not to shove my beliefs down your throat. You can pray or not pray to any one, thing or thought you so wish. Again, I’m NOT special but then, neither are you so quit acting like it. Quit acting so “put out”.

Not having a cross is not going to hurt me any more than having one publicly displayed will hurt you. At the risk of sounding arcance in these times, the religious minded have rights…too. We probably should all just spend so much LESS time proving it to each other.

There ARE more pressing things in life?

Thanks for your time.

By suzan

January 29, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

I know this topic will never give way to one side or the other. For those that believe in God, there can be no other choice but to follow the beliefs that are dictated by structure of thier religion. For those that choose to believe in nothing, they will never be convinced otherwise unless they have an ephiphany. This is truly one subject that can never be settled. It ties into other beliefs about the sanctaty of life ( abortion, death sentances) and morals of man. After all is said and done, nothing will be decided.

By chuck

January 29, 2007 03:38 PM | Link to this

Silent Majority,

The problem with what you say is that if we discuss our Faith on this blog, some people will AUTOMATICALLY count that as “shoving our Faith down their throats”. The only thing that makes them happy is the idea of completely obliterating EVERY Visible sign of religion from public view.

Some have argued on this blog that churches should not be allowed to put up signs on their OWN PROPERTY or rent billboards. That’s how looney the left has gotten. It’s not enough anymore to remove prayer from schools, graduations, football games, etc. It has to be removed from EVERYTHING.

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 03:45 PM | Link to this

Thank you for the reference to the Barbary Treaties, I’d never read them before today.

Getting back to Shaunti’s question, “Is removing the Wren cross — and other recent cases, such as the Mount Soledad cross in a San Diego public park — really about tolerance of all religions or simply prejudice against one religion?”

It should be as plain as the nose on your face that this is an orchestrated effort to remove any and all Christian symbolism from the public arena. Not to be a total smartazz, but how long before we’re forced to remove the cross from the steeple of our local church?

And did you hear the story of the airport worker who was reprimanded for wearing a cross around her neck? It happened in Britain recently. Evidently the powers that be were afraid of offending the Muslim community.

I think it’s way past time for all those ‘offended ones’ to grow a skin and get over it. Come telling me to get rid of MY religious symbols and I’ll become decidedly UN-Christian rather quickly. I don’t tell anyone else how to live or what to believe. I expect the same respect in return.

By Mara

January 29, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

Some have argued on this blog that churches should not be allowed to put up signs on their OWN PROPERTY or rent billboards

and here I could’ve sworn that the whole point was to direct churches to put their displays on their own property (or rented property in the case of billboards). Don’t really recall anyone saying that having religious symbols or words in their proper places was, in any way, unacceptable. You got a link or quote on that, chuck?

suzan - For those that choose to believe in nothing, they will never be convinced otherwise unless they have an ephiphany

I’ll assume that you’ve never had a real conversation with a non-christian if that’s what you think. Your comment that one either believes in “God” or believes in “nothing” is just so…unbelievably parochial. Plenty of folks, in fact a majority of the world, doesn’t follow the God of the Christians. A whole heap of folks don’t believe in a singular God at all, but do worship a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. Some of us are Deist or Unitarians who believe in “God”, just not chucks god. Even Atheists don’t believe in “nothing”. Most of the Agnostics and Atheists I know are Humanists or Rationalists. That’s a belief in something, isn’t it?

Bah!! What a waste of time. I’m outta here…

By Brian Curtis

January 29, 2007 04:04 PM | Link to this

Guy: Do you see how a church (private property) is different from, say, a courthouse (public property)? Do you see how one is government and the other is not?

If not, we’re not going to get very far in understanding the distinction between private religious expression and public/governmental endorsement of religion.

By Joe L

January 29, 2007 04:28 PM | Link to this

Come telling me to get rid of MY religious symbols and I’ll become decidedly UN-Christian rather quickly. I don’t tell anyone else how to live or what to believe. I expect the same respect in return.

We are not talking about YOUR or any one elses’ private rights or property. We are talking about OUR property and money when we are talking at public space. This silly bogeyman needs to stop. “They’re coming for our Bibles and to drink our Christian babies’ blood! Run for your lives!”

By Guy Pinestra

January 29, 2007 04:44 PM | Link to this

Since Wikipedia is such a highly esteemed source around here, I thought I’d use it. This excerpt is about the SCOTUS building.

*# The Courtroom frieze depicts the history of law, including the Ten Commandments. The commandments are shown held by Moses, although only commandments six through ten, usually considered the more secular commands, are visible. Further, Moses’ beard obscures some of the words so that instead of reading “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” it says “Steal,” and similarly appears to command viewers to murder and commit adultery. There are also other figures engraved in the chambers, including the Muslim prophet Muhammad and a larger-than-life frieze of Napoleon Bonaparte among the 18 marble likenesses on the courtroom’s north and south walls.[13]

Do you suggest that this is an improper melding of church and state also?

By Joe L

January 29, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

Actually the matter of the SCOTUS building and the frieze has been discussed many times before. There is a large difference between a mix of imagery on a historical building and the damage to said building’s aesthetic and historic value to remove it versus the issues brought up in this case or many others. As many of us have pointed out displays that are historical in nature versus overwhelmingly religious and displays that are more inclusive deserve more regard than outright attempts to bully (read: Moore and Alabama).

Nothing in life works in a pure black and white sense and the is not a problem I see with moderates and liberal, but moreso with conservatives that cannot function with shades of grey and analyses of individual cases and exceptions to general rules.

By Mara

January 30, 2007 07:08 AM | Link to this

Guy Pinestra - while Wikipedia is one source most of us at least check, it’s also subject to open revision so shouldn’t be used as an unverified source. As for your premise about SCOTUS, which, as Joe L states has been debunked and debunked ad infinitum…try looking at some of the urban legends websites, like Scopes, perhaps. Here…I’ll help you

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

By Mara

January 30, 2007 07:17 AM | Link to this

ooops. pretend that “c” is an “n”. It’s s-N-o-p-e-s, not s-C-o-p-e-s

but the link is right…

By schoogirl

January 30, 2007 07:26 AM | Link to this

affitto affitto[url=http://allforpeople.web-space.ws/index6.html]affitto[/url] affitto affitto affitto[url=http://allforpeople.web-space.ws/index7.html]affitto[/url] affitto affitto affitto[url=http://allforpeople.web-space.ws/index10.html]affitto[/url] affitto affitto affitto[url=http://allforpeople.web-space.ws/index9.html]affitto[/url] affitto affitto affitto[url=http://allforpeople.web-space.ws/index8.html]affitto[/url] affitto Ö

By Carlton Wyatt

January 30, 2007 07:29 AM | Link to this

Guy: I specifically stated in my earlier post that even though I do not hold to the Christian dogma, it does not offend me to see the symbols of that religion, or of any religion, displayed. Your questions to me reveal that you either did not actually comprehend what I wrote or that you’re simply parroting the same tired diatribe that has little meaning. And you do realize that the Pentagon, who controls Arlington Cemetery, is attempting to prevent the display of Wiccan symbology on markers there. They allow crosses and displays of the typical religions symbols like menorah, etc., but are objecting to those of Wicca. Is that the religious freedom you mention? And what of the recent screech from some of the pious members of Congress objecting to an ELECTED muslim using a Koran for his photo op swearing in? And the call from some of these zealots to REQUIRE a Bible for a swearing in to ELECTED office, regardless of the religion of the elected?

In Georgia even the courts are many times ignorant of the fact that a Bible and oath to some god is not required for swearing in as a witness or juror (the US Supreme Court knocked down that provision many years ago). I was told I must place my hand on a Bible and swear to some god that I was telling the truth. When I pointed out to the court that such a requirement was invalid, I was threatened with contempt of court. It wasn’t until I pointed out the SCOTUS ruling that they relented.

The “attack on Christians” is just a convenient excuse by some zealots to force even more of their religion upon everyone else. When other people object to this forced worship, it then inflames the zealots to believe there really is an “attack”. But they’re the ones starting it.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 08:53 AM | Link to this

Mara, are you saying that the Supreme Court Building does NOT have those images inscribed on it?

Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. The group at the far left represents Safeguard of the Rights of the People, and Genii of Wisdom and Statecraft. The far right group represents the Defense of Human Rights. -To the right is a procession of historical lawgivers including: Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Augustus. They are flanked by figures symbolizing Fame and History. -To the left are later historical lawgivers including Napoleon, John Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Saint Louis, King John, Charlemagne, Mohammed and Justinian. Figures representing Liberty and Peace and Philosophy appear at either end. -Symbolized on the back wall frieze is Justice with the winged female figure of Divine Inspiration, flanked by Wisdom and Truth. At the far left the Powers of Good are shown, representing Security, Harmony, Peace, Charity, and Defense of Virtue. At the far right the Powers of Evil are represented by Corruption, Slander, Deceit, and Despotic Power.

http://www.usscplus.com/info/building.htm

This website has a picture and description of the “North Frieze” on the outside of the building:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammedimagearchive/misc_mo/

This one has pictures of the various views of the building and describes the figures represented there:

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/washdc/supremecrt/supremecrt.html

My question is, “What exactly was ‘debunked’?”

By SusieHomeMaker

January 30, 2007 09:02 AM | Link to this

What is the reasoning behind swearing in on a bible? Especially if you are an atheist? If an atheist swears in on the bible, like say at court, then turns around and lies, what significance could the swearing in process hold? Could the person be held for perjury because he was sworn in and promised to tell the truth “so help me God” and didn’t? What if he refuses to swear in on a bible would his/her word still be acceptable then?

By chuck

January 30, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Mara, In answer to your earlier question, I don’t have time to look back and find the exact quotes, I think it was either in the December ‘03 or February ‘05 discussion of a similar topic.

By Mara

January 30, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

chuck - I don’t deny the artwork is there. I do dispute the way Guy interprets its existance as a religious statement. Especially when the artists and architects who actually created the designs had no such intent.

Susie - I’d be just as likely to tell the truth if I swore on “Green Eggs and Ham” as I would were I to swear an honesty oath on the Bible.

But of course you know that the swearing on a holy text is a holdover from the days when people really believed that God would smite you down if you broke and oath that He, in the form of His holy word, witnessed. (I wonder if Dr. Suess would smite me….) LOL!!!

By Renee

January 30, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Joe L. good comment 4:28. This is such a simple topic to me. Religious expression is fine…on private property, like, a church, or some other private building. A building which is open to all citizens should reflect the feelings of all citizens. Since it is probably aesthetically impossible to reflect the feelings of all citizens, then how does one arbitrarily pick the feelings/beliefs of some citizens that are felt to be the prevailing amount.

By Renee

January 30, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

A blue fish might hit you in the head Mara LOL!

By Susan

January 30, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

SusieHM, There are no such thing as actual atheists, these are simple people who have not thought things through(like a child who still believes in magic). When the universe was created in the beginning(billions of years ago)at some point there was nothing, then there was something, things just don’t appear out of thin air, without some help(a creator). Just as a magician can’t actually make things disappear out of thin air. So for one to be a atheist, one has to believe that things just appear at random(from nothing, something appears). Not possible. Therefore, a creator(God)does exist. Logical.

By kimberly

January 30, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

Actual woman’s issue: Here’s a victory for the Chuckie-types and the morality police.

Young woman is brutally raped, reports it to police, who arrest her for an outstanding “failure to pay restitution” warrant from when she was a minor. She spends the next two nights in jail, where she is DENIED EMERGENCY POST-RAPE CONTRACEPTION by the folks at the jail who feel such precautions violate their own religious freedom.

No amount of therapy is going to fix this young woman now. Maybe she can come live with Chuckie and his family, who will show her what love really is by explaining “God’s will” for sinful sluts who are asking for it.

By lozen

January 30, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

Oh excuse me Susie, but you’re the one who seems simple. I actually am an atheist. I do not believe in the Yahweh of christianity. And that makes me a lot like you. You believe in Zeus? No. You believe in Isis? No. I just believe in one god less than you do. I have thought it through for many years. I have taken religion classes, read the bible, read many other books about different religions. You’re beliefs seem like childlike clinging to magic to me. Noone knows how the universe came into existence but it certainly wasn’t the simple folktale we read in the bible.

By lozen

January 30, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this

Oh, Kimberly that is so sad. Where did you get the story?

By blablabla

January 30, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this

susan - things can appear out of thin air. it’s called quantum physics.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 11:05 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, that was over the top even for you. Personally, I would still prefer that we have the death penalty for rapists…but you know that because I’ve said it MANY TIMES. It must be sad to have so much hate in your heart.

By Brian Curtis

January 30, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this

“Susan” sounds an awful lot like “Randy.” Especially the condescending “Atheists can’t POSSIBLY have thought about their beliefs, they’re just stupid” attitude.

By blablabla

January 30, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

i read the link, kimberly. the process the police went through appears to be improper, to say the least. and while she should most certainly be arrested for failure to comply with her earlier felony charges, she should certainly have received appropriate medical care for the rape.

By kimberly

January 30, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Lozen, it was a link from fark.com, a place where ridiculous news is ridiculed. No surprise that it happened in Florida.

Watch Chuckie completely ignore the way his no-excuses fundie types continue to victimize victims with their religious “freedom.”

By kimberly

January 30, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

Chuckie, how is it “over the top” to report actual events in which religious fundies screw people over? I did none of the screwing in that story. As for the animosity (I don’t think hate is accurate) in my heart, let’s just say it got there after I trusted and believed in people like you. Don’t ask me what happened, but understand that just about daily, you personally validate my current perspective and invalidate my old one. Winning souls for Christ much? Not likely.

By Mara

January 30, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Susan - why do you and your ilk insist that the universe had to be “created”? Who says there even had to be a “beginning”?After all, theories abound about the relationship between energy, matter, time, and space. Just because you are only able to envision a linear time-line (going always forward, of course) and a singular universe composed of static “objects”, well, that doesn’t mean other people can’t envision a much richer and more complex universe than that. How can you, or anyone ftm, state difinitively that this can’t happen, or that another thing simply isn’t possible? Who are you to say what is and isn’t reality, the Great Swami of the Universe?

Your “atheists don’t exist” statement certainly seems to cast doubt on your ability at “logic” and your insistance that, to be an atheist, one must “believe that things just appear at random(from nothing, something appears)” What a simplistic and ignorant statement of what an atheist is and what they believe. All atheism is, for your information, is a skepticism (or outright denial) of the existance of any God or Gods. It doesn’t say anything about the universe appearing at random or forming out of nothing. Just because they don’t believe that the big invisible spankin’ daddy in the sky created it just to give you and yours somewhere to stand while you stroke his obviousely fragile ego with all your Tony-the-tiger howls of “God is gggrrEEEEAAT!”…well, that doesn’t mean that Atheists believe if formed out of *nothing. If you’re going to define atheism, why don’t you at least look it up in a dictionary or talk to some actual atheists before you start spouting about what they do and don’t believe? At least it’d keep you from sounding completely ignorant.

Hey Renee! Red fish, blue fish, smite me in the head fish! LOL!!

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

Okay Susan explain where God came from “logically”. If your argument is that matter had to come from somewhere where did God come from? He couldn’t have come from nowhere. So who created the Creator? This argument is specious and feeds back on itself infinitely - a concept you obviously don’t understand. There has always been matter. It didn’t come from anywhere it has always existed and always will exist.

By Monica

January 30, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

What is the reasoning behind swearing in on a bible? Especially if you are an atheist? If an atheist swears in on the bible, like say at court, then turns around and lies, what significance could the swearing in process hold? Could the person be held for perjury because he was sworn in and promised to tell the truth “so help me God” and didn’t? What if he refuses to swear in on a bible would his/her word still be acceptable then?

Gee, that sounds like a great topic for next month when we can argue about religion. Has anyone else had enough of religious debates? I don’t think this forum is the place to “convert” others. Let’s just make a list of who believes what with regard to religion: Christians, Christian but not organized religion, atheist, agnostic, Zen, Muslim, Jewish, etc… and BE DONE WITH IT!

Can we find some other topics, or am I the only one who grows tired of this one? :)

By chuck

January 30, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Kimmie, the “over the top” references your personal attack on me. You know good and well that I would not respond in any such way. Secondly, this had NOTHING to do with “fundamentalists” as you call them, but rather with an overzealous police department (assuming what you say is true and not some biased account of the event by some wacko left wing nut job).

My response would have been to make sure that the woman was cared for and that the rapist was found and prosecuted. PERIOD.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Joe L—Where do you come up with “matter has always existed. It didn’t come from anywhere”? That “explanation” is even dumber than the fairy tale that modern day “Christians” like to spin about Creation.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statement that time “moves” in only one direction. That is to say, some physical processes are irreversible. As such, it is reasonable to speak of the “history” of events, i.e. events happen in a certain order. The problem with modern “Scientists” is that they are too confident in their backwards projections about the beginnings of the Universe.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:01 PM | Link to this

kimberly—I’m beginning to wonder if you don’t have some type of Jessica Hahn story to tell. I would sympathize more with whatever crap you took from the phoney-baloney religious types, but in the end you have to accept responsibility for trusting the wrong people to begin with. Sorry, I don’t believe in “victimhood” for people who choose their circumstances.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Additionally Kimmie,you misrepresented the FACTS, according to the link you posted. Denying the SECOND DOSE OF CONTRACEPTION HAD nothing TO DO WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BUT RATHER A POLICY THAT CALLS FOR ALL MEDICATIONS TO BE CONFISCATED. Why can’t you liberals be honest when you try to make your points?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

And chuck, as always, you prove what a fake of a Christian you are this week with your endorsement of displaying religious symbols on government property. You are possibly right that the wording of the Constitution leaves the door open for individual States to endorse a particular religion through the display of only one religion’s symbols. You’re a good Pharisee in interpreting the Constitution that way.

However, the spirit of the Law is clear. The founders of our nation intended the government to be religiously neutral, and rightly so. While I don’t care for the ACLU overall, I support their efforts to fight the American Taliban among us.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

Once again, chuck, you have been able to hide behind the Bible this week arguing with the Libs because they don’t know the Bible well enough to counter. The fact is, chuck, that the Christ himself strongly advocated the separation of Church and State. I won’t bore the Libs here by enumerating the passages, but they are numerous, and they are clear in their statement.

Furthermore, the Christ strongly opposed war of any time, instead advocating giving up your own life before taking the life of another.

By Brian Curtis

January 30, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

…and there’s Bruno-Dog, so that’s an end to productive discussion for the week. Have a good day, everyone!

By lozen

January 30, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Monica, you are not the only one who gets tired of this one. But it is an important one. We need to know our enemies, understand how they think (or should I say “don’t think”), realize what they would do to us if we don’t remain vigilant about our religious freedom. Religious persecution has happened over and over and over throughout history and will happen again.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Brudog, we don’t prosecute people on the “Spirit of the Law” but on the letter of it.

That said, the Constitution is the FRAMEWORK on which our government is based. It is not a set of individual laws but rather a set of parameters in which our laws must fit. We have what is known as a FEDERAL system. In a Federal system powers are shared between the central government and the several states. It is therefore imperative that the divisions of those powers be clearly dilineated. Absent of the actual presence of the founders telling us what they “meant”, we have to go by what they SAID.

Most of the problems we are now experiencing in America stem from the fact that we have allowed the courts, to STRAY from what the Constitution SAYS, and allowed them to use their own “interpretation” of what it MEANS.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Consider it this way, chuck: In every war ever fought, both sides were convinced that God was on their side, and had their clergy praying for victory. Kind of like when football teams pray for victory. Is God really on one side?

The historical fact remains that the alliances of churches and governments have ALL been unholy. Why you think your version of the same thing is ok astounds me. You remind me of the Libs in their defense of socialism under the same pretext “It just wasn’t done by the right group of people”.

By kimberly

January 30, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Right, Brother Chuckie. I make stuff up, just like the newsm media. Women and girls are not being denied medications and procedures they need because somebody else claims the “religious freedom” to interfere in the business of others. Departmental spokespersons always tell the absolute truth, even against the advice of their own attorneys. There was a perfectly legit reason to add the fear of pregnancy (terror) to a just-raped young woman. You’re right. I must just be a “depraved little miscreant* like you called me before. Thank God for men like you to show us your light.

“The jail nurse, said the mother and the victim’s attorney, denied the medication for religious reasons.

Hillsborough County sheriff’s spokeswoman Debbie Carter could not comment about that allegation or anything else about the woman’s medical situation because of the federal health information privacy act. However, she said all medications are confiscated from inmates upon their arrival until they are verified.”

By Mara

January 30, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=2219065&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1

chuck - “The medical supervisor would not allow her to take the pill because the medical supervisor said it was against her — the medical supervisor’s — religion,” Moore (the victims attorney) explained.

and FYI - “Hillsborough County sheriff’s spokeswoman Debbie Carter could not comment about that allegation or anything else about the woman’s medical situation because of the federal health information privacy act. However, she said all medications are confiscated from inmates upon their arrival until they are verified.”

The woman was escorted by police to the clinic where the medication was perscribe and then straight to the jail. Verifying the validity and content of the medication would have been as simple as calling the clinic and verifying the perscription. So where’s the dishonesty in claiming that the supervisor refused to give it to her because as she told the girl it was against her religion? Eh?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

See you, BC. Run like a scared little girl with your snide comments. You don’t seem to have any success debating me on the issues.

By lozen

January 30, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Right you are Brian. See you all later.

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Great Swami - Clearly your understanding of modern particle physics and quantum states is limited. Themodynamics only says matter can neither be created nor destroyed merely transformed into another from (i.e. energy). So it absolutely coincides with what I am saying. Read a little bit of string theory and get back to me (although string theory is becoming more controversial a lot of it’s basic tenets still hold a lot of strength).

By Mara

January 30, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

you’re right Brian…enter the Mongrel right on cue. I’m outta here to y’all. Later!

By chuck

January 30, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Your position Brudog, is exactly the one that the Liberals espouse. They say the Constitution “changes” with society…NOT through the Amendments process built into the Constitution BY THE FOUNDERS, but through the whims of unelected federal judges.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

The deepest question, to me, is are religious “symbols” valid expressions of faith in God? On that point, the Bible is clear: They are NOT valid expressions of faith. As such, it is hard for me to agree with anyone who wants to spend tax dollars supporting activities which the Bible is crystal clear in prohibiting.

By MrRogers

January 30, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

Joe L—I know more about Physics than you ever forgot, including String Theory. As a matter of fact, String Theory has lost most of it’s popularity among Modern Physicists anyway, because in the end it doesn’t really “explain” anything at all. Read “The Road To Reality” by Roger Penrose and get back to me. You likely don’t have enough math education to get through the Introduction.

So, pray tell, Joe, what kind of Physics education do you have? I attended Harvey Mudd College, the #1 school of Science in the world, where I was first in my class.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this

chuck—You’re contradicting yourself. First you admit the the Constitution is a FRAMEWORK, a “set of parameters” by which individual laws can be judged. Then in the next breath, you’re upset by the fact that judges have to actually interpret the Constitution. I will agree with you that many modern interpretations of the Constitution by liberal judges often stretches the imagination, but that doesn’t invalidate the process itself.

Thus in the end, the spirit of the law is what guides us.

By MrRogers

January 30, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

I attended Harvey Mudd College, the #1 school of Science in the world, where I was first in my class.

Do you have to be an AH to get in or does that school make you one?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

MrRogers, I only whip out credentials for airheads like Joe L who think they know something about Science. So what have you added to the discussion other than sniping from the sidelines?

The fact is, I’m the only one here who knows enough about the Bible to debate chuck. You Libs moan and call chuck names, but can’t actually counter any of his points.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Joe L, so you know, The Conservation of Energy is only one of the Laws of Thermodynamics, i.e the First Law, which states that the internal energy of a closed system remains constant, or as you say, Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The Second Law grew out of the observation that Energy dissipates in a system over time, that it can’t spontaneously concentrate. (Heat flows from hot objects to cold, not the other way around). This statement can only be true if time is a “one-way” process. Are you following?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 01:10 PM | Link to this

Too bad Mara ran away also, maybe she could learn some common-sense Science from the Mongrel. Her statement:

Who says there even had to be a “beginning”?After all, theories abound about the relationship between energy, matter, time, and space. Just because you are only able to envision a linear time-line (going always forward, of course) and a singular universe composed of static “objects”, well, that doesn’t mean other people can’t envision a much richer and more complex universe than that. How can you, or anyone ftm, state difinitively that this can’t happen, or that another thing simply isn’t possible? Who are you to say what is and isn’t reality, the Great Swami of the Universe?

reveals a dangerous belief that once again, humans are the ultimate arbiters of meaning. Reality has undeniable qualities and properties, Mara, that no theory can invalidate.

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 01:20 PM | Link to this

Great Swami - I know your precious Harvey Mudd and it doesn’t hold the jock of the real school I attended where more than a couple people deem it important enough to pay attention to.

Anyone who has to trot out comments (and false ones at that) about their school’s rank and their class rank are lying or clearly insecure and grasping for anything to keep them afloat.

The fact is that modern physics does not disagree with the concept that all the matter in the universe has existed for all time. The universe is infinite in ALL dimensions, both time and space. But understanding these complex philosophical and scientific concepts escapes many like yourself who turn to mysticism for a simpler explanation.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about entropy and has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

By Renee

January 30, 2007 01:21 PM | Link to this

I stay away for a while and I can see that nothing changes.

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this

GS - Yes but humans are limited by our ABILITY and PERSPECTIVE to perceive the universe in a manner that may lie outside our experience. Again you try to sound intellectual but make no points of worth.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this

But stick with the Swami, folks. Then one day you might develop a world view which actually makes sense , one that you can explain to people and defend in arguments. One that is consistent with both Science and Religion.

My perception is that all of you are living with some kind of dual reality in your minds. You know that “everyday” living follows certain Laws of Physics, but you also know at a deeper level that these Laws, as we know them, can’t explain the miracle that Creation and Life are. Rather than reconciling these disparate observations, you either start believing in fairy tales or simply deny the miracle out of hand.

By Mara

January 30, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

I have never claimed that humans are the ultimate anything, let alone the arbiters of meaning. I subscribe to the belief that we are a part of a greater whole, neither more important nor less important than any other part. So there.

Reality has undeniable qualities and properties, Mara, that no theory can invalidate

Wanna bet? In the strict sense of Western philosophy, there are levels or gradation to the nature and conception of reality. These levels include, from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom. (doesn’t sound so concrete to me…but then I don’t pretend to be the smartest person living or the one and only expert on anything and everything like you do, Dawg)

On a broad and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. This form of reality might be common to others as well, but at times could also be so unique to oneself as to be never experienced or agreed upon by any one else. Much of the spiritual experience of an individual occurs on this level of reality. Reality is that which is phenomenologically real and unreality is nonexistent. In a psychological sense, reality is defined by what a person believes it to be. Individual perception can be based upon an individual’s personality, focus and style of attribution, causing him or her to see only what he or she wants to see or believes to be true.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 01:40 PM | Link to this

Joe—If you are so confident of your education, why do you keep it a secret? The fact is, HMC has been picked as the #1 Engineering school by the US News and World Report nearly every year they ranked colleges. The American Mathematical Society recently selected HMC as their initial inductee in their new “Hall of Fame”. The average SAT scores are usually the highest in the country, although occasionally another school has better English scores.

The reason I brag about HMC, Joe, is that it doesn’t teach arrogance, but the opposite. While you appear to draw some comfort in the pronouncements of Scientists, HMC teaches first and foremost the limitations of theories. While most schools gloss over calculation of experimental error, and the difference between causality and correlation, it was central in my education at HMC.

By Chilao

January 30, 2007 01:47 PM | Link to this

I stay away for a while and I can see that nothing changes.

Ain’t that the truth. LMAO

Guess maybe you found more interesting places to be as well? LOL

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

Mara, all you are doing is using fancy words to repeat back to me my analysis of your core beliefs. Obviously, humans cannot experience Reality directly. We receive only limited sensory input which our brains must process and interpret. Plato well described this aspect of existence well in his analogy of cave dwellers who only see shadows on the wall.

However, even though our observations are not accurate in a strictly Scientific sense, and are subject to personal interpretation, there is a consistency to our observations that indicates that Reality is fixed, and has definite properties and qualities that can’t be rationally denied. In other words, if you jump in front of a moving bus, you will get run over, regardless of what “level of Reality” your brain is paying attention to at the time.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

According to the article that Kimberly posted, there was NO corroboration that there was any kind of religious reason other than a statement by the girls attorney. Any verification of the medication would have to be done by medical personnel in person, not over the phone. I can just see some drug addict telling the cops that his qualudes are just tylenol.

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Why keep silent? Because humility is virtue and I know how smart I am, I don’t need fake claims to pump up my image.

In actuality Harvey Mudd is no. 1 in the second rate category that no one cares about. You win the AA championship, hip hip hooray. Like I said go to a real school and then brag about how good it is. I see you are classic case of “big fish, little pond” who was probably too intimidated to go to a school where the really intelligent people would go.

What HMC teaches apparently (if you even went there) is how to be an unmitigated arse who is so limited in concepts that are not completely concrete that you can only go for the second tier copout of mysticism.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

The importance of this philosophical discussion, Mara, is that once folks stop believing in an undeniable, objective Reality, then they start believing in existentialism, the idea that Life has no inherent meaning. Using existentialism as a philosophical base, they start believing that ALL world views have equal merit, equal validity. Using this outlook, moral pronouncements are impossible to make, because there is no right or wrong, good or evil. While Libs seem to think such a valueless world would be a great place to live(no guilty feelings to deal with), it has failed every time it has been tried.

Obviously, once a person accepts that there is good and evil, it becomes very problematic to apply the concepts. The danger then is that you have folks who begin to confuse their own selfish motivations as being “good”. Which, in a nutshell is the central motivation behind those who want to spend my tax dollars on public religious displays.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 02:12 PM | Link to this

Joe—Put up or shut up, will you? You foolishly keep trying to denigrate HMC, but keep failing to mention where you got your education. Spare me the claims of humility, Joe. Your posts drip with arrogance, as mine do, but unlike me you are unable to back up what you say.

As for your attack on “mysticism”, Joe, the fact is that there are many phenomena in Life which defy “Scientific” explanation. True “second-tier” bluffers like yourself simply ignore those elements, those questions. In contrast, the greatest Scientists of all time like Newton and Einstein all acknowledged that the best human explanations fall short of the Glory of God.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

First Brudog, The question has NOTHING to do with using taxpayer dollars, just whether or not the displays on public property are PERMISSABLE. I contend that under the free exercise clause they are without a doubt permissable.

Second,There is no contradiction. I was very careful in my wording and you have mischaracterized what I said. The EXACT QUOTE WAS:

That said, the Constitution is the FRAMEWORK on which our government is based. It is not a set of individual laws but rather a set of parameters in which our laws must fit. We have what is known as a FEDERAL system. In a Federal system powers are shared between the central government and the several states. It is therefore imperative that the divisions of those powers be clearly dilineated. Absent of the actual presence of the founders telling us what they “meant”, we have to go by what they SAID.

I never said by which our laws must be judged and did not imply that either.

Third, You are wrong about the “spirit of the law” as well. The Establishment Clause is JUST THAT. Nothing less, nothing more. Historically, the founders knew the danger of having some despot choose a religion and then force or coerce unwilling people to be a part of that. They were referring to the establishment of one church/denomination/sect whatever as a NATIONAL or OFFICIAL Church. They were trying to avoid the situation that had occurred in much of Europe where people were persecuted for not joining a PARTICULAR church.

This is clearly their intent both in what they SAID and in the fact that they clearly participated in government sponsored religious activities such as prayer, not just to open each day of congress, but at virtually EVERY government event without objection.

If, as many have said here, the founders intended there to be NO contact between religion and government, they would have said so in the Constitution and they would not have allowed the practice to continue unabated for 2 plus centuries.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 02:23 PM | Link to this

chuck—Are you going to answer my Biblical challenge to you, or are you going to slink away like BC? Jesus’s position was clear in advocating a separation between Church and State. How do you feel justified in disrespecting Jesus?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 02:34 PM | Link to this

chuck—You say that the Constitution is a “set of parameters in which our laws must fit “. Then, in the next sentence you deny that any interpretation occurs in determining whether specific statutes “fit”. Huh? The word “fit” is loaded with value judgments, chuck. To determine whether a new statue “fits”, a lot of interpretation of the law must take place. In the end, Supreme Court justices often reference the “spirit” of the law in their legal opinions, especially the conservative ones.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this

Furthermore, chuck, if a group of folks uses public property to display religious symbols, they are most certainly using my tax dollars even if they pay for the display themselves. Public displays are nothing more than advertisements, chuck. People usually have to pay good money to erect their advertisements, such as on billboards. Why should government property (i.e. property owned by all citizens) be used for free advertisement?

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this

Actually Great Swami there is no way for you to back up anything other than your less than reliable word. So the entire point is moot. Needless to say there are thousands of people a stone’s throw from the home base of this blog that put you to shame.

At one time fire, air, disease, lightning, etc. defied explanation. It’s merely your arrogance to believe because YOU can’t explain them (or anyone else at this point) that they are anything less than the physical nature of the universe. Only a THIRD tier person like yourself would jump to the same conclusion that Greeks and Romans did 2000 years ago.

And many of the things the Newton contributed to God are now known to science. So did “God” give up the divinity of those things or are you going to be victim to an ignorance that is thousands of years old? I think you lack the strength to rise above your current level.

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

Historically, the founders knew the danger of having some despot choose a religion and then force or coerce unwilling people to be a part of that

Actually the Founders knew what a despot RELIGION could be and did not want it informing government as it had in England for hundreds of years. You have it backwards. Combining religion and government diminishes both.

By Mara

January 30, 2007 02:49 PM | Link to this

Using this outlook, moral pronouncements are impossible to make, because there is no right or wrong, good or evil

wrong again, Dawg. Morality, like “reality”, is subjective. Honor killings are a moral necessity to some religious beliefs, as have been human sacrifice, blood sacrifice and cannibalism. Social mores dictate what is “good” and what is “evil” more than some concrete, immovable natural law. Murder is evil…unless the “victim” is a heinous, vile person. Torture is evil…unless it will save the life of an innocent. See? Good and evil, situationally. Some people believe it is right and moral to coerce and harrass others into following their social strictures, i.e. the “If it’s right for me, it’s right for everybody” philosophy. To me, that’s immoral and borderline evil. To them, they’re only doing what is best for me…hence their actions, to them, are moral and good. Moral and immoral, subjective.

as for “reality”…eyewitness testimony reveals that what one person says happens, (their reality, if you will) is very seldom what the person next to him experienced. The security tape might show a completely different chain of events from that described by the eyewitnesses to a robbery. However, it won’t negate what each person experienced and that experience will be each person’s individual reality. “They say that he didn’t point his gun at me, but I know that he did…” See what I mean? Reality is experiential. Will you get hit by a moving bus if you jump in front of one? Maybe, maybe not. And if you do get run over, that’s your reality. If, however, you walk fast enough to get across the street and don’t get run over, that too is reality.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

Joe—You still haven’t answered what your credentials are, so I think you have something to hide. You’ve tried to cut down my education, but won’t reveal your own. To me, that is the definition of a D-Wad. Put up or shut up, Joe.

Your ongoing references to “mysticism” don’t make any sense, either. No knowledge is “certain”, Joe. Ultimately, all we know is based on familiarity and repeatability. A fancy expression for this is inductive thinking. As far as the human models we create on paper and in our brains, they are not “truth” any more than a painting of the ocean is the ocean itself. You need to get straight on what “models” are before you start crowing about your scientific expertise.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Mara—I feel sorry for you that your world view is so confused that you can’t even acknowledge that buses run people over, every time, regardless of the jaywalker’s philosophical beliefs. You really need to work on it if you want anyone else to accept your view without criticism.

I do completely agree with you that morality is highly problematic such that moral pronouncements often change over time. However, this doesn’t lead me to your position that morality is strictly “subjective” so that each person is free to define good and evil strictly from their own self-centered, selfish point of view. In essence, morality refers to behaviors in which more than one person is involved which takes most of the subjectivity out of it.

By kimberly

January 30, 2007 03:04 PM | Link to this

Here’s a more thorough report of the rape-rape story. The girl was a student whose attorney said the restitution had been paid. In a country where civil rights don’t mean diddly anymore, a paperwork malfunction can ruin your life. And the Sheriff’s office does not deny the claim that the medical supervisor cited her religion in refusing to verify the drug with the clinic from which they had just escorted her.

But some a—holes will defend their actions anyway. What do you say to the girl? You know, the girl who was busy getting a degree and moving forward into responsible adulthood? The girl who now not only does not trust men, but doesn’t trust the police, lawyers, government paper-pushers, or medical personnel? Why doncha pray for her, a—hole.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this

Brudog, While I don’t doubt that Jesus taught that the state and the Church were 2 different entities, I can think of no place in scripture where Jesus told his disciples to avoid contact between the 2. Perhaps you should be more specific as to this idea of yours.

BTW The “render unto Caesar” passage won’t do it for you. I would look elsewhere if I were you.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

Brudog, your 2:34 is just simply not true. In order for a law to “fit” into the parameters of the Constitution or not requires little if any interpretation. For example, the first Amendment. If CONGRESS passes a law that establishes the “First Holy Church of the 3rd Order” as the official National Church, that would clearly be unconstitutional. How hard is that to understand?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

kimberly, the story you cite is an offense to any decent person, but I have to believe that this case is an incredibly rare exception to the rule, not the rule itself. The fact that it is making headlines speaks of its rarity and unacceptability to most folks.

Like you, I was disillusioned by all the phoney-baloney religious hypocrites as a young person, but I came to accept that evil can show its face anywhere. I never gave up my faith in God, just realized that what the Bible said about people being full of sin was true for all people. In my old age, I view over-zealous religious pronouncements as a friendly warning to be on guard.

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

I cut up your education because you are the pompous fool that offered it up as some sort of credential. I have no need to make such ridiculous claims, my arguments have strength of their own. Don’t be upset because I won’t play your childish games - what you think matters less to me than what’s on the bottom of my shoe.

Funny that you say no knowledge is certain to me and then make references about how some knowledge (truck running you down) and realities ARE complete certainty. The truth is that you keep ignoring the fact that attributing the unknown to divinity is what man has done for all time and much of that knowledge has been “reclaimed” over time. And you refuse to actually discuss FACTS but fall back on silly statements about absolute morality and the lack of certainty of any knowledge.

By kimberly

January 30, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

Sorry to beat the dead horse, y’all, but only a p—-k would defend these people.

According to the article that Kimberly posted, there was NO corroboration that there was any kind of religious reason other than a statement by the girls attorney. If something isn’t corroborated by people who might lose their jobs for telling the truth, it can’t be true?

Any verification of the medication would have to be done by medical personnel in person, not over the phone. Like the ones at the clinic where they just WERE for the medicine she received while already in custody?

I can just see some drug addict telling the cops that his qualudes are just tylenol. Trained police officers can’t tell the difference between a drug addict and a woman who’s just been raped and examined for said rape and prescribed a medicine because of said rape while she was with them?

B-llsh-t.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

Joe, if you want us to think that you are smart, learn the difference between the words CONtribute and ATtribute.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

I do have concern for you, kim, that your faith has become uncertain due to the realization that people, all people, have a wicked nature (or at least half-wicked). It is a very disheartening realization. From your posts, I can tell that you are a good-hearted person, a very hard worker, someone who takes her responsibilities in life seriously. I hope this is just a temporary stopping place on your spiritual journey.

My own disillusionment has gone even deeper than that, to include doubts about the reliability of knowledge itself, especially self-knowledge. Fortunately, I have seen the Light a few times, that in the end, Love is all that matters.

By Mara

January 30, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

don’t feel sorry for me dawg. I’m nowhere as confused as you think I am. I’m perfectly comfortable with what I believe and don’t really care if you believe the same thing or not. I don’t have to convince anyone to believe what I do because I accept that what you believe is your reality and no skin off me…until you start to insist that your reality is the only reality. Kinda like chuck insisting that human life begins at conception. He has no proof, but to him, it’s real, it’s true, and it’s unassailable.

and morality is strictly subjective. I don’t believe abortion is immoral. Chuck does believe abortion is immoral. The two beliefs are opposing, yet one is no less valid than the other. I don’t have a moral problem with consensual sex between persons of the same sex. Chuck does have a moral problem with it. See? Morality is absolutely subjective to ones own philosophy and values. But you don’t have to agree with me. If it makes you comfortable and secure to believe that you can define and recognize all aspects of the universe and the human condition, great. Glad you feel good about yourself. But that doesn’t mean your truth is the only truth.

Qittin’ time. Maybe tomorrow…

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 03:29 PM | Link to this

Chuck - Oooo pointing out typos. The last bastion of the lost cause.

By Brian Curtis

January 30, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Then Bruno’s in no danger… because boy, does he love himself.

Joe, Mara… don’t bother responding to Bruno’s inflated ego. Like all trolls, he feeds on attention.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this

Joe, by what measure do you think you are intelligent? Your simpleton arguments here don’t show much depth. You are stuck at the level arguing with folks who believe in fairy tales, and have difficulty debating with those who don’t.

If you ever get a real Science education, Joe, you will find that the greatest human geniuses were all very humble people, who recognized the limitations of Science. In most endeavors, knowing your limitations is often most of the battle. Arrogant bull-in-the-china shop types like yourself are responsible for most of the destruction on this planet.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

You’re right, Mara. Life doesn’t begin at conception. It begins when you say it does. I hope the next bus you step out in front of is sympathetic to your egocentrism.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 03:40 PM | Link to this

Joe—Please note the difference between the words “Reality” and “knowledge”. Obviously, you fail to see a difference between the two, but there is a great difference. As a result, you keep trying to transfer my statements about the uncertainty of knowledge into statements about Reality being inconsistent.

By chuck

January 30, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, I am not defending anybody. I just didn’t see in the article you posted, what you said that it said. Not knowing the facts, I usually side with the authority because they rarely do the kinds of reprehensible things you accused them of. As I said, the RAPIST should be caught and prosecuted and if I had my way, would die a slow and painful death.

If the officers in question violated the policy of their department, they should be punished in whatever manner their policy calls for. Is that clear enough for you?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 03:49 PM | Link to this

So, genius Joe, why don’t you enlighten us to some of these deeper mysteries of Life? Am I correct in saying that you believe in the Steady State Theory, that things have no beginning, thy have always been the way they are?

If that’s true, your view doesn’t even pass the common sense test. Your belief that time is an illusion, that it is “reversible” so to speak, is refuted by every experience we have, every day. How does this view “stand up on its own”, genius?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 03:57 PM | Link to this

BC—My real purpose here isn’t so much to garner attention, but to debate issues at a deeper level. Unfortunately, I haven’t found anyone here who can even scratch the surface in a real sense. Mostly I see people who buy into pre-packaged belief systems without questioning what those beliefs are based upon, or who believe in dual Realities. Or people like yourself who don’t have any real convictions at all, who are lost in a fog of existentialism. chuck is one of the few people who understands what his views are based upon (misinterpretations of the Bible), although he does a poor job of defending his assumptions.

By Brian Curtis

January 30, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

And yet… everyone here finds you boring and arrogant. How is that possible for such a “humble” genius as yourself?

Go away, troll.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

Mara, my hope for you is that you discover what God really means one day. You see well the infinite diversity through which God manifests itself, but don’t seem to appreciate that God is a singular unity as well. That is the real meaning of Oneness. Not a homogeneous Oneness, but the Infinite Oneness represented by the Yin-Yang figure.

By Joe L

January 30, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

Great Smarmy - Time isn’t an illusion, it’s an explanation. Therefore it’s neither forwards nor backwards nor reversible. And it has nothing to do with the fact that the universe neither starts nor ends, it just is and always has been.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 04:18 PM | Link to this

Yeah, you’re such an interesting guy, BC. I’m sure you have dates lined up out the door.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 04:28 PM | Link to this

Ok, now I’m really enlightened, Joe, with your useful explanation of time. It simply doesn’t exist. That really explains a lot.

In case you haven’t noticed, Joe, everything has a beginning and an end. People are born and die. Our bodies age, and change over …. ( I was going to say change over “time”, but you don’t accept the existence of that word). That’s what I mean by the “common sense” test, Joe. Your world view explains nothing, it has no usefulness at all.

I am getting a clue as to your profession. I heard some echoes of Clinton’s lawyers there with your dismissal of the word “time”. Real geniuses there—tried to get all charges dropped by questioning the meaning of the word “is”.

By Chilao

January 30, 2007 04:28 PM | Link to this

Time isn’t an illusion, it’s an explanation

it’s a sweep hand on a watch. In other words, something man devised to reference BEFORE events , NOW events, and FUTURE events. Since at any one moment, there is only NOW, meaning there is no such thing as Time.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

Chilao—You are falling for Zeno’s Paradox, in which an arrow can never reach it’s target because first it must cover half the distance, then half the distance before that, etc, which is an infinite series which collapses into nothingness, so that no movement can occur. He uses the flip side of this argument to “prove” that Achilles can never overcome the tortoise in a race, because first he must cover half the distance, but by then the tortoise has moved, so that he can never catch up.

The solution to Zeno’s Paradox is two fold. On the common sense side, we simply note that movement does occur, which requires a reference frame which involves time. On the mathematical side, the solution to such consideration lies in the study of infinite series. The trick is that infinity is an illusion, it can never be reached, yet the sums of infinite series are often whole numbers.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this

It is a brain-teaser, though, Chilao. At the deepest level, all measurement must involve a standard, which humans must choose. As such, there is an inherent arbitrariness to any subsequent measurements made. However, over time, through the process of familiarization, standards become meaningful. Why else haven’t we switched to the Metric system?

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 04:47 PM | Link to this

BTW, Chilao—That is the concept of a “limit” as usually explained in Calculus. Certainly you had to take some Calculus along the way. Maybe you created a new storage file in your head with that knowledge, never to be “integrated” with the rest of your observations about life.(pun intended) That’s what I mean when I say “a dual Reality”.

By The Great Swami

January 30, 2007 04:55 PM | Link to this

With further study, however, you begin to discover God’s numbers, God’s standards, which do stand on their own accord, and make sense with no human interpretation. Irrational numbers, like pi, are a perfect example. Supposedly the discovery of Irrational Numbers drove Pythagoras mad. Even more interesting is the square root of negative one, which pops up in electrical engineering.

So, in the end, Life does have a definite meaning. Although, as humans, we are free to invent our own standards, there are “Godly standards” out there to discover. Not invent, but discover. Big difference.

By blablabla

January 30, 2007 05:46 PM | Link to this

mara - let me describe what i see you saying and my issue with it.

you said: “i accept that what you believe is your reality.”

i could go along with our individual experiences shaping and influencing how we view events and frame our “individual reality”. however, that isn’t true reality; that’s something else – usually recollection. for example: you tell the police officer that the bus that hit you was blue. he tells you that the 50 eyewitnesses at the scene all said it was red. And while your individual reality or recollection may be consistent with true reality, there is consistency to true reality that may be absent in your recollection. Hence, just because you believe something doesn’t make it reality.

so i disagree that what you believe is your reality. but let’s set that aside for a moment and just move forward…

you also said that you don’t like when “you start to insist that your reality is the only reality. Kinda like chuck insisting that human life begins at conception. He has no proof, but to him, it’s real, it’s true, and it’s unassailable.”

do you not see that you are doing the same thing? let me explain: chuck believes life begins at conception. because it is based upon his beliefs, it’s his reality and to him, it is unassailable. and of course, you believe otherwise, and according to you, what you believe is your reality. so your belief that life begins at some point other than conception is your reality and unassailable. since you offer no proof other than your belief, how do you know that your “reality” is any more correct than chuck’s “reality” other than simply because you believe it to be that way and that, of course, makes it real to you? i won’t insult you the way great swami did, but suffice to say i understood his joke.

continuing on the theme, eventually I hope that science will provide a more definitive answer to the question of when life begins than the belief system espoused by you or chuck. one, or both of your “realities” will be shown to be at odds with true scientific reality. what then?

By chuck

January 31, 2007 07:51 AM | Link to this

BBB, I don’t think the issue is WHEN life begins. I think that science clearly shows that life begins at conception. The question is really when we should RECOGNIZE that living being as a HUMAN. The secular humanists want to say that it is not a human until it is viable outside the womb. They call the fertilized egg, not a baby, but rather a POTENTIAL baby.

Even though science is pretty clear that it is a baby, they cannot accept that position because that would force them to admit they are KILLING a BABY, and that it is perfectly acceptable to do so.

I think it is interesting that we had a discussion of “animal rights” last week. I pointed out that IF AS THEY SAY, a fertilized egg is only POTENTIAL LIFE, the federal government of the United States values the “POTENTIAL LIFE OF A BIRD OF PREY” more than it does a “POTENTIAL HUMAN LIFE”. That truth did not get a single comment in response because the pro-abortion position is irreconcilable. They either have to admit that it should NOT be a felony to destroy a potential eagle life, or it should be a felony to destroy a “potential” HUMAN LIFE. After all, in their world that fertilized eagle egg CANNOT be an eagle. It is only a clump of cells.

SO MARA, I’ll put the question to you. Is a potential eagle life more valuable than a “potential” human life?

By blablabla

January 31, 2007 09:21 AM | Link to this

chuck - i was merely using mara’s example of “when life begins” for discussion purposes rather than to actually take sides in a debate about when life begins or whether science has proven one thing or another.

you two have different “realities” on a topic. my point was that science may show that one or both of you are incorrect, and one or both of you may have to adjust your “realities” accordingly. perhaps you believe that in this particular example, science has already definitively spoken. i’m not sure everybody would agree, so i was trying to be cognizant of that.

that’s all - hopefully you understand my comment a little clearer. personally i believe that life begins at conception, and that science is fairly clear on this. however, since i don’t buy into the “your belief is your reality”, i’m leaving some room for the fact that what i believe may in fact not be reality.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this

Oh, I knew that Bla. My point is that there are no alternate realities. There is only ONE reality. There may be different perceptions and people may make statements that they believe to be fact, but something is either reality or it isn’t. One definition was:

Reality: something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.

I believe that this was your point as well.

By The Eagle

January 31, 2007 09:42 AM | Link to this

My egg is protected by the Federal Government’s Endangered Species program as well as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Making the destruction of my egg a felony is a way to protect a scarce species from extinction.

It has nothing to do with reproductive freedom issues and decisions made by human women about their own bodies.

By 2D

January 31, 2007 09:45 AM | Link to this

Chuck… Where has science documented that life begins at conception?

Besides, science is not always the end all, be all. We see scientists differ on global warming issues. Today they spar over whether global warming is real, if it is what is causing it and the potential long term outcomes. Back in the eighties, I remember hearing in school that the next ice age was coming. Now we are being told it’s global warming and the oceans are going to rise up to claim our coastal cities. I read that the temperature of the Earth is increasing, yet my peeps in Orlando say the freeze line for Citrus fruit in Florida moves South every year. Science is not always the end all, be all.

In the end, we humans must decide our own value structure. You and Mara differ. Personally, I lean more to you than to Mara, but not by a whole lot.

I really don’t think that defeating the extreme views of the Mara’s of the world would be that difficult if nastiness and venom were removed from the equation.

The pro-choice movement has primarily thrived on the mirage that everyone, including the destroyed person, is better off after the procedure. We need to reiterate the value of every human life, and then back that up with our practices, not just in stopping these procedures, but also in treating EVERY human with dignity and respect, as well as doing what we can to ensure they have the best possible environment in which to live.

The pro-choice movement has also benefitted from the idea that when an unforseen or terrible act occurs, that the woman needs a way out. This is a very valid position, but we as a society need to make sure that these acts are kept to a minimum. Make birth control affordable and readily available, communicate better with our young people, crack down harder on sex offenders and rapists. These are all positive actions that can be done to make the situation better.

Lastly, the pro-choice movement benefits from extreme opposite opinions like your own. Without you lambasting and demonizing the procedures, doctors, etc. they would not be necessary. Take a slightly more moderate position, one that is a bit more reasonable, the masses of America will follow and the fringe element you so despise will be rendered impotent.

By ChucksThunder

January 31, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

just deflated by The Eagle.

By lozen

January 31, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

If only men could get pregnant! It is so easy to discuss the rights of the fetus when you personally don’t ever have to face the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy and having your life end as you know it to become responsible for a child 24/7.

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Lozen, you mean a man doesn’t obtain that complete and thorough understanding by reading a book written by a bunch of different men over a thousand years ago, and translated & sold for profit by men, and used as a revenue-generating tool by other men who lead tax-exempt corporations? I thought that special book gave them divine understanding of all things female, or at least enough to confidently assert that THEY know what’s “best” for us. At least, that’s what so many will tell you.

By Mara

January 31, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

I’m slammed with work today so I won’t be in on the discussion. Basically the whole reality-is-perception vs. reality-is-immutable argument began when Susan’s statements implied that she KNEW the only way the Universe could possibly exist is if God made it. That this was an undisputable reality. So I questioned her reality. That’s it.

While I do believe that perception and personal experience shape one’s view of reality, I also believe that there is a difinitive “reality” but we humans are too limited in our abilities to understand it, much less define it and it’s properties. So when someone asserts that this is “reality” or that is reality, I tend to think that what they take as “reality” is only one aspect of it.

It’s a metaphysical belief, a philosophical view, that colors my perception but doesn’t really affect much in my day-to-day life (mostly because I’m the live-and-let-live type). To paraphrase Shakespeare, “there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreampt of in my philosophy”. Pretending otherwise is simply arrogance.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

From a life science website:

Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and have a metabolism.

By definition a fertilized egg is alive.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

The Turkey

As I said, the Federal government values the “Potential Life” of an eagle more than that of a human.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

This website has a more complete scientific definition of “Life”. Note it is a science site not a religious one.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article428.html

By 2D

January 31, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Lozen, thank you for making my point. The battle is not over a woman’s right too choose. While I do believe that certain procedures should be outlawed, the basic laws currently in place should be left alone. The battle is over the perceptions associated with being a mother/parent.

Lozen’s rationalization is that terminating a preganancy is perfectly acceptable when facing “the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy and having your life end as you know it to become responsible for a child 24/7”. It does not mention safety or health of the mother. It implies that motherhood shackles a woman and that makes her life of less value. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Changing that attitude alone will/would reduce the number of ended pregnancies dramatically, and we wouldn’t need to dramatcially change laws (see first paragraph above). Whether Lozen likes it or not, women are the givers of life. Without the selfless acts of women, none of us would be here today. I simply believe that we as a society should embrace that rather than try to sweep it under the rug.

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 11:20 AM | Link to this

Using Chuck’s own conclusions, one might also argue that the typical American right-wing “conservative” values the potential life of an American human over the lives of existing human beings, particularly if those existing human beings live in poverty, rely on food stamps to feed their born children, or come here from other countries to escape an existence of poverty, starvation and hopelessness. There are literally MILLIONS of children living on the streets, hustling to survive, selling whatever they can, in places like Brazil, and as close as Mexico City — places where heavy Catholicism still discourages birth control. Even right here in Atlanta, children are sold into slavery as prostitutes all the time. Not to be bothered with, you know, until they apply for some damned “entitlement” that might be paid for by the hard-earned tax dollars of an upstanding right-wing “conservative.”

I guess it all boils down to what you care about: REAL things, or potential things. How very subjective indeed.

By Joe L

January 31, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Chuck - By that definition so is a tumor. Boy I hope your wife never gets cancer. Because you can’t remove the tumor or you are a MURDERER!

By 2D

January 31, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Children are sold into slavery right here in Atlanta???!

Hmmm… If Kimberly knows about this, how’s come noone else, including the authorities do.

By BumperSticker

January 31, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

Like the sticker says: Against Abortion…don’t have one!

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

2D, Anderson Cooper did a whole hour on the prostitution of minors in this country, and in Atlanta, just last week. The pimping of children was only recently upgraded to a felony in this state. Mayor Franklin is all over it. Unless you think that CHILDREN have the capacity to decide they want to be drug addicted sex-workers generating profit for someone who rapes and beats them instead of going to school and developing normally, then these pimps are holding the children as slaves (often by simply tying them to the bed). Yeah, the authorities know. The question is, who actually cares about these living human beings?

By chuck

January 31, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Kimmie, let’s not get so hysterical here. First I don’t see a baby as a “potential” life but as a life. I therefore value the life of that baby EQUALLY with the lives of other Existing lives.

The PHANTOM “millions” of children that you speak of wouldn’t be there at all if you had your way. They would have been killed BEFORE birth. You ever ask any of those kids if they wish they had never been born?

Second, those children that are on the street are there because of corrupt governments and irresponsible parents. Not because of the Catholic Church, which I am sure is there feeding thousands of them while you are here doing….WHAT FOR THEM?

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

Here’s the link for those of you who think I just make up horrible sh-t for fun.

By Chilao

January 31, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

The question is, who actually cares about these living human beings?

The anti-abortionists? Wait, they are too busy protesting down at the women’s health clinics.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

I don’t think you are making up the sex-ring story. I saw that on CNN myself. It’s horrible. I do doubt the idea of Millions of children living on the street in Mexico City. There very well could be thousands there, but the Catholic Church did not put them there.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Chilao, don’t you mean Baby’s DEATH clinics?

By Joe L

January 31, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this

What about all those TUMOR DEATH clinics. Millions of innocent tumors are killed every day Chuck. Fight the power!

By Brian Curtis

January 31, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Good grief, people… you’re not trying to get Chuck to see reason on abortion, are you? I know it’s one of his favorite topics, but c’mon… why bother?

By suzan

January 31, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Well looks like we’er all back at the abortion question again. Life vs convenience. This is what it really boils down to. Oh we’ve all heard the stories about the rape and the incest but really with the millions of babies that have been aborted in the time since roe vs wade all ver the world, I just cant swallow that this is for the protection of the woman. it is about what is convenient and being able to have sex with out having children. Okay fine have the sex but for goodness sake why not use birth control, or perhaps get fixed. I know people who would not put thier dogs through an abortion but will have one themselves out of selfishness. And in truth that is what abortion is really about!!!!!

By Chilao

January 31, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Chilao, don’t you mean Baby’s DEATH clinics?

No, actually I meant what I typed: women’s health clinics.

now just scroll up, re-read: women’s health clinics
LOL

By Joe L

January 31, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

BC - It’s like dangling a thread in front of a kitten and watching it hopelessly chase it. It’s not an attempt to convince, it’s easy ridicule.

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Chuckie, I’m not “hysterical here,” but thanks for your compassionate concern. I was simply pointing out that the “reality” people actually CARE about is highly subjective. You pick & choose, justify, and rationalize. We all do. Subjective reality. Ignore what doesn’t fit. You’re no different, and no better.

By suzan

January 31, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

OHHHHHHHH and there shall be gnashing of teeth

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Back to the topic at hand for a minute:

chuck—I missed your challenge to provide specific Bible quotes to back up my assertion that Jesus strongly advocated the separation of Church from State and vice versa. I’m not sure why you don’t want me to quote “Render under Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s”, because no more direct statement could be made than that one.

By The72John

January 31, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

but really with the millions of babies that have been aborted in the time since roe vs wade all ver the world, I just cant swallow that this is for the protection of the woman

I had no idea that the US Supreme Court had jurisdictional authority over the rest of the world.

By 2D

January 31, 2007 01:00 PM | Link to this

Kimberly… Please. The fact that I didn’t see that piece doesn’t in any way imply anything other than that I don’t watch Anderson Cooper.

The point, sarcastically put forth, was that if the situation were as grave as described, why aren’t the authorities doing anything about it, b/c regulations sure as heck exist prohibiting 1. prostitution and 2. the pimping of children. whether or not it’s a felony, I wouldn’t know, ‘cause I’m not a lawyer.

The answer to practices like you described is not ending more pregnancies, it’s doing a better job of elevating and protecting life (see my original post).

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:04 PM | Link to this

The point is that Jesus constantly stated that his ministry was not an earthly one, and constantly encouraged his followers to give up their material possessions. It can rightly be said that his was an Apocalyptic ministry, emphasizing an imminent Second Coming. I’m sure you can google lots of passages, but from Matthew: “Do not store up for yourself treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourself treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, so your heart will be also.”

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

And from John : “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:15 PM | Link to this

I found a site for you chuck:

http://www.anabaptists.org/ras/31e30.html

They lay out a good case here based on Corinthians that Christians are “Ambassadors For Christ”, and therefore can’t rightly be “Ambassadors” for a lowly, earthly government. “Do not mix the clean with the unclean” .

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this

As such, chuck, I am having difficulty understanding your support of placing religious symbols on government property. Furthermore, and just as importantly, a great argument can be constructed that all such “symbols” are, in fact, idols and graven images , clearly prohibited by the Bible.

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 01:31 PM | Link to this

The answer to practices like you described is not ending more pregnancies, it’s doing a better job of elevating and protecting life (see my original post).

I never said “ending more pregnancies” was the answer to anything, although I agree that preventing more is a good start. I do think Congress has no business butting into personal medical decisions. I wouldn’t presume to tell the ol’ wrinklies when they should take their Viagra! It’s a PERSONAL and PRIVATE decision, not a matter for the local sheriff’s office, who’s already so busy they can’t protect existing children from pimps and violence.

I totally agree we should do a better job of elevating and protecting life. My POINT was that it’s very subjective what people choose to squawk about, advocate, and protest. I’m against the senseless killing of war. Chuck twitters about the sensless killing of “babies.” Suzan seems to be privvy to a list of folks who will be gnashing their teeth over something she happens to care about. If she has a minute, I’d love to hear more about that list. Skip past the doctors and sluts and go straight to the “War” category, please. Most eager to hear about THAT!

Mongrel, I’ve often thought the same thing about those idols and graven images, especially when visiting the gold-laden, statue-filled cathedrals in Europe.

By 2D

January 31, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this

Joe L… Interesting analogy with cancer tumors and Chuck’s definition. Just wondering about the following:

First, can cancer tumors respond to stimuli? I’ve never had cancer, nor am I an oncologist, so I’m not sure. I do know that a fetus can, b/c I’ve seen it on an ultrasound. If the answer is no, then it’s not life using Chuck’s definition and therefore not murder and your post is rendered baseless.

Second, your post assumes a tumor is a life based on chuck’s definition which thereby implies you also accept a fetus as a life. We as a society choose to destroy life all of the time, we slaughter animals for food, we harvest plants for food, we chop down trees to build houses, etc. We do this because our society has deemed it acceptable, and necessary to sustain human life. Destroying the tumor would be the same. Tumor destroyed = saved or extended human life. Destroying a fetus very well may, but rarely truly preserves a human life. It may make it more convenient or less messy, but rarely ever saves it. So, then I guess you’re totally OK with destroying an innocent human life for the sake of convenience.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:42 PM | Link to this

kimberly—I’m not sure if you’re being tongue-in-cheek again, but I definitely feel that all the ornamentation is an affront to God. The Bible states over and over again that God is a spirit. To attempt to “capture” this spirit in an Earthly creation is sacrilege in my book. While the glitz of the Catholic Church makes for a nice show, I always felt more at home in Quaker churches.

By MrRogers

January 31, 2007 01:45 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:47 PM | Link to this

I guess I don’t communicate it well, but to me, there is a beautiful side to the Bible in all it’s revelations about spirits and souls. These are things that Science can’t really explain, but I know in my heart that they exist.

By GOB

January 31, 2007 01:47 PM | Link to this

Chuck - I’ll ask again since you didnt answer. When do you actually teach your students? You post an awful lot, and do considerable research (i.e. cut and pasting, linking, etc) for someone who is supposed to be teaching 30 students. Dont take my asking as an attack. I usually enjoy this blog, so maybe you can give me some pointers. Is it movies?

Oh yeah, and as much as I dont feel like listening to you ramble on, how do you square saying slavery and oppression of women arent Biblical when Exodus clearly lays down the rules for what is permissible when you sell your daughter into slavery? Just curious.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:49 PM | Link to this

2D—I don’t know if you’re a man or a woman, but you’re a pretty smart cookie. Please keep blogging on a regular basis, you add a lot to the discussion.

By 2D

January 31, 2007 01:52 PM | Link to this

Swami… The Quakers are cool. I also enjoyed being around the Amish and Mennonites.

However… I don’t believe that all of the ornamentation is an issue when done in the right spirit. I remember going to the Rings exhibit during the Olumpics and being moved by the Rembrandt painting that depicted Jesus being taken away and Peter’s denials. That was beautiful art and conveyed a message. How can that be wrong.

The same can be said for the grandeur of the churches, cathedrals, etc. of the world. We humans are completely unable to capture the grandeur of God, so we attempt to through what we create. When those buildings, ornaments, etc. become in and of themselves what a person worships, then a problem arises. But when those building,, ornaments, etc are merely reminders and representations of our reverence, respect, admiration for God then I’m not sure I would agree.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

But hope you’re feeling well, kimberly. You have a great burden on your shoulders, and I know you are tired much of the time. As the child of a single mom, I know how discouraging the struggle can be at times. If it means anything at all to you, I have tremendous respect for you. Keep up the good fight.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

GOB—The bottom line is that the Christian Bible is a divided document. The Old Testament world view most certainly includes slavery, oppression of women, etc. Perhaps even more scary is its complete endorsement of a theocratic government. Those suckers really believed that God ordered them to slaughter their neighbors.

The New testament paints a very different picture, however. As I quoted above, Jesus shifted the emphasis to the soul and the spirit and away from the earthly. You might not learn that from chuck’s posts.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 02:02 PM | Link to this

2D, My highest respect goes to the Mennonites, of which the Amish are an offshoot. They not only have a great outlook on Life, they are one of the few groups that puts their money where their mouth is and actually live the lifestyle they preach.

I still tear up when I think of their response to the shootings last year: Go to the funeral of the killer and embrace his wife. Then bulldoze the scene of the crime, wipe it away as if it never existed. Got me crying now…

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

Boy am I getting soft in my old age. I even wept last week watching “American Idol Rewind”. A young man who had faced tremendous struggles in his life sang “The Star Spangled Banner”. It was like hearing an angel. Even Simon was speechless.

By Joe L

January 31, 2007 02:10 PM | Link to this

2D - You have essentially made my point that “life” in the sense we are discussing goes far beyond even a scientific definition of “life” which correctly encompasses animals, plants, bacteria. But even in a purely scientific sense life is argued - is a virus alive? What about robots that could learn and reproduce? Chuck attempted to take an extremely complex subject and boil it down to a singularly unsophisticated definition which lent nothing to the discussion as I pointed out by co-opting it.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

Maybe we’ll all get lucky if kimberly creates another Ode to God on the blog one day. You’re a very talented writer, kim, even when you’re slamming the Girl Scouts. {:>P

By GOB

January 31, 2007 02:20 PM | Link to this

Dog - I am fully aware that the bible should be viewed as two seperate documents, but when someone believes the Old Testament to be literally true, it puts a bit of a dent in their argument that slavery and the like are NOT Biblical.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

Brudog, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by separation of Church and state. If you mean that the Christian should have no part in government as you seem to have implied:

My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

These are apple/orange issues. When Jesus refers to His Kingdom, He is indeed referring to an earthly one. Not to get heavy into Bible Prophesy, the barebones are: 1)The Church will be Raptured or taken away, to meet Christ in the air, 2) There will be a 7 year period of tribulation on the earth as the restraining hand of the Church is removed and the anti-Christ will arise, 3)Christ and the Church will return at the end of that 7 years and defeat the armies of the anti-Christ at Armageddon, and 4) The Kingdom of Christ will endure ON THE EARTH for a 1000 year period, at the end of which will come the judgement.

By the term “this world” Jesus was referring to the world of that time. In any event, the fact that Jesus was not a Ruler, come to rescue the Jews from the oppression of the Romans is the primary reason that the religious elite did not accept Him as the Messiah. They did not understand God’s Plan. The payment for the sins of the world had to be made first.

As for: Matthew 22:20-22 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

20And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

21They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

22When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

This is anything but a command for the Christian to avoid entanglement with government. Our government is one that calls for participation from the citizenry. As Christians we are COMMANDED to do our duty as Citizens in these verses by rendering or performing those things required of us by government while at the same time performing those things required by Christ. It is not either or, it is BOTH.

Further, the only exception to this is when following the law of man would REQUIRE us to violate the laws of God.

Christians should be the BEST citizens.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 02:32 PM | Link to this

To answer your question gob, years of experience. The way that I set my classes up allows me to act as a facilitator rather than as an actor on the stage. These posts are usually rather hastily done between moments of furious activity in the class. I post during breaks, and try to anticipate the evening before where the discussion will go so I can type up a few things ahead of time. I usually get to school an hour ahead of time so I can get things ready for class and I am very organized in my presentations and use of time. Somedays are easier than others. That’s why my posts can be sporadic and not answer all the points raised. If we are testing it’s easier, If I am showing a film it’s easier…just depends. Trust me though, I do not neglect my duties as a teacher and my students score among the best in the state on standardized tests.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

chuck—certainly the Bible advocates being a good citizen. However, making an active effort to display religious symbols on government property goes way above the bounds and duties of any public citizen. It is an aggressive action, not one of complicity.

Jehovah’s Witnesses advocate a total withdrawal from governmental involvement, including voting, which seems a little extreme. The most pragmatic approach is that of the Seventh-Day Adventists, who advocate being “religiously neutral” when dealing with the government.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 02:57 PM | Link to this

Here’s a nice passage from the Seventh Day Adventist website:

The appropriate relation between religion and the state was best exemplified in the life of our Savior and example, Jesus Christ. As one of the Godhead, Jesus held unparalleled authority on earth. He had divine insight,[6] divine power,[7] and a Holy charter.[8] If anyone in the history of the world had the right to force others to worship as he dictated, it was Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus never used force to advance the gospel.[9] It is for the followers of Christ to emulate this example

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 02:59 PM | Link to this

And more specifically:

When Adventists become leaders or exert influence in their wider society, this should be done in a manner consistent with the golden rule.[19] We should therefore work to establish robust religious liberty for all and should not use our influence with political and civil leaders to either advance our faith or inhibit the faith of others. Adventists should take civic responsibilities seriously. We should participate in the voting process available to us when it is possible to do so in good conscience[20] and should share the responsibility of building our communities. Adventists should not, however, become preoccupied with politics, or utilize the pulpit or our publications to advance political theories.[21]

By chuck

January 31, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this

Finally Brudog, Religious displays are NOT IDOLS. Nobody I know worships them. They are a means to bring the community together in a mutual celebration (Christmas decorations, etc) and a way to remind us where all authority comes from. It is a gift from God.It is not threatening in any way. In fact, it is more of a warning to CHRISTIANS to deal honorably and justly toward others. Think about it, a display of the big ten means nothing to an atheist, but it should remind a God fearing pwerson they better do what is fair and just.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

I don’t know what kind of stuff goes on up there in Lawrenceville, but I have NEVER seen an agressive Christmas display on public property in my life. Do the wise men carry AK47’s and smoke cigars? Are the sheep packin’? You often go from silly to ridiculous in your desire to appear to be RIGHT. Is it really worth it BRU?

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 03:14 PM | Link to this

Bible lesson for the day:

The body of a being is the outward form or house in which his soul and spirit dwell. (Gen 2, John 5, Matt 27, 1 Cor 15, Jas 2, 1 Thess 5, Heb 10)

The soul is that invisible part of all living beings (including animals, chuck) that feels. It is the seat of our affections, emotions, passions, and desires, which makes us self-conscious and sentient beings. (Lev 23, 1 Sam 22, 2 Sam 13, 2 Kings 4 & 23, Psalms 107, Mark 12, Matt 26, John 12, Heb 4 & 10)

The spirit is the part of us that knows . It is the seat of our intellect , mind, and will, which makes us rational beings and free moral agents. ( 1 Cor 2, Matt 26, Exodus 35, Job 38, Prov 20, Phil 1, Heb 4, Jas 2, Thess 5)

By lozen

January 31, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

Hey Kimberly, “go straight to the “War” category, please. Most eager to hear about THAT!” My theory on war is that one war just breeds another. And of course, Mlk’s brilliant thought: “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Throught violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate, in fact violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” MLK knew the deepest truth in spite of his christian heritage!

By Death Cab for Cutie

January 31, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

I want to live where soul meets body, and let the sun wrap its arms all around me, and bathe my skin in water cool and cleansing, and feel what it’s like to be new.

By lozen

January 31, 2007 03:26 PM | Link to this

From a life science website: Living organisms are made up of one or more cells, can grow and develop, reproduce, respond to stimuli, and have a metabolism. By definition a fertilized egg is alive. Tumors do fit the bill don’t they? No cutting out and/or radiating those living organisms now Chuck and all you other fundies. Kimberly, love ya girlfriend. You so smart!

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this

“The wages of sin are death”:

When Adam sinned, he did not experience physical death, but lived another 930 years according to the legends in Genesis. Therefore, death must be interpreted to mean spiritual death, or separation from God. Sinners are all considered to be spiritually dead even though they are physically alive (Eph 2, Col 2, Tim 5, Jude 12).

Thus, when we are “saved” from sin, we are united with God again, “spiritually resurrected” so to speak, free to walk in a new life.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 03:32 PM | Link to this

Admit one thing, chuck, I’m the only guy here that can debate you at your own level. The Libs snipe at you from the sidelines, but never pull out their Bibles and do any research to rebut you. You have to give me that respect.

Th funny thing is that I’m not a Christian.

By lozen

January 31, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this

“Tumor destroyed = saved or extended human life. Destroying a fetus very well may, but rarely truly preserves a human life. It may make it more convenient or less messy, but rarely ever saves it. So, then I guess you’re totally OK with destroying an innocent human life for the sake of convenience.” Yeah. How would you know if destroying a fetus rarely truly preserves a human life? Have you talked with eveyr woman in the world who opted for abortion? I don’ think so. Anyway don’t you do everything you can to make your life more convenient and less messy? I certainly do. I am totally okay with destroying a fetus for the sake of a living, breathing woman’s convenience. We are given choice and we accept the responsibility of choice. Geez! Will you people ever stop thinking females just aren’t capable of deciding what’s best for our lives?

By Marvin Gaye

January 31, 2007 03:38 PM | Link to this

Father, father

We don’t need to escalate

You see, war is not the answer

For only love can conquer hate

You know we’ve got to find a way

To bring some lovin’ here today

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

lozen—I believe you have claimed several times that your “root philosophy” included respect for all Life. I’m curious how your statement I am totally okay with destroying a fetus for the sake of a living, breathing woman’s convenience. fits in with that philosophy? Or do you also live in one of those “dual Realities” that most of the posters here do, in which one side of your brain can believe one thing, and the other side of the brain believe the exact opposite, never the two to meet?

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 03:53 PM | Link to this

chuck—As to your 3:13, give me a break. The act of putting up a display, any display, is pro-active, aggressive in nature. Leave it to you to think I meant that the displays themselves contained outwardly aggressive elements.

A good argument could be made that any such display could become a source of fear or concern from a citizen who didn’t practice that faith. I know you would be the first one howling if Ramadan displays started appearing in your town square. As such, the best policy is that of the Seventh Day Adventists: Leave the public recruitment out of it.

By 2D

January 31, 2007 03:54 PM | Link to this

Joe… Viruses are not life. They are merely capsules of DNA that coopt themselves into whatever cell(s) pick them up. They require another living organism.

Sorry, but I’m not quite sure how I made your point. All you did was either, assume something was alive that really isn’t OR equate removing a cancerours tumor to destroying a fetus.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

No Brudog, I can’t give you that respect TODAY, because in order to debate you have to stay on the topic. The stuff you are spouting today has nothing to do with what you purportedly wanted to debate, i.e., your assertion that Jesus wanted us to completely be disconnected from our government and that you had the Bible verses to back that up…in fact, your exact words were:

The fact is, chuck, that the Christ himself strongly advocated the separation of Church and State. I won’t bore the Libs here by enumerating the passages, but they are numerous, and they are clear in their statement.

Problem is, you haven’t quoted even ONE yet.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:00 PM | Link to this

2D: You have to admit that there is a certain genius to viruses. They live and breed without even having a body of their own. They don’t have to go to all the trouble of eating and eliminating that higher organisms do.

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this

Lozen, great war quote! MLK Jr. is my hero! Funny, the anti-choice folks don’t have much to say about dropping bombs on families in another country and who exactly goes to hell for that. crickets chirping I agree also that sacrificing the fetus is the WOMAN’s choice. Whether anyone agrees with her decision should not be a factor. It’s not independent, it can’t live independently, therefore it’s still part of HER, therefore, HER choice to live with, not mine. People miscarry all the time, and it’s not the same thing (to most) as the death of a child already born, named, and living with them. It simply does not equate.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:03 PM | Link to this

By the Biblical definition of Life, it is possible that viruses might not make the cut because while you could argue that they have a spirit (intelligence), they don’t appear to have a soul , i.e. the ability to “feel”. I may be being anthropocentric in this view since no apparent mechanism for “feeling” exists in these creatures. Maybe you don’t need an actual visible mechanism to “feel”, however, so I am cautious to dismiss them as non-living.

By chuck

January 31, 2007 04:05 PM | Link to this

That’s just not true BRU, putting up a display is quite benign. I would hope you could see the difference.

Telling someone they MUST kneel to your God is different from putting up decorations. The first is AGGRESSIVE, the second is benign. The difference is the same as between putting UP a sign and Knocking someone over the head with one.

You seem to be grasping at straws…dog.

Anyway. Got to leave for Church. See you guys tomorrow.

By lozen

January 31, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

Yada, yada, yada. “Chuck I can debate you at your own level!” Yada, yada, yada. Yeah, sure. Spiritual death - separation from god. Is that Yahweh, zeus, Allah, Isis, Shiva, the ground of being, Adonis? Which god exactly is the spiritually dead separated from?

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:06 PM | Link to this

But good luck figuring out what Joe L is trying to say, 2D. He doesn’t know himself, so it would be miraculous if you could explain it to him.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:10 PM | Link to this

kimberly, it’s not really true that a baby is PART of the woman. It has it’s own DNA, it’s own Life plan set out before it. Yes the woman is the Host, and the fetus can’t live without a Host, but that doesn’t make it a PART of the woman in the same way that a tumor is part of a person.

At any rate, what kind of a Host would kill its guest?

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this

lozen—If I only had a nickel for every time you sniped from the sidelines……

chuck’s level is the Bible. It doesn’t mean anything to him if you reference Shiva. As such, no argument you ever make will persuade him in any way. I doubt I will have much success, but at least I show him the respect of playing the game by the parameters he chooses.

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this

“Viruses are not life. They require another living organism.”

Hmmm…. You mean like…? Oh, never mind.

By lozen

January 31, 2007 04:14 PM | Link to this

How exactly do we know viruses don’t have a soul? The ability to feel determines whether we have a soul or not? Bacteria recoil from something that is harming them, don’t they? I’m not a big science student but I think I remember that. I love the idea that humans were created to carry bacteria from one place to another. The reason for our existence Chuck. The farmer goes into her garden. She planted beans a month ago. All the beans came up and they are crowding each other so much that some must be culled. The farmer pulls the bean shoots with regret knowing that some must be sacrificed to give the others room to grow. And so it is. Blessed Be potential beans. Blessed be potential humans. I trust in the universe enough to know you will be alright whether you are culled or left to grow into maturity.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this

Sorry, chuck, you haven’t convinced me that putting religious displays on public property (or even private for that matter)is benign. It is a form of advertisement, pure and simple. It is an endorsement of a particular faith, with the implication that those who don’t accept the beliefs of that faith are being disfavored.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:20 PM | Link to this

kim—If you think about it, ultimately we are all parasites. I’m honest enough to admit that, are you?

At any rate, big hug to you. I’m humble to your ongoing meeting of your responsibilities.

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 04:21 PM | Link to this

Here’s an thought: Perhaps a certain percentage of abortions are sought because the women are afraid. Afraid of going through pregnancy alone, of what will happen during and after, of facing the judgment of angry family and churchies who call them “sinner,” of not being able to support themselves and a child, of giving birth to a sickly child no one wants or will help with, of the “shame” of welfare, of reproducing the demon seed that violated them, or of bringing innocent babies into this cesspool of hate, violence, war, greed, hypocrisy and lies that we call our world. Maybe when our JUDGEMENTAL MALE LEADERS are wondering why women don’t want to bear children, they should look in the mirror for a clue.

I know I shall never bring forth another child unto this world, rapidly declining in every measurable way. The current offspring are being armed with all the knowledge I can give them, my apologies for the mess, and my most sincere “Good luck with that!” wishes.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:22 PM | Link to this

lozen—Skip the flowery talk about the beans will you? Your view on abortion reveals a deep lack of respect for Life.

BTW, bacteria and viruses are very different entities. Viruses don’t recoil at anything, they can’t move.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:33 PM | Link to this

As for your non-acceptance of Jesus’s words as to the right way to conduct ourselves in this world, well, that’s between you and the Christ. The meaning of his words seems pretty clear to me.

“My kingdom is not of this world”. “Store up for yourself treasures in heaven, where rust and moths cannot destroy” “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”

Sorry, I don’t see in those words “Fight and argue about displaying the Ten Commandments at great taxpayer expense when the inevitable legal battle with the ACLU comes.”

By Bahamas

January 31, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

Geez! Will you people ever stop thinking females just aren’t capable of deciding what’s best for our lives?

Geez! Will you people ever realize that a woman’s capability of deciding what is best for her own life is not what abortion is really about?

My goodness, lozen, are you trapped in the 50’s or are you just that dense?

The abortion stance of even the most devout fundamentalist on this blog pertains to saving innocent fetuses. The beliefs of less fundamental pro-choicers and pro-lifers pertain to the priority of rights between a mother and the fetus during gestation. There is no gaggle of men claiming that abortion is wrong because men know what is best for women. Join the twenty-first century.

And while I refuse to waste time debating the merits of abortion, to say that you would kill a fetus for the convenience of a living, breathing woman, belies a complete lack of respect for life. If sadism is the derivation of pleasure from hurting another, just how far from sadistic are you?

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

kimberly, honey, don’t despair. Your kids have lots of good times ahead of them. Things will be great for them as they work their way through this crazy life.

I just keep thinking that your outlook on life would improve if you had someone to love you and help ease your load. Oh, well….

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:39 PM | Link to this

oops, my 4:33 was for chuck.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this

Hey, Bahamas, and they call me crazy….

Glad to know I’m not the only one who thinks lozen is out to lunch with her views. All well-intended, I’m sure, but out to lunch nevertheless.

By lozen

January 31, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this

Funny you should mention “sniping from the sidelines.” that is all you do you silly, silly thing. You are always on the sidelines. Nobody here ever wants to see you here. We all sign and many of us leave when you appear on the scene. You spend the day mostly talking to yourself just to hear yourself talk. Noone responds because nobody wants to encourage you in your debasement of yourself for a tiny bit of attention and because everyone thinks you are a pitiful, sad old man who has no life so you spend your day trying to get ppl on this blog to talk to you. You have such an inflated idea of your intelligence. What you think of my respect of orlack of for life means less than nothing. Yada, yada, yada on, fool.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:50 PM | Link to this

And, you support free speech as well, right, lozen? If you notice, I have never told someone to leave the blog, regardless of how much I disagreed with their views or how obnoxious I thought they were. Calls like that seem to only come from hypocritical Libs like yourself, who are all for tolerance and diversity until someone disagrees with you.

By lozen

January 31, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this

Bahahahams, geez will you people ever realize a woman’s capability of deciding what is best for her life is exactly what abortion is about? My goodness, Bahahahamas, are you trapped in the bible or are you just that dense? Innocent fetuses? I thought all were born in original sin and must be saved and baptized to get right with Yahweh. You must not be catholic. The rights of the mother/host/carrier far exceed any rights of the fetus. As a matter of fact the fetus has no rights at all. That is not a lack of respect for life. That is respect for the life, plans, education, freedom, values, opinions, beliefs, needs, desires, hopes, dreams, of the living, breathing woman. You think I’m close to sadistic do you? Now that really, really bothers me! Bahahahahahamas ;-)

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this

Also, lozen, glad you feel qualified to speak for everyone.

By kimberly

January 31, 2007 04:56 PM | Link to this

There is no gaggle of men claiming that abortion is wrong because men know what is best for women.

Lozen, the island guy has a point here. He’s made it clear that they don’t give a sh-t what happens to women! They only care about the babies that could be (as long as they don’t have to pay for them, that is….) How silly that we’d think they care about women, when we’re only here to do one thing anyway. We must know our true purpose and value (lack thereof) to understand.

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 04:59 PM | Link to this

I just came up with a new diet plan. The Tapeworm Diet. Eat all you want, let your worm take care of it.

By lozen

January 31, 2007 05:00 PM | Link to this

I just don’t know who is funnier today: Dog, or Bahahama Mama/Randy. Hey Randy, the “my goodness” old lady phrasing gave you away! How are all the ppl you’re ripping off when you buy up their repossessed property doing now that they’re out on the street and you’re making money as a slum landlord? Jesus loves ya Randy!

By The Great Swami

January 31, 2007 05:01 PM | Link to this

lozen, you really are dense:

As a matter of fact the fetus has no rights at all. That is not a lack of respect for life.

Huh? Try to get the two sides of your brain to communicate a little more, will you?

By lozen

January 31, 2007 05:04 PM | Link to this

Yeah Kimberly. They really care about the poor, innocent fetus.. until it’s born. Until it becomes an actual living, breathing human being. Then it’s “damn them lowdown ppl living off us!” Welfare! Socialism! Yada, yada, yada. One of them living fetuses don’t deserve no health care if i have to pay any taxes to provide it. Yada, yada, yada, yada.

By chuck

February 1, 2007 08:04 AM | Link to this

Alright Brudog, I’ll try one more time…The life of Christ was ALL about how we should live IN THIS WORLD, in preparation for the next. Additionally there are multiple texts in both the Old and New Testaments that tell us of the entanglement of our lives with government. Take this text from Ephesians for example:

Ephesians 6:11-13 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

And this one from Colossians:

Colossians 2:14-16 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain

14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

The word PRINCIPALITIES in both of these instances is referring to governments.

Titus 3 Doing What is Good 1Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good

Romans 13 Submission to the Authorities 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Again, since our government requires the participation of its citizens as a democracy, we have a duty as Christians to participate in government in such a way as to bring about the greatest good. If that means “wrestling against the principalities of darkness in this world” then so be it.

By 2D

February 1, 2007 08:24 AM | Link to this

Kimberly… Amen to your 4:21 post yesterday. Personally, I think you hit it on the head. I believe the “fears” you described are the core issue(s). Alleviate those, and we can reduce the number of lost innocent lives greatly. Other than the “demon seed” reference, we as a society can alleviate the other fears through nurture, compassion and understanding.

Also… Women do go through miscarriages all of the time. Sometimes it happens and they do not even know about it b/c they didn’t realize they were pregnant. However, I do know many women who have gone through miscarriages at 2-3 months and have absolutely been emotionally wrecked with the event. The emotions may be different, but they are very real.

By Bahamas

February 1, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this

It is terribly funny to watch lozen and Kimberly assume that I am: male, religious, pro-life and a woman-hater - all from just one post. By all means, keep making your assumptions.

Let us start with lozen. “As a matter of fact the fetus has no rights at all”. If this were in fact true, one would expect our laws to reflect that. Unfortunately, lozen, our laws reflect something else, as third and second trimester abortions are largely restricted because of the recognition of the fetus and its rights. Furthermore, as an estate planner can tell you, a fetus can also have property rights, since people can will assets to unborn children. But please, keep repeating the notion that fetuses have no rights.

Since it apparently is not all that clear for you, let me boil it down for you very simply: No reasonable person believes that a woman is incapable of making major decisions for herself. Rather, for most reasonable people, the abortion debate concerns whether or not the woman should have the right to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy, and at what times during the gestation of the unborn she should have that right. I will say it again: there is no gaggle of men who believe abortion is wrong simply because they think they know what is best for women.

And it remains unclear how you could imply that any concern I express for the health of a fetus would lead to a perceived lack of concern about the health of an already born person. Such a leap is made only in your mind and an example of your terribly flawed logic.

Kimberly, it would appear that you cannot comprehend what you read. That is a shame. My point is that I believe that women are completely capable of making their own decisions. It is so sad that you would take that and twist it into an uncaring position towards women in your post. Nothing could be further from the truth.

But while we are discussing gender attitudes, let us in turn examine your attitude towards men. Just yesterday afternoon you posted this beauty: “of reproducing the demon seed that violated them” when describing a potential fears concerning pregnancy and child-rearing. You rapidly followed that up with: “Maybe when our JUDGEMENTAL MALE LEADERS are wondering why women don’t want to bear children, they should look in the mirror for a clue.”

While we as a society must certainly do a better job of allaying the fears of potential mothers (and fathers) about the journey to and through parenthood, I will let your words stand on their own in describing how you feel about men. Considering previous posts from you that I have read, and the brashness of these statements, I can only find humor in the fact that you could twist my comments into thinking I do not give a sh-t about women.

It is sad that you have such a negative worldview. Again, using your own words: “cesspool of hate, violence, war, greed, hypocrisy and lies that we call our world”. I do not know if this is true or not, but you sound bitter. You sound like you could use a hug from someone who loves you.

By suzan

February 1, 2007 09:14 AM | Link to this

Statistics

Abortion is a controversial issue that many are happy to avoid. As caring human beings, we can’t afford this luxury.

Too many new mothers are given the false hope that abortion is the solution to all their problems.

Many new parents don’t know how developed their children are when they choose abortion.

Since Roe v. Wade, in 1973, over 40 million choices have been made that have resulted in the deaths of unborn children.

Think about what this means and what it will continue to mean to all of us if we can’t change things.

Over 1.3 million people a year have been killed through abortion in the United States.

Abortion killed 64 times more Americans than all 12 of our wars combined.

To equal the average number of abortion deaths in one year, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center would have had to have been almost 440 times more lethal.

Abortion worldwide kills more people in 42 days than the Holocaust did in 12 years.

38 million people equals approximately 13.5 percent of the current population of the United States.

The number of people killed by abortions since 1973 exceed the current populations of each of the 50 states, including California.

1 out of every 4 Americans babies are aborted.

This number is greater than the current populations of Sweden, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia, Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Estonia, and Denmark COMBINED.

It would have taken 487 Hiroshima type nuclear attacks to kill as many people as abortion has killed since Roe vs. Wade.

40 % of all abortions are performed on college aged women.

Facts Abortion is inherently unsafe to the mother.

Physical problems from abortion can include hemorrhage, infection, sterility and even death.

Psychological effects can include depression and mental trauma to divorce and suicide.

Women often experience “severe” or “intense” pain during an abortion.

The psychological effects of an abortion are so well documented, that psychologists have grouped them under one name: post-abortion syndrome (PAS). Women may experience symptoms of PAS right after the abortion, but oftentimes PAS does not manifest itself until many months or years after the abortion.

Symptoms of PAS are: recurrent memories, dreams of the abortion experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbance, guilt, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, and substance abuse.

Fathers, grandparents, and siblings can also experience the psychological effects of abortion.

Sources:Population Statistics: The World Gazetteer: www.gazetteer.de/home.htm, Population Reference Bureau: www.prb.org

Abortion Statistics: National Right to Life Abortion Statistics: www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html

By Free At Last Bail Bonds customer #12

February 1, 2007 09:20 AM | Link to this

Should symbols of religion be displayed on public property? Only in neon.

Don’t symbols of religion displayed on public property actually become secular ornaments? I would argue they become secular because public grounds are not consecrated by any religious organization.

The bigger question is: if you place your religious display on public grounds can others use them to advertise with since they are on public ground? Thus if a church places a cross on Piedmont Park’s lawn can’t the proprietor of a local restaurant use this symbol already on the public space? Thus a Bob’s Big Boy can utilize space advertising for easter brunch with Bob draped on this same cross. As well as a Sonny’s bbq restaurant roasting a pig over a giant menorah would be okay. Now what happens if they allow pets in public spaces where religious decorations are displayed: anyone wager if they have a giant revolving menorah, cross or Koran and Betty’s poodle uses it—that someone might get upset?

By Chilao

February 1, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Chuck - if our Founding Fathers were all the Great Christians you like to make them out to be, they never could have, in good conscious, revolted against England. hmmmm. makes you wonder. And I am sure King George would have considered them all Terrorists as well. LOL

But some of those quotes do support my view that religion is used to keep all us little peasants in line with the political authorities.

By JustDaFacts

February 1, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this

Statistics can lie.

Someone should tell Suzan that her statistics on abortion are fallacious. First, abortion is medically (and for purpose of polling) defined as: not carrying child to full term. It includes: stillborn, premies, false pregnancies, miscarriages all lumped into this total tally thus her skewed statistics include mothers who by no fault of their own had what was classified as: an abortion because their child was born premature by a month. Now if she used: clinical abortion, she would notice the figures of her epidemic were actually in steep decline since Roe v Wade. But what matter the truth with statistics?

By suzan

February 1, 2007 09:36 AM | Link to this

If you go to the BBC news site and then to health you will see the EU’s Abortion map. The statistics are stagering. I did not say that the US Supreme Court had any control over what happens in the rest of the world but, it seems that the rest of the world follows the course of the US thanks and have a great morning all

By suzan

February 1, 2007 09:42 AM | Link to this

please see the following web site by the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm

Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually until it peaked in 1990, and it has declined in most years thereafter (Figure 1). In 2000, a total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This represents a 0.5% decrease from 1999, for which 861,789 legal induced abortions were reported from 48 reporting areas (Table 1) and a 1.3% decrease in the same 48 reporting areas as 1999 (Table 2).

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this

Abortion means freedom. Abortion means no woman will be a slave to their wombs based on religious freaks backward & controlling treatment of women. Abortion overwhelmingly is a positive thing that helps millions of women control the destiny of their own lives. Abortion has absolutely no negative affects on most all women that have had one. Abortion is a secret right the religious right use when their birth control fails or they just got caught up in the moment. It’s ok for them, but not anybody else. Abortion allows victims of rape to not suffer a lifetime of a crime committed against them. Abortion allows women sexual freedom. Abortion allows women to control the amount of children they birth & when. Abortion allows women to continue with their educations & not be forced into a lifetime of poverty. Abortion is a medical procedure that the religious right needs to back off & stop wasting so much time & money on something they have no business bothering other people about. Most of us think all you anti-ab people are complete fruitcakes. You’d be better off trying to save children that are already born that are living in poverty & abuse.

Stay away from women. You want to get rid of the need for abortion? Get us a birth control that actually works without any negative side affects. Do something about rape & incest.

In the meantime shut your insane complaining about abortion. Go get a life of your own & leave the rest of us normal people ALONE !

Do you people realize there are men out there that have actually formed groups that are “choice for men”. Meaning, if they get a woman pregnant they want the right to Opt out. They also want the right to force that woman to give birth if they want to keep the child.

So what all you religious freaks & stupid Men for Choice groups want is COMPLETE CONTROL OVER A WOMAN’S REPRODUCTION ! Can it get anymore insane than this???????

It’s not just about “convenience”. Which by the way giving birth & raising a child is MUCH MORE THAN AN INCONVIENENCE. idiots.

It’s also about who is going to make the decision about your health? Can your body & mind handle it? What health risks are you willing to take?

It’s nobody’s business but the woman’s.

Idiots

Abortion is a woman’s choice & a WOMAN’S CHOICE ONLY. Get over it.

Relgious people shouldn’t be in the Govt or the medical profession as far as I’m concerned.

By suzan

February 1, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this

Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually until it peaked in 1990, and it has declined in most years thereafter (Figure 1). In 2000, a total of 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This represents a 0.5% decrease from 1999, for which 861,789 legal induced abortions were reported from 48 reporting areas (Table 1) and a 1.3% decrease in the same 48 reporting areas as 1999 (Table 2).

Do you not find it disturbing that almost a million CLINICAL abotions were carried out in the year 2000.

I find it horrific

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

You religious nuts are so obsessed with abortion statistics it’s makes me want to puke. You should be more concerned about murder & rape statistics. What about automobile fatalities by drunk drivers? I’m a heck of a lot more horrified by that.

Your obsession with the unborn is really gross, you’d do the world a lot better if you used that freakish obsession on something else.

By 2D

February 1, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

PWPC…

The issue many people have with your “arguments” is that we as a society do not need to end pregnancies to provide all of the benefits you described, except the references to rape/incest (those do not equate into the following paragraph so, please don’t retort back using them as examples).

If humans simply take some responsibility, we can prevent a great number of these pregnancies and not need to medically end them. Forget religion. Forget social paradigms like only married people having sex. Women can go out and screw as many men as you like as often as you like. I could care less. But take the necessary precaution. Take birth control pills if they don’t cause nasty side effects. Carry condoms in your purse for goodness sake. If women made the choice to not have unprotected sex, they would greatly reduce the risk of preganancy and contracting disease.

You say women shouldn’t be “slaves to their wombs.” I totally agree. I also have enough respect for females to not believe we are “slaves to our sexual desires”. I certainly hope you could agree.

By Mara

February 1, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Post-abortion stress syndrome” — PASS or PAS — sounds scientific, but don’t be fooled — it’s a made-up term. Not recognized as an official syndrome or diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association , the American Psychological Association, or any other mainstream authority, it is a bogus affliction invented by the religious right. Those who claim its existence define it loosely as a raft of emotional problems that they say women suffer after having an abortion — nightmares, feelings of guilt, even suicidal tendencies — and compare it to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Claiming that abortion causes women psychological suffering conveniently flips the debate so that the anti-choice movement seems less callous toward women’s concerns and more focused on women’s “health.” This cynical pro-woman/pro-life scheme was honed by David C. Reardon, director of the anti-choice Elliot Institute in Springfield, Illinois — the organization behind Afterabortion.org — who realized that the fetus imagery of the “pro-life” movement was failing to sway the masses because too much of the public believes that women will suffer if abortion is criminalized. In fact, an October 2000 Gallup poll found that two-thirds of Americans surveyed said they are against a constitutional amendment that would overturn the right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. In March 2001, only 18 percent of the people polled told Gallup they want abortion to be illegal in all circumstances. But Reardon asserts that many people who support abortion are “uneasy pragmatists” who “have hardened their hearts to the baby because they think at least women are being helped.” In his book, The Jericho Plan: Breaking Down The Walls Which Prevent Post-Abortion Healing, Reardon describes his new strategy for making the anti-choice movement appear pro-woman, bringing down the walls of choice by convincing the public “about the dangers of abortion.” And since legal abortion is, in fact, a very safe surgical procedure and is far less dangerous than childbirth, Reardon and his allies seek to foment mental pain. “So as we educate [the public] about how abortion hurts women, it changes the whole equation,” Reardon told Priests for Life. “The potential of post-abortion healing … can rapidly change the whole dynamic of the abortion debate in this country. And I am really confident that we will see an end to abortion within the decade.”

And in August 2000, a study conducted by Brenda Major at the University of California at Santa Barbara — the latest among many — confirmed those findings. Severe post-abortion psychological distress is extremely rare, affecting just one percent of patients. “Most women were satisfied with their decision, and believed that they had benefited more than they had been harmed,” said Major, who, along with other researchers, tracked women for two years after they had first-trimester abortions (88 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and therefore represent the typical experience). The best predictor of post-abortion mental health, it turns out, is a woman’s mental health prior to the abortion.

http://www.msmagazine.com/aug01/pas.html

By suzan

February 1, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

I don’t find that progress for women. I am a woman. These are terrifying results. The majority of abortions were performed on college aged women. The following report by FOX News shed light on health risk.

“I know the report is wanting to say that it’s conclusive, but it isn’t,” Ford said.

None of the pregnancy centers the committee staff called was identified, and it could not be determined if any were linked to Care Net, which has helped about a quarter of the nation’s pregnancy centers begin operations.

One pregnancy center told a congressional aide the risk of cancer after an abortion could be 80 percent higher, the report noted. Ford said she doubted a pregnancy center would go that far, but the Web site for a pregnancy center in Albuquerque says the risk for cancer after an abortion is 50 percent or greater.

In February 2003, a National Cancer Institute workshop concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.

The report from the Democratic aides also said the pregnancy resource centers provided false information about the mental health effects of abortion, telling the aides that it could cause severe long-term emotional harm.

However, an American Psychological Association panel said, “Severe negative reactions are rare.”

But Ford said that pregnancy center counselors don’t need statistics to tell them that many women undergoing an abortion experience severe emotional trauma.

“This isn’t about a medical statistic to us. We do post-abortion counseling every day,” Ford said.

The Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services funds the abstinence programs overseen by some of the pregnancy centers. Aides referred questions about the report to Wade Horn, a Health and Human Services assistant secretary, who did not want to comment until he read the report.

Waxman said that Americans are divided on the issue of abortion, but no one should support misleading teenagers about basic medical facts.

“It’s wrong to pour millions of federal dollars into organizations that are providing false health information to vulnerable teenagers,” Waxman said.

Report: Women Mislead About Abortion Health Risks Tuesday, July 18, 2006

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION WASHINGTON — Women who consult with pregnancy resource centers often get misleading information about the health risks associated with having an abortion, according to a report issued Monday by Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee.

Congressional aides, posing as pregnant 17-year-olds, called 25 pregnancy centers that have received some federal funding over the past five years.

The aides were routinely told of increased risk for cancer, infertility and stress disorders, said the report, which was prepared for Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Only a small fraction of the more than 4,000 pregnancy clinics nationwide get any federal funding, mostly for promoting sexual abstinence.

With a few exceptions, the federal government doesn’t give money specifically for the counseling operations, but Waxman’s staff said 25 centers got “capacity building grants.” Thus, Waxman said, they should be held accountable for the information they dispense.

Of the 25 centers called, two could not be reached. Eight told the caller that abortion leads to a greater risk of breast cancer, the report said.

Care Net, an umbrella group for evangelical pregnancy centers across the country, instructs its affiliates to tell callers there is a possibility that abortion can lead to greater risk of breast cancer, according to Molly Ford, an official with the organization. She said there have been several studies that say it does, and several that say it doesn’t.

(Story continues below)

and from WEB MD

Having an Abortion Linked To Long-Term Anxiety, Stress Monday, December 12, 2005

By Salynn Boyles

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION Miscarriage and abortion are both stressful events, but a study from Norway suggests that abortion may be associated with more long-term psychological distress.

Researchers interviewed 40 women who had miscarriages and 80 women who had abortions and followed them for five years.

Women who had miscarriages suffered more anxiety and depression immediately after the event and six months later. But abortion was associated with more stress and anxiety two years — and even five years — after the event.

“The women who had miscarriages were often psychologically traumatized for several months,” researcher Anne Nordal Broen, MD, tells WebMD. “Nightmares and flashbacks were not uncommon, but within half a year most of these mental responses were over and they were managing well.”

Abortion and Depression: Is There a Link?

Guilt, Shame Greater

Women who had abortions had fewer problems early on, and Broen says their long-term issues did not approach the level of trauma. But these women were also twice as likely to feel guilt about the event five years later and 60 percent more likely to feel shame, as measured by psychological testing.

(Story continues below)

Advertise Here Advertisements RelatedLinks Abortion and Depression: Is There a Link? Study Dispels Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Controversy Over Emergency Contraception Drug At five years, both groups had few intrusive thoughts about the event. But the women who had abortions were seven times as likely to report that they actively avoided thinking about it.

When compared with the general population, women who had abortions had higher anxiety scores at all measured time points — from 10 days after the pregnancy termination to five years later. Women who had miscarriages had higher than normal anxiety scores at only one of the measured time points — 10 days after their pregnancy ended.

The findings are published in the December issue of the journal BMC Medicine.

Broen says it is not clear from the study if having an abortion contributed to the higher anxiety scores or if the women who had abortions were more anxious to begin with.

“These women may have had poorer psychiatric health, which would make them more vulnerable,” she says. “But it may also be that they didn’t allow themselves to think about the event and deal with it, and that this contributed to their distress.”

The researchers write that only about half of the women who were asked to be included in the study agreed to participate. There were also notable differences between the two groups of women regarding marital status, number of existing children, and employment, all of which could contribute to the their findings.

Study Dispels Abortion-Breast Cancer Link

Debate Over Abortion Stress

The debate over the emotional impact of abortion is a contentious one, with pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates not surprisingly having very different views of the issue.

Some people contend that a form of posttraumatic stress is common among women who have had elective abortions. But neither the American Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association officially recognizes such a syndrome.

University of California, San Francisco psychiatry professor Nancy Adler, PhD, conducted some of the first studies on the psychological impact of abortion. She says it would be impossible to do a study that definitively answered the question.

“You would have to assign women with unwanted pregnancies to either have an abortion or give birth, and that would never happen,” she tells WebMD.

“There is no denying that the experience of unwanted pregnancy is very stressful for most women, and so is the decision about what to do about it. But we are not seeing evidence of long-term trauma at the clinical level.”

Yale University psychiatry professor Kimberly Yonkers, MD, agrees. She points out that both groups in the study showed improvements over time in most measures of psychological stress. She also expressed concerns about the study’s small sample size but said one of the study’s strengths was that it followed the women for so long.

“I don’t think it is much of a surprise that there was residual guilt and shame following the voluntary termination of a pregnancy,” she says. “This is not the kind of thing that someone does and never thinks about again. But I don’t believe in postabortion syndrome because I haven’t seen it. And I don’t think these data show it in any way, shape or form.”

Controversy Over Emergency Contraception Drug

By Salynn Boyles, reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

SOURCES: Broen, A.N. BMC Medicine, Dec. 12, 2005; vol 3; online edition. Anne Nordal Broen, MD, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Nancy Adler, PhD, professor and vice chairwoman, psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco. Kimberly Yonkers, MD, associate professor, department of psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

See Next Story in Health E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

This is not freedom

By The72John

February 1, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

I also have enough respect for females to not believe we are “slaves to our sexual desires”.

Busted.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

No woman should ever be forced to breed when she doesn’t choose to. No woman should be told by any government when she must breed. Who does a woman’s body belong to? Who should make decisions about what a woman does with her body?

*Facts Pregnancy is inherently unsafe to the mother. Physical problems from pregnancy can include hemorrhage, infection, sterility and even death. Psychological effects can include depression and mental trauma to divorce and suicide. Women often experience “severe” or “intense” pain while giving birth.

The psychological effects of pregnancy are so well documented, that psychologists have grouped them under one name: post-partum depression. Women may experience symptoms of PPD right after the birth, …or later…

Symptoms of PPD are: recurrent memories, dreams of the birth experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbance, guilt, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, and substance abuse (and suicidal thoughts).

Fathers, grandparents, and siblings can also experience the psychological effects of birth at too early an age and end up having to raise the children of women who aren’t ready to be mothers.*

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this

Women make mistakes, women can be irrisponsible & slip up. Just as a lot of us drive after drinking. It was only a few beers right? If you accidentally rip your leg off should you be punished by not getting medical care or banned from getting a prosthetic leg?

9 months of forced pregnancy, labor, birth & recovery should not be punishment for a slip up. Those rich couples that want to adopt will have to go elsewhere. Like an orphanage. Won’t get that perfect white newborn, too bad.

Women shouldn’t be forced to give birth just so the rich can get a pretty baby. I guess I have to be more specific, white baby. There are plenty of non-white babies to adopt that aren’t being adopted.

It’s insane to claim that an early abortion is murder.
stupid idiotic religious claims.

Deciding abortion is being responsible. There are several ways of handling a pregnancy, abortion is one of them. Has nothing to do with selfishness or any of that bs guilt crap. My opinion it’s the most responsible choice for the young, unmarried, poor, troubled, those in abusive relationships or marriage, unhealthy, & those women who will never want kids & don’t think having kids ever is a good for them.

By suzan

February 1, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

I am more that willing to read both sides of the issue. I am a Christian but not a nut. I understand the extreme stress and mental anxiety that abortions cause. I am shocked that so many women in this country think so little of themselves that they would put thier very lives at risk for sexual gratification with out protection from pregnacy or disease. This is so alarming. Further studies by the CDC have shown that condoms on offer some protection from STD and can not be considered 100% safe. Wake up, Tkae care of your bodies you only get one. I am saddened by the rate of aids that is affecting women, the rate of women unable to have children do to scarring of uterus, fallopian tubes and cervix from STD’s This is not progress

By Chilao

February 1, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

*I also have enough respect for females to not believe we are “slaves to our sexual desires”.

Busted.*

Yeah, I had expressed that view WAY BACK, probably around the time you were not present here much. something else was said that had a read between the lines affect on me to come to the same conclusion.

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

Oh, gee. Another abortion debate. What an enormous surprise.

Between this and the trolls, there’s not much hope of discussing the topic… or indeed, much of anything. What a shame.

By Chilao

February 1, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Like the girls at Chuck’s school slitting their wrists because they slept with a guy, one has to wonder how much of any potential female angst over having an abortion is directly related to many people’s ostracizing of the woman for having one. hmmmmm…

By lozen

February 1, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this

And, let’s see, the topic is….???? Hummmm, one that brings out the religious wing nuts, to quote someone’s comment about liberals.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

RELIGIOUS PUKE LIE TO FURTHER THEIR VAGINA CONTROLLING CAUSE:

One pregnancy center told a congressional aide the risk of cancer after an abortion could be 80 percent higher, the report noted. Ford said she doubted a pregnancy center would go that far, but the Web site for a pregnancy center in Albuquerque says the risk for cancer after an abortion is 50 percent or greater.

THE ONLY ONES WITH SEVERE EMOTIONAL TRAMA ARE THE WOMEN WHO ASSOCIATE WITH THE VAGINA CONTROLLING PEOPLE:

But Ford said that pregnancy center counselors don’t need statistics to tell them that many women undergoing an abortion experience severe emotional trauma.

VAGINA CONTROLLERS LOVE TO SCARE YOUNG GIRLS INTO GIVING BIRTH, WHICH IS MUCH MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN HAVING AN ABORTION:

Women who consult with pregnancy resource centers often get misleading information about the health risks associated with having an abortion, according to a report issued Monday by Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee.

THOSE OBSESSED WITH VAGINA CONTROL LOVE TO CLAIM WOMEN GO MAD AFTER ABORTION ! THEY ARE DEPRESSED EVEN IF THEY AREN’T AWARE OF IT ! Women who had miscarriages suffered more anxiety and depression immediately after the event and six months later. But abortion was associated with more stress and anxiety two years — and even five years — after the event.

WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS MUST STAY AWAY FROM THE VAGINA CONTROLLERS BECAUSE IT’S POSSIBLE THE CONTROLLERS WILL TAKE ALL THEIR SELF ESTEEM & SEX DRIVE AWAY FOREVER.

But these women were also twice as likely to feel guilt about the event five years later and 60 percent more likely to feel shame, as measured by psychological testing.

SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY ! YOU ARE SICK & ARE MENTALLY UNSTABLE BECAUSE YOU HAD AN ABORTION. YES YOU GRADULATED COLLEGE & BECAME A DR. YOU’RE EVEN HAPPIELY MARRIED WITH YOUR FIRST CHILD BUT THAT’S NOT THE POINT ! YOU DID NOT GIVE UP YOUR VAGINA CONTROL WHEN YOU WERE IN SCHOOL ! ! !

“These women may have had poorer psychiatric health, which would make them more vulnerable,” she says. “But it may also be that they didn’t allow themselves to think about the event and deal with it, and that this contributed to their distress.”

THE VAGINA OBSSESED THINK THAT THERE IS NO WAY WHATSOEVER FOR A WOMAN TO HAVE A GOOD SEX LIFE WITHOUT DISEAESE, CANCER, PREGNANCY, SCARS, MENTAL ISSUES, DEPRESSION OR VIOLENCE.

YOU’LL DIE IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU W******* !

Of course, who’s keeping up with all the Penizzez?

By lozen

February 1, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this

PWPC, don’t we get tired of this? “I know what’s best for you girlie. How dare you suppose you should have sexual freedom and then not even be punished for that? If you’re gonna have sex outside the sacred union of marriage then you have to be forced to bring every fetus to term? You need to control your sexual desires! You need to do what my pastor/priest/minister/bible says you should do! It doesn’t matter what you want for your life. Nothing matters except don’t have sex if you aren’t married or suffer your punishment.”

By GOB

February 1, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

Chuck - it looks like you might have some competition in the cut-and-paste category this year…

By 2D

February 1, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

John… Busted??? Nope. Just a carefully crafted statement to have fun with people like you who take more pleasure in semantics than in the actual ideas.

By 2D

February 1, 2007 11:00 AM | Link to this

PWPC… I have no sympathy for anyone who has a few beers and then gets behind the wheel. Their actions have put other people in harm’s way. That is not a “slip up”. That is a blatant disregard for others.

If a person has their leg ripped off, that’s a totally different ball game. How did the incident occur. Was the person walking on the sidewalk and car hit them? Was the person dangerously darting into the street and a car hit them? Was the person at work, taking precaution and an accident occur? Was the person at home, drunk, and messed with one too many power tools? I could go on and on. The “how” determines if it was a “slip up” or if it was a stupid person doing something stupid.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

LOZEN I’M SO SORRY ! I forgot my place ! I should not have spoke my mind !

For punishment I shall pray for 10 hours straight with no food or water. I shall get a cross tattoed across my privates so all will be reminded of who actually owns that area.

I shall keep my head down & never speak of abortion again unless I’m yelling at a Wwhore or those pro-murder people !

This afternoon I’m going to quit my job & hand all my money over to my husband. I’m going to get pregnant as soon as possible with my 10th child & get to cooking dinner for my family cause it’s my Vagina controlling god given role in life.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHHHAHAAAA NOT !

By lozen

February 1, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Nobody keeps up with the Penizzez PWPC because we all know “men will be men and boys will be boys”. Besides males don’t get pregnant, do they? Never have. They just about always have sex and get away with it free and clear! They don’t ever have to face an unwanted pregnancy, giving up their life and their education and their chances to prepare themselves for a good life. It’s only females who need to be punished for having sex. That’s the way god wants it to be. Females were given pain at childbirth for eating the apple. Who do we think we are to say, “No”! No pain for me thank you! No breeding for me until I’m ready for that. And I’ll have as much sex as I want without suffering any punishment! Women today certainly have their nerve, esp. them there women in college who want to have sex and then finish their education and get a degree and have a good secure life. “Since god ain’t punishing them women, we religious nuts have to do it for him. come on ya’ll help me.”

By The72John

February 1, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

John… Busted??? Nope. Just a carefully crafted statement to have fun with people like you who take more pleasure in semantics than in the actual ideas.

I don’t particularly care about semantics, my dear, I was just finding humor in your “carefully crafted statement” that belies your earler protestations that you are above such petty things as gender.

But perhaps things like humor are beneath you, hmm?

By kimberly

February 1, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Suzan, (I’m addressing you, not those bleeps who presume to know what I feel or need.) I can see that your feelings are genuine, and that you are not a nut. Abortion bothers you enough that you are compelled to involve yourself in the discussion. I’d like to suggest that you involve yourself in prevention, or in being a part of the alternative. Some argue that if we simply criminalize the act, the problem is solved. That is certainly not the case with drug abuse, so I doubt it would have any impact on the primal instinct our Creator gave most of us to copulate, even when circumstances are less than optimal. There are people who take scared young pregnant women into their homes, or adopt special-needs babies instead of perfect ones. There are people who get involved with youth groups and programs to prevent kids from going “astray.” If it matters to you, stop preaching and do something — follow those convictions into action.

Not a man-hater at all, I simply oppose people using goverment or religion to impose THEIR will on a woman “in trouble.” Perhaps I’m wrong, but I really think you’ll find much more success and satisfaction by addressing the REAL issues than you ever can by arguing with people about their right to choose their own destiny. Thanks for listening.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

PWPC, I am so glad to hear that you have seen the light! Now you’re talking about being one of them good women. You have finally realized your place in this world. The way women used to be in the good ole days. The way we want women to be again. The way god meant for women to be. Hallejulah, praise Zhiva!

By lozen

February 1, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

Now 72John you better be careful. You’re fooling with god’s chosen who have been put here to tell us all how we should live. Zeus might strike you with a thunderbolt! No, wait. That’s Thor… oh well one of them gods will get ya. But remember god’s chosen don’t have time for humor. They got a mission. “No mistakes for you girlie. Why ain’t ya using birth control? What? You say no BC method is 100 percent effective. That’s beside the point, don’t bother me with details! Ya say we are living in the 21st century? Well, not for long if me and my ppl can hep (sic) it. What is wrong with you pagans that you can’t even think a blob of cells is a baby? You woman are killing babies, you sadists.”

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

LOZEN did you catch the “Right to not your life” big get together last week? Huge group of Vagina controllers listening to Penezzes preach about how their Vagina controlling groups still have so much to do to save all those undeveloped cells !

PUKE ! All that money spent & all that gas all those pukes used to get to that terrorist EVENT! They should have spent all that money on kids in foster care or orphanages.

Shame on those idiots.

AMEN !

All that money they continue to waste on their sic Vagina controlling crap & legislation could be used on birth control research & how to use birth control education. Which could wipe out A LOT OF ABORTION DUH ! ! ! DUH ! ! ! ! ! !

By lozen

February 1, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, you never cease to amaze me with your good sense and perspicacity. Such good advice for Suzan. I do hope she takes your advice to heart.

By Tasty Tom Says

February 1, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Can I have fries with that abortion?

By 2D

February 1, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

John… Things like humor are not beneath me, when the topics discussed ar actually humorous.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Back to the subject. No, I do not want christian crosses displayed on “my” public property. The sight of that symbol of worship of martyrdom and death as the ultimate gift for Yahweh, oppression, war, control of the populace, and esp. what it’s meant for females throughout history, makes me feel a little sick. No thank ya.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this

“PWPC… I have no sympathy for anyone who has a few beers and then gets behind the wheel. “

So your husband has 3 beers after work with his boss. He is only slightly buzzed but still ends up hitting a telephone pole. He is driven to the emergency room, but because he had 3 beers & should have known better he should be denied medical care? “Sir that’s not a good enough reason you did this to yourself, you’ll have to mend your own leg break. You’ll have to sew up that eye yourself you were being IRRISPONSIBLE IN OUR OPINION !”

“NOW go to the nearest church & pray that God will save you & try not to bleed on the pews.” “here’s your bill insurance won’t cover this because you should have known better.”

By The72John

February 1, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

John… Things like humor are not beneath me, when the topics discussed ar actually humorous

Come now, you can’t tell me that you don’t find this ranting and raving slightly entertaining, do you? Surely you don’t think that you are accomplishing anything by entering in to this - I think contentious doesn’t begin to describe it - debate for the thousandth time.

No offense to the ladies - I know you all feel very strongly about this issue - but “vagina controllers” and “pennizez” made my day.

But, proceed. Carry on. Perhaps next you can tackle the doctrine of Original Sin and hash that one out, too. Or, perhaps Free Will vs. Predestination?

By Chilao

February 1, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

how about Redemption by Faith?

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this

OH i think I missunderstood the meaning of this weeks topic.

“Public Property” isn’t necessarily referring to women?

After reading what the Vagina controllers were writing I wasn’t sure.

Yes Vagina Controllers is a very appropriate name for them.

Most of the time we can laugh off their Vagina controlling rants, but then you realize how hard they are trying to get our Govt to become the UNITED STATES OF VAGINA CONTROLLERS.

It’s really scary ! It’s the same thing as letting the Taliban re-write our constitution & forcing all of us to conform.

By 2D

February 1, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

John… Entertaining is different than humorous, and I haven’t engaged in the conversation simply for entertainment. I engage in this, or any other, debate b/c I think that my points of view will contrast and clarify other viewpoints or influence folks who may be on the fence. Noone has ripped my position apart so that tells me that either noone is reading or noone has cause to call me unreasonable.

One other thing… I never called gender petty. Quite the contrary. I believe gender is one of, if not the most important characteristic of a human being. It is the first definition of who we are. I also believe that when it comes to some issues a person’s gender, race, age, etc. shades other people’s perception of that person’s opinion.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

Women, carry on. Carry on. 72John, wait until the topic turns to “them depraved gays” for the thousandth time again (it certainly will before the week is over) and see the ranting and raving really begin!

By 2D

February 1, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

PWPC… I’ll nibble, but before I answer, can you at least concede that this person is responsible for the events that happened? That had they shown better judgement, they would have greatly reduced, if not completely eliminated the possibility of wrecking their car?

By suzan

February 1, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

Thank you Kimberly,
I am a big sister, I am in the beginings of starting a charity for cancer patients who need help paying thier bills during treatments. I have worked with youth in the past and will continue to do so and I have helped counsel women who have had abortions and are going through all the stress and anxiety this brings. I have known at least two women who can no longer have children due to bad legal abortions. I do care. I have been no saint in my life and I can speak with experience about how hard life is. I will tell you that the lies that the children learn now about free sex is sad. The cost can be high. STD’s, unwanted pregancy, low self esteem, aids…. the sad part we a a society tell the kids now by our lack of envolvement that it’s okay.

It is sad. This debate was about religious symbols on public property. I could care less about whether religous symbols get jerked off of public property or not. This to me is something not worth the time to write about.

I am trying to help where it matters.

I would love to see more people take a real stand and get to the heart of what the real problems in this country are. Right off the bat I would say a complete lack of interest in the welfare of each other is the biggest thing lacking. Followed by a lack of courage to stand up for what is pure and good. We have become, on a whole, a society of people that care only for ourselves and nothing for others.

But I keep trying. Please all that care, jump in and join in an outreach program. Help kids, single moms, cancer patients, people dieing from aids. Just reach outside of yourself and help as many as you can. It will change your perspective on life and what is really important. And it’s not silly subjects these two want us to debate about that are important it is each abd every one of you here. We as a group have so much to give. Im asking each of you here to take up a cause to help another human being. lets see what we can do. We may not all agree about religion, abortion, and many other things but, if we can stop fighting and ridiculing others perhaps we can change things that really matter

By 2D

February 1, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this

Lozen… What about women who oppose abortion, or at least it’s current state? Is your encouragement meant for them as well?

By blablabla

February 1, 2007 01:17 PM | Link to this

i’m with you, john. this is incredibly entertaining.

nothing is solved, just a bunch of teeth gnashing and capital letters. i’m waiting for the whiley sighting, myself.

By The72John

February 1, 2007 01:22 PM | Link to this

I was under the impression that there had already been a Whiley sighting…maybe it was just a clever clone.

Oh well, back to flipping back and forth between windows in Vista and going “oooooh”.

By Brian Curtis

February 1, 2007 01:25 PM | Link to this

Lozen, your comment: The sight of that symbol of worship of martyrdom and death as the ultimate gift for Yahweh, oppression, war, control of the populace, and esp. what it’s meant for females throughout history, makes me feel a little sick.

reminded me of this brief Family Guy exchange…

Francis: “A kitchen isn’t complete without a crucifix!”

Stewie: “Ahh yes…. because nothing says “eat up” like a half-naked, bleeding Jew nailed to a piece of wood.”

By blablabla

February 1, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

my thought was that pwpc is kimberly, not whiley.

Oh well, back to flipping back and forth between windows in Vista and going “oooooh”.

ha!

By kimberly

February 1, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

Suzan, thanks for the 4-1-1! I agree with what you said about us being a society where people look out for themselves and turn their backs on others. This is perhaps why I jump in to debate those who claim righteousness and love of Christ, but show no love for others. I should also remember that some people DO care. As for our culture of “hit & run love”, I do think it hurts women more than it hurts men. (Like, DUH!) It bothers me that it always seems to be the females taking the blame and criticism, when it is clear that a good percentage of the males among us are quite happy “delaying” commitment and responsibility. The days of shotgun weddings are over… Hurray for the guys, but hey, if she has to do that to get a commitment, she’s better off without him in the long run, IMO.

bla, I said what I had to say under my own name.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 01:55 PM | Link to this

suzan—Thank you for redirecting the focus where it should be, on healthy behavior: I will tell you that the lies that the children learn now about free sex is sad. The cost can be high. STD’s, unwanted pregnancy, low self esteem, aids…. The sad part we a a society tell the kids now by our lack of involvement that it’s okay.

Abortion should be legal, because things would be far worse the other way, but should never be championed the way it is by some of the skankier W2W posters like PWPC.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:03 PM | Link to this

chuck—You’re not making any sense. Jesus’s ministry was based on the idea of an imminent Second Coming. He discouraged interest in material concerns in every way. His ministry focused on the spirit, and the soul, not on the material. As such, your belief that Jesus would support erecting Christmas trees or crosses on public land doesn’t sound reasonable in any way.

By MrRogers

February 1, 2007 02:08 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:11 PM | Link to this

Also, a general question for freeloaders like lozen: Why is it my responsibility to pay for your kids? It’s not. Call me hard-hearted, self-righteous, or whatever you like, but I worked hard all my life to pay my own bills. Just because you didn’t doesn’t create an obligation in me to bail you out.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

The truth is, while I worked non-stop for 35 years and saved every nickel I could by forgoing vacations and new cars, most of the people I know didn’t. They spent it just as fast as they made it, if not faster. So sorry, I feel no obligation for garroneras such as yourself, lozen.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:19 PM | Link to this

Fortunately, PWPC, you won’t have to deal with the abortion issue because I can’t forsee any man wanting to be with you. I got limp just reading your posts.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:22 PM | Link to this

kimberly, are you going to fess up about why you have such a strong personal grudge against the phoney-baloney Holy Rollers? Most people find them merely annoying, kind of like a mosquito. Do you have a Jessica Hahn story to tell? You can tell me, I’ll be your Sam Kinison.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:36 PM | Link to this

That kimberly sure can cuss up a storm though, can’t she? My poor Virgin ears! She reminds me of a girl I dated years back who drank Crown Royal—straight. I would always have to get the drink order straight with the waitress: Yes, the strawberry daiquiri with the little umbrella is mine, the double shot of Crown straight up is for her.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this

Chilao has been quiet this week. He must be trying to figure out Zeno’s Paradox still.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

awwwww Swami, What makes you think I care about you & your little tiny thing? Yes we all know it is because only guys built like yourself use the word Skankier.

Women’s importance is not based on the number of men that are looking for somewhere to put their manly deposit (eye roll right here). I look forward to seeing your face on “to catch a predator” next week.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this

So, do you have any cool tattoos, kim?

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

Like it or not, PWPC, women need men. And men need women. Certainly here has been an imbalance in rights over the years, at least legally, but things are good here in the US for women. Why all the bellyaching?

By MrRogers

February 1, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

PWPC -

Don’t mind The Great Santini. He is still upset his virgin mail order Russian bride divorced him. It makes him want to bully women when he is in his Hyde mode. Or is it Jekyll?

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this

FYI, PWPC, I love strong women. Just not the butchy, man-hating ones like yourself.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

I won’t mind if the religious people want to put their symbols on public property as long as I cover it all with my pro-choice, pro-birth control, pro-woman, pro-healty sex lives, pro ERA, pro women in Govt, pro-anti porn flyers.

lol !

By kimberly

February 1, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, No, no, and no. I thought we established that we should never be close and personal. This is a topic-related discussion forum. I think you can find what you really want on “MySpace” dot com. It’s free, and you can create a little profile for yourself, download songs and music you relate to, post pictures & blogs, and send bulletins to all your “friends.” Then you browse folks in your neighborhood or town to find people with compatible interests to talk to. You might meet some nice women for dating! Wouldn’t that be cool: women who aren’t already OVER you.

By blablabla

February 1, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

bla, I said what I had to say under my own name.

my bad, kimberly.

By chuck

February 1, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this

Who woke you up Brudog? I think you got up on the wrong side of the doggie bed.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 02:58 PM | Link to this

MrRogers—You are clairvoyant!! I was going to use “The Great Santini” this week in honor of kimberly, but changed to “The Great Swami” after reading Mara’s challenge: “Tell us Great Swami….”

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 03:00 PM | Link to this

PWPC—Have you ever considered seeking professional help for your anger control issues?

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 03:06 PM | Link to this

I don’t like to do things the normal way, kim. That would be too boring. I will admit to going on to MySpace a few weeks ago. I’m a dinosaur and didn’t even know it existed until about 6 months ago. I will say the pictures some of the women post of themselves are pretty shocking. Especially the lesbians.

Hey, should I post my picture on MySpace, kim? Then you could see if you thought I was cute or not.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 03:10 PM | Link to this

But don’t worry, kim. Your repeated rejections in no way diminish my respect and admiration for you. In fact, they probably have increased them! {:>) Dogs are like that.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this

Swami, nobody cares what a guy like you likes. Women don’t care if you don’t like to hear the truth. Guys like you call strong women wwhores ugly, fat, butch, whatever nasty thing you can think of. Guess what, we don’t care. We are sick of the name calling & the nasty behavior of the religious nuts.

Women like sex, women have sex, women are not whhores for liking & having sex. Too many young people have unplanned pregnancies because nobody is perfect, birth control is pretty pathetic (thank you religious nuts for keeping good birth control from ever being invented). Religious nuts think it’s a good thing to not educate everybody on birth control, relationships, & love.

lol Mr rogers !

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 03:15 PM | Link to this

But don’t worry, kim. I’m still not ready to date yet, although I am getting closer. It usually takes me two or three years to get over a major heartbreak.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

Swami I forgot my place, women aren’t supposed to be irritated or angry with anybody. Women who stand up against bad people must be insane right? (eye roll here)

By 2D

February 1, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

PWPC… “pro anti-porn”??? I apologize, but I think that means you want to stop porn, right???

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 03:20 PM | Link to this

PWPC—There may be a small minority of men who treat women poorly, have no respect for women, but they don’t represent the vast majority of men. In fact, in an emotional sense, we men put up with a lot of ongoing emotional turmoil and abuse from our ladies, especially at certain times of the month…..We make jokes about it, but in the end we accept it, because that is how God made women.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

2D—Maybe PWPC meant that in the same way that Kerry was AGAINST the war before he was FOR it.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 03:36 PM | Link to this

kim, when you said “No, no, no”, are you sure you didn’t mean “Yes, yes, yes”? ;>}

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 03:43 PM | Link to this

But ultimately, you have to blame Al Gore for my presence here on your sacred Lib blog. If Al hadn’t single-handedly invented the Internet, I would still be an unknown, limited to bashing those few who were unlucky enough to cross my path in person.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 04:23 PM | Link to this

Oh, the great insani is out of bed finally. Just f—cking great! This is the way the rest of the day goes: Post: The great insani Post: the great insani Post the great insani Post the great insani Post: another guy post: the great…. post: the great,,,, Post: the great insani post: the great insani

And on and on. And so it goes.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this

You incredibly stupid little jerk! I’ve worked since I was 15 years old, non-stop. I save and economize and have a six figure bank balance becauee of that. You are such a d-ck.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 04:29 PM | Link to this

lozen, I do need my beauty sleep, you know.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 04:35 PM | Link to this

So all you great women posting: Did everyone say everything they wanted to say about abortion? Don’t let anyone, who always want to change the subject on “Woman to Woman” from women’s issues divert the important conversations here. I know many women who chose to have abortions for varying reasons. Not a single one of them has any of the big emotional issues Suzan thinks are so common.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this

suzan—I would like to (respectfully) comment on your earlier statement that you thought the greatest problem facing our country was that of selfishness , which you supported by referencing a lack of organized charity to help out those truly in need. The reality is that we are the most charitable nation on Earth. Anyone truly in need can get help. What conservatives object to is governmental involvement with charity, in which charity becomes a legal entitlement, with the resulting generations of welfare families. Critics call this view “Social Darwinism”, but the fact is that when something is “free”, people want lots of it.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 04:38 PM | Link to this

Fortunately, PWPC, you won’t have to deal with the abortion issue because I can’t forsee any man wanting to be with you. I got limp just reading your posts. Ah, come on wimpy, tell the truth. You’ve been limp for years without your viagra. Before that all you slept with were skanks. What a loser.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this

The Biblical view is clear on poverty, suzan.

(1) It is better to teach a man to fish than to just give him a fish.

(2) Those who refuse to work shouldn’t eat.

(3) The poor will always be among us.

Certainly, the Christ always advocated love and charity. However, if you notice, he frequently rebuked “Go and sin no more”.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 04:45 PM | Link to this

The real problem I see suzan, is too great of an emphasis on materialism in our country, in which poverty means only having one car instead of two, and a 36-inch TV instead of a 52-incher. No one in this country is poor by world-wide standards.

By lozen

February 1, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this

Give a man religion and he’ll starve to death praying for fish!

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this

Sorry, lozen. Haven’t needed any Vitamin V yet. I will admit to sleeping with one or two skanks as a young guy, but I’ve held out for quality ever since.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this

I’m not surprised that MLK is kim’s hero. That “spreading the sunshine around” issue isn’t important to her—as long as she’s not talking about her own husband. Yep, King’s ongoing humiliation of his wife was just regal.

By The Great Swami

February 1, 2007 04:57 PM | Link to this

lozen, when you say a “six-figure bank account”, does that include the two decimal places? Like $1000.00?

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 05:05 PM | Link to this

Swami if you were sleeping with skanks, what did that make YOU? Only a skank would sleep with you?

LOL MY GUESS the women you sleep with now laugh off their 10 minute sexual experience with you as the “worst $50 bucks I ever made”.

By kimberly

February 1, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, although you think you know everything, you don’t have the slightest idea what’s important to me or any other woman. FYI: a hero is an actual flawed human who risks himself or herself for someone else, or for a cause greater than their own. I don’t bash heroes for human weakness, especially not when they show the kind of courage that MLK and his fellow activists for peaceful change did, in a very frightening time and place. Have you ever done anything as brave as what those black men did in the 60’s South, unarmed and unprotected, in the name of truth, peace, and justice? Doubt it. Even war veterans who fought in combat went in armed with a weapon, with soldiers by their side. Sorry, doesn’t come close on the Courage scale. Mrs. King (like Mrs. Clinton) chose to stay by her man in spite of what you think, yet you bash bash bash…. Coward. I wouldn’t even sip coffee from a paper cup across the table from a “man” who speaks to and about people (not just women) the way you do. Go back to licking your a—, Mongrel, and quit telling us how great it tastes.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 1, 2007 05:22 PM | Link to this

Swami, SMALL MINORITY OF MEN WHO TREAT WOMEN POORLY???? HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAH I wish that were true.

Making period jokes now? you’re an idiot. I’d love to see you endure a cycle. You can’t complain, still have to work, even though the pain is at times unbearable. And your spouse b*** about not being able to get any for a week. Scientists think it’s more important to cure a limp DCK than it is to get rid of monthly cycles. Gee can’t imagine why i’d be in a bad mood ! ! So yea F*******@you at least once a month lol.

Do I want to stop porn? Sure I’d like to not be surrounded by it all the time. Porn is for guys that want to masterBait. Like I want that visual all the time.
loosers lol

Being pro woman, pro choice etc does not mean anybody hates men. It’s about talking honestly about bad behavior that hurts women. About backward & dangerous religious “rules” that makes women’s lives very difficult.

By 2D

February 2, 2007 07:48 AM | Link to this

PWPC… Perhaps you and Swami disagree becouse your definition of “treating women poorly” differ. If you think a huge majority of men do treat women poorly, then either the pool of men I know is completely different than yours or it would be virtually impossible for men to treat women well.

Um…

I actually know lots of women who take birth control pills to reduce or eliminate their monthly “cycles”. Extensive exercising can also do the same thing. Many of my cross country friends in High School didn’t experience their “cycles” for months on end. Perhaps you could try one of those ideas. Get into shape AND reduce your pain.

Also…

I’m not sure where the fascination with bashing viagra, cialis and the other sex drugs originates. If you dig dudes, I can’t see how they are bad. If you don’t dig dudes, then it shouldn’t matter to you one way or the other. If you dig dudes, but not the one you’re with, then get a new one. Unless someone can show me proof of “viagra rage” like “‘roid rage” (which may exist, so I’m asking) then convince they pose a problem.

BTW…

Plenty of women dig porn. They just don’t let you know about it.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 2, 2007 08:21 AM | Link to this

A LOT of women can’t take the pill for a number of reasons. Don’t forget if you have to take antibiotics your pills don’t work. That means a lot of forced births in some of you wack jobs world. I took the pill for about 8 years & it never affected the level of pain I experienced. Birth control is a joke, thank you religious freaks for making that a fact.

Women as a group are still treated poorly around the world. I don’t need to go into all that do I? It would take an entire book. In the US, not including the obvious & constant violence against women is the constant belittling of women’s sexuality & this weird need to constantly dictate what women should be doing, working, breeding, wearing, looking like, is a big part of it. Religion is where all that stems from.

Plenty of women dig porn? lol yea right you’d love to think so would’nt you. Not the kind of women I know.

Did anybody hear about all the “no right to your own life” students at GA tech putting up a bunch of crosses & signs representing all the aborted cells? Somebody stole all their stupid crap lol I LOVE IT ! THANK YOU TO WHOEVER DID THAT KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !

By chuck

February 2, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

PWPC is that “no right to your own life” group anything like the “we love to kill babies” group that you belong to?

Come on Whiley you can do better than that.

By 2D

February 2, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this

PWPC… You might want to quit overgeneralizing every position you take. To call birth control pills a joke shows the radical nature of your positions. I challenge many of the other women on this boar, with whom I disagree on many issues, to refute that statement.

Birth control pills didn’t help you, but that doesn’t mean it can’t and doesn’t help other women. There are women who take birth control to assist the intensity of their monthly cycles. Some women can’t. Some women don’t.

Women as a group are treated poorly around the world, but don’t you think we should separate the world from the U.S.? Women are not in general treated poorly here. There are bad apples as in every society, but overall treated poorly? I beg to differ. That being said it can be better.

I find it ironic that you refute the fact that women dig porn with “not the women I know”. Well the women I know aren’t baby killers.

I also find it ironic that you berate college students going to protest when it goes against your particular beliefs. The kids currently at Tech are the ones who will be the leaders of our scientific community in the next decade. They will contibute far more tangible benefits to scoiety than probably 90% of the people who spout venom on this BLOG.

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 09:10 AM | Link to this

So all you great women posting: Did everyone say everything they wanted to say about abortion?

Actually, no. And I do not see much in the way of great women here. Sadly it looks like several embarassments to the gender.

The member of the “short-bus triumvirate” who had the best day was probably Kimberly, who could not conjure up the fortitude to respond to me.

And a warm welcome to PWPC, who tried her best to set the bar as low as possible. Here is a hint for you, honey: all that yelling in capital letters, calling people idiots, vagina controllers, and condoning theft of the property of people you disagree with…all it does is make women look like a bunch of hormonal blobs incapable of reasoned debate on emotional issues. You believe that your pronouncements make us look strong, but instead your rantings do nothing but set us back. Nevertheless, it is discomforting to know that one or two comments you do not like is all it takes to launch a strong woman like you into emotional orbit.

The award of the day has to go to lozen, the empty-headed cheerleader. Undaunted by spouting false statements (“fetuses have no rights”), she actually sounds proud of herself. What on earth are you proud of, you fool? Is it the fact that you tell people that they only sleep with skanks, like some pre-pubescent middle-schooler? In case you had not noticed, while you and PWPC were incessantly flapping your gums and “rah-rahing” about penizzez and the United States of vagina controllers, all the men sat back and laughed at you two.

Do you really think the religious wingnuts can stop women? Control women’s lives and make them slaves to the womb? Please. The wackos are always a minor threat, but rational women of sound mind and body have nothing to fear from them. But unnecessarily extreme positions fan their flames, providing them a reason to organize and be heard in ways that lend them more credibility than their positions deserve. You say abortion gives you freedom…hardly. I say your decisions, your actions, your ideals and your education give you freedom. Abortion is such a small, small part of the equation.

Do us all a favor: stop embarassing yourselves and the rest of us. Give men a reason to stop laughing at you and take you seriously. Thanks.

By Jack

February 2, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this

Wow. Dog stirred it up yesterday. Hope all is well with all. Watch where you go and don’t eat yellow snow.

By Chilao

February 2, 2007 09:44 AM | Link to this

Two blondes with hammers, Carol and Donna, were doing some carpentry work on a Habitat for Humanity house. Carol, who was nailing down house siding, would reach into her nail pouch, pull out a nail and either toss it over her shoulder or nail it in.

Donna, figuring this was worth looking into, asked, “Why are you throwing those nails away?”

Carol explained, “When I pull a nail out of my pouch, about half of them have the head on the wrong end and I throw them away.”

Donna got completely upset and yelled, “You moron! Those nails aren’t defective! They’re for the other side of the house”.

Hi Jack, yes drive safely. LOL

By lozen

February 2, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this

Hey Jack. What’s up? Will you be with us today?

I don’t happen to agree with some extreme positions but I do think every woman can express whatever she wants on this blog. And guess what Bahhhhhhhh, some of us are not so male identified that we care if some men laugh at us. Men laughed at the Suffragists and the first feminists and threw rotten tomatoes at them on the street. Some men always laugh at whatever women do because they’re taught what silly overly emotional creatures women are as they grow up. Yeah, I am proud of myself and what I’ve accomplished and what I’ve learned. I’ve come a long way baby. Embarrassed? NO. I might laugh along with them. I love to laugh at myself and others and our crazy humanness. We’re all so flawed and so wonderful. And none of us have all the answers, so we debate. Sometimes we make mistakes and that’s okay. So do us a favor; see if you can develop a sense of identity that isn’t dependent on what men think of you honey.

By lozen

February 2, 2007 09:57 AM | Link to this

Funny one Jack. It is joke day!

By ProWomanProChoice

February 2, 2007 09:58 AM | Link to this

embarassments to the gender. (stop standing up for yourself men can’t take it)

to set the bar as low as possible. (anything you say doesn’t mean anything)

all it does is make women look like a bunch of hormonal blobs incapable of reasoned debate on emotional issues. (the more you speak out the more we need to shut you up, the most affective way is to label you dumb & emotional,so anything you say will see unimportant)

all it takes to launch a strong woman like you into emotional orbit. (keep trying to dismiss women as emotional so nobody will take them seriously)

the empty-headed cheerleader. (put women in their place, make sure they are all uncomfortable about speaking out about anything)

you tell people that they only sleep with skanks, like some pre-pubescent middle-schooler? (make sure to use any sexist rude words when referring to a woman)

incessantly flapping your gums and “rah-rahing” about penizzez and the United States of vagina controllers, all the men sat back and laughed at you two. (keep reminding women anything they talk about is stupid & nobody cares. Men like to laugh at women who are trying to stand up for themselves & others)

but rational women of sound mind and body have nothing to fear from them. (maybe if we make women feel like anything they try won’t work, they’ll stop trying to make the world a better place for themselves, after all, that would mean we would have to make some big changes in our own lives)

I say your decisions, your actions, your ideals and your education give you freedom. Abortion is such a small, small part of the equation. (women don’t need to control how many children they have & when. After all why are they having sex in the first place? Women don’t have a right to sex, MEN DO)

stop embarassing yourselves and the rest of us. Give men a reason to stop laughing at you and take you seriously.

(we can’t stop putting women down & doing everything we can to shut them up. We don’t care about their quality of life, only ours matters)

By The72John

February 2, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

oh yeah - it’s totally Whiley.

By Jack

February 2, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

Hi Lozen. I’ll be stopping in occasionally.

“And I do not see much in the way of great women here”

False. All of the ladies who grace this blog are great in one way or another.

By chuck

February 2, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

No doubt john.

By kimberly

February 2, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this

“Short-bus triumvirate?” Gee, that almost borders on clever. Sorry to disappoint you, Bahama person. Didn’t know I was supposed to respond to someone on a blog who nutshells it down to the presumption that I just need to be loved. You were hoping for a snappy comeback???

Oh well. Another pointless discussion winds down to “Why did we bother?” Looking forward to Sunday’s last-chance football. I’m always sad when football goes away…. {:-<

By Jack

February 2, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this

If you are Whiley PWPC, Hi Hon! Missed ya. :)

By 2D

February 2, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Jack’s correct. All fo the women, and men for that matter are great in some way.

I woould like to wonder how Lozen can compare the suffragists of the early 20th century to the women of today. Those women literally had fewer rights than men. I’m curious, what basic legal right do men have today that women do not?

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

By and large, PWPC, you made my points for me. Thank you.

And lozen, you continue to miss the entire point. Men and women need each other, and they need to live in mutual respect. We are not there yet. Just because I seek gender respect for women does not mean my identity is defined by men. Not even close. I determine my independence. Not them. But I do not have to spout fallacies, adopt extreme positions or go off the deep end ranting about vagina controllers or penizzes to accomplish that. Someday I hope you will realize that you do not need to either.

Of course you can post anything on this blog. But recognize when you and PWPC slap each other on the back with pointless, emotion-filled rantings, there are consequences for doing so. And as PWPC points out (whether she realizes this or not) the consequence is that you confirm the stereotypes that men use (emotional, irrational, we do not need to be taken seriously…) every single day.

Wake up! You two are not being part of the solution. You are perpetuating the problem.

By Brian Curtis

February 2, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Ha! It was amusing (if tiresome) to watch Bruno-Dog and Chuck snipe away at each other all week, each filled to the brim with absolute certainty that he and ONLY he really understands the Bible.

But seeing the Bruno-Whiley matchup is even funnier. Great kickoff to Joke Day!

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

Didn’t know I was supposed to respond to someone on a blog who nutshells it down to the presumption that I just need to be loved.

That is OK. I had enough to go with just from your friends. But if that is what you believe I said to you, or even the crux of what I said to you, then I will reiterate my point that reading comprehension must not be your thing.

By ProWomanProChoice

February 2, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

You two are not being part of the solution. You are perpetuating the problem. (women have no business telling men what to do & absolutely have no rights of their own. Stop acting so emotional, only babies do that. Women should not show any emotion at all ever ! You’ve got nothing to be bothered about. You just need to cook, clean & make babies & don’t question anything after all it’s god’s way isn’t it?)

Yes you are a vaginal controlling backward person. I pitty you.

By Chilao

February 2, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this

But seeing the Bruno-Whiley matchup is even funnier. Great kickoff to Joke Day!

So I was not the only one thinking the Bs were synonymous? LOL

is that 2B or B(squared)?

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this

PWPC - Go ahead and keep saying that anybody who does not agree with you is a backwards vagina controlling person. I am a pro-choice woman, you fool. I just happen to see through your stupidity.

By Jack

February 2, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this

Hi Sweet Thing!

By ProWomanProChoice

February 2, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Anybody that puts other women down for standing up & getting angry is a backward pitiful person. Particularly if you are female and/or pro choice.

Only men are allowed to get angry & demand change right?

By Jack

February 2, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

Vitrol on Friday. It should be a sin.

By kimberly

February 2, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Ooooo… another insult, Bahama Girl. You must be so smart.

Let’s see, you said the anti-choice initiative had nothing to do with women’s ability to make decisions; rather, it’s about saving fetuses. Then I offered my interpretation: the lives of fetuses are more important (to those people) than whatever issues the women might be having that would prompt them to make the decision to terminate. Hence, women’s problems, whatever they may be, don’t even rate consideration to the fetus lovers, let alone the principle of individual self-determination. Your response was to fling insults around, and offer an amateur psychoanalysis of me, a person you do not even know. Du kennst mich nicht. Did I comprehend that right, Sparky?

Jack, you’re so right. Your presence always sweetens things up.

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Please, PWPC. I am not objecting to you standing up for yourself. I object to the way in which you do it. Ranting and raving does not accomplish anything - in fact, it makes it more difficult to accomplish your goal because people stop listening to you. Furthermore, ignoring the rule of law and taking it a step further to praise and encourage those that steal the personal property of your political adversaries at Georgia Tech is antithetical to your goal and undermines your position.

By Jack

February 2, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Mongrel in disguise?

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

Nice try, Kimberly. The intellectual dishonesty of your statement beginning with “I offered my interpretation” makes me laugh. You were not talking about the random “fetus lovers”, you were directing that comment at me. The truth is you assumed that I was one of those “fetus lover” and made a faulty leap that I do not care about women, or what happens to them. I believe your wording was “he doesn’t give a sh_t about women” or something similar.

The thought that I, as a pro-choice woman, do not care about women is preposterous. Further, there is no logic whatsoever that allows one to take my concern for the health of a fetus and conclude I lack concern for women or other people that are already born.

You are correct, I made a statement about your mental well-being. And given your description of the world as a hate-filled cesspool, or something similar, I stand by my assessment that you sound bitter towards the world. However, the difference between us, Kimberly, is that I use your actual comments when I discuss you. You, on the other hand, apply faulty logic and reasoning to twist my comments to make ridiculous conclusions. Big Difference. Then you try to hide behind it and say you were really discussing the random fetus lovers, and not me.

By kimberly

February 2, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Forget him. How are you and the very lucky Mrs. Jack these days?

By Kevin

February 2, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

Is Bruno really Bahamas, even though Bahamas claims to be a woman? I can’t tell for sure.

I do believe that 2D is a male Tech grad. 2D has been commenting on the Tech sports blog. For the most part only men frequent the sports blogs, so I am going to assume 2D is a guy.

Just a guess.

By lozen

February 2, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

Do you have any old purses I can have because I’m going to Sam’s Club? I don’t how many of you shop at Sam’s Club or Costco, but this may be useful to know. I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping. This happened to me and it could happen to you!! Here’s how the scam works: Two seriously good-looking 23-year-old well-built guys come over to your car as you are packing your shopping in the trunk. They both are shirtless and start wiping your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their highly-defined chest muscles and rock-hard abs exposed. It’s impossible not to look. When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say ‘No’ and instead ask you for a ride to another Sam’s Club or Costco. You agree and they get in the back seat. On the way, they start talking dirty about what they want to do to you. Then one of them climbs over into the front seat and begins kissing your neck and begs you to pull over so he can make love to you!! While this is going on the other guy steals your purse!! I had my purse stolen last Tuesday, Wednesday, twice on Thursday, again on Saturday, and also yesterday and most likely tomorrow. I’m running out of purses….

By Chilao

February 2, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this

Lozen - after the first time, hopefully you learned to fill your purse with disposable worthless crap, so you got the best deal out of that “scam”. LOL

By lozen

February 2, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Bahama Mama, may be a man but if it’s a woman she sure thinks like a man. Which used to be a great compliment, but isn’t anymore! This pro-choice “woman” appears suddenly on this blog and begins criticizing other women and what they’re saying immediately. Uh-huh! That’s the action of a pro-choice woman alright. Whoever the Bahahahahahahah is, she ain’t no pro-choice woman and she ain’t no woman identified woman. Bahama you really haven’t been around long enough to judge Kimberly’s mental well being.

By Chilao

February 2, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

assuming the buff one wasn’t all fluff and no substance.

speaking of wandering minds, Shakira turns 30 today.

By kimberly

February 2, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

I’m betting that the “pastries” are half-price today, since they came from another blog. Still, I’m not interested in buying them. She and mongrel should get into it. He’ll shred her on logic, but she’ll remain completely unaware.

Lozen, have purses, will travel. will you swing by and pick me up on your way tomorrow? Hahahaha!

By Jack

February 2, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

We’re doing great. I’m the lucky one cause she has to put up with me. She says I get meaner every day. I need to stop watching the news. Gotta work now. SMOOCH!

By Tumbleweed

February 2, 2007 01:02 PM | Link to this

Lumping ALL women or ALL men, or ALL conservatives, or ALL liberals (etc.) into one category is just incredibly simple-minded. It doesn’t matter which side of an issue you’re on, when you resort to attacking the group identity of the person you disagree with, you lose a substantial amount of credibility. It may make you a hero within your own group, but how big of a challenge is that?

This blog seems to consist of two groups: those that have already decided to attack liberals without considering the issue at hand, and those that have already decided to attack conservatives without considering the issue at hand. If you fall into eiher category, here is a newsflash for you: neither group is completely wrong nor completely right. If you automatically disregard all differing opinions, you are stalling your own development. If you think you have all the answers, you are deluded, or perhaps you’re just young and inexperienced.

By Jack

February 2, 2007 01:08 PM | Link to this

“Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way”

By Zack

February 2, 2007 01:33 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—I read your recent comment about my anti-Islam comment. I’d expect that kind of statement coming from you, and since you try to group Christianity and Islam together, you show just how unlearned you are in this area, so I suppose that’s why you resort to the name-calling that you’re so good at. You’re not a dummy, but you are ignorant, and from where I’m sitting, it’s willful, because you sure seem to put appeasing your worldview ahead of embracing the truth. Now, why don’t you seek the truth on your own, as opposed to simply throwing a snowball at me in your typical childish manner?

As for this week’s topic, yes, a cross on public property is totally within the Constitution. People try to say that our country was not founded upon the Bible, but our heritage indeed has Christian roots, and they’re not hidden when one reads the Declaration of Independence and/or Bill of Rights, etc.. (The ABC network loves to delete the references to God in these documents, which doesn’t surprise me, given their sick, liberal agenda.)

It’d be nice if the Diane Glasses of the world would throw fits about “safe sex” being taught in schools, along with evolution, and many other myths.

By Mara

February 2, 2007 01:34 PM | Link to this

The wild Shih Tzus that have been terrorizing that Cobb County condo complex have been captured and taken for medical care. LOL!

The 98 horses, dozens of cows, goats and dogs that were being starved to death in Pike County are now being fed and cared for by volunteer animal lovers and the Humane Society. A big fat rasberry goes out to Tommy Irvin for throwing his hands in the air and declairing that there was nothing the Georgia Department of Agriculture could do to help.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 01:58 PM | Link to this

Howdy, Jack! I appreciate your compliment about really stirring things up yesterday. You know I live for controversy. You would think some of the others (lozen, kimberly) would admit the same.

Also, Bahamas speaks for herself. Mongrel sleeps until at least 1:30.

By Chilao

February 2, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

I guess Zach is not a fan of Desperate Housewives, huh?

LMAO

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:01 PM | Link to this

Bahamas—Please be nice to kimberly. Some of her views may seem a little extreme, and she tends toward hyperbole, but she is a good woman who lives up to her responsibilities in life.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:05 PM | Link to this

kimberly, Not to burst your bubble about MLK, but you might want to type in the search words MLK and plagiarism sometime to find out more where he came up with his doctoral dissertation and speeches. On the day he was killed, he had already slept with one of his mistresses and beat another to a pulp. Many in the Civil Rights movement felt that he was nothing more than a grandstander, causing unnecessary trouble and resentment. The man’s name isn’t even really Martin Luther, it is Michael.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:13 PM | Link to this

Maybe it’s one of those Earth Sign/Air Sign things, but to me, people like Clinton and MLK are nothing more than phone-baloney windbags who talk a mean game, but don’t put their money where their mouths are in their personal lives.

My hero is you, kimberly. You drag yourself out of bed at 5:30-6:00 every day and go to work, then come home and take care of the kids and house by yourself. Even if you receive support money, you are the one doing the actual hands-on work needed to keep your family going. You likely receive little appreciation week in and week out for your selfless efforts. But I appreciate you.

By Brian Curtis

February 2, 2007 02:15 PM | Link to this

Zack: An “anti-Islam comment” reveals YOUR ignorance. You’re the one lumping all believers in Islam together and slapping a label on them. If you want to seek the truth so much, try reading the Koran and learning a little about the factions and philosophies of Islam, rather than tossing out glib insults.

Your suggestion that safe sex is a myth is amusing, to say the least. And the cry that “evolution is a myth” is just sad. Fortunately, the validity of scientific work isn’t left up to popular vote OR the opinions of religious zealots.

I DO notice, however, that the far right is actively trolling for scientists they can bribe into denying the reality of global warming: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070202/plafp/unclimateusdeny070202142458.

Which has become a cliche with the neocons currently dominating the Republican party: Reality will bend to our will if we just WISH it hard enough (and spend enough money).

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:16 PM | Link to this

As for myself, I claim no greatness. I do have a box of letters of appreciation from my clients, but I was just doing my job.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

“The validity of scientific work is not left up to popular vote”.

Total BS, BC. Evolution isn’t factual, yet it is forced down the throats of our kids at the point of a gun in school. AND while the extremely short-term climate data we have collected the past 150 years or so shows an upward trend in average daily temps on Earth, the time frame is too short to make any final judgments. Furthermore, evidence shows that the Earth was much warmer in past eons than it is today. We’re still here, so apparently the Earth can do well in a range of temperatures.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:33 PM | Link to this

Furthermore about MLK: Although he claimed to eloquently dream of a society in which skin color was irrelevant, his actual game plan included both slave reparations and affirmative action, both of which are completely race-based.

By Jack

February 2, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

Ditto on global warming Dog.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:40 PM | Link to this

My vote for a true Civil Rights leader would be Booker T. Washington. He didn’t waste time protesting and marching, and never alienated anyone, and as a result accomplished more in his generation than any 10 MLKs.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:48 PM | Link to this

kim—I’ve tracked my moods the past several years, and have noticed that a strong depression usually sets in right after football season is finally over. Do you have a favorite this year?? It would be hard to imagine that you would be a Peyton Manning fan. I still hear “Rocky Top” in my brain every time he steps out on the field.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:50 PM | Link to this

I’m not going to bet on the game, except maybe a $20 fun bet, but my sentimental favorite is Chicago this time. Jack, you were right in predicting either the Iggles or the Bears a few weeks ago.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 02:53 PM | Link to this

Gotta hand it to Tennessee, though. They really wear you out playing “Rocky Top” whenever they score. The Gator “chomp” is a joy to experience by comparison.

By lozen

February 2, 2007 03:09 PM | Link to this

Simone de Beauvoir: One is not born a woman, one becomes one.

By chuck

February 2, 2007 03:11 PM | Link to this

Yeah Brudog. You better get used to hearing that Gator Chomp. Looks like they’ll be doing it for the next several years. Their recruiting class this year is ranked number 1 in the nation.

Need I remind everybody who the only team to BEAT the Gators was?

That’s right, THE AUBURN TIGERS

WAR EAGLE, HEY!!!”

By lozen

February 2, 2007 03:16 PM | Link to this

Good girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 03:18 PM | Link to this

chuck—While I support the Bulldogs, the other Georgia fans always crack me up in their eternal belief that they will be National Champs every year.

By lozen

February 2, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

There are some people who leave impressions not so lasting as the imprint of an oar upon the water.

By chuck

February 2, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

So Lozen, if Simone is correct, When did you have your surgery?

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 03:22 PM | Link to this

Before the blog dies for the week, I would appreciate some other ladies’ thoughts about kim’s assessment that Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. King were heroic to stand by their man, even when their men publicly humiliated them time and again. Doesn’t seem so heroic if one of your neighbors were in the same situation.

Also, why did ted Bundy have a huge fan club after he was convicted of several brutal rapes and murders. Are you sure you guys don’t like to suffer , maybe just a wee bit?

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

lozen, let me make it real simple for you. I started out with two criticisms: your position that abortion is all about a woman’s capability to make decisions and your position of aborting purely out of convenience.

Now, just because I criticize those position, and then expose the resulting retorts from you and Kimberly that “I don’t give a sh_t about women” as mindless drivel does not prove anything about me.

There are certainly fringe elements out there, but in the everyday world where reasonable people live, there are not a whole bunch of men out there trying to tell you that women are incapable of making their own decisions. There are groups of men who believe you should not have the right to terminate your pregnancy, but no reasonable person argues that you are not able to make your own decisions. I stand by my original criticism of your position because you are framing the entire discussion incorrectly. You are clinging to an antiquated argument that is useless in today’s environment.

And I most certainly am pro-choice. I steadfastly believe that women should have the right to abort within the first trimester. I just believe that aborting out of convenience is abhorrent and disrespectful of life, which was the second criticism I levied at you, lozen. Killing out of necessity is one thing, but most people find killing out of convenience to be wrong, especially when the convenient target is a potential human.

I cannot be a woman because I criticize other women? Or pro-choice because I do not fit into the simple boxes that you have created for yourselves? Please, stop being so small-minded. I can hear it now…”Bahamas, don’t play too rough with the other little girls.”

By lozen

February 2, 2007 03:24 PM | Link to this

George Eliot: Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us worthy evidence of the fact.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

chuck—How does it make you feel to know that you and kimmy support the same football team? If I were a liar like Clinton, I would claim to be a War Eagle fan also just to increase my chances of a score with kim. But, I stay true to my roots, even if it costs me.

Anyone see the commercial on ESPN in which a couple is on a blind date and starts chatting to get to know one another? As soon as the woman mentions she was a Michigan fan, the man jumps out of the car while it is still moving. From the ditch he yells at the car “Go Buckeyes”. The tagline for the commercial is “Never graduate”.

By chuck

February 2, 2007 03:28 PM | Link to this

Have a nice weekend ya’ll.

By Monica

February 2, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

Elusive Shih Tzus Found

Well, thank God! I can rest easy now! Have a relief-filled weekend!

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 03:34 PM | Link to this

Bahamas—Please be nice to kimberly. Some of her views may seem a little extreme, and she tends toward hyperbole

You don’t say, Swami. What is funny is that I originally cricize lozen, and Kimberly jumps in with both feet to rescue her. The whole time she makes one assumption after another that I am some woman-hater, and then wonders why someone would insult her because of it.

I will have to stop back here again sometime soon. This is just far too funny.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 03:46 PM | Link to this

Come back anytime, Bahamas. Loads of humor on W2W, not always intended, however. E.g. kimberly telling me that she would never consider having a cup of coffee with me because I have said vulgar and crass things, then in the next sentence telling me to “Lick my own A-hole”.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 03:52 PM | Link to this

But, don’t worry about the coffee, kim. I was thinking more along the lines of a visit to Humboldt County. You know, kind of like the “Let’s visit Sonoma Valley” commercials put out by Berenger wines.

By lozen

February 2, 2007 03:55 PM | Link to this

Until you lose your reputation, you never realize what a burden it was or what freedom really is.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this

And more humor: BC claiming that Science is completely objective, then holding up Evolution and Global Warming as examples.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 04:16 PM | Link to this

As the Great Swami, I must pay homage to my hero, The Great Carnac. RIP, Johnny.

Also, anyone remember old Charlie Weaver on The Hollywood Squares? He and Paul Lynde were sharp.

My personal favs were the cast from the Gong Show. Chuck; JP; the Unknown Comic; Gene, Gene, The Dancing Machine. It just doesn’t get any better.

By kimberly

February 2, 2007 04:25 PM | Link to this

I think Mongrel has found him a new girl interest, far more suited to him than I could ever hope to be. They’re both kind of stalkerish, and delight in the overt ridicule of others,(see note) to the point of seeking and exploiting past statements well beyond their period of relevance, until the argument is about their own superiority. Mongrel, I’ll give you FIVE BIG GOLD STARS and MUCHO MACHO PRAISE if you can identify your new soulmate from the other AJC blogs she frequents. I’m betting you’re smart enough.

(note)I admit to harassing Chuckie when the issue warrants, but he earned it honestly.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 04:42 PM | Link to this

Sorry, kim, no good guesses about Bahamas. W2W is the only blog I frequent.

Is it okay that you are my hero?

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 04:48 PM | Link to this

I’m sure you would find me boring, though, kim, since I don’t believe in mistreating women. Probably not enough drama for you. Yep, the grass would already be mowed and the driveway pressure washed, all the bills already paid, and you wouldn’t have anything to complain about, so would be miserable as a result.

No “spreading the sunshine around” with Mongrel, either. It would be just too boring.

By The Great Swami

February 2, 2007 04:53 PM | Link to this

So let me know when you’re ready to go to Humboldt, kim.

By Bahamas

February 2, 2007 05:15 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

I have never posted on another AJC blog, although I am curious to know who you think I am.

I will say that it was great to watch you try to play the victim of ridicule when it was you that jumped all over my first post with your inane blathering. You can dish it out but cry foul when you get an unexpected response. Then you hide behind selective memory and intellectual dishonesty in an attempt to regain some credibility. And then, after all that you have the nerve to say that it is all about my need to feel superior. Pathetic.