AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2009 > January > 30 > Entry
Are nonbelievers unfairly maligned in America?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I watched Barack Obama’s inauguration speech in D.C., standing on my tippy toes to catch a glimpse of the Jumbotron. Halfway through, our new president said something that caused one mainstream-looking young woman in front of me to pump her fist in delight. “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness” he began, adding, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.”
Nonbelievers? Did President Obama actually give a shout-out to atheists and agnostics in his inaugural address? Yes, he did.
Although not on the level of my fist-pumping neighbor, I too was pleased with this purposeful inclusion. I’ve grown increasingly alarmed by how many of us have allowed our faith to seep into decisions of governance.
“Name one nonbeliever who holds high political office” Dr. Jeremy Gunn challenged me on a recent phone call. “Just one.” Gunn is the director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief and the author of “Spiritual Weapons: The Cold War and the Forging of an American National Religion.”
Noting that it’s de rigueur for anyone running for office to profess their faith, Gunn wonders, “Is it that we believe that people who say they are religious are more honest? What’s the proof of that?”
There is, as Gunn suggested, so much “social opprobrium” connected to atheism that campaigns to keep government secular are viewed as an aggressive attack on public signs of faith, rather than an upholding of the Constitution.
At any rate, nonbelievers are rarely pumping their fists in the public square. They walk among us quietly, with many of the same passions and concerns that unite most Americans. Our political leaders recognize this fact; both George Bush and Barack Obama have graciously acknowledged nonbelievers in speaking to the American people. Yet try telling that to the religious leaders who took exception to Obama’s reference. As one put it to an AOL reporter, “he (Obama) seems to be trying to redefine who we are.”
Really? Isn’t he just trying to show all that we are? Surely this patchwork that we’re so proud of won’t fray if we acknowledge that those who don’t share our belief in God still share our love of country.
Have a little faith, people.
Rebuttal
In the American melting pot, protecting our freedom to hold and express different beliefs makes us stronger. In that vein, I actually can name a non-theist in Congress, Rep. Pete Stark of California, as identified by the Secular Coalition of America.
But, yes, there are many more people of faith in Congress than secularists — as there should be, in a representative government. In a 2008 Pew report, 92 percent of Americans polled believe in God or a “universal spirit.” (Ironically including 21 percent of those who otherwise called themselves atheists!) Likewise, nearly half of all Americans will attend a worship service once a week — with many more attending from time to time. With such overwhelming numbers, it would be strange if elected officials didn’t reflect that basic proportion.
“Nonbelievers” aren’t marginalized. In fact, I don’t believe in the term nonbeliever. Everyone believes in something. Whether it is in a deity or in the absence of a deity, everyone has a system of belief. And our whole system of government — and the whole direction of our secular culture — is set up to protect the rights of the “believing-in-nothing’ minority anyway.
In fact, as a result, it is often believers who are being maligned and hindered. By definition, the minority who don’t want to hear about religion are being protected in the courts at the expense of everyone else. As I have argued over the years, the whole point behind the First Amendment was to avoid government establishing religion, not eradicating it from the public square. And yet secularists and their ACLU allies keep protesting and suing to ensure that “separation” can only mean ‘eradication.’
In an email interview, Carrie Earll, Focus on the Family’s senior director of issue analysis for government and public policy, pointed out that many people of faith become public leaders because they are “motivated by their faith and concepts of justice and social responsibility to be good citizens.” Of course, many atheists say they share those convictions of right and wrong.
Which has always puzzled me: if one does not believe in a deity who created absolute truth, and if one instead embraces moral relativism … where do those convictions or standards of right and wrong come from?
Comments
By USinUK
January 30, 2009 12:12 PM | Link to this
Which has always puzzled me: if one does not believe in a deity who created absolute truth, and if one instead embraces moral relativism … where do those convictions or standards of right and wrong come from?
wow. so you need to believe in God to believe in the Golden Rule??? news to me. and to most non-believers I know.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
Andi, you Damned to Hell Heathen. No wonder I usually see your column as the hate speech it truly is. Now we know. Nonbelievers well, they don’t believe!
By ack
January 30, 2009 12:30 PM | Link to this
Of course it is well known that atheists are devoid of values.
Without god, how could they possibly have ANY morals?
How could one possibly achieve the enlightened state which, apparently, can only be successfully attained by placing their faith in an unseen and unknowable entity?
Oh, I don’t know, maybe by incorporating the concepts of social justice, equality, fairness, equanimity, empathy, sympathy, love, understanding, …?
What? You can’t know good or bad if you don’t have a ‘personal relationship’ with god?
PLEASE!!
I do have faith in one thing.
And that is, that as long as there are believers out there, most of whom do not believe in religious pluralism, that they will kill people who don’t possess the same belief system.
Believers, get over yourselves. It’s a big world.
You don’t own morality.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this
So the golden rule as applied by Chez or Mao or Joe (Stalin)? EXPAT your dum bass is sneaking out with comments like this! The lack of believe in God is why it’s so easy for feminists to want to kill unborn children, ZYGOTES as you call them. Moral relativism. DUM BASS! I hope it was cold on the Mall as the hell you are doomed to Andi.
By ack
January 30, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this
To Gandalf.
So much anger dude.
You must be a Christian.
What ever happened to God is Love?
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this
ack, yes we do! HEHE
By USinUK
January 30, 2009 12:50 PM | Link to this
GtG -
hrm. you forgot that Hitler was a devout Christian. as was Pinochet. Mussolini - Catholic. so was the US’s worst spy, Robert Hanssen (not only leading to the death of other people, but betraying his country to the anti-religious communists … OH! the irony!!) so, belief in God didn’t really make them more moral men, now, did it?
as for Blastulas and Zygotes, it’s called science. but you know that, mr-stir-the-pot.
By ack
January 30, 2009 12:55 PM | Link to this
Gandalf.
I assume you are being facetious.
If not, however, you merely exemplify my point about your beliefs being the problem, not the solution.
I’m not sure that self-righteousness is one of the tenets of any religion.
By The Other Jack
January 30, 2009 1:08 PM | Link to this
USinUK
There’s more to the rules that govern us than the golden rule. I’ve long contended that our laws are derived from ancient and modern religious laws. It wasn’t that long ago that it was never a matter of separation of church and state. Church and state were the same. You live in the British Isles. There are few examples of religion playing a huge part in governing that is more obvious than in the ruling of Briton. “God save the King” pretty much says it all. The King ruled, but God had the final say, even whether the King lived. Everything was in the name of God. Whether or not that was good or not is debatable, but it is a fact that religion played a very large part in the various governments that are spread around the world.
Japan’s emperor was actually considered a deity just 60 years ago and of course many countries still consider religion as playing a huge part in the governing of their perspective countries.
Until very recently, religion was mostly finite. Yes, King James got rid of a bunch of Biiblical texts, but the rules of law that were handed down as the basis for governing a people were the basic big ten. Those don’t change and most religions do share those laws. .
Without any sort of anchor of a solid foundation for our laws such as religion, our laws would exist on a sliding scale (As they are beginning to do, now). Semantics begin to rule the day (as they do now) and changing the definition of words to make bad behavior more acceptable becomes the norm.
At that point, there is no standard and as has been seen many times down through history, dictators and despots tend to start moving that sliding scale. (I know you hate this, but) The NAZIs sold themselves as strongly religious in order to take power, but as they became more radical, religion disappeared. The Soviet Union actually outlawed any influence of the church, much like we have been doing for the past thirty years and we now know that Stalin killed many more people than did Hitler. When leaders have no reason to hold to certain laws, they tend to change those laws to fill their own often corrupt needs.
The corruption of society always seems to parallel the eradication of moral standards. And strangely enough, those moral standards don’t even need to be at the same level, but those standards need to be on a solid foundation. Up to now, religion has been that solid foundation.
The Golden Rule is not a very solid foundation. Yesterday you said that you would want to tell your birth mother that you regret that she had to carry you to term (don’t get upset. I’m just paraphrasing), so you eradicated the Golden Rule in your own case. You threw away the “do unto others” in order to support an issue that many people consider amoral. So as far as abortions, the golden rule wouldn’t apply, that is when related to the person that will be dieing at the hands of others.
It would be very easy for a despot to say that they would want their enemies to kill them if their enemies proved themselves stronger and more powerful. This gives that despot the right to kill anyone who is weaker than they are.
The world was governed by religion for tens of thousands of years because religion could be presented as a relatively solid foundation for laws that should never change. That’s why some Islamic women wear berkaas and the Amish ride carriages.
Religion is an anchor for laws. it may not be a permanent anchor (if it were, the Amish would shun the invention of the wheel), but it is more permanent than the golden rule.
I am beginning the weekend of hell in a few minutes. Picking up gear all afternoon, big shoot tomorrow and Sunday and then I go into post for the rest of my life. Have a good weekend. (I’ve told everybody about the Liverpool T-Mobile ad.) Yell all you want, cause I won’t be here to hear it. LOL!
By Sunshine
January 30, 2009 1:09 PM | Link to this
Hey Usin—I am still here and still with child! So still no progress, I am 39 weeks today and the little boy is in NO hurry to come out. I am starting to get to the very very very end of my (frayed) rope with the training and the two jobs. I want to be supperwoman but fear it is not what my body wants! I had to go home yesterday, was having false contractions that just make me tired and since the little one is no where close to where he needs to be to make his exit, it is just exausting and a pain in the patoot! So I am here, but just bearly! (Back at work today!) Sorry to be debbie downer! Aggg! These last few days are tough!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 1:13 PM | Link to this
ack, you and Barry go ahead and “imagine” the world of John Lennon, it a road strewn with attack on our freedoms for internal and external sources. I bet you cheat on your taxes and at solotaire and like Jimmy Carter commit adultry in your heart for woman (or men)! He was a real piece of work, and he too is godless.
Expat: Musolini yes, a Cathlic! Hitler? Devout Christian? I think not! Baptized? Maybe? But in any case who killed more? Chez and Joe and Mao, or Hitler? The Damn Heathan Commies, that’s for damn sure. or is it that the holocost never happened? Which is it? 6 million Jews for Hitler, 100 million plus by Communism??? That sounds like a lot more to me!
By Geezer
January 30, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this
You don’t need to have faith in any religion or deity to know that killing, robbing, raping etc is wrong. However, many Christians believe that the worst sin of all is non belief in God. If you run for public office, and publicly state that you are a non believer, your chances of getting elected are pretty slim, since you are the worst sinner on the planet.
The only way we will get ahead as a society is if we respect each others beliefs, or non beliefs. This is going to be difficult since most of the worlds religions teach that they are the only ones that are right, and everyone else is going to hell, or some other terrible place. And many Atheists are equally annoying on the other side of the coin.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this
Sunshine, So it’s a child? Or is it a zygote? I hope it transitions very healthfully, and you decide to keep it and love it!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this
So, is Mickey Rourke playing hide the salami with Evan Rachel Wood or not?
By USinUK
January 30, 2009 1:24 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
trying to finish some stuff up at work, so will answer in more detail later (and, no, you didn’t upset me) :-)
short answer, you keep assuming I attribute the same personal rights to a blastula/zygote that I do to a person. I don’t.
GtG -
from wiki: “In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews.[277] In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”[278][279] His private statements, as reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but critical of traditional Christianity”
as far as “who killed more”, I don’t think the ### matters - if you believe in God, he doesn’t really work on a sliding scale (“if you killed between 1-10 people, you get this, if you killed between 11 and 100 people, you get that, if you killed between 101 and 500 … and so forth”)
By American Woman
January 30, 2009 1:25 PM | Link to this
“I want to be supperwoman but fear it is not what my body wants!”
Ha! Bless your heart. Don’t you DARE try to be Superwoman! You are a real woman, Sunshine. Yes, you can do everything, but no, you can’t do it all at once! I’ve watched too many women make themselves miserable over the years by thinking that the minimum basic requirement for their inherent value is to do and be everything, and do and be everything well, and do it all at once. Moosepaddies. Listen to your body, and listen to your heart. Only after that, listen to others, and only until you get annoyed with them. Your instincts will guide you.
Right now, you’re exhausted and everything hurts, and darnit, people don’t realize how many things HURT that you never realized would hurt, and how hard it is just to BE 39 weeks pregnant, let alone be or do anything else in addition to that! Completely normal, Dear. Breathe deeply and put your feet up when you can. He’ll make his way on outta there — not soon enough to suit you — but soon. You’ll be GREAT!
By USinUK
January 30, 2009 1:27 PM | Link to this
GtG -
a zygote is what you have prior to attachment to the walls of the uterus.
Sunshine has a fetus, which is what she will have until the little guy makes his Grand Entrance.
By ack
January 30, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this
Gandalf,
In referencing the sins of Mao et al, by implication, you argue that those killed in the name of god pale by comparison.
This is, by definition, MORAL RELATIVISM .
Again with the self-righteousness. tsk tsk.
By USinUK
January 30, 2009 1:36 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
“I am starting to get to the very very very end of my (frayed) rope with the training and the two jobs. I want to be supperwoman but fear it is not what my body wants!”
HUGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
as I say to the Mister all the time - you can only do what you can do. you can’t do everything. you can’t please everyone. you can’t make everything okay.
read that and repeat it to yourself as necessary.
you have a little guy who is standing on your bladder, pushing up against your lungs, and generally squeezing all your other innards. your hip bones have spread, putting add’l pressure on your knees and ankles. your blood pressure is up. your hormones are all over the place. you’re not sleeping well. for dog’s sake, give yourself a BREAK, will ya???
and remember, again, you have loads of people here wishing you well and cheering you on.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 1:46 PM | Link to this
EXPAT: I call the critters FESTUS, how soon you forget our little onversations!
ACK: What a dumbass thing to say! Show me numbers that even approach 100 Million and I will talk about it. Numbers don’t matter, one life taken by some confused teen age girl who is being pressured by the left to KILL her baby is one too many.
By ack
January 30, 2009 2:00 PM | Link to this
Gandalf,
This is what I love about the ‘Christian’ , ‘conservative’, philosophy.
One baby’s life taken is too much.
Care about the killings of adults? Not so much.
BUT, kill thousands, or millions , as long as it is for your god, is ok.
Numbers DO matter.
Dumbass? Why’d it take so long to resort to name calling?
In the conservative debate arsenal that usually that comes up well before now, given the bankruptcy of ideas and morality.
By USinUK
January 30, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
HUZZAH!!! I managed to catch up on all the stuff I needed to do!!! (hooray! I don’t have to take my laptop home over the weekend!!)
okay. so. my response:
First of all, if you’re going to bring up the UK, I think a better illustration of your point is that the monarch is also the head of the Church of England rather than using “God save the Queen/King”. That’s just a sentiment, not a mandate.
Secondly, no one is disputing that religion has mixed with governments for hundreds if not thousands of years, going back to the pre-Christian era and the heads of state in Rome.
Thirdly, regarding the Nazis - they turned “politics” (for lack of a better word) into the religion, I agree with you. However, you can’t dispute Hitler’s writings and his comments -the guy was a devout Christian, so my point to GtG remains - religion didn’t really help him when it came to morals. The same goes for numerous other Kings/Queens who committed horrendous acts under the concept of Divine Right.
Here’s the thing with the idea that religion (the 10 Commandments, specifically) formed our laws: there is no law that says we have to put no other god before God. there is no law that says we have to honor our father and mother. there is no law that says we can’t covet anything of our neighbor’s (in fact, our entire economic system is based on us emulating our neighbors, the Joneses).
The laws we DO have a based on individual rights and liberty - you can’t steal. You can’t make baseless accusations. You can’t deprive others of their lives.
you see what I mean???
and, one last thing about abortion - most laws had no problem with it before “the quickening” (when you could feel the baby kick) - prior to that, it was thought of as part of the mother.
okay, I’m heading home - may jump on on Sunday, but probably not …
ya’ll have a GREAT WEEKEND!!! Stay warm!
By JokesOn
January 30, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this
So, if the general rules we follow derived from religions, why are there laws that predate or are void of religion that are nearly identical?
The big ten are common sense for survival: If I can remove any of your freedoms, you can do the same to me because power is finite.
We see it all the time in animals: they perform a compromise between what is best for the individual and the group.
Religious and secular laws are based on this fact and are simply a product of life systems/group survival.
I always thought the Golden Rule was flawed and self centered. Shouldn’t you really treat others how THEY would like to be treated and not how you would???
By ack
January 30, 2009 2:25 PM | Link to this
Jokeson
Good points.
We do see altruistic and communal behaviors in the animal kingdom.
Dare I say out loud that these behaviors came about as a result of evolution, as being beneficial to the perpetuation and advancement of species?
Or does someone try to make the argument that animals know god also?
By Sunshine
January 30, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this
“He’ll make his way on outta there — not soon enough to suit you — but soon. You’ll be GREAT!”
“and remember, again, you have loads of people here wishing you well and cheering you on.”
Thanks ladies! I needed that! I will keep you posted.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 2:41 PM | Link to this
Ack, I thought you were a DUM BASS long before I started calling you that. Sorry it took so long! Quit sucking up to the eldest 8th grader. He’s a Dum BASS TOO! Innocent life is more precious than the life of a murdered or rapist without question.
(NOTE: the fact that you are indeed a true DUM BASS is equally without question!)
How come those govements that remove God are the most blood thristy? The French come to mind, they lost God and their minds after Bastille Day,and they haven’t won anything since. ACK HOW MANY WERE KILLED FOR GOD? Let see some numbers! Maybe the eldest of 8th graders can do some homework and help you dig some up! Maybe it can be your middle school project together.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 2:41 PM | Link to this
Ack, I thought you were a DUM BASS long before I started calling you that. Sorry it took so long! Quit sucking up to the eldest 8th grader. He’s a Dum BASS TOO! Innocent life is more precious than the life of a murdered or rapist without question.
(NOTE: the fact that you are indeed a true DUM BASS is equally without question!)
How come those govements that remove God are the most blood thristy? The French come to mind, they lost God and their minds after Bastille Day,and they haven’t won anything since. ACK HOW MANY WERE KILLED FOR GOD? Let see some numbers! Maybe the eldest of 8th graders can do some homework and help you dig some up! Maybe it can be your middle school project together.
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 2:46 PM | Link to this
Sunshine I hope God blesses you and your child this weekend!
By American Woman
January 30, 2009 3:07 PM | Link to this
Let’s not forget the good Christian Protestants who slaughtered the Catholics and the good Christian Catholics who slaughtered the Protestants! (Which group killed the Muslims during the Crusades?)This wasn’t a weekend gang shootout… this went on for CENTURIES! Here’s why:
Religion really isn’t about a person understanding, obeying, or having a relationship with God. Religion is what MEN organized to control a) other men, b) women & children, c) money & assets. Still the primary goal of any religion anywhere.
If you are a polytheist, I can’t really respond to your beliefs, but support your right to believe what you will.
If you are a monotheist, then I submit to you that religion is bullhockey! Do you belive in ONE GOD? ONE creator of the universe? If so, then anyone anywhere born in any corner of this planet who bows his head and bends his knee and prays to what his idea of God is, based on his own language or history book, then he is praying to the SAME FLIPPNG GOD THAT YOU ARE. If you use religion to separate yourself from people who are different, you are violating your own belief. You are just one of the zillions of tiny living specs God created. To think that you (and the however many thousand that believe exactly the same as you) are the only ones of zillions who are right, and everyone else is wrong, then you are just FULL OF YOURSELF, not the “Holy Spirit.” I’m just sayin’.
By ack
January 30, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this
gandaIf
Thank you very much.
In the defense of god and morality, you can do no other thing, with or to those with whom you disagree, than attack.
You, and other like you, exhibit a fundamental inability to grasp that there is more than one good thought in the world.
Your absolutism is a plague on humanity.
You have proven my point pointedly and perfectly
My work here is done.
I bid you adieu. (That’s French for good bye)
By ack
January 30, 2009 3:23 PM | Link to this
American Woman:
Nicely done
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 3:26 PM | Link to this
Ack only a DUM BASS WOULD SPEAK FRENCH IN AMERICA! We speak english here! I grasp perfectly that there are other pantheons of thought, but I also grasp that the others are are flawed, yours for example! DUM BASS! Flip little smug POS! I bet your dumbass voted for CHANGE! Let’s elect the pretty black man, we have held them down so long! You sir are dumber than a box of hammers and will prove to be the downfall of this once great society! CHANGE? WTF? Ruin is more like it, Godless ruin. AS FOR YOU “American woman”, STFU! DUMBASS!
By The Doctor is IN!
January 30, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this
Sadly (and despite the claims), religion does not appear to cure end-stage syphilitic dementia. Poor G!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 3:50 PM | Link to this
oh dumbass! I enjoy attack! :-)
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 3:54 PM | Link to this
DOC get your finger outta my butt!
By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 3:55 PM | Link to this
Doc is a fudge monkey!
By Frustrated
January 30, 2009 4:06 PM | Link to this
……….he is praying to the SAME FLIPPNG GOD THAT YOU ARE……
HAHAHAHA, are you kidding? MY God is the father of Jesus Christ….does every person that believes in A God believe in Jesus Christ??? No, therefore, they are not praying to the same God I am.
I think YOU are the one full of YOURSELF….but thanks for playing!
By JustaJew
January 30, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this
GtG,
wow, fudge monkey? Where did such a compassionate Christian, such as yourself, come up with such a hateful term?
By ack
January 30, 2009 4:10 PM | Link to this
G
Yes I did vote for change.
Did you vote for more of the same? Last time I looked , the country was on its last economic gasp.
The ‘once great society’ of which you speak was brought down by your boy W, not the guy who was inaugurated ten days ago.
If nothing else, the last eight years should serve to drive the final nail in the coffin of the ‘free’ market, only the bottom line counts, ideology that has ruled our country for decades
I should hope, as you well should also, that it would change. We can’t afford it not to.
As for your anger. Maybe a good visit to confession or a sermon should help.
Remember God is Love.
By American Woman
January 30, 2009 4:33 PM | Link to this
“….they are not praying to the same God I am.”
Frustrated, Defensive much? Heh. So, based on what you just said to me, do you think there’s MORE THAN ONE GOD? Personally, I have no problem believing in GOD. ONE GOD. I also think that the entity known as Jesus was and is real. It’s the ongoing, ever-changing rhetoric of MEN (to include the female of the finger-pointing species) and their quite subjective, child-like interpretations of events which they could not possibly understand, in which I have lost faith, dear.
Are YOU one of the ones described earlier who feel that my greatest sin is not believing exactly as YOU DO? If so, then you betray your own alleged faith by driving others away from the ONE GOD. But um… thanks anyway, I guess.
By Billy
February 1, 2009 9:12 AM | Link to this
Mao’s China and Stalin’s Russia don’t count as “secular”. The leaders deified themselves. It was a cult of personality. They demanded blind faith, unyielding devotion…not unlike a god might from its followers. The state/party/leader simply replaced the deity in the minds of the populace. That is not what we “secularists” want here.
I have no desire for an atheist government. Government should be agnostic. No religious texts need to be used to swear in anyone, whether they be government officials or witnesses in court. At the same time, there is no need to make claims that God doesn’t exist. We don’t want to ban you from practicing your religion; we want to be free from it. That doesn’t mean eradication from existence. It means eliminating its influence on the state. It means being able to buy beer on Sundays.
Of course, this argument means little to the likes of Shaunti, who has, in the not-so-distant past, defended discrimination against gays by using the First Amendment. To paraphrase: ‘The government shall not infringe on the practice of my religion, my religion states that homosexuality is an abomination, ergo I am free to discriminate against gays. If the government tries to stop me from doing so, they are violating my First Amendment Right to freedom of religion.’
By Billy
February 1, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this
Frustrated, Christians, Muslims and Jews are, in fact, praying to the same God. I’m not aware of any other monotheistic religions in practice today.
By Lyrazel
February 1, 2009 10:15 AM | Link to this
Hello its Sunday. More people will be watching the super bowl today than went to church. This is a comment about how many DIFFERENT types of religion America has now—not comments about god.
By sohy
February 1, 2009 10:54 AM | Link to this
Being attacked by an anonymous individual on the Internet is nothing new to atheists. When we do speak openly about our metaphysical position, it’s not unusual to be insulted or even ridiculed. Of course there are many tolerant, kind theists who don’t use their beliefs as weapons but sometimes it’s hard to find those who have the courage to defend the rights of their atheist neighbors and coworkers.
I think there is ample evidence that morality is an evolved trait. It becomes evident when you learn more about great ape societies and even so called lower animals often practice a rudimentary type of reciprocal altruism. Study a little about anthropology and you discover there is quite a long list of human universals, many of which involve moral principles. It makes sense that religion would incorporate some of these triaits when codifying morality. Humans have quite a lot in common regardless of what beliefs they hold dear.
I know as an RN who has served the frail elderly for over 30 years that there is also an intrinsic reward to helping others. I guess empathy has something to do with that. Neither theists or us godless heathens have the corner on the market when it comes to being moral. It seem stupid to argue which group has been more beneficial to society, as each has done their fair amount of harm as well as beneficial activity.
Still, it brought tears to my old heathen eyes to hear our new president acknowledge us, even if it was in a very small way. I was quite shocked that some thought his words were offensive. Our country, while certainly influenced by Christianity, was at least equally influenced by the Enlightenment. Many of the founders were not Christians. If they were theists at all, the evidence suggests that many were Deists.
While it’s hard to remain idealistic in a world such as ours, I still felt a little bit hopeful that day. If only humans could respect or at least tolerate each other in spite of holding vastly different beliefs, and customs, the world we live in would be a much happier place.
By Billy
February 1, 2009 12:29 PM | Link to this
I agree with sohy. There are certain ideals that are nearly universal among human cultures, regardless of religion. That said, when comparing nonbelievers and the religious, what makes believers so much better when fulfilling those ideals? I’d argue that I, as an agnostic, deserve more credit for not stealing than a religious person does. He doesn’t steal out of the expectation of some cosmic reward or punishment. I don’t steal because it’s not the right way to treat my fellow man. I mean, by Shaunti’s logic there’s nothing there to temper my basest desires. Why don’t I just take what I want, then, whether it be others’ possessions or any woman I happen to find attractive?
Secular humanism is every bit as credible as any religion when it comes to the morality of one’s world view, if not more so. President Bush is arguably the most religious of all the Presidents we’ve had, yet his morality is highly questionable, whether it be conducting wars of choice or denying appeals to mentally retarded death row inmates. It’s nice of President Obama to acknowledge that those of us who aren’t religious are still citizens of this country.
By J-Tex
February 1, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this
I think the very fact that some people are trying to argue that it is impossible for non-believers to be moral and ethical (several thousand years of philosophy on this particular topic apparently being ignored) proves that non-believers are unfairly maligned in this country.
That Shaunti would post Which has always puzzled me: if one does not believe in a deity who created absolute truth, and if one instead embraces moral relativism … where do those convictions or standards of right and wrong come from? and seem to honestly mean it boggles my mind.
One imagines that she must have lived in a woefully tiny bubble…I find it hard to believe that she does not know many people who, if not proclaimed atheists, have very little interest or patience for religion. Surely she’s noticed that those people are no more likely to run about raping women and murdering children than anyone else. Surely she’s noticed that believers and non-believers alike are equally honest or dishonest. SURELY she’s not serious in this fatuous nonsense that she purports to believe.
By Billy
February 1, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this
You know, I’d wager that of all the tattoos among the notoriously segregated prison populations, the most common one you’d find across the board, Black, White, and Hispanic, is a cross.
By Lyrazel
February 2, 2009 9:06 AM | Link to this
Billy, the cross is also one of the largest selling fashion accessories—besides imported babies
By lovelyliz
February 2, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this
And just how many of these Public Christians are true Christians and not just false prophets. I’ve know too many who were Christian in name only. They may have memorized the Bible, but unfortunately didn’t comprehend anything in the New Testament.
By lovelyliz
February 2, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this
I served in the military and saw how those who were willing to admit to being anything other that a card carrying evangelical were treated when the cameras weren’t there.
By lovelyliz
February 2, 2009 9:22 AM | Link to this
I know plenty of nonbelievers who practice the Golden Rule and unfortunately too many believers who do not. Largely due to my Catholics upbringing, I’ve always believed that how a person lived their lives, how they conducted themsleves behind closed door defined who they were rather than some public proclamation of faith.
By jon
February 2, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this
Percent of general population that are atheists - 10% Percent of prison population that are atheists - <1%
It appears that atheists are more moral than theists.
By Sunshine
February 2, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this
USin—How are you doing with all the snow on the other side of the pond?
By USinUK
February 2, 2009 11:46 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
well … we got around 7 or 8 inches last night - and, London is just like Atlanta - everything shuts down. Now, if you ask me, that is just as dog intended - when it’s cold and snowy, that’s mother nature’s way of saying “relaaaaxxxx, take a load off … see what’s playing on Turner Classic Movies”
I’m wishing I had brought my laptop home to get some stuff done - have done what I can via the intertubes - but there are other things on our servers at work that I just … can’t … get … to !!!
anyhoo … did you have a relaxing weekend??? I was thinking about you this morning … I’m hoping you are doing the Wise Woman nesting routine - not just getting the house cleaned and prepared - but, are you doing things like making spaghetti sauce and other freez-able things and stocking up so that you won’t have to cook???
and, remember - the baby eats whatever you eat - so beware all those “musical foods” - no garlic, no onions
By Gale
February 2, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this
I know I mentioned something about the “nonbeliever” mention on Inaugeration day. I still have a problem with the term. By nature, it is negative. “Believer” is inclusive. “Nonbeliever” is exclusive; outsiders, not members of the group. So, to the question: yes, nonbelievers are maligned. Unfairly, yes. As stated in several posts above, those of us not in the theist camp are no more or less moral than “believers”.
That said, I have had thoughtful conversations with “believers” who try to understand my position without trying to convert me. Likewise, I do not criticize what they believe or try to convince them that I am right and they are wrong. Of course, there are those who are convinced they know the “one truth” and that anything else is wrong. Conversations with them are usually quite brief with me simply leaving with thanks for their prayers. I figure good vibes are always good, whatever form they take.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 2, 2009 12:13 PM | Link to this
Jon, very good pretzel logic! I see you have a future as am elite DUM BASS! Liz who we don’t know how lovey is, no such thing as an aethist in a foxhole! What kind of unit did you serve in? Not Armor Infantry or Artillery I am certain, you know nothing of combat. Now or never has there been any pressure to be Christian in the military, tolerant, yes, Christian, never.
By Sunshine
February 2, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this
USin-My thoughts exactly—“when it’s cold and snowy, that’s mother nature’s way of saying “relaaaaxxxx, take a load off … see what’s playing on Turner Classic Movies”
So had another Dr. appt this morning seems the little one is not doing his part to make his grand entry. If he does not make some progress by friday morning we will be doing a C-section. He is measureing large and some other things are just a bit “off” so they are cautious, and don’t want me waiting much longer. So he either needs to get ready or else! :-) It is a bit comforting to know something will happen either way. So this is it, the last week! I told my boss I am done after tomorrow! Yipppeeee!
By USinUK
February 2, 2009 1:03 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
Easter Sunday, my parents took my VERY pregnant sister-in-law and brother and I out for lunch … my nephew-to-be was still up around her lungs, didn’t look like he was going anywhere anytime soon - and my SIL looked absolutely miserable.
2 days later, my nearly-25-year-old nephew made his Big Debut.
Even if the mite hasn’t dropped, they can still get seriously motivated in a hurry - don’t despair.
And, I’m serious about stocking up that freezer - you’re not going to want to do anything for a week or so (neither is your extra-fab husband) - cook ahead as much as you can so all you have to do is a good ol’ microwave DING and dinner is ready.
By USinUK
February 2, 2009 1:18 PM | Link to this
oof!!!
that should have read “NOW-nearly-25-year-old-nephew”
he wasn’t 25 at the time.
;-)
By Sunshine
February 2, 2009 1:21 PM | Link to this
USin-You are right and I am trying to stock up but just being on my feet in the kitchen right now is quite the chore! We actually scored a ‘garage fridge’ this weekend off of Craigslist for 60 bucks! And promptly hit the freezer section of Costco! I am trying to double everything I make for dinner right now, and have several casserole’s in the freezer but I am getting worse and worse, 3 times last week we had eggs for dinner! It is just quick and easy! I am in no mood to do serious cooking!
By American Woman
February 2, 2009 1:25 PM | Link to this
Sunshine, I can think of two ways to get the labor going. One (reportedly) is to order the Eggplant Parmesan at Scalini’s.
By Sunshine
February 2, 2009 1:28 PM | Link to this
Haha!—“2 days later, my nearly-25-year-old nephew made his Big Debut.” I originally thought he was just REALLY REALLY BIG!
By lovelyliz
February 2, 2009 1:56 PM | Link to this
There may be no such thing as an atheist in the foxhole, but there are plenty of hypocrites. Not that there aren’t genuine believers, but someone who professes faith but doesn’t prcatice is has no real faith.
By USinUK
February 2, 2009 2:51 PM | Link to this
AW -
ooooo … good advice … I forgot about that tried-and-true method of scaring the little guy out of there …
Sunshine -
you forgot my mantra - you can only do what you can do. you aren’t superwoman, but it sounds like you are doing a fantastic job of getting your nest well-provisioned!!
(and I have SERIOUS freezer-envy!! oh! to have a garage freezer … the stocks I could make)
lovelyliz -
“Not that there aren’t genuine believers, but someone who professes faith but doesn’t prcatice is has no real faith.”
or they’re just really good at compartmentalization. Jesus=Sunday, behavior=other 6 days of the week.
By Joey
February 2, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this
As a Non-believer I can say that I witness more verbal and written abuse of Beleivers than of Non-believers. I have never ever been condemned or ridiculed by my Christian or Jewish friends and aquaintences.
However, I have witnessed all to often a Non-believer ridiculing Christians. But maybe these aren’t really Non-believers but are people who are doubtful or unsure or in transition about their own belief system.
Come to think of it, before I settled comfortably into my Non-religion, I was a lot less tolerant of Christians.
By The Other Jack
February 2, 2009 4:02 PM | Link to this
Yet another week of slamming Christians. It is honestly like waving a red flag in front of a bull just to mention religion in front of most liberals.
USinUK
Running and can’t take the time, but Hitler was no more devout than any other politician has ever been about anything.
American Woman
Lots and lots of Christians were also slaughtered in the Crusades, depending on which Crusade. You somehow forgot to mention that in your reference to the Crusades.
Joey
You are absolutely right about who is criticizing who. Yes, in any church there are hypocrites, holier than thou zealots and all types of bad, evil people, sort of like the planet Earth.
But the troubling thing is when people feel that it is alright to group everyone from any group together, forming an opinion of everyone in that group, based on the worst people in that group. That is called bigotry.
Modern media teaches that Christians are A-OK to group together. We aren’t allowed to judge anyone else on the same basis, but Christians are the exception.
By Terry
February 2, 2009 5:36 PM | Link to this
I am amazed at Shaunti’s “rebuttal” argument this week. Either she is ignorant of the position of non-believers OR she is purposefully misrepresenting their position and bearing false witness with a strawman fallacy. Non-belief is NOT a “belief system” anymore than baldness is a hair color.
She then jumps right into the ‘believers are being persecuted’ whine. The ACLU has actually defended Christian rights about as often as Jewish, Muslim, or non-believers. Secularism is not the total absence of religion, it is a guarantee that all voices are equal. You are entitled in this country to believe in invisible friends, just don’t ask the government to spend tax-payer money to acknowledge your faith as being any more “right” than any of the others.
And finally She has the hubris to actually state that a person cannot be moral without belief in sky-faeries. So Buddhist are not moral people? Does she really believe that her ‘sacred text’ teaches morals? Better start killing witches, it is commanded by god you know.
By USinUK
February 3, 2009 8:18 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Devoutness relative to other politicians isn’t the issue - the issue is “Believers” vs. “Non-believers” (or atheists) and whether being a believer gives one morals or not. GtG identified a couple of mass-murders and attributed their amorality to atheism. My point was that Hitler was a devout Christian (whether more or less than other politicians isn’t the issue - he was raised in a faith and professed a belief in God) but that didn’t really help him in the morals department.
as for the Christians that were slaughtered during the Crusades, does it count as slaughter when one is defending one’s homeland (or at least newly acquired territory)??? it’s not like the Muslim hoardes were invading Glastonbury or Paris at the time.
By Gale
February 3, 2009 8:44 AM | Link to this
Terry 5:36 You are entitled in this country to believe in invisible friends, just don’t ask the government to spend tax-payer money to acknowledge your faith as being any more “right” than any of the others. ::applause::
Are “religious” wars really about religion? Your last comment, USinUK pooped this question into my thoughts. Aren’t many of the historic religious wars really about power and territory? Islam,Judeism (sp) and Chistianity all claim Jerusalem as a Holy city, right? But what is the basis for that? I am sure there is a religious basis. Is there also an economic or geographic nexis there? How about Ireland and the religious fations there? Or, back to the mideast with the Sunni/Shiate struggle? Religion or power?
By Gale
February 3, 2009 9:01 AM | Link to this
Uh, that was popped this question in my mind. Darn, that was a seriously mistyped word.
By lovelyliz
February 3, 2009 9:04 AM | Link to this
There’s a big difference between slamming false prophets/hyocrites, the self righteous and going after the truly religious, the Good Christians, those who live a righteous life.
By SewReba
February 3, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this
Gandalf
Your comments may have some valid points but you swing from idea to idea with ad lib that makes you appear more out of control than rational. By Gandalf, the White!
January 30, 2009 3:26 PM | Link to this
Ack only a DUM BASS WOULD SPEAK FRENCH IN AMERICA! We speak english here! I grasp perfectly that there are other pantheons of thought, but I also grasp that the others are are flawed, yours for example! DUM BASS! Flip little smug POS! I bet your dumbass voted for CHANGE! Let’s elect the pretty black man, we have held them down so long! You sir are dumber than a box of hammers and will prove to be the downfall of this once great society! CHANGE? WTF? Ruin is more like it, Godless ruin. AS FOR YOU “American woman”, STFU! DUMBASS!
Don’t forget, God has appointed leaders or at the very least allowed them to be appointed. Obama will do right and wrong, he is human. Regarding Hitler, Bush, and the many before who claim to be Christians- they profess a faith in God but that doesn’t mean the result of their actions is evidence of the validity or value of Christianity. Christians are called to high standards and unfortunately most don’t live it like they should. I am a Christian and I recognize it is not my job to try to convince others to convert. That is God’s job, he is the only one who can change the heart of a person. Christians need to back off and follow the preceps they claim, but most often don’t even have knowledge of who God truly is.
By Gale
February 3, 2009 9:12 AM | Link to this
lovelyliz, I just got a clear picture of TV evangelists in comparison to a couple good christian aquaintences. So true, a very big difference.
By USinUK
February 3, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this
Gale -
well, I am by no means an expert on the Crusades but I do know a little about The Troubles.
Of course, the problem in Ireland didn’t start in the 1800s and the potato famine, it went back to King Henry the VIII and the escalated during Elizabeth. At the best of times, Ireland never wanted to be ruled by England - then, after the split from Rome, that was exacerbated. Things came to a head the first time during Elizabeth’s reign and the invasion by Walter Raleigh - no mercy was shown and 600 people were massacred at the battle of Smerwick.
Fast forward about 100 years to Oliver Cromwell (what a wanker) and his decision that, if you were Catholic, you couldn’t own any land, confiscating it and giving it to English Protestants. This followed his “trial” of King Charles I (a Catholic) and the reformation of England. Needless to say, this went down well. Then Cromwell and his New Army went into Ireland and massacred anyone who was loyal to the old king.
All that to say … what was gussied up as a religious war was nothing more than a fight for power (and self-rule in the later years).
By Irishman
February 3, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this
The first slaves on English plantations in the Caribbean were expendable Irish slaves, under Cromwell. And they fared worse than the later transported Africans, which represented a substantial capital investment, which the Irish were not, being rather expendable.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this
Terry you amoral POS, you are right, only Christians and Jew can be moral. Buddist aren’t, nor are muslims, mormons or wiccans. Sorry! PS you sound like a real pain in the butt to hang around as well, are all your friends amoral POSes too?
By dbm
February 3, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this
To Shaunti: Have you ever read The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand?
To various people: We would probably have less bashing in both directions if people weren’t forced into battles by a government that does too much. For example, if we had separation of state and education, we wouldn’t have to have political and constitutional battles over schools.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 3, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this
SECUALAR HUMANISM HAS NO CREDIBITY! ONLY A TRUE DUM BASS WOULD EVEN MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT! With out God there is no morality. With out God,well, Holocosts happen!
By Gandalf, the White!
February 3, 2009 10:07 AM | Link to this
Crusades were the coolest time to be a Cathlic! You could commit all this sin and be saved if you went and killed Muslims. The good old days!
By Gandalf, the White!
February 3, 2009 10:10 AM | Link to this
In case there is any question, I don’t advocate killing muslims to get to heaven. But MUSLIMS do advocate killing non believers to get to heaven…hmmm…sound like they are nuttier than a fruit bat!
By USinUK
February 3, 2009 10:10 AM | Link to this
dbm
yes, and if all the raindrops were lemondrops and gumdrops, oh what a life I would lead …
we have public education because it benefits the entire society to have an educated workforce (all boats rise, blahblahblah)
gah. spare me from the Ayn Randians of the world - you could wade through their philosophy without getting your socks wet …
By Mara
February 3, 2009 10:20 AM | Link to this
didn’t we already cover this topic a couple weeks ago when the Andi and Shaunti wanted to discuss Facebook and their lack of respect for a Mothers Boob instead of Obama’s inauguration?
As a non-religious agnostic, I have to say that it’s a cold hard world down here in the South if you ain’t part of the club. Having lived in almost every area of the nation (except New England area) at one time or another, I have to admit that this is the only region where my neighbors and co-workers have acted like it was their business to find out my religious beliefs.
It actually shocked me the first time some busybody demanded to know what church I belonged to. And then proceeded to snub me and gossip about me to our co-workers.
It’s been my experience that religious intolerance (or religious exceptionalism, if you prefer) is more prevalent in the south than in any other area.
By Gale
February 3, 2009 10:51 AM | Link to this
Mara, I am actually glad to hear you say that the South is the worst regarding religious intolerance. I see it with some of my coworkers in Atlanta. But I think the intolerance is blunted because of a fairly diverse group here. We have a preponderence of Southern Baptists, but we also have Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, a variety of Christians and atheists and agnostics. We have a fair number of folks not born and raised in the US, much less the South. I do see intolerence sometimes, but not often.
By USinUK
February 3, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
So this is it, the last week! I told my boss I am done after tomorrow! Yipppeeee!
sooooooooo … I hope you’re having a great last day at work!! (even when it’s a crazy-hectic day, last days are always good ones)
so, the snow has stopped - but it took 3 HOURS to get to work today (usually, it’s 1 hour door-to-door) … trains were still messed up, the roads were still a shambles … if I had only taken my laptop home, I could have avoided the whole thing (note to self: if the BBC says anything that even RHYMES with snow, take the laptop home!!!)
By Sunshine
February 3, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this
Hello All,
Yes crazy busy day! I do not want to have to come back again, so I MUST get everything done!
USIN-stay warm and stay safe! Sorry your commute was so bad! Don’t forget to play in the snow some though!
By Mara
February 3, 2009 11:45 AM | Link to this
Gale - “We have a fair number of folks not born and raised in the US, much less the South. I do see intolerence sometimes, but not often.”
Like I said…
In other parts of the country I’d often been asked “Would you like to come to service with us on Sunday?” Which allowed me to gracefully decline while keeping my personal beliefs just that, personal. Here in the south the question was usually “What church do you go to?” which doesn’t leave a lot of room for prevarication. I still find it an astonishingly rude question. But now I just tell them it’s none of their business. Which a surprising number of people find offensive! LOL!
Ah, well. At least I’ll NEVER see twenty six below zero down here.
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 11:48 AM | Link to this
Gale
Do you see the same lack of religious tolerance at work as you do with most people here? This is the most anti-Christian group I have ever seen. Not everybody, but you have to admit, the term Christian seems to bring out the worst in some people.
USinUK
Politicians can’t be devout. That’s just not their job. The better the politician, the less they believe in anything and Hitler was the state-of-the-art politician of his day. He saw the power of hate and knew (as is shown here) that religious hate is one of the most powerful types of hate.
He, like a specific party here in the US a;sp understood about the power of class warfare. The Jews had a lot of businesses and tended to own real estate. His first actions were to strip their powers to do business. That had nothing to do with Christianity.
We are all taught by all types of media that issues are simple and always a result of a single action or emotion. It is very convenient to say that Hitler hated Jews because he was a Christian. Hitler was a power hungry zealot that used every advantage he had and using Christianity in the early years of the NAZI Party to inspire hate was simply part of his strategy, and hardly based on any true faith this monster had.
I have pointed to the web site with Goebbels speeches where it is clearly shown that the more crazy the NAZIs became, the more brutal they became, the more they distanced themselves from Christianity and began to embrace a much more secular stance.
Just google Goebbel’s speeches and take a look for yourself. In the early years, they sound like Republicans. In the later years they sound like Democrats. This isn’t always the case and the fact that Goebbels was an atheist comes out as early as 1934.
By JustaJew
February 3, 2009 12:02 PM | Link to this
It is very convenient to say that Hitler hated Jews because he was a Christian
Actually, and I hate to contradict USinUK, but Hitler actually was not a Christian. He was spiritual, but not a Christian because he viewed Christianity as the spawn of that religion practiced by the vermin of the Earth, Judaism. So Hitler was just using the German national unrest at the hyperinflation and general economic malaise that prevailed for the next 15 years after the end of WWI and that that malaise was caused by the money-lending Jews. Maybe he had Jew-envy :). I remember a particular episode from Family Guy where they implied that Hitler hated the Jews because he was jealous. The scrawny Hitler is trying to do some weight curls in the gym and can’t lift the 10 pound weight when he glances over and sees the very muscular Jew complete with Pe’ot, long beard, Star and yarmulka laughing and flexing with 2 beautiful women, one on each arm, maybe that’s why he hated us.
By American Woman
February 3, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this
“This is the most anti-Christian group I have ever seen.”
SP, (do ya mind if I call ya SP?) You seem to want to be offended. I won’t try to speak for everyone here, but I have never pounced on anyone for being Christian unless and until they use their beliefs — openly, of their own free will — to put down others, or to advocate the use of THEIR beliefs to control a) other men, b) women & children, or c) money & assets… (or to defend the crimes of a President.) I never even pounced on the teacher for the bit about the dinosaur eggs on the Ark, because I believe people are entitled to believe whatever they believe. (Others pounced, and were perhaps less than tolerant.)
It’s when the SO-CALLED Christians attack the gay people or anyone who’s not as chaste and pure (uh-huh….) as they are, that I throw something back. Just the other day, a self-professed Christian blasted ME for stating MY belief in only one God. How ironic, since that’s like, the first thing one reads in Genesis…. But you know, please continue to whine about how everything everyone says is somehow an attack on YOU, Mr. Perfect, without flaw or sin, who deigns to push through his annoyance and outrage every day to straighten out the lost and the confused. Oh, thank you kind Sir! We are so undeserving of your gifts!
By J-Tex
February 3, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this
The Other Jack – “Another week of slamming Christians?” “This is the most anti-Christian group I have ever seen?”
I have to wonder if you’ve been reading the same blog as the rest of us. More likely, I suspect you are seeing simply what you WANT to see.
The first statement in this week’s posting with any sort of religious content was: “Andi, you Damned to Hell Heathen. No wonder I usually see your column as the hate speech it truly is. Now we know. Nonbelievers well, they don’t believe! “
This seems to be a fairly vicious attack by a believer on a presumed non-believer. I wonder that you didn’t quote it in your post…perhaps it simply doesn’t support your thesis.
Regardless, a review of other posts this week focus mainly on the idea that belief in a higher power predisposes one towards morality, and a lack of such belief negates the possibility that such morality might exist. You suggest that: “the troubling thing is when people feel that it is alright to group everyone from any group together, forming an opinion of everyone in that group, based on the worst people in that group. That is called bigotry.”
I would point out, sir, that the first example of this kind of “bigotry” – was offered by the same poster responsible for the above attack on non-believers.
Specifically, this…person…said: “So the golden rule as applied by Chez or Mao or Joe (Stalin)? EXPAT your dum bass is sneaking out with comments like this! The lack of believe in God is why it’s so easy for feminists to want to kill unborn children, ZYGOTES as you call them. Moral relativism. DUM BASS! I hope it was cold on the Mall as the hell you are doomed to Andi.”
Clearly, this invokes the idea that because, according to this poster, Che Guevara (I can only assume that’s who he meant…his poor spelling, you know), Mao and Stalin’s actions, as “atheists” , were horrific and lacking in morality, that ALL atheists must be similarly inclined towards murder, torture, and a basic disregard for human life. Why did you not decry his statements of “bigotry” with the same vehemence that you have displayed towards those posts that were obviously meant to REFUTE his simplistic logic, rather than to indict all Christians as villains and killers?
There HAS been venom on this week’s topic. But I’m sorry…I simply don’t see it, as you seem to, as “slamming Christians”. Indeed, the name-calling and viciousness has come almost entirely from one…and I refuse to identify this particular poster with the noble moniker with which he has baptized himself…source.
Perhaps, before you accuse others of being bigots, you should examine the positions of those with whom you align yourself. By far the nastiest person on this blog , the one launching the most attacks with the least amount of substance is a self-proclaimed Christian.
By Gale
February 3, 2009 12:59 PM | Link to this
No, TOJ, I find a lot of religious tolerance where I work. And the word Christian mostly seems to bring out the defenders of Christianity who insist they are persecuted before anyone has said anything against Christianity.
.
By USinUK
February 3, 2009 1:37 PM | Link to this
Justa -
if I may, I’d like to refer you to my post to GtG addressing Hitler and his religious views — ““In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews.[277] In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”[278][279] His private statements, as reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but critical of traditional Christianity”
TOJ -
His first actions were to strip their powers to do business. That had nothing to do with Christianity.
While I’m not 100% sure, I’m somewhere in the 80% range that his first actions were actually to start stripping Jews of their humanity (it’s been a long time since I went to the holocause museum in DC, but they did an extensive section on how the Jews were dehumanized, paving the way for the “final solution”
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 1:50 PM | Link to this
J-Tex
I took a long time to post why I believed that leaders who have their moral standards based in religion make better leaders than someone who’s morals are based on a sliding scale. (January 30, 2009 1:08 PM)
If you want to take the time to read that and would like to discuss what I actually wrote instead of what others have written, then I will try to find the time.
But if the best that you can do is hold me responsible for the writings of others, then you are a waste of time. And right now, time is something that I do not have.
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 1:55 PM | Link to this
Gale
The church just down the street was in the habit of getting ready to rebuild the nativity scene several times a year because of vandals. They put up a camera two years ago and caught two 40ish gay women who were doing the vandalizing. I, personally can understand why some Christians would be a little thin skinned.
By USinUK
February 3, 2009 2:01 PM | Link to this
J-Tex -
“This seems to be a fairly vicious attack by a believer on a presumed non-believer. I wonder that you didn’t quote it in your post…perhaps it simply doesn’t support your thesis.”
how to say this … you know how every family has a crazy uncle that everyone loves but they also know is a complete loon???
GtG is ours. he’s nutty, but those of us who have posted here a while also know to sift through the rantings and you’ll eventually find a kernel in there.
he’s not s’bad…
By USinUK
February 3, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
“I, personally can understand why some Christians would be a little thin skinned.”
you know, I think a lot of people would take the “anti-christian bias” thing a lot more seriously if you didn’t have folks like Dr. Dobson out there saying that people wishing him Happy Holidays is a de facto anti-christian sentiment. when you have O’Reilley having the vapors over a “war on christmas” (like, OMG! K-Mart has a “holiday selection” not a “christmas selection”), it gets a little hard to take anyone whinging about “anti-christian bias” seriously.
just my £0.02.
and now … it’s dinnertime …
I’ll try to check in latah …
if not - Sunshine, have a FAB last day!!!
By JokesOn
February 3, 2009 2:11 PM | Link to this
“They put up a camera two years ago and caught two 40ish gay women who were doing the vandalizing. I, personally can understand why some Christians would be a little thin skinned.”
Ahh yes. The Homosexual people of the world started attacking xians unprovoked and without reason. Your exaple is of TWO people….not thousands. I would also have to wonder what the church in question professes. Many churches still regard homosexuality, in actions at least, a greater sin than all the others and deny service to homosexual people - if not right out blaming them for any crisis that occurs like Katrina or 911.
Or maybe much of the world is thinned skin because (in general) religious groups have always tried to force their beliefs on others around them.
Meh…ssdd
By Gale
February 3, 2009 2:13 PM | Link to this
TOJ, did they know they were gay because they prosecuted them and know their identities? But to the issue of Christians feeling victimized; there will always be some people in any group that feel a need to attack another group. The women in your example may or may not be believers. They may simply be some other sect and were making a political point. I don’t know.
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 2:24 PM | Link to this
USinUk
You are talking about a goal, I am talking about a means to that goal. Taking away a person’s livelihood is part of dehumanizing. European Jewish culture dictated that families financed the businesses of the family, giving them huge advantages over the Northern European practice of each family member being pretty much on their own.
It is a wonderful empowering practice that is practiced by many cultures around the world. It would have been nice for Uncle Eddie’s big bucks to be available to help me upgrade to HD, but Uncle Eddie plans on taking his millions with him.
The NAZIs knew that the power that Jewish families had were their power of commerce. By shutting down Jewish businesses, they were able to forgive huge debts and people who had been renting were made owners of their homes. That is real power and Hitler knew it.
So yes, there may have been a few that supported Hitler’s “Final Solution” because they were made to think that Jews killed Christ, but Christianity dictates that the death of Christ is the main ingredient in a person’s salvation. And Jesus was a Jew. I can’t imagine the twisting around of the gospel required to justify the eradication of the Jewish race.
The main reason for the support of the NAZI’s treatment of the Jews was just greed, pure and simple. By the time Hitler gained power, much of the Jewish power of commerce had been restricted to their own areas, but facts seldom have anything to do with real propaganda.
If you do return to the holocaust museum, please see if they have any of the films that Goebbels produced about the Jews. I saw three while I was in college. All three depicted Jews as greedy landlords and NAZIs as beautiful young families that were practically indentured servants to the evil Jewish Landlords. I don’t remember anything about Christianity. Class warfare was Hitler’s greatest tool.
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 2:53 PM | Link to this
Gale
i knew the women. They were pretty well known in the neighborhood and yes, their criminal, bigoted actions were applauded by several in the neighborhood.
You don’t do it, but many want to dictate what Christians can or cannot be offended by. (Pardon the bad grammar) Think about that. What would you think about someone who told Black people that the seats in the back of the bus are just as comfortable as the ones in the front and they have no reason to be offended by the seating arrangements of the 1950s?
I am troubled by the acceptance of different standards of decency applied to Christians.
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 3:03 PM | Link to this
USinUk
You can’t dictate what should offend Christians any more than you can dictate what should offend any one else. You are applying different standards to Christians than you are to other people. That’s not right.
Let them decide what offends them and just understand that you either give a damn or your don’t. You either don’t care that you offend them or you do. it’s not a hard thing to figure out.
I offended a woman at Kroger last night. Do I care? Absolutely not. She was being rude and holding up the line so I simply walked past her and so did several others. I know that she was offended. I can’t dictate to her whether or not she should have been offended. I just don’t care.
If you offend a Christian, you can’t dictate to them whether or not they should or should not be offended. You can dictate to them whether or not you care, but you need to deal with that. Do you not care because of some sort of bias against them because they are Christians? That’s the question. Not whether or not you approve of their reasons to be offended.
By American Woman
February 3, 2009 3:08 PM | Link to this
“I am troubled by the acceptance of different standards of decency applied to Christians.”
ME TOO! Does anyone think a Christian woman would be offended by a man who inserts a pejorative comment on the alleged size of her bottom (though he’s never seen it) into a discussion in no way related to the size of anyone’s bottom? And if so, would the the rules of propriety differ if the man presumed that the woman he was addressing held a slightly different set of beliefs than he did?
Decency is a broad term, after all. Perhaps SP would be so kind and point us to a link where we might read for ourselves about these standards.
By Gale
February 3, 2009 3:11 PM | Link to this
I guess then I lack information to comment on the specific situation, TOJ. If the church in question made a public point of criticizing homosexuals, the persons may have felt justified in their actions as a political statement. You didn’t specify what form the vandalization took. For your example of telling blacks the seats at the back of the bus are just as comfortable, I will offer my example of gays being told that a civil union is exactly equal to a marriage.
By Boat1225
February 3, 2009 3:40 PM | Link to this
All you non- believers be sure when you’re buried you’re not all dressed up, you have nowhere to go!
By Lyrazel
February 3, 2009 3:51 PM | Link to this
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition
By Gale
February 3, 2009 4:02 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel, while on vacation last week, I spent some time in a “comfy chair” and it was indeed torture. :-)
By Billy
February 3, 2009 4:12 PM | Link to this
It doesn’t matter whether Hitler was a Christian. What matters is that he stoked the bigoted fires of German Catholicism, fires that had been burning with anti-semitism for centuries. You know why Jewish families were wealthy? You think the “Jew Banker” stereotype is new? The Catholic Church controlled all of Europe for a long, long time. It looked at Jesus throwing the money changers from the temple as a prohibition against banking. So Catholics were forbidden from becoming bankers. So Jews, who were commonly forbidden from owning land but not subject to bans on money lending, wound up controlling many of Europe’s banks and much of its financial capital. And, of course, anti-Semitism grew as people resented that Jews controlled their money.
Hitler came along in the ninth inning of European anti-Semitism. His views are irrelevant; he was nothing without the support of the German people, a Catholic people. Did Hitler ever even actually shoot, gas, or burn anyone after WWI? I’m really asking; I don’t know. It was Germans that did the dirty work, and if you’d asked them their religion they would have responded, likely down to the very last man, “I’m a Christian.”
It’s like the bumper sticker: God, protect me from your followers.
By USinUK
February 3, 2009 4:13 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
as far as commerce goes, may I suggest you (re)read The Merchant of Venice?? the Venetians were the first to create a ghetto about 300 years prior to the Nazis, forcing them to live in a small area of the city, restricting their trade and even forcing them to wear proscribed clothing. in fact, a number of civilizations committed pogroms and other mass killings of Jews for exactly the reason you mention - the fact that they did money-lending, which the Catholic church called the sin of usury.
however, if you ever happen to visit the holocaust museum, you’ll see that that was only the tip of the iceburg for dehumanizing them. I really recommend you visit it.
now. as for saying who can be offended by what - I’m not trying to say that Dr. Dobson can’t be offended by the term Happy Holidays. what I am saying is that, if that’s going to be his Exhibit A of how rough Christians have it in America today … well … then, don’t expect me to take the “marginalization” seriously.
In keeping with Lyrazel’s Monty Python reference … “help! help! I’m being oppressed!!”
By Gale
February 3, 2009 4:21 PM | Link to this
Now I know which dvd I’m using for my next exercise vid. Monty Python is the best.
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 4:38 PM | Link to this
Gale
Actually the church is primarily gay. It has a gay woman as a pastor and most of my gay female friends around here attend. These two women did not attend.
You can’t just keep denying that there is a bias toward Christians by many liberals. Is the term “War On Christmas” an overstatement? A lot of money has been spent over the past few years to change the way we accept the national holiday. And the key word is change. The problem that most people have is the fact that it is a matter of changing perspectives in order to condemn a religion that is, whether you like it or not the religion accepted by the vast majority of our citizens.
No one here would ever consider going into a Muslim country and demand that their noon call to worship was offensive to the non-Muslims. Religious freedom does not mean the freedom to completely crush any religious activity in the public square. In fact, it means the exact opposite. Freedom of religion means the right to worship how you want and not have one’s faith relegated to specific geographical locations. Do you want Christians to need to worship behind closed doors like they have been treated by the USSR? Is this where we are heading?
Americans are seeing our culture deteriorate as our religious base is made a target of hate and mockery by an extremely biased secular media and a small minority of people who are much more likely to launch into a sermon than the people they are attacking.
And if you think it is just Christians saying it, here’s an article from Jerwish World review:
DREAMING of a white holiday. I’ll be home for holiday; you can count on me. How the Grinch stole holiday. If you’re over a certain age (say 40), you can’t help but notice how Christmas is fading from our culture.
I don’t mean the banishment of creches from the courthouse steps or the prohibition on Christmas carols in public schools, due to a liberal misinterpretation of the First Amendment.
But beyond the public square, Christmas is being rapidly replaced with a generic holiday that, by coincidence, comes around Dec. 25.
“Merry Christmas” has been generally discarded in favor of “happy holiday.” Stores have holiday sales. Schools have a winter recess. There’s a holiday party at the office. Can holiday trees be far behind?
A paper coffee cup from my favorite overpriced caffeine emporium uses words like “wishes,” “merriment” and “joyful” to convey a sense of the season. The “C” word is conspicuous by its absence. If they used it, would non-Christian patrons choke on their lattes?
Nostalgia aside, I don’t have a personal stake in this. I’m Jewish, so it ain’t my holiday that’s being stiffed.
But it is curious. After all, Christianity is the religion of 86 percent of the American people. In a demographic sense, America is more Christian than Israel is Jewish. Try to imagine no signs of Purim or Passover in Jerusalem, or a Saudi Arabia where Ramadan is barely mentioned.
But I forget, America is to be the first totally secular nation on earth, contrary to the vision of our founders. The secularists’ war on faith has spilled over to the culture.
One reason for excluding prayer and religious symbolism from public institutions (besides the fear that “O Little Town of Bethlehem” sung in a third-grade classroom would lead directly to crusades and inquisitions) is a politically correct horror of marginalizing minorities.
Ours is a hypersensitive society that lives in dread of anyone being offended or feeling excluded — except for Christians. Thus, wishing a “merry Christmas” to someone who doesn’t celebrate the day supposedly will result in feelings of exclusion and alienation, as will Christmas parties and the like.
In this regard, it’s only religious or racial minorities whose feelings concern us. We don’t worry about the modest majority being offended by the torrent of filth spewed forth by Hollywood, or veterans aggrieved by the desecration of national symbols, or Catholics provoked by plays ridiculing the pope. Here, the consensus seems to be:These folks are just too damned thin-skinned. They’d better wake up and realize what century they’re living in.
Those we project on them probably aren’t the feelings of most religious minorities, who are too sensible to agonize over the nation’s majority publicly celebrating their religion.
On those rare occasions when someone still wishes me a merry Christmas, I assume the following: 1) They don’t know I’m Jewish. 2) This is a holiday that 86 percent of Americans celebrate so it’s logical for someone who doesn’t know me to infer that I observe it, too. 3) It’s a gesture of good will. To all of which I say: fine.
What does offend me is Jews who think Hanukkah is a Jewish Christmas (Christmas without Christ), misunderstanding the religious significance of our holiday.
How long the holiday spirit can be maintained divorced from Christmas itself is anyone’s guess. After all, we don’t celebrate the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving with presents.
The joy of the season — the exuberance, the benevolence, the optimism — is a reflection of Christmas and its spiritual dimension.
The Magi brought gifts to the babe in the manger. The herald angels (to whom we are to harken) were the bearers of glad tidings. St. Nicholas — the prototypical gift-giver — was a 4th century bishop of Asia Minor.
Even for those who don’t celebrate it, Christmas provides cultural coordinates. Will future generations wonder whence this “holiday” came, and if it has any meaning beyond frantic shopping binges and garish colored lights?
When I was a child, the Knights of Columbus put up billboards urging the public to “Keep Christ in Christmas.” Today, the challenge is to keep Christmas in Christmas.
American Woman
Me thinks thou protest too much.
By Lyrazel
February 3, 2009 4:48 PM | Link to this
billy, the german people…are not predominately catholic. martin luther, remember him? germany was and has been predominantly protestant… poland was predominantly catholic as was france was still tied to catholicism…as was italy. true hitler was hot into ethnic cleansing of jews but his groups did in gypsies, poles and other sorts many who were catholic. you are also confusing some medieval history with ww2. by the time hitler came in power there were many catholics in banking. remember the medici family who in the 1500s ended the stigma of evil on bankers. by hitlers rise bankers came in all faiths and do to this day.
By Matilda
February 3, 2009 4:50 PM | Link to this
This is just not true. Christians would never be rude, unkind, unfair or unchristian to their fellow people just because they have a different religion or no religion. Christ would not do it and real Christians always try to behave like Christ would if he were here.
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 4:54 PM | Link to this
Billy
Get help, Pal. Hate is as rabid in few as it is in you.
USinUK
If you can bring yourself to believe that the only thing any Christian could possibly have to complain about is the term Happy Holidays being used instead of Merry Christmas, then I see your point. However, if you have been living on the same planet I have been living on for the past thirty years and haven’t noticed any other slight aimed at Christianity, I would strongly suggest that you start considering the feelings of others and respecting their viewpoints, in spite of what your political mantra teaches you.
By A Believer
February 3, 2009 4:54 PM | Link to this
I believe in God. Ideally, if everyone did, too, that would be great. But, even the Bible tells us there will be non-believers. So, with that said,I have a difficult time understanding any hate that non-believers have against believers. And certainly vice versa … that’s just not right either. What we believe (or not) is personal and no one should hold it against the other. With that said, that doesn’t mean I will not share my belief with people, they can take the information and do whatever they wish with it. I’ve done what I need to do.
By JokesOn
February 3, 2009 4:57 PM | Link to this
“No one here would ever consider going into a Muslim country and demand that their noon call to worship was offensive to the non-Muslims”
You mean how xains tried to stop the muslim call to prayer in michigan and were told that they would have to stop their church bells also?
By Calling It
February 3, 2009 4:59 PM | Link to this
Bull . A few drops in the lineage? Slight chance. Actual raised and practicing? No way in that place they don’t believe in.
By JokesOn
February 3, 2009 5:08 PM | Link to this
Can someone tell me again what “rights” xains have lost?
Now, please compare that to the rights the outspoken minority of xians refused gays and other groups that do not act in a manner that is in accordance with xian beliefs. No non-believer is trying to make an xian use a sex toy (blue laws), drink on sunday, marry a person of the same sex or stop expressing their personal faith.
If you turn the pro-xian belief that everyone should conform to their perspective upside down, look at it with squinted eyes, and from a skewed angle - it still makes no sense.
Christmas: So cultural change is occurring that includes all of us (in the public sector) - that is a good thing. It limits no individuals rights. Talk to me when it is illegal to have a nativity scene in your personal front yard and you might have a point.
By The Other Jack
February 3, 2009 5:25 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel
Billy is the James Mitchner of posters. He sites “augmented history” in order to prove his points.
Think about what we are reading here. After all the hard facts about the NAZIs we have people here that are absolutely certain that Hitler invented the Final Solution because he was a Christian. And a paragraph later, they are swearing that there is no way that Christianity is under attack. The reasoning and the logic (or lack thereof) is staggering.
It is depressing to think that this is where we are heading.
I grew up with a loving Christian family that spent most of their time and money helping others. My church, like every other church I have ever visited spent every dime on missions domestic and foriegn where people were being fed and cared for. While the democrats were building the Great Society Human warehouses to continue the segregation policies of the Dixicrats, my little tiny church was sending money to our missions in Mexico that was being used for food and medical supplies to care for people of all races.
The founder of Habitat for Humanity died today. Go to that web site and see how hard it is to find out that HFH is completely a Christian organization. Christians Churches do what liberals claim to support, but it is rarely the pro-choicer or Union thug or trail lawyer that is working the soup lines. It is almost always the little old ladies from down at the church who are ready to step up to the plate and do instead of just preaching.
But these people would much rather put all that aside and invent reasons to hate Christians. My only question is: what’s it going to be like in five years? How many people here would rejoice at the outlawing of any religious presence in public anywhere in the US?
We are about to have a new set of laws that outlaw private ballots in Union decisions. Outlawing private ballots in America. And they wonder why people are worried. They will deny supporting laws that would force religion underground, but five years ago, they would have never considered supporting a party that outlawed private ballots.
By Mara
February 4, 2009 8:29 AM | Link to this
just to get off the victimized Christian topic and back to non-believers…we ARE one of the few groups that it’s still all right to discrimate against. Why do I feel comfortable saying this? We’ll start with Wiki -
More recently a 2007 Gallup poll produced nearly identical results. A 2006 study at the University of Minnesota showed atheists to be the most distrusted minority among Americans. In the study, sociologists Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann conducted a survey of American public opinion on attitudes towards different groups.
Forty percent of respondents characterized atheists as a group that “does not at all agree with my vision of American society”, putting atheists well ahead of every other group, with the next highest being Muslims (26 percent) and homosexuals (23 percent). When participants were asked whether they agreed with the statement, “I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group,” atheists again led minorities, with 48 percent disapproval, followed by Muslims (34 percent) and African-Americans (27 percent).
Joe Foley, co-chairman for Campus Atheists and Secular Humanists, commented on the results, “I know atheists aren’t studied that much as a sociological group, but I guess atheists are one of the last groups remaining that it’s still socially acceptable to hate.”
To support Mr. Foley’s statement, let us go to a public confrontation between Representative Monique Davis (D-Chicago) to Rob Sherman, father and atheist, regarding his suit against mandatory ‘moments of silence’ for prayer in his child’s school –
Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy — it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school…This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–
Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?
Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But d-mn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!
Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court—
Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.
now, let us see what other government leaders have had to say about atheists and atheism -
When George HW Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O’Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates, had the following exchange with the then Vice President Bush.
Reporter: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Reporter: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don’t know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
— and this is what his Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs had to say about institutional discrimination against atheists -
When asked what American atheists could do to end the discriminatory exclusion from veterans’ groups which have been chartered by the United States Congress, Ed Derwinski, the secretary of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, said “What you should do for me is what you should do for everybody: Believe in God. Get off our backs.”
He then went on to state that the Bush administration would do nothing to address the situation, and that atheists would need to “sue” to end discrimination against them.
To add pointed insult to injury, the City of Chicago Commission on Human Rights refused to permit American Atheist Veterans to appear as a group in the Fourth of July “Welcome Home” parade for the veterans of Desert Storm in that city.
Is there any other group that could be treated this way without somebody lodging a protest? What town would dare ban a Christian group from participation in a Veterans celebration? Could any politician get away with telling a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew or anyone else that because of their beliefs, they aren’t qualified to be a citizen OR to be considered patriots?
I don’t think so…
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 8:31 AM | Link to this
The founder of Habitat for Humanity died today. Go to that web site and see how hard it is to find out that HFH is completely a Christian organization.
pick me!! pick me!! I’ll take that challenge!! and, boy-howdy, was TOJ ever right … I had to search for DAYS before I found THIS in the very first sentence of their “about us” section:
Habitat for Humanity (HFH) is a non-denominational Christian charity dedicated to eliminating poverty housing worldwide.
and the second drop-down in the “Get Involved” section is church partnerships.
yep. they’re really hiding their Christian roots.
After all the hard facts about the NAZIs we have people here that are absolutely certain that Hitler invented the Final Solution because he was a Christian.
what a load of bollocks. No one here (including Billy) has said that Hitler invented the Final Solution because he was a Christian.
The point is now what it was when this conversation started days ago - (launched by Shaunti’s comment that she doesn’t know where atheists get their morals if not from belief in God) - that history is littered with atheists AND CHRISTIANS who have committed mass murder and other heinous crimes. Christianity is no more a guarantee that the person in question is good than atheism is a guarantee that the person in question is evil.
However, if you have been living on the same planet I have been living on for the past thirty years and haven’t noticed any other slight aimed at Christianity, I would strongly suggest that you start considering the feelings of others and respecting their viewpoints, in spite of what your political mantra teaches you
buddy, you really need to lay off with the “brainwashing” assertions - they do you no good and make you come off sounding like a complete jacka$$. the group here is a highly intelligent, professional, educated bunch - not a lot of zombies. I suggest you change your tone and the way you address us unless you want a return to hostilities.
secondly, if the writer you cited in the Jewish World article can accept that “(Merry Christmas is) a gesture of good will. To all of which I say: fine.” - why can’t “Happy Holidays” be seen as the same??? instead, Dobson, O’Reilley and the rest liken “Happy Holidays” to saying something about their mother or spitting on the cross. it’s a gesture of good will that they are DELIBERATELY finding fault with.
lastly, may I offer you the following exhibits as reasons WHY Christianity has “taken a hit” on its credibility over the last 25-ish years:
Oral Roberts (“give me your money or God will call me home”), Jim and Tammy Faye, Jim Bakker and Jessica Hahn, Jerry Falwell, Robert Tilton, Ted Haggard, the Catholic pedophilia sex scandal … shall I go on???
frankly, so-called “Christians” do more to harm christianity than anything an atheist or secularist could do.
By Gale
February 4, 2009 8:34 AM | Link to this
TOJ 4:38 Well, I guess that was one of those anti-Christian statements, then. The church should have made criminal charges of vandalism. If they chose not to, or chose to address the matter directly with the pair, it was their decision. I still think that is a more isolated issue than a general attack on Christianity.
No one here would ever consider going into a Muslim country and demand that their noon call to worship was offensive to the non-Muslims — No, since those are primarily theocracies. So far, The USA is not a theocracy.
TOJ 5:25 I don’t have a problem with the little old ladies on the soup line. BTW, you will find gays there too. I have a problem with the outspoken Christians shouting to the roof about the sins of people who don’t believe as they do. It is the same thing as your average Christian (who BTW is joined by many mainstream non-believers) who is offended by flamboyant, in-your-face gays. “I don’t care what they do, they should just get out of my face with it.” Those types do not represent the majority of Christians or gays. They are sh*t-stirrers. “Majority” numbers are often skewed by people who only respond one way because of the vocal minorities. Most of those people don’t care either way. They just want the noise to get out of their face.
By Mara
February 4, 2009 8:53 AM | Link to this
UsinUK - you forgot Fred Phelps. If you’re looking for someone who tarnishes Christianity and/or for one of Gale’s “sh*t-stirrers”, him and the rest of the ‘flock’ at Westboro Baptist would be poster children for sure.
By Gale
February 4, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this
Wow, Mara, speaking as an atheist, that was just painful. Being a lesbian, I was well aware that some people hate me on principle. As a woman, I know well that some people think of me as less than a man, just because of my gender. To requote the Monty Python peasant, “See how I’m being oppressed!”
Is it any wonder I find little merit to the complaint Christian mem make that their superior position is being eroded.
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 9:02 AM | Link to this
Mara -
gah. Fred Phelps.
I don’t consider him a “Christian”, though - nor, I suspect, do most Christians I know. The man is a freak and keeps his family (and the few non-related followers he has) like a cult, so that’s more along the lines of how I think of him.
if you really want to see something that is really more sad than scary, try watching Louie Theroux’s program, “The Most-Hated Family in America” (http:// en.wikipedia. org/wiki/ TheMostHatedFamilyin_America).
By Billy
February 4, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this
I apologize for any confusion from my post yesterday. First, as to the religious makeup of Germans, Christians currently account for 2/3 of the population. Of those, half are Catholic and half Protestant. I’m not sure if it was the same in Hitler’s heyday, but Catholics are by no means an insignificant group. And I’m not confusing Medieval and modern history here. I’m trying to connect the two. Lyrazel, you mentioned ending the stigma on bankers, but it’s the stigma on Jews that figures in. If you foster hate among your followers against a group of people because that group has a particular belief or behavior, then several generations later say that that belief or behavior is acceptable, your followers will likely still hate that group.
I didn’t meant that only Catholics were responsible for the Third Reich, or even that they were more responsible than Protestants, and I apologize if it came off that way.
— Other Jack, I don’t really have much to say to you except to call you out when you claim that I’m full of hate. I never did anything to you. Never said anything rude to you. Yet one day I made an innocuous post on here and you lashed out with personal attacks. I tried to get to the bottom of it — find out if somewhere you confused me with someone else, or find a comment I’d made that somehow had attacked you — but when I asked you why you were out to get me I got no explanation, just further insults. So now I’ve pretty much given up on finding out why you feel the need to attack me; it’s clear you have no intention of resolving anything between us. I don’t have hours to spend on here daily, so I pretty much post a comment or two a week, if that. Yet you still latch onto those few posts and spit out your vitriol.
Do you seek to make peace? Do you ever consider forgiving me for whatever slight, real or imagined? No. How very Christian of you…I don’t hate Christians, Jackhole, just the ones like yourself. How fortunate for Christianity as a whole that you aren’t its leading ambassador to the world. Since you feel so strongly that your way is The One True Way, kindly go to the Middle East and start your proselytizing. They may kill you for proselytizing, true. But since you’re having so much trouble being Christ-like in life, maybe you can emulate him with how it ends and be killed for touting different beliefs.
By Gale
February 4, 2009 9:38 AM | Link to this
Off topic, but interesting note from an article today: Last month the government of Britain, where obesity is spreading rapidly, passed a law requiring all secondary-school students to attend cooking classes.
Great idea! I think we should do that here.
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this
Gale -
I think they should also include the “economics” part of Home Economics - teach kids about finances, how to manage a checking account, savings, investing, and the slippery slope of credit.
Maybe call it “Life Management” - balance your diet and your budget!
By The Other Jack
February 4, 2009 9:53 AM | Link to this
Stop whining Billy.
If you act like a hater, expect to be treated like one.
By Mara
February 4, 2009 9:53 AM | Link to this
USinUK - Most Hated…
I lol’d when I read that he ALSO has a beef against Sweden, Canada, and Ireland! I mean REALLY…can you get any less offensive than CANADA?! eh? :^)
Gale - “I find little merit to the complaint Christian mem make that their superior position is being eroded.”
I’m not sure if you’re talking about their complaint that their historically preferrential place in America is being ‘infringed’ upon or if you mean their actual claim to moral superiority by virtue of them simply being christian.
Either way, I have to agree with them, though I have little sympathy. Yes, they ARE losing their historically elevated status as the de facto “American” religion. But to that I say “So?”. I have to suppose that the Roman pagans felt much the same way after THEY lost prominence to the Christians…even though THEIR gods had “shed their grace” upon the Romans for centuries more than the US has existed.
As for ‘moral authority’…if you’re going to claim ownership of ‘morality’ then you had best be sure that you epitomize it. There is nothing so corrosive to ‘moral authority’ as unrepentant hypocrisy. “Do as I say, not as I do” is not conducive to convincing others that YOU should get to define ‘moral behavior’ for THEM.
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 9:58 AM | Link to this
Mara -
“can you get any less offensive than Canada?”
it’s their “bacon”
it offends me, too.
;-)
By The Other Jack
February 4, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this
Gale
Show me where Christians are shouting from the rooftops. I can show you where everyone else is shouting from the rooftops how eeeeevil Christians are. I can point to Hollywood movie after hollywood movie after television show after television show about how eeevil Christians are.
And no, the attack on the nativity scene is not a rare instance.
Wake up and actually look around you instead of continuing to post whatever you are told by the media.
By Billy
February 4, 2009 10:05 AM | Link to this
You’ve got it backwards, Jacko. I was catching hate from you before I ever did or said anything even remotely hateful. Since I’m receiving the punishment, I might as well go ahead and commit the crime.
By Gale
February 4, 2009 10:15 AM | Link to this
Mara, you have it pretty much as I meant it —their historically preferrential place in America. While they may not voice the complaint as that, the source of their voiced complaints is fairly clear. I have to think hard about my next statement in case I am guilty of the same flawed thinking - and I probably am. It is not in our nature to find fault in our own beliefs. The fault must lie with those who do not believe as I do.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 10:17 AM | Link to this
j-tEx! You bat smokin’ TEXICAN! Chez or ERNESTO or che as you call him is one of the greatest villian of our time. I am sure he is one of you aethistic heros. You probably love him for what he did, but you are an ignorant TEXICAN!! You life is probably scarred deeply, so I pity you and wish you wisdom to see the true light of this world. YOU HAVE NO MORALS! No aethist does! What you do have is on a slidin’ scale, it’s OK to kill zygotes, but not lambs. Boots from leather is ok, but not seal fur. It’s ok to let genocide go on in Zaire, but not in Bosnia-Hetzegovinia. Texican, STFU!!!
By Mara
February 4, 2009 10:20 AM | Link to this
Billy - what do you think of all the to-do regarding Pope Benedict XVI (who was once a member of the Nazi Youth) revoking the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson, Holocaust deniar and anti-semite? It’s a real dust-up between the Catholic heirarchy and the rest of Europe. There’s already been calls for the Pope to step down because of it. Which isn’t surprising, all things considered.
This Willaimson is a real peice of work. If you read his bio on Wiki it’s actually kind of amusing. Not only does he say “I believe there were no gas chambers … I think that two to three hundred thousand Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps … but none of them by gas chambers.”, he also calls Jews the “enemies of Christ” and believes that the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” to be authentic, (even though it’s widely agreed to have been plagerized from some french book about Machiavelli).
Amid all these serious prejudices, we get his disapproval of women being educated, and wearing trousers or shorts, and his dismay at the lack of ‘manliness’ in modern males. Evidently he also is offended by “The Sound of Music”, Communists and Freemasons, Pope John Paul II, and relgious tolerance. Oh, and he’s a conspiracy theorist too. LOL!
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 10:20 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Show me where Christians are shouting from the rooftops.
wow. I mean … just … wow. you’re kidding, right? you didn’t see Jerry Falwell blame 9/11 on feminists?? you didn’t read anything about Monica Goodling and her efforts to “cleanse” the Department of Justice of people who aren’t “true patriots” (including a woman who was just suspected of being a lesbian). you didn’t see the religious groups out in force for the last 3 elections to defeat any/all gay marriage issues?? you haven’t seen Christians demanding that God be back in schools - to the point of ignoring science and teaching creationism?? heck, in GA, you can teach the Bible in schools.
now who is living on another planet???
By The Other Jack
February 4, 2009 10:22 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Congratulations. You got it. they are proud to admit that they are a Christian Organization. See? Wasn’t that easy? Did you think that they were ashamed of it?
Germany was the most educated and cultured country on the planet and they fell victim to the same types of propaganda that is being used in this country. We just watched an election where the bias was so overt that anchors were exclaiming how one candidate made them so excited that it ran chills up their legs. Even the mainstream has admitted how horribly biased the coverage was.
I went round and round with you about how Sarah Palin should have been able to control everything that happened behind her during an interview and you posted a response by MSNBC that was a complete and total lie, but you still didn’t get it.
So let’s review: If I stop calling a prenatal person a human, I get to discuss abortions with you. If I stop pointing out media bias, I can discuss politics with you. If I stop pointing out how ridicules and bigoted the stances that you share with the mainstream media, then I can converse with you. And it is laughable that you, of all people, should lecture me about my “tone”.
I’m not changing what I call babies to satisfy your party’s sick habit of killing 1/10th of the US population of PEOPLE. HUMANS. CHILDREN. BABIES. Yes, all those words that make what you support seem like what it is: a sick result of the secularization of this country.
You know, Sunshine’s BABY has been a BABY all along. Do you feel the BABY kicking? Not do you feel the Zygote kicking? Whether or not a liberal decides whether a baby lives is not what determines whether they are a human baby.
I will continue to point out how you and most of the liberals here have never offered an original thought that has not been dictated by YOUR media.
I get the biggest complaints from you guys when I refuse to change the meanings of words so you will feel better about what you support.
By Gale
February 4, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this
Jack, you are generalizing again. “Everyone” is not spewing hate speach. (That feels ungrammatical even thought I think everyone is a singular.) To be quite honest, I am more likely to read articles by religious people commenting from a faith perspective if they are not attacking another group. Likewise, articles from the opposite perspective. It may be idealistic, (aquarian trait) but I think most people are rational about their beliefs. I think most Americans understand that other Americans may not believe the same thing they do and do not condemn others because of their beliefs. You should wake up and see the caring people around you who do not attend your church. They are not all attacking you or your religion.
By The Other Jack
February 4, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this
Billy
Poor baby.
And yes, if you expect me to start changing definitions of words in order to accept your sick politics, yes, it would be better if you gave up. It’s not going to happen.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 10:29 AM | Link to this
Mara, the Phelps camp is no more Christian than you are!
Eldest of 8th graders, if you would have studied you would know that only true DUM BASSES use xians, its moron speak. But as you are a DUM BASS MORON it is appropriate. HE TEXICAN use it! It’s yours now!
By The Other Jack
February 4, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this
Gale
Just in case you haven’t noticed, I haven’t attended church in years. I haven’t claimed to be a Christian in years, (in spite of people like Billy who are more than willing to put people in convenient groups to satisfy his bigotry).
But the best people I know are people of faith and the worst, the least trust worthy and the most likely to be full of anger and hate are people of no faith.
And BTW. You can claim to be an atheist if you want, but Astrology is as much a religion as any other belief where you need to have faith instead of scientific fact. It isn’t as hip or cool as being a atheist, but it is a religion.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this
TOJ, once it attaches to the uterian wall it turns from a zygote to FESTUS! Don’t you pay attention! It’s not a baby until it’s 18th birthday. The mother can kill the baby up till then for any reason. Welcome the the jungle! Sex is just for fun TOJ, not procreation, that is why it’s OK for a man to marry a man, or a goat, or a child! It’s all relative! Male lions often kill thier children, so it’s no longer a sin.
DUM BASSES? Where do you draw from to get your values? It’s how you feel? Aethist’s with values? funny! A moral animal? Animals don’t murder, except for Chimps, so it’s OK now!
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 10:44 AM | Link to this
Oh, EXPAT! Thanks for the “kind?” words!
By Billy
February 4, 2009 10:50 AM | Link to this
Mara, I feel for the Pope as far as the Hitler Youth thing goes. It’s not like you would’ve felt able to NOT join. You’re an impressionable teenager and you don’t know what’ll happen to you or your family if you say you don’t want to join. That said, I think it was reason enough for him to be passed over for Pope. I mean, it seems they could’ve found someone every bit as qualified but without that skeleton in his closet, you know? What can the non-Catholic world infer from his selection? The fact that he’s catering to a Holocaust denier probably just confirms many people’s assumptions about the guy. The Pope, who just happened to be in the Hitler Youth, reverses the excommunication of a Holocaust denying priest? It seems to me the Church as an institution suffers for it, and after the molestation scandals and whatnot you’d think they’d want the best face on things.
By Billy
February 4, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this
“And yes, if you expect me to start changing definitions of words in order to accept your sick politics, yes, it would be better if you gave up. It’s not going to happen.”
What the hell are you even talking about?
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 11:10 AM | Link to this
The Pope has skeletons, as does Barry! It’s the same thing! You don’t care about moral and ethics, anyone can get elected! American People, Cathlic Cardinals, moral low grouds.
By American Woman
February 4, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this
Mara, thanks for your 8:29! [The blog’s whining perpetual victim notwithstanding,] I think you totally made the case here on this topic. YES, facts support the assertion that “non-believers” are maligned in our society, and yes, there are Americans (but not enough, apparently) who believe it to be unfair. (Now back to the “wah wah wah… everybody’s against me because I’m a decent person and the rest of you su-k… wah.”)
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this
American Woman, no one ever said you weren’t a decent person, that isn’t even part of this discussion. If you are an athiest, you are by definition, AMORAL, oh and not good citizens and definetly not a patriot! You have no right to protest because it’s not discrimination against your religion, as you have none! Hehe, sorry the constitution or it’s amendments don’t give a flying rats butt about u! So sorry to be u! hehe You may be a decent person, maybe you are secretly bound to christian moral values, but you have no reason to be protected by the law base on your lack of belief.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this
American Woman, no one ever said you weren’t a decent person, that isn’t even part of this discussion. If you are an athiest, you are by definition, AMORAL, oh and not good citizens and definetly not a patriot! You have no right to protest because it’s not discrimination against your religion, as you have none! Hehe, sorry the constitution or it’s amendments don’t give a flying rats butt about u! So sorry to be u! hehe You may be a decent person, maybe you are secretly bound to christian moral values, but you have no reason to be protected by the law base on your lack of belief.
By Lyrazel
February 4, 2009 11:43 AM | Link to this
O Gale, if they had such cooking classes in GA the kids would learn how to make PBJ and mac and cheese (still a vegetable in GA schools, btw). How to microwave would be the next course—and maybe—big maybe—(stoves are considered fire hazards in schools plus: risk of injury & liability) you would learn to make mac & cheese with hot dogs & frozen peas. I mean kids cannot bring can openers in schools because it might be a weapon!
Actually I do remember GA home ec class. All young ladies were required to take the class, btw. First thing you learned was how to cut lard into sifted white flour and make biscuits —you learned to deep fry hushpuppies, and make a low country boil—we did not have savory prime rib—we had tripe and bacon—real AMERICAN bacon….ha ha ha, eh. There were further classes in what to do with fruit, why make pies, and all sorts of sugary treats (we never met a fruit we did not cook) My gosh, the teacher was this 88 lb. crow Miss Vivian…
On religion: here goes my questions for the board bored: One: A mosque in midtown cannot operate their call to prayer 5x per day because it disturbs its neighbors. Is that religious oppression? Two: I have read about church organizations loosing members/money after their charismatic leader parts the pulpit or is caught double dipping in the choir. After your church builds a mega-structure should/do members collect revenues from the sale of the building? Can you stop your church from closing by seizing its assets?
By Chris Salzmann
February 4, 2009 11:52 AM | Link to this
Which has always puzzled me: if one does not believe in a deity who created absolute truth, and if one instead embraces moral relativism … where do those convictions or standards of right and wrong come from? Quoted from Shaunti Feldhahn
Shaunti,
I have news for you: you don’t need to believe in a deity to know the difference between right and wrong. Where do those convictions come from you ask? From one’s upbringing and from one’s own experiences. That quote from you pretty much sums up the abject ignorance that some people of “faith” like yourselves suffer from. And your deity’s “absolute truth” is another’s fairy tale. Just because YOU believe in something doesn’t make it right. I might not believe in your beliefs but I wouldn’t sit and tell you that your sense of right and wrong is based on some obscure texts that are based mostly in a collection of myths and fire side stories collected over time.
I believe in tolerance but I don’t respect being talked down to or being judged because I don’t share someone’s beliefs. That in a nutshell is the problem I have with many of your kind.
By Gale
February 4, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this
Is anyone else having issues with errors on this web page? I keep having errors and posts going missing.
Just in case my last post goes missing as well… TOJ, Astrology is no more a religion than economics or psychology. It is based on observation and astronomical facts.
lyrazel, Your Home ed sounds similar to mine, back in the 60s. We didn’t make biscuits and pies. But it was about that pointless. My step-daughter in the 80s, raised in a farming community no less, thought everything edible came out of a box. I made sure the two kids could at least make mac and cheese without a box and warned my stepson to avoid an woman who could not at least match his cooking skills.
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 12:03 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
Congratulations. You got it. they are proud to admit that they are a Christian Organization. See? Wasn’t that easy? Did you think that they were ashamed of it?
no, but evidently YOU did.
So let’s review: If I stop calling a prenatal person a human, I get to discuss abortions with you. If I stop pointing out media bias, I can discuss politics with you. If I stop pointing out how ridicules and bigoted the stances that you share with the mainstream media, then I can converse with you. And it is laughable that you, of all people, should lecture me about my “tone”.
1) please show me where I have said that you can’t discuss abortion with anyone on this board unless you stop calling a fetus a person.
2) please show me where I have said that you can’t wail away about media bias (just don’t expect me to refrain from pointing out how incorrect you are)
3) please learn the difference between saying that someone has a shared belief and saying that they are indoctrinated, brainwashed or otherwise chant a mantra.
and, yes, I will lecture you on your tone until the cows come home - and I think there are at least a dozen other regulars on this blog who will stand right alongside me when I do.
I’m not changing what I call babies to satisfy your party’s sick habit of killing 1/10th of the US population of PEOPLE.
yeah … no republicans ever have abortions … that would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. you truly are deluded if you think that is the case.
You know, Sunshine’s BABY has been a BABY all along. Do you feel the BABY kicking? Not do you feel the Zygote kicking? Whether or not a liberal decides whether a baby lives is not what determines whether they are a human baby.
considering a zygote is smaller than a lima bean, hasn’t implanted in the uterus and doesn’t have any limbs, you wouldn’t feel it do anything. and, as I’ve said before, medically and scientifically, it is still a fetus until birth. you can call it a Cadillac for all I care, that doesn’t make it correct.
and, again, I believe that the woman’s rights supercede the Cadillac’s. period. you don’t believe as such. we can argue about it until the Chicago Cubs win the World Series, but we’re not going to change each other’s mind.
if you want to continue banging on about it, then have a ball.
By Mara
February 4, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this
American Woman, thanks for the shout-out. May I suggest that you ignore the provocation and don’t feed the troll? I almost defined ‘amoral’ for the forum but decided that any comment would elicit a torrent of abuse that I simply don’t care to subject myself to. But it’s your call :^)
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this
Chris, we all have trouble when someone doesn’t agree with us. But most on this blog will agree you are indeed a [{DUM BASS]}. You are a relativist so you cannot BEGIN TO comprehend. SO IS IT WRONG TO TAKE SOMEONES MONEY? IF YOU GET AN EXTRA DOLLAR FROM MCDONALDS IS IT OK TO KEEP IT? WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR MORAL COMPASS ON? IN A NUTSHELL CHRIS, STFU!
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
GtG -
Oh, EXPAT! Thanks for the “kind?” words!
:-D
it was meant with affection!!
By Mara
February 4, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
Chris Salzmann - “Where do those convictions come from you ask? From one’s upbringing and from one’s own experiences.”
there is also some evidence suggesting that ‘morality’ and ‘atruism’ are bothe genetic and/or a socio-biological survival adaptation.
Without ‘morals’ the cavemen would most certainly never devoloped coperative societies and unless you’re one of the ‘young earth’ proponents, that sort of puts paid to the idea that morals are religion-dependant.
and wild applause for this - “I believe in tolerance but I don’t respect being talked down to or being judged because I don’t share someone’s beliefs.”
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 12:15 PM | Link to this
OH MARA! You are AMORAL too! Ignorant Slut? not sure, but probably, AMORAL? Without doubt! amoral not immoral, maybe you know the difference, maybe not! American Woman, please don’t feed the ignorant slut! But it’s your call :^)
By Mara
February 4, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this
“I believe that the woman’s rights supercede the Cadillac’s. period. you don’t believe as such. we can argue about it until the Chicago Cubs win the World Series,”
ROTFLMFAO!!!!! You git ‘im girl! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! “cadillac”, LOL!
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 12:19 PM | Link to this
See Mara Your 12:14 post shows everyone that you just copy stuff out of another blog, in fact you copied that out of this blog! Dum BASS!
By Billy
February 4, 2009 12:20 PM | Link to this
I think the mosque and its neighbors should be able to come to some sort of arrangement. Do the calling, but lower the volume? As to the church question, I imagine the members don’t get a share of the revenue. Their donations are just that — donations. So I imagine most churches consider any revenue generated by those donations to be the church’s money, not its members’. On a similar note, my local medical center is in the midst of a large expansion, with the addition of some state-of-the-art facilities. Also state-of-the-art? The parking deck, apparently, which has a stonework facade in places. Now, stone’s not cheap, nor is the additional labor involved in installing it. So my question: in tough financial times, with skyrocketing medical expenses, how much of our hospital bills go toward a purely aesthetic feature like that? Could the hospital have stuck with the boring cement parking deck and kept charges down? Is it ethical to ask struggling families to pay more to cover the stonework?
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 12:24 PM | Link to this
Gale -
Astrology is no more a religion than economics or psychology. It is based on observation and astronomical facts.
I would LOVE to go to the Our Lady of the Sacred Gemini church, but we just can’t decide where to have it … one day, it’s in a coffee shop, a month later, it’s outside in the woods, a few months after that, it’s in a shoe store … (we can never make up our minds)
;-)
me, on any given Sunday, you can find me worshipping at St. Mattress of All Pillows, followed by fellowship with Our Lady of the Fair-Trade Coffee and a devotional with whatever cooking shows happen to be on the Food Network.
as the Pastafarians* say: Ramen!
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 12:43 PM | Link to this
Silly Billy! The Mosque should be torn down to make room for more parking for the Hospital, that was easy! Minarets in the Middle East are enough to drive a man to violence, maybe that’s why they are the religion of hate? WHO KNOWS! Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 12:46 PM | Link to this
Oh, the “SLUTS OF JONESVILLE” are going on the Tyra Slut Show! Imagine! They want to be forgiven I suppose. It was amoral so I guess it’s OK.
By Mara
February 4, 2009 12:52 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel - “After your church builds a mega-structure should/do members collect revenues from the sale of the building? Can you stop your church from closing by seizing its assets?”
In the US, property rights and ownership for ‘church property’ is dependant on where the property is. We have a mish-mash of civil laws that would affect ownership. Mostly the courts seem to have sided with the religious ‘corporations’ over the congregants who actually paid for it. And I would guess that any bank accounts would ALSO be ‘owned’ by the parent organization.
One assumes that most charismatic ministries are actually corporations and all property would be controlled by that entity. Which is probably owned by your double-dipping minister and/or teh founder of that particular congregation. I doubt the worshippers have any legal claim…but I could be wrong.
That being said, when the Catholic Church was consolidating parishes in Boston a few years ago, some congregations ended up occupying the churches to prevent them from locking the doors. Same thing happened when they tried to sell off some of their properties to pay legal fees and judgements for the pedophile priests.
When the Episcopal church schismed over Bishop Robinson’s ordination, many break-away congregations tried to claim that because the property was paid for by their particular members they had no legal right to it. There’s an interesting WSJ article about the tussle between St. James Anglican and the Episcopal Church of North America. The money quote: “The church apparently added a section to a canon in 1979 that said parishes held property in trust for the greater church.”
I’m guessing that even without such canon law, secualar property law would still end up supporting the ownership of the Church-as-a-whole over an individual congregation.
By Billy
February 4, 2009 12:55 PM | Link to this
Gandalf, I’m having a hard time distinguishing you from a troll. I’m not sure the hospital wants more parking space an hour’s drive from the hospital itself.
On another note, I like Shaunti’s opening paragraph.
“Hey! You act like non-theists are excluded from society! But there’s one in Congress! Besides, 92% of us believe in God, so we should be represented more than you in society!”
Yes, Shaunti. We’re very grateful that the 92% of you allow .002% of Congress to be non-theist in nature. Whee.
By lyrazel
February 4, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this
USinUK, my husband and I ceremoniously buried a package of ramen to symbolically end his bachelor days. Took longer than our wedding at the courthouse.
Billy—My guess is that hospital chooses the architect first and sent a budget—but the neighborhood beautification committee got their wigs in a twist and demanded a more posh place to park rather than help pay medical bills for poor folk since poor folk should not go to their hospital if they cannot appreciate fancy stonework.
Mara, HI! I dont believe humans have morals. We make them up as it suits us in the century we are living in. It was highly moral to participate in a crusade as it was highly moral to drop a nuke on Nagasaki.
By The Other Jack
February 4, 2009 1:07 PM | Link to this
Mara
Yes, I think it is sooo funny that you girls have invented yet another name to use so you can dehumanize a pre-natal child just one more degree. You go girl. Have a big yuk about it. After all, it’s just a human baby.
USinUK
So I’m wrong about the bias. LOL!! Right. And it isn’t indoctrination that has caused you and almost every liberal I know to mirror every single stance the liberal media takes. It’s just “like thinking”. And an abortion isn’t required before the single cell attaches it’s self, now is it?
Please show me the scientific proof that Astrology is anything but a belief system. Show me the difference between Astrology and the world’s religions. A church does not a religion make. A God does not a religion make. It is a belief system. A system that relies on faith in concepts that are unprovable by science. So unless you can prove that a star that is trillions of miles away can affect the mood of only the part of the world’s population that was born at a specific time, then what you have is a religion.
For any thinking person, your abhorrence to the idea of religion should be screaming volumes about your feelings about the faith of other people.
By TAX THE CHURCHES!
February 4, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this
PAY DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT, support the troops, police and fire departments, schools and infrastructure, food & water safety…. Unless you devout folks think it’s fine and dandy to borrow trillions of dollars with interest from the Godless, heathen Chinese. Pay up, mooches.
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 1:24 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
So I’m wrong about the bias. LOL!! Right. And it isn’t indoctrination that has caused you and almost every liberal I know to mirror every single stance the liberal media takes. It’s just “like thinking”. And an abortion isn’t required before the single cell attaches it’s self, now is it
you???? wrong???? noooooo!!! I could never happen!!! the world as we know it would stop spinning!!! there would be a disturbance in the Force!!! therefore, all your rantings about indoctrination MUST be true.
TOJ thinks it is so, therefore it MUST BE so.
if you’re going to talk about “feeling zygotes kick”, then at least know what you’re talking about - zygotes haven’t implanted, they’re too small, and they most definitely cannot kick. abortion would affect a fetus - usually in the first trimester, occasionally later, rarely in the 3rd trimester (less than 1%) - and, even then, only for medical reasons.
the issue all boils down to this: you want to imbue them with all the same rights of the woman who is carrying it and I disagree. I think the woman’s rights take precedence.
again. Cubs. World Series. brick wall. have a ball.
I’m heading home.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 1:39 PM | Link to this
TOJ, remember, it’s FESTUS! When you talk about killing babies, you must use the correct term FESTUS! They all love killing FESTUS!, the guy from Gunsmoke. So it’s OK to kill ISLAMFACIST Terrorists, just not insurgents. It’s Ok to kill OSAMA in Afganistan, not RINGANDANADINGDONG in IRAN. It’s all about being PC and changing your morals to what is easy not what is right. See how Barry is going to implement CHANGE!! How exciting a time to be alive!
By Gale
February 4, 2009 1:41 PM | Link to this
Good grief, TOJ. Scientific proof? Do you require scientific proof that economics is not a science; that it is nothing but a belief system and therefore a religion? You are simply being contrary. FWIW, very few astrologers pay attention to any star but our own, to which we are very bound by astrophysics.
I don’t attempt to prove anything with astrology. I merely observe characteristics of people born in similar relationships to planets. The similarities have been noted by scholars for several thousand years. Astrology does not seek to direct anyone’s life. Astrology does not profess to show “absolute truth”. The planets move in a precise pattern. The pattern is neither good nor bad.
I don’t abhor religion. I simply don’t believe in a supreme entity. There are “religions” that are non-theists. But I have found it difficult to immerse myself in those teachings. If a supreme being works for you, that’s fine with me. Just don’t expect everyone to hold the same beliefs.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this
GALE STEP AWAY FROM THE BONG! THAT SWIMMER HAS PROVEN IT’S BAD FOR YOU, AND YOUR STARS AREN’T ALIGNED FOR THAT BONG AT THIS TIME. I PREFER ASTRONOMY, PERSONALLY, BUT SOME LIKE EDGAR CASEY…
By Gandalf, the White!
February 4, 2009 3:24 PM | Link to this
HEY, TAX THE CHURCHES! DUM BASS IDEA! NEXT!
By JustaJew
February 4, 2009 3:25 PM | Link to this
So it’s OK to kill ISLAMFACIST Terrorists, just not insurgents. It’s Ok to kill OSAMA in Afganistan, not RINGANDANADINGDONG in IRAN.
I don’t think it’s O.K. to kill anyone but that’s morality for you. I’d submit that YOUR morality is highly questionable. I mean, I think I read it in a book somewhere that thou shalt not kill but then I think I read in the same book that it WAS o.k. to kill certain people for certain offenses. How contradictory, hhmmmmm. Maybe you don’t have any problems with your morality, maybe your just confused.
By NetBanker
February 4, 2009 4:19 PM | Link to this
Hey kids! Hope all is well for everyone. I’d like to swing through more than I do, but life happens…especially last week when my partner was on vacation with his family. The idiot (and I use the term in a loving way in this case) thought spending 10 days with his parents and 1 older brother would be a good thing.
OK…so on the topic…given the numbers of self-professed practitioners of religion those that profess no faith do seem maligned. I’ve seen the odd reception a friend receives when she says she doesn’t have a religion because her father was a non-practicing Methodist and her mother a Japanese Buddist in suburban Maryland so she never had any religious instruction as a kid.
I’m not against religion, but my own views have definitely changed since I was a child going to catechism classes. I see both the good and bad in organized religions. On the good side are a sense of community, support, and comfort. On the bad side can be suppression of free thought, a false sense of superiority, justification for bad behavior. Please note neither of these lists are anywhere near comprehensive. Ultimately, I just don’t believe that actively practicing a religion or even claiming membership makes one superior in any way to those who don’t. My friend who was raised without religious instruction is one of the most kind, caring, giving, trusting, unjudgemental people I know.
By NetBanker
February 4, 2009 4:27 PM | Link to this
I think I read it in a book somewhere that thou shalt not kill but then I think I read in the same book that it WAS o.k. to kill certain people for certain offenses. Well Just a JEW…what does the Torah state? You know we christians ripped that off from you, made some translations, and call it “The Old Testament.” Having a foreign language degree I certainly understand how tricky a translation can be.
By JustaJew
February 4, 2009 4:41 PM | Link to this
Hey Net,
good to see you back on the blog. Missed your insight and opinions. It’s pretty clear what the Torah states but I have to clear up the fact that JEW happens to relate to my genetics and not necessarily my religious affiliation. Trust me, that post to GtG was NOT a moral superiority rant. It was more from a hypocrisy standpoint. GtG has actively supported the killing of Muslims on this blog when the Good Book has, as one of its ten most unbreakable rules, a prohibition against killing yet he gets his panties (I have no doubt he wears them) in a twist and calls others out for not having morals based on theor beliefs. I just find that a tad hypocritical.
By Frustrated
February 4, 2009 4:55 PM | Link to this
AW-
…..Just the other day, a self-professed Christian blasted ME for stating MY belief in only one God……
Were you referring to me????
I’ve been out with the flu, so I really don’t want to read each and every thread from three days back..
By USinUK
February 4, 2009 5:05 PM | Link to this
hi Frustrated!!
I’ve been out with the flu, so I really don’t want to read each and every thread from three days back..
sorry to hear you’re poorly … take care of your bad self (it’s been quiet here without you)
:-)
hasta la pasta!
can you guys believe tomorrow’s THURSDAY??? criminey, where has the week gone?
By Gale
February 5, 2009 8:36 AM | Link to this
Thinking about the confirmed lack of acceptance atheists get from the majority, I cast about for any other “belief” group that gets similar distain. (Trying to stay on topic, don’t you know.) I considered Wiccans and Native Americans. I think most people don’t know enough about them to criticize them, and possibly their numbers are too small to gain the notice of mainstream Americans. Atheists are more numerous and more people understand the premise of atheism even if they do not understand it. Mormans might be next on the list after atheists. Look at the problems Romney encounted. He did get elected in his own state, though. I imagine Utah elects Momons to offices. Even so, I think a lot of Christians would not vote for a Mormon.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 8:40 AM | Link to this
Good gravy … initial jobless claims were 622,000 …
oof.
By Frustrated
February 5, 2009 8:43 AM | Link to this
Hi US!
Ugh, I HATE being sick!!! The hubby and I picked the germs up from the baby who brought it home from daycare…oh, the joys of daycare…but we won’t go there. From now on, it’s the flu shot for me:)
It doesn’t seem like it has been all that quiet around the blog….I skimmed through things, but haven’t had the energy to dig into everything just yet…. my mind is still asleep.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 8:51 AM | Link to this
Gale -
as far as disdain goes - I think Native Americans practicing their own form of worship would be accepted … some white kid from suburban Minneapolis practicing Native American worship might not. Funny enough, the dozen or so Native Americans that have served in the House and Senate have all declared themselves as a formal religion (Catholic, Methodist, etc) - even Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
As for a Wiccan running for office, I can only imagine the heyday an opponent would have with THAT. Atheism is one thing, but Wicca? I have visions of a debate which would feature the line “She turned me into a newt!! (I got better)”
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 8:59 AM | Link to this
Frustrated -
re: day care. keep your eyes on the prize and remember, the germs they pick up and fight off now just make their immune system stronger!!
I just thought this was the kind of topic you could sink your teeth into (sorta like the bus signs we discussed back around Cmas)
Anyhoo … drink some OJ and make sure you’re getting enough rest.
By Nikita
February 5, 2009 9:10 AM | Link to this
Show me the difference between Astrology and the world’s religions.
Well…astrology doesn’t have any churches, for a start. Also, Astrology is a system of divination which can be applied forward or back, but it is not unequivocal and has no message or tenets beyond its core assumption that events and states on earth are echoed in the heavens. If it’s a religion, then it’s an adjunct to one’s primary beliefs.
On the topic in general, I get really tired of hearing those who belong to the majority religion of the country, who have passed laws requiring others to observe their traditions, and who even have a state holiday dedicated to their highest of holy days would have the gall to insist that they are persecuted. When I was a kid, we said the Lord’s Prayer every morning in public school — and there is still a moment of silence to accommodate prayer.
By Gale
February 5, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this
USinUK, Isn’t that SOP? If we don’t understand something, let’s poke fun at it. I’ve looked into a number of religions over the years, trying to find a group I can identify with. I feel some affinity with the nature people, but I don’t believe what they believe. Same with Taoists. Almost, not quite. I don’t think we will see a lot of diversity until we are all able to be really spiritual instead of religious.
Frustrated, Daycare is a germ breeding ground. Like USinUK says, your child will have a stronger imune system for all of that. My partner’s sister had to take her daughter out of daycare for a while so she could get healthy again. THe poor tyke caught several bugs in a row and was having trouble getting on her feet.
However, I haven’t noticed that surviving one strain of flu makes one any more resistent to the next strain that comes along. And flu shots just protect against what the specialists expect to be the season’s flu. If the bugs decide different, you are not protected.
By Frustrated
February 5, 2009 9:28 AM | Link to this
Us…..I just thought this was the kind of topic you could sink your teeth into (sorta like the bus signs we discussed back around Cmas)….
Oh, I could go for days!!!!! I will be the first to say that I am not a scholar in any religion, obviously I am the most familiar with mine, but even then, no one knows all the answers (Except God that is)……
So with that said…. and to answer AW’s question from days ago… Do I think there is more than one God, no. (Which means for those who don’t believe in MY God, I think they are wrong..sorry, it sounds harsh, but it is just the way it works) Do I think you are committing a huge sin for not believing in MY God, I am not the one with the last judgement, I just think you are lost. If the answer pushes you farther away from believing in my belief, then I am sorry, I don’t know how to approach the subject on a blog without stating the obvious of my religion (You don’t believe and except Jesus as your savior=you don’t enter the kingdom of heaven)…it’s that simple…and in simple I mean that is core of the Christian faith…
As someone stated earlier, it is our Christian duties to defend and stand on our rock of faith…to teach, to open eyes, to witness. We are just as easily slapped in the face as anyone else. I have never claimed to be perfect, I have admitted just as everyone else that I sin too. I don’t believe in “stages” of sin, one is just as bad as the other in God’s eyes.
The only thing I can do is witness when the door opens….which I try to do here to the best of my ability….and I can agree to disagree, but that doesn’t mean I don’t go home and pray about it. Sometimes you just can’t help those who aren’t willing to listen..so you have to hope God plants the seed somewhere else.
It is as if all the “non-believers” are waiting on the rapture to occur and take all the “Bible beaters” away…let me ask a question….if that were to occur in our lifetime (I believe in the rapture, I just don’t know when it will happen)….millions of people disappearing in the blink of an eye….what would you do if you were left behind? Would you say “It’s about time the “crazy” people left”..or would your heart skip a beat and wonder “What if I was wrong?”….or would you just buy into whatever propaganda is being thrown out of the TV…(alien invasion, etc etc)
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this
Gale
The vast majority of the world’s religions do not believe in a supreme being. Their beliefs range from believing that they are their ancestors living a continued life through them to simply believing that a higher state of enlightenment is achievable through acts they perform. Many do not believe in an after life nor do they need to attend any sort of church building in order to worship.
Astrophysics have no more part in Astrology than the power of prayer has in the medical field. Like it or not, what you follow, what you talk about all the time, what you are closer to than most religious people are close to thier respective religion, is no less hocus pocus than any religion that has ever existed.
Don’t feel bad, I have met almost no true atheists. They either believe in ghosts, ESP or like you, the hocus pocus of beliveing that the movement of stars only affect the lives of specific people born at specific times. Believe in it. Trust it to guide your life. Sort of like my Mom does with her Christianity.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this
Gale -
Fear of the unknown - one of the most destructive forces in nature. I like the Quakers, but I don’t think I could lead their life. I do like their form of worship in meeting houses, though - it’s quiet, reflective, prayerful and not about preaching hellfire and damnation. Buddhists are much the same - more about prayer and living your life in a positive way so that you continue to move towards enlightenment.
as for germs, I think scientists are right on the money when they say that bringing a kid up in a germ-free environment is really bad for them - makes them more suseptible to allergies and illness. Personally, I think all the “anti-bacterial” this-n-that on the shelves need to be removed - all it’s doing is making stronger bugs!
By Frustrated
February 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this
Hi Gale,
Yes, I totally understand about the immune system. We have taken the little one out for a couple of months….she has been sick for two weeks straight with 3 different viruses, so we are getting her back on her feet before sending her into the battle again….
Bless her little booger face, it’s pitiful:)
By Mara
February 5, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this
Gale - “Even so, I think a lot of Christians would not vote for a Mormon.”
I think any splinter group is bound to be demonized by mainstream society, but even the splinter groups get more respect than those who don’t believe at all. Take the LDS church for example. Their differences with the FLDS are a matter of church and civil law…not fundamental beliefs. Even the differences between Anglican and Catholic aren’t much deeper than governance and heirarchy. The only reason Mormons aren’t part of the greater Christian family is because the rest of them believe that once the Bible was compiled, that was it. All their instructions had been given and that was that.
That being said, I still think that a Mormon would get more votes than an atheist, an agnostic, a Wiccan, an animist, Santerian, or a Rastaman.
Frustrated - don’t put your trust in the flu shots. The CDC gets thousands of flu samples from all over the world every year and from all those different strains of virus, they only pick out three or four to include in the vaccine. Basically, they’re guessing on which strains are going to be most prevalent wsix months in the future. And with the mutation rate for the virus…the vaccine isn’t good for more than a year or so.
The one time I got a flu shot, I caught the flu a week later.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 9:41 AM | Link to this
USinUK
you???? wrong???? noooooo!!! I could never happen!!!
If I were the only person saying that there was an obvious and overt bias, I could understand your hysterics. But you know that I am not. I talk about indoctrination because unlike the vast majority of media critics, people that make their living studying the media, you apparently can’t see a bias when most of the world can.
I know you are no dummy. But I also know that smart people are indoctrinated much easier than dumb people. And I know that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge what most of the world takes for granted.
Do you belive that there is any bias at all? i know you think FOX is biased. I agree. They all are. I just don’t understand why you can’t see the bias in not only the news industry but the overt propaganda in the entertainment industry. I know you art smarter than that. So it’s either indoctrination or just pure pig headed stubbornness. I hope that it is the later.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 9:52 AM | Link to this
Mara
My sister is (was, now retired) an administrative RN working for the state of Virginia. None in our family has ever had a flu shot because of exactly what you said in your post. It is a crap shoot by the CDC and chances of hitting the right strain are almost nil.
She is obsessive about clean hands. A few days ago, i got a care package from her with some small tubes of hand cleaner that has an aerosol sprayer. They are the size of a pencil and work great. I haven’t been sick in years.
(Of course the evil Republican that exist in my body kills all living organisms that get close. That probably helps)
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 10:06 AM | Link to this
TOJ and Mara -
I do think there is a value to the older folks getting a flu shot - but I hate it when offices announce that you can get your shot in the fall “to protect you for the winter flu season”. For the most part, folks in the working world are in what I call “the fat part of the bell curve” - most of them are healthy, most of them are between 20-55, most of them aren’t immuno-deficient … so, why-oh-WHY are they getting shots??? it’s exposure to god-knows-what-all and completely unnecessary.
TOJ - I agree with your sister on the clean hands thing - and, you’re lucky that you don’t work in an office or have to take mass trans - talk about the world being nothing more than a petri dish!
I dunno. I guess I’m a bit more fatalistic about it - the biggest problem is that the folks who are sick and contagious are the ones who aren’t showing any symptoms. so, really, the best you can do is keep clean, eat right, stay hydrated and get enough rest - that’ll take care of you better than any flu shot.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
If I were the only person saying that there was an obvious and overt bias, I could understand your hysterics.
the only other people who are saying it are: Rush, Ann, O’Reilley, and their ilk. the evidence doesn’t bear it out. Example: the stimulus package - other than the occasional Democrat, the majority of people invited to the studios or to the newspapers to talk about it are … REPUBLICANS!
I just don’t understand why you can’t see the bias in not only the news industry but the overt propaganda in the entertainment industry.
the only bias the entertainment industry has is their bias towards making a profit. period. if they thought there was money to be made in Capital-P-Patriotiotic or Capital-C-Conservative programming, they would make more of those movies/tv shows etc … however, everytime they try it, eeet no do so well. more to the point, if the liberalism you so despise wasn’t going down a storm, they’d stop making it (especially these days, with so much choice via cable and satellite - the pressure is really on them to produce stuff that people want to watch).
By Gale
February 5, 2009 10:31 AM | Link to this
TOJ, I have learned how fruitless it is to try to alter your mind when you have decided on something. If you want to believe that astrology is a religion, you just go right on believing that. I have no doubt this is another subject you have no real knowledge of and yet “know” all about it.
Frustrated, you are one of the posters I enjoy reading when you write about your beliefs. I don’t agree with you, but you write thoughtfully and it gives me much to consider. Regarding the Rapture: Speaking for myself, if people disappeared suddenly from around the planet, I think the response would depend a lot on the number of “true believers” who were taken, and of course, whether those of us remaining went on with our lives or were incinerated in an inferno. The “inferno” concept doesn’t really sound like the God I’ve always heard about, so I will assume we would remain.
To be honest, I think the “true believers” (as opposed to the professors) are not all that many. So, I think some people might see a pattern and maybe, there would be changes in behavior. Maybe the changes would be good, maybe not. Maybe those left behind would figure they had missed their chance and were irrevocably damned, and if so, what reason would they have to try to do good? Of course, they might also decide the ones “taken” were “bad” and God punished them. History is written by the ones remaining, as well as the winners.
I tried to think about what my own reaction might be to the Rapture. I cannot say for certain. I think I would go on as have been. I think a god that only cares about the people who worship his name, whether they are good people or not, is not a god I would want to worship. What I mean is, if a buddist (eg) is a good person in all senses, but does not know your God, and God does not take him with the Rapture, this is not a God I want to call my own.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this
Frustrated -
thanks for a very heartfelt, sincere answer.
“let me ask a question….if that were to occur in our lifetime (I believe in the rapture, I just don’t know when it will happen)….millions of people disappearing in the blink of an eye….what would you do if you were left behind?”
I believe in God, but I don’t believe in the Rapture. I believe that John had a dream - but it was just that - a dream. I don’t believe in The Beast. I don’t believe in the W- of Babylon. I don’t believe in the 4 horses.
What I do believe is that religion (not to be confused with God) has used that and the spectre of hell and the apocolypse to get people to do their bidding (tithing, donating land, building cathedrals) for thousands of years. Fear is a great motivational technique to get people to behave in a certain way - visit some of the Cathedrals of Europe and you’ll see some frescoes that have more to do with instilling fear than inspiring goodness (although my memory is fuzzy, I’m pretty sure the Duomo in Florence has an absolutely monster-piece of damnation behind the altar).
as for the 2nd coming, if Christ really is going to come back like a thief in the night, most thieves don’t say “look for these signs before I arrive!!”
By Mara
February 5, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this
TOJ - “Of course the evil Republican that exist in my body kills all living organisms that get close. That probably helps”
LOL! Yeah, that’s probably it :^)
USinUK - if they thought there was money to be made in Capital-P-Patriotiotic or Capital-C-Conservative programming, they would make more of those movies/tv shows etc
isn’t it interesting that nobody complains about the overwhelming success of CONSERVATIVES on talk radio the way they do about liberals in Hollywood? What happened to trusting ‘the market’? Air America proved that talk radio audiences weren’t interested in hearing views from the left and ended up going bust. But you don’t hear liberals lumping together ALL radio personalities, regardless of genre, into a ‘conservative media’ canard the way everyone in the movie and television industry is portrayed as ‘hollywood liberals’. Heck, you can’t even be a journalist without being labled as having a ‘liberal bias’!
Do conservatives complain about the ‘liberal media’ because they think they don’t have the talent to compete? Or is it just that creative types tend to be less conservative, and even a bit flamboyant?
By KevinA
February 5, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this
43% of women have abortions. Over 75% of women who have abortions are believers. While many believers are good people there appears to be a double standard. When you get into the numbers there are plenty of issues with all humans including believers.
By Mara
February 5, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this
Gale - did you see this?
— An Austrian insurance company is in trouble for only wanting employees born under certain astrological signs.
— The company, based in Salzburg, advertised in major newspapers, seeking people to work in sales and management. But the ad also stated they must be born at certain times of the year - because ‘statistics’ suggested they were the hardest workers.
— One ad read: ‘We are looking for people over 20 for part-time jobs in sales and management with the following star signs: Capricorn, Taurus, Aquarius, Aries and Leo,’ read the ad that appeared over the weekend.
continued at link - digitaljournal.com/article/266563
LOL!
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 10:54 AM | Link to this
Mara - (and TOJ)
“Do conservatives complain about the ‘liberal media’ because they think they don’t have the talent to compete?”
actually, I am reminded of one of my first J-school profs - on the first day of class, he asked, “what is the first job of newspapers??”
he got the responses you’d expect: expose corruption, fight for justice, educate on current events.
he said, “No. The first job of newspapers is to make a profit. Newspapers and TV stations are a business, not a charity.”
all that to say - if folks aren’t buying, it won’t stay in business. Example: the conservative NY Sun went bust last year - if folks wanted to get away from the “liberal” NYT, they could have but didn’t. Example: the conservative Washington Times only hangs on due to subsidies from Rev Moon. Example: CNN and MSNBC are still doing extremely well - all 3 cable stations saw increases in the Q4. if folks REALLY wanted to escape “liberal propaganda”, only FOX would be seeing the gains.
By Frustrated
February 5, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this
Gale,
Awww, thanks!!!!!
As with any religion, not all followers are going to believe the same exact interpretations of how they read things. I, for one, think the rapture will happen before things get bad (one world government, one world currency, anti-Christ, etc etc)…
So I kind of see it playing out like one mass disappearance, total chaos and the anti-Christ emerging from that as “the one who put the earth back together”…. Then the seals, trumpets, bowls, etc etc will come into play….Pouring the wrath of God out on those who remain. But at the same time, I think this will be the second and LAST chance for those to turn to God for grace. Once the rapture occurs, I don’t think the roll call is over. You can still believe, you can still revoke the mark of the beast…but once you choose to take the mark (you won’t be able to buy, trade, anything without it under the anti-christ), you are done. You have chosen him over Jesus and for that, Jesus will turn his back on you before his father.
For the people who are left behind who “thought” they were saved or good enough or whatever, it will either be an eye-opener or like you said, they will think that the “bad” people were taken instead.
Now to those who are not familiar or just think the whole book of Revelations is a bunch of junk.. then ok, mock, do what you will with what I have to say….. If you like to read, then I suggest the Left Behind series….and if you don’t believe what the story is trying to reveal, then you would at least get your kicks out of it for the “leave you hanging” parts… Some of the things in the series was a little far fetched for me, but like I said….not all followers believe in the same interpretations.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this
USinUK
You are right in that part of my ability to avoid getting sick is my hermit type of lifestyle. I played poker last night, but this will be two weeks that I have been in solitary every day except the shoot last weekend. I’m afraid that we night have created two little Howard Hughes in that both my kids are obsessive about clean hands.
Did you read the article I posted from the Jewish World News? He wasn’t a Conservative pundit. Yellow journalism is as old as the invention of newspapers. Do you really believe that it never exists in the media that play such a huge guide to so many people? Can you honestly look at Comedy Central and see no propaganda based entertainment? Do you really believe that Sarah Palin was treated completely fairly by the media? The sad thing is that your non-acceptance of the facts does nothing to take away the credibility of anyone claiming bias in the news. However, the fact that news is inheriantly bias does a lot to hurt your credibility when you chose to ignore that bias.
the only bias the entertainment industry has is their bias towards making a profit. period.
If that were the case, The Passion of the Christ made 370 million, one of the top grossing movies of all time, but it was completely shunned by the Hollywood elite and yet The Last Temptation of Christ was a box office flop, but was praised by the Hollywood elite and the mainstream media.
I have been researching a documentary about the liberal takeover of TV between the years of 1968 to 1972. Out of the top money makers in those years, almost all were canceled to be replaced by extremely liberal and much less profitable shows. Out of all the shows that replaced more conservative, extremely profitable shows, only All In The Family turned a profit as high as the show it replaced. (Pettycoat Junction) Mayberry RFD was not topped in profitability until M.A.S.H. came along, and that was mostly because M.A.S.H. produced more episodes.
And BTW. You are in strong opposition to one of the biggest TV producers of all time: Norman Lear. He openly admits that his shows had a very liberal and biased message. And those were the very same lower profit shows that replaced the more family and conservative oriented shows of the 1960s.
All those enormously profitable shows (that are still bringing premium sponsors to the table on Nik at Nite) were monsters of profitability but were pulled for the sake of the take over of the mainstream media by an extremely liberal voice. It was nothing about money and all about ideological indoctrination through overt propaganda.
NONE of the constant string of anti-Bush, anti Iraq war movies made a decent profit while more traditional films continued to clean up at the box office. How many Syriana’s did Hollyhood produce that were complete fall on your face flops? The old standard was money. Saving Private Ryan brought back WWII movies and most copycats made a fortune. Then Bush Derangement Syndrome set in and the new motivation wasn’t profit, it was a slobbering hate for anything Bush. Millions and millions down the tubes but they kept trying.
There is an entire industry of film makers that have shunned the Hollywood / Academy Award elite to produce more conservatives movies that are shown in small theaters and churches. Without the constant prodding of the American Public by the main stream media to watch what Hollywierd produces, they still make more profit than most Hollywood blockbusters. Hollywood thought it was crushing an opposing voice with what they did to Gibson, but they succeeded in launching an industry that is beginning to compete for their dollars.
No. You are wrong. If it was all about profit, we would be watching Old Andy Taylor giving advice to Oppie Taylor, who had his own son and who was the present sheriff of Mayberry.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this
yep … it was the Duomo …
http:// photos. igougo. com/images/p20850-Florence-TheDuomoFresco.jpg
http:// lh6.ggpht.com/ akxUybC2n4E/SIYEbF8LzEI/AAAAAAAAA-U/QLlgXIALn-w/IMG7094.JPG
http:// www.burkepaterson.com/ bmad/uploaded_images/ Florence-duomo-fresco.jpg-719697.jpg
By Troglodyke
February 5, 2009 11:19 AM | Link to this
On the topic in general, I get really tired of hearing those who belong to the majority religion of the country, who have passed laws requiring others to observe their traditions, and who even have a state holiday dedicated to their highest of holy days would have the gall to insist that they are persecuted.
THANK YOU! This is so true. Xtians in America are NOT persecuted! They are worshipped. Even the fake ones get away with murder.
Don’t feel bad, I have met almost no true atheists. They either believe in ghosts, ESP or like you, the hocus pocus of beliveing that the movement of stars only affect the lives of specific people born at specific times.
You haven’t met the right ones, is all. ALL of the above is unproven, and unbelievable. I am an atheist that does not substitute a monotheistic belief with something else.
It is as if all the “non-believers” are waiting on the rapture to occur and take all the “Bible beaters” away…let me ask a question….if that were to occur in our lifetime (I believe in the rapture, I just don’t know when it will happen)….millions of people disappearing in the blink of an eye….what would you do if you were left behind? Would you say “It’s about time the “crazy” people left”..or would your heart skip a beat and wonder “What if I was wrong?”
First of all, if this ridiculous event did happen (which it never will), a lot less people would be “gone in an instant” than you think. Just thinking you are a Xtian does not make you one…i imagine a lot of people would be disappointed, thinking that they were going to be raptured. I know a lot of people are completely deluded into thinking they are “good Xtians.” Most of them are decidedly NOT.
Secondly, yes, it would be nice to be left in a secular world. Which, unfortunately, would not happen, because all the deluded left-behind people who thought they’d be gone will just continue to preach the crap. BUT, there would be less people on the planet, so that would be great.
By Gale
February 5, 2009 11:22 AM | Link to this
KevinA: “43% of women have abortions.” Where is this number from? I find it a bit unbelievable.
Mara, while I am glad to be included in the Austrian company’s list of hard workers, the idea is flawed. There is a lot more to astrological personality than sun sign. I know people in each of those signs that are definitely not hardworking. Funny though.
By Frustrated
February 5, 2009 11:23 AM | Link to this
US—-
HAHA…as for the 2nd coming, if Christ really is going to come back like a thief in the night, most thieves don’t say “look for these signs before I arrive!!”…..I can honestly say I have never thought of it that way…
I have always thought of the comparison as “you don’t know when it will happen”… And as far as signs of the time, I think people need to stop looking for them. Either you believe or you don’t, you want to learn and accept or you don’t.. It’s as easy as that. If you believe, then you shouldn’t be worrying over when it will happen. And if you don’t believe, well, then you don’t think it will happen, so why worry over it.
To me, sure the Ten Commandments are important, the Rapture, Millenium, wrath, etc etc are important in things to come… But it all boils down to “Where do you stand?” I stand on my rock…Jesus is my guide and I just put all my faith into him. I know he is going to catch me and forgive me when I mess up and ask for help and forgiveness. I don’t take advantage of that, I still try to lead a “Christ-like” life….but I am not perfect… I let out cuss words when I am mad, I don’t go to church every Sunday, I think bad thoughts of someone who has something I want….but I am human….I am sinful, I sin everyday.. God knows it, I know it, every Christian out there knows it. Whether they are willing to admit that they are just as sinful as the next is their own pride standing in the way… My main job as a follower is to teach others about Jesus and what he has to offer. Not to lecture them on what they do wrong everyday, I have enough faults of my own to sort out.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 11:26 AM | Link to this
Gale
That’s a cop out. I have no reason to believe that Astrology is not a religion. The reasons that several have offered are that there are no astrology churches. Lots of religions don’t have churches.
You believe in Astrology. You believe that it can guide your life even though there is absolutely zero scientific proof that it can. What about that is not religious? To be honest, I see much more credibility in Christianity than I do Astrology. I have seen the power of prayer work. I have never seen a person’s life guided by a distant star, except maybe the three Wise Men.
Offer any reason why astrology is not a religion. Can you give me anything about astrology that is not identical to many of the world’s religions?
By American Woman
February 5, 2009 11:28 AM | Link to this
Frustrated, I hope you’re feeling better. HATE the flu! I always get a flu shot, but that’s no guarantee. Day-care germs are the worst. When my little ones were little, I spent a ridiculous amount of time being sick. Over time, my immune system got stronger, though, and now I almost never succumb to a virus, even when the kids do. (Forget Vitamin C supps, I think Zinc is stuff.)
I understand where you’re coming from with your beliefs. I used to be a Baptist, and I have no problem with people having faith and beliefs. I do believe, though, that if there is ONE GOD, then He is everybody’s God. I don’t think that a person born on another continent, speaking another language, and handed a different accounting of the history of God and man than the KJV, is going to HELL for ignoring the “real God.” If that person ever prayed to whatever his or her idea or understanding of God is, then he or she is praying to GOD — a concept inherent to the premise of there only being ONE — a Supreme Being who created everything and everybody. The idea that billions upon billions of souls would be shut out into the darkness or cast into everlasting flames because they didn’t have a “First Something of Something” protestant church down the street and read the same book as you did, just doesn’t strike me as plausible. I’m just sayin’.
As to the argument that your interpretations or understandings of God are correct, and no other interpretations or understandings are correct, I have to stop and say, Hmmmm…. How is it possible that ANY mortal mind can truly comprehend the mind of something so great as to be the Creator of everything? I don’t think it’s possible, and neither do the Christians. Hence, all the preaching about “FAITH.”
We don’t NEED to understand, we’re told. We just need to believe and have faith. This tenet is, in and of itself, and admission that we are too small to fully comprehend in our present state of being as flesh-bound mortals. Therefore, I accept that I cannot know all, which is what good little Christian girls are supposed to do. Where I become “bad” is when I point out the same in others.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 11:31 AM | Link to this
trog . . whatevver
Just thinking you are a Xtian does not make you one…
Gosh, you have the same spelling problems as this half wit who visits here sometimes. We laugh at him, too.
But actually, yes that is all it takes to be a Christian. That’s the problem. Any half wit can claim to be a Christain and who is to say that they are not?
By Frustrated
February 5, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this
Troglodyke—-
…..Just thinking you are a Christian does not make you one…..I totally agree. It is a personal relationship with Jesus…so without that relationship, then you are right, you are not a Christian…even if you think you are good enough.
And yes, a lot of people out there are making bad names for Christians…they go to church on Sunday to make their mark on the attendance sheet only. So that they can go out, make a fool of themselves and be able to reply “I’m a Christian, I go to church every Sunday, and you are a sinner”……I can agree with you on that.
But there are Christians out there doing the right thing too. We are not all out to point fingers…
AS far as the deluded left-behinders….. It will come to the point where it will be against the law to believe in anything other than to fall and worship the anti-christ. So for those believers that you fear who will continue to preach it, they will be killed if they preach it in the presence of the wrong person. The “Believing” will become more of an underground/black market scenario. You can’t buy/trade without the mark, so you will have to either get the mark, trade with other believers(black market kind of thinking), or starve to death.
So if the rapture were to occur during our lifetime…it will either scare you a little (because it actually happened when you were thinking it wouldn’t)….or please you a lot (a good bit of the “crazy” people are gone, and the rest will eventually be prohibited of speaking about it—-per the anti-christ.)
By Gale
February 5, 2009 11:54 AM | Link to this
TOJ, as I said before, I am not going to attempt to change your mind about astrology or anything else. It is a pointless exercise.
American woman, that sounds like tolerance. That was my idea of god, more or less, before I moved on. A loving creator will not cast out the many who have never known him by mere circomstance of birth. What I believe now is simply that we are all connected. If there is a god, it is all of the universe together in perfect unity. I think of Jesus as an enlightened soul and there have been many such. It is the duty of an enlightened soul to help others reach enlightenment. Without the enlightenment/perfection of all souls, there is no perfection. Try explaining that to our electorate when they just want the candidate to say s/he is a faithful Christian.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 5, 2009 11:59 AM | Link to this
JEWGUY Learn the difference betweeen kill and murder. They aren’t the same!
By Mara
February 5, 2009 12:01 PM | Link to this
TOJ - “If that were the case, The Passion of the Christ made 370 million, one of the top grossing movies of all time, but it was completely shunned by the Hollywood elite…”
considering how many of the ‘elite’ in Hollywood belong to the Jewish faith, that’s not surprising is it? As Leon Wieseltier noted: “In its representation of its Jewish characters, The Passion of the Christ is without any doubt an anti-Semitic movie, and anybody who says otherwise knows nothing, or chooses to know nothing, about the visual history of anti-Semitism, in art and in film. What is so shocking about Gibson’s Jews is how unreconstructed they are in their stereotypical appearances and actions. These are not merely anti-Semitic images; these are classically anti-Semitic images.”
Even so, it got good reviews from better than half of the mainstream critics and Roger Ebert gave it four out of four thumbsups. I don’t think “The Passion…” illustrates what you contend it illustrates, which is media bias. If any bias is indicated it would seem to be a bias on the part of jews not support a product that feeds hatred against them.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
“Did you read the article I posted from the Jewish World News?”
first of all, I looked up the Jewish World News and could only find a dot-org address … is that where you found the columnist? or did the article come from the Jewish World Review - which also features Ann Coulter, Joshua Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer and other conservative columnists???
as far as Comedy Central goes - I have no idea what is on CC other than the Daily Show, so I can’t answer that question. As for St. Sarah of the Tundra, I think the media did an excellent job of showing us exactly who she is, what she stands for and just how incapable she would be of sitting in the Oval Office, should the need arise.
Norman Lear - you’re pointing out Norman Lear as someone who “replaced family shows”??? All in the Family, Good Times, One Day at a Time and Sanford and Son - all of these shows were ABOUT family. They may not have been The Waltons, but they reflected the reality of the times.
As for The Last Temptation of vs. the Passion of - it’s amazing the difference when you don’t have people creating mass hysteria over a movie that they have never seen, causing the distributors to reduce the number of theaters in which it’s shown. Especially when these same people were then buying huge blocks of tickets for The Passion and taking their entire church to see it.
Meanwhile, you seem to forget that Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11 also outsold Syriana. So, that doesn’t really support your thesis.
Then, if you look at the top grossing movies of 2008, you have: Iron Man (he decides not to be a warmonger), Wall-E (all about protecting the environment), Horton Hears a Who! (Seuss’s classic about non-conformity), The Dark Knight, Hancock, Kung Fu Panda, Madagascar, 007 and Twilight. All that to say, I don’t think the public is staying away in droves from “liberal” movies. Fact is, “family movies” will almost always outsell grown-up movies like Syriana, Rendition, etc - they have a wider audience (how many 7-year olds do you know who would be interested in Blood Diamonds or Hotel Rwanda??).
Lastly, movies are just too danged expensive - folks would rather rent (no lines, no loud people next to you) or Wii or Tivo what they want to see. So, that also skews results.
“Without the constant prodding of the American Public by the main stream media to watch what Hollywierd produces, they still make more profit than most Hollywood blockbusters.”
you’re confusing profit with gross revenues - most movies never make a profit (or don’t until it goes onto cable). heck even It’s a Wonderful Life didn’t make a profit until it went into the public domain and Ted Turner played it non-stop. Since most Hollywood movies are millions more expensive than the smaller movies you’re talking about, the profit threshhold is a lot lower for them.
“No. You are wrong. If it was all about profit, we would be watching Old Andy Taylor giving advice to Oppie Taylor, who had his own son and who was the present sheriff of Mayberry.”
yep. that’s why the Law and Order and CSI franchises are just baaaaaarely holding on by their fingernails.
By Gale
February 5, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this
Frustrated, in your scenario about the aanti-christ and the mark, wouldn’t it be likely we would have a situation like the jews of Nazi society pretending a belief, but remaining jewish in their hearts? What of “christians” like that?
By Gandalf, the White!
February 5, 2009 12:11 PM | Link to this
Guy of Jewish Heritage? It wasn’t me who wants to kill OSAMA, BARRY Obama said that! He wants to sit down and talk with RAMADAMADINGDONG and Fidel or his brother and the scum bad Chavez! Hell, he would have sat down and drank with old CHEZ GUAVAMAN (intentionally mispelled, that guy was such a scumbag, maybe worse that joe stalin!)
So when the Iranians can launch a satellite, and are working on building a NUKULAR weapon, our great leader wants to sit down with them. DUM BASS by definition!
By American Woman
February 5, 2009 12:12 PM | Link to this
“You can’t buy/trade without the mark, so you will have to either get the mark, trade with other believers(black market kind of thinking), or starve to death.”
To be honest, I’m glad this story is still widely circulated. The bankers are the evil among us. (Don’t close Gitmo! Send the bankers there!) The move from cash to cards was touted as convenience, but it’s evolved to a completely Orwellian level. Everything we do, buy, eat, read, and everywhere we go is recorded in a digital database somewhere. Sure, it’s great for solving crimes, but the lack of privacy is creepy. “Would you like to save 10% with a Barnes & Noble card?” Why, so you can give my reading list to the government? (Patriot Act allows it.) No thanks, I’ll pay cash. With the rise in neo-fascism in recent decades, and government partnering up with big business — to DE-regulate them, and UBER-regulate YOU — I think privacy is more important now than ever.
YES, sisters and brothers, BE AFRAID! I’ll take no scan-able chip into MY body! But not because MEN (who use religion to control others) keep telling that story. It’s because I know MEN use lots of things to control others, and I never go down without a fight. {;->
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 12:13 PM | Link to this
USinUK
all that to say - if folks aren’t buying, it won’t stay in business. Example: the conservative NY Sun went bust last year - if folks wanted to get away from the “liberal” NYT, they could have but didn’t. Example: the conservative Washington Times only hangs on due to subsidies from Rev Moon. Example: CNN and MSNBC are still doing extremely well - all 3 cable stations saw increases in the Q4. if folks REALLY wanted to escape “liberal propaganda”, only FOX would be seeing the gains.
The NY Sun didn’t have the bank account of the NYT. The actual NYT newspaper hasn’t made a profit in years. The AJC makes a profit. The AJC is owned by the NYT. They also own about.com, a very profitable internet service. They just made a huge mistake of calling Bill O’Rielly a racist. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NYT is bought out by Newscorp. Would that be wrong? When the NYT bought the AJC, the Gwinnette Daily News was a huge competitor for Atlanta’s reading public. The Times bought the Daily News and shut them down. That’s how liberals handle their competition. I just hope that NewsCorp returns the favor.
Cable TV in general has picked up a lot of business because of the digital conversion. CNN got some of those people, but FOX is still blowing them away in almost every time block. FOX leveled off because of market saturation, but that doesn’t mean that CNN is picking up steam because they aren’t losing ground as badly as they were. MSNBC is a tax wriite off for NBC. They are a ratings disaster. Local cable rates for MSNBC are non-existent. Comcast offers MSNBC as a freeby. If you advertise on profitable channels, they will GIVE you time on MSNBC.
FOX News Special Report at 6 has beaten CBS Evening News in some markets on a continuing basis. That is a media first. Cable stations have never even competed with the big three.
Over all, the liberal media is losing viewers. Oddly enough, the installation of Obama by the liberal media has deeply hurt them. Jon Scott’s “News” show is falling off the charts. They won’t mock or make fun of democrats and they have built their audience on mocking and making fun of Republicans. Now they are all trying to just attack FOX and Rush, but they are finding that they are turning people to watch those shows and they are learning that democrats don’t pay their taxes and the vast majority of the “stimulus package” is nothing but the same old liberal crap they have been trying to push through for 8 years and most of it will do nothing for the economy.
I like Obama and i like what his installation is doing to the media and I LOVE how it is shinning a very bright light on those criminals that lead the party of George Wallace.
By Gale
February 5, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this
USinUK, you do what I will not, that is to spar with TOJ, which I might add, is like Godzilla sparing with Bambi. You should be ashamed. No,no, keep doing it, it is wonderfully amusing.
By Gandalf, the White!
February 5, 2009 12:25 PM | Link to this
Gale are you talking about Barry “The Anti-X” Oblama again? Please don’t! :-)
By Mara
February 5, 2009 12:30 PM | Link to this
TOJ - “Oddly enough, the installation of Obama by the liberal media has deeply hurt them. Jon Scott’s “News” show is falling off the charts.”
isn’t Jon Scott on FoxNews? Why is Obama’s election hurting a Fox program?
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this
USinUk
I got the Jewish writer from the reference section of Wikipedia. There were several. but oddly enough , you don’t hesitate to list people as not wanting to run away from liberalism because they are wanting to watch CNN. How does that work, girl? CNN is not biased, but then you admit that they are. I think the pig headed argument holds a lot of cred in your case. You know there is bias in the media and you would have to be a complete moron to not see what the media did to Palin. But you would rather die than give in to a conservative speaking the truth about what you believe.
Yes, family movies do much better than the Bush Derangement Syndrome movies. I guess that disproves what you were saying about the motivation being money.
Yes, non-Hollywood Movies are making a killing, not only because of the non-union influience and the God-like status of the accepted hollywood elite, but because they are actually well done films with great plots and great actors. Scary thing for the likes of Bradjolina and whatever empty heads that Hollywood is pushing.
The documentary that I have always wanted to produce would be a story about a conservative film maker trying to get funding from the same people that fund most of mainstream PBS. The problem is, there is nowhere for me to get funding to do that documentary and if it were produced, where in the mainstream could I get it aired.
Do you not see the irony in that?
By Sunshine
February 5, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this
Wow, look at the fireworks around here this week!! Great post ladies! I just don’t have the energy this week. Seems the Bambino will be here tomorrow! I will be a mommy, still kinda hard to believe! I am trying to get packed for the hospital and finish up filing our taxes! I will let you all know how it goes as soon as I can! Keep fighting the good fight! And just for the fun of it: TOJ, my son will be a baby tomorrow, but not until he is born. Call him what you want but words have meaning and unless your name is Webster you don’t get to decide the meanings of words just because you disagree! Look up the word fetus, all the women here are using the word correctly. You should try it, the English language is a beautiful thing!
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
criminey, TOJ - you’ve lost all pretense of accuracy, haven’t you??? do you just not care?
the AJC is owned by Cox Enterprises. The New York Times is owned by the The New York Times Company. the twain doth not meet.
as far as how “liberals” do competition … you’re kidding, right? ever heard of a little shop called Wal-Mart? The same goes for any other company that completes a buy-out - they consolidate, then go after the competition (it’s why they do buy-outs in the first place).
I didn’t say that Fox doesn’t have a larger audience - I said that ALL THREE gained pretty much the same proportion of viewers during Q4. If people were shunning “liberal outlets”, then only Fox would have seen a gain.
I don’t know who John Scott is, so don’t really know what you’re talking about and can’t comment.
As for criminals leading a party - ever heard the expression, “never point your finger because you’ll always have 4 pointing back at you”??? given the shenanigans of this last administration and the folks who have gone before the courts, I would really be reticent to crow too loudly if I were a republican.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 12:39 PM | Link to this
hoooooraaaayyyyyyyyyyyy Sunshine!!!
BREATHE!!! (pantpantpant) … now, deeeeeeep cleansing breath.
;-)
good luck tomorrow!! we’ll all be thinking about you!!
can’t wait to hear all about the little surfer dude!
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 12:55 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
“I got the Jewish writer from the reference section of Wikipedia.”
this is why you include links. you want me to validate the guy, but you don’t (won’t) say who he is with …
“you don’t hesitate to list people as not wanting to run away from liberalism because they are wanting to watch CNN. How does that work, girl? CNN is not biased, but then you admit that they are.”
ah, no. nice try, though. Fox is biased to the right - you know it, I know it, we all know it - they admit it. If CNN and MSNBC are as liberal as you say and people want to flee “liberal propaganda”, then their ratings would have remained stagnant, not risen at the same rate that Fox’s did. My pointing that out does not mean that I think they are liberal - in fact, it does just the opposite - it illuminates that they are not.
“Yes, family movies do much better than the Bush Derangement Syndrome movies.”
and family movies will do better than documentaries about dolphins. and family movies will do better than even the best rom-coms - why? the same reason McDonalds will have better sales than a falafel stand - larger target market vs. smaller.
“Yes, non-Hollywood Movies are making a killing, not only because of the non-union influience and the God-like status of the accepted hollywood elite, but because they are actually well done films with great plots and great actors”
and without CGI and digi-animation and on-location shots and expensive orchestration and all the other things that make a blockbuster expensive.
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
the AJC is owned by Cox Enterprises. The New York Times is owned by the The New York Times Company. the twain doth not meet.
and Cox, by the way, is a 98% privately held by the Cox family, so don’t even try to say that the NYT company owns Cox.
Seriously. Google. It’s your friend. Try looking things up sometime before you start spouting.
By American Woman
February 5, 2009 1:01 PM | Link to this
(with moistening eyes) Sunshine, NO FEAR! You’re going to be GREAT! Men are such p_s compared to child-bearing women! YOU are mighty and you are strong, and tomorrow, you’ll see just how much!
By Frustrated
February 5, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this
Gale-
I understand what you are saying, but the times are going to be completely different. It stakes it out in the Bible, it warns you….choose the mark, choose eternal damnation (not in those exact words)…..Kind of like selling your soul to the devil….once it’s sold, you can’t get it back.
It always makes me wonder how deep your faith runs if you are able to hide it. Sure, the Jews who “pretended not to be Jewish” did so for the sake of living…but there is no greater sacrifice than to be a martyr for His name. Granted it would still scare the poop out of me, if held at gun point and asked if I believed (saying yes meaning the trigger were to be pulled)..I would still say yes..Why would I pick living here in sin versus living for eternity in the purest form possible?
You turn your back, he will turn his
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this
USinUk
LOL!! that was a funny post. Appointee after appointee have had tax problems. We are not talking about secondary congressmen, we are talking about the leaders of your party. Charlie Rangle just paid all his past due taxes without paying a single cent in penalties, even though thousands were owed. Less than a month and they can’t find a democrat who isn’t up to their elbows in corruption. But of course the fact that almost non of the problems are even mentioned by NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN or MSNBC.
On NBC’s website today, there is one story, if you look really closely that mentions the fact that Daschill was caught, but the crux of the story is this:
President Obama, who swept to the White House on a message of hope and inspiration, is struggling to contend with a different emotion among Americans — anger.
LOL!! That’s how they offer the news that the past leader of your party didn’t pay his taxes and had to withdraw from contention for the position that was offered. If as many Republicans had been caught with their pants down as has the democrats, it would be the greatest scandal ever. Every lead story would be about Republican corruption. And you don’t see a bias.
I know to you, accusations of Republicans carry much more weight than admissions by democrats. Hell, Clinton’s pal was caught stealing documents from the national archives and it hardly made the news. He was never punished in any way even though he admitted to committing a felony. In the meanwhile, a major Bush aid was convicted of … so what was Libby convicted of? Remember the coverage? That was two years ago.
The AJC was bought by COX when their offices were on Means Street. That was around 1994. I know that because when they acquired the AJC from the NYT, they also expanded their offices so I had to pack up and move my entire edit suite to a new office in another building there on Means Street.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 1:29 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Fox is biased to the right - you know it, I know it, we all know it - they admit it. If CNN and MSNBC are as liberal as you say and people want to flee “liberal propaganda”, then their ratings would have remained stagnant, not risen at the same rate that Fox’s did.
WTF? Are you completely out of your mind? CNN does not hold a candle to FOX and they have lost massive viewership since FOX came on line. One more friggin’ time: FOX reached market saturation. That saturation puts FOX in competition with non cable networks, for the first time in history. O’Rielly’s show is number two in overall viewership on cable. That makes a political commentary show blanking entertainment shows. Do you have any idea how significant that fact is?
CNN has sustained a normal growth since it’s beginning, went though a massive loss during the late 90’s and early 2000’s and once FOX reached market saturation in around 04, CNN began to regain their growth. They are going to tell you that they are growing faster than FOX, but that is a slight of hand. They are dominated by FOX on almost every show. Occasionally, when cable news offers 24/7 coverage of an issue, such as the election. CNN gets the liberals that usually watch the big three, and when they happens they sometimes compete, but on a day to day basis, they are not even a shadow of FOX.
And you seem to think that an indoctrinated public would shun their indoctrination. So tell me one more time, how do yuou think the mainstream media traeted Sarah Palin?
By American Woman
February 5, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this
People who live in glass houses… channeling Dick Morris? (From Media Matters) …. Bill O’Reilly hosted syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Dick Morris, who repeatedly criticized Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner for his failure to pay Social Security taxes several years ago. Morris stated, “I have a huge problem with Geithner,” later adding, “How could you trust him?” However, during the broadcast, neither O’Reilly nor Morris acknowledged Morris’ own history of tax delinquency.
USA Today included Morris in an April 2008 report on “big names” who are tax delinquents:
Dick Morris: The former political adviser to Bill Clinton is a Fox News analyst. The IRS filed a $1.5 million tax lien against him in 2003. The state of Connecticut reports Morris owes $452,367 in back taxes and penalties.
Morris says he’s reached an agreement with Connecticut and his name will be removed from the next delinquency list. He says he is committed to paying his taxes: “Following a difficult period in my life, I fell into arrears. But since then, I have paid almost $3 million in state and federal taxes.”
According to the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (DRS), Morris owed the state $443,915 as of November 1, 2007, making him the state’s sixth-biggest tax delinquent at that time. He was also listed as one of Connecticut’s 10 biggest tax delinquents as of October 1, 2007, and April 1, 2007. Morris is not cited by DRS on its recent list of “The Top 100 Delinquent Income Taxpayer Accounts” in Connecticut as of November 1, 2008.
My comment: No squawking about tax cheat Morris’s moral charactter? He’s unable to forgive a self-employed Democrat for getting less than $50K in the hole to the IRS (a common pitfall of being self-employed in America), yet he justifies his own MILLION AND A HALF arrears to “a difficult period.” Well, it’s all very subjective, isn’t it? (Why isn’t Madoff in jail? Because there’s a different set of standards for greedy rich white guys, that’s why.) Just sayin’.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 1:37 PM | Link to this
Sunshine
TOJ, my son will be a baby tomorrow,
I know that’s what you believe. I also know that it is completely legal for you to order the death of that thing that is about to become a child. Would that be OK? That “thing” has no more rights than a bacteria. Doesn’t that make you feel great about what you believe in?
I profusely apologize to your unborn son about referring to him in the same uncaring, inhuman tone as his own mother. He isn’t a thing. He is a living person who should have all the civil rights as any other living human.
Try as you might, don’t expect me to feel guilty about having more respect for your unborn child than you do.
By AW
February 5, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this
Other Jack is such a sweet, sensitive guy… offering Sunshine well-wishes and encouragement as she embarks upon the potentially terrifying and difficult task of bearing and raising a child. swoon…. Makes ya wonder why that woman didn’t faithfully endure her challenges with Mr. Warm, Fuzzy, and Utterly Perfect, doesn’t it? I mean, what WAS she thinking?
By Mara
February 5, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this
2/5/09 National Prayer Breakfast -
Barack Obama - “There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all…”
“We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Torah commands, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” In Islam, there is a hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 1:57 PM | Link to this
American Woman
The only leadership role Morris was ever given was as an adviser to Bill Clinton. Do you honestly not see a difference between Morris and the parade of tax evading democratic leaders?
Sunshine
All differences aside, I wish you all the good luck in having your baby.
But I would say, when you look into his eyes tomorrow and all those incredible feelings of parenthood come over you, think back on today and the fact that at that time, the party that you and so many here support thinks that the very life of that precious child was worthless.
There are few things that point out the barbarity of the Pro-choice movement like looking into the eyes of a new born baby.
By The Other Jack
February 5, 2009 2:02 PM | Link to this
AW
I didn’t bring it up. I didn’t pick the fight.
Sunshine has lots of encouragement from almost everyone here. I’m a big fan of the kid. I just thank God he survived. I just wonder what he would think if he found that his own mother refused to refer to him as human before he was born. Do you think that she will be happy to explain that to him?
By American Woman
February 5, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this
TOJ, Oh, I’m sorry. I thought we were discussing how “FAIR AND BALANCED” the “Fox News” channel is. My bad.
By AW
February 5, 2009 2:19 PM | Link to this
“I’m a big fan of the kid. I just thank God he survived.”
Dude… it’s none of my business, and don’t take this the wrong way, but you really are a D!CK.
By Gale
February 5, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this
TOJ, after your comments to Sunshine, you deserved that comment from AW. To use Gandalf’s term, STFU about abortion when you are speaking to a woman about to give birth. Whether natural or a C-section, Sunshine needs all our good wishes in this endeavor. I have no doubt Sunshine’s child will be raised to have more tolerance than you do and will understand the difference between a fetus and a child.
By That_Is_News?
February 5, 2009 2:23 PM | Link to this
but you really are a D!CK.
By JustaJew
February 5, 2009 4:31 PM | Link to this
JEWGUY Learn the difference betweeen kill and murder. They aren’t the same!
GtG, I completely agree with you. However, would it interest you to know that that particular prohibition when literally translated from the original Hebrew lexicon actually translates as “murder” and not “kill” Does that blow your mind?
By USinUK
February 5, 2009 4:56 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
” If as many Republicans had been caught with their pants down as has the democrats, it would be the greatest scandal ever. Every lead story would be about Republican corruption. And you don’t see a bias.”
yeah. you’re right - Geithner had NO coverage of his tax problems. Daschle had NO coverage of his tax problems (and he definitely did NOT have an editorial in the NYT saying that he should step down). the other woman (whose name escapes me) had NO coverage of her tax problems. And what color is the sky on your planet again??
the reason the coverage hasn’t lasted as long is that, once they came to light, they either were confirmed (Geithner) and it was no longer an issue - or they excused themselves (Daschle and the woman) and it was no longer an issue. in PR-speak, it’s called taking oxygen out of the fire.
“So tell me one more time, how do yuou think the mainstream media traeted Sarah Palin?”
wow. do you have reading comprehension difficulties or something? I already answered that question today - scroll up. she isn’t worth the effort of repeating myself.
what am I saying - you obviously have reading comprehension problems, since you seem to think the MSNBC article was about voter anger with Obama. the article comes from today’s WaPo - the paragraph following the lede:
Livid about their own vanished jobs and decimated retirement accounts, people across the country are being subjected to story after story about the excesses of the wealthy: the $18 billion paid out in Wall Street bonuses last year, the $35,000 chest of drawers for the Merrill Lynch chief executive’s office, the planned Wells Fargo retreat in Las Vegas. This week, they got a new target: an Obama Cabinet nominee who had earned millions and failed to pay all of his taxes.
“I think everybody needs to be held to task right now,” said Keith Igoe, 46, a roofer in suburban Denver who was an Obama campaign volunteer. Referring to Thomas A. Daschle, who stepped aside Tuesday as Obama’s nominee for health and human services secretary and White House health policy czar, Igoe said: “I don’t know I’d hold him any less accountable than anybody else.”
so, don’t pee your pants with excitement - people are pi$$ed off, but at the general state of things, not obama specifically.
By USinUK
February 6, 2009 8:05 AM | Link to this
On behalf of the W2W irregulars …
GO, SUNSHINE, GO!!!
sending you loads of mad-mama-mojo and good wishes!!!
woowoo!!! (the first W2W tot since I’ve been here)
By USinUK
February 6, 2009 8:33 AM | Link to this
oof. nearly 600,000 people off the non-farm payrolls … unemployment rises to 7.6%.
good luck, one and all, here’s hoping that we all stay off that list this year!!
By Its Friday--In Honor of Sunshine, ya'all
February 6, 2009 8:44 AM | Link to this
A woman gives birth to a baby, and afterwards, the doctor comes in, and he says, “I have to tell you something about your baby.”
The woman sits up in bed and says, “What’s wrong with my baby, Doctor? What’s wrong???”
The doctor says, “Well, now, nothing’s wrong, exactly, but your baby is a little bit different. Your baby is a hermaphrodite.”
The woman says, “A hermaphrodite…what’s that???”
The doctor says, “Well, it means your baby has the …er… features … of a male and a female.”
The woman turns pale. She says, “Oh my god! You mean it has a penis…AND a brain?”
By USinUK
February 6, 2009 8:50 AM | Link to this
hooray Friday!! funny AND well-chosen (I think Sunshine would love it)
new topic is up (kinda)
By Gale
February 6, 2009 9:05 AM | Link to this
USinUK. Wicked girl. It is like the brain transplant that is less expensive when the brain is female. Don’t laugh so soon, boys. It is because the female brain is used.
By USinUK
February 6, 2009 9:18 AM | Link to this
Gale -
hahahahaha … oh, I’m SO using that one …
By Sunshine
February 6, 2009 10:13 AM | Link to this
Good Morning all!
We are off to the Hospital! Thanks for the laughs and the encouragement!!! What a great cheering section I have, THANKS! I can feel the love! Won’t be home till Monday at least I’ll have Mr. Sunshine give an update then! I am not even going to address TOJ’s extra special douche-tastic-ness from yesterday. Thanks for sticking up for me ladies, I mean jeez could he be any MORE of a D!CK?!
Oh well, happy day! See you on the flip side!