Seriously, he and others who claim not to believe in "God, gods, or godesses" may not be called religious, but they still have a belief system, and IMO their belief system is just as capable of causing wars, etc. as is any religion.
It seems a shame that what I would consider "common sense" would even have to be voiced as if it's an edgey, controversial opinion. But such is the state of our current political culture, I guess.
Kinda reminds me of the paranoid, conformist '50s.
And then there was the over-reaction to that period in the '60s. I wonder what the reaction is going to be to the self-righteous, religious right's hegemony in another 6 or 8 years?
Garth: Lame question, but I'll humor you. My premise is that if Feinstein was the President and not just a working stiff, he most certainly would too try to impose his belief system on America. What's the difference between that and George Bush praying except that Bush isn't a bigot about Feinstein not praying and Feinstein is a bigot about Bush praying. He's not even the president and he's already trying to impose his belief system on America and suckers like you are lapping it up.
History? How about Hitler? He was a follower of the Nietzsche belief system. Nietzsche's "religion" was existentialism. You don't think it's possible for some atheistic ruler of a powerful country to decide that the rest of the world must embrace his stupidity or die? Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Wasn't Sadaam Hussein's mistreatment of his own people largely due to the fact that he wasn't a devout Muslim?
Freud was a godless bigot as well. Because of him, every college student in the country has to sit through many Christian bashing lectures if they want to call themselves educated. You have a mental block; you can't see that anybody can be a bigot, not just religious people.
quote: My premise is that if Feinstein was the President and not just a working stiff, he most certainly would too try to impose his belief system on America.
No basis from evidence or proof, just baseless supposition. And one that I would be willing to bet is influenced sizeably by your 'bigotry' against atheists, such as was indicated freely by your earlier post, ie., "I must be really prejudiced; I wouldn't trust my wallet to the nun OR the atheist."
Strike One.
quote: What's the difference between that and George Bush praying except that Bush isn't a bigot about Feinstein not praying and Feinstein is a bigot about Bush praying. He's not even the president and he's already trying to impose his belief system on America and suckers like you are lapping it up.
More of the S.O.S. (same old ....) and accompanied with a positive assumption re: Bush, and an equally baseless assumption of folks like me 'lapping it up', ie., believing it with no premise for doing so.
Strike Two.
Point about Hitler and other atheistic tyrants (altho' Hitler did believe in a 'god' as it were; a psychotic mish-mash of Catholicism/Nordic spiritualism leading to Aryan 'supremacy', and probably mixed in with a healthy dose of dope) well taken, but I did refer to 'history overall', and Harvey said 'most', not 'all' wars being about or enforcing religion. Even with the athiest examples given, the basic premise still stands.
Strike Three. You should be out by now, but I'll give you another college try. And speaking of college:
quote: Because of him (Fraud-err Freud :)-->), every college student in the country has to sit through many Christian bashing lectures if they want to call themselves educated.
Man, you haven't attended college courses much, have you? Did you have a bad experience with a anal-retentive psych prof while in your stint at the local community college? But seriously, this supposed 'wide spread anti-Christian bashing' by university and college professors is largely a myth within your own mind. Sporatic instances here and there, yes, but not everywhere. And there are a lot of students who consider themselves educated without ever having to sit through any Freud psychology class.
And what does that have to do with the point raised by Feinstein?
Strike Four! You're out!
Better luck in the Little Leagues my friend. :P-->
Garth set out this topic for discussion and asks what you think, pro or con, then proceeds to rip up johniam for replying?
Hardly a way to win friends and influence folks.
:D-->
quote:George Aar said:
It seems a shame that what I would consider "common sense" would even have to be voiced as if it's an edgey, controversial opinion. But such is the state of our current political culture, I guess.
Kinda reminds me of the paranoid, conformist '50s.
And then there was the over-reaction to that period in the '60s. I wonder what the reaction is going to be to the self-righteous, religious right's hegemony in another 6 or 8 years?
geo.
Some of the stuff he said was indeed common sense. But it was used also as cover to promote his own bigotries.
I wonder what the reaction is going to be to the self-righteous, religious right's hegemony in another 6 or 8 years?
From those who hate them, it will be pretty much the same reaction they had in the late '80s and '90s when the "self-righteous, religious right" first realized they actually had some power as a group.
As for Harvey, I see nothing more than a typical bunch of pious athiest platitudes strung together in a nice coherant stream of thought. Pretty much like TWI did for their arguments to make them sound good.
I have read pretty much the same reasonings used by the ACLU any time they throw a lawsuit at some government unit to force christianity out. Now the ACLU is attacking the US military for supporting boy scouts and a state abstinence site because some teen girls credit God for giving them the moral strength to abstain.
Back to Harvey, he said he doesn't believe in gods or goddesses or the afterlife. Yet he prays, because of the known scientific "laws" and humanistic principals. Pychological reasons really, my dad, an athiest, didn't pray to nothing. In my book, if you're praying, your believing in something, no matter how convoluted you reason it out.
Harvey says we are lucky enough to live in a country where we have freedom of religion and from religion. This is true and I agree with it.
But then after having sat himself on the high moral ground, he then gets his digs in on catholics (must'a been raised as one) and religion in general. Then he pulls out a few more pious athiest platitudes to finish. Again, it very much reminds me of the typical well rehearsed TWI spiel.
He really said nothing new, You've heard it all before. If you spent any time in TWI at all, you learned how to set up an argument in your favor. Are there bad nuns? Yes, but what is the ratio of bad to good nuns? Are there bad Priests, what is their bad to good ratio. Are there good athiests? Yes but how many bad ones are there out there who believing in nothing, make themselves subject to no morals and set themselves no bounds for low and evil works. (See how I reset the parameters a little and get the opposite result?)
Shirley Harvey is proselytizing his un-religion just as we did our VPWeirwillisms. (And don't call me surely.)
quote:johniam said:
Seriously, he and others who claim not to believe in "God, gods, or godesses" may not be called religious, but they still have a belief system, and IMO their belief system is just as capable of causing wars, etc. as is any religion.
And GarthP2000 replied:
Johniam,
And history overall backs your claim up ... how?
How about them communists, Garth?
They claim there is no god, but the state replaces god and the political system is the religion.
I guess no one expects the Stalin, Mao, or Uncle Ho inquisition either.
Russia - estimated 30 to 50 million dead
China - another 50 to 70 mil
Several million by Communists in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Plus a dead cast of many more from various communist plagued countries around the world.
And all in the last 100 years, probably killing more people in that time than all the religions thru all history. Plus it seems in a typical communist takeover they kill a lot of the teachers, professionals, professors, politicians and landowners. (Many of whom supported the communists through the revolution.)
(So many flaws to address here, so little time. :)-->)
quote: Garth set out this topic for discussion and asks what you think, pro or con, then proceeds to rip up johniam for replying?
Hardly a way to win friends and influence folks.
No more than you in your posts here, my friend. No more than you. ;)--> Besides, what I 'rip up' is what I see to be the illogic of the content of what he posts. And its no more and no less than in any form of a pro-con debate. Ie., you posts your thoughts, and you takes your chances.
Strike One.
quote: I have read pretty much the same reasonings used by the ACLU any time they throw a lawsuit at some government unit to force christianity out. Now the ACLU is attacking the US military for supporting boy scouts and a state abstinence site because some teen girls credit God for giving them the moral strength to abstain.
Same old, same old argument (read 'empty whine') about some ACLU Plot to 'make Christianity illegal'. Makes about as much sense as that old refrain about the 1962 Supreme Court ruling against mandated school prayer making prayer illegal. -->. And the reason the ACLU is going after the military's situation with the scouts is because the scouts require (yes Virginia, I said require) the scouts to believe in God, any god. Which leaves atheists OUT. And that is a no-no for a tax payer funded government organization, such as the military, to do that. Which is based on the very Constitutional reasoning of government supposed to being religiously neutral. Or, to put it simply -- Separation of Church and State!
Strike Two.
quote: But then after having sat himself on the high moral ground, he then gets his digs in on catholics (must'a been raised as one) and religion in general.
Didn't really listen to what he said about the Catholic Church now, didya? Hhmmmm, now what specific item was he referring to? Hmmmm? Ahh yes, Catholic priests. Specific Catholic priests who were raping young kids, and the Catholic Church setting up a slush fund to pay of the families of the victims. And I do believe quite a few of us here on the Greasespot were throwing 'digs' in their direction for the same reason. And I'd be willing to bet, if I search deeply enough, that I would find a few 'digs' from you too, I wager ;)-->
Strike Three.
I'd nail some of the other questionable points you raised, but three strikes is three strikes, and its getting late for me here. So, you're out!
You'd think that there would be folks here that are better at baseball, or something.
Nahh, I changed my mind, as there is one more point I gotta raise. And that addresses that old refrain about the atheist-communist connection not-so-subtely brought up by Dabobbaba. I too, used to believe in that connection, where atheism (materialism and all) led to, or was compatible with communism, yadayadayada. Then I actually met, talked to, and got to know quite a few atheists personally or over the email/internet, (which brings up the question of how many of you guys did the same thing) and I was astounded in what I found out re: the political/economic leanings of atheists as a whole. As in there IS no one-size-fits-all leanings in the atheist community. (There is an oft-used statement about organizing atheists is like trying to herd cats. That should tell you something right there.) However, upon closer look, if there can be said to be the largest group in the atheist world in this area, it would have to be the Ayn Rand Objectivist model of the Libertarian philosophy. And many things one can say about Ayn Rand/Objectivism, but Communist/Socialist they ain't. Not by a LONG shot. ... Neil Boortz anyone?
And by the way, the majority of those whom the Communists slaughtered wasn't for them being religious. It was either speaking out against the regime/getting in the way of the regime/or some other political/power related/other dictator related reasons. Much like any dictatoship does when the sadistic leader wants to flex his muscles/eliminate any possible competition. And your point re: "They claim there is no god, but the state replaces god and the political system is the religion." is quite a bit of a puzzling statement. I mean, if they didn't believe in God, why would they come up with a system to replace that which they didn't believe in? --> Its not like they set up Communist Churches or styles of worship. Again, no more than any other kind of dictatorship, yet its the Communists that are accused of being 'the State's replacement for God'.
So, Strike Four, and NOW you are out!
Ya do need more practice in the batters pen, my man. :D-->
I have a little different take on the whole Communist/religion thingy than Garth.
I'm quite sure that Communism did replace religion in the Soviet Union and China. And that National Socialism performed the same function in Germany. It was their religion. The state became the provider for all of life's needs, just as ALMIGHTY GOD had earlier. They changed the script a little, but the bottom line remained the same "Pay your obeisance to God, or suffer the consequences". They just had a little different form of theology. The coersion and brutality remained pretty regular for religious zealotry, albeit horrendously more efficient, due to modern technology.
Anytime "faith" trumps reason, I get jumpy. Whether it's to an invisible Holy Thunderer, or to a benevolent, vague, but all powerful "State", rest assured, trouble is brewing.
And just "for fun" (ala Roy), here's a snippet from Richard Dawkins to chew on:
If the ACLU wasn't around, who would be out there defending The Bill of Rights? The government? The legal system? The church?
For all their faults and excesses (which there may be), I'm glad somebody cares enough about the constitution to do something to make sure it's enforced.
ReL"Back to Harvey, he said he doesn't believe in gods or goddesses or the afterlife. Yet he prays, because of the known scientific "laws" and humanistic principals....In my book, if you're praying, your believing in something, no matter how convoluted you reason it out."
I have to agree with you! That didn't make any sense to me either. But still.. if that's what HE feels comfortable with, that's OK with me. I bow my head for instance while people are praying. It's showing respect.
George, good points about communism becoming the religion of ruling elite. So often, rulers are full of it (meaning their ability to articulate the unseen which is hoped for… and thereby mobilize the faith many). History is replete with examples. We know many of them as the thugs and tyrants of the ages… but they appear in another form, as well – those who do good.
Dr. King was such a person. The Civil Rights movement was a mass movement of those who heard and held a dream. The bigotry in America stood in stark contrast to the dream that King fleshed out with mere words.
When I listened to the link that Garth put up, Harvey so aptly seemed to say; “You can have your beliefs in God, but keep them out of my country!”
Sounds contemporary. Sounds like what many think is the virtue of America. But is it? Is it virtuous and is it American???
What if Martin Luther King lived in Harvey’s version of America, today…. His speech would have been re-named “I had a dream, but they wouldn’t let me talk about it on TV”.
Yes, he would have had to say something like… “I have a THEORY…. A theory that all men are created equal by their creator – but I have no scientific basis for that statement (and neither did the Founding Fathers of this pathetic nation!!!)… and since I am trying to get legislation enacted in America, I can NOT appeal to the authority of God – I must appeal to the mind of the scientific man! I appeal to science!!”
I can almost hear some talking-head pundit, “We applaud the Rev. King’s desire to keep his religion out of the spotlight! His statements will need a thorough, scientific study to conclude if what he is saying is factually, accurate. Until then, he has rightly recognized that his words are actually words of faith – and as such are dangerous!! Built on superstition, and quotes from the Bible - his message hearkens to many of his “uneducated, simple minded followers”…
The pundit continues: “Words of faith, used to be important to the individual citizen… but today, thankfully, they have NO place in our scientific and enlightened country – which, by the way, is finally on the march to be free FROM all religion!”
I can almost hear the closing swoon song, - by John Lennon - Imagine… what a grand society we all could have, if we could just free ourselves from the opiate of the masses… and confine this dastardly, drunken notion of “faith” to the private halls of the unmentionables. This is an imaginary America – the one where facts rule, and faith is gone. But, make no mistake about it, it is a very real part of America.
So what is the real America? Part of us still embrace Dr. King’s original speech and some would shout him down today as trying to push his religion on the nation. We are part of America, too.
What scares the cr_p out of me are mass movements that seem to say – “SILENCE THAT VOICE… in the name of GOD… or in the name of SCIENCE!!!”
If we are willing to legislate so as to silence the voices of faith or dissent in the American political system, then we are the willing assassins of our own freedom.
Man! A bit presumptuous, far reaching and knee-jerk here now in these past two posts of yours now, aren't we? Harvey comes across with a plain and simple appeal for the separation of church and state, and keeping the fundamentalist power-mad dogs at bay from wreaking havoc on our Constitutionally based government, and you go off like its the End Times, with religion being totally cast out from this country, or as much as can be done, to be replaced with the Ultimate Marxist State! ... Christmas, guy, get a grip!
quote: When I listened to the link that Garth put up, Harvey so aptly seemed to say; “You can have your beliefs in God, but keep them out of my country!”
Uhh no, thats NOT what he said or 'seemed to say'. He said keep it out of government, out of the laws, out of his bedroom, out of the war rooms. That isn't the same, ... and you know it!
And freedom FROM religion *IS* a part of freedom. It HAS to be, or freedom of religion is a f***ing fraud!
And it isn't the 'voices of faith' that do the electing of our government officials, its the 'voices of the PEOPLE' who have faith (or non-faith as the case may be), who do so. Also keep in mind, you who are supposedly loyal to the Constitution, that the Constitution FORBIDS any government officials from having a religious test being required of them in order to run for office. Now I know there is no way in hell that that can be enforced upon all the people in this country, but for those who blatently use the religious test of "Does this candidate believe in (cough 'MY') God?" on the candidates, please tell me in what way they are honoring and being faithful to that document that they boast so self-righteously about when they do that, hmmmm? Patriotic Americans, my a**!
Stop and think about that previous question again, I dare you.
For the Separation of Church and State, and Damn Proud of it!! :P-->
quote:No basis from evidence or proof, just baseless supposition. And one that I would be willing to bet is influenced sizeably by your 'bigotry' against atheists, such as was indicated freely by your earlier post, ie., "I must be really prejudiced; I wouldn't trust my wallet to the nun OR the atheist."
Strike One.
Strike one to you Garth. He doesn't trust EITHER a nun, or an atheist -- and being protective of one's money, can hardly be equated to bigotry. ;)-->
quote: More of the S.O.S. (same old ....) and accompanied with a positive assumption re: Bush, and an equally baseless assumption of folks like me 'lapping it up', ie., believing it with no premise for doing so.
Strike Two.
That was a "knee-jerk" reaction from you Garth -- offering no documentation, details, or proof -- but only the "baseless supposition" you just described.
Strike two to you. ;)-->
quote: ....and Harvey said 'most', not 'all' wars being about or enforcing religion. Even with the athiest examples given, the basic premise still stands.
Good -- now we're looking at his individual words (I'm glad I heard it in the "original"!:D--> When will his speech have "chapter and verse" attached?? ;)-->
Strike three.
quote: But seriously, this supposed 'wide spread anti-Christian bashing' by university and college professors is largely a myth within your own mind. Sporatic instances here and there, yes, but not everywhere.
What rock are you hiding under?? --> Even back when I was in college at IU, in the 70's -- the "religious study" curriculumn was heavily slanted against Christianity, intent in casting more doubt about it than otherwise. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is just one of the groups promoting such these days. It is more than a "sporadic instance". I would call it a "concentrated effort".
Strike four
And now --- before I declare you "out" --- I thought his speech was good, articulate, to the point, and above all else -- an opinion. I won't condemn him, you, or anyone for holding an opinion, yet that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You don't agree with me, and that's ok. But to invite discussion, and then rip apart everything someone says, and leaving little if any room for further discussion is less than polite (imo). :)-->
FYI -- he made some good points. I don't agree with all he said, but he had an excellent delivery that demanded respect, as well as considerate attention. So -- don't call me an "unthinking bigot", and I won't tell you to pull your head out of the sand. Deal? ;)-->
Are you drawing a line in the sand (of sorts) effectively trying to pit yourself against me?
Are you a former Terryton Cigarette smoker? (You would rather fight than switch)? If so... then Sorry dude. Not me. No fight from me.
I think BOTH people of faith and people of “non-faith” count in America... the same.
I don’t fear either “group”. I do not think that either group has cornered the market on being particularly self-righteous, either. I think either group is capable of horrible atrocities… in the name of their... whatever.
Now, how to avoid THAT outcome. The way Harvey suggests? Keep your (faith or non-faith) to yourself and we will all be fine.
So how would his message really play out? In real life?
Yes, he did “seem to say” what I suggested – not IN his statement, but in HOW it tends to play out in real life.
He IMPLIED that by keeping faith/belief/God/ out of the government – then it stays out of the laws. It stays out of our courts, out of our schools, out of our “public” lives. With me so far? Notice, I said IMPLIED… very important word, there. (The words, “separation of church and state” never show up in the constitution, either… but we have INFERED that meaning based upon the IMPLICATIONS of the language.)
The entire clip was dedicated to the notion that a condition of “faith/non-faith” should be PERSONAL and PRIVATE – not PUBLIC.
“If you don’t ram God down my throat, then I will leave you alone and won’t tell you that the emperor has no clothes.” (Which I am all for, by the way.)
His supposition seems to be that we can have private beliefs (faith) that will not impact – or “leak out” - into our government. Nice thing to want… but in real life… I think he is smoking pixy dust.
Over time, the dirt comes out.
Take the issue of Slavery. Slavery came back (even though it was widely recognized as a deal breaker at the time of the deceleration of independence. So we fought the bloodiest war of our history over the idea… later – but it still came back)
Segregation. That came back to haunt us.
VPW’s and LCM’s crap came out in the end…
Hitler’s Jews came back out of the grave, etc. etc. etc.
We can not SILENCE the voices by saying… (or killing – like MLK) those who the other may think should have no place in government. It comes BACK (like a bad movie).
My analysis of your clip is, purely contemporary commentary. Not BAD, just won’t work in real life.
We gotta find a way to accept all. Not by law – but by common decency.
Lets look over the playback video of yours of my 'time up at bat', and see if I did indeed strike out. Let's roll the clip:
quote: Strike one to you Garth. He doesn't trust EITHER a nun, or an atheist -- and being protective of one's money, can hardly be equated to bigotry.
Do tell? You mean to tell me that he's that distrustful with everybody? Looking over his previous posts, he doesn't give much truck to Catholics or atheists based on his TWI-learned beliefs. But I tell you what. We'll call that 'Ball One'.
quote: That was a "knee-jerk" reaction from you Garth -- offering no documentation, details, or proof -- but only the "baseless supposition" you just described.
Ahh, no. That addressed HIS no doc, details, or proof as to HIS assertion as to 'folks like me lapping it up', and lack of docs, details, and proof of Bush not showing any bias towards atheists. Not when Dubya's own daddy (Bush Sr.) making some DOCUMENTED crack about atheists not being either patriotic or citizens of this country ("We are a nation under God", the elder Bush said. And I can give you the link that fully documents that if you like), and Bush the Younger is very loyal to how his father raised him. You couple that with Bush's fundamentalist leanings, ... so no, I doubt any claims about Bush's not wanting to discriminate against atheists.
Base hit for me. :)-->
quote: Good -- now we're looking at his individual words (I'm glad I heard it in the "original"! :D--> When will his speech have "chapter and verse" attached??
??? --> ??? So-o-o, in what way was that NOT proof of my point?? I gave you a clear illustration of what he said, and you act like it isn't even there, specific words shown notwithstanding.
Nahhh, that was a double base hit there. Looks like a man on first and third. :)--> Lets bring up 'Slugger Casey' shall we?
quote: What rock are you hiding under?? --> Even back when I was in college at IU, in the 70's -- the "religious study" curriculumn was heavily slanted against Christianity, intent in casting more doubt about it than otherwise. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is just one of the groups promoting such these days. It is more than a "sporadic instance". I would call it a "concentrated effort".
Interesting point, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation is basically concerned with separation of church and state issues. Heavily slanted against Christianity? Is that what the separation of church and state winds up being to you? Criticism of Christianity? Of course there is going to be some of that, specifically in reference to the issues I just mentioned. And yet, you take all of that as a heavy anti-Christian bias being propagated in college? Want to know how many Christians are for the same separation of church and state? ... Or are they going to burn in hell too?
((WHACK!)) Long fast grounder that burns past the shortstop, nearly knocking him over, and sends Who's-on-first and I-don't-know-on-3rd sliding across the home plate.
quote: Are you drawing a line in the sand (of sorts) effectively trying to pit yourself against me?
Nahh, I just challenged you to think about and even address the last question in my previous post to you. But I see you didn't do that at all.
So, if I read you right, how separation of church and state plays out in real life is invariably going to mean driving out religion in real life, am I right? As tho' if we endeavor to keep religion/spirituality out of government legislation/regulation, it just can't be done, so why even try?
Nahhh, apparently the founding fathers saw some possibility that folks like you just can't seem to grasp w/o thinking that religion in society will come crashing and burning down. (Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my!) They realized, due to their more immediate experience of that pyschotic mixture of religion/government that wound up being a disaster/freedom destroyer in Europe, both by Catholics AND Protestants, that 1) religion is (or supposed to be) indeed a personal and even a private experience. Not that you can't share/live your religious gospel/doctrine with others. But that religion is best experienced in 'the private sector', as it were, of human life. Which leads to 2) involving government in on this arena always, if you'll pardon my French, f***s things up! Always has. Always will.
Which always puzzles me regarding various conservatives. They embrace the Reagan mantra about "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem!", and yet when it comes to getting government involvement in religion (and of course, the government $$$$$ that invariably goes along with it ;)-->), *BOOM*, government is already the necessary ingredient as to Christianity thriving in order to 'save us as a nation', as per the dictates of various biblical verses re: The nation that makes God as the Lord. (.... What? You didn't think we were going to involve any OTHER religion in on this, do you?? -->)
And speaking of such verses, don't go pulling them out as a counter to this please, because for one thing, Isreal never could get the 'godly government' thingy right, as example after example in the OT clearly illustrates. Also, the founding fathers have been influenced to a great deal by the Enlightenment period in the early 1700s-early 1800s period of history. Which gave us results like the basis for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, free enterprise capitalism (Adam Smith anyone?), daring to use reason to challenge even church orthodoxy (Thomas Jefferson's quote about "Question with boldness even the existance of a god." Etc.) without having to be burned at the stake, etc.
Ahh, not exactly Pat Robertson approved, 700 Club material here, I would say. :P-->
The voices that clamored for justice and fair dealings from government (ala MLK and others) deals with things like ethics, justice, fair play, and equality under the law, things that are not just 'private' as they are about our dealings with our fellow humans. Please don't confuse/make that identical with, religion/spirituality, which IS, and is supposed to BE, "a private matter between you and your God, whatever you perceive Him to be".
All of which has NOTHING to do the heinous and vile plot of driving all religion out from this country for good. ... **MWUHAhahahahaha!**
Garth -- your flippant interpretations of those who have answered you (on the "con" side of the link you posted), is only exceeded by your extreme desire to be "right", and grind those who think differently into the dust.
Sorry bro -- Even though you stated a valid premise, and you posted a valid link, and you invited valid comments (even if you did "just eat"), your following refutations totally negate that which you originally asked for.
I took a look at the site Geo posted, and found it food for thought. Then I have you castigating myself and others, for offering our opinion, when you asked for such. When I look at the two, it is night and day. At least Geo gave us something to look at, other than rhetoric which is so obviously one-sided, and not able to withstand any sort of discussion -- which came from your end of the table. I don't know the author of Geo's article, but I have a gut-feeling, that he would be willing to share what he knows with a whole lot less animosity, than what you have shown here.
If you want to make a case for "whatever", post links like you did with Harvey what's-his-name. As I said earlier, I thought it was a well thought out, well articulated, point of view. I don't agree with all he said, but I agree with more of what he said, than what you did.
You missed entirely what I meant, and am guessing that you did the same with the other "con"victs. Go ahead and play your baseball analogy, and make it to World Series. I'll pay more attention to your "athletic abilities", if you make the qualifying rounds for the Ironman, or le Tour de France.
If you want to do nothing other than "flame" folks, say so, and be done with it. At least we/I will know where you are coming from, and can decide whether or not to spend time on a thread that leads to a dead end. :)-->
I thought your link was a good one, and I thought you were inviting constructive criticism. Well --I got one out of two right.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
6
16
8
Popular Days
Nov 24
16
Nov 22
13
Nov 21
9
Nov 23
8
Top Posters In This Topic
dabobbada 8 posts
George Aar 6 posts
GarthP2000 16 posts
johniam 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 24 2004
16 posts
Nov 22 2004
13 posts
Nov 21 2004
9 posts
Nov 23 2004
8 posts
johniam
I must be really prejudiced; I wouldn't trust my wallet to the nun OR the atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Seriously, he and others who claim not to believe in "God, gods, or godesses" may not be called religious, but they still have a belief system, and IMO their belief system is just as capable of causing wars, etc. as is any religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Deal!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Johniam,
And history overall backs your claim up ... how?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
It seems a shame that what I would consider "common sense" would even have to be voiced as if it's an edgey, controversial opinion. But such is the state of our current political culture, I guess.
Kinda reminds me of the paranoid, conformist '50s.
And then there was the over-reaction to that period in the '60s. I wonder what the reaction is going to be to the self-righteous, religious right's hegemony in another 6 or 8 years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Garth: Lame question, but I'll humor you. My premise is that if Feinstein was the President and not just a working stiff, he most certainly would too try to impose his belief system on America. What's the difference between that and George Bush praying except that Bush isn't a bigot about Feinstein not praying and Feinstein is a bigot about Bush praying. He's not even the president and he's already trying to impose his belief system on America and suckers like you are lapping it up.
History? How about Hitler? He was a follower of the Nietzsche belief system. Nietzsche's "religion" was existentialism. You don't think it's possible for some atheistic ruler of a powerful country to decide that the rest of the world must embrace his stupidity or die? Remember, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Wasn't Sadaam Hussein's mistreatment of his own people largely due to the fact that he wasn't a devout Muslim?
Freud was a godless bigot as well. Because of him, every college student in the country has to sit through many Christian bashing lectures if they want to call themselves educated. You have a mental block; you can't see that anybody can be a bigot, not just religious people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Johniam,
No basis from evidence or proof, just baseless supposition. And one that I would be willing to bet is influenced sizeably by your 'bigotry' against atheists, such as was indicated freely by your earlier post, ie., "I must be really prejudiced; I wouldn't trust my wallet to the nun OR the atheist."
Strike One.
More of the S.O.S. (same old ....) and accompanied with a positive assumption re: Bush, and an equally baseless assumption of folks like me 'lapping it up', ie., believing it with no premise for doing so.
Strike Two.
Point about Hitler and other atheistic tyrants (altho' Hitler did believe in a 'god' as it were; a psychotic mish-mash of Catholicism/Nordic spiritualism leading to Aryan 'supremacy', and probably mixed in with a healthy dose of dope) well taken, but I did refer to 'history overall', and Harvey said 'most', not 'all' wars being about or enforcing religion. Even with the athiest examples given, the basic premise still stands.
Strike Three. You should be out by now, but I'll give you another college try. And speaking of college:
Man, you haven't attended college courses much, have you? Did you have a bad experience with a anal-retentive psych prof while in your stint at the local community college? But seriously, this supposed 'wide spread anti-Christian bashing' by university and college professors is largely a myth within your own mind. Sporatic instances here and there, yes, but not everywhere. And there are a lot of students who consider themselves educated without ever having to sit through any Freud psychology class.
And what does that have to do with the point raised by Feinstein?
Strike Four! You're out!
Better luck in the Little Leagues my friend.
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
SOS to you, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Gee, only 8 posts and we've already devolved to "I know you are but what am I?".
Is this a new record?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dabobbada
George,
Garth set out this topic for discussion and asks what you think, pro or con, then proceeds to rip up johniam for replying?
Hardly a way to win friends and influence folks.
Some of the stuff he said was indeed common sense. But it was used also as cover to promote his own bigotries.
I wonder what the reaction is going to be to the self-righteous, religious right's hegemony in another 6 or 8 years?
From those who hate them, it will be pretty much the same reaction they had in the late '80s and '90s when the "self-righteous, religious right" first realized they actually had some power as a group.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dabobbada
As for Harvey, I see nothing more than a typical bunch of pious athiest platitudes strung together in a nice coherant stream of thought. Pretty much like TWI did for their arguments to make them sound good.
I have read pretty much the same reasonings used by the ACLU any time they throw a lawsuit at some government unit to force christianity out. Now the ACLU is attacking the US military for supporting boy scouts and a state abstinence site because some teen girls credit God for giving them the moral strength to abstain.
Back to Harvey, he said he doesn't believe in gods or goddesses or the afterlife. Yet he prays, because of the known scientific "laws" and humanistic principals. Pychological reasons really, my dad, an athiest, didn't pray to nothing. In my book, if you're praying, your believing in something, no matter how convoluted you reason it out.
Harvey says we are lucky enough to live in a country where we have freedom of religion and from religion. This is true and I agree with it.
But then after having sat himself on the high moral ground, he then gets his digs in on catholics (must'a been raised as one) and religion in general. Then he pulls out a few more pious athiest platitudes to finish. Again, it very much reminds me of the typical well rehearsed TWI spiel.
He really said nothing new, You've heard it all before. If you spent any time in TWI at all, you learned how to set up an argument in your favor. Are there bad nuns? Yes, but what is the ratio of bad to good nuns? Are there bad Priests, what is their bad to good ratio. Are there good athiests? Yes but how many bad ones are there out there who believing in nothing, make themselves subject to no morals and set themselves no bounds for low and evil works. (See how I reset the parameters a little and get the opposite result?)
Shirley Harvey is proselytizing his un-religion just as we did our VPWeirwillisms. (And don't call me surely.)
How about them communists, Garth?
They claim there is no god, but the state replaces god and the political system is the religion.
I guess no one expects the Stalin, Mao, or Uncle Ho inquisition either.
Russia - estimated 30 to 50 million dead
China - another 50 to 70 mil
Several million by Communists in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
Plus a dead cast of many more from various communist plagued countries around the world.
And all in the last 100 years, probably killing more people in that time than all the religions thru all history. Plus it seems in a typical communist takeover they kill a lot of the teachers, professionals, professors, politicians and landowners. (Many of whom supported the communists through the revolution.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Bob,
(So many flaws to address here, so little time.
:)-->)
No more than you in your posts here, my friend. No more than you.
;)--> Besides, what I 'rip up' is what I see to be the illogic of the content of what he posts. And its no more and no less than in any form of a pro-con debate. Ie., you posts your thoughts, and you takes your chances.
Strike One.
Same old, same old argument (read 'empty whine') about some ACLU Plot to 'make Christianity illegal'. Makes about as much sense as that old refrain about the 1962 Supreme Court ruling against mandated school prayer making prayer illegal.
-->. And the reason the ACLU is going after the military's situation with the scouts is because the scouts require (yes Virginia, I said require) the scouts to believe in God, any god. Which leaves atheists OUT. And that is a no-no for a tax payer funded government organization, such as the military, to do that. Which is based on the very Constitutional reasoning of government supposed to being religiously neutral. Or, to put it simply -- Separation of Church and State! 
Strike Two.
Didn't really listen to what he said about the Catholic Church now, didya? Hhmmmm, now what specific item was he referring to? Hmmmm? Ahh yes, Catholic priests. Specific Catholic priests who were raping young kids, and the Catholic Church setting up a slush fund to pay of the families of the victims. And I do believe quite a few of us here on the Greasespot were throwing 'digs' in their direction for the same reason. And I'd be willing to bet, if I search deeply enough, that I would find a few 'digs' from you too, I wager
;)-->
Strike Three.
I'd nail some of the other questionable points you raised, but three strikes is three strikes, and its getting late for me here. So, you're out!
You'd think that there would be folks here that are better at baseball, or something.
Nahh, I changed my mind, as there is one more point I gotta raise. And that addresses that old refrain about the atheist-communist connection not-so-subtely brought up by Dabobbaba. I too, used to believe in that connection, where atheism (materialism and all) led to, or was compatible with communism, yadayadayada. Then I actually met, talked to, and got to know quite a few atheists personally or over the email/internet, (which brings up the question of how many of you guys did the same thing) and I was astounded in what I found out re: the political/economic leanings of atheists as a whole. As in there IS no one-size-fits-all leanings in the atheist community. (There is an oft-used statement about organizing atheists is like trying to herd cats. That should tell you something right there.) However, upon closer look, if there can be said to be the largest group in the atheist world in this area, it would have to be the Ayn Rand Objectivist model of the Libertarian philosophy. And many things one can say about Ayn Rand/Objectivism, but Communist/Socialist they ain't. Not by a LONG shot. ... Neil Boortz anyone?
And by the way, the majority of those whom the Communists slaughtered wasn't for them being religious. It was either speaking out against the regime/getting in the way of the regime/or some other political/power related/other dictator related reasons. Much like any dictatoship does when the sadistic leader wants to flex his muscles/eliminate any possible competition. And your point re: "They claim there is no god, but the state replaces god and the political system is the religion." is quite a bit of a puzzling statement. I mean, if they didn't believe in God, why would they come up with a system to replace that which they didn't believe in?
--> Its not like they set up Communist Churches or styles of worship. Again, no more than any other kind of dictatorship, yet its the Communists that are accused of being 'the State's replacement for God'.
So, Strike Four, and NOW you are out!
Ya do need more practice in the batters pen, my man.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Dabob,
I have a little different take on the whole Communist/religion thingy than Garth.
I'm quite sure that Communism did replace religion in the Soviet Union and China. And that National Socialism performed the same function in Germany. It was their religion. The state became the provider for all of life's needs, just as ALMIGHTY GOD had earlier. They changed the script a little, but the bottom line remained the same "Pay your obeisance to God, or suffer the consequences". They just had a little different form of theology. The coersion and brutality remained pretty regular for religious zealotry, albeit horrendously more efficient, due to modern technology.
Anytime "faith" trumps reason, I get jumpy. Whether it's to an invisible Holy Thunderer, or to a benevolent, vague, but all powerful "State", rest assured, trouble is brewing.
And just "for fun" (ala Roy), here's a snippet from Richard Dawkins to chew on:
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oh, and BTW,
If the ACLU wasn't around, who would be out there defending The Bill of Rights? The government? The legal system? The church?
For all their faults and excesses (which there may be), I'm glad somebody cares enough about the constitution to do something to make sure it's enforced.
You may fire at will...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I just watched the clip and was very impressed.
He was talking plain sense about the right to believe or not to believe.
We don't have a written Constitution but we have been practicing the above for years.
The US does and the religious right has been ignoring it for years.
Harvey was right on about Iraq in the religious sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Bob,
ReL"Back to Harvey, he said he doesn't believe in gods or goddesses or the afterlife. Yet he prays, because of the known scientific "laws" and humanistic principals....In my book, if you're praying, your believing in something, no matter how convoluted you reason it out."
I have to agree with you! That didn't make any sense to me either. But still.. if that's what HE feels comfortable with, that's OK with me. I bow my head for instance while people are praying. It's showing respect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
George, good points about communism becoming the religion of ruling elite. So often, rulers are full of it (meaning their ability to articulate the unseen which is hoped for… and thereby mobilize the faith many). History is replete with examples. We know many of them as the thugs and tyrants of the ages… but they appear in another form, as well – those who do good.
Dr. King was such a person. The Civil Rights movement was a mass movement of those who heard and held a dream. The bigotry in America stood in stark contrast to the dream that King fleshed out with mere words.
When I listened to the link that Garth put up, Harvey so aptly seemed to say; “You can have your beliefs in God, but keep them out of my country!”
Sounds contemporary. Sounds like what many think is the virtue of America. But is it? Is it virtuous and is it American???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
What if Martin Luther King lived in Harvey’s version of America, today…. His speech would have been re-named “I had a dream, but they wouldn’t let me talk about it on TV”.
Yes, he would have had to say something like… “I have a THEORY…. A theory that all men are created equal by their creator – but I have no scientific basis for that statement (and neither did the Founding Fathers of this pathetic nation!!!)… and since I am trying to get legislation enacted in America, I can NOT appeal to the authority of God – I must appeal to the mind of the scientific man! I appeal to science!!”
I can almost hear some talking-head pundit, “We applaud the Rev. King’s desire to keep his religion out of the spotlight! His statements will need a thorough, scientific study to conclude if what he is saying is factually, accurate. Until then, he has rightly recognized that his words are actually words of faith – and as such are dangerous!! Built on superstition, and quotes from the Bible - his message hearkens to many of his “uneducated, simple minded followers”…
The pundit continues: “Words of faith, used to be important to the individual citizen… but today, thankfully, they have NO place in our scientific and enlightened country – which, by the way, is finally on the march to be free FROM all religion!”
I can almost hear the closing swoon song, - by John Lennon - Imagine… what a grand society we all could have, if we could just free ourselves from the opiate of the masses… and confine this dastardly, drunken notion of “faith” to the private halls of the unmentionables. This is an imaginary America – the one where facts rule, and faith is gone. But, make no mistake about it, it is a very real part of America.
So what is the real America? Part of us still embrace Dr. King’s original speech and some would shout him down today as trying to push his religion on the nation. We are part of America, too.
What scares the cr_p out of me are mass movements that seem to say – “SILENCE THAT VOICE… in the name of GOD… or in the name of SCIENCE!!!”
If we are willing to legislate so as to silence the voices of faith or dissent in the American political system, then we are the willing assassins of our own freedom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Too Gray Now,
Man! A bit presumptuous, far reaching and knee-jerk here now in these past two posts of yours now, aren't we? Harvey comes across with a plain and simple appeal for the separation of church and state, and keeping the fundamentalist power-mad dogs at bay from wreaking havoc on our Constitutionally based government, and you go off like its the End Times, with religion being totally cast out from this country, or as much as can be done, to be replaced with the Ultimate Marxist State! ... Christmas, guy, get a grip!
Uhh no, thats NOT what he said or 'seemed to say'. He said keep it out of government, out of the laws, out of his bedroom, out of the war rooms. That isn't the same, ... and you know it!
And freedom FROM religion *IS* a part of freedom. It HAS to be, or freedom of religion is a f***ing fraud!
And it isn't the 'voices of faith' that do the electing of our government officials, its the 'voices of the PEOPLE' who have faith (or non-faith as the case may be), who do so. Also keep in mind, you who are supposedly loyal to the Constitution, that the Constitution FORBIDS any government officials from having a religious test being required of them in order to run for office. Now I know there is no way in hell that that can be enforced upon all the people in this country, but for those who blatently use the religious test of "Does this candidate believe in (cough 'MY') God?" on the candidates, please tell me in what way they are honoring and being faithful to that document that they boast so self-righteously about when they do that, hmmmm? Patriotic Americans, my a**!
Stop and think about that previous question again, I dare you.
For the Separation of Church and State, and Damn Proud of it!!
:P-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Strike one to you Garth. He doesn't trust EITHER a nun, or an atheist -- and being protective of one's money, can hardly be equated to bigotry.
;)-->
That was a "knee-jerk" reaction from you Garth -- offering no documentation, details, or proof -- but only the "baseless supposition" you just described.
Strike two to you.
;)-->
Good -- now we're looking at his individual words (I'm glad I heard it in the "original"!
:D--> When will his speech have "chapter and verse" attached?? 
;)-->
Strike three.
What rock are you hiding under??
--> Even back when I was in college at IU, in the 70's -- the "religious study" curriculumn was heavily slanted against Christianity, intent in casting more doubt about it than otherwise. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is just one of the groups promoting such these days. It is more than a "sporadic instance". I would call it a "concentrated effort".
Strike four
And now --- before I declare you "out" --- I thought his speech was good, articulate, to the point, and above all else -- an opinion. I won't condemn him, you, or anyone for holding an opinion, yet that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. You don't agree with me, and that's ok. But to invite discussion, and then rip apart everything someone says, and leaving little if any room for further discussion is less than polite (imo).
:)-->
FYI -- he made some good points. I don't agree with all he said, but he had an excellent delivery that demanded respect, as well as considerate attention. So -- don't call me an "unthinking bigot", and I won't tell you to pull your head out of the sand. Deal?
;)-->
By the way -- yer out!
:D-->
As Geo says --- "fire at will".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Garth… just a couple of things… “I dare you”???
Are you drawing a line in the sand (of sorts) effectively trying to pit yourself against me?
Are you a former Terryton Cigarette smoker? (You would rather fight than switch)? If so... then Sorry dude. Not me. No fight from me.
I think BOTH people of faith and people of “non-faith” count in America... the same.
I don’t fear either “group”. I do not think that either group has cornered the market on being particularly self-righteous, either. I think either group is capable of horrible atrocities… in the name of their... whatever.
Now, how to avoid THAT outcome. The way Harvey suggests? Keep your (faith or non-faith) to yourself and we will all be fine.
So how would his message really play out? In real life?
Yes, he did “seem to say” what I suggested – not IN his statement, but in HOW it tends to play out in real life.
He IMPLIED that by keeping faith/belief/God/ out of the government – then it stays out of the laws. It stays out of our courts, out of our schools, out of our “public” lives. With me so far? Notice, I said IMPLIED… very important word, there. (The words, “separation of church and state” never show up in the constitution, either… but we have INFERED that meaning based upon the IMPLICATIONS of the language.)
The entire clip was dedicated to the notion that a condition of “faith/non-faith” should be PERSONAL and PRIVATE – not PUBLIC.
“If you don’t ram God down my throat, then I will leave you alone and won’t tell you that the emperor has no clothes.” (Which I am all for, by the way.)
His supposition seems to be that we can have private beliefs (faith) that will not impact – or “leak out” - into our government. Nice thing to want… but in real life… I think he is smoking pixy dust.
Over time, the dirt comes out.
Take the issue of Slavery. Slavery came back (even though it was widely recognized as a deal breaker at the time of the deceleration of independence. So we fought the bloodiest war of our history over the idea… later – but it still came back)
Segregation. That came back to haunt us.
VPW’s and LCM’s crap came out in the end…
Hitler’s Jews came back out of the grave, etc. etc. etc.
We can not SILENCE the voices by saying… (or killing – like MLK) those who the other may think should have no place in government. It comes BACK (like a bad movie).
My analysis of your clip is, purely contemporary commentary. Not BAD, just won’t work in real life.
We gotta find a way to accept all. Not by law – but by common decency.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Dmiller,
Lets look over the playback video of yours of my 'time up at bat', and see if I did indeed strike out. Let's roll the clip:
Do tell? You mean to tell me that he's that distrustful with everybody? Looking over his previous posts, he doesn't give much truck to Catholics or atheists based on his TWI-learned beliefs. But I tell you what. We'll call that 'Ball One'.
Ahh, no. That addressed HIS no doc, details, or proof as to HIS assertion as to 'folks like me lapping it up', and lack of docs, details, and proof of Bush not showing any bias towards atheists. Not when Dubya's own daddy (Bush Sr.) making some DOCUMENTED crack about atheists not being either patriotic or citizens of this country ("We are a nation under God", the elder Bush said. And I can give you the link that fully documents that if you like), and Bush the Younger is very loyal to how his father raised him. You couple that with Bush's fundamentalist leanings, ... so no, I doubt any claims about Bush's not wanting to discriminate against atheists.
Base hit for me.
:)-->
???
--> ??? So-o-o, in what way was that NOT proof of my point?? I gave you a clear illustration of what he said, and you act like it isn't even there, specific words shown notwithstanding.
Nahhh, that was a double base hit there. Looks like a man on first and third.
:)--> Lets bring up 'Slugger Casey' shall we?
Interesting point, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation is basically concerned with separation of church and state issues. Heavily slanted against Christianity? Is that what the separation of church and state winds up being to you? Criticism of Christianity? Of course there is going to be some of that, specifically in reference to the issues I just mentioned. And yet, you take all of that as a heavy anti-Christian bias being propagated in college? Want to know how many Christians are for the same separation of church and state? ... Or are they going to burn in hell too?
((WHACK!)) Long fast grounder that burns past the shortstop, nearly knocking him over, and sends Who's-on-first and I-don't-know-on-3rd sliding across the home plate.
World Series, here I come!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Too Gray Now,
Nahh, I just challenged you to think about and even address the last question in my previous post to you. But I see you didn't do that at all.
So, if I read you right, how separation of church and state plays out in real life is invariably going to mean driving out religion in real life, am I right? As tho' if we endeavor to keep religion/spirituality out of government legislation/regulation, it just can't be done, so why even try?
Nahhh, apparently the founding fathers saw some possibility that folks like you just can't seem to grasp w/o thinking that religion in society will come crashing and burning down. (Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my!)
They realized, due to their more immediate experience of that pyschotic mixture of religion/government that wound up being a disaster/freedom destroyer in Europe, both by Catholics AND Protestants, that 1) religion is (or supposed to be) indeed a personal and even a private experience. Not that you can't share/live your religious gospel/doctrine with others. But that religion is best experienced in 'the private sector', as it were, of human life. Which leads to 2) involving government in on this arena always, if you'll pardon my French, f***s things up! Always has. Always will.
Which always puzzles me regarding various conservatives. They embrace the Reagan mantra about "Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem!", and yet when it comes to getting government involvement in religion (and of course, the government $$$$$ that invariably goes along with it
;)-->), *BOOM*, government is already the necessary ingredient as to Christianity thriving in order to 'save us as a nation', as per the dictates of various biblical verses re: The nation that makes God as the Lord. (.... What? You didn't think we were going to involve any OTHER religion in on this, do you?? 
-->)
And speaking of such verses, don't go pulling them out as a counter to this please, because for one thing, Isreal never could get the 'godly government' thingy right, as example after example in the OT clearly illustrates. Also, the founding fathers have been influenced to a great deal by the Enlightenment period in the early 1700s-early 1800s period of history. Which gave us results like the basis for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, free enterprise capitalism (Adam Smith anyone?), daring to use reason to challenge even church orthodoxy (Thomas Jefferson's quote about "Question with boldness even the existance of a god." Etc.) without having to be burned at the stake, etc.
Ahh, not exactly Pat Robertson approved, 700 Club material here, I would say.
:P-->
The voices that clamored for justice and fair dealings from government (ala MLK and others) deals with things like ethics, justice, fair play, and equality under the law, things that are not just 'private' as they are about our dealings with our fellow humans. Please don't confuse/make that identical with, religion/spirituality, which IS, and is supposed to BE, "a private matter between you and your God, whatever you perceive Him to be".
All of which has NOTHING to do the heinous and vile plot of driving all religion out from this country for good. ... **MWUHAhahahahaha!**
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Garth -- your flippant interpretations of those who have answered you (on the "con" side of the link you posted), is only exceeded by your extreme desire to be "right", and grind those who think differently into the dust.
Sorry bro -- Even though you stated a valid premise, and you posted a valid link, and you invited valid comments (even if you did "just eat"), your following refutations totally negate that which you originally asked for.
I took a look at the site Geo posted, and found it food for thought. Then I have you castigating myself and others, for offering our opinion, when you asked for such. When I look at the two, it is night and day. At least Geo gave us something to look at, other than rhetoric which is so obviously one-sided, and not able to withstand any sort of discussion -- which came from your end of the table. I don't know the author of Geo's article, but I have a gut-feeling, that he would be willing to share what he knows with a whole lot less animosity, than what you have shown here.
If you want to make a case for "whatever", post links like you did with Harvey what's-his-name. As I said earlier, I thought it was a well thought out, well articulated, point of view. I don't agree with all he said, but I agree with more of what he said, than what you did.
You missed entirely what I meant, and am guessing that you did the same with the other "con"victs. Go ahead and play your baseball analogy, and make it to World Series. I'll pay more attention to your "athletic abilities", if you make the qualifying rounds for the Ironman, or le Tour de France.
If you want to do nothing other than "flame" folks, say so, and be done with it. At least we/I will know where you are coming from, and can decide whether or not to spend time on a thread that leads to a dead end.
:)-->
I thought your link was a good one, and I thought you were inviting constructive criticism. Well --I got one out of two right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.