It seems to me that regardless of the legal issues involved in this controversy, what the atheists have actually accomplished is a slightly milder version of Fred Phelps & Co. standing on a corner hollering bile, with "God hates fags!" placards. Meaning, the idiocy of the message delivery is overshadowing any hope of serious discussion of that message.
Bonus coverage: video of Kirby Wilbur on O'Reilly available here.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 04, 2008 08:29 AM | Email ThisWhy don't they protest outside of a mosque, with cartoons of Mohammed?
Posted by: Sasquatch on December 4, 2008 08:23 AM"Christmas time! That man must be a misanthrope indeed, in whose breast something like a jovial feeling is not roused - in whose mind some pleasant associations are not awakened - by the recurrence of Christmas. There are people who will tell you that Christmas is not to them what it used to be; that each succeeding Christmas has found some cherished hope, or happy prospect, of the year before, dimmed or passed away; that the present only serves to remind them of reduced circumstances and straitened incomes - of the feasts they once bestowed on hollow friends, and of the cold looks that meet them now, in adversity and misfortune. Never heed such dismal reminiscences.
There are few men who have lived long enough in the world, who cannot call up such thoughts any day in the year. Then do not select the merriest of the three hundred and sixty-five for your doleful recollections, but draw your chair nearer the blazing fire - fill the glass and send round the song - and if your room be smaller than it was a dozen years ago, or if your glass be filled with reeking punch, instead of sparkling wine, put a good face on the matter, and empty it off-hand, and fill another, and troll off the old ditty you used to sing, and thank God it's no worse. Look on the merry faces of your children (if you have any) as they sit round the fire. One little seat may be empty; one slight form that gladdened the father's heart, and roused the mother's pride to look upon, may not be there. Dwell not upon the past; think not that one short year ago, the fair child now resolving into dust, sat before you, with the bloom of health upon its cheek, and the gaiety of infancy in its joyous eye. Reflect upon your present blessings - of which every man has many - not on your past misfortunes, of which all men have some. Fill your glass again, with a merry face and contented heart. Our life on it, but your Christmas shall be merry, and your new year a happy one!"
God Bless us...one & all!
This is not a display in favor of atheists, it is an attack on the other religions. It should be disallowed. If they want to trumpet the solstice, fine. If they want to encourage goodwill toward all men without respect toward religious views, fine.
But frontally attacking other religions in the rotunda is not fine. It absolutely should be removed.
Would Christine allow a sign that says "gays go to hell"? Of course not.
Why? You suggesting that you curtail the groups right to free speech? What if this statement is the core belief of this particular atheist group?
If so they have every right to display it along side the Nativity scene which reflects the core belief of Christianity.
I can't believe SP has wasted three threads already talking about this simple 1st Amendment issue. Besides the nativity scene is at least 4x as large as the Atheist sign.
Now, all they can think of to do is attack Christmas. Pathetic.
The Christmas Tree and Menora are SYMBOLS.
The Atheist garbage is a STATEMENT clearly worded to try and antagonize believers.
Atheists are a lonely lot. We all have past inequities in our lives to deal with....they chosse to blame God and not themselves.
Also, Atheists want you to believe they worship nothing. Baloney...they worship THEMSELVES. How hollow and empty is that...to only have faith in whatever brainfart burbles in their little pinheads.
This is a War....spiritual & cultural & Religous.
Do not minimize what is happening here.
Remember, the Atheist Progressive drumbeat is one inch at a time or as 6-time American Socialist Party Candidate Norman Thomas put it:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
- Norman Thomas
Please do not cower at what is happening in and to our Country. The Atheist Progressive movement is determined to squash any reference to God. But I have news for them...Free Speech trumps all their convoluted twisting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights!
Statements can be symbols of belief, look at the bible...it's chock full of STATEMENTS. It's funny to see so many people get so worked up over a 1ft by 3ft sign.
Welcome to America, equal rights for all under the law.
Why?
I already said why: because it is frontally attacking others. They should allow positive symbols -- maybe even written statements -- of beliefs, but not negative attacks on others.
You suggesting that you curtail the groups right to free speech?
Of course not. None of this has to do with anyone's right to free speech. Why do you hate the Constitution?
What if this statement is the core belief of this particular atheist group?
So what? Again, what if Fred Phelps' group wanted to put up a Christmas sign about gays going to hell? They would, too. And I would be just as much against that, and I guarantee that Christine wouldn't allow it.
If so they have every right to display it along side the Nativity scene which reflects the core belief of Christianity.
Incorrect. You are making things up that don't exist.
I can't believe SP has wasted three threads already talking about this simple 1st Amendment issue.
I can't believe you're stupid enough to think this has anything to do with the First Amendment. It obviously doesn't.
Besides the nativity scene is at least 4x as large as the Atheist sign.
That has no relevance to the issue whatsoever.
Welcome to America, equal rights for all under the law.
If the other displays were overt attacks on other views, then it would be protection of equal rights to allow the atheists to do the same.
Since they are not, it is not.
It's sad this has to be pointed out to you. Have you ever read a book of any kind? Without pictures on every page, I mean.
What's funny is that sign is indeed the exact opposite of Christianity and religion in general. They are quite opposed to everything Christianity is offering, and they are foolish enough to tell the world so.
Right next to that sign is a giant green tree with sparkling lights and red ribbons and perhaps even a star on top. What is the message of that tree? FAITH! HOPE! LOVE! CHARITY! It is a symbol in so many powerful ways, an arrow telling men to look up and be happy because salvation is coming, a message of life in death, happiness in misery, hope in hopelessness! This message is so powerful that even those who miss the religious message of Christmas still feel within themselves the burning compassion for their fellow-man that is carried straight from God's own heart to ours.
I served 2 years as an LDS missionary in Seoul, Korea. It's easy to convert people when you're selling happiness and satisfaction, when you're telling people that life sucks a lot but there are things that can pick you right out of life and put you in a much better spot.
I can't imagine being an atheist missionary. What do you have to tell people--GIVE UP, GIVE IN, SIT DOWN? It's laughable. I feel sorry for those people who embrace atheism out of depression. There is no reason on God's green earth to feel depressed when there are so many reasons to hope in this world, let alone the world to come!
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 4, 2008 09:25 AMCato: so where does free speech end and 'hate' speech begin? Since liberals like yourself liberals were the creaters of the term 'hate speech', perhaps you can define it for us. yeah, yeah, we know..it's conservative talk radio.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2008 09:26 AMMaybe, but since that's not the law they can put up whatever they feel best reflects their beliefs. If Fred Phelps wants to apply next year to be the official messenger of the Christian message that is his right under the same law.
None of this has to do with anyone's right to free speech.
It has everything to do with free speech and freedom of religion. Why are you so blind?
Incorrect. You are making things up that don't exist.
So your saying the nativity scene does not reflect the birth of Jesus (aka son of god) and the origins of Christmas? Wow, you're really going out on a limb there.
I can't believe you're stupid enough to think this has anything to do with the First Amendment. It obviously doesn't.
It has everything to do with the 1st Amendment and the idea that Freedom of Religion means that all religious groups are equal in the eyes of the Govt.
That has no relevance to the issue whatsoever.
They should have made their sign 4x larger in order to equal to the space the Christian group is occupying.
Maybe, but since that's not the law they can put up whatever they feel best reflects their beliefs.
Incorrect. No law gives them the right to say whatever they wish to in that public space. Once again, you are just making things up. Why are you lying?
It has everything to do with free speech
No, it has nothing to do with free speech, at all. The First Amendment guarantees you the right to say what you wish, but not to say it wherever you wish. This has not a single thing to do with the right to free speech.
Why do you hate the Constitution so much as to lie about it?
So your saying the nativity scene does not reflect the birth of Jesus (aka son of god) and the origins of Christmas?
No. Why are you lying?
I don't think atheists have missionaries...in fact they don't even have anti-worship services. I'd imagine most are quite content to not shove thier non-belif on others.
Now in this case they are just taking advantage of Freedom of Religion which allows them to have equal time to express their beliefs under the law.
where does free speech end and 'hate' speech begin?
I'm not a court, but I believe it's language used to incite violence against others. Since no one is using their religious platform to incite violence the atheist sign is not hate speech (nor is talk radio for that matter)
Here is an ad from teh Seattle Craigslist announcing what who seattle will celebrate this season. As Christians celebrate Jesus, Seattleites celebrate human suffering and death.
12/5: Fremont Lenin Lighting (Fremont, Lenin Statue, N 36th Pl )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: director@fremont.com [?]
Date: 2008-11-26, 11:38AM PST
Lenin Lighting and Fremont Art and Fashion Walk
When: Friday, December 5, 2008, 6p -9p... and into the evening, Rain or Shine
Who: The Fremont Chamber of Commerce and area businesses, The McClure Middle School Band, Logan's Hammer Architects' Gingerbread House Building Competition
What: Decorating and Lighting the Fremont Lenin Statue has become a tradition in Fremont. Lights are strung around the sculpture and a star is placed on Lenin's head in lieu of a Christmas Tree. This is a non-religious celebration, which celebrates the free and artistic spirit of the Fremont Community. The McClure Middle School Band will play music through the event and hot chocolate will be available from Royal Grinders for children. The festivities will overlap Fremont's regular Fremont First Friday Art and Fashion Walk, many area businesses will hang art, have music and food - detailed listing will be available closer to the day at www.FremontFirstFriday.com. Logan's Hammer Gingerbread Competition entries will be on display in the Doric Masonic Lodge, 619 N. 36th St.. Portage Bay Goods, 706 N. 34th St., will be holding their public Holiday Celebration that evening. Frame up Studio, 3515 Fremont Ave N. will also be celebrating the season, stop by for a drink and take a look.
Where: The Seattle neighborhood of Fremont, Center of the Known Universe
Check out Fremont.com for more info or call 206.632.1500.
Posted by: JDH on December 4, 2008 09:54 AMBut seriously, O'Reilly makes a good point. Where are the leftists berating MLK day?? Or are only certain holidays okay to trash?
And why do guys like Goldy trash FOX? Heck, Fox is giving him factime. Are CNN et al doing so? Goldy?
Posted by: Michele on December 4, 2008 09:58 AMFreedom of Religion guarantees them the right to equal space in the eyes of the Govt. If the Church of Satan wanted to put their display up that would be their right as well if they followed the appropriate submission guidelines.
This has not a single thing to do with the right to free speech.
Sure it does, expression of faith is covered under free speech. Why do you hate the 1st Amendment so much that you want to restrict the rights of others to express their faith?
The State has openly acquiesced to groups that are hostile to people of faith.
No, the state has given a group the right to express their religious belief under the law. If you don't like it avert your eyes or have the state disallow all sponsored material expressions of faith within the Capitol. All or nothing.
Do an internet search of Fremont + May + Day and you will see that Seattleites do take their religion, Communist Atheism, quite seriously.
The Christian world celebrates life with our celebrations at Christmas and everlasting life with our Easter celebrations. Juxtapose this with what the Seattle Atheists celebrate - human suffering, misery and death.
Posted by: JDH on December 4, 2008 10:05 AMThey need a token liberal to berate, much like that Colmes fellow...oh wait his contract wasn't renewed. So much for the balanced part of fair and balanced.
Actually it comes from the pre-Christian Druids and was co-opted by the Socialism and turned into International Workers Day.
Juxtapose this with what the Seattle Atheists celebrate - human suffering, misery and death.
LOL!! It always amazes how much Christian hate exists for people who choose not to follow Christianity.
As a Jewish person, I am not particularly interested in a nativity scene. It even makes me a little uncomforatable, but I certainly respect the right of people who want to celebrate their holiday to do so unmolested. We all need to tolerate each other if this society is to survive.
The placard is inappropriate, as much so as anti-semites standing outside the synagogue during yom kippur services with a megaphone shouting anti-semitic slogans. Just because Christians are in the majority (please don't quibble on that point. I understand that some christians consider others to be "less" christian than themselves and count themselves as a minority, but I mean "culturally christian", as in celebrate on some level christmas and easter) doesn't change that fact.
By the way, I wish they would just call it a christmas tree as well. There aren't any other sigificant holidays this time of year. Chanukah isn't "jewish christmas", it's a relatively obscure observance (celebrating the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty, who didn't end well) which has allowed people to find a "jewish" excuse to give their kids presents this time of year. There are no significant muslim, hindu, sikh or buddist observances. So, the "holidays" just means christmas anyway. Peolpe who observe it should do so without guilt. Just don't get offended because someone else doesn't.
Posted by: bfr on December 4, 2008 10:21 AMFreedom of Religion guarantees them the right to equal space in the eyes of the Govt.
We were talking about freedom of speech, first off. Second, no, freedom of religion guarantees no such thing whatsoever. Again: why do you hate the Constiution?
What is guaranteed -- not in Freedom of Religion, but in Establishment of Religion, which is a different part of the First Amendment -- is that the government does not, in effect, endorse a particular religion. That can be done without giving "equal space" to everyone else.
This is about neither Freedom of Speech, nor Freedom of Religion, as no one is in any way attempting to curb anyone's right to exercise of either freedom. This is about Establishment of Religion, and nothing more.
Sure it does, expression of faith is covered under free speech.
Expression of faith is covered under free speech, obviously. However, free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue. You're question-begging. There is not a single related free speech issue at work here. Your right to free speech does not have anything to do with putting up a display in this venue.
Continuing to claim otherwise only makes you look foolish: indeed, the fact that you say ALL such displays could be banned means you are contradicting yourself: your constitutional rights to free speech, to keep and bear arms, against unlawful searches, and so on are not contingent on other people having the same rights. So saying that they could ALL be banned necessarily implies this is not a free speech issue in the first place.
Why do you hate the 1st Amendment so much that you want to restrict the rights of others to express their faith?
You're lying. I never said a single word that could possibly be construed as wanting to restrict anyone's right to express themselves.
Posted by: pudge on December 4, 2008 10:36 AMWhere's his token liberal replacement? I'm sure they can find at least one residing within the vast Murdoch empire. Hannity and Goldstein...has a nice ring to it. =P
Cato, not everything you read on KOS is true
What's KOS? I don't read KOS.
No hate, just disgust. And that is reserved for those who openly worship someone who is responsible for so much human suffering, misery and death. Suffering, misery and death that is part and parcel of their political ideology a political idology that IMHO is not consistent with "good intentions." The jury is in on what atheistic Marxist/leninist/socialism has to offer and that is most definately not a celebration of life.
Posted by: JDH on December 4, 2008 10:41 AMFox has so many liberals now that I wish they would go back to the Stereotype of the World of Cato.
Couldn't the State have put that message somewhere else? This separation of church and state battle that liberals like Cato profess is absurd (it passed bordering on the absurd about 10 years ago with the red herring of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse doors).
Grow up, liberals. Our country needs you to grow up.
Posted by: swatter on December 4, 2008 10:44 AMThat was proven to be a lie, but you already knew that and still threw it out there as fact. If you want to have any semblance of credibility, you may want to start with establishing some personal integrity first.
inre: Goldstain & Hannity? ...and you thought Colmes was a whipping boy on the show...
Now if that isn't moronic enough, he starts out by bloviating on about how the "stimulus package" is going to create jobs and make us all whole again. Forget for a second that each "stimulus package" so far has proven to do squat, I wonder how he felt when Bush was mailing out the original "stimulus" checks. I'd bet that wasn't such a grand idea then.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 4, 2008 10:52 AMThat he is not being entirely honest shouldn't be much of a surprise.
Yeah "Cato" this is a real big deal. It's not often the left exposes its true nature to the entire country. The left seems unable to stop themselves every December.
And don't even try to pretend this has anything whatsoever to do with "free speech". The left doesn't give a darn about "free speech". It's all about your tireless anti-family agenda which includes the elimination of Christmas as a holiday.
Leftists are a mighty sad bunch if you ask me.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 10:53 AMThe other night I had dinner with a very old friend who still believes the same liberal stuff we believed back in the '60's.
He railed about Fox News and Bill O'Reilly in particular. Hmm I thought, he must watch Fox regurlarly to have formed such an opinion.
Yeah right. Turns out later he revealed during a discussion of the pending TV digital conversion that he doesn't have cable or satellite TV. He bases his opinion of Fox the way most liberals do, by what the media and his liberal friends tell him.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 11:11 AMChristmas being a holiday is irrelevant.
The sign displaying their beliefs can be interpreted as a symbol if the group in question agrees upon it to be a representation of their religion. The Bible is generally interpreted to be a symbol of Christianity and is chock full of text and statements. Same with the Koran and the Torah.
When did atheism become a religion?
Religion is defined as "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects". They have a set of beliefs, so Atheism can be a religion even if they don't believe in god or other supreme beings.
This is so great. On every thread "Cato" makes post after post claiming this issue is "no big deal".
It's not a big deal. If the Atheist group was denied a spot while the Christian group was granted one it would be a big deal. I'm all for equal rights.
t's all about your tireless anti-family agenda which includes the elimination of Christmas as a holiday.
My agenda? LOL!
Do tell how a small sign saying religion is a sham is somehow anti-family? This is a free country, all voices are equal in the eyes of the Govt.
I'm not the one suggesting that the Govt. remove the sign (which would be a violation of their freedom of expression/religion). I don't recall making any statement about Christmas as a holiday, maybe you can make up some more BS about me.
If you choose to celebrate Christmas, go for it...no one's stopping you. If I choose to celebrate Hanukkah, Holi, Kwanzaa, or not celebrate at all that's my right as well. I see no reason why the should take sides and make it so that your religion and/or religious celebration is the only one that's allowed.
The sign displaying their beliefs can be interpreted as a symbol ...
Correct. However, they have no right to display any symbol they wish. There is nothing granting them that right.
Do tell how a small sign saying religion is a sham is somehow anti-family?
Sure. That's easy and obvious.
My children are young and can read. I will not take them to the rotunda, the seat of our state government, while this sign is displayed, because while it's one thing for children to learn that other people have different beliefs, it is completely different -- and damaging to many children -- for them to be told that their beliefs are false.
So whereas it would be nice for family to go there during Christmas to see the decorations and so on, now we won't, thanks to Gregoire and the atheists.
all voices are equal in the eyes of the Govt
You're lying. If the KKK wanted to put up a statement of hatred against Jews and blacks, it would not be allowed, and there's no reason why it would have to be. If Phelps wanted to put up anti-gay statements, it would be properly disallowed.
I'm not the one suggesting that the Govt. remove the sign (which would be a violation of their freedom of expression/religion)
You're lying. Why do you hate the Constiution?
I see no reason why the should take sides and make it so that your religion and/or religious celebration is the only one that's allowed.
You're lying. No one (no one I've seen anyway) is saying the atheists should be disallowed. It's the specific form of their display which is in question.
Posted by: pudge on December 4, 2008 11:26 AMUmmmm yeah, whatever...My opinions are my own, I don't speak for or parrot any wing/group/party/organization/or whatever the KOS thing is. If you want to disagree with me you are more than welcome to do so but I am NOT a representative/member of any wing/group/party/organization/whatever the KOS thing is.
We can play this game on our computers at home, or even at work.
I'll start.
Cato, I am a conservative Reagan Republican.
How would you describe your political leanings?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 11:42 AMAnd wow, Goldy has fattened up since that last time I saw him in public. He's probably gearing up for the Obama free healthcare debacle whereby one no longer has to take care of oneself, and one can just become obese like the rest of America, and then get the free healthcare handout.
Real Americans aren't debating crap like this, or waiting for handouts, they are hard at work, trying to keep the country and their lives afloat.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 4, 2008 12:05 PMI'm a fitness consultant. I can help.
Sorry, shameless plug but I just couldn't resist.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 12:10 PMO'Reilly was only 2/3 right when he called her a "weak and confused leader".
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2008 12:17 PMOk, maybe he had something to do and can't respond. I'll give him that.
I guess we will see.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 12:29 PMWow.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 12:48 PMI'd love to know how the switchboard is doing after I'Reilly gives out her phone number on radio and TV.
It's just too darn bad this happened after the election.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 4, 2008 12:57 PMTrue conservatives believe in the marketplace of ideas. Fake conservatives want the Ten Commandments posted in the courthouse and flag burners put in prison (even if it takes a repeal of the Bill of Rights to do it).
It is called hypocrisy.
Posted by: fred on December 4, 2008 01:05 PMI think that what we taught our children was "right" and if we did our job well it would stand up to being tested in their lives. So far that's proven true.
I agree this whole episode is at best absurd.
Maybe the answer is that ANY religion, or absence of religion, can place their symbols (words are symbols too) at appropriate times - and they sign up for their time in the Rotunda.
So, Christmas trees around the 25th of December, a Jewish symbol (which may not be the menorah) at the appropriate time, Buddist, Pagen, Islam, atheist, etc. etc. during their term - everyone gets their one display a year - alone and not shared with others.
That wasn't hard to fairly resolve.
Might be interesting to see what others hold closest as best representing their defining values.
Posted by: BA on December 4, 2008 01:06 PMOf course they could! it wasn't about being included, it was about making a statement and getting publicity.
They have succeeded.
But it doesn't help their cause. They are still offensive.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 4, 2008 01:10 PMThere is a major difference...
1) That message is clearly targeting a specific group of people, the atheists are saying all faiths are false. If you had a sign that said "God hates everyone" that would be the equivalent of the Atheist sign.
2) The homosexual community is not the Govt. and therefore is allowed to pick and choose the messages they want to display. The Govt. being representative of all people is supposed to represent the voices of all people and not endorse one religions beliefs over another.
Atheists themselves do not consider atheism a religion.
I don't know if they do or not, but I assume this particular group had to declare one to in order to have their display alongside the nativity scene. I'm guessing here.
Their sign at the Rotunda confirms this in that they state any kind of religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds.
If that's their interpretation of religion so be it. If they have to be hypocrites and declare themselves a religion to get their sign displayed that's a decision they made. The Govt. has no role in determining if their religion or lack there of is valid or not.
And where did Cato go when asked to describe his political ideology?
I went to lunch, the Indian food was delicious.
How would you describe your political leanings?
I would consider myself slightly left of Goldwater. I assume you would lump me in with the Kucinich folks.
doesn't know what the Daily Kos is?
I try not to make assumptions about what uncommon three letter acronyms (KOS) may mean if I don't know them. For the record I don't read the Daily Kos.
I'm fine with atheists having a symbol on display, but they don't have to insult the other faiths on display in order to do it.
Posted by: Palouse on December 4, 2008 01:20 PMSpeaking for myself...No, because they would be targeting specific groups. If they put a symbol that said "everyone is going to hell" or "everyone who believes in the religion that's not my own is going to hell" I would be ok with it as long as they didn't specify their religion and followed the necessary steps for qualification.
I'm going to ignore that many religious symbols may have negative connotations to others that don't share the same set of beliefs.
That said - Palouse, are we talking about a soapbox for any speech or a place to display primary religious symbols and language representing one's faith (or lack thereof...)
What insults you might not insult me and vice versa.
Posted by: BA on December 4, 2008 01:29 PMOh yeah, well that would be different.
You phonies on the left always cry about "free speech" while you quash dissent on campuses all over the country and want Rush Limbaugh off the radio.
Imagine if Republicans wanted to abolish that vile, profane misuse of wood pulp called The Stranger.
The only people in this country who want to destroy the right of free speech are leftists.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 01:31 PMBut that's not their belief. They only believe atheists and gays are going to burn in hell. Why should they change their religious beliefs in order to be included?
It's no different than atheists targeting and insulting "religions". Not everyone belongs to a religion and not everyone is atheist either. They are targeting a segment of the population, just as in the previous example.
Posted by: Palouse on December 4, 2008 01:33 PMWhy? Isn't that what we're discussing here? That the atheists' "symbol" is insulting to people of faith? If you're fine with this insulting symbol, are you also fine with the other in my example?
Posted by: Palouse on December 4, 2008 01:41 PMCato responds:
"I would consider myself slightly left of Goldwater. I assume you would lump me in with the Kucinich folks."
I don't like lumping anyone. However, when one responds lockstep with leftist talking points on virtually every topic I read here on SP I don't think it's unfair to make an assumption.
In your case, Cato I would think it is fair to say you are a member of the left. Why is it so hard to admit it?
Oh I almost forgot. It's because that's what leftists always do.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 01:43 PMRight. And the placard is clearly targeting people of faith which last time I checked, were a group of people.
"2)...The Govt. being representative of all people is supposed to represent the voices of all people and not endorse one religions beliefs over another."
So what you're saying is that a 'God hates fags' placard is equally protected under the 1st amendment and is therefore acceptable to be placed in the rotunda. Mr. Phelps will be glad to hear it. Since this atheist group from Wisconsin were able to erect their sign in the Washington state capital rotunda, nothing is stopping Fred Phelps from travelling within the next 3 weeks or next year to Olympia so that he may exercise his free speech rights. Where does the insanity stop...
...Is it too late to get some butter on this popcorn?
We used to enjoy a Merry Christmas. Now we have the bland, meaningless Happy Holidays.
It's what the left does. The benefits of which seem to escape me.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 02:02 PMOh give up the fairness doctrine BS, it's not going anywhere. There are two conservative radio stations that serve the Seattle area, that's up from one 10 years ago. Seattle has one liberal talk radio station. Rush, Savage, Hannity, O'Riley, etc all have plenty of outlets for their voices, no one is taking the off the air.
Personally I'd welcome the approval of low power FM transmitters to have even more diversity on the radio dial.
However, when one responds lockstep with leftist talking points on virtually every topic I read here on SP I don't think it's unfair to make an assumption.
Do you have to subscribe to get those? How much do they cost? Do you get the 'leftist talking points' for the day in an email or something? I don't, nor do I seek them out.
Assume all you want, but I can assure you my beliefs and views are my own. To assume otherwise would be incorrect, but it's your right to be that way.
Cato I would think it is fair to say you are a member of the left.
I may have left leaning views but I am not a member of any left or right leaning group/party/organization. I am myself and my views reflect my own personal opinions and not the ones of anyone else.
So what's the answer - put up a Christmas tree and you may be insulting those who have a different system of beliefs. Put up a sign expressing your belief system and you insult those who believe otherwise.
This example in the Rotunda reflects a wide gulf between two positions - but not the only one.
Posted by: BA on December 4, 2008 02:09 PMAre you really equating a decorated tree with a sign that denigrates religion as enslaving minds?
Is any religious belief acceptable to be on display? Maybe the KKK celebrates KKKristmas, and wants their message of hate on display too. Should we allow that too?
Posted by: Palouse on December 4, 2008 02:15 PMMaybe it's because not all people celebrate Christmas like BFR @ 28. Public schools should not be endorsing one religious holiday over another. Private schools can call it whatever they want. Why should the Govt. favor your particular religion to be celebrated over others?
We used to enjoy a Merry Christmas
You can still say/have a Merry Christmas there Bill, no one is stopping you. You sound really bitter there Bill, try to relax and have a Merry Christmas rather than getting all worked up about nothing. No one is taking away your Limbaugh or your favorite Christian Radio/TV stations.
We do have the right to free speech. We do have the right to practice our religious faith. We also have the right not to practice any religious faith.
Government is restricted from imposing any specific religion (or non-religion) on us. By the same token, I would also argue that Government is restricted from being hostile to the religions we choose to practice.
This placard is a government endorsed show of hostility towards religion.
The government can not endorse Catholics as being better than Baptists, Lutherns, Methodists, Hindus, or Muslims. Neither can they officially endorse Atheism as being better than any other religion. Yet, this is what the placard proclaims.
Would they allow placards from some of the major religions in our state attacking the views of other religions in the state? I don't think so, and this is precisely why this placard is unacceptable.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on December 4, 2008 02:24 PMChristmas was once a wonderful, magical time, particularly for children. I assume you probably are too young to remember those days.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 02:27 PMBecause their belief is that ALL religion is a sham, that would include there own 'religion' as well. It's not for the Govt. to decide who's religion is real or not. I'm guessing the Atheists went through the proper channels and likely declared the placard to be the symbol of their religion.
Like you said 'Government is restricted from imposing any specific religion'. If you don't like it, don't look at it, it's that simple.
What makes you, or me, the authority?
There are lots of belief systems that I think are wrong, or just goofy. Maybe yours is one of them.
Who gets to decide?
I think if it is you or me, it should be me.
Still is, that's what the home/church is for, your personal celebration of your religious beliefs. The Freedom of Religion clause in the Constitution guarantees you that.
We live in a diverse society and the Govt. cannot and should not endorse your religious belief over others. That's why publicly owned institutions don't have Christmas Breaks anymore because it might constitute a public endorsement of a specific religion.
Oh yeah, Rick D & Bill:
I really could care less if you said Merry Christmas to me in the hallway of my work or sang Christmas Carols on my front porch. More power to ya.
If someone had put up a display saying "god hates gays" you'd hardly be saying , "If you don't like it, don't look at it".
You know how I often can tell that someone is on the left? They lie.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 02:49 PMThis reminds me of that quote incorrectly attributed to Lincoln that says:
How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg? Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
It's an old canard used endlessly by the left.
The Constitution mandates that the government shall not establish a state religion. Simply put they didn't want a Church of the United States. Liberals conveniently parrot " separation of church and state" whenever it suits their fanatical religious hatred.
Even you leftists, Cato, know this. But of course it never stops you, does it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 02:59 PMSECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state. No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this article shall not be so construed as to forbid the employment by the state of a chaplain for such of the state custodial, correctional, and mental institutions, or by a county's or public hospital district's hospital, health care facility, or hospice, as in the discretion of the legislature may seem justified. No religious qualification shall be required for any public office or employment, nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror, in consequence of his opinion on matters of religion, nor be questioned in any court of justice touching his religious belief to affect the weight of his testimony.
Examples please?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 03:11 PMNo, that would not be a violation of free speech because that sign violates section 49.60.030 of the Revised Code of Washington, the state's Law Against Discrimination.
Bill Cruchon writes: "I've never heard of that "freedom of religion clause in the Constitution". It's an old canard used endlessly by the left."
Bill, someone else has already pointed out that the state Constitution has a freedom of religion clause. And so does the federal Consitution. Perhaps you might have overlooked it --- it can be found in that obscure section known as the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. (Perhaps you have heard of it.) That section includes the Establishment Clause (that you mentioned), but it also guarantees the "free exercise" of religion. You might want to actually read the Constitution before you spread any more falsehoods.
Ignorance is apparently an old canard used by the right.
When the left caws "separation of church and state" what they really are saying is, "we hate Christianity".
And we know why. Christianity promotes family values, Christians establish and give to charitable institutions. Leftists want the state to do all of these things. Gosh, why did the Soviets outlaw the church?
"Oh yeah well we would never do that" leftists will claim. Given the evidence at hand I for one do not believe them for a second.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 03:32 PMAbsolutely not. I'm fine with the atheists' religious symbol. I'm not fine with that symbol explicitly denigrating in words the other faiths. This is not making the other faiths symbols more or less important. It's establishing a guideline for decency. That's the problem here.
Posted by: Palouse on December 4, 2008 03:34 PMI love it when "conservatives" argue against free speech.
You're lying: no one here did that.
True conservatives believe in the marketplace of ideas.
No one here is against that.
It is called hypocrisy.
It's called learning how to read.
No, that would not be a violation of free speech because that sign violates section 49.60.030 of the Revised Code of Washington, the state's Law Against Discrimination.
Wait a minute. A sign saying attacking homosexuality is a violation of the law against discrimination, but a sign attacking religion is not? Perhaps you should re-read the law, fred.
Bill, someone else has already pointed out that the state Constitution has a freedom of religion clause. And so does the federal Consitution. ... That section includes the Establishment Clause (that you mentioned), but it also guarantees the "free exercise" of religion. You might want to actually read the Constitution before you spread any more falsehoods.
You should read it yourself, as this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the free exercise of religion. Your free exercise of your religion is unrelated to whether the government will provide you a forum for that religion.
Pudge, at what age will you let your children learn ...
None of your business, of course. I couldn't care less about your, or anyone else's, opinions on parenting.
the Christmas tree appears to be insulting to atheists - my point is that ANY religious symbol may well be insulting to others.
Of course. But they should not be overtly insulting and derogatory, and especially not with intent.
So what's the answer - put up a Christmas tree and you may be insulting those who have a different system of beliefs.
People insulted by a Christmas tree deserve to be insulted. Let's be frank here. Christmas is a national holiday, and almost everyone of every faith puts up a Christmas tree to celebrate it. Indeed, far more Americans celebrate Christmas, usually with a Christmas tree, than any other holiday.
If you're insulted by it, then it's only because you want to be insulted, and therefore you got what you wanted.
Put up a sign expressing your belief system and you insult those who believe otherwise.
Again, this is not about expressing your beliefs, it is about doing it in a way that amounts to overtly attacking the beliefs of others.
Maybe it's because not all people celebrate Christmas like BFR @ 28. Public schools should not be endorsing one religious holiday over another.
You're lying: it is a secular holiday. It is a government holiday at both the federal and state levels. For a government school to refuse to call it by its official government name is lunacy of the highest order.
And at #92 you are touching on one of the fundamental reasons for the left's annual "war on Christmas".
They seek to abolish Christmas as a national holiday.
These people are fanatical, angry, and will stop at nothing.
These people miss out on a lot. Particularly at this magical time of year.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 03:58 PMIt's Christmas. Fill them landfills!!!!! Time to get some cheap crap to put under the pagan tree with fancy paper!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 4, 2008 04:10 PMBut, what about symbols that are to some just as denigrating but not so easy to identify by others?
Posted by: BA on December 4, 2008 04:21 PMIf that's the case, why did Bill Cruchon declare "I've never heard of that "freedom of religion clause in the Constitution". It's an old canard used endlessly by the left."?
I was simply pointing out that Mr. Cruchon is flat wrong, under both the state and federal Consitutions. (And we are still waiting for the author to acknowledge his error.)
Actually, Mr. Cruchon is correct --- it is a true statement that he has "never heard of that freedom of religion clause in the Constitution." I agree that he has never heard of it. I sincerely apologize for doubting his ignorance. I promise not to do that again. In the future, I will assume his total ignorance.
Pudge: "no one here argued against free speech." (paraphrase from post #90)
Pudge, post #5: "But frontally attacking other religions in the rotunda is not fine. It absolutely should be removed."
Was Pudge arguing against free speech? You be the judge, pudge.
By definition of every court that has examined this issue, prohibiting speech based on the content of the speech is a First Amendment issue. Of course, in some case the prohibition is allowed (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is the usual example).
Whether the atheist sign should be allowed is a legitimate policy debate, but don't pretend that we aren't talking about a free speech issue.
I don't recall that the Constitution allows speech to be banned simply because some superstitious cult doesn't think the speech is sufficiently "decent."
If you believe in free speech, you have to take the good with the bad. Conservatives are hypocrites when they try to ban speech that they don't agree with ---- while simultaneously trying to use public funds and public spaces to ram their myths and superstitions down my throat.
.... and god bless you all.
A sign attacking homosexuality is targeting a specific group of people. The sign denouncing all religions as a sham is denouncing all religions equally (even the "religion" of Atheism). =)
Christmas is a national holiday, and almost everyone of every faith puts up a Christmas tree to celebrate it. Indeed, far more Americans celebrate Christmas, usually with a Christmas tree, than any other holiday.
If we're all equal under the eyes of the law, then why should the majority have the right to display their beliefs and others are not?
The placard is perfectly legal since it does not call out any specific religion/group...it just says all religions are fraudulent.
The fact Christmas is a federal holiday is all the more reason to allow other religions to have similar 'symbols' to be displayed on Govt. property. All or none.
But they should not be overtly insulting and derogatory, and especially not with intent.
It's only derogatory if you interpret it that way. Calling religion a sham is their point of view and they have the same rights as Christians to display their 'symbol'. I'm not offended.
They seek to abolish Christmas as a national holiday. These people are fanatical, angry, and will stop at nothing
*yawn*, here we go again...conspiracy theorists take note. Those darn peoples and their right to free expression. There is nothing magical in my mind about a holiday overrun by rampant consumerism but hey it's a free country so it's none of my business. =)
It goes both ways.
Posted by: formermoonbat on December 4, 2008 05:19 PMThey are not exactly telling the truth, nor are they willing to talk about their real agenda which is the elimination of the Christmas holiday.
They will never admit that but every year they keep pushing, and pushing, and pushing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 05:25 PMMeanwhile, lets get back to the main task at hand and focus on resolving the economic crisis before it causes further implosion of the US economy. That would mean showing tough love in not bailing out the big 3 auto companies, but offering alternative means of support - that would take thinking outside of the box, though. Unfortunately, I doubt if the bleeding heart liberals (PRogressives) are capable of showing tough love, which is contrary to their policy of enabling.
Posted by: KS on December 4, 2008 05:28 PMI would bet you anything his has had more than one gay lover, just like his buddy Ted Haggard.
It seems quite often the more anti gay you are, the more gay you are.
As far as the topic.
Government, and governing should be free of religion.
Religion should be free of government.
Same deal works both ways, and after some debate was what our founding fathers wanted and stated plain as day.
I know the truth really pisses off the jesus creeps like Phelps, but it is still the truth. What ever you do, don't tell them the world is more than 6,000 years old, or try to teach evolution, and science for that matter to their hatchlings. They'll get real mad.
Maybe we could have Palin's witch hunter preacher come down here and get rid of all that evil in our state's capital!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 4, 2008 05:37 PMI'm back in the Methow right now.... In fact I am looking out the window at the Methow River right now.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 4, 2008 05:39 PMI wouldn't call it apathy. I'm sure Goldstein is happy as a clam about anything that leads to the ultimate goal of eliminating Christmas as a holiday.
While we enjoy Christmas, December for the left is a reason to "deconstruct" the season.
I really wish I was making this up. Remember that nasty 55 year old lady who graced the front page of yesterday's P-I? She "doesn't like Christmas".
I knew lots of the people I grew up with would end up like that lady. How I wish I could say I was wrong.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 05:50 PM
He's yours not mine.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/06/btsc.lavandrera.funerals/
I like the part where his protesters say "Thank God for IED's" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers."
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 4, 2008 05:57 PMMerry Christmas! :)
Posted by: deidre on December 4, 2008 06:07 PMLet's just forget about The Dark Ages, The Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, and killing anyone in the Americas, and elsewhere that didn't want to convert.
Destroying the temples of the locals, their culture, customs, language, and attempting to get them to worship some christian "god" instead of the things they chose to worship like the earth, sun, etc.
Boy, there better be a "god", because if there isn't, the "christians", and others destroyed thousands of cultures for no reason, other than to enslave others. Well, even if there is a god, the enslavement worked then, and works just as well with most religions today!
Keep your people so busy "worshiping" that they don't have much time to watch their leaders while they plundering the countries.
Religion brings far more pain and suffering to the planet than it relieves. Sorry. Wish it wasn't so. And I believe in god.
What are the two most common reasons for people to kill each other? Jesus, and Mohammed. They come before even greed.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 4, 2008 06:13 PMIt's leftist talking point number #51 I think.
I guess they forget about all the atheist suffering brought to the planet by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro. And we wouldn't dare to mention all of the unborn children the atheist nutburgers promote every year, would we?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 06:24 PMIt's leftist talking point number #51 I think.
I guess they forget about all the atheist suffering brought to the planet by the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro. And we wouldn't dare to mention all of the unborn children the atheist nutburgers promote killing every year, would we?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 06:25 PMMaybe if the "christians" weren't corrupt, powder mad hypocrites, then Stalin, and Mao would not have risen to power? Ever wondered that? We will never know.
What I think is hilarious is how the Prince of Peace is somehow mixed up with the party of endless war.
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 4, 2008 06:37 PMIt's garbage but it is what the left is so adept at doing. Pulling a big cloak over the misery that they create.
God lord, these people kill millions of innocent unborn children every year.
They are sick.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 06:40 PMYou know "facts" where Bush invaded Iraq so he could invoke dictatorial power and ....
How'd that all turn out.
You friggin nutcases.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 4, 2008 06:59 PMRemember the Killing Fields? The Holocaust? Stalin's purges? Mao's great leaps forward?
Ringing any bells?
Posted by: Sasquatch on December 4, 2008 07:10 PMIf that's the case, why did Bill Cruchon declare "I've never heard of that "freedom of religion clause in the Constitution". It's an old canard used endlessly by the left."?
Um. What does Bill's misunderstanding, or misstatement, have to do with the fact that this has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion?
I was simply pointing out that Mr. Cruchon is flat wrong
I took him to be referring to the fact that Cato and others were trying to impute the "free exercise of religion" with some meaning it didn't have: the right to express that view in any way or in any place you wish.
Was Pudge arguing against free speech?
Of course not.
prohibiting speech based on the content of the speech is a First Amendment issue.
Correct. However, I was not calling for anyone's speech to be prohibited.
Whether the atheist sign should be allowed is a legitimate policy debate, but don't pretend that we aren't talking about a free speech issue.
I pretend nothing: this is absolutely not in any way a free speech issue.
I don't recall that the Constitution allows speech to be banned simply because some superstitious cult doesn't think the speech is sufficiently "decent."
Similarly, you do not recall anyone asking for anyone's speech to be banned.
Posted by: pudge on December 4, 2008 07:14 PMBut, what about symbols that are to some just as denigrating but not so easy to identify by others?
Such as?
Posted by: pudge on December 4, 2008 07:14 PMA sign attacking homosexuality is targeting a specific group of people. The sign denouncing all religions as a sham is denouncing ...
... a specific group of people: those with religious belief.
You can't convince anyone with this insipid line of reasoning.
If we're all equal under the eyes of the law, then why should the majority have the right to display their beliefs and others are not?
You're lying: we are not calling for them to not have their beliefs displayed. We are saying the particular form it took should be disallowed.
It's only derogatory if you interpret it that way.
You're lying, obviously. Not sure why you would lie about something so obvious. Their clear and stated intent is to be derogatory toward religious belief.
Here! Here!... As long as it's not at a place of business owned by an atheist. Come on big boys: put your money where your mouth is: TELL us where you work, what stores you own so that WE can excercise our freedom of association by NOT patronizing such hateful jerks when we spend our money on the HOLYday celebration known as CHRISTmas.
See? I exercised my God given right of FREE SPEECH.
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 4, 2008 07:29 PMFred Phelps is an anti gay minister from a part of kansas where the average iq is in single digits.
Well, at least he has ONE thing in common with Seattle.
Government, and governing should be free of religion. Religion should be free of government.
Our Founding Fathers certainly disagreed with you. Even Benjamin Franklin, of all people, said it was incumbent upon the Congress to pray for guidance. They almost universally agreed that religion was a key component to governing.
You don't have to agree, of course. But clearly any interpretation of the First Amendment that leads to "governing and government should be free of religion" is a false one.
Let's just forget about The Dark Ages, The Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, and killing anyone in the Americas, and elsewhere that didn't want to convert.
And the millions killed by Stalin and Mao in the name of atheistic statism. The greatest mass murders, and greatest oppressions of basic liberty, in human history were explicitly atheistic.
I am not saying that means atheism is bad. I am saying you're myopic and dishonest for trying to link religion, in particular, to such bad things.
Religion brings far more pain and suffering to the planet than it relieves.
False. Not even remotely close to true. Abolition of slavery ring a bell? How about the spread of knowledge and science and written language? Salvation Army and the many other religious charity groups that help millions?
What are the two most common reasons for people to kill each other? Jesus, and Mohammed. They come before even greed.
Nope: atheistic statism is, by far, the number one cause of violent death in our world.
Sorry. Wish it weren't so.
If the christians want to put up a nativity scene, then the athiests get to put up what they want.
False. If Christians put up a nativity scene, the atheists get to put up something COMPARABLE. Not "whatever they want."
Maybe if the "christians" weren't corrupt, powder mad hypocrites, then Stalin, and Mao would not have risen to power?
Wow. You're actually, explicitly, and unapologetically, blaming the victims. Incredible.
What I think is hilarious is how the Prince of Peace is somehow mixed up with the party of endless war.
Only in your tiny little mind.
Posted by: pudge on December 4, 2008 07:30 PMGregoire is pathetic....and a liar if she says she had NO choices.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 4, 2008 07:31 PMUSC offensive coordinator Steve Sarkisian will be named Washington coach, multiple sources told ESPN on Thursday night.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2008 07:32 PM#108: Yes, possibly. Either that or----"Hey Goldy, Anton LaVey called. He wants his clothes back!"
Posted by: Michele on December 4, 2008 07:38 PMI refuse to see Wikipedia for anything. I don't consider them a reliable or credible source.
i will however type it into my browser and see what comes up. I though he/it might be some local Seattle insider thing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 4, 2008 07:51 PMGregoire could have said no, just like Laura Bush turned down the christmas tree ornament with all that impeachment stuff on it.....
As far as Stalin and Mao, I don't blame the christians. I blame the whole human race.
Now something that IS a big deal is Bush's EPA exempting the toxin perchlorate in our drinking water from regulation, regardless of what the experts say. There must be a buck in poisoning us somehow....
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on December 4, 2008 08:12 PMI vote for a tribute to the Easter Bunny, Tinkerbell, and the Tooth Fairy. Once upon a time, the Tooth Fairy delivered to the Easter Bunny ten golden tablets ... and, if you do the same, you will have Eternal Life, ascend unto Heaven, and marry 188 virgins. But don't eat any shellfish or covet your neighbor's cattle! If you do, the magic spell will be broken and your ruby slippers will be taken away by the Wicked Witch and her secret lover, the Fallen Angel!
Happy Solstice!
Posted by: fred on December 4, 2008 08:19 PMNow, we have an "out of state special interest group" from Wisconsin [far enough out of state for you?] erecting hate speech signs in the Washington state capital rotunda with the blessings of the "do-nothing dimwit" Queen Christine...yet no radio ads from the DNC.
...I guess that is what is referred to as situational ethics.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 4, 2008 08:27 PMSo, I guess we can put up any poster, saying any thing we would like, then? Otherwise, I'm being suppressed?
I already wrote her office, not that it will do much good. I thought later to add a little test for her. Remember the elementary school problems where you have three or four things and you have to pick the one that doesn't belong? She must have been out that week. Otherwise, she'd know that there are positive messages of hope and peace and one hateful attack.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
Posted by: Zarro on December 4, 2008 09:04 PMI'd like to see some Christians take that sign in the Capitol rotunda and rip it to shreds and show that if it's a war on Christmas that the Atheists want, it is war that they will get. Let's get ready to rumble !!
Posted by: KS on December 4, 2008 09:39 PMAs far as this religion stuff goes, I don't care. Atheists are just a bunch of whiners, and Christians who are convinced that Jesus was born on December 25th and is the literal "Son of God" are deluding themselves.
Jesus was an important religious figure of the time, but he wasn't the "Son of God." Christmas is just a popular holiday whose original intent was to win-over Pagans of the time to Christianity. Heck, I like Christmas, but there's nothing holy about it. It's just a good time to overeat, give and get presents, and not have to go to work. That's reason enough to keep it around without a bunch of atheists trying to ruin a good thing!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on December 4, 2008 09:57 PMThe whole point is to expose the fact that allowing any religious group to use government owned space is a violation of the 1st amendment, and leads to this very type of social conflict.
The only solution is to not allow any religious or atheistic message on government property. There are plenty of private venues for Christmas trees (which have a Christian meaning in this culture) and atheist messages in other places.
The atheists have also gotten themselves some really cheap publicity. They have emboldened many other atheists like me to come out of the closet, where before there was too much fear.
Look, I'll tolerate your right to your religious superstition, just don't try to use the government to further your religious cause. That is off-limits. Don't try to make it appear that the government supports your religion. That is what Christmas trees in the state capital are for.
Your right to liberty guarantees that you should be able to use any private and peaceful way to promote your religion, but NOT the government. To do that is to take the lazy way out. You are using other people's money to promote your special interest. It violates the principle of limited government as well.
You conservatives have to choose: are you a limited government conservative or are you a social/religious conservative? Religious conservatives who want to put nativity scenes and Christmas trees on government property are not limited government conservatives.
The goal for we atheists is only what is guaranteed by our natural rights to liberty and the Constitution. We do not seek to eradicate religion, just to be allowed to be "out of the closet" about our own lack of religion. We seek an impartial government that does not take sides on religious issues. We have been marginalized and discriminated against for too long.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 4, 2008 10:09 PMWe need a separation of church and state, for this is what GIVES us freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.
I voted for Rossi as well, but it was because he was running a mostly fiscal campaign, and stayed away from the socially conservative issues with which I disagree.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 4, 2008 10:13 PMmy point--who do these atheists cry out to in the throes of dying--on a battlefield, in a hospice or wherever? anyone know? I've not seen it, so maybe I'm confused. Anyone work in a place where atheists die? What do they say? Do they call upon anyone? something? nothing? a tree? or just slip away? not kidding--i'd like to know--
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on December 4, 2008 10:51 PMTwo Peas in a pod! Thank god Darcy Bit the dust!
Posted by: gs on December 4, 2008 11:39 PMOnce again the glaring double standard of the perverted left is exposed for all to see.
We should all go there and spit on it.
Posted by: Independent Voter on December 5, 2008 03:03 AMHe's your buddy!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times, but has never won. These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31% of the vote Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election.
If they decided that a display of this sort was unacceptable, why would the Athiests plaque be any more acceptable?
The plaque becomes a government endorsement of non-religion. It allows one group to denigrate other groups based on their religious beliefs. Its acceptance for display implies government endorsement of the message - clearly not Consitutional.
Government should acknowledge and recognize the traditions and celebrations of its people, especially if they are traditions and celebrations practiced by large portions of its population. This may require "competing" symbols be displayed together.
However, government - being "totally secular" - should not be involved in denigrating one over another.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on December 5, 2008 07:23 AMFirst, are you outraged because this atheist group gets to even have a voice, or are you simply upset about the specific wording of the sign?
Second, is any Christian out there even willing to consider for a moment that to an atheist, the rhetoric of Christmas is as insulting as this sign appears to be to you. So many of these posts simply assert the person's beliefs while attacking the other side without a stitch of reason or logic.
It is my humble opinion that at the heart of this whole uproar is the emotional reaction of a group of people who have, for too long, been able to impose their beliefs on everyone else with impunity. Now that the other views are getting that opportunity the Christian community is outraged and throwing a temper tantrum. Don't for a minute pretend like you haven't openly attacked the beliefs of atheist groups just as deliberately when the opportunity presented itself.
One final thought: jimmie-howya-doin, if that rhetorical question is supposed to prove something, please, for the love of Zeus, tell me what it is. The whole foxhole atheist argument is pure emotional nonsense. In fact, if you think about the implications of that argument, it's rather insulting to, and weakens the Christian faith. You cry out to a non-entity in the nadir of your life in order to find solace. If an atheist TRULY has no capacity for a belief in a higher power, why in the world would he even consider the notion of crying out to god in times of duress?
Further, who did the ancient Greeks cry out to? The Hellenized Romans? Were their cries any more or less beneficial in the final analysis? Bring the argument more current, who does a dying Muslim cry out to? Does that make them right and Christians wrong?
This knee jerk defense of what you say you believe is counter productive to the notion of people ever being able to get along with each other.
Posted by: Nate Phelps on December 5, 2008 07:43 AMKind of like the atheist placard, right Nate?
The only bigotry shown here was done by the atheists.
Clearly the out-of-state Atheists went out of there way to confront the free speech of another group.
Gregoire had 100% control over WHEN & WHERE that Atheist garbage was posted...and she allowed it to be posted next to the Nativity see at the same time...pathetic.
Pudge...I agree Gregoire could have told the Atheists to come back with a positive message about THEIR beliefs and avoid attacking religion. However, then you start getting into censorship and government dictating what is said.
I think Gregoire should give them a little corner to post their hateful, antagonistic message AFTER Christmas and AFTER the Nativity scene & Menora are taken down.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 5, 2008 08:25 AMI get the feeling that the wording of that sign has become a bit of a red herring for the [African American] brethren among us. Take a deep breath and try to step outside your built in prejudice zone and ask yourself a few simple questions.First, are you outraged because this [Ku Klux Klan] group gets to even have a voice, or are you simply upset about the specific wording of the sign?
Second, is any [African American] out there even willing to consider for a moment that to a [Klan member], the rhetoric of [Martin Luther King day] is as insulting as this sign appears to be to you.
So Nate, offended yet?
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 08:27 AMYeah, Nate. Like our founding fathers?
That kooky notion about the government "taking sides" regarding religion has to come from some sort of deep paranoia.
In my entire life I've never felt the least bit of pressure from the government to embrace religion, and I grew up in the '50's and '60's.
I think libertarians miss why leftists go into overdrive every December. It's all about socialism. Religion and families are viewed as a threat to their god, which is a socialist government.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 09:00 AMBy the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this Third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the Unites States the Eighty-eighth.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln
Personally, I would not go for that...and if it were done, I would expect the Governor to stick it in the corner with the Atheist garbage....and not on MLK's birthday.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on December 5, 2008 09:08 AMGregoire had 100% control over WHEN and WHERE this antagonistic Atheist statement is put.
She could have easily put it anywhere besides next to the Nativity Scene and anytime (she could have waited until AFTER Christmas is over.
That is 100% in her power.
Gregoire is a coward...and hardly a Catholic.
She COULD also have sent the Atheist statement back and requested that they re-do it in a positive message about what they believe.
She didn't do that either.
Gregoire is reaaaaaaaaaal lucky Christmas wasn't in October!
By the way, I'd NEVER, EVER use that strategy in a discussion for exactly this reason. People stop thinking rationally and spew out pure emotion.
Katomar: I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with the positive messages that come from religious groups during this time of year. I have a lot of problems with the notion that it is only within a religious context that such sentiment is legitimate or even possible. To me, that's a fundamental problem with religion, that they have hijacked all concepts of good and decent behavior and argue it's existence only in the context of a mythical being.
Mr. Cynical: Your entire argument fails in your first sentence, "Nate must really hate Abe Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation! It's just out of step with Nate's New Age Progressive delusion!" You assume what my feelings are then make your argument based on that assumption.
I will say this about Mr. Lincoln and his speeches: Some of the most heinous rhetoric against blacks came from speeches made by Mr. Lincoln. Just because a national leader spoon feeds the masses what they want to hear, it doesn't for a minute argue the legitimacy of his sentiment or rhetoric. Arguments stand on their own exclusive of who delivers them. So far, you've made no argument except that I should acquiesce to whatever some politician says.
Let me end by saying again...I don't condone the inflammatory language of the sign, but be careful that your arguments are based on sound logic and not bourne of some baseless emotion that's stirring in your bosom.
Posted by: Nate Phelps on December 5, 2008 09:36 AMHas it not occurred to you that Abraham Lincoln lived in the mid-nineteenth century?
Well no it probably hasn't. The kind of mental activity you display here is the same mindset of liberals who attempt to ban the works of Mark Twain because he used the "n-word".
Let me offer you a challenge "Nate". Show us in quotes the "heinous rhetoric against blacks" that Lincoln used.
I think you will find that any statements Lincoln made that you choose to twist for your own ends can be better understood given the times in which they were made.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 09:59 AMNICE ONE Rick. LOL
Let's be up front about this. They changed the name for good PR Not because of what he was.
Yet, either way. It was stupid!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 5, 2008 10:15 AMThe other 00.3% are miserable year round, so who really gives a damn what they think?
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 10:18 AMFree speech lives on in the Washington State Capitol Building, no thanks to Conservatives like Bill Cruchon, Pudge, Michelle, Ragnar, and Rick D. who are jumping at the chance to suppress it.
Cheating your employer or a typical libetal slug, obfusCATOr??
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 10:24 AMThis is what they belive, you saying a "religion" change their beliefs to be more positive?
Ok then, how about we ask the Vatican to make the Ten Commandments more positive by making them Thou Shalt's instead on Thou Shalt Not. Instead of Thou Shalt not commit murder, they can change it to Thou Shalt Love thy Neighbor. I'd love to see the religious outrage over that one.
If they were (smart) Yes I know I'm asking for a bunch. Name a college or a school after MLK. Not a road or city seal. It's not what the man was about.
PS... nice one Rags. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 5, 2008 10:34 AMOn the contrary obfusCATOr, we are celebrating OUR free speech by condemning hatefilled speech and the coward governor enabling them.
I want MORE free speech from them - I want them to freely speak to us about where they work, what business they own. I want them to show the courage of their hatred.
But we all know they won't because it's not about courage or convictions; it's about grandstanding and expressing hatred for the majority and the tradition of the country.
It's pretty much the standard MO for all liberal activist hate.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 10:34 AMPLEASE don't show off your ignorance more than you already have or speak of thing you clearly know nothing.
Figure it out.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 10:37 AMThat's right I am not in favor of the "fairness doctrine". A radio/TV station is a private run businesses and not the Federal Govt. The Fed's can't discriminate over which side get's face time on C-SPAN. Meanwhile Fox News has every right to decide who get's face time whether it be 99% O'Riley and 1% Goldy or 50/50. Nice try though Bill.
I clearly missed the part where MLK was deemed the son of god.
Posted by: Cato on December 5, 2008 10:40 AM
It's reminiscent of a toddler mindset and whatever happens to frightne them: 'If I close my eyes it won't be there'.
Burt Prelustsky, a favorite curmudgeon pretty much nails liberals today.
The truth is, it's left-wingers who make a practice of evading the issues.
We all know which of our pet lefties consistently match that 'truth'.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 10:46 AMThat's their right under the law, clearly you can't fathom the 1st Amendment. They did not target Christianity, they targeted all religions including their own "Religion". I think it's hilarious they declare themselves and religion only to say their beliefs are also a myth and superstition. Classic!!
You're definately in the 00.3%, but I thought you had the sense to figure that out.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 10:49 AMIn the old days you wrote a letter to the editor of the local rag and you had to identify yourself. I still hold by that rule.
Eric, and others here do the same. I can't rationally comprehend comments from people like "cato" without having some idea of who they are. I can't understand their political motivations without some idea of what they have done for a living, whether or not they have a family and so on.
I'm more than happy to say who I am. I'm a 55-year old fitness consultant. I've been married for 30-years. I am a conservative. I've worked over the years in the cable television industry, the banking industry, and the fitness industry. I've been a manager. My wife and I are starting our own fitness business.
I'm not arguing against the right of posters to use an anonymous handle. What I am saying is that it would enlighten the discourse if we had some idea what makes people tick.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 10:51 AMAnd that is EXACTLY what I said. It is also MY right under the law to call them jerks, to condemn them and denigrate anyone (YOU and the nitwit governor) for doing so.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 10:51 AMHere, I had a nasty person involved with the government attempt (and came close) to reveal who I was and where I lived. I had a similar experience at HA, except with threats.
Your desire to know, my desire to have you know does not and will not trump my safety nor that of my family.
Sufffice it to say we share an ideology, an age and length of marriage.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 10:56 AMWhoop de do...he was a man, he nor anyone else declared him the son of god, he did not cure lepers, turn water into wine, have a star that guided three wise men to his manger, he does not have a religion named after him, no one believes that MLK was anything other than a man who preached equality through non-violent actions.
The fact he was an ordained minister has nothing to do with it, he was a man not someone who had supernatural powers and performed miracles. There is a highly significant and clear difference between the two figures.
but, but, but....it's different!! Not at all
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 11:12 AMI enjoy being civil in my arguments even though others here are certainly not. I don't level personal attacks unless they're leveled against me. I prefer the anonymity as my personal life is my business and has no relevance to what I post on here. My opinion here has no relevance to who I am off SP or what my background is, my opinion is mine and mine alone. You are more than welcome to disagree with me and I highly encourage it.
HOWEVER that does not preclude you or them from being on the receiving end of outrage for it.
You lefties, again, seem to think (and I use that term guardedly) that it's always a one-way street with you people the only only arbitor of who gets to drive there.
Grow up.
If you want to attack, be man enough to accept a punishing counter attack. And attempt not to whine when the time comes that someone attacks something/someone YOU value.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 11:15 AMThat is one of the single SADDEST statements I have ever read someone post about himself.
It tells me that you are here just to instigate, that you have not depth of your own beliefs (if you indeed know what they are) or that you stand for nothing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 11:18 AMI agree, which is why I pointedly stated that I don't disagree with those who choose to be anonymous.
I've had the same sorts of threats from people, particularly at HA where one poster threatened to do things to my wife that I would not post here or anywhere else.
I told him if he had the courage to say those horrid things to my face well, he knows where to find me. Haven't heard from him. What a surprise.
I think maybe I didn't make my point clear though Ragnar. Wouldn't it be enlightening when reading the comments of someone like cato to have some understanding of who he/she is?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 11:22 AMThe Rev. King does not represent the Church, he is a member of a religion and not the object of worship by that religion. Clearly you have issues seeing the difference who is the son of god, and who is a man.
Isn't there a conflict with melding the church and the state by using the church figure on the "state" seal?
If you put Jesus/Ganesh/Bhuda/Josheph Smith (all have religions celebrating them) on the state/county symbol then Yes that would be a conflict. I have no issues with putting a man on a state symbol who was involved in religion but is/was not worshiped as a religious figure.
Absolutely!
But that would mean HE would have to know who he/she is: My opinion here has no relevance to who I am off SP -Posted by Cato at December 5, 2008 11:14 AM
I am here to express my point of view. If you don't agree with it you are more than welcome to express your point of view. I don't come here to make friends/enemies with the SP folks.
My life is my business and not yours and I'm more than happy to keep it that way. It has nothing to do with the supposed depths of my beliefs.
Posted by: Cato on December 5, 2008 11:31 AMGood lord cato if your opinion here has no relevance to your actual life what possible substance can it hold?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 11:33 AMAs am I.
But mine has total complete relevance to who I am.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 11:34 AMI'm sure Dr. King would disagree with you, Cato. Why have titles such as Baptist Minister if you are not a representative of the Baptist church?
You have problems with logic,sir.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 11:38 AMUh, your life has nothing to do with what you believe Cato?
You know cato that if you play around with conservatives long enough they'll figure you out. My guess cato? I bet you work for the Democratic Party.
I could certainly be wrong, but then you'd have to say what you really do. You don't have to of course but I really wonder why you won't.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 11:40 AMI guess that came out wrong. My opinion here is my own, my personal life has no business up here. If you don't like my opinion I highly encourage you to express your disagreement. Beyond that I don't care to involve myself in your life nor do I with to have you or anyone else here involved in mine. What I do or who I am in my personal life is irrelevant to the topics discussed here.
Again, I'm not here to make friends/enemies. I am here to voice my opinion and if you don't like it feel free to give your own opinion.
Perhaps whomever removed it was just exercising their freedom of expression!
Hells bells it was probably a gregoire operative trying to protect her from anymore national shouts of "COWARD!"
Now she gets a "do-over"...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 11:52 AMYou could explain in some very vague general way what you do cato.
That you don't I think explains much of what you post here.
You don't need to post your name, or where you work.
I think you are a Democrat Party phony troll but I just can't understand why I would make that assumption.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 11:52 AMThere is a big difference between the worshiper and one who is worshiped. Since Dr. King is not a thought of as supernatural individual, not is he worshiped by a religious organization. That being the case I have no problem with him as a man being honored by the state.
My Advice? Quit while you're still behind, cato.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 11:59 AMHuh.
I guess the difference is the OBJECT of the worship, eh obfusCATOr?
"We are the ones we've been waiting for." (Read: "I am the one you've been waiting for.)
LOL, yeah right cato. Let's see a Rev speaks at a prez meeting. The ACLU freaks out. A Rev speaks at school, the ACLU freaks out.
Schools will not talk about Christ, but have a party for muslims and the ACLU says ZIP.
Gezzz I could go on for hours on this one.
"So much for religious tolerance towards others beliefs."
So, Cato, now atheists have religious beliefs? Wow!!! Just WOW!!!
Posted by: swatter on December 5, 2008 12:03 PMYup Ragnar cato is probably sitting in his parents' basement in his underwear. I don't really think that but he doesn't exactly provide evidence to the contrary.
To not be willing to talk even in a very anonymous way about yourself and what you do in this world is so important. If we can't do that we are just sitting behind our computers spewing slogans without the slightest bearing on our lives. That's what cato does.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 12:06 PMSo, you want to talk about the church & state when it comes to this nut.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 5, 2008 12:08 PMI choose not to because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
I think you are a Democrat Party phony troll but I just can't understand why I would make that assumption.
Like I said previously at #45...I am NOT a representative/member of any wing/group/party/organization. My opinions are my own, I speak for no one other than myself. Even if I am/am not a party troll/hack it would not change the fact I speak for myself.
I have an opinion and I care to express it here in a civil manner, I would expect you to do the same. What difference would it make if I were a young/old/fat/thin/Janitor/Admin Assistant/City Planner/Software Engineer/Musician/Banker/CEO/Fitness Instructor or the Prince of Denmark...I would still expect my opinion to be taken at face value rather than based on who I am or what I do in the real world.
Nice lady.
Posted by: blindman on December 5, 2008 12:09 PMThere is also December as a parallel time of religious tradition, but conflating the two is the whole problem. Those on the right want to make it more about the religious aspect and are intolerant of provocative atheist statements. And those on the left who are atheist, want to abolish the word Christmas, because they can't seem to focus on the fact that is is already, for most, a secular, Hallmark like Holiday that just happens to have been named Christmas based on long standing tradition.
It's frankly a whole bunch of whining crybabies, and we go through this same fanatical BS every year, whether it is the trees at SeaTac, or the Stupid statements at the capitol building, etc. Frankly, why on earth would anyone bother to visit the capitol? It is the symbol of the obese failure that is our government. And taking offense is as much a problem with the offended as it is the offensive.
Everyone should just shutup, and focus on enjoying the blinking lights and the nice time of year.
Because all the commotion only serves to give people like Goldy, and all of the troll commenters here a platform to make themselves more visible.
When in doubt, remember the adage, whether you are O'Reilly, or a commenter here, DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 5, 2008 12:10 PMYOUR comment indicated you did not live what you purport to believe. You've not disavowed that notion.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 12:11 PMGood grief! He won't even put himself on the line in generalities! What would possibly make you think he'd do it up close and personal in a life/death situation??
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 12:14 PMI don't want to be mean here cato but having a real life is the only reason to be concerned about the political issues we discuss here.
Do you work for the Democrats? Heck yes, you do.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 12:20 PMThat's fine with me, if Graham Country, USA wants to honor Rev. Bill Graham so be it. People submit religious figures to be displayed in the National Statuary Hall and the Capitol proudly displays them. In fact Washington State's submission is even portrayed as praying.
Again the difference between the worshiper and the worshiped is key difference here.
Cato, now atheists have religious beliefs
I'm guessing they would have to declare themselves as a religion to get equal time. A group claiming the that religion is a sham still fits the dictionary definition of religion. Look it up.
A Rev speaks at school, the ACLU freaks out.
That's the ACLU, not me. I see nothing wrong with kids in public schools looking to members of the clergy as respectable community figures. I don't expect the Reverend to come and convert the masses, I expect him to speak about his church and/or his role in the community. I would welcome the Buddhist Priest and Jewish Rabbi to speak as well with the same role.
Liberals don't grow our crops. Liberals don't drive our trucks. Liberals don't repair our cars.
Liberals run our media, liberals run our schools, liberals are the snotty lawyers that cost us more money than we average people can comprehend. Liberals think we can all enjoy driving a stupid impractical little electric car(as long as they don't have to).
Again, just what do you do for a living cato? I've gotta know because otherwise everthing you post here is just a pile of meaningless garbage.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 12:38 PMGuess away all you want, I'm still not going to tell you who I am or what I do. I really could care less if your a middle aged fitness instructor or if your name really is Bill Cruchon. If I was soliciting advice for fitness equipment then your role in life would matter. Since I'm not I really could care less. I'm still going to take your opinion for what it is, an option.
You know the old saying:
Opinions are like a**holes, everyone's got one.
You miss the point here entirely, and might I say very deliberately.
Tell us all right here that you are not paid by the Democrats to post here. You may not be that's not where I'd put my money.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 12:45 PMGood for you, that's your opinion. Last I checked liberals and conservatives hold all sorts of positions in life. If you want to paint yourself as a bigot and start judging people based on their role in life be my guest. Everyone left or right is entitled to their right to an opinion as guaranteed to them under the constitution. Agreeing to disagree is what makes this country great, it has nothing to do with where you stand on the political spectrum.
I'd also like to point out that Freedom Speech/Expression/Religion was a pretty liberal idea 232 years ago. Now it's considered the norm and people from all walks of life benefit from it.
Rick D: I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that trying to inject a bit of reason in to this discussion is a waste of time. However, I'll try one more time.
You said: "Perhaps you can explain how the hate speech denigrating another religion is keeping within the "decorum" as outlined in the states constitution..." I'm compelled to point out that there is a fundamental difference between hate speech and speech that you hate. You are upset because someone dared to question the intellectual wisdom of believing in a supernatural, all powerful being. How does that translate to hate speech?
Posted by: Nate Phelps on December 5, 2008 12:48 PMI am not paid by anybody to left or right post here. I post here because I like having my views challenged by people who may or may not agree with me. I personally believe in order to learn ones views should be challenged on a regular basis.
Hence the name obfusCATOr!
I'm off to decorate in honor of that season and HOLYday known as CHRISTmas.
Merry CHRISTmas!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 12:56 PMI figured as much. Without further evidence I must conclude that you are a phony just as I believe cato is.
I think we've all heard the leftist talking points enough to make us want to throw up.
What I want is for commentors to offer up some life experience to bolster their beliefs. Cato won't because I expect he's a Democratic operative. I might be wrong but I doubt it.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 12:57 PMYou won't indicate what you do for a living or anything about your background. It's beyond me why you believe that is irrelevant to a political discussion.
Why even have a political discussion then?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 01:06 PMNate you obviously suffer from delusions of adequacy. You've injected nothing into this discussion, merely defended 'hate speech' in the capital rotunda. Nothing to crow about really, but hey, if it helps your obviously limited self-esteem, knock yourself out.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 01:18 PMThey can't play with the big dogs. Nor should they.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 01:24 PMNow DM is another story...
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 5, 2008 01:33 PMYes I'm smacking cato around. And for a purpose. Perhaps ultimately for his own good I hope.
Maybe he really isn't comfortable in his own skin and doesn't know who he is. I sense that is likely.
I'd never pretend to be some sort of shrink but you do have to wonder about someone who spews their leftist opinions and yet shrinks from any discussion about what their life is really about.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 01:46 PMYou didn't back that up with any documentation.
Why didn't you?
Wouldn't possibly be because you are obsessed with pounding the liberal drum would it?
Do you leftists ever wonder that the garbage you've been spoon fed since infancy just might not exactly be accurate?
No, because leftist thought relies on enforced political correctness that denies individual opinion. As in Soviet Russia, China, and Cuba.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 02:14 PMI fail to see how this is relevant to anything. My personal life is not relevant to whether I believe a placard put forth by an Atheist group is covered by the 1st Amendment or not.
Maybe he really isn't comfortable in his own skin and doesn't know who he is.
You don't know me, so why do you continue to judge me? Seems very un-Christian of you. If I felt a portion of my life was relevant to the discussion I would have added it already. Since it's not, I don't plan on doing so.
So let me get this straight. For a FEDERAL CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY - that's right, FEDERAL - the State puts up a Christmas tree. And other religions and groups put up their thoughts. You know, thoughts and words about peace on earth, good will to men, have a happy holiday, merry Christmas (the FEDERAL name for the holiday). General good will and blessings, no preaching.
And then some out-of-state athiests put up a sign that essentially denigrates and condemns everyone else. Completely opposite of what the season of giving, the happy holidays are supposed to represent.
And the liberal, marxist Slaver snot-wipes wonder why no one takes them seriously?
Dear Santa, what I wish for this Christmas is for the Slavery Party hacks on this board to actually get a sense of decency, or a grow a brain, or both...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 5, 2008 03:12 PMHow you live your life has everything to do with this and every discussion here. How could it possibly not?
I'd never consider asking you for personal details but I do believe it is more than appropriate to have some idea of what you do.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 03:30 PMYup, Imagine how our Dim-bulb Governor would react if she was forced to pass the rotunda everyday facing her racist past.
..and yes, Bill C. Logic will always trump the trolls spin everytime =)
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 03:40 PMA few words of advice to both of you:
Spewing leftist talking points here is expected. You might find (as both of you've experienced) that you will be asked to support what you say with facts.
Facts tend to make leftists really angry.
We don't play the silly games you people play.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 04:01 PM
Why? My opinion on this issue not based on my profession. Why don't you ditch the "OMG, Cato is a secret Liberal Operative paid to annoy us here at Sound Politics" conspiracy theories and accept that Atheists have as much right as Christians to display their particular beliefs in the Capitol Building. You may disagree with it and that's your right to do so, but the fact remains it's a free speech issue.
I wonder if we could place a placard up in the Capital outlining the racist past of Goverenor Gregoire?
Would that be religious in nature or just spiteful?
She was, afterall, the president of her "whites only" sorority back in the late 1960's
At least she didn't campaign to have blacks excluded from the sorority, unlike the GOP hero Trent Lott who actively campaigned in late 60's to keep the all-white policy at his Fraternity.
Oh wait, he was still a racist when he was the Senate Majority Leader, he publicly endorsed Stom Thurmond saying that we would not have the problems of today if we had elected an openly racist individual to serve as President.
Yep. And the STATE participates:
Meanwhile, the holiday tree lighting ceremony is 6 p.m. Friday.
Golly, gosh, gee whiz...now what holiday might that be??
Let me think.
Hmm... a Solstice tree? Nope, that doesn't sound right... maybe a Hannukkah tree??? Nah that can't be right. Oh I know! A WINTER tree!
Maybe someone can point out how we decorate our Spring, Summer and Fall trees. When exactly are the dates for the "lighting ceremony" for those?
Does the name BIRD bring anything to mind.
LOL, you really shouldn't go there.
Another smack! Loving it.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 5, 2008 04:14 PMReally, what fact do you have that would allow for the removal of a religious symbol from the Capitol Rotunda?
Fact:
Free Speech/Expression/Religion are covered by the 1st Amendment
You even admit at #95:
The Constitution mandates that the government shall not establish a state religion.
Fact:
In order to not have give the impression that that the state does not endorse a religion they have to give credence to all sides within the boundaries set forth by the State Constitution - Section 11: No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or the support of any religious establishment.
Since the Christians demanded a Nativity scene displayed the Atheists under their rights demanded equal placement of their beliefs. The state Govt. really has no choice in the situation, it's all or nothing.
After this election it's a well established fact that West Virginia is full of racists, I suppose that's why they voted for McCain is such large numbers.
I won't ditch the "who is cato" question until I have some idea who you are. I can make all kinds of assumptions based on your posts which you will get all huffed up about.
Political discussion is all about how we live our lives and what we do. That you don't want to even give the smallest detail about yourself is very revealing.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 04:25 PMHells bells we could have an entire thread creating a narrative for/about him!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 04:29 PMRead the atheists placard again and get back to me re: Spiteful.
So you're for free speech, unless it is actually factual information?
"At least she didn't campaign to have blacks excluded from the sorority.."
How would you know? The fact remains she, as sorority president, in a time of social enlightenment failed to do her part in stepping into a civil rights issue after others had died paving the way for her to do so. She showed weak judgment then as she shows weak judgment now. The only thing that has changed from that Christine Gregoire and this Christine Gregoire is she now has a more "leathery" complexion.
Why are you bring up Lott? I thought we were discussing the Capital rotunda and Washington State? ObfusCATOr lives up to his surname.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 04:38 PMI like to rhyme, I like my beats funky, I'm spunky. I like my oatmeal lumpy. I'm sick wit dis, straight gangsta mack but sometimes I get ridiculous. I'll eat up all your crackers and your licorice
Happy? =P
I can make all kinds of assumptions based on your posts which you will get all huffed up about.
Why would you want to paint yourself as the village jerk? Personally I'd prefer to engage in civil discussion like normal adults. Been doing that for the past 4+ years, see no reason to stop now.
Political discussion is all about how we live our lives and what we do.
No, it can equally be a casual discussion between two or more individuals who can take people at their word. If that's not good enough for you I will just ignore your posts. I didn't ask you about your life, nor do I really care about who you are or what you do.
They are a bunch of phoney liars.
I can accept any kind of honest political disagreement. I am more than happy for the joust.
Liberals don't think that way, they lie and take political disagreement very personally. If you have liberal friends beware, because if they find you are conservative they will shun you.
Isn't that right, cato?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 04:45 PM
"nothing" is probably not a big conversation starter.
It's their belief, you have your belief, they have theirs. They have every right to display the message of thier belifs as long as it doesn't target a specific Race, Color, Caste, or Sex.
Why are you bring up Lott?
Why did you bring up racism? The placard you want would directly violate the State Constitution.
Seriously why do you want to restrict someone from expressing their "religions" belief? You would make a huge stink if they removed Baby Jesus or restricted the display of the Ten Commandments due to a lack of a "positive message". I don't understand Rick D. why have so much hate for non-believers that you would want to persecute them for their beliefs. Seems rather hypocritical of you.
And don't try to say otherwise even though lying is second nature when you've been a leftie as long as you have.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 05:02 PMBoo Hoo Hoo, go cry me a river. It's all about the us vs them mentality with you isn't it. Man, you accused me of being vapid and untruthful, look in the mirror Bill.
Liberals don't think that way, they lie and take political disagreement very personally.
You don't know me, so it seems rather presumtuous of you to assume that I'm a liberal (haha) and that I'm taking it personally. I didn't ask you to spill your life out on the blog, get over yourself.
Isn't that right, cato?
I have no idea, nice ploy though. Have a good weekend Bill, try not to get to worked up about those evil commie pinko atheist liberals you so dread, they have the same rights as you and are equal in the eyes of the law. Isn't America great. =)
What would you do? What do you do now?
Oops I forgot I've already asked that question.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 05:10 PMI don't see anywhere in the State Constitution that says a religious symbol has to be non-judgmental. They believe all religions are a sham, they didn't pick your religion or that of anyone else.
It's free speech, if they had said Christianity is a fraud I would agree with you and ask for it to be removed. As it stands I don't see the problem with it.
And don't try to say otherwise even though lying is second nature when you've been a leftie as long as you have.
Haha, I think it's an extremely angry belief but that in no way qualifies it to be removed. They are entailed to their belief under the law and the State has no right to restrict the display of that belief as it currently stands.
How long have I been a leftie Bill? Do share. I don't think you know a thing about me (just FYI, I plan on keeping it that way).
Enjoy your weekend Bill, go do whatever you do for fun and stop fretting about angry people who put up angry signs in the Capitol Building, it's really not worth three separate threads and 500+ posts.
It must particularly seem to be not worth it cato when you've been beaten like a drum over and over and you still won't reveal who you are or what is your motivation for constantly posting leftist talking points on this blog.
AND it's clear with his last post (of far too many) that he's on the run...again. This is an obfusCATOr/liberal pattern of wild claims, painting himself into a corner, then running.
It must be tough to NOT be able to describe what defines your life. It must be even tougher to have to look in the mirror and have to admit it to yourself.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 5, 2008 05:40 PMHmmm but it isn't spiteful or anything,right?
"They have every right to display the message of thier belifs as long as it doesn't target a specific Race, Color, Caste, or Sex."
you missed one.....religion. Show me in any "hate speech" language that doesn't include religion along with those other groups. You can't and you know it.
"Why did you bring up racism? The placard you want would directly violate the State Constitution."
How so? By simply stating a factual statement? She was the head of the UW sorority that omitted blacks from membership...ergo, she is a racist or was at least at that time. She compounded it by being a weak leader at the height of the civil rights era. You and her might not like that reality, but it doesn't change it from being reality.
"Seriously why do you want to restrict someone from expressing their "religions" belief?"
You aren't that dense are you? Atheist by definition have no beliefs, least of all a religious one. ObfusCATOr using circular logic...if you can call it logic.
"You would make a huge stink if they removed Baby Jesus or restricted the display of the Ten Commandments due to a lack of a "positive message"."
You haven't been listening then. I've stated I'd remove everything but the Tree so we don't have the circus we have now coming in- Balloon sculpture, Festivus pole, etc (really- heard it on the news) The tree would remain because before liberals ruined Christmas with Politcal correctness, This time of year was a very memorable experience for old and young alike. Only the 00.3% of miserable bastards who hate themselves 24/7/365 want company in their misery.
"I don't understand Rick D. why have so much hate for non-believers that you would want to persecute them for their beliefs."
You really are an ignorant troll, but you already know that.
"cato" barfs up the leftist talking points over and over and over on almost every topic thread.
I may be wrong but I think he is paid to do so.
Totally great fun to ask him what he really does for a living. "none of your business" is the reply.
Do they not know we figured them out long ago?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 05:49 PMThey have every right to display the message of thier belifs(sic) as long as it doesn't target a specific Race, Color, Caste, or Sex. ~ ObfusCATOr
Now, for an official explanation of Hate speech:
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
The atheist sign is hate speech as advertised, even if some aren't able to make the connection.
..now to quote the great Gene Wilder: "You get nothing, You Lose...Good day, sir!! "
Posted by: Rick D. on December 5, 2008 06:22 PMYou don't get it, do you? Is the term "Merry Christmas" antagonistic? Is the saying "Happy Holidays" offensive to you?
See, it's called TACT - something most of you extreme Marxists lack. If you have a problem with religion, fine. Bring it up when appropriate. A display celebrating the religious foundations for the holiday - you know, the FEDERAL holiday that HONORS the religious holiday - is NOT the time to do it.
If the athiests were truly inclusive and open minded, they'd simply have put a plaque up that says "We wish you warm regards", or "happy holidays", or "peace on earth".
See, what they did is like walking in to a wedding, dropping your trousers, and taking a big dump on the wedding cake because they don't believe in the institution of marriage.
There's a time and a place and a general adult sense of propriety and tact. It's shown to be woefully missing. And the fact that you defend the action reflects likewise on your own character...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 5, 2008 07:25 PMYou put it so well Shanghgai Dan.
Thanks.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 5, 2008 07:37 PM262 comments, most of them whining about a sign which says, "[T]here is only our natural world." Not one of these comments provides any evidence of a world beyond the natural one. We atheists win by default. As usual.
Posted by: tensor on December 5, 2008 11:03 PMThere ought to simply be a tree, and polite, celebratory greetings of the season. The left has hijacked the whole thing, because they are never satisfied. And they won't ever be so. Satisfaction is reserved for those who have a better understanding of human nature and how to positively motivate. For the left, it's always another fee, fine or program, another law, or another litigious tantrum.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 5, 2008 11:07 PMThe left hates Christians because we stand against their murder of the unborn and their perversion of our youth.
May they all rot in Hell.
Posted by: Handy Randy on December 6, 2008 07:04 AMThey drive around Seattle in their Subarus with bumper stickers that say things like "your Hummer looks stupid", and "nice truck, too bad about your penis".
They get all steamed up every December about Christmas, of all things, and seemed determined to ruin it for everyone.
I think they aren't happy unless they're angry.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 08:18 AMMichele, are you denying the existence of mighty Thor? Do you doubt the magnificence of Lord Vishnu? Why do you hate Mithra, who saves man from sin? Anyway, you cannot prove that Zeus does not exist!
Happy Holidays, Tensor! I guess that's lost on you?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 6, 2008 08:47 AMThanks Cato, you proved my point!
Now shall we talk about Michele Steel and when they (dems) threw oreo cookies at him.
What party is the party of racist Cato?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 6, 2008 09:00 AMAs Tensor appears to admit, that sign down in Olympia wasn't about "tolerance", it was about "winning" another battle in their endless crusade for a socialist utopia.
Friday Night Open Thread
by Lee, 12/05/2008, 9:00 PM
"I've been an atheist since I was about 14. By my senior year in high school, I really, truly disliked religious people. I was dating a girl whose mother was an insufferable religious fanatic. I even made a Sunday School teacher tear up. But unlike the idiots who posted the sign at the Capital, I eventually grew up. That sign was unnecessarily mean-spirited. You don't have to tear others down to find validation, but sadly, too many atheists still see their religion as antagonism rather than an intellectual pursuit."
Take the advice of a fellow Atheist...Grow up!
Get out your Thesarus and follow along closely Bill. I'm a glutton for punishment so I'm gonna beat my head against this rock once again. There is no need for me to go back and pull up the myriad comments by Mr. Lincoln regarding the slave/negro issue. Why? As I've stated now, twice, the point was made that Mr. Lincoln's comments on Thanksgiving, just like his comments on slavery and blacks, are a reflection of the attitude of his time and place. You effectively concede that very point with your words "which in the context of the times in which he lived I acknowledge might in some way be true."
Even you can understand the idea that it is no longer necessary to "prove" a point that has been conceded...can't you?
With your rapier tongue and wit, you went on to say: "Wouldn't possibly be because you are obsessed with pounding the liberal drum would it?
Hmmm, several directions I could go with this nonsensical tripe...first of all, it's a foolish false dichotomy. Second, it goes exactly no where in proving or disproving any point that you might be trying to make. Again Bill, ad hominem attacks generally show the weakness of a person's arguments. Try to refrain if you want serious dialogue.
You end your scathing assault with this paradigm of Conservative lockstep nonsense: "Do you leftists ever wonder that the garbage you've been spoon fed since infancy just might not exactly be accurate? No, because leftist thought relies on enforced political correctness that denies individual opinion...."
Take a break, pour a cup of coffee then reread your own words Bill. As I indicated before, I came from Fred Phelps' incubator...it's not likely the opinions I've expressed here ever saw the light of day in that environment. I think I can safely argue that my ideas get a heck of a lot closer to "individual opinion" and "accurate" then the Conservative parroting you've done throughout this entire thread.
Posted by: Nate Phelps on December 6, 2008 09:51 AMI simply challenged you to produce some examples.
Your paragraphs filled with the very sort of ad-hominem attacks you decry speaks volumes.
Why the nastiness, Nate?
You can do that without another nasty snotty personal attack can't you?
My goodness you people are tightly wound.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 10:20 AMI got mine several years ago at McClendon Hardware.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2008 10:41 AMIn parting, if you really care, you can find all the anti-black rhetoric from Mr. Lincoln here: http://www.37thtexas.org/html/Emancipator.html
But that's not even the point Bill. That sign makes an argument:
There are no Gods
No Heaven or Hell
There is only our natural world
Religion is but
myth & superstition
that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds
It is a terrible, pitiable truth about humans that when our beliefs, rational or otherwise, are attacked, we react without thought. It is unfortunate that the first line of that sign has proven to be utterly impossible even on this thread: "May reason prevail".
If any among us had an ounce of reason, we'd be debating the merits of this argument.
I know with absolute certainty that not a single one of you would find fault with this sign if it was referring to the religions of ancient Greece or Rome. But as soon as our own particular myths are challenged the claws and fangs come out and reason flees.
What is it about the argument on that sign that scares you people sooo much? Is god gonna be pissed off at you if you agree? Are you afraid of what it means about the after life (or lack of one) if this argument is true?
Surely none among you would dare give a serious, reasonable challenge to the assertions of this sign? No, because you simply can't. Reason CANNOT exist alongside faith in an invisible entity.
So what's left? Rage at the insulting tone of the argument. Name calling anyone who would dare to support or defend the argument. It seems to me such responses only reinforce the argument made on the sign: "Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
Posted by: Nate Phelps on December 6, 2008 10:58 AMBull. That's not an arguement it's an opinion, a condemnation of the majority for publicity. An "arguement" would imply it could stand up to the test of PROOF.... not one single line of that utterance can be tested by proof.
The publicity whores may BELIEVE it's true but their belief doesn't make it so.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2008 11:27 AMA) The current Governor of the State of Washington Christine Gregoire is a racist/bigot or at the very least was one during her "higher education" days during the late 1960's belonging to and being the president of a "whites only" sorority at UW.
B) Out of state anti-Religion bigots were allowed to display hate speech in the Capital Rotunda at the blessing of the previously mentioned Governor.
C) The people defending the hate speech on this thread are themselves anti-religious bigots who've proven very inconsistent in their stances evidenced by their posts on this thread.
D) There is a war on Christmas being waged by the reprobates discussed above in A,B, and C.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 6, 2008 11:36 AMIf I asserted that aliens planted humans on the Earth I'd be laughed out of any serious circles of academia. But to then bellow that their contentions, that I'm wrong, "cannot stand up to the test of Proof" defies all notions of common sense. You're making the assertion that god exists the burden of proof rests solely with you. Failing that, the opposite MUST be assumed...there is no god.
Rick: I deny all those "truths". Oops, I think I just proved you wrong.
Posted by: Nate Phelps on December 6, 2008 11:57 AM"Evil prevails when good men do nothing" - that quote is for you, Tensor.
Posted by: KS on December 6, 2008 12:02 PMI've attempted in this and other threads to probe a bit into what is it that makes liberals tick. I'd really like to know why they end up so often like that mean, angry woman who made the "impeach Bush" tree ornament.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 12:05 PM
Nate~ Those truth's remain self evident
...and leave the thinking to those capable of doing so intelligently.
Bill: Yes, these are some angry and miserable people. It is no wonder that in such a joyous time of the year, the sad and pathetic in this society would like us all to join in their misery.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 6, 2008 12:10 PMBINGO!
You got a great new toy truck to play with. The neighbor kid hates that he has an old dented one so he throws yours down a flight of concrete steps.
Same miserable kid, same mindset.
They're the same obnoxious people we couldn't stand when we were kids.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 12:32 PMAnd wasn't there something in the TEN COMMANDMENTS about "THou shall not steal"????
Once again, the Christ-O-Nazis say "Do as I say, not as I do"
HYPCORITES!
Why? Because Lord Kirby Wilbur hereby decrees that free speech only allows POSITIVE messages?
Hmm, let's THINK about this shall we? Try real hard "Cynical".
So a "negative" sign against Islamic Terrorism is not allowed because it is not positive. Interesting.
Posted by: Why??? on December 6, 2008 01:13 PMThe stole the sign. Oops, there goes the commandment about stealing and perhaps the coveting one as well.
Then there are the Christian warriors here like Rags and Cynical. I guess we can forget the advice of Jesus to "turn the other cheek" too.
Nothing like leading by example eh Christians?
I now return you to the dark ages with crusades and inquisitions.
Posted by: Reason on December 6, 2008 01:26 PMI love these people. One individual does something that likely was more of a prank than a theft and it's "see, see, see, Christians are bad nyah, nyah, nyah"
Then it's back to the "crusades" and the Spanish Inquisition. Oh brother.
We can play that game too. Perhaps a discussion might be in order regarding atrocities that are much more recent such as those comitted by an atheist named Stalin.
It just becomes silly, doesn't it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 01:45 PMThe only thing you should know now is that a legal complaint is not the same thing as legal proof. It consists of unstubstantiated allegations. Yet, because of the rapidity of settlement, the vividness of the allegations and the likelihood that Mackris had actual tapes of O'Reilly behaving badly, these allegations really did have some traction.
Mackris' Complaint
In a 105-paragraph complaint (22 pages), in which she argued five causes of action (quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile workplace sexual harassement were the major ones), Mackris said that she worked for as Associate Producer for Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" from 2000 to January 2004, when she left for CNN, and then from July 2004 until just before filing the lawsuit in Oct. 2004. The "big event" that provoked the lawsuit was Bill O'Reilly's learning in May 2002 that Mackris had broken up wiht her fiance. Shortly thereafter, she alleges, O'Reilly invited her to dinner, where he gave her some unsolicitedrelational and sexual advice (pars. 33-35). According to Mackris, O'Reilly said that she should attend various charity events, go to bars to try to pick up "23 year old" guys (she was 33) and do what she liked without thinking twice about the consequences. Then, she alleged that O'Reilly's demeanor changed, his eyes "glazed" and he began asking her humiliating sexual questions. I don't have to repeat all of them for you to get the picture. He asked her whether she had a vibrator. When she didn't respond, O'Reilly regaled her with a story about how he had advised another woman to purchase a vibrator, and had taught that woman how to masturbate while telling her stories over the phone (par. 36). Mackris said she wasn't interested, but O'Reilly persisted. He told her about a time in Bali where a "short little brown woman" and he had an encounter, and that he would be pleased to tell Mackris this and other stories.
I think you get the "drift" of O'Reilly's alleged actions. But there is more. The next year, when a college friend from the U of Missouri was visiting Mackris, O'Reilly joined them for dinner, suggested a threesome and told them that they needed to be trained so that they could be equipped and ready to handle a "real man" when he showed up in their lives. He, graciously, offered "lessons" to them. I am sure, though the complaint doesn't say so, that he would give them these lessons for free. What a guy.
Posted by: Bill Whata Guy on December 6, 2008 01:47 PMSure lets have such a discussion about Stalin the "atheist". Never mind he was raised as a Jesuit.
And Hitler, don't forget him because he is in your talking points too. Never mind the fact Hitler was a Christian.
Posted by: Reason on December 6, 2008 01:51 PMAll these years I thought Stalin was a communist. How could I have been so wrong?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 02:00 PMHow do you know it was a Christian? I suspect it was an operative of the queen.
Actually I firmly believe it was an atheist liberal who stole it for the sole purpose of keeping their pettiness in the news.
For further examples of pettiness, see posts 290-293 (inclusive), 295 and 296.
And for that excpetionally petty whiner commenting @ 293, I refer you to the atheist organization nutburger who claims their 'little' sign weighed in at a hefty 50 pounds.
To quote Pastor Ken Hutcherson: "There is one God." "Atheism is but Myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds,".
And He loves you too.
Merry CHRISTmas and a very Happy HOLYdays.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2008 02:09 PM
Perhaps because you use blind faith instead of your brain?
Preists salute Hitler with Nazi "Zeig Heil"
http://www.moriel.org/assets/images/Notice%20Board/sungenis15.jpg
Here is another one:
http://liberalslikechrist.org/NaziPriestsSaluteHitler.jpg
Here is Hitler with his favorite Reich Bishop Muller:
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/images/Hitler-with-Muller.jpg
Posted by: Reason on December 6, 2008 02:14 PMMerry CHRISTmas and a very Happy HOLYdays
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on December 6, 2008 02:15 PMWhat is wrong with you people?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 02:17 PMMy oh my! I guess for a 98lb weakling god that must have been a real heavy burden. How hard it must be to be a follower of such a pathetic wealking god that is so easily defeated.
Posted by: Puny Christian God on December 6, 2008 02:18 PM
Of course not. You probably already knew he was a Christian.
"What is wrong with you people?"
That is what I want to know. You are the ones freaking out over a placard. You are the ones with the holocaust on your hands. You are the ones who break you alleged beliefs when confronted with reality.
Posted by: Reason on December 6, 2008 02:22 PMAnd before you political correctness police attack me for trying to lighten up the discussion a bit, my wife is Chinese and I get my hair cut at the place.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 02:25 PMYou lost - Godwin's Law.
Bill,
Kuai le sheng dan!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 6, 2008 03:10 PMHuh?
The ignorance one must possess in order to make that statement is simply staggering. It is also very revealing.
People of faith KNOW the reasons we think and believe as we do. We know what we stand for, what we stand against, and most importantly we know why.
"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005
Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.
Several years ago Dennis Prager wrote a year long series of articles titled, The case for Judeo-Christian values.
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Only a very morally confused age could produce so many people who do not recognize the immeasurable distance between human and animal worth. We live in that age.
The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part II
There are no moral "facts" if there is no God; there are only moral opinions.
Judeo-Christian values: part III
Those who do not believe that moral values must come from the Bible or be based upon God's moral instruction argue that they have a better source for values: human reason. ...
There are four primary problems with reason divorced from God as a guide to morality. ...
The first is that reason is amoral. ...
The second problem with reason alone as a moral guide is that we are incapable of morally functioning on the basis of reason alone. ...
Third, the belief in reason alone is itself based on an irrational belief -- that people are basically good. ...
Fourth, even when reason does lead to a moral conclusion, it in no way compels acting on that conclusion.
The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part IV
Would you first save the dog you love or a stranger if both were drowning? The answer depends on your value system.
The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part V
The Judeo-Christian values system has become a uniquely powerful moral force. Among its many achievements is that it is the primary contributor to America's greatness.
Liberal feeling vs. Judeo-Christian values: Part VI
With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.
For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are ? feelings. With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, personal feelings have supplanted universal standards. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.
Hate evil: Case for Judeo-Christian values, part VII
Do you hate evil?
Much of humanity doesn't. But if you embrace Judeo-Christian values, you must. ... Ask leftists what they believe humanity must fight against, and they will likely respond global warming or some other ecological disaster (and perhaps American use of armed force as well).
In fact, the Left throughout the world generally has contempt for people who speak of good and evil.
Part VIII: Judeo-Christian values are larger than Judaism or Christianity
Those Judeo-Christian values have made America the greatest experiment in human progress and liberty and the greatest force for good in history.
And they are exportable. In fact, they are humanity's only hope.
Choose life: The case for Judeo-Christian values: IX
The Left's battle to restore chaos: Judeo-Christian values: Part X
It is difficult to overstate the depth of the differences between the Judeo-Christian view of the world and that of its opponents, most particularly the Left. For example, it involves the very question of whether there is order to the world. ... By erasing the distinctions that make for an ordered universe, those working to dismantle Judeo-Christian values are working, consciously or not, to restore chaos.
Moral absolutes: Judeo-Christian values: Part XI
Nothing more separates Judeo-Christian values from secular values than the question of whether morality -- what is good or evil -- is absolute or relative. In other words, is there an objective right or wrong, or is right or wrong a matter of personal opinion?
The Jews have a mission: Judeo-Christian values: Part XII
Secularism and the meaningless life: Judeo-Christian values: Part XIII
Most irreligious individuals, quite understandably, do not like to acknowledge the inevitable and logical consequence of their irreligiosity -- that life is ultimately purposeless.
The arrogance of values: Judeo-Christian values, Part XIV
If you care about goodness, justice and compassion prevailing in an often evil, unjust and cruel world, you should hope that Judeo-Christian values predominate on earth.
We are not just animals: Judeo-Christian values part XV
People who do not believe in God or religion can surely lead ethical lives. But they cannot lead holy lives. By definition, the ideal of the holy, as understood by Judaism and Christianity and that unique amalgam known as Judeo-Christian values, needs God and religion.
Here is the best way I know of to explain holiness in Judeo-Christian religions: There is a continuum from the profane to the holy that coincides with the dual bases of human creation --the animal and the divine.
Nature must not be worshipped: Judeo-Christian values, Part XVI
It is quite understandable that people who rely on feelings more than reason to form their spiritual beliefs would deify nature. It is easier -- indeed more natural -- to worship natural beauty than an invisible and morally demanding God.
Without man, the environment is insignificant (Part XVII)
We are indeed to be responsible stewards of nature, but for our sake, not its.
Murderers must die: Judeo-Christian values: Part XVIII
The challenge of the transgendered: Judeo-Christian values, part XIX
There is no viable alternative: Judeo-Christian values Part XX
The Judeo-Christian value system is not only the best value system for humanity; it is the only viable one. If we do not promote it, moral chaos will ensue. And we can't promote it if we don't know what it is.
The rejection of materialism (Part XXI)
The primary reason Karl Marx hated religion -- specifically Judaism and Christianity -- was that he regarded it as the "opiate of the masses." ... The Marxist worldview is based on a materialist understanding of life. In popular jargon, "materialism" means an excessive love of material things. But philosophically, "materialism" means that the only reality is matter, that there is no reality beyond the material world.
The feminization of society: Judeo-Christian values: part XXII
As a result of the repudiation of Judeo-Christian values, we are witnessing the ascendance of the feminine in Western society.
There are two reasons for this. One is the overriding belief in equality, which to those who reject Judeo-Christian values means sameness. ... In a masculine society governed by Judeo-Christian values (which include a masculine-depicted and compassionate God), feminine virtues are adored and honored. In a feminized society, male virtues are discarded.
First fight yourself, then society: Judeo-Christian values: part XXIII
Judeo-Christian values believe the road to a just society is paved by individual character development; the Left believes it is paved with action on a macro level.
Who believes in American Exceptionalism? Judeo-Christian values part XXIV
And from where does this belief in American exceptionalism derive? Mostly from the religious beliefs that underlie American values. That is a major reason the current culture war is about the place of Judeo-Christian values in American life. Those who believe that America must remain a Judeo-Christian nation (in terms of values) are far less respectful of international institutions than those who wish to make America a secular nation. ...
So, as in nearly every other area of the Left-Right, blue-red divide in America, the attitude one has toward American exceptionalism ultimately lies in whether or not one wants America's values to remain Judeo-Christian.
I doubt you do, but I sincerely hope you secular lefties amongst us have the courage and will take the time to read that volume of work. You will learn a lot of history, you will be exposed to some biblical references and you definitely will learn a great deal about what makes people of faith people of faith and hopefully you will learn a bit about some of the things we believe you are denying about yourselves. Perhaps you'll even stop viewing us as personified evil to be smited at every chance.
Merry CHRISTmas and a very Happy HOLYdays.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2008 03:45 PMI know it had much to do with my eventually becoming a conservative that in my misguided liberal years I did take the time to read Bill Buckley, George Will, and James Kilpatrick among others.
It's a nearly impossible task to attempt to reach the closed minds of leftists. They all live in a liberal bubble in which they share the same prejudices. Their nearly universal hatred of Fox News (which they rarely actually watch), is but one example. They don't know, or shun anyone who isn't a leftist. So they sit around drinking their chai lattes going "oh yeah, Fox News really sucks and religious conservatives were responsible for the Holocaust."
There's a lot of territory to be covered, to say the least.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 04:13 PMAs distinct from abuse by some parish priests, under diocesan control, there have also been sexual abuse cases concerning those in Catholic orders, which often care for the sick or teach school.[43][44][45] In the United States, Salesian High in Richmond, California lost a sexual abuse case,[46] whilst in Australia there are allegations that the Salesians moved a priest convicted of abuse in Melbourne to Samoa in order to avoid further police investigation and charges.[47][48]
* The Christian Brothers in Canada more than 300 former pupils were physically and sexually abused at the Mount Cashel orphanage in Newfoundland. When allegations of physical and sexual abuse started to surface in the late 1980s, the government, police and church conspired in an unsuccessful cover-up. In Ontario in January 1993 the Christian Brothers reached a financial settlement totaling $23 million with 700 former students who alleged abuse.[49] In Ireland in March 1998, the Congregation of the Christian Brothers published full-page advertisements in newspapers apologizing to former pupils who had been ill-treated whilst in their care. The unprecedented advertising campaign expressed "deep regret" on behalf of the Christian Brothers and listed telephone lines which former pupils could ring if they needed help.[50] In Australia the Christian Brothers protected Brothers accused of sex offenses.[51][52]
* In July 2007 in the United States a lawsuit was filed against the Brothers of the Sacred Heart which alleged that they moved around a Brother who was accused of sexual misconduct with an adolescent.[53][54]
* A eight-year (1999-2007) enquiry and report by Dr Elizabeth Healy and Dr Kevin McCoy into the Brothers of Charity Order's "Holy Family School" in Galway, Ireland, and two other locations, was made public in December 2007. Eleven brothers and seven other staff members were alleged to have abused 21 intellectually-disabled children in residential care in the period 1965-1998. By 2007, two members of staff were convicted of abuse, eight had died and the rest had retired. It emerged that the Order had attempted to transfer at least one accused brother to another place.
Dr Jimmy Devins, a junior government minister, regretted that "some of the most vulnerable people in society were let down in the past". Brother Noel Corcoran, head of the Order's services in Ireland, apologized sincerely. However the report was criticized by Dr Margaret Kennedy for not naming the sex offenders who were convicted or dead, and for interviewing just 21 out of 135 complainants.[55]
* On 19 December 2007 a Patrick McDonagh of the Salvatorian Order admitted eight counts of sexual and indecent assault on four girls (aged 6 to 10) in the period 1965-1990 in Ireland. He was sentenced to four years in prison, with the last 30 months suspended. He gave the police the names of three girls, but also admitted to assaulting six other victims whom he has refused to identify. The judge described this as "remorse" and suspended most of the sentence for his guilty plea. Aged 78 in 2007, he had joined the Salvatorians in 1955 and retired in 2004.[56]
* In Sligo County Sligo, St. John's School had five teachers who have faced abused charges, of which three were Marist Brothers. In January 2008 "Brother Gregory" (real name Martin Meaney) admitted to abusing a boy 20 or 30 times in a four-month period in 1972, apologized unreservedly and was sentenced on five sample charges to two years imprisonment. He described the boy as "a weak little lad", and told police he had "picked on children who were not getting love at home". Meaney had previously served 12 years of an original 18 year jail sentence imposed in November 1992 where he admitted eight sample charges of buggery, rape and indecent assault on other boys, out of 109 charges. These charges arose when he was teaching at Castlerea, County Roscommon.[57]
* In the 1990s, abuse by a Eugene Kennan (baptismal name John Joseph), a priest of the Passionist Order, originally from Liverpool, came to light. An extremely powerful man who had held high positions in the order, he had given retreats and counselled vulnerable girls over many decades, including those in care and approved schools in the 1960s. A man of great charisma, he was able to abuse girls in whom he inspired devotion. It was, however, the sexual abuse of a former novice nun that first brought the abuse to light, after which many women came forward with their own testimonies of his sexual abuse. One story he would tell the girls was that he had trained as a gynaecologist, which led to intimate physical examinations. In the late 1990s Kennan was relieved of his official duties and was investigated by the police, however his age and failing health saved him from prison. He died in 2002. The scandal was largely covered up by the superior of the Passionist Order, Nicholas Postlethwaite, who managed to keep it out of the English newspapers, though it was mentioned in the Irish press. In 2003 another Passionist priest in Chicago, John Ormechea, faced his sixth accusation for allegedly abusing young boys. As in other cases, it was alleged that the local diocese knew of similar allegations, but did nothing.[58]
* The Norbertine Order (or White Canons) neglected to inform the police about the abuse by Brendan Smyth from the 1950s. He was eventually charged in 1994.
* Jeremiah McGrath of the Kiltegan Fathers was convicted in Liverpool in May 2007 for facilitating abuse by Billy Adams. McGrath had given Adams £20,000 in 2005 and Adams had used the money to impress a 12-year-old girl who he then raped over a six-month period. McGrath denied knowing about the abuse but admitted having a brief sexual relationship with Adams. His appeal in January 2008 was dismissed.[59]
* William Manahan, the Father Prior of a Buckfast Abbey Preparatory School was convicted of molesting boys in his school during the 1970s. [14]
Nice straw dog you have there. Have you given it a name?
NAME one organization of well over 1 BILLION members that is completely pure in every aspect of humanity, morality and legality.
Christianity makes up 33% of the WORLD population. Another 51% are members of religions not considered Christianity.
Can you even grasp those numbers?
That leaves you so-called "non-believers at a mere 16% of the WORLD population. In the US you so-called non-believers are a whopping 6% of the population. A whole lot of noise from such an insignificant FEW. As I said, attention whores.
In FACT of the total number of priests, the percentage accused (not proven, only accused) of abuse is under 3%.
Name even ONE segment of any population that is completely pure in every aspect of humanity morality and legality.
You can't. Because people are imperfect.
Belonging to a religion or purposely NOT belonging to one does not guarantee perfection.
I can promise you that if we took the time to compare agregious behaviour among faithful compared with those not of faith by percentage you heathens would win hands down.
Prove me wrong.
I challenge anyone to successfully prove that Hitler was a Christian. (BTW- He wasn't)
Posted by: KS on December 6, 2008 05:36 PMThat never stops liberals though. Why should that surprise anyone? Lying is what liberals do.
How sick is that?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 6, 2008 05:48 PMAccording to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, while both male and female reindeer grow antlers in the summer each year, male reindeer drop their antlers at the beginning of winter, usually late November to mid-December. Female reindeer retain their antlers till after they give birth in the spring.
Therefore, according to EVERY historical rendition depicting Santa's reindeer, EVERY single one of them, from Rudolph to Blitzen, had to be a girl.
We should've known... ONLY women would be able to drag a fat man in a red velvet suit all around the world in one night and not get lost.
... No nasty comments about saddles, reins and tethering them to the sleigh either.
That is a mathematical impossibility.
First of, I dispute the number of atheists vs beleivers. I think it is more like 10%. However, even if we, for purposes of argument accept your 16% number, then that mean that 84% of the human population is a believer of one mythical diety or another.
The truth is the majority of the evil committed in the world is by believers, there simply aren't enough atheists.
And isn't it funny how if an atheist commits a crime, then ALL atheists are evil, but is a Catholic Preist rapes little boys, then "oh well, were not perfect."
Is your god not perfect too?
Posted by: Reason on December 6, 2008 09:37 PM"I challenge anyone to successfully prove that Hitler was a Christian. (BTW- He wasn't)"
Has been proven already. But to blind believers like yourself, no amoutn of proof will be good enough. That is because you irrationally rely upon blind faith. That same blind faith is what allowed people like yourself to live in denial while preists raped their sons for years and years.
REASONS GREETINGS!
I wonder, does deceptively claiming 'reason' mean reading INcomprehension? ...
Belonging to a religion or purposely NOT belonging to one does not guarantee perfection.
Furthermore, name one place, one quote, where I or anyone called atheists "evil".
Selfish: Yep!
Attention whores: You betcha!
Willingly/willfully ignorant: Duh!
Purposefully antagonistic: ABSOLUTELY!
Keep trying.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 6, 2008 10:44 PMYou know, if you really are adults whose belief in the Lord God Creator of our Universe gives comfort, you'd act like it. Instead, you're bawling like spoiled children on Christmas morning when told that the space beneath the tree is bare because there is no Santa. Perhaps now you'll understand why our First Amendment forbids ANY governmental act "tending to an establishment of religion..."? Maybe next year, you'll agree that religious displays have no place in our Capitol? If not, we freethinkers will be more than happy to teach you this lesson again. (It's almost more fun when you refuse to learn it.)
Posted by: tensor on December 6, 2008 11:15 PM
But enough about you...
"Furthermore, name one place, one quote, where I or anyone called atheists "evil"."
It was kind of implied in your post at #313 where you stated:
"I can promise you that if we took the time to compare agregious behaviour among faithful compared with those not of faith by percentage you heathens would win hands down."
Ooops. I think you just broke that commandment about not lying.
How cute... a meaningless refuge for an inept debater.
Puhlease.
Kinda like YOU "impled" all Catholics are child molesters?
In the meantime, O'Reilly has taken his public beating of Gregoire from the airwaves to the print media.
Good for him!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 7, 2008 08:47 AMHow cute... a meaningless refuge for an inept debater.
Puhlease.
Kinda like YOU "impled" all Catholics are child molesters?
In the meantime, O'Reilly has taken his public beating of Gregoire from the airwaves to the print media.
Good for him!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 7, 2008 08:47 AMAnd just think, it's still early in the month. What will be on next week's episode of "the war on Christmas"?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 7, 2008 09:46 AMHow nice to see a good Christian like yourself turning the other cheek! Ooops there goes ANOTHER teaching of your faith you have abandoned.
Seems you like to pick and choose what and when to "believe". I think you need to see this:
Christians pick and choose what parts to follow
Fixed that for you!
Wow, we're not even done enjoying your bitter whining over the election, and you give us even more bitter whining, this time over a single sign. If you had any idea how much we enjoy watching chronically-overprivileged white guys bawl over the smallest of slights, you might have motivation to stop. (Having the discipline to stop, now that's another matter...)
Posted by: tensor on December 7, 2008 02:35 PMIt's an annual, predictable assault.
And what is the motivation? Hardly any sort of tolerance. The Christian bashing posts here would confirm that, would they not?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 7, 2008 02:43 PMAs for Priests molesting young boys, that is an abomination and I detest it and it is the Catholic church's responsibility to excommunicate them (I am not Catholic). So all Christians should be condemned because of that act - you are without Reason.
Atheists and Christians all pick and choose what to follow - we people in the world are broken/no exceptions. Christians realize these faults of the human condition and choose to try and adhere to the morals stated in the Bible (some more so than others), whereas Atheists choose to live differently.
Posted by: KS on December 7, 2008 02:45 PMAs for Priests molesting young boys, that is an abomination and I detest it and it is the Catholic church's responsibility to excommunicate them (I am not Catholic). So all Christians should be condemned because of that act ? with that logic you are without Reason.
Atheists and Christians all pick and choose what to follow - we people in the world are broken/no exceptions. Christians realize these faults of the human condition and choose to try and adhere to the morals stated in the Bible (some more so than others), whereas Atheists choose to live differently.
Posted by: KS on December 7, 2008 02:47 PMWell I will implore the exact same thought process that believers employ when it comes to their diety.
I say Hitler was a Christian and YOU must DISPROVE it.
And if I septn all day gathering the incidence of every aparatchik of churches, mosques, synagogues etc that have molested the young amonst them, I'd get nothing else done.
So KS, what branch of christian faith are you? $1000000000 says I can find someone who has molested children.
And with that said, I must bid you small minded people farewell.
After all the best intellect the believers have to offer in argument to reason, it has lost its entertainment value. Go on beleiving in unicorns, santas, tooth fairies and gods. Shun reason and continue on in your little worlds of myth and superstition.
Posted by: Reason on December 7, 2008 02:56 PMHowever, posting an explicitly religious message in our state's Capitol violates our federal First Amendment's ban on any government action "tending to an establishment of religion," and so we atheists have responded in kind. If you don't like it, then keep religious statements out of our government buildings. It's not like you have a shortage of churches, shopping malls, street corners, etc. from which to proclaim your beliefs, nor will anyone bother you when you do. (Unless you're blocking traffic to retail establishments during the holiday shopping season, of course! That's the true meaning of Christmas, at least in these materialistic United States.)
Posted by: tensor on December 7, 2008 02:58 PMAnd it isn't exactly that you atheist have "responded in kind" is it. I don't think what you're responding to is any sort of anti-atheist message.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 7, 2008 03:17 PMYes, I stated flatly you have the right to express your religious beliefs in public. How awfully intolerant I am!
I don't think what you're responding to is any sort of anti-atheist message.
A Nativity scene, in our Capitol, says that my government endorses Christian beliefs. Christian beliefs include, in part, a claim that all non-Christians suffer eternal torment after they die. That's a really offensive message, and you have the right to proclaim it. Our First Amendment forbids our government from proclaiming it. Unlike Caesar or Louis XIV, you are not the state, Bill.
But the repugnance of a specific religion's message is not the point here. As the atheist placard correctly notes, no evidence exists to support any religious belief. Believing something based on nothing is an offense against the reasoning mind of man, and I resent my government's claim that this is any proper way to live. You can live that way if you want, Bill, but our government will not endorse it. That's the lesson you're refusing to learn, and we'll happily continue to have our state call your mythology what it is, until you learn this civics lesson.
Posted by: tensor on December 7, 2008 04:59 PMIf you opposed "religion" in the FEDERAL Christmas holiday (138 years and counting), then why not challenge the athiest's post with their belief that there is no God? That is also a faith based position, as religious in nature as that of a Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, or Viking.
It seems you "oh so tolerant in name only" leftists insist that you are the only ones who can make religious (faith based) pronouncements.
Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 7, 2008 05:44 PMIt has nothing to do with tolerance as the anti-religious views you showcase above indicate very clearly.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 7, 2008 05:49 PMIt is not enough that Christians have 18 hours each day to indoctrinate their children, they also want the other 8 hours in the workplace and in the public schools to spread their propaganda, at public expense. Why else do they desperately want the manger scene placed in the State Capitol?
And then they are offended when non-Christians want to offer an alternative view. Remove the manger scene, and the problem will disappear. Keep your cult at home, please.
Of course, Bill, didn't you tell us that there is no "free exercise" clause in the Constitution (post 82): "I've never heard of that "freedom of religion clause in the Constitution"?
Posted by: fred on December 7, 2008 06:28 PMWhich I don't. Christmas is a secular federal holiday, as many here have noted.
(138 years and counting)
We had slavery for a long time, too. Your point?
That is also a faith based position, as religious in nature as that of a Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, or Viking.
Wrong. Each of those religions makes explicit and implicit claims about our natural world, which the available evidence does not support. For example, there is absolutely no evidentiary support for the proposition that an outside entity created our universe. Logically, it is simpler to assume that our universe has always existed, and will always exist. Atheism simply claims that no god exists. This claim comports with all known facts. Any person who claims the existence of a god must provide evidence; no person ever has.
What you actually desire tensor is to impose your views.
In exactly the same manner in which you seek to impose your views upon me. You don't like it very much, do you? As I've already noted, that was the point of this exercise. It really is fun watching you refuse to learn it. Better luck next year!
What is Christmas? Explain the holiday, please. You DO know it's a FEDERAL holiday and has been since 1870...
So explain to me the origins of the word Christmas.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 7, 2008 06:43 PMI get it now, fred.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 7, 2008 06:44 PMThey don't have an agenda. No, I just don't see how that could possibly be.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 7, 2008 07:02 PMReason, Are you for real ? I say that you can't prove Hitler was a Christian, so either take responsibility and disprove it or shut up about it - I am calling you on your lies and half truths and being a religious bigot. Did Hitler act like a Christian (which is what really matters) ? No, he acted like an agnostic or New Age (who believed he was God himself).
Hopefully, you won't come back, and if you do, you apparently aren't big enough to admit you viewpoints other than yours are valid if not more so. There are too many self-righteous clowns like yourself that are screwing over this country.
Posted by: KS on December 7, 2008 07:16 PMNice, tolerant, reasonable people, aren't they?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 7, 2008 07:19 PMDan, you are welcome to celebrate December 25th in any manner you wish. Sure, you can put a manger scene in your front yard. But when you insist that one be erected in the State Capitol, don't be offended because this great, free, diverse country actually tolerates other viewpoints. It's called freedom.
And Bill Cruchon uses the code word "anti-family" to refer to anything he doesn't like. My family is doing just fine, Bill, although you want to impose your "family" values on my family. Keep your code words away from me, please.
Fake conservatives want to use government to impose their moral views on others. True conservatives believe in personal freeedom -- and toleration.
Remember when Barry Goldwater was asked about gays in the military? A true conservative, he said "I don't care if soldiers are gay or straight, I just care if they can shoot straight."
As for prayer in schools, the bumper sticker got it right: "If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church."
Keep your cult to yourself,and we will both be better off.
Posted by: fred on December 7, 2008 07:22 PM
As typical with the most pious amongst your sect your are a liar. In post #300 above I rpovided all the proof anyone needs.
Preists salute Hitler with Nazi "Zeig Heil"
http://www.moriel.org/assets/images/Notice%20Board/sungenis15.jpg
Here is another one:
http://liberalslikechrist.org/NaziPriestsSaluteHitler.jpg
Here is Hitler with his favorite Reich Bishop Muller:
http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/images/Hitler-with-Muller.jpg
There is your damn proof.
Now YOU PROVE to me your god exists! C'mon punk! Let's see what ya got.
"Hopefully, you won't come back, and if you do, you apparently aren't big enough to admit you viewpoints other than yours are valid if not more so. There are too many self-righteous clowns like yourself that are screwing over this country"
As a true corward that you are, you say this when you think I'm not coming back.
So c'mon KS, I want you to PROVE god exists.
Posted by: Reason on December 7, 2008 08:15 PMChristians always had a historical animosity towards the Jews for supposedly killing their mythical diety Jesus. It is a deep, spiritual, visceral anger that permeates their cult.
Christians had motive. Hitler was a Chrisitan who killed the jews. That is enough for a jury.
KS - Still waiting for the proof god exists.
Posted by: Reason on December 7, 2008 08:21 PM
If you insist on holding to the superstitions of the past then you have no right to be using the modern tools of civilization such as the computer. Those were not provided by divine miracle, but rather by human reason and intelligence. There was no virigin birht of the computer from a light in the sky. A human thought up the transistor, chips and softare that allow our mordern world to exist.
Dude, you're losing it. Your hypothesis doesn't follow your premise in EITHER goofy assertion.
Keep trying.
Turning the other cheek, doesn't imply the idea that we will sit back and listen to other's lies about us or let them do harm upon us. Turning the other cheek doesn't imply that we won't DEFEND ourselves.
Wow, we're not even done enjoying your bitter whining over the election, and you give us even more bitter whining, this time over a single sign. If you had any idea how much we enjoy watching chronically-overprivileged white guys bawl over the smallest of slights, you might have motivation to stop. (Having the discipline to stop, now that's another matter...) Posted by tensor at December 7, 2008 02:35 PM
Sigh. Here we go again. I can't remember which of you nutburgers made that same accusation last time (you all sound the same singing the same old refrain) but once again, YET again, I defy you to show even ONE post where I whined over the election. Yep, I was disappointed the first few days, but then I realized "my side" has absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by watching the implosion of this barely qualified man pretend he can be president and fulfill all the "hopes" his followers ascribed to him. Sure enough, it was mere days before the disillusionment started taking hold... and has yet to let go. Go read your pal David Corn at The Nation, today... nope, liberals are not happy campers with Bambi... and he hasn't even take the oath yet. Personally, watching the disappointment dawn on you lefties since the election has been amusing... and with liberals in charge only promises to be more so. As I've said: we'll enjoy the show and be here to pick up the pieces.
***
You heathens and atheists have painted yourselves into an lonely corner. YOU weren't getting any attention (boohoo) and those that celebrate the REASON for the holiday were. Your nasty little sign was a great big PAY ATTENTION TO ME plea.
My kids had a Montesorri teacher who had a small sign posted in her office: A child would rather be praised than punished, but punished rather than IGNORED.
That suits you kiddies to a T.
Attention whores.
RE Fred @ 342: Must be really tough for you to go out in public these days with all those cultist retailers forcing you to listen to CHRISTmas music: "Christmas in the Northwest, a gift God wrapped in Green."
RE Tensor @ 343: Ditto
"Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking his blessing and his help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." - John F. Kennedy, inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1961
Todays left would brand JFK a religious wacko.
"You can not divorce religious belief and public service. I've never detected a conflict between God's will and my political duty. If you violate one, you violate the other." - Jimmy Carter, Atlanta, June 16, 1978
And even a wacko like Carter can get it right!
Dan, you are welcome to celebrate December 25th in any manner you wish. Sure, you can put a manger scene in your front yard. But when you insist that one be erected in the State Capitol, don't be offended because this great, free, diverse country actually tolerates other viewpoints. It's called freedom. - Posted by fred at December 7, 2008 07:22 PM
The SUPREME COURT says we don't have to "demand"; it is our RIGHT under the law. Your heathen pals could have eaily submitted a solstice tree or full moon or whatever the hell it is you worship. A hatefilled message is not a symbol: it is a hate filled message.
Christians always had a historical animosity towards the Jews for supposedly killing their mythical diety Jesus. It is a deep, spiritual, visceral anger that permeates their cult.
- Posted by Reason at December 7, 2008 08:21 PM
Can your despicable brand of hatred and devisiveness be more vile?
Is that vile spew what you delusionally call "reason"?
YOU need praying for... I certainly hope you can find someone willing to do so.
Ha ha ! And look, you obliged! An attention whore like yourself cannot resist.
"The SUPREME COURT says we don't have to "demand"; it is our RIGHT under the law. Your heathen pals could have eaily submitted a solstice tree or full moon or whatever the hell it is you worship. A hatefilled message is not a symbol: it is a hate filled message."
The billions of people christians have murdered throughout the ages such as the crusades and the inquisition and even those little boys molested today by your clergy probably see YOUR "symbols" as symbols of hate.
"Can your despicable brand of hatred and devisiveness be more vile?"
You don't like the truth? Throughout history christians have blamed Jews for killing their diety. Do yu deny this?
"YOU need praying for... I certainly hope you can find someone willing to do so."
There ya go! That's the christian spirit of charity we all know. The same convert or die proposition that the natives faced when the conquistadors enslaved them.
Posted by: Reason on December 8, 2008 12:07 AMAnd the Protestant right wing of his day attempted to brand him as the agent of the Vatican. Your point?
Posted by: tensor on December 8, 2008 01:16 AMI could not possibly care less whether you pay any attention to me or not; don't flatter yourself.
Keep your mythology out of our state Capitol building, and I'll keep my condemnation of your contrary-to-fact beliefs out of there as well. Simple as that.
Meanwhile, if you want to condemn me as a "sinner" or "heathen" underneath the tree at Westlake Park, please do so. I'll be more than happy to quote long stretches of your bible back at you (e.g. Numbers Chapter 25, the epitome of married family values). The free marketplace of ideas will judge us both. See you there!
Posted by: tensor on December 8, 2008 01:57 AMI thought the subject had to do with the attention whores in Olympia - not whether or not God exists.
I get the feeling that some people here are mightly lonely and simply type to in order to pick a fight and play "gotcha". How lame.
Posted by: Viscount Jellicoe of Scapa on December 8, 2008 06:53 AMChristmas is a secular federal holiday, as many here have noted.
And what does Christmas celebrate:
And of course, it's still being recognized by the FEDERAL Government as rooted in the Christian tradition, the latest being last year's bill passage - 372 to 9 - that acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.
This was PASSED by the Nancy Pelosi led House.
Trying to pull the whole MEANING of the word of the day, and the repeated LEGISLATIVE, LEGAL acknowledgement of the foundation of the holiday as a CHRISTIAN holiday celebrating the birth of Christ is the height of hate.
How can you NOT talk about Christmas without Christ? The holiday itself celebrates the birth of Jesus of Nazareth! Having a nativity scene should never be offensive since that is the REASON FOR THE HOLIDAY!
Only in you perpetually hateful, angry Marxists is it a bad thing.
But the fundamental truth still is there: ALL other displays in the State Capitol were positive and uplifting. This would never had been a controversy if the hateful atheists who erected that sign had merely put up a sign saying: "We wish you and yours a happy, healthy holiday".
But no, they had to attack and insult. Just like Marxists do. Even on a holiday NAMED after a PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS FIGURE, they simply cannot let well enough alone.
It's called tact, once again. And you show your own lack by your steadfast defense of their behavior...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 8, 2008 10:16 AMImagine for a moment it's late December, and there's an excitement in the air that spreads joy throughout the community.
People are holding parties, feasting, drinking, singing carols and exchanging gifts in celebration of the birthday of the deity.
They're lighting candles and decorating trees with silver and gold ornaments. There's plenty of holly around, and some people are seen kissing under the mistletoe.
Sounds like a typical Christmas these days, right?
Well, it just might stun you to find out that all this was taking place many years before Jesus was even born!
Pagan worshippers celebrated the winter solstice or the birthday of the "invincible sun" god hundreds, possibly thousands of years before the birth of Jesus
Ahem: WORSHIPPERS
Ahem: INVINCIBLE SUN GOD
December 25th was celebrated as the birthday of the unconquered sun god, and why ancient cultures associated mistletoe with sex and fertility.
Ahem: UNCONQUERED SUN GOD
And a quick question for all you followers of the pagan RELIGION... how many of you tithe and worship at the altar of The Religion of Global Warming with a stridency that broook s no arguement?
Global Warming as Religion and not Science
Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.
THE NEW RELIGION IS GLOBAL WARMING
Which, when you think about it (try hard, lefties), it absolutely follows that yesterdays INVINCIBLE SUN GOD worshippers are todays tree hugging ecowacko's!
What a hoot!
Keep your mythology out of our state Capitol building
And keep YOURS out of schools supported by my tax dollars, out of my garbage can, out of my place of business. Stop indoctrinating and trying to convert we non-ecowackos
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 8, 2008 10:55 AMDave Ross donned his gay apparel on November 5, and now he's been all gay all the time. Sick secular progressives gave up only one sliver of the pie this year (Prop 8 and its Arkansas-Florida variants) and Ross just can't let it go, and probably won't letit go until the left buys an old man in a long black dress, an ACLU judge to give the loud left what it wants.
Ross's gay du jour is a Dub Daily discussion of gay marriage. Note the word discussion: the Daily sometimes presents point-counterpoints of duelling opinions, just as Jack and Shana used to do.
The problem is that one side of the discussion presented a slippery slope argument that Rabbi Lapin was making years ago and that Rick Santorum made in the Senate: break down the definition of marriage, and who(m) can you then legally leave out? Somehow, preposterously, gays and their gays-for-a day, like Ross, say or imply that the Daily equates gay to bestiality.
The Dub Daily, in other words, is pushing hate speech and must be smacked down with a smack down.
Compare and contrast to Olympia: verrrrry interesting. Being gay means never having to say you're sorry for, say, stomping on a cross, and means always having to say that hate speech is whatever you say it is. Being a conservative Christian or Jew means: shut up. Or at least that's where this is quickly going, or so it seems to me.
People push their way out of closets, and democracy is enlarged, at least up to the point where democracy must be put in its place by cross smashers and radical judges. But the skids out the closet are being greased and lubricated so inconvenient Christians and Jews can be slid into the closet without friction. Or so it seems to me.
Posted by: Queen For A Day on December 8, 2008 12:23 PM2) Since the group is not targeting a specific "religion" it's not Hate Speech, it's Free Speech. It's ironic that they even included themselves (because they meet the definition of a religion) in their very broad angry statement.
3) Since the State Govt. cannot restrict a religion from displaying their symbol (however wordy it may be) the Atheists have every right under the law to display their symbol. Quit your wining already, next year start your own "religion" and get your own symbol/plaque saying there is a god and god is great. The Govt. will have no choice to place it next to the Atheist symbol.
4) After reading the numerous posts by a Bill Cruchton (if that's really your name) it's clear he can't make a single rational argument without accusing someone who disagrees with him as a tool of the Liberal/Godless/Pinko/Communist left. Clearly he is convinced the "leftists" are out to take away all his free speech rights despite being granted to him under the Bill of Rights (which has not been amended since it was originally written). He is clearly deranged as witnessed by his excessive name calling, labeling. judgmental & dismissive attitude towards others. It seems very hypocritical for him to call for the removal of others beliefs while demanding that his beliefs not be restricted in any way shape or form.
"At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell...
They contradict themselves by invoking Winter Solstice then denying God, when in FACT almost all solstice celebrations throughout histroy included deities.
While it may be mostly Pagans and Wiccans who celebrate the Yule holiday, nearly all cultures and faiths have some sort of winter solstice celebration or festival. Because of the theme of endless birth, life, death, and rebirth, the time of the solstice is often associated with deity and other legendary figures. No matter which path you follow, chances are good that one of your gods or goddesses has a winter solstice connection.
Winter solstice celebrations of Christianity, Judaism, Neopaganism, etc
This was was whoring for attention at its ugliest. Their little sign was a demand for OUR tolerance of their intolerance. With it and their own words they showed not only their hatefulness but utter stupidity.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 8, 2008 03:06 PM
If god exists, I challenge him to make me the mega millions winners. Otherwise he doesn't exist! he he.
You obviously don't know much about logic and reason do you?
Posted by: Reason on December 8, 2008 07:20 PMGet a job.
"Reason" was in dire trouble. His business had gone bust and he was in serious financial trouble. He was so desperate he decided to pray for help. He began, 'God, please help me. I've lost my business and if I don't get some money, I'm going to lose my house as well. Please let me win the lottery.' Lottery night came and "Reason" didn't win. Again "Reason" prays, 'God, please let me win the lottery! I've lost my business, my house and I'm going to lose my car as well.' Lotto night comes and Sam still has no luck. Once again, he prays, 'My God, why have you forsaken me? I've lost my business, my house, and my car. My wife and children are starving. I don't often ask you for help and I have always been a good servant to you. PLEASE just let me win the lottery this one time so I can get my life back in order.' Suddenly there is a blinding flash of light as the heavens open. Sam is confronted by the voice of God Himself: '"Reason",' says God, 'meet Me halfway on this. Buy a bloody ticket.'
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 8, 2008 07:57 PM(Actually, killing innocent human beings because they don't worship the correct invisible fairy in the sky is a higher form of hate, and believers of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have done it for centuries. But I digress...)
September must be the seventh month; it says so on the label. When we say "Thank God It's Friday," we're giving thanks to Frigga, the Norse goddess for whom the day was named. Anyone who doubts this just cannot understand the meanings of these names. Call Speaker Pelosi! (No, don't ask why.)
Posted by: tensor on December 9, 2008 02:50 AMI admire your efforts but facts are about as useful to myth worshippers as a computer would be to a neanderthal. If I had imaginary friends in whose name my fellow worshippers had slaughtered billions of people over history, I'd probably be in denial too.
Posted by: Reason on December 9, 2008 07:14 AMAs far as proving the existence of God - do you acknowledge that there is a higher power that affects the world we live in ? I call that being God. Now run along - I hear your mother calling.
Posted by: KS on December 9, 2008 07:38 AMYeah, but getting them to assault the common meanings of words is fun, too! Whatever effort our fellow atheists spent on our Captiol was well worth it; I haven't heard this much screaming since, uh, the 5th of November.
Posted by: tensor on December 9, 2008 11:48 AMNativity scene carved from school desks
Chris Reeves used a pile of 1960's science desks destined for the tip to create amazing wooden figurines of Mary, Joseph, and Angel Gabriel.
Ninety percent have a spiritual interlude with God every day, according to a study released Thursday by Brandeis University. Half pray several times a day, in fact.
Horrors! State funds religious holiday - "why do atheists allow gov't workers to be off Dec. 25?"
In the spirit of the season, so to speak, I wish to offer helpful advice to these tireless workers against the Almighty. In order for their movement to be successful, they need consistency, and I have just the plan to help them achieve their end game: Atheists, in order to protect their integrity, must sue every government office to eliminate a paid Christmas holiday for federal, state and local government workers.
I honestly don't know how atheists will be able to sleep all snuggled in their beds on Dec. 24, knowing that the very next day every city, state and federal worker will be paid with taxpayer dollars so the birth of Christ can be recognized. The thought of public school teachers receiving government compensation for a religious event must cause visions of sugarplums to evaporate from their dreams.
Come to think of it, why are most government offices closed on Sundays and Saturdays? Again, terribly inconsistent. Given our current budget crises, I think the government could save money, get more work done and get rid of a holiday that clearly stands against everything that atheists believe - while also forcing everyone receiving taxpayer funds to show up for work on weekends.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 9, 2008 11:49 AM
Hell even the current pope is a Nazi!
a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.
b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery's coat of arms bearing a swastika.)
c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.
d) As a young man he was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ." His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: "I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal." -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and "avenging for God" in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.
f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: "The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie." Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party
Hitler and the Popeg) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.
Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars." (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)
h) Due to Hitler's involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: "The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today." -Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda "Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church." -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism
And no, I do not believe in any "higher power", none, zip nada. No myths, mysticism or superstitions.
Are you gonna pray for me KS? Or wish me to burn in hell for all eternity?
Posted by: Reason on December 9, 2008 07:27 PMNow, you must remember before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this "tradition" up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can "defile" the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
Posted by: Reason on December 9, 2008 07:36 PM"...the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (See Genesis Chapter 3 where humankind is cast from Eden for their sins. Hitler compares this to the need to exterminate the Jews for their sin against Christ.)
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Posted by: Reason on December 9, 2008 07:37 PMChris Reeves used a pile of 1960's science desks destined for the tip to create amazing wooden figurines of Mary, Joseph, and Angel Gabriel.
Science desks!
I love it."
Yes, throughout human history you vicious cultist have murdered people for daring to study science, a science by the way, that provided that computer on which you spew forth your mysticisms and hatred for those who think freely.
Human history is littered with scientists who were persecuted for daring to use their brains. Once must ponder how far humanity would be today had not the blood lust of the church stood in the way of science.
God didn't cure polio, science did. God didn't ensure your milk didn't make you sick, Pasteur did. Left to you mystic imaginary friends, humanity would still be running around in loin cloths and clubs freezing its ass off in caves with no fires.
See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a 'Holiday'.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me. *Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holiday!
An Atheists placard had been set in the hall
in hopes of truth, and of justice for all;
The christians did protest the sign they did dread
they wished all the atheists would all turn up dead;
On all of their keyboards did they righteously tap
blogosphere posts of hate and of crap;
The media spoke and they talked of the matter,
and the internet buzzed with all sorts of chatter;
Away to the net I flew like a flash,
Launching my browser and clearing its cache;
By noon the excitement had started to grow,
after O'Reilly had Goldy guest on his show;
And then came Kirby who just had to appear,
to stoke some more hate to spread some more fear;
So lilly livered, so dense and so thick,
I knew in a moment this was O'Reilly's old schtick;
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;
"Now, Wilbur! now, Ingraham! now, Limbaugh and Hewitt!
On, Beck! on Levin! on, Prager and Bennett!
Let's get the free thinkers! Let's get them all!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!"
As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky,
So out on the airwaves the coursers they flew,
With talk radio boys, a few girls to talk too.
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the air
They'd stolen the sign and hadn't a care.
They cherished their trophy, and passed it around,
until at a country station it finally was found.
Never mind the commandment they broke, they all had a hoot,
though their names were all tarnished with the ill-gotten loot;
A capital guard took the sign in a sack,
And he put the placard back on its rack;
the christians did protest, did whine and did pray!
The christians they marched on the capitol all day!
They phoned up the governor, just so she would know
they have hegemony, they run the show;
They spoke of their god that's out of our reach,
to hell with the atheists, to hell with free speech;
They'll fight like the old days, like in the Crusades,
When they killed all the infidels who hadn't obeyed.
They were smug and vengeful, and full of them self,
They'd put the bible as law, the constitution on a shelf;
They'd throw out free thought, throw out all the science,
No invention of man to hell with our reliance;
They shouted with anger, with pain and frustration
They'd force us to be an all christian nation.
I thought of their chants and of their angry invection,
then I recalled the results of our recent election;
Of how they were trounced, a resounding rejection.
They're full of hot air, the bluster of fools,
the like to hear themselves talk, like small minded tools.
So to all of you out there, just let me say,
acceptance is right, it's the American way.
They'll be no more christian sword point conversions,
no more hypocritical casting aspertions,
no more judging you bad while priests do perversions.
We are not a christian nation in any way shape or form,
our secular traditions, those are the norm.
Hateful christians, those oh so vocal few,
will shout and will scream, their vile hateful spew.
Be happy the majority reject their harsh view.
So greet those you meet and be sure to recite:
"Happy Holidays to all, and to all a good-night."
