Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on March 31, 2014, 08:09:53 AM
-
Not sure if this story should be in the religion board but.....
Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles to students
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/29/tennessee-atheists-win-right-to-distribute-literature-after-schools-give-bibles-to-students/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/29/tennessee-atheists-win-right-to-distribute-literature-after-schools-give-bibles-to-students/)
An atheist group in Tennessee won the right to distribute literature at an elementary school after the school allowed the Gideons group to distribute Christian Bibles to students.
The Friendly Atheist blog reported that the Tri-State Freethinkers group in conjunction with the ACLU challenged the decision by Casey County School District Superintendent Marion Sowders to allow the Gideons to distribute copies of the New Testament at the county’s three elementary schools.
The Freethinkers and the ACLU sent the school district a letter demanding equal access and, surprisingly, the request was granted.
On Friday, the group was allowed to leave copies of the book Humanism, What’s That?: A Book for Curious Kids by Helen Bennett.
As with the Gideons, actual group members were not allowed to contact students, but the books were left for interested students to pick up and peruse.
Some Christian parents expressed outrage. Carmen Foster contemplated keeping her kids home on Friday, but changed her mind.
“I work hard everyday of my life as a mother to teach my kids what we believe,” she told WKYT. “If I don’t have enough confidence to send them out in the world, then how strong am I with what I’m teaching them.”
“Whether we like it or not. Our kids are going to go out in to this world. They are going to come across these situations. This is a good opportunity to teach them how to handle it,” she said.
-
Reminds me of this. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=289547.0
More evidence that atheists proselytize.
-
Atheism is a religion.
Everyone who is honest understands that. Who is their god? Themselves
Belief: Humanism. Man has answer to everything
-
I don't see it as a religion at all, although some atheists seem to, in some ways, practice it like a religion. I don't know of any atheists or their organizations that have rituals and chants. But i do see them promoting their ideas.
-
The basis of being an atheist is the absence of belief. You can't have any kind of religion without belief. It is retarded claiming otherwise.
-
The basis of being an atheist is the absence of belief. You can't have any kind of religion without belief. It is retarded claiming otherwise.
Exactly. That's why atheist churches, magazines, clubs, organizations, radio shows, etc. are retarded.
-
Reminds me of this. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=289547.0
More evidence that atheists proselytize.
LOL - reminds you of a thread you started yourself with the question "Do atheist proselytize"
I've never had an atheist come to my door to proselytize?
I've never seen the 24/7 atheist channel on TV begging for donations so their leaders can live in mansion and fly around in private jets.
I've never seen an atheist meeting place on every other corner in ever town in America
I've never received letters and cards in the mail urging me to join an atheist group or send a donation
etc...
-
Exactly. That's why atheist churches, magazines, clubs, organizations, radio shows, etc. are retarded.
I have never seen that. Best i have ever seen is a skeptics magazine. All the atheists which are 4 on a personal level, i know don't actively participate in anything you describe here. They have never heard of it either.
I think that's a very very small percentage of atheists and are are and away not typical of them as a whole. Maybe they have some grudge against religion in general that motivates them to do that.
-
from Straw:
I've never had an atheist come to my door to proselytize?
I've never seen the 24/7 atheist channel on TV begging for donations so their leaders can live in mansion and fly around in private jets.
I've never seen an atheist meeting place on every other corner in ever town in America
I've never received letters and cards in the mail urging me to join an atheist group or send a donation
exactly
But, OMG ( ;D) have i seen that done with religious groups.
-
Exactly. That's why atheist churches, magazines, clubs, organizations, radio shows, etc. are retarded.
Exactly like their faith counterparts. Which is why you will either agree or by a hypocrite.
-
I have never seen that. Best i have ever seen is a skeptics magazine. All the atheists which are 4 on a personal level, i know don't actively participate in anything you describe here. They have never heard of it either.
I think that's a very very small percentage of atheists and are are and away not typical of them as a whole. Maybe they have some grudge against religion in general that motivates them to do that.
Everything I referenced I posted either in the atheist proselytizing thread or another thread on the religion board. They have annual conventions. They organize. They protest. They have churches called "humanist" centers. Plenty of other examples.
-
Exactly like their faith counterparts. Which is why you will either agree or by a hypocrite.
Good to see you acknowledge how retarded some atheists can be. :)
-
Good to see you acknowledge how retarded some atheists can be. :)
I noticed you didn't acknowledge how retarded some religious people can be.
-
Everything I referenced I posted either in the atheist proselytizing thread or another thread on the religion board. They have annual conventions. They organize. They protest. They have churches called "humanist" centers. Plenty of other examples.
I am not arguing they don't exists. All i am saying is that its not representative of likely 99% of atheists. Just as regular church attendance isn't probably representative of at least 50% of the people who believe in god.
I am just guessing here, but i don't think i am that far off.
-
I noticed you didn't acknowledge how retarded some religious people can be.
Some religious people can be retarded.
-
I am not arguing they don't exists. All i am saying is that its not representative of likely 99% of atheists. Just as regular church attendance isn't probably representative of at least 50% of the people who believe in god.
I am just guessing here, but i don't think i am that far off.
I don't know what the percentage is. I do know they are the most vocal.
I have plenty of atheist friends. Some very good ones too. None of them are the kind of retards who go around protesting stupid stuff.
-
Good to see you acknowledge how retarded some atheists can be. :)
Props to you for using the word "some".
-
Chrisians shouldn't be upset by this ruling. It seems fair to allow the distribution of literature if christians are already allowed to.
-
Chrisians shouldn't be upset by this ruling. It seems fair to allow the distribution of literature if christians are already allowed to.
As a Christian I disagree.
But as an American that realizes his country was build on religious freedom I see both sides.
-
As a Christian I disagree.
But as an American that realizes his country was build on religious freedom I see both sides.
I understood completely. A person is capable of disagreeing with the message while acknowledging the principle of fairness.
-
Chrisians shouldn't be upset by this ruling. It seems fair to allow the distribution of literature if christians are already allowed to.
You would think so....
-
Chrisians shouldn't be upset by this ruling. It seems fair to allow the distribution of literature if christians are already allowed to.
The fact those atheists have literature is retarded.
-
The fact those atheists have literature is retarded.
why is it retarded and why are you so scared of atheists in the first place
If your religion is valid then it should be bulletproof from a few atheists passing out pamphlets
-
why is it retarded and why are you so scared of atheists in the first place
If your religion is valid then it should be bulletproof from a few atheists passing out pamphlets
And the inconsistencies easily explained.
-
The fact those atheists have literature is retarded.
meh...I'm not sure. I'm thinking there's nothing wrong with giving people, especially students, multiple sides of the issue. If they can pass out religious material, they should be able to pass out atheistic or agnostic material. Besides, probably not appropriate to disperse this stuff at a school anyway. Keep it at home.
-
meh...I'm not sure. I'm thinking there's nothing wrong with giving people, especially students, multiple sides of the issue. If they can pass out religious material, they should be able to pass out atheistic or agnostic material. Besides, probably not appropriate to disperse this stuff at a school anyway. Keep it at home.
definitely not appropriate
-
definitely not appropriate
I agree with both of you. Easiest way to avoid a problem is not allow either group access.
-
meh...I'm not sure. I'm thinking there's nothing wrong with giving people, especially students, multiple sides of the issue. If they can pass out religious material, they should be able to pass out atheistic or agnostic material. Besides, probably not appropriate to disperse this stuff at a school anyway. Keep it at home.
Oh I completely agree. Should be equal access, or no access for anyone.
My point was the very fact some atheists have literature promoting a belief in nothing is retarded. No different than atheist churches, etc. Pretty stupid IMO.
-
Oh I completely agree. Should be equal access, or no access for anyone.
My point was the very fact some atheists have literature promoting a belief in nothing is retarded. No different than atheist churches, etc. Pretty stupid IMO.
says the man who believes in talking snakes, believes he is having a personal relationship with a jewish zombie and thinks that a book written by a bunch of anonymous human men which has been translated, mistranslated and redacted countless times is somehow the word of "god"
yeah, nothing retarded about any of that
-
Oh I completely agree. Should be equal access, or no access for anyone.
My point was the very fact some atheists have literature promoting a belief in nothing is retarded. No different than atheist churches, etc. Pretty stupid IMO.
While I am no member of an atheist organization, I can clearly see the need. If left to their own devices, religious people would push their agenda and beliefs on everyone much like they have tried to do for centuries. Non believers need to organize to protect themselves from those zealots who want to legislate their beliefs into laws.
-
Personally, I have no problems with atheists passing out literature to kids, just as I have no problems with Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses passing out literature to kids.
Christians proselytize because it is a huge part of our faith. It looks like atheists proselytize because they are afraid of religious people pushing their agenda on them, yet many atheists such as Richard Dawkins and his followers say that Christians shouldn't proselytize.
While I am no member of an atheist organization, I can clearly see the need. If left to their own devices, religious people would push their agenda and beliefs on everyone much like they have tried to do for centuries. Non believers need to organize to protect themselves from those zealots who want to legislate their beliefs into laws.
why is it retarded and why are you so scared of atheists in the first place
If your religion is valid then it should be bulletproof from a few atheists passing out pamphlets
If atheism is valid, then it should be bulletproof from religious people trying to proselytize, and therefore atheists passing out pamphlets shouldn't be a necessity.
-
While I am no member of an atheist organization, I can clearly see the need. If left to their own devices, religious people would push their agenda and beliefs on everyone much like they have tried to do for centuries. Non believers need to organize to protect themselves from those zealots who want to legislate their beliefs into laws.
Good post. You see this all the time when people try to use the Constitution and Bill of Rights to enforce biblical law.
-
Personally, I have no problems with atheists passing out literature to kids, just as I have no problems with Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses passing out literature to kids.
Christians proselytize because it is a huge part of our faith. It looks like atheists proselytize because they are afraid of religious people pushing their agenda on them, yet many atheists such as Richard Dawkins and his followers say that Christians shouldn't proselytize.
If atheism is valid, then it should be bulletproof from religious people trying to proselytize, and therefore atheists passing out pamphlets shouldn't be a necessity.
LOL - same goes for any religion. They should all just stop proselytizing other wise they are just proving their own vulnerability to atheists and agnostics
Given your statement I assume you agree
-
I'm just realizing the most shocking thing is that there are atheists in Tennessee :)
-
LOL - same goes for any religion. They should all just stop proselytizing other wise they are just proving their own vulnerability to atheists and agnostics
Given your statement I assume you agree
Hard for me to agree with your statement when I don't understand what you are saying. Atheists and theists should stop proselytizing, otherwise atheists and theists are just proving their own vulnerability to atheists? That doesn't make any sense.
-
I'm just realizing the most shocking thing is that there are atheists in Tennessee :)
There are atheists everywhere, but they will always be the minority, unless they start popping babies like crazy, much like many religious groups do. Atheists tend to have at most two kids, if any at all.
-
I'm just realizing the most shocking thing is that there are atheists in Tennessee :)
Definitely a CT if there ever was one.
-
Definitely a CT if there ever was one.
I think the churches with the snake handling are in that state..they need atheists more than any other state.. ironic if God is sending them to save people from those churches.. :) :)
-
I think the churches with the snake handling are in that state..they need atheists more than any other state.. ironic if God is sending them to save people from those churches.. :) :)
(http://www.religifake.com/image/religion/1207/angry-christians-afraid-religion-1343165700.jpg)
-
Hard for me to agree with your statement when I don't understand what you are saying. Atheists and theists should stop proselytizing, otherwise atheists and theists are just proving their own vulnerability to atheists? That doesn't make any sense.
It makes as much sense as your statement.
Lets take your statement and change a few words and see if you agree.
If Christianity is valid then it should be bulletproof from atheists handing out pamphlets therefore Christians proselytizing shouldn't be necessary.
Makes sense?
No need to go all over the world trying to spread christianity
-
While I am no member of an atheist organization, I can clearly see the need. If left to their own devices, religious people would push their agenda and beliefs on everyone much like they have tried to do for centuries. Non believers need to organize to protect themselves from those zealots who want to legislate their beliefs into laws.
There is nothing wrong with pushing an agenda or beliefs.
So you agree that these atheists exist to oppose people who believe in God?
-
There is nothing wrong with pushing an agenda or beliefs.
So you agree that these atheists exist to oppose people who believe in God?
No, I believe they exist to protect their rights to freedom from religion
-
It makes as much sense as your statement.
Lets take your statement and change a few words and see if you agree.
If Christianity is valid then it should be bulletproof from atheists handing out pamphlets therefore Christians proselytizing shouldn't be necessary.
Makes sense?
No need to go all over the world trying to spread christianity
No. Christians proselytize because it's a big part of Christianity, not because of fear. Gospel means "Good News."
Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
Atheists proselytize out of fear, their fear of religious agenda being pushed on them.
Unlike you, I believe both theists and atheists should proselytize all they want. I have no fear of either one.
-
No, I believe they exist to protect their rights to freedom from religion
How are they protecting their right to be free from religion, when they are pushing their own agenda? Why not just ignore religious people? I do it all the time. I got bum rushed by some Jehovahs Witnesses the other day as I walking into my house. I accepted their pamphlet, thanked them, went in the house, and threw it away. I wasn't offended. I didn't feel the need to go protest, etc.
-
No. Christians proselytize because it's a big part of Christianity, not because of fear. Gospel means "Good News."
Matthew 28:19
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
Atheists proselytize out of fear, their fear of religious agenda being pushed on them.
Unlike you, I believe both theists and atheists should proselytize all they want. I have no fear of either one.
LOL - I love the pretzel logic that compels you to proselytize....i.e. to have 24/7 Christian networks begging for money, to travel the world spreading your beliefs, going door to door, and person to person, etc... because that is a requirement of membership in your particular cult
yet
atheists who merely want to leave pamphlets on a table where someone might wander by to pick up .....that is just silly and unnecessary and by your judgement merely leaving pamphlets on a table somehow suggests that atheism is not valid
BTW - I've never said that christians (fill in any religious group) or atheists shouldn't push their beliefs
All I've said in this thread is that neither one has any business doing so in a public school
-
BTW - I've never said that christians (fill in any religious group) or atheists shouldn't push their beliefs
LOL - same goes for any religion. They should all just stop proselytizing other wise they are just proving their own vulnerability to atheists and agnostics
Given your statement I assume you agree
Unlike you, I believe both theists and atheists should proselytize all they want, anywhere they want. I have no fear of either one.
-
Unlike you, I believe both theists and atheists should proselytize all they want, anywhere they want. I have no fear of either one.
that was in response to your specific comment about atheists
I was taking your comment about atheists and applying to all religions because if your belief that it shouldn't be necessary (or as you oddly phrased it, "a necessity") for atheists to do something as mundane and non-invasive as leaving pamphlets on a table then the very same thing should apply to all religions
I was hoping you would realize by that comparison that you would realize how silly your statement was (i.e. your group can do something but if an opposing group does the same thing...even on a much smaller scale..well that is just silly and unnecessary)
If atheism is valid, then it should be bulletproof from religious people trying to proselytize, and therefore atheists passing out pamphlets shouldn't be a necessity.
-
that was in response to your specific comment about atheists
I was taking your comment about atheists and applying to all religions because if your belief that it shouldn't be necessary (or as you oddly phrased it, "a necessity") for atheists to do something as mundane and non-invasive as leaving pamphlets on a table then the very same thing should apply to all religions
I was hoping you would realize by that comparison that you would realize how silly your statement was (i.e. your group can do something but if an opposing group does the same thing...even on a much smaller scale..well that is just silly and unnecessary)
When I said that is "unnecessary" it was in response to Agnostic007 who said that it was needed in order to try to stop theists from pushing their agenda on atheists, and I said it in sarcasm to your post. That's why I quoted you both in the same post. The post of yours which I quoted goes both ways too. That is my point.
Unlike you, I believe both theists and atheists should proselytize all they want, anywhere they want. I have no fear of either one.
-
There is nothing wrong with pushing an agenda or beliefs.
So you agree that these atheists exist to oppose people who believe in God?
Or maybe they exist to protect everyone from having to live under conditions that are based on a fairy tale and is forced upon the nation through laws and constitutional amendments.
-
When I said that is "unnecessary" it was in response to Agnostic007 who said that it was needed in order to try to stop theists from pushing their agenda on atheists, and I said it in sarcasm to your post. That's why I quoted you both in the same post. The post of yours which I quoted goes both ways too. That is my point.
Unlike you, I believe both theists and atheists should proselytize all they want, anywhere they want. I have no fear of either one.
and unlike you I don't think either atheists or any religious group should be pushing their beliefs in a public school
other than that
have at it
-
I hate these topics...would be people be better off with a little religions...sure...but you can't have it in public schools. However there are plenty of examples of bullshit classes on being Muslim for a day etc. They bend over backwards for a trumped up political system masquerading as a world religion.
-
and unlike you I don't think either atheists or any religious group should be pushing their beliefs in a public school
other than that
have at it
The first part I obviously already knew, hence my post starting with "Unlike you..." The highlighted part above is not what you said first, but if it's what meant to say, then okay.
-
Or maybe they exist to protect everyone from having to live under conditions that are based on a fairy tale and is forced upon the nation through laws and constitutional amendments.
Absurd. The overwhelming majority of the country believes in God. It has always been that way. Those minuscule numbers of dumb atheists (not referring to all atheists) who run around the country crying about any hint of religion or God in the public square are morons. They're not protecting anyone. They are paranoid anti-religious extremists.
But even morons like them have the right to protest, organize around a belief in nothing, file lawsuits, cry, complain, contend they suffer extreme emotional distress whenever they see religious symbols, etc.
And like El Profeta, I am not threatened at all by atheists who do those things.
-
The first part I obviously already knew, hence my post starting with "Unlike you..." The highlighted part above is not what you said first, but if it's what meant to say, then okay.
here was where I first commented in this thread that neither group should be doing this in a public school
meh...I'm not sure. I'm thinking there's nothing wrong with giving people, especially students, multiple sides of the issue. If they can pass out religious material, they should be able to pass out atheistic or agnostic material. Besides, probably not appropriate to disperse this stuff at a school anyway. Keep it at home.
definitely not appropriate
-
How are they protecting their right to be free from religion, when they are pushing their own agenda? Why not just ignore religious people? I do it all the time. I got bum rushed by some Jehovahs Witnesses the other day as I walking into my house. I accepted their pamphlet, thanked them, went in the house, and threw it away. I wasn't offended. I didn't feel the need to go protest, etc.
Sometimes religious people just can't be ignored... they tend to want to push their agenda/beliefs on people who don't share them... I wish it was just a matter of ignoring them... that doesn't always turn out well.
-
here was where I first commented in this thread that neither group should be doing this in a public school
I missed that. Sorry! I stand corrected!
-
Sometimes religious people just can't be ignored... they tend to want to push their agenda/beliefs on people who don't share them... I wish it was just a matter of ignoring them... that doesn't always turn out well.
Doesn't this apply too to political views, culture, etc., regardless of religion? Liberals will try push their agenda on conservatives, and vice versa. I've read many times of rival sports fans killing each other. It's not only religion.
-
Absurd. The overwhelming majority of the country believes in God. It has always been that way. Those minuscule numbers of dumb atheists (not referring to all atheists) who run around the country crying about any hint of religion or God in the public square are morons. They're not protecting anyone. They are paranoid anti-religious extremists.
But even morons like them have the right to protest, organize around a belief in nothing, file lawsuits, cry, complain, contend they suffer extreme emotional distress whenever they see religious symbols, etc.
And like El Profeta, I am not threatened at all by atheists who do those things.
Does not matter what they believe in. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not exist to enforce biblical law. If some, the majority, or none want to follow biblical laws then they are free to. But those that do not believe in fairy tales shouldn't be forced to go along with it or live under conditions and laws that are created with biblical law as the premise.
-
Does not matter what they believe in. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not exist to enforce biblical law. If some, the majority, or none want to follow biblical laws then they are free to. But those that do not believe in fairy tales shouldn't be forced to go along with it or live under conditions and laws that are created with biblical law as the premise.
What Biblical laws are you talking about? And who is trying to enforce those Biblical laws?
-
What Biblical laws are you talking about? And who is trying to enforce those Biblical laws?
Most recently gay marriage. How many religious nuts cry about it remaining illegal because the Bible is against it? How many Constitutional Amendments and ballot measures have been attempted to keep this prohibited due to their beliefs when it is clearly not prohibited by the Constitution itself? Likewise for abortion. Countless laws exist in many states that prohibit some activities from being performed on Sundays. (alcohol sales, etc..) Some states have laws against sodomy. Michigan treats adultery as a felony.
These laws are nothing more than biased religious viewpoints.
-
..
If atheism is valid, then it should be bulletproof from religious people trying to proselytize, and therefore atheists passing out pamphlets shouldn't be a necessity.
Sorry, that's not at all logical.
-
Sorry, that's not at all logical.
RRKore, did you bother to read the thread, specially my post to Straw Man where I explain the reason why I posted this and what is my point?
Are you a 24KT/Judy/JaguarEnterprises/Samson123 gimmick account?
-
RRKore, did you bother to read the thread, specially my post to Straw Man where I explain the reason why I posted this and what is my point?
Are you a 24KT/Judy/JaguarEnterprises/Samson123 gimmick account?
Loco, I said the same thing as RRKore.
-
RRKore, did you bother to read the thread, specially my post to Straw Man where I explain the reason why I posted this and what is my point?
Are you a 24KT/Judy/JaguarEnterprises/Samson123 gimmick account?
Dont insult kore by comparing him to her.
-
Loco, I said the same thing as RRKore.
And I responded to you already.
-
I think its perfectly natural that religious people and Atheist share similar attitudes regarding each others stuff.
Of course they will ridicule, minimize, challenge their approaches, and or diminish each other in some ways.
Also i think its important for the sake of productive debate that the extremes on both sides are not given importance as factors, such as religious whack jobs or what look to be former religious whack jobs turned atheists.
Religion = beliefs based on faith
Atheism = beliefs based on the evolving discovery of facts
Facts need to be learned in school.
Atheism and Religion need to stay the fuck out.
PS: RRkore is nothing like 24K
-
PS: RRkore is nothing like 24K
I didn't think so either, until I read his posts in the thread "78% Favor Proof of Citizenship Before Being Allowed to Vote", then fled from that thread just like she did.
-
I didn't think so either, until I read his posts in the thread "78% Favor Proof of Citizenship Before Being Allowed to Vote", then fled from that thread just like she did.
Currently he hasn't responded to your question but he did eventually respond to my explanation of why Jags was so off base.
You're right; It refers to federal voter registration forms.
Anyway, informative thread. I did not know that non-citizens are allowed to vote in some local elections.
Jags would have acted condescending never really admitting being wrong ignoring details and distinctions. Basically a arrogant CT'er who's too wrapped up in their ignorance.
-
And I responded to you already.
yep
and after a page and a half of dialogue your original statement still makes no sense
It began with you not understanding this simple statement to Bum
why is it retarded and why are you so scared of atheists in the first place
If your religion is valid then it should be bulletproof from a few atheists passing out pamphlets
you turned this around and make it into a completely illogical statement which I attempted through many examples to explain to you.
refer back to the last 2 pages
-
yep
and after a page and a half of dialogue your original statement still makes no sense
It began with you not understanding this simple statement to Bum
you turned this around and make it into a completely illogical statement which I attempted through many examples to explain to you.
refer back to the last 2 pages
Oh, I see. So you want to go round and round in circles because you fail to understand that your statement goes both ways. ::)
-
Oh, I see. So you want to go round and round in circles because you fail to understand that your statement goes both ways. ::)
wrong again
I've said everything I care to say on the topic
If you have something NEW to offer then feel free
Maybe RRKore would like to waste his time but I'm not interested as your beliefs are immune to logic and even basic common sense
-
wrong again
I've said everything I care to say on the topic
If you have something NEW to offer then feel free
Maybe RRKore would like to waste his time but I'm not interested as your beliefs are immune to logic and even basic common sense
Then why do you keep posting and going round and round in circles with me?
You are the one immune to logic. If Christianity is such a lie and such a load of BS, and if atheism is so factual and valid, why do you see a need to pass out pamphlets in college campuses to compete with Christians? Wouldn't people know from the start, or eventually find out on their own that Christianity is BS and atheism isn't?
Richard Dawkins has repeatedly said that main stream scientists shouldn't debate Creationists, because it gives Creationists attention and validates them.
That is one reason why I, unlike you, don't care if atheists pass out pamphlets all they want to and anywhere they want to, because in doing so they validate Christianity for the reasons I list above, even if they believe Christianity isn't valid.
Christianity started with one man 2,000 years ago, and it grew to the point that today's world population is mostly Christian, and even greater is the percentage that is theist if you include all religions.
Atheism started with one man around 6,000 years ago, and it grew to...well, atheists have always been the minority and will always be the minority. I guess that's why you see a need to pass out pamphlets. ::)
-
Then why do you keep posting and going round and round in circles with me?
You are the one immune to logic. If Christianity is such a lie and such a load of BS, and if atheism is so factual and valid, why do you see a need to pass out pamphlets in college campuses to compete with Christians? Wouldn't people know from the start, or eventually find out on their own that Christianity is BS and atheism isn't?
Richard Dawkins has repeatedly said that main stream scientists shouldn't debate Creationists, because it gives Creationists attention and validates them.
That is one reason why I, unlike you, don't care if atheists pass out pamphlets all they want to and anywhere they want to, because in doing so they validate Christianity for the reasons I list above, even if they believe Christianity isn't valid.
Christianity started with one man 2,000 years ago, and it grew to the point that today's world population is mostly Christian, and even more are theists of other religions.
Atheism started with one man around 6,000 years ago, and it grew to...well, atheists have always been the minority and will always be the minority. I guess that's why you see a need to pass out pamphlets. ::)
Are we really mostly Christian? Just curious. We have 6-7 billion people on the planet. Are you saying more than any other religion or more than half?
-
Are we really mostly Christian? Just curious. We have 6-7 billion people on the planet. Are you saying more than any other religion or more than half?
I'm going by this. Sorry, it's all I got.
Religions:
Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
-
Then why do you keep posting and going round and round in circles with me?
You are the one immune to logic. If Christianity is such a lie and such a load of BS, and if atheism is so factual and valid, why do you see a need to pass out pamphlets in college campuses to compete with Christians? Wouldn't people know from the start, or eventually find out on their own that Christianity is BS and atheism isn't?
Richard Dawkins has repeatedly said that main stream scientists shouldn't debate Creationists, because it gives Creationists attention and validates them.
That is one reason why I, unlike you, don't care if atheists pass out pamphlets all they want to and anywhere they want to, because in doing so they validate Christianity for the reasons I list above, even if they believe Christianity isn't valid.
Christianity started with one man 2,000 years ago, and it grew to the point that today's world population is mostly Christian, and even more are theists of other religions.
Atheism started with one man around 6,000 years ago, and it grew to...well, atheists have always been the minority and will always be the minority. I guess that's why you see a need to pass out pamphlets. ::)
before making new posts why don't you try reading the existing posts
then maybe (hopefully?) you won't attribute false claims to me (or anyone)
If you want to just keep repeating the nonsense then go right ahead
and unlike you I don't think either atheists or any religious group should be pushing their beliefs in a public school
other than that
have at it
-
Are we really mostly Christian? Just curious. We have 6-7 billion people on the planet. Are you saying more than any other religion or more than half?
don't you understand by now
if Christians believe something then it MUST be true regardless of any evidence to the contrary
-
I'm going by this. Sorry, it's all I got.
Religions:
Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
Cool Thanks
-
before making new posts why don't you try reading the existing posts
then maybe (hopefully?) you won't attribute false claims to me (or anyone)
If you want to just keep repeating the nonsense then go right ahead
I know you posted that, but you are contradicting yourself. This thread is about atheists passing out pamphlets at schools, and when I questioned its "necessity" from an atheist's point of view, you got you panties in a wad.
-
Cool Thanks
No problem!
-
don't you understand by now
if Christians believe something then it MUST be true regardless of any evidence to the contrary
I checked out some other sources. Seems to be true. about 2.1 billion Christians.
-
don't you understand by now
if Christians believe something then it MUST be true regardless of any evidence to the contrary
::)
Religions:
Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
-
I know you posted that, but you are contradicting yourself. This thread is about atheists passing out pamphlets at schools, and when I questioned it's "necessity" from an atheist's point of view, you got you panties in a wad.
and my response to that claim was this statement to which you feigned not to (or truly don't) understand even though it's the same exact thing you said except that I changed atheists for "any religion"
that's where you started playing christian merry go round
LOL - same goes for any religion. They should all just stop proselytizing other wise they are just proving their own vulnerability to atheists and agnostics
Given your statement I assume you agree
-
I checked out some other sources. Seems to be true. about 2.1 billion Christians.
think about it again
there are around 7 billion people in the world and 2.1 billion are Christian
Are we really mostly Christian when 5 billion out of 7 billion are not christian?
Are weAre we really mostly Christian? Just curious. We have 6-7 billion people on the planet. Are you saying more than any other religion or more than half?
-
think about it again
there are around 7 billion people in the world and 2.1 billion are Christian
Are we really mostly Christian when 5 billion out of 7 billion are not christian?
Are we
That's why i asked.
Its safe to say its the largest in the world. Not accurate to say "that today's world population is mostly Christian"
No biggie. One mans storied life 2000 years ago turned into the largest religion in the world. What does that have to do with the debate at hand? not much i see, unless we are now debating the validity of the religion its self which makes it a candidate for the religion board.
-
That's why i asked.
Its safe to say its the largest in the world. Not accurate to say "that today's world population is mostly Christian"
No biggie. One mans storied life 2000 years ago turned into the largest religion in the world. What does that have to do with the debate at hand? not much i see, unless we are now debating the validity of the religion its self which makes it a candidate for the religion board.
so we agree that the majority of the world ( ~ 72% or 5 billion out of 7 billion people) are not christian
it's good to find something we can agree with on in this thread
Edit - the debate at hand, namely "Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles" was pretty much settled on page 1 when most everyone agreed that neither group should be distributing literature in a public school
Then Loco got confused and went off for 3 pages being Loco and....here we are
-
That's why i asked.
Its safe to say its the largest in the world. Not accurate to say "that today's world population is mostly Christian"
No biggie. One mans storied life 2000 years ago turned into the largest religion in the world. What does that have to do with the debate at hand? not much i see, unless we are now debating the validity of the religion its self which makes it a candidate for the religion board.
You asked, and I gave you the data that I am going by, and you checked your own sources and validated it.
As for what does this have to do with the debate, go to the original post and see.
-
so we agree that the majority of the world ( ~ 72% or 5 billion out of 7 billion people) are not christian
it's good to find something we can agree with on in this thread
Edit - the debate at hand, namely "Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles" was pretty much settled on page 1 when most everyone agreed that neither group should be distributing literature in a public school
Then Loco got confused and went off for 3 pages being Loco and....here we are
I thought you were done with me, and that this was a waste of time. Why do you keep posting and going round and round in circles with me? Have I setup camp in your mind or something?
-
so we agree that the majority of the world ( ~ 72% or 5 billion out of 7 billion people) are not christian
it's good to find something we can agree with on in this thread
Edit - the debate at hand, namely "Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles" was pretty much settled on page 1 when most everyone agreed that neither group should be distributing literature in a public school
Then Loco got confused and went off for 3 pages being Loco and....here we are
Guess you haven't read all my posts.
-
You asked, and I gave you the data that I am going by, and you checked your own sources and validated.
As for what does this have to do with the debate, go to the original post and see.
Its all good, like i said no biggie. :)
-
Most recently gay marriage. How many religious nuts cry about it remaining illegal because the Bible is against it? How many Constitutional Amendments and ballot measures have been attempted to keep this prohibited due to their beliefs when it is clearly not prohibited by the Constitution itself? Likewise for abortion. Countless laws exist in many states that prohibit some activities from being performed on Sundays. (alcohol sales, etc..) Some states have laws against sodomy. Michigan treats adultery as a felony.
These laws are nothing more than biased religious viewpoints.
Some of those are somewhat valid examples and some are not. Preserving traditional marriage was a bipartisan issue until very recently. For example, DOMA was supported by both parties and signed by President Clinton. Hillary, Obama, Biden, and most Democrats supported traditional marriage until about two years ago. Were they all religious nuts?
And how about the more than 30 states that voted to preserve traditional marriage? You really think those millions of voters were religious nuts? I live in the most liberal state in the country and we voted to preserve traditional marriage by a 70 percent margin. Our legislature recently rammed homosexual marriage through a special session, but if it were put on the ballot again like it should have been, it would not have passed. And we certainly don't have a state full of "religious nuts."
Abortion is not a "Biblical law" and the plethora of abortion restrictions are not supported solely by religious people.
I agree about Blue Laws. Good point. Although I don't think any of them are really enforced? I know there are dry counties in various parts of the South.
No states have enforceable laws against sodomy. Supreme Court reversed itself and struck down sodomy laws several years ago.
Adultery is a crime in the military. Is that because of "religious nuts"?
Overall, there are some aspects of "Biblical law" that are part of our secular society, but this is because that's what society wants.
-
I think its perfectly natural that religious people and Atheist share similar attitudes regarding each others stuff.
Of course they will ridicule, minimize, challenge their approaches, and or diminish each other in some ways.
Also i think its important for the sake of productive debate that the extremes on both sides are not given importance as factors, such as religious whack jobs or what look to be former religious whack jobs turned atheists.
Religion = beliefs based on faith
Atheism = beliefs based on the evolving discovery of facts
Facts need to be learned in school.
Atheism and Religion need to stay the fuck out.
PS: RRkore is nothing like 24K
Meh. Things passed off as fact often rely on faith.
-
Meh. Things passed off as fact often rely on faith.
Such as?
That's why i said "evolving discovery"
-
Guess you haven't read all my posts.
which one did I miss
you asked the question of whether we are mostly christian and we are clearly not mostly Christian by more than a 2 to 1 margin
Christians being 2.1 billion and the other 5 billion being something else is not mostly christian
If you want to go by the narrower definition of the most popular religion then you could say christianity but it would be more accurate to to Catholicism (by the stats that loco posted)
however the fact remains that the vast majority of the population of this planet is not christian
Are we really mostly Christian? Just curious. We have 6-7 billion people on the planet. Are you saying more than any other religion or more than half?
-
I thought you were done with me, and that this was a waste of time. Why do you keep posting and going round and round in circles with me? Have I setup camp in your mind or something?
weird how you think that a reply I made to Ozmo was intended for you
seems like camp is definitely set up in your mind
-
Such as?
That's why i said "evolving discovery"
Doesn't "evolving discovery" mean they don't have the facts to prove whatever it is they believe?
-
weird how you think that a reply I made to Ozmo was intended for you
seems like camp is definitely set up in your mind
You mentioned me on the post, nevertheless, and here you are again addressing me. I live in your mind, apparently. Who is loco now?
And this post was totally out of line, since I did post the information I go by, and OzmO verified it, whether you think it's valid or not. But everyone knows you are an @$$hole, so what else can we expect?
don't you understand by now
if Christians believe something then it MUST be true regardless of any evidence to the contrary
-
You mentioned me on the post, nevertheless, and here you are again addressing me. I live in your mind, apparently. Who is loco now?
And this post was totally out of line, since I did post the information I go by, and OzmO verified it, whether you think it's valid or not. But everyone knows you are a @$$hole, so what else can we expect?
yes, I mentioned how you wasted 3 pages going in illogical circles but if that makes you feel better about yourself then more power to you
you seem to also be confused about very simple math
you wrote
"Christianity started with one man 2,000 years ago, and it grew to the point that today's world population is mostly Christian, and even greater is the percentage that is theist if you include all religions."
That is a provable and undisputed FALSE STATEMENT
Unless of course you apply that classic Loco pretzel logic and then it's obvious that 5 million out of 7 million people being NOT Christian ="world population is mostly Christian"
-
Doesn't "evolving discovery" mean they don't have the facts to prove whatever it is they believe?
No, it means that previous theories and facts change based on new discoveries.
-
which one did I miss
you asked the question of whether we are mostly christian and we are clearly not mostly Christian by more than a 2 to 1 margin
Christians being 2.1 billion and the other 5 billion being something else is not mostly christian
If you want to go by the narrower definition of the most popular religion then you could say christianity but it would be more accurate to to Catholicism (by the stats that loco posted)
however the fact remains that the vast majority of the population of this planet is not christian
so we agree that the majority of the world ( ~ 72% or 5 billion out of 7 billion people) are not christian
it's good to find something we can agree with on in this thread
Edit - the debate at hand, namely "Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles" was pretty much settled on page 1 when most everyone agreed that neither group should be distributing literature in a public school
Then Loco got confused and went off for 3 pages being Loco and....here we are
We agree on more than this issue (world being mostly christian) on this thread. Read up :)
-
No, it means that previous theories and facts change based on new discoveries.
Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith. Except some people don't like to use the word "faith," probably due to its religious connotation.
-
Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith. Except some people don't like to use the word "faith," probably due to its religious connotation.
such as?
-
such as?
The origins of life on earth. Some fact, some opinion, and a whole lot of faith when it comes to day 1 (regardless of the theory).
-
The origins of life on earth. Some fact, some opinion, and a whole lot of faith when it comes to day 1 (regardless of the theory).
I think you are confusing faith with theory.
-
I think you are confusing faith with theory.
Not really. Some theories involve faith (even if characterized differently).
-
Faith isnt the right word. Faith is belief even in the absence of evidence. Scientist have hypotheses that are subject to rigorous testing. When all the facts appear to support a hypothesis it becomes an agreed upon consensus called a theory. This doesnt mean research ends. With the introduction of new evidence a theory can be dismissed.
-
Faith isnt the right word. Faith is belief even in the absence of evidence. Scientist have hypotheses that are subject to rigorous testing. When all the facts appear to support a hypothesis it becomes an agreed upon consensus called a theory. This doesnt mean research ends. With the introduction of new evidence a theory can be dismissed.
It's the right word. Just an uncomfortable word for some.
Scientific methods involve: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Try using that method to explain how life began on day 1. Cannot be done.
-
It's the right word. Just an uncomfortable word for some.
Scientific methods involve: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Try using that method to explain how life began on day 1. Cannot be done.
Who said life began on "day 1"
-
It's the right word. Just an uncomfortable word for some.
Scientific methods involve: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Try using that method to explain how life began on day 1. Cannot be done.
incorrect.
this is the scietifics method:
(http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png)
Faith is believing in something with the absence of facts.
Scientific methods sets out to find them.
Now, theories and conclusions have become wrong because new research experimentation proves them incorrect. But none of that has anything to do with faith.
It seems to me you are trying hard to make science on the same level of religion to lessen the impact of the absence of facts in it.
-
incorrect.
this is the scietifics method:
(http://www.cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png)
Faith is believing in something with the absence of facts.
Scientific methods sets out to find them.
Now, theories and conclusions have become wrong because new research experimentation proves them incorrect. But none of that has anything to do with faith.
It seems to me you are trying hard to make science on the same level of religion to lessen the impact of the absence of facts in it.
What is the difference between the graphic you posted and the four elements I posted?
I'm not trying hard to do anything. I don't believe religion is synonymous with religion. I don't believe the Bible is a science book. I believe in the four elements I posted, which come straight from scientists.
Same question I asked Archer: can you explain the origin of life on earth using the scientific method, or whatever other facts you think are available?
-
What is the difference between the graphic you posted and the four elements I posted?
I'm not trying hard to do anything. I don't believe religion is synonymous with religion. I don't believe the Bible is a science book. I believe in the four elements I posted, which come straight from scientists.
Same question I asked Archer: can you explain the origin of life on earth using the scientific method, or whatever other facts you think are available?
Where in the graphic i posted, from a credible site, does it use or say the word prediction or synonym of? Also, does the 4 steps you posted cover all the steps in the graphic? Which scientists do your 4 steps come directly from?
I am not a scientist. But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts.
What facts are the Bible's account tested on?
Of the two, science and the Bible, which finds their facts more based on faith or more based on facts?
Of the two, which strive to find the truth based on facts or which of them have already accepted as the truth? And what's that truth based on? Written word? Or research and testing using the scientific method i posted above?
Of the two which use detailed explanations and which use parable a vague passages written by primitive bronze age men?
Lets take a look at the word faith:
faith
[feyth]
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
How is the word FAITH even remotely close to the scientific method i posted above? .....where the hypothesis is tested for proof?
Nope Faith is far from the right word when it comes to the scientific method.
-
Where in the graphic i posted, from a credible site, does it use or say the word prediction or synonym of? Also, does the 4 steps you posted cover all the steps in the graphic? Which scientists do your 4 steps come directly from?
I am not a scientist. But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts.
What facts are the Bible's account tested on?
Of the two, science and the Bible, which finds their facts more based on faith or more based on facts?
Of the two, which strive to find the truth based on facts or which of them have already accepted as the truth? And what's that truth based on? Written word? Or research and testing using the scientific method i posted above?
Of the two which use detailed explanations and which use parable a vague passages written by primitive bronze age men?
Lets take a look at the word faith:
faith
[feyth]
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
How is the word FAITH even remotely close to the scientific method i posted above? .....where the hypothesis is tested for proof?
Nope Faith is far from the right word when it comes to the scientific method.
I don't know what "credible" site you pulled the graph from, but it's no different than what I posted.
"Do background research" = (1) observation
"Construct a hypothesis" = (2) hypothesis formulation
"test with an experiment" = (3) prediction
"procedure working" = (4) testing of predictions.
Your Bible argument is a straw man. I specifically said the Bible is not a science book. Why are you trying to apply a scientific method to the Bible?
Regarding the definition of faith, from your own definition: "belief that is not based on proof."
Do you have a scientific belief based on proof about how life began on day 1?
-
"Do background research" = (1) observation
"Construct a hypothesis" = (2) hypothesis formulation
"test with an experiment" = (3) prediction
"procedure working" = (4) testing of predictions.
Prediction is not "test with experipment"
Let's take a look at the definition of prediction:
prediction
[pri-dik-shuhn]
noun
1. an act of predicting.
2.an instance of this; prophecy.
predict
[pri-dikt]
verb (used with object)
1.to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object)
2.to foretell the future; make a prediction.
That is definitely NOT rest with experiment
You might say its hypothesis, however that doesn't come until asking a question and back ground research, then after the hypothesis its tested.
The difference is, religeon is never "tested" and doesn't base facts on faith while religion does.
I don't know what "credible" site you pulled the graph from, but it's no different than what I posted.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml) First google hit.
Your Bible argument is a straw man. I specifically said the Bible is not a science book. Why are you trying to apply a scientific method to the Bible?
Because it relates to you incorrect charge of faith and how its related to science. You said:
Not really. Some theories involve faith (even if characterized differently).
Theories don't involve faith, they involve fact.
Belief as it relates to the bible or religion in general does:
Regarding the definition of faith, from your own definition: "belief that is not based on proof."
I asked you earlier, to list some scientific theories that are based on faith. Can you do this or not?
Can you list some scientific theories that are partially based on faith?
Can you list some scientific theories that are 100% based on faith?
Do you have a scientific belief based on proof about how life began on day 1?
I told you, i am not a scientist. Nor have I seriously researched the scientific explanation of life's beginnings on earth.
-
here's a link that comes close to the scientific method you sited:
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html (http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html)
-
So the question becomes: where is faith in either of those 2 scientific explanations?
understanding:
faith
[feyth]
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
-
Where in the graphic i posted, from a credible site, does it use or say the word prediction or synonym of? Also, does the 4 steps you posted cover all the steps in the graphic? Which scientists do your 4 steps come directly from?
I am not a scientist. But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts.
What facts are the Bible's account tested on?
Of the two, science and the Bible, which finds their facts more based on faith or more based on facts?
Of the two, which strive to find the truth based on facts or which of them have already accepted as the truth? And what's that truth based on? Written word? Or research and testing using the scientific method i posted above?
Of the two which use detailed explanations and which use parable a vague passages written by primitive bronze age men?
Lets take a look at the word faith:
faith
[feyth]
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
How is the word FAITH even remotely close to the scientific method i posted above? .....where the hypothesis is tested for proof?
Nope Faith is far from the right word when it comes to the scientific method.
I read the four items I posted in a book. Also, here is that highly reliable and prestigious source--wikipedia--that supports it. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Seriously, if you plug in those four items, you'll come up with numerous cites. For example: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Why do you keep bringing up the Bible? I've said twice (three times now) that the Bible is not a science book. I'm not talking about the Bible.
You say this: "I am not a scientist. But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts."
So I have two questions:
1. What is your belief about how life began on day 1?
2. What theories are out there "based on researched and tested facts" about the origin of life on day 1? I'm unaware of any.
-
I read the four items I posted in a book. Also, here is that highly reliable and prestigious source--wikipedia--that supports it. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Seriously, if you plug in those four items, you'll come up with numerous cites. For example: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Why do you keep bringing up the Bible? I've said twice (three times now) that the Bible is not a science book. I'm not talking about the Bible.
You say this: "I am not a scientist. But there are theories out there based on researched and tested facts."
So I have two questions:
1. What is your belief about how life began on day 1?
2. What theories are out there "based on researched and tested facts" about the origin of life on day 1? I'm unaware of any.
what is "day 1" and what scientist (or anyone) ever made a claim about being able to prove that "life" began on "day 1" ?
-
Reminds me of this. http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=289547.0
More evidence that atheists proselytize.
It has been my experience that atheists for the most part are not big on the proselytizing, ...but I have one atheist acquaintance whose whole life is was all about proselytizing. Oh the battles we would have!!!
I realized it was in reaction to his having been raised in a part of the USA that is heavily repressed with 'religiosity' but he was ridiculous! I finally had to tear him a new one, and make him realize he was the flip side of the coin he detested so much!!!
A few years back while seething with anger, I once said I hated evangelicals. What I meant to say at the time, and should have instead expressed, was my displeasure with proselytizers. Pent up anger & resentment sure can discombobulated the brain. :P
-
Chrisians shouldn't be upset by this ruling. It seems fair to allow the distribution of literature if christians are already allowed to.
Agreed.
However, I believe the error was made in the distribution of the Bibles to begin with.
Separation of Church & State. If anything, allow distribution of the materials for research purposes, however, include other POV's as well. Stock them in the libraries, but no religious indoctrination instruction in the classroom, and certainly not at the elementary levels.
-
2. What theories are out there "based on researched and tested facts" about the origin of life on day 1? I'm unaware of any.
I'm not aware of any either, but when you were asked for an example of a scientific theory based on faith, you answered with the origin of life.
What specific theory has faith as an element?
-
I'm not aware of any either, but when you were asked for an example of a scientific theory based on faith, you answered with the origin of life.
What specific theory has faith as an element?
bump
nothing has really changed. What specifically about the or a scientific theory of origin of life is based on faith?
-
I'm not aware of any either, but when you were asked for an example of a scientific theory based on faith, you answered with the origin of life.
What specific theory has faith as an element?
Sort of a trick question. There are no scientific theories about the origin of life (using the accepted scientific method I outlined earlier.)
I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozmo: What is your belief about how life began on day 1?
-
Sort of a trick question. There are no scientific theories about the origin of life (using the accepted scientific method I outlined earlier.)
Not true - there are theories and at least one experiment has been devised that produced results consistent with predictions made from that theory (see the Miller-Urey experiment, for instance).
Just because you either don't like that theory and its implications (or perhaps because you are unaware of them) doesn't make the theory any less scientific. Nor, for that matter, are you particularly qualified to decree what is and is not scientific.
Is it possible those theories are wrong? Sure it is - falsifiability is as the core of scientific inquiry; incremental improvements of existing theories and radical new theories have cropped up as a result of new evidence surfacing.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozmo: What is your belief about how life began on day 1?
Far be it from me to answer for Ozmo, but I think that the evidence very strongly points to abiogenesis.
-
Sort of a trick question. There are no scientific theories about the origin of life (using the accepted scientific method I outlined earlier.)
I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozmo: What is your belief about how life began on day 1?
You said there is faith involved. Still asking you for an example. Are you refusing to give one?
-
Not true - there are theories and at least one experiment has been devised that produced results consistent with predictions made from that theory (see the Miller-Urey experiment, for instance).
Just because you either don't like that theory and its implications (or perhaps because you are unaware of them) doesn't make the theory any less scientific. Nor, for that matter, are you particularly qualified to decree what is and is not scientific.
Is it possible those theories are wrong? Sure it is - falsifiability is as the core of scientific inquiry; incremental improvements of existing theories and radical new theories have cropped up as a result of new evidence surfacing.
Far be it from me to answer for Ozmo, but I think that the evidence very strongly points to abiogenesis.
I'm not trying to "decree what is and is not scientific," nor do I care about qualifications. Nobody needs to be "qualified" to talk about stuff on a message board.
In any event, did this "Miller-Urey experiment" create life in a lab?
Isn't "abiogenesis" the theory of spontaneous generation? And are you suggesting that theory has been tested?
-
You said there is faith involved. Still asking you for an example. Are you refusing to give one?
I answered that:
Sort of a trick question. There are no scientific theories about the origin of life (using the accepted scientific method I outlined earlier.)
I'll ask you the same question I asked Ozmo: What is your belief about how life began on day 1?
Are you refusing to say what your belief is about how life began on day 1?
-
I answered that:
Are you refusing to say what your belief is about how life began on day 1?
How did you answer it?
here is your assertion:
Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith. Except some people don't like to use the word "faith," probably due to its religious connotation.
followed by:
Not really. Some theories involve faith (even if characterized differently).
Now i am asking you a direct question based on your assertion. I am not asking you for a trick question.
Can you name some theories that involve faith?
Here's the obvious follow up question that you are maybe avoiding:
Exactly what part of that theory is based on faith?
-
How did you answer it?
here is your assertion:
followed by:
Now i am asking you a direct question based on your assertion. I am not asking you for a trick question.
Can you name some theories that involve faith?
Here's the obvious follow up question that you are maybe avoiding:
Exactly what part of that theory is based on faith?
I was the one who asked a trick question, not you. But I answered your question. The theories that claim to be scientific regarding the origin of life on earth are really not scientific, because they do not follow the accepted methods of scientific analysis.
For example, the theory of spontaneous generation has not been established through (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Anyone who believes that life on earth began on day 1 through spontaneous generation has a "belief that is not based on proof." The quoted portion comes from the definition of "faith" that you posted.
Lets take a look at the word faith:
faith
[feyth]
noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
So you or anyone else can try and characterize it any way you want, but at the end of the day, that theory (and every other theory about origin of life) is not based on proof.
But you haven't answered the question: what is your belief about how life began on day 1?
-
I was the one who asked a trick question, not you. But I answered your question. The theories that claim to be scientific regarding the origin of life on earth are really not scientific, because they do not follow the accepted methods of scientific analysis.
For example, the theory of spontaneous generation has not been established through (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Anyone who believes that life on earth began on day 1 through spontaneous generation has a "belief that is not based on proof." The quoted portion comes from the definition of "faith" that you posted.
So you or anyone else can try and characterize it any way you want, but at the end of the day, that theory (and every other theory about origin of life) is not based on proof.
But you haven't answered the question: what is your belief about how life began on day 1?
other than you attributing this claim to others, I don't recall seeing anyone having ever made that claim so why do you keep repeating it
Even you own goofy creation fable doesn't have life beginning on Day 1
BTW - kind of strange that God would make earth first and then created the sun, moon and stars
also odd that he would make plants before making the sun but then I guess he had his reasons?
no mention of dinosaurs either but I guess he just forgot to mention it when he was writing the bible
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was empty, a formless mass cloaked in darkness. And the Spirit of God was hovering over its surface. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. And God saw that it was good. Then he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day" and the darkness "night." (NLT, Genesis 1:1-5)
That was the first day of God's creation.
On the second day, God created the sky.
On the third day, God created the land, the oceans and all the plants.
On the fourth day, God created the sun, moon and stars.
On the fifth day, God created the birds, fishes and other sea creatures.
On the sixth day, God created all the land animals and people.
On the seventh day, God rested:
By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. (NIV, Genesis 2:2-3)
-
I was the one who asked a trick question, not you. But I answered your question. The theories that claim to be scientific regarding the origin of life on earth are really not scientific, because they do not follow the accepted methods of scientific analysis.
For example, the theory of spontaneous generation has not been established through (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Anyone who believes that life on earth began on day 1 through spontaneous generation has a "belief that is not based on proof." The quoted portion comes from the definition of "faith" that you posted.
So you or anyone else can try and characterize it any way you want, but at the end of the day, that theory (and every other theory about origin of life) is not based on proof.
But you haven't answered the question: what is your belief about how life began on day 1?
"Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation)
Seems like science has evolved past this.....maybe because some of its roots are from the time of Aristotle? .....when much wasn't using the scientific process we know today...not one that was applied to in the 1600-1700's. lol
Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows:
Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.
Can you show a modern scientific theory that use faith?
-
"Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation)
Seems like science has evolved past this.....maybe because some of its roots are from the time of Aristotle? .....when much wasn't using the scientific process we know today...not one that was applied to in the 1600-1700's. lol
Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows:
Can you show a modern scientific theory that use faith?
Spontaneous generation is what the biblical creation myth is all about
maybe that's why Bum is so hung up on it
-
"Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation)
Seems like science has evolved past this.....maybe because some of its roots are from the time of Aristotle? .....when much wasn't using the scientific process we know today...not one that was applied to in the 1600-1700's. lol
Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows:
Can you show a modern scientific theory that use faith?
I gave you a fairly large one. Why not address that one?
And you haven't answered the question about your personal view on the origin of life on day 1?
-
Spontaneous generation is what the biblical creation myth is all about
maybe that's why Bum is so hung up on it
maybe i am misunderstanding.
he used the word "often" and the first actual example he provides is a obsolete theory hundreds if not thousands of years old.
Bum, did you mean outdated theories or modern theories or both?
another question would be when did the modern scientific method as describe originate?
And does it even involve faith?
-
I gave you a fairly large one. Why not address that one?
And you haven't answered the question about your personal view on the origin of life on day 1?
I have.
but i have no problem answering it again.
"I have no belief. I am not a scientist and have not done any real research on it."
I have watched a few documentaries, read a few books talking about it in the past i am sure. But nothing that qualifies me to debate or discuss it in any kind of depth.
and as i explained the answer you gave doesn't apply.
When you said:
Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.
were you just talking about ancient theories?
-
maybe i am misunderstanding.
he used the word "often" and the first actual example he provides is a obsolete theory hundreds if not thousands of years old.
Bum, did you mean outdated theories or modern theories or both?
another question would be when did the modern scientific method as describe originate?
And does it even involve faith?
btw - did you ever claim a personal view that "life began on day 1"
did I miss that somewhere on this thread
no scientist that I'm aware of thinks that "life" started on "day 1" of anything (big bang, "day 1" of earth, etc..)
-
btw - did you ever claim a personal view that "life began on day 1"
did I miss that somewhere on this thread
no scientist that I'm aware of thinks that "life" started on "day 1" of anything (big bang, "day 1" of earth, etc..)
I don't think i have. I don't know though, maybe in the past lol.
and i am not a scientist.
I just want to know what theories, using the scientific method often use faith as Beach talked about...... or maybe he was just talking about ancient theories.
-
I don't think i have. I don't know though, maybe in the past lol.
and i am not a scientist.
I just want to know what theories, using the scientific method often use faith as Beach talked about...... or maybe he was just talking about ancient theories.
I don't think you have either but Bum keeps using that term and for some reason projecting that claim or belief onto you
First time he used here
The origins of life on earth. Some fact, some opinion, and a whole lot of faith when it comes to day 1 (regardless of the theory).
Then the next time here and added the part about "life began"
It's the right word. Just an uncomfortable word for some.
Scientific methods involve: (1) observation; (2) hypothesis formulation; (3) prediction; and (4) testing of predictions.
Try using that method to explain how life began on day 1. Cannot be done.
weird how you never said this but somehow he thinks you should be able to prove it and if you can't he thinks he has made some point
Pay attention Bum - no one has ever made this claim except YOU
-
I have.
but i have no problem answering it again.
"I have no belief. I am not a scientist and have not done any real research on it."
I have watched a few documentaries, read a few books talking about it in the past i am sure. But nothing that qualifies me to debate or discuss it in any kind of depth.
and as i explained the answer you gave doesn't apply.
When you said:
Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.
were you just talking about ancient theories?
Thanks. I didn't see that response earlier. I experience that kind of punt often when I bring up this subject. :) But I'll repeat that every belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is not based on proof.
I was talking primarily about the origin of life on earth. I'm sure if I spent the time I could come up with others.
-
Thanks. I didn't see that response earlier. I experience that kind of punt often when I bring up this subject. :) But I'll repeat that every belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is not based on proof.
I was talking primarily about the origin of life on earth. I'm sure if I spent the time I could come up with others.
oh brother
well I guess all we've got left then is the biblical theory of of the origin of life (actually the origin of everything)
I mean the book itself exist, therefore we have "proof" that the biblical story of creation is true
it's a bit earth centric given that God created the earth before he created the Sun and "stars" but heck you can't really question god on stuff like that
-
Thanks. I didn't see that response earlier. I experience that kind of punt often when I bring up this subject. :) But I'll repeat that every belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is not based on proof.
I was talking primarily about the origin of life on earth. I'm sure if I spent the time I could come up with others.
I am betting that most of these people you ask are not scientists who have researched or are in that field who have had their theories peer reviewed and their "facts" scrutinized.
Ordinary people's "theories" are rife with beliefs, faith, or assumptions. Most atheists, as i have read a few books from atheists, Richard Dawkins, Mike Shermer, and feature writers from Skeptic Mag, take a far more scientific approach to things than the ordinary person who pretty accepts what they are told without researching it. They make fact based conclusions over faith based.
What is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life and how does it incorporate faith?
-
I am betting that most of these people you ask are not scientists who have researched or are in that field who have had their theories peer reviewed and their "facts" scrutinized.
Ordinary people's "theories" are rife with beliefs, faith, or assumptions. Most atheists, as i have read a few books from atheists, Richard Dawkins, Mike Shermer, and feature writers from Skeptic Mag, take a far more scientific approach to things than the ordinary person who pretty accepts what they are told without researching it. They make fact based conclusions over faith based.
What is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life and how does it incorporate faith?
I don't think it matters whether you ask non-scientists or scientists when it comes to this particular question.
I agree people who are non-scienctists have beliefs based on faith, etc. Scientists do too, except they don't call it faith. Or they punt. :)
I don't think there is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth. We've never been able to recreate life in a lab in a way that explains how it all started.
I've also said before that whatever theory someone has about the origin of life sounds like science fiction (regardless of whether it's science/secular/religious based).
-
It's pretty obvious that if science can't provide people like Bum with iron-clad (and easy to understand) proof of the original of everything then it's all discounted to zero and we have to rely on a jewish fairy tale....or at the very least we have to consider a ancient jewish fairy tale side by side with modern science even when modern science can totally dismantle that story
that's our only option and let's thanks Jesus and his Dad (and the Spook) for giving it to us
-
I don't think it matters whether you ask non-scientists or scientists when it comes to this particular question.
I agree people who are non-scienctists have beliefs based on faith, etc. Scientists do too, except they don't call it faith. Or they punt. :)
I don't think there is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life on earth. We've never been able to recreate life in a lab in a way that explains how it all started.
I've also said before that whatever theory someone has about the origin of life sounds like science fiction (regardless of whether it's science/secular/religious based).
So that brings us back the original question:
Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith.
such as?
And before you say you've already answered it and we are going in circles, keep in mind the many questions i have asked to clarify your assertion:.....
What is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life and how does it incorporate faith?
were you just talking about ancient theories?
Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows: Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith?
Can you list some scientific theories that are partially based on faith?
Can you list some scientific theories that are 100% based on faith?
Can you name some theories that involve faith?
________________________ ________________________ ________________
You seem to be unwilling to answer these questions
Am i to conclude that you are not saying modern science and its method is a mix of faith and facts?
-
Ozmo, Bum is saying that he believes that because modern science does not have iron clad proof for the origin of everything from "day 1" as he likes to say, he believes this means they are using "faith" or "punting"
What he fails to keep in mind is that most modern scientists recognize the gaps in in their current forms of data or proof and don't make iron clad claims about almost anything. They don't fill in the missing gaps with "faith" and they are completely open to an evolution of the current theories. This is insufficient for many bible thumpers who need very simple and easy to understand "definitive" answers to everything. This is why it is so easy for them to turn off their brains and just fill in all those missing gaps with "god" while at the same time pretending that modern science really relies on faith (thereby bringing the whole thing back around to their original belief system and pretending it has somehow been validated or vindicated)
-
So that brings us back the original question:
such as?
And before you say you've already answered it and we are going in circles, keep in mind the many questions i have asked to clarify your assertion:.....
What is a modern scientific explanation of the origin of life and how does it incorporate faith?
were you just talking about ancient theories?
Can you come up with a more current "Modern" example that shows: Theories are often based on a mixture of fact and faith?
Can you list some scientific theories that are partially based on faith?
Can you list some scientific theories that are 100% based on faith?
Can you name some theories that involve faith?
________________________ ________________________ ________________
You seem to be unwilling to answer these questions
Am i to conclude that you are not saying modern science and its method is a mix of faith and facts?
Yes, we are going in circles. I made a general statement about opinions often having a mixture of fact and faith. I narrowed that general statement to the origin of life on earth, which you don't really want to talk about.
If you're asking me again to identify theories, including theories in science that have a mixture of faith and facts, I don't know off the top of my head. But that's true of any theory--science or non-science--because I don't really feel like having to think right now. lol
But as I've said, any belief or theory that cannot be proved has an element of faith. If you want to take the position that all scientific opinions/beliefs have been proved, then that's fine. But I think we both know that cannot be true, and to the extent any specific opinion or belief cannot be proved, it has an element of faith. Now you can ask me the same question again, but that's my answer.
-
Yes, we are going in circles. I made a general statement about opinions often having a mixture of fact and faith. I narrowed that general statement to the origin of life on earth, which you don't really want to talk about.
If you're asking me again to identify theories, including theories in science that have a mixture of faith and facts, I don't know off the top of my head. But that's true of any theory--science or non-science--because I don't really feel like having to think right now. lol
But as I've said, any belief or theory that cannot be proved has an element of faith. If you want to take the position that all scientific opinions/beliefs have been proved, then that's fine. But I think we both know that cannot be true, and to the extent any specific opinion or belief cannot be proved, it has an element of faith. Now you can ask me the same question again, but that's my answer.
I know, thinking can cause friction in the brain, thus overheating it, causing smoke to come of one's ears. That's the theory anyway supported by many cartoons.
Mainly what i am asking you to do is identify theories mainly ones that used and were tested by modern scientific method that rely or have elements of faith.
Let me know when you get around to it.
(http://marklabutis.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/roundtoit.jpg?w=655)
:D ;D
-
oh brother
well I guess all we've got left then is the biblical theory of of the origin of life (actually the origin of everything)
I mean the book itself exist, therefore we have "proof" that the biblical story of creation is true
it's a bit earth centric given that God created the earth before he created the Sun and "stars" but heck you can't really question god on stuff like that
You have to shut your eyes and take it on faith.
-
I know, thinking can cause friction in the brain, thus overheating it, causing smoke to come of one's ears. That's the theory anyway supported by many cartoons.
Mainly what i am asking you to do is identify theories mainly ones that used and were tested by modern scientific method that rely or have elements of faith.
Let me know when you get around to it.
(http://marklabutis.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/roundtoit.jpg?w=655)
:D ;D
lol :D My brain usually shuts down at noon on Fridays, but it's starting a little early this week.
-
You have to shut your eyes and take it on faith.
Yep, it makes life very very simple too which is helpful considering how complicated life actually is
BTW - this is one of the funniest episodes of Futurama and worth twenty something minutes to watch (it has a few surprises)
-
I'm not trying to "decree what is and is not scientific," nor do I care about qualifications. Nobody needs to be "qualified" to talk about stuff on a message board.
Funny, since you just finished telling us what science is not too long ago... and no, you don't have to be qualified to talk about stuff and offer your opinion, but unless you are slightly qualified you will make a fool of yourself and, perhaps of more interst to you, you will find out exactly how much your opinions are worth.
In any event, did this "Miller-Urey experiment" create life in a lab?
Perhaps if you'd care to read up on it (a Google search takes you to Wikipedia) you'd see what the experiment did and did not do.
By the way, I don't like debating when the terms of the debate aren't established. Please proceed to define "life" so that we can have a common frame of reference and a sensible conversation without goal shifting.
Isn't "abiogenesis" the theory of spontaneous generation? And are you suggesting that theory has been tested?
I am suggesting that evidence has been presented (see the Miller-Urey experiment I previously mentioned) that complex proteins (the "building blocks of life") which we know are needed for life as we know it to exist, can spontaneously form in the conditions that were likely to have existed billions of years ago based on our cosmological observations.
-
Funny, since you just finished telling us what science is not too long ago... and no, you don't have to be qualified to talk about stuff and offer your opinion, but unless you are slightly qualified you will make a fool of yourself and, perhaps of more interst to you, you will find out exactly how much your opinions are worth.
Perhaps if you'd care to read up on it (a Google search takes you to Wikipedia) you'd see what the experiment did and did not do.
By the way, I don't like debating when the terms of the debate aren't established. Please proceed to define "life" so that we can have a common frame of reference and a sensible conversation without goal shifting.
I am suggesting that evidence has been presented (see the Miller-Urey experiment I previously mentioned) that complex proteins (the "building blocks of life") which we know are needed for life as we know it to exist, can spontaneously form in the conditions that were likely to have existed billions of years ago based on our cosmological observations.
This is the integral point, it doesn't matter if these conditions existed in young earth (Miller-urey conditions), it proved that you can make the building blocks of life, it's possible, it's not special.
That's all you need to know to know that life isn't sacred but a simple string of coincidences.
-
Funny, since you just finished telling us what science is not too long ago... and no, you don't have to be qualified to talk about stuff and offer your opinion, but unless you are slightly qualified you will make a fool of yourself and, perhaps of more interst to you, you will find out exactly how much your opinions are worth.
Perhaps if you'd care to read up on it (a Google search takes you to Wikipedia) you'd see what the experiment did and did not do.
By the way, I don't like debating when the terms of the debate aren't established. Please proceed to define "life" so that we can have a common frame of reference and a sensible conversation without goal shifting.
I am suggesting that evidence has been presented (see the Miller-Urey experiment I previously mentioned) that complex proteins (the "building blocks of life") which we know are needed for life as we know it to exist, can spontaneously form in the conditions that were likely to have existed billions of years ago based on our cosmological observations.
My opinions on this website are worth the paper they are written on, just like yours and everyone else who posts here.
No, I don't care to read about an experiment that did not create life in a lab that mimicked the origin of life on earth.
This is not a debate. It's a discussion. And no, I'm not going to play the Clinton-esque "it depends on what the definition of is, is" game. I know what life means. So do you. If you're unclear about what life means, you can use a dictionary or use a "Google search."
You can suggest all you want. It hasn't been proved. It hasn't been established using the accepted scientific methods.
-
My opinions on this website are worth the paper they are written on, just like yours and everyone else who posts here.
No, I don't care to read about an experiment that did not create life in a lab that mimicked the origin of life on earth.
This is not a debate. It's a discussion. And no, I'm not going to play the Clinton-esque "it depends on what the definition of is, is" game. I know what life means. So do you. If you're unclear about what life means, you can use a dictionary or use a "Google search."
You can suggest all you want. It hasn't been proved. It hasn't been established using the accepted scientific methods.
Dude defining terms is the basis of cogent discourse.
What exactly is your contention anyway? if life never began in a natural manner, are you suggesting that god created us in our current form initially? is that your position?
I am being serious here.
-
Dude defining terms is the basis of cogent discourse.
What exactly is your contention anyway? if life never began in a natural manner, are you suggesting that god created us in our current form initially? is that your position?
I am being serious here.
I agree there are times when terms need to be defined. For example, people throw the word "lie" around a lot, but it's often misused, because the actual definition is a statement a person knows to be false at the time they make it, not simply a statement that turns out to be false. I misuse that word sometimes too.
But when someone is just trying to play word games, I don't usually participate.
My position in this thread is there is no scientific theory for how life began on earth and that whatever belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is at least in part a faith-based belief, because it cannot be proved.
-
Zombifying a horse.....
Your contention was theories are often based on mixture of fact and faith.
Your first example of.such as a supporting argument/example was one you don't even believe there is a scientific theory for?
-
My opinions on this website are worth the paper they are written on, just like yours and everyone else who posts here.
No, I don't care to read about an experiment that did not create life in a lab that mimicked the origin of life on earth.
This is not a debate. It's a discussion. And no, I'm not going to play the Clinton-esque "it depends on what the definition of is, is" game. I know what life means. So do you. If you're unclear about what life means, you can use a dictionary or use a "Google search."
You can suggest all you want. It hasn't been proved. It hasn't been established using the accepted scientific methods.
But the point is that you don't even know what the "accepted scientific method" even is. I show you an experiment that has, beyond question, proven that the building blocks of life - large folder protein structures - can emerge from simple elements. You say that's meaningless because it didn't create life.
So I ask you what you define as life. You refuse to answer claiming that we all know what life is. Perhaps we do, but we need to both be on the same page if we're going to discuss this topic. Tell me the one defining characteristic that allows me to distinguish something that is alive from something that isn't.
You claim to want evidence based on nothing but science, but you confuse science and the scientific method as synonymous with "Nu-Uh!" and "prove some more." It is not. Moreover, despite being the polar opposite of an expert on the topic, you ignore and dismiss the findings, explanations and evidence of those who actually are. Why? Because it doesn't jive with your preconceived notions and beliefs. Your own words prove that you aren't interested in learning, understanding or critically evaluating: you're just interested in supporting and defending your beliefs and are uninterested in facts and objective reality.
You're like Kent Hovind – another intellectually dishonest moron, in a long line of intellectually dishonest morons so deluded that when reality walks up to you and slaps you across the face with a trout nothing registers. A moron who openly admits that his opinion is immutable, present or future facts be damned.
And having established that you are an intellectually dishonest moron, this debate – pardon me, this discussion – is over, because dealing with you and your brothers-in-spirit is pointless.
-
Zombifying a horse.....
Your contention was theories are often based on mixture of fact and faith.
Your first example of.such as a supporting argument/example was one you don't even believe there is a scientific theory for?
Yes.
-
My position in this thread is there is no scientific theory for how life began on earth and that whatever belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is at least in part a faith-based belief, because it cannot be proved.
Doesn't seem likely. I would think there are many like me who are comfortable that we simply don't know. Saying we don't know does not mean we are taking anything of faith. It just means something occurred that caused life.
Believing that something must be a supernatural entity because we don't know is taking it on faith.
In fact, if we applied you're argument, probably nearly every theory would be based on faith because we don't know every single thing. Sorry, but not knowing, does not equate to faith.
-
Doesn't seem likely. I would think there are many like me who are comfortable that we simply don't know. Saying we don't know does not mean we are taking anything of faith. It just means something occurred that caused life.
Believing that something must be a supernatural entity because we don't know is taking it on faith.
In fact, if we applied you're argument, probably nearly every theory would be based on faith because we don't know every single thing. Sorry, but not knowing, does not equate to faith.
I didn't say not knowing = faith. I'm saying a couple things. One is that people like you and Ozmo (two very smart people) and many other smart people I know punt on this issue. I suspect it's in part because people don't want to address this gaping hole in their belief systems head on. But I'm sure people have a variety of reasons.
The other is that anyone who does has an actual belief about how life began has a belief that is at least in part faith based. And "faith" doesn't always mean "religious."
-
Not knowing how something happened or how something works isnt a hole in a persons believe system. It simply means not knowing.
Admitting you dont know isnt punting, its just being honest.
However, asserting that theories rely on a mixture of faith and facts and citing something you dont even believe is a theory as the basis for your agument is the real punt here.
-
Not knowing how something happened or how something works isnt a hole in a persons believe system. It simply means not knowing.
Admitting you dont know isnt punting, its just being honest.
However, asserting that theories rely on a mixture of faith and facts and citing something you dont even believe is a theory as the basis for your agument is the real punt here.
This is what Bum keeps repeating. That somehow if no one can provide him iron clad definitive answers to quite literally EVERYTHING then they are "punting". It seems he takes some comfort in this and I suspect he also think it's some kind of support for a creationist world view which is the only "story" that does provide what he is looking for i.e. an explanation for how everything started
Of course the biblical version has absolutely no proof whatsoever (even with missing data the modern scientific theories have mountains of evidence and proof by comparison) and Bum also seems to be ignoring the fact that the Bible actually has two different "how it all began" narratives so which one do you go with?
-
Not knowing how something happened or how something works isnt a hole in a persons believe system. It simply means not knowing.
Admitting you dont know isnt punting, its just being honest.
However, asserting that theories rely on a mixture of faith and facts and citing something you dont even believe is a theory as the basis for your agument is the real punt here.
It isn't just not knowing "how something happened." It's the origin of life on earth, arguably the biggest mystery today.
-
It isn't just not knowing "how something happened." It's the origin of life on earth, arguably the biggest mystery today.
don't you have a book that you consider to the be the word of your god telling you how it happened
where's the mystery?
-
don't you have a book that you consider to the be the word of your god telling you how it happened
where's the mystery?
Shouldn't be one.
-
It isn't just not knowing "how something happened." It's the origin of life on earth, arguably the biggest mystery today.
what does that have to do with your assertion and you punting whenasked about it?
-
what does that have to do with your assertion and you punting whenasked about it?
Just showing your punt was a lot longer than mine.
-
Just showing your punt was a lot longer than mine.
No, what you are doing is inserting an irrelevant issue to divert attention from your assertion.
Basic form of red herring fallacy.
I suspect you are doing this because you can't back up your claim.
-
don't you have a book that you consider to the be the word of your god telling you how it happened
where's the mystery?
Must have overlooked this question.
-
Must have overlooked this question.
Nope. Bum is just afraid to engage because I always make him look like an idiot (though it doesn't take much)
-
Nope. Bum is just afraid to engage because I always make him look like an idiot (though it doesn't take much)
Maybe he is lacking some faith in his "faith".
-
:D
-
I agree there are times when terms need to be defined. For example, people throw the word "lie" around a lot, but it's often misused, because the actual definition is a statement a person knows to be false at the time they make it, not simply a statement that turns out to be false. I misuse that word sometimes too.
But when someone is just trying to play word games, I don't usually participate.
My position in this thread is there is no scientific theory for how life began on earth and that whatever belief anyone has about the origin of life on earth is at least in part a faith-based belief, because it cannot be proved.
Ok, so the first issue is that you seem to be confusing theory and facts, there are theories, with many facts.
Autocatalytic theory for example explains life, do you buy it? well that depends on the weight of the evidence. I am throwing my hat in with natural order being maintained as we have never witnessed it otherwise.
-
Ok, so the first issue is that you seem to be confusing theory and facts, there are theories, with many facts.
Autocatalytic theory for example explains life, do you buy it? well that depends on the weight of the evidence. I am throwing my hat in with natural order being maintained as we have never witnessed it otherwise.
Not confusing them. I understand theories can have a mix of fact and opinion/things that have not been proved. That was my whole point. I'm just using a word that people are running away from.
I had an interesting discussion with a recently retired astronomy professor the other day. Never really thought about what a fascinating field it is to work/study/teach in. I brought up the issue of life with him. He said there is always an ongoing search for life in other parts of the universe from "regular" life (e.g., simple cells, etc.) to intelligent life. No luck with either. I asked him for the current prevailing scientific theory on the origin of life on earth. He couldn't really say.
Also, he said scientists never use absolutes. They always use qualified language, because things change so often. One of the things he loved to do was go into his class and tell them he was wrong, because they found something new.
Very interesting stuff. Gave me a different perspective of space. I'm going to buy a telescope. (Had one years ago but sold it.)
-
Not confusing them. I understand theories can have a mix of fact and opinion/things that have not been proved. That was my whole point. I'm just using a word that people are running away from.
I had an interesting discussion with a recently retired astronomy professor the other day. Never really thought about what a fascinating field it is to work/study/teach in. I brought up the issue of life with him. He said there is always an ongoing search for life in other parts of the universe from "regular" life (e.g., simple cells, etc.) to intelligent life. No luck with either. I asked him for the current prevailing scientific theory on the origin of life on earth. He couldn't really say.
Also, he said scientists never use absolutes. They always use qualified language, because things change so often. One of the things he loved to do was go into his class and tell them he was wrong, because they found something new.
Very interesting stuff. Gave me a different perspective of space. I'm going to buy a telescope. (Had one years ago but sold it.)
Why the fuck would I care what an astronomer thinks of abiogenesis? being a doctor or a professor aren't arguments in themselves.
dude I get being spiritual but religions are bullshit, the world makes sense, god has never been found in any gap, that will likely continue. Why not face reality? god might exist but science explains the creation properly, ie objectively.
-
Why the fuck would I care what an astronomer thinks of abiogenesis? being a doctor or a professor aren't arguments in themselves.
dude I get being spiritual but religions are bullshit, the world makes sense, god has never been found in any gap, that will likely continue. Why not face reality? god might exist but science explains the creation properly, ie objectively.
I wasn't asking you if you cared about what the guy thinks. Just recounting what I thought was an interesting discussion.
I know some of you atheists are obsessed with God and religion, but I'm not talking about God and religion.
-
don't you have a book that you consider to the be the word of your god telling you how it happened
where's the mystery?
???? Must have overlooked this one.
-
yes, I mentioned how you wasted 3 pages going in illogical circles but if that makes you feel better about yourself then more power to you
you seem to also be confused about very simple math
you wrote
"Christianity started with one man 2,000 years ago, and it grew to the point that today's world population is mostly Christian, and even greater is the percentage that is theist if you include all religions."
That is a provable and undisputed FALSE STATEMENT
Unless of course you apply that classic Loco pretzel logic and then it's obvious that 5 million out of 7 million people being NOT Christian ="world population is mostly Christian"
Okay then, I do admit that my statement saying today's world population is mostly Christian is "probably" incorrect.
My statement should be rephrased as saying today's world population is mostly theist, and will always be. Atheists will always be the minority, unless they start popping as many babies as theists do. So I do understand why these atheists passing out literature at schools are so afraid.
-
Okay then, I do admit that my statement saying today's world population is mostly Christian is "probably" incorrect.
My statement should be rephrased as saying today's world population is mostly theist, and will always be. Atheists will always be the minority, unless they start popping as many babies as theists do. So I do understand why these atheists passing out literature at schools are so afraid.
not probably incorrect but definitely incorrect
btw - the atheist were not "passing out literature"
From the article in the first post in this thread
As with the Gideons, actual group members were not allowed to contact students, but the books were left for interested students to pick up and peruse.
and no one, other than you, has made the claim that atheist are "afraid" of christians or anything
that is just another one of your weird assertions based on nothing but your own beliefs
given your posts on this thread you seem to be the only one that feels threatened by any point of view that is contrary to your own
-
not probably incorrect but definitely incorrect
btw - the atheist were not "passing out literature"
From the article in the first post in this thread
and no one, other than you has made the claim that atheist are "afraid" of christians or anything
that is just another one of your weird assertions based on nothing but your own beliefs
given your posts on this thread you seem to be the only one that feels threatened by any point of view that is contrary to your own
How do you know for sure that it's definitely incorrect?
How is what the atheists were doing different than what the theists are doing? The theist stand there with their Bibles and students can take one if they wish.
While I am no member of an atheist organization, I can clearly see the need. If left to their own devices, religious people would push their agenda and beliefs on everyone much like they have tried to do for centuries. Non believers need to organize to protect themselves from those zealots who want to legislate their beliefs into laws.
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
-
How do you know for sure that it's definitely incorrect?
How is what the atheists were doing different than what the theists are doing? The theist stand there with their Bibles and students can take one if they wish.
you're suggesting that the source that you yourself posted is not correct ?
I'm going by this. Sorry, it's all I got.
Religions:
Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
Thanks for bumping my post from 2007
Six years later neuroscientist are speculating the same thing that I proposed in 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html
Religious Fundamentalism 'May Be Categorised As Mental Illness & Cured By Science'
-
Of course this is not representative of most Christians, but funny as hell anyway...
http://topekasnews.com/oklahoma-protesters-threaten-secdee-union-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-cancelled/ (http://topekasnews.com/oklahoma-protesters-threaten-secdee-union-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-cancelled/)
Oklahoma Protesters Threaten to “Secdee” From Union if Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos is not Cancelled
Saddlebridge Township, Oklahoma – Furious parents and citizens of Oklahoma took to the streets early Thursday, protesting against Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos. Protesters allege the show is blatantly promoting an anti-Creationist agenda and is ‘standing against the Judeo-Christian moors and values of the Saddleback Township community and others nationwide.”
The first protests against Cosmos in the community took place some two weeks ago, after a local paper claimed an airing of Cosmos in a school caused several children to experience ‘demonic possession’. Parents cite one kid became completely enamored with the show during a terrifyingly supernatural event linked with Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s narrative explaining the “God of the Gaps” theory.
Several weeks ago, citizens accused Tyson of using his Cosmos program to forward other agendas, not limited to a ‘homogay’ agenda, wizardry/haroldry, astrology and other vehemently anti-Christian teachings.
Concerned parents have accused Neil DeGrasse Tyson of ‘Ra’ worship and iconography, going as far as saying the titular narrator may be involved in a Wiccan Sun occult.
Delores Simmons, whose child was involved in the prior airing of Cosmos that precipitated the anti-science scare in Oklahoma, claims petitions are already going about to elect pro-Creation candidates for upcoming elections.
“If we allow this Tyson to keep publicly airing his beliefs, God just may strike us down with a cosmic meteor this summer. That would be ironic justice if you ask me, so we should just take this show off now before that happens.”
Other citizens in Oklahoma agree. The latest Rasmussen polls on the subject show that over 64% people in Oklahoma feel Cosmos is dangerous and carries a strong anti-theist and Creation message.
SaddleBridge Township Petition to Remove Cosmos From Local Television Affiliates
Cosmos is a dangerous television program with strong ties to the Satanic Ra occult. The show veils itself under the guise of ‘inspiration science’, but unveils its wolf teeth every time Neil DeGrasse Tyson spouts anti-Creationist rhetoric that possesses the minds of Oklahoma’s children.
The parents of the Saddlebridge Community continue to feel Cosmos is inappropriate material for television and therefore must be removed from all programming within the state. Following are examples of the dangers presents by Cosmos: A Space Journey.
-
Of course this is not representative of most Christians, but funny as hell anyway...
http://topekasnews.com/oklahoma-protesters-threaten-secdee-union-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-cancelled/ (http://topekasnews.com/oklahoma-protesters-threaten-secdee-union-neil-degrasse-tysons-cosmos-cancelled/)
Oklahoma Protesters Threaten to “Secdee” From Union if Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos is not Cancelled
Saddlebridge Township, Oklahoma – Furious parents and citizens of Oklahoma took to the streets early Thursday, protesting against Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos. Protesters allege the show is blatantly promoting an anti-Creationist agenda and is ‘standing against the Judeo-Christian moors and values of the Saddleback Township community and others nationwide.”
The first protests against Cosmos in the community took place some two weeks ago, after a local paper claimed an airing of Cosmos in a school caused several children to experience ‘demonic possession’. Parents cite one kid became completely enamored with the show during a terrifyingly supernatural event linked with Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s narrative explaining the “God of the Gaps” theory.
Several weeks ago, citizens accused Tyson of using his Cosmos program to forward other agendas, not limited to a ‘homogay’ agenda, wizardry/haroldry, astrology and other vehemently anti-Christian teachings.
Concerned parents have accused Neil DeGrasse Tyson of ‘Ra’ worship and iconography, going as far as saying the titular narrator may be involved in a Wiccan Sun occult.
Delores Simmons, whose child was involved in the prior airing of Cosmos that precipitated the anti-science scare in Oklahoma, claims petitions are already going about to elect pro-Creation candidates for upcoming elections.
“If we allow this Tyson to keep publicly airing his beliefs, God just may strike us down with a cosmic meteor this summer. That would be ironic justice if you ask me, so we should just take this show off now before that happens.”
Other citizens in Oklahoma agree. The latest Rasmussen polls on the subject show that over 64% people in Oklahoma feel Cosmos is dangerous and carries a strong anti-theist and Creation message.
SaddleBridge Township Petition to Remove Cosmos From Local Television Affiliates
Cosmos is a dangerous television program with strong ties to the Satanic Ra occult. The show veils itself under the guise of ‘inspiration science’, but unveils its wolf teeth every time Neil DeGrasse Tyson spouts anti-Creationist rhetoric that possesses the minds of Oklahoma’s children.
The parents of the Saddlebridge Community continue to feel Cosmos is inappropriate material for television and therefore must be removed from all programming within the state. Following are examples of the dangers presents by Cosmos: A Space Journey.
I guess it never occurred to these idiots to just change the channel
-
http://progressivepopulist.org/2014/03/25/pastor-prays-president-obama-die-preaches-women-shut-church-video/
Pastor Steven L. Anderson, of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona who give Christians as a whole a bad name.
Pastor Anderson first gained national infamy back in 2009 when he claimed that he prays for President Obama’s death every day because he “hates” him. Apparently, in his world, hate is just something that Christians do.
Watch his bizarre anti-Obama tirade below, which led to a visit from your friendly neighborhood Secret Service. Just one guess what news network he watches every night.
So ladies, here are your special Pastor Anderson ground rules while you are in church.
1. You MAY speak to other humans before church starts.
2. You CAN joyfully sing along to “Jesus Loves Me” or any other song that praises God.
3. When Pastor Anderson is preaching, SHUT UP!
4. If you disagree with Pastor Anderson, SHUT UP!
5. If you agree with Pastor Anderson, SHUT UP! That’s right… even saying “Amen” is a no-no. Don’t risk getting a Bible thrown at you.
6. If you have any questions about Pastor Anderson’s sermon, SHUT UP! Don’t even ask your supreme leader husband while you are at church with him. Save that for when you get home, after you’ve made him a nice lunch and cleaned the house – all the more better if you are silent while doing so, of course. And hubby might be watching football, so wait for the commercial breaks to bother him with such things.
7. Learning time is SHUT UP time. Women are placed here on earth in order to serve men, and learn things from them.
8. If there is any doubt as to whether you should speak or not, just take the safe route and SHUT UP!
-------------------------
Seeing how Obama is still alive, I guess it is safe to assume that God isn't answering any of his prayers. How stupid can his congregation be for attending a church where it's own pastor can't get a prayer through to the big guy? Sort of like supporting a football team that never makes it to the playoffs.
-
Of course this is not representative of all atheists, but it's funny as heck anyway. :D
-
Here, again, for posterity is what Delores Simmons, a creature that looks human but has the intellectual capacity of a partially used toilet paper roll, a creature who lives believes that her fears and beliefs justify censorship and that anyone who speaks something that she does not approve ought to be censored.
“If we allow this Tyson to keep publicly airing his beliefs, God just may strike us down with a cosmic meteor this summer. That would be ironic justice if you ask me, so we should just take this show off now before that happens.”
This, ladies and gentlemen, is proof that the mentality that gave us the Inquisition and resulted in the burning of witches is still alive and well. Luckily not all Christians are like that, but, sadly, some are.
So this is my reply to Delores Simmons, and I do very much hope she will read it.
Miss Simmons,
You are a censorious asshole and it offends me to know that you are not only an American but a human being. You are a douchebag and a hypocrite.
A douchebag who feels that her beliefs - beliefs that she cannot rationally justify or prove or even cogently articulate - and her fears justify censoring those who can rationally justify their positions.
And a hypocrite because you happily avail yourself to modern conveniences, conveniences that the people who you wish to burn at the stake have helped bring to you, and which you were unable to conceive or create yourself.
Fuck you, you un-American piece of shit.
-
Of course this is not representative of all atheists, but it's funny as heck anyway. :D
actually not representative of any atheists
he does represent a point of view that christians have about some atheists
is that what you were going for?
-
you're suggesting that the source that you yourself posted is not correct ?
Thanks for bumping my post from 2007
Six years later neuroscientist are speculating the same thing that I proposed in 2007
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/kathleen-taylor-religious-fundamentalism-mental-illness_n_3365896.html
Religious Fundamentalism 'May Be Categorised As Mental Illness & Cured By Science'
Maybe, maybe not. How do you know for sure that my original statement is definitely incorrect?
Why does it matter when you made the statement? It is what you believe still today, isn't it?
-
Irrational atheists.
Group files complaint against Tigers
Updated: April 17, 2014
By Andrea Adelson | ESPN.com
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has lodged a letter of complaint to Clemson, charging coach Dabo Swinney and his staff with "unconstitutional behavior" at the public university.
Among the concerns outlined in the complaint by the FFRF, based on information obtained from an open records request:
• Swinney personally invited James Trapp to become team chaplain -- in violation of the Constitution and university guidelines on hiring chaplains -- and gave Trapp access to the entire team for Bible studies.
• Swinney schedules team devotionals.
• Swinney has organized transportation for coaches and players to "Church Days."
University spokeswoman Cathy Sams issued a statement saying the school would evaluate the complaints raised but believes Swinney and his staff are not violating the separation of church and state guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
"Participation in religious activities is purely voluntary, and there are no repercussions for students who decline to do so," the statement read. "We are not aware of any complaints from current or former student-athletes about feeling pressured or forced to participate in religious activities."
Swinney is not being made available to comment, but he has been outspoken in his religious views. In December, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Swinney tells recruits on visits, "I'm a Christian. If you have a problem with that, you don't have to be here."
In the same report, former safety Rashard Hall told the publication, "If you're there, you're going to know Jesus, you're going to know verses in the Bible -- it's weaved in the culture. There's a drawing-in towards Christianity."
Two years ago, then-Tigers receiver DeAndre Hopkins asked permission to be baptized in front of coaches and teammates in a cold tub after practice. The story went viral after assistant coach Jeff Scott tweeted a photo of Hopkins sitting in the tub.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a state/church watchdog based in Madison, Wis., wants the school to direct Swinney and Trapp to immediately stop team prayers, sermons, Bible studies and "church days" for players, train staff about their First Amendment obligations, and monitor compliance.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10795870/freedom-religion-foundation-lodges-complaint-clemson-tigers-dabo-swinney
-
Maybe, maybe not. How do you know for sure that my original statement is definitely incorrect?
Why does it matter when you made the statement? It is what you believe still today, isn't it?
you're joking right
now all you've got left is questioning the veracity of the stuff you post
You're the one who posted this info
I'm going by this. Sorry, it's all I got.
Religions:
Christian 33.39% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 22.74%, Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
Various source show that Christians account for around 30% of the world population so your claim below is just FALSE
Christianity started with one man 2,000 years ago, and it grew to the point that today's world population is mostly Christian, and even greater is the percentage that is theist if you include all religions.
deal with it and move on
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
-
you're joking right
now all you've got left is questioning the veracity of the stuff you post
You're the one who posted this info
Various source show that Christians account for around 30% of the world population so your claim below is just FALSE
deal with it and move on
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
How do you know for sure that your sources are 100% accurate?
It wouldn't scare me one bit even if Christians were the world's minority today. Christianity started with just one man and his twelve disciples. If Christians are the majority today, then great! If we aren't, then we evangelical Christians need to step it up.
Either way, atheists have always been and will always be the world's minority. Deal with it and move on.
Why does it matter when you made this statement? It is your personal belief still today, isn't it?
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
-
How do you know for sure that your sources are 100% accurate?
It wouldn't scare me one bit even if Christians were the world's minority today. Christianity started with just one man and his twelve disciples. If Christians are the majority today, then great! If we aren't, then we evangelical Christians need to step it up.
Either way, atheists have always been and will always be the world's minority. Deal with it and move on.
Why does it matter when you made this statement? It is your personal belief still today, isn't it?
this is ridiculous
you posted a claim that ~ 33% of the population is Christian as support for your statement that the "world population is mostly christian"
if you have some proof that the world population is mostly christian then post it or just admit you fucked up
btw - thanks again for posting my 7 year old quote. You're pretty much proving my point about fundamentalist religious types being mentally ill with your recent posts on this thread
-
this is ridiculous
you posted a claim that ~ 33% of the population is Christian as support for your statement that the "world population is mostly christian"
if you have some proof that the world population is mostly christian then post it or just admit you fucked up
btw - thanks again for posting my 7 year old quote. You're pretty much proving my point about fundamentalist religious types being mentally ill with your recent posts on this thread
I said that because I read it in the CIA World Fact Book. No need to get your panties in a wad over it.
How do you know for sure that your sources are 100% accurate?
Why does it matter when you made the statement? That is still your personal belief, isn't it?
Why do you keep dodging my questions?
-
I said that because I read it in the CIA World Fact Book. No need to get your panties in a wad over it.
do you understand that what you posted from the CIA World Fact Book not only does not support your claim of "mostly christian" but proves it is wrong. If you're now going to say that we can't trust the sources you post then all that does it leave you without any evidence to support your claim
The weird part is that you've already admitted you were wrong but now seem to feel the need to back track
Virtually everything I've seen (some of which I've posted) put's christians at around 30-33% which I guess I need to point out yet again is not "mostly christian"
How do you know for sure that your sources are 100% accurate?
Why does it matter when you made the statement? That is still your personal belief, isn't it?
Why do you keep dodging my questions?
not only is it still my personal belief but I've responded to it the two times you posted it in this thread
Why are you not capable of seeing that?
I just responded to it a few minutes ago thanking you for posting it again and pointing out that you're providing proof of my belief by your posts on this thread
-
do you understand that what you posted from the CIA World Fact Book not only does not support your claim of "most christian" but proves it is wrong. If you're now going to say that we can't trust the sources you post then all that does it leave you without any evidence to support your claim
The weird part is that you've already admitted you were wrong but now seem to feel the need to back track
Virtually everything I've seen (some of which I've posted) put's christians at around 30-33% which I guess I need to point out yet again is not "mostly christian"
not only is it still my personal belief but I've responded to it the two times you posted it in this thread
Why are you not capable of seeing that?
I just responded to it a few minutes ago thanking you for posting it again and pointing out that you're providing proof of my belief by your posts on this thread
How do you know that your sources are 100% accurate?
Why are you so afraid of theists?
Why are you still having a discussion with me if you still believe this?
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
You seem just as mentally ill as you believe all theists are.
-
How do you know that your sources are 100% accurate?
Why are you so afraid of theists?
Why are you still having a discussion with me if you still believe this?
You seem just as mentally ill as you believe all theists are.
LOL - dude you're flailing here
you can't support your claim and you can't admit you're wrong
Now you're projecting your obvious fear of atheists on to me
You really need to learn to admit when you're wrong and just move on
-
Irrational atheists.
I don't know anything about the case beyond what I read in your post, but I am curious as to why you think that they're irrational? Now, to be fair, I don't think that people should be prohibited from discussing their beliefs. If this coach wants to organize Bible days, or whathaveyou, more power to him, provided that he doesn't directly or indirectly coerce anyone to participate.
So I have some questions for you: Do you believe an employee of a publicly funded University should be able to use his position to proselytize? Especially an employee in a position of authority, such as a Professor or Coach, instead of some buffoon in administration? More specifically, would you feel any different if the coach in question was Muslim and he organized transportation to Mosque Days?
-
I don't know anything about the case beyond what I read in your post, but I am curious as to why you think that they're irrational? Now, to be fair, I don't think that people should be prohibited from discussing their beliefs. If this coach wants to organize Bible days, or whathaveyou, more power to him, provided that he doesn't directly or indirectly coerce anyone to participate.
So I have some questions for you: Do you believe an employee of a publicly funded University should be able to use his position to proselytize? Especially an employee in a position of authority, such as a Professor or Coach, instead of some buffoon in administration? More specifically, would you feel any different if the coach in question was Muslim and he organized transportation to Mosque Days?
To have the proper context, you need to watch the clip I posted poking fun at irrational atheists. That dude is right. Why are these people so offended over something they do not believe in? It's irrational.
I believe an employee of a publicly funded university has the right to talk about his or her faith to a group of adults. I think he or she has the right to invite people to pray, have bible studies, etc. And no, I wouldn't feel any differently if the coach was Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Mormon, etc.
This isn't much different than what employees of "publicly funded" institutions do all the time, including members of a presidential administration having bible studies in his office.
-
To have the proper context, you need to watch the clip I posted poking fun at irrational atheists. That dude is right. Why are these people so offended over something they do not believe in? It's irrational.
I believe an employee of a publicly funded university has the right to talk about his or her faith to a group of adults. I think he or she has the right to invite people to pray, have bible studies, etc. And no, I wouldn't feel any differently if the coach was Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Mormon, etc.
This isn't much different than what employees of "publicly funded" institutions do all the time, including members of a presidential administration having bible studies in his office.
I love the logic of fundies who think that if you don't believe in God then you should not care about the infringement of the separation of church and state
Not believing in God doesn't preclude one from objecting to the breach of the separation of Church and State
That why I said the comedian that you posted is not actually representative of any atheists point of view but he(the comedian) does represent a point of view that christians have about some atheists
-
To have the proper context, you need to watch the clip I posted poking fun at irrational atheists. That dude is right. Why are these people so offended over something they do not believe in? It's irrational.
I can't speak for others, but I'm not really offended, unless people – and there are plenty – insist on shoving their beliefs in my face. They will repeat the same tired arguments that have been debunked a million times already. They will end with "you don't have anything to lose!" They will insist that, deep down, I know the truth too, and I'm just denying it.
I don't get offended. But I do get frustrated, because these people feel that their beliefs entitle them to pester me.
I believe an employee of a publicly funded university has the right to talk about his or her faith to a group of adults.
First of all, I'm glad to see you qualify this as applying only to adults. With that said, I believe in the same thing too. But only if he does this in his personal capacity, not his professional one. There's a difference.
Is it ok if you're a member of a college football team and the coach, who you know is a Christian, walks up to you and says "you're coming to church on Sunday, right?" Maybe he's ok with you saying "no" and maybe he isn't. Will not going cost you a spot on the team? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. What do you do?
Is it ok if you're an employee and your boss comes to you and says: "The Synagogue, this Sabbath. 8am, sharp!" You aren't Jewish - you eat shellfish and you've never had a bagel... what do you do? Will it affecf that promotion you're due for? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. What do you do?
Before you answer, think carefully. Have you ever been placed in such a situation? What if your boss- the person who signs your paychecks and provides your livelihood and a very devout Buddhist, invited you over to the local Buddhist temple for a prayer ceremony?
It's easy to say "oh, I'm cool with that" - as you did below. But are you really? If you are, you're the exception and not the rule.
I think he or she has the right to invite people to pray, have bible studies, etc.
Of course he does - just because he's employed by the government he doesn't give up his rights. However when acting under the color of authority, he's operating under the restrictions that government operates under. And on top of those restrictions he should have the good sense to know when it's ok to talk about your faith and when it isn't.
He can preach to people all he wants: in his private time. When he's paid to be a Coach, he should be that, and not a Pastor or a warrior for Jesus.
And no, I wouldn't feel any differently if the coach was Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Mormon, etc.
You will forgive me if I don't buy that entirely. It's not that I don't want to believe you. It's that I've heard so many say the same thing and then do something completely different.
This isn't much different than what employees of "publicly funded" institutions do all the time, including members of a presidential administration having bible studies in his office.
No, you're right - it's not different. It's just as unacceptable as members of an administration holding bible studies in their office.
Again, you may feel that it's ok. But we live in a Constitutional Republic and not the land of your feelings.
-
LOL - dude you're flailing here
you can't support your claim and you can't admit you're wrong
Now you're projecting your obvious fear of atheists on to me
You really need to learn to admit when you're wrong and just move on
How do you know that your sources are 100% accurate?
Why are you so afraid of theists?
Why are you still having a discussion with me if you still believe this?
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
You seem just as mentally ill as you believe all theists are.
-
How do you know that your sources are 100% accurate?
Why are you so afraid of theists?
Why are you still having a discussion with me if you still believe this?
You seem just as mentally ill as you believe all theists are.
why do you keep repeating the same thing as if it some how supports the claim which you've already admitted was wrong
you need to learn when to fold
who gives a shit is Christians are only 1/3 of the population?
why don't you bump my post from 2007 again so that I can comment again on how some neuroscientists are starting to consider the fundamentalist mindset as a treatable mental illness
then you can pretend that you didn't see any of that....again... and ask me the same questions all over again
-
why do you keep repeating the same thing as if it some how supports the claim which you've already admitted was wrong
you need to learn when to fold
who gives a shit is Christians are only 1/3 of the population?
why don't you bump my post from 2007 again so that I can comment again on how some neuroscientists are starting to consider the fundamentalist mindset as a treatable mental illness
then you can pretend that you didn't see any of that....again... and ask me the same questions all over again
If the following is still your personal belief...
Besides, my personal belief is anyone who holds a fundamentalist belief in any religion is mentally ill (for real) which again makes for a pointless discussion
...then why are you still having a discussion with me if you believe that I have a mental illness and that having a discussion with me is pointless? You seem just as mentally ill as you believe all theists are.
How do you know that your sources are 100% accurate? Why do you keep avoiding my questions?
-
If the following is still your personal belief...
...then why are you still having a discussion with me if you believe that I have a mental illness and that having a discussion with me is pointless? You seem just as mentally ill as you believe all theists are.
How do you know that your sources are 100% accurate? Why do you keep avoiding my questions?
That's the first good point you've made in this thread
Let's do a quick review
This thread was about a group of atheist being able to leave literature in a school where Gideons were also leaving bibles
By the 2nd page the consensus was pretty much that neither group should be doing anything at a public school
The thread rambled on for a couple of more pages of the usual diversion that happens on this board and then you made the absurd claim that "the world population is mostly christian". When challenged on this you provided a link to CIA Factbook claiming that Christians were 33% of the population
.
.
.
.
You actually provided proof that your own claim was not correct
after many back and forths with me trying to explain elementary school math you finally conceded that your statement that world population was mostly christian was probably incorrect
Again, I simply pointed out that there was no probably about it.
Then you decided to use the angle of suggesting that the data is wrong (including the data that you provided) as if that somehow helps support your original point
To the question you asked about how do I know whether the data is 100% correct the obvious answer is that it's most certainly not 100% correct. How could it be.
Do you think we have the ability to even count the world population down to the person much less categorize them by religion?
You seem to think if we can't do that then somehow your original claim gains support by this lack of 100% accuracy. Ignoring of course the many many different estimates that put Christian at ~ 30% give or take a few points. Even just a simple population count of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist countries would show that the world is not mostly Christian
So back to my claim of 7 years ago that the fundie mingsight is akin to mental illness and therefor trying to have conversation with such a person is usually pointless....well I think that has been well documented in this thread
-
That's the first good point you've made in this thread
Let's do a quick review
This thread was about a group of atheist being able to leave literature in a school where Gideons were also leaving bibles
By the 2nd page the consensus was pretty much that neither group should be doing anything at a public school
The thread rambled on for a couple of more pages of the usual diversion that happens on this board and then you made the absurd claim that "the world population is mostly christian". When challenged on this you provided a link to CIA Factbook claiming that Christians were 33% of the population
.
.
.
.
You actually provided proof that your own claim was not correct
after many back and forths with me trying to explain elementary school math you finally conceded that your statement that world population was mostly christian was probably incorrect
Again, I simply pointed out that there was no probably about it.
Then you decided to use the angle of suggesting that the data is wrong (including the data that you provided) as if that somehow helps support your original point
To the question you asked about how do I know whether the data is 100% correct the obvious answer is that it's most certainly not 100% correct. How could it be.
Do you think we have the ability to even count the world population down to the person much less categorize them by religion?
You seem to think if we can't do that then somehow your original claim gains support by this lack of 100% accuracy. Ignoring of course the many many different estimates that put Christian at ~ 30% give or take a few points. Even just a simple population count of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist countries would show that the world is not mostly Christian
So back to my claim of 7 years ago that the fundie mingsight is akin to mental illness and therefor trying to have conversation with such a person is usually pointless....well I think that has been well documented in this thread
Great post!
It certainly falls under the category of delusion. It is by definition irrational and delusional.
-
That's the first good point you've made in this thread
Let's do a quick review
This thread was about a group of atheist being able to leave literature in a school where Gideons were also leaving bibles
By the 2nd page the consensus was pretty much that neither group should be doing anything at a public school
The thread rambled on for a couple of more pages of the usual diversion that happens on this board and then you made the absurd claim that "the world population is mostly christian". When challenged on this you provided a link to CIA Factbook claiming that Christians were 33% of the population
.
.
.
.
You actually provided proof that your own claim was not correct
after many back and forths with me trying to explain elementary school math you finally conceded that your statement that world population was mostly christian was probably incorrect
Again, I simply pointed out that there was no probably about it.
Then you decided to use the angle of suggesting that the data is wrong (including the data that you provided) as if that somehow helps support your original point
To the question you asked about how do I know whether the data is 100% correct the obvious answer is that it's most certainly not 100% correct. How could it be.
Do you think we have the ability to even count the world population down to the person much less categorize them by religion?
You seem to think if we can't do that then somehow your original claim gains support by this lack of 100% accuracy. Ignoring of course the many many different estimates that put Christian at ~ 30% give or take a few points. Even just a simple population count of Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist countries would show that the world is not mostly Christian
So back to my claim of 7 years ago that the fundie mingsight is akin to mental illness and therefor trying to have conversation with such a person is usually pointless....well I think that has been well documented in this thread
Wow, not only are you still talking to me, but you are now writing books to me. Why is that, Straw Man? You are as mentally ill as you believe I am.
How do you know your sources are 100% accurate? Why do you continue to avoid my questions?
-
Wow, not only are you still talking to me, but you are now writing books to me. Why is that, Straw Man? You are as mentally ill as you believe I am.
How do you know your sources are 100% accurate? Why do you continue to avoid my questions?
lack of reading comprehension much?
I answered your moronic question in my last post
I will keep responding to you as long as it continues to interest and entertain me to point out the futility in trying to engage a fundie such as yourself in a conversation. It illustrates that the point I made 7 years ago is still true today.
-
lack of reading comprehension much?
I answered your moronic question in my last post
I will keep responding to you as long as it continues to interest and entertain me to point out the futility in trying to engage a fundie such as yourself in a conversation. It illustrates that the point I made 7 years ago is still true today.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. Are you on anti depressants?
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. Are you on anti depressants?
I see you still lack reading comprehension
-
I see you still lack reading comprehension
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. Are you on anti depressants?
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. Are you on anti depressants?
still lacking reading comprehension
try reading my last few posts very slowly and maybe you'll figure it out
-
I can't speak for others, but I'm not really offended, unless people – and there are plenty – insist on shoving their beliefs in my face. They will repeat the same tired arguments that have been debunked a million times already. They will end with "you don't have anything to lose!" They will insist that, deep down, I know the truth too, and I'm just denying it.
I don't get offended. But I do get frustrated, because these people feel that their beliefs entitle them to pester me.
First of all, I'm glad to see you qualify this as applying only to adults. With that said, I believe in the same thing too. But only if he does this in his personal capacity, not his professional one. There's a difference.
Is it ok if you're a member of a college football team and the coach, who you know is a Christian, walks up to you and says "you're coming to church on Sunday, right?" Maybe he's ok with you saying "no" and maybe he isn't. Will not going cost you a spot on the team? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. What do you do?
Is it ok if you're an employee and your boss comes to you and says: "The Synagogue, this Sabbath. 8am, sharp!" You aren't Jewish - you eat shellfish and you've never had a bagel... what do you do? Will it affecf that promotion you're due for? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. What do you do?
Before you answer, think carefully. Have you ever been placed in such a situation? What if your boss- the person who signs your paychecks and provides your livelihood and a very devout Buddhist, invited you over to the local Buddhist temple for a prayer ceremony?
It's easy to say "oh, I'm cool with that" - as you did below. But are you really? If you are, you're the exception and not the rule.
Of course he does - just because he's employed by the government he doesn't give up his rights. However when acting under the color of authority, he's operating under the restrictions that government operates under. And on top of those restrictions he should have the good sense to know when it's ok to talk about your faith and when it isn't.
He can preach to people all he wants: in his private time. When he's paid to be a Coach, he should be that, and not a Pastor or a warrior for Jesus.
You will forgive me if I don't buy that entirely. It's not that I don't want to believe you. It's that I've heard so many say the same thing and then do something completely different.
No, you're right - it's not different. It's just as unacceptable as members of an administration holding bible studies in their office.
Again, you may feel that it's ok. But we live in a Constitutional Republic and not the land of your feelings.
I don't get offended or frustrated when people proselytize. I don't have a problem engaging them. It's usually an interesting discussion. Helps me learn about people and their beliefs. Actually makes me a smarter person, even though I disagree with them. I often learn things I didn't know from them.
No, it's not ok for a coach or employer at secular institutions to force people to participate in religious activities as a condition of playing or working.
I don't care if you don't believe me about whether I would have a problem if this involved Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Why the heck did you ask me if you were just going to call me a liar? Just make a statement. In any event, I've posted on here before about the various different religious activities that I have participated in that did not offend me at, including a Buddhist prayer in my office arranged by one of my Buddhist business partners.
I know we live in a Democracy and never said we lived in the land of "my feelings." That's retarded. Still, I have no problem with people having Bible studies in their offices, public or private. Nothing at all wrong with them so long as they are voluntary. We don't need to cater to the handful of hypersensitive irrational atheists who get offended by something they don't believe exists.
-
I see you still lack reading comprehension
LOL
-
I don't get offended or frustrated when people proselytize. I don't have a problem engaging them. It's usually an interesting discussion. Helps me learn about people and their beliefs. Actually makes me a smarter person, even though I disagree with them. I often learn things I didn't know from them.
That's a great attitude to have. It's a pity more people aren't like you.
No, it's not ok for a coach or employer at secular institutions to force people to participate in religious activities as a condition of playing or working.
Again, we agree. I'm starting to get worried here!
I don't care if you don't believe me about whether I would have a problem if this involved Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Why the heck did you ask me if you were just going to call me a liar? Just make a statement. In any event, I've posted on here before about the various different religious activities that I have participated in that did not offend me at, including a Buddhist prayer in my office arranged by one of my Buddhist business partners.
First things first:I didn't call you a liar. Now, with that said, I am willing to take you at your word, despite the fact that experience has taught me that most religious people see the same act differently depending on whether their religion is involved. But that doesn't mean you are like that.
I know we live in a Democracy and never said we lived in the land of "my feelings." That's retarded. Still, I have no problem with people having Bible studies in their offices, public or private. Nothing at all wrong with them so long as they are voluntary. We don't need to cater to the handful of hypersensitive irrational atheists who get offended by something they don't believe exists.
There's a few things wrong. First and foremost is that under current First Amendment jurisprudence it's almost certainly not legal. The fact is that the government (and government employees in their official capacity, military chaplains excepted) cannot endorse or promote religion generally, much less a specific one.
You mention holding religious functions on Government property. Sure, it's possible to do this but only if the government does this in a content-neutral way: if one group gets to use the atrium to praise Jesus, the government can't deny access to a group seeking access to the atrium to praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster or plod through the writings of Ayn Rand.
As for people holding Bible studies in their office if it's private property I don't care about. If you want to allow your secretary to have a statue of Ganesha, and follow her religious practices in the office, more power to you.
But I find it highly inappropriate if it's a government office. See above for the reasons. Now, normally what I find or don't wouldn't mean much - I don't think my opinion is special and that people should snap at attention because I'm speaking. But in this case various Courts have spoken - including the Supreme Court - and they have, substantially, said the same thing.
We can argue the propriety of this if you want, but that won't change the current, legal status quo. Well, not unless you're secretly a Justice!
-
still lacking reading comprehension
try reading my last few posts very slowly and maybe you'll figure it out
Boy, you have a lot of time in your hands. I see you are still lying at home all day while your wife goes to work and bring home the bacon.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. Are you on anti depressants?
-
Boy, you have a lot of time in your hands. I see you are still lying at home all day while your wife goes to work and bring home the bacon.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. Are you on anti depressants?
damn, I only wish that was the case
I guess you must not have considered the possibility that I have a computer at my office (and I work from home most mornings)
I wrote a check for 34k yesterday and that's after having paid 16k in estimated payments
SE Tax is where I got hammered
Since you seem to forget things immediately after you read them (I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here)
read the bold part below and if you're still confused see if you can find a child to explain it to you
lack of reading comprehension much?
I answered your moronic question in my last post
I will keep responding to you as long as it continues to interest and entertain me to point out the futility in trying to engage a fundie such as yourself in a conversation. It illustrates that the point I made 7 years ago is still true today.
-
damn, I only wish that was the case
I guess you must not have considered the possibility that I have a computer at my office (and I work from home most mornings)
Since you seem to forget things immediately after you read them (I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here)
read the bold part below and if you're still confused see if you can find a child to explain it to you
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
The only thing you are pointing out or proving by continuously responding to me in this manner, in this thread is that Beach Bum was right about illogical atheists. LOL
-
That's a great attitude to have. It's a pity more people aren't like you.
Again, we agree. I'm starting to get worried here!
First things first:I didn't call you a liar. Now, with that said, I am willing to take you at your word, despite the fact that experience has taught me that most religious people see the same act differently depending on whether their religion is involved. But that doesn't mean you are like that.
There's a few things wrong. First and foremost is that under current First Amendment jurisprudence it's almost certainly not legal. The fact is that the government (and government employees in their official capacity, military chaplains excepted) cannot endorse or promote religion generally, much less a specific one.
You mention holding religious functions on Government property. Sure, it's possible to do this but only if the government does this in a content-neutral way: if one group gets to use the atrium to praise Jesus, the government can't deny access to a group seeking access to the atrium to praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster or plod through the writings of Ayn Rand.
As for people holding Bible studies in their office if it's private property I don't care about. If you want to allow your secretary to have a statue of Ganesha, and follow her religious practices in the office, more power to you.
But I find it highly inappropriate if it's a government office. See above for the reasons. Now, normally what I find or don't wouldn't mean much - I don't think my opinion is special and that people should snap at attention because I'm speaking. But in this case various Courts have spoken - including the Supreme Court - and they have, substantially, said the same thing.
We can argue the propriety of this if you want, but that won't change the current, legal status quo. Well, not unless you're secretly a Justice!
lol. Agreeing with me isn't so bad. :)
Regarding Bible studies, etc. in government offices, I really don't see a problem. An individual government employee can pray alone in his office. He can also pray with another coworker or three in his office. No real distinction between that and a Bible study IMO.
I'm not sure if you've ever participated in a Bible study group, but it's really nothing more than a group of people sitting around talking story. There is a verse (or passage) that is sort of the subject of the meeting, but the conversation is all over the place and not always "religious." Everyone who is there wants to be there.
I just don't see that as the government establishing religion. People don't have to check their faith at the door just because they work in government.
-
lol. Agreeing with me isn't so bad. :)
Regarding Bible studies, etc. in government offices, I really don't see a problem. An individual government employee can pray alone in his office. He can also pray with another coworker or three in his office. No real distinction between that a Bible study IMO.
I'm not sure if you've ever participated in a Bible study group, but it's really nothing more than a group of people sitting around talking story. There is a verse (or passage) that is sort of the subject of the meeting, but the conversation is all over the place and not always "religious." Everyone who is there wants to be there.
I just don't see that as the government establishing religion. People don't have to check their faith at the door just because they work in government.
I don't know if this is common knowledge, but what is your profession?
-
I don't know if this is common knowledge, but what is your profession?
Chief cook and bottle washer at my house. :)
I'm not the subject of this thread.
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
The only thing you are pointing out or proving by continuously responding to me in this manner, in this thread is that Beach Bum was right about illogical atheists. LOL
I told you that if you couldn't understand my post (and from your response it's obvious that you don't) to go find a child to explain it to you
Quick question - why didn't you just admit you screwed up when you wrote that the world population is mostly Christian and then proceeded to post that ~ 33% of the worlds population is christian
Why not just admit it was a mistake and move on?
You did it earlier in the thread and it was fine
Why all the nonsense instead of just admitting a simple mistake
I missed that. Sorry! I stand corrected!
-
I told you that if you couldn't understand my post (and from your response it's obvious that you don't) to go find a child to explain it to you
Quick question - why didn't you just admit you screwed up when you wrote that the world population is mostly Christian and then proceeded to post that ~ 33% of the worlds population is christian
Why not just admit it was a mistake and move on?
You did it earlier in the thread and it was fine
Why all the nonsense instead of just admitting a simple mistake
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
The only thing you are pointing out or proving by continuously responding to me in this manner, in this thread is that Beach Bum was right about illogical atheists. LOL
-
Chief cook and bottle washer at my house. :)
I'm not the subject of this thread.
No I was curious is all.
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. Yeah, that's very logical.
You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
The only thing you are pointing out or proving by continuously responding to me in this manner, in this thread is that Beach Bum was right about illogical atheists. LOL
great job avoiding a simply question
why didn't you just admit you were wrong and move on
why the 5 pages of proving my point about about the delusion of fundies?
-
great job avoiding a simply question
why didn't you just admit you were wrong and move on
why the 5 pages of proving my point about about the delusion of fundies?
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists. LOL
Pendejo
-
Why are these people so paranoid, hypersensitive, and irrational about God and the Bible?
University reverses professor's ban on graduates thanking God
Published May 07, 2014
FoxNews.com
Officials at East Carolina University are telling students to disregard instructions from a chemistry professor who told them they were prohibited from mentioning God during a departmental graduation ceremony.
In an email obtained by Campus Reform, Assistant Professor Eli Hvastkovs told his students to prepare "family friendly" statements for the chemistry department's recognition event. He said the remarks should refrain from mentioning God.
"I've had some submissions that needed to be edited. so [sic] here are some guidelines,” Hvastkovs wrote. "1. You can't thank God. I'm sorry about this – and I don't want to have to outline the reasons why."
University officials told WNCT-TV the email was not authorized by the school and that the incident is being used to boost awareness of students' free speech rights.
In a separate email to chemistry students this week, ECU Provost Dr. Marilyn Sheerer said that religious references "of any type" will not be restricted.
"These statements can be your personal expressions and as such the University will only limit these expressions, as permitted by applicable First Amendment law,” Sheerer said.
In an interview with Campus Reform last week, Hvastkovs defended the e-mail, which he said was necessary because too many students recognized religious figures during last year's ceremony.
“It's not a religious ceremony,” Hvastkovs said. "It's purely educational."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/07/university-reverses-professor-ban-on-graduates-thanking-god/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Broward schools’ Runcie says Bible controversy ‘should’ve been handled differently’
BY MICHAEL VASQUEZ
Broward Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie on Tuesday publicly apologized to a fifth-grade student who says his teacher wouldn’t let him read his Bible in class, with the superintendent saying “this is a situation that should’ve been handled differently.”
“This does not represent the values of our school system,” Runcie said. “This was a isolated incident at the school.”
The case attracted national attention — particularly among conservative news sites and commentators, many of whom were critical of Broward’s actions.
“Epic failure on this one,” wrote Sarah Palin on her Facebook page.
The family of 12-year-old Giovanni Rubeo says their child wasn’t allowed to read his Bible during “free reading” class periods that gave students the option of reading any book they wished. The Broward school district disputes this version of events, and says the boy wasn’t allowed to read the Bible because there was an “accelerated reading” program taking place.
Had there been a “free reading” session going on, Broward officials say the Bible would have been permitted. Rubeo is a student at Park Lakes Elementary in Lauderdale Lakes.
In his comments on Tuesday, Runcie said administrators at Park Lakes — and schools across the district — are being reminded that the Bible is permitted during free reading sessions. Students are also allowed to read their Bibles before and after school starts, and during lunch.
A voicemail left by Giovanni’s teacher last month further fueled the controversy. A recording of the message, which was left for Giovanni’s father, includes the teacher stating “I noticed that he has a book — a religious book — in the classroom. He’s not permitted to read those books in my classroom.”
Rubeo’s family is being represented by the Texas-based Liberty Institute, a conservative legal group that has launched similar battles against schools across the country. In multiple cases, the accusations of the Liberty Institute have been disputed by school districts — for example, Florida’s Seminole County school system last month found no evidence that a five-year-old girl had been scolded for praying during lunch, as had been claimed.
The Liberty Institute had blasted Seminole County’s treatment of the little girl as “outrageous.” The kindergartner involved, Gabriella, is the daughter of Marcos Perez, who is vice president of sales at Charisma House, a Lake Mary-based Christian book publisher. The company is promoting the book “God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values,” by Fox News host Todd Starnes.
Perez rejected the notion of ulterior motives when speaking to the Orlando Sentinel.
“I'm a father first, a VP of sales second,” he said.
In Broward, the Liberty Institute’s attorneys had threatened legal action against the school system unless it publicly apologized and allowed for the Bible to be read during “free reading” periods.
With Runcie’s public apology — and the district’s insistence that the Bible had all along been acceptable during “free reading” — those conditions appear to have been met.
But in a letter e-mailed to the school district on Tuesday, Liberty Institute director of litigation Hiram Sasser demanded assurances that Giovanni be allowed to read his Bible during “accelerated reading program” class periods as well.
“If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we will proceed with the appropriate legal steps up to and including litigation,” Sasser wrote.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/06/4101611/broward-schools-runcie-says-bible.html#storylink=cpy
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists. LOL
As I've stated previously (somehow you keep missing it) I will keep responding to you as long as it continues to interest and entertain me to point out the futility in trying to engage a fundie such as yourself in a conversation. It illustrates that the point I made 7 years ago is still true today.
-
"I've had some submissions that needed to be edited. so [sic] here are some guidelines,” Hvastkovs wrote. "1. You can't thank God. I'm sorry about this – and I don't want to have to outline the reasons why."
This dickhead should be on the Cosmos series, somehow.
-
An atheist chaplain?? Those irrational atheists are at it again . . . .
Group preparing to press military for atheist chaplain, source says
Published May 12, 2014
FoxNews.com
In what some might see as an oxymoron, an advocacy group apparently is preparing to ask the Defense Department to appoint a chaplain -- for atheists.
A source tells Fox News that the Military Association of Atheists and Free Thinkers plans to make the request on Tuesday, floating its president Jason Torpy as the proposed chaplain.
Asked for comment, the association referred FoxNews.com to its position in support of a prior bid to name a "humanist" chaplain.
But a Defense Department official confirmed that a meeting is planned between the applicant and the Navy on Tuesday.
Rep. John Fleming, R-La., who last year opposed the creation of such a position, also voiced concerns about the planned request. He told FoxNews.com he's got to wait and see how the proposal plays out, but threatened to use legislation to block it if necessary.
"We're only finding out about this now," he said. Fleming said the law is clear that any chaplain needs to have an "endorsing agency" and questioned whether the applicant would have that here. "We just don't see any avenue, but you know we've been surprised before by the military."
The move would come after lawmakers, including Fleming, battled over the same issue last year.
Democrats tried, unsuccessfully, to pass legislation creating such a post in 2013. In response, Republicans offered up a measure of their own to prohibit the Pentagon from naming such a chaplain. The House approved the measure in July.
With Congress at odds, though, the Defense Department could decide on its own.
A separate organization, The Humanist Society, endorsed Oxford-educated religious scholar Jason Heap last year to be the first-ever humanist chaplain in the U.S. Navy.
The MAAF supported the application. All along, the group has argued that more people identify as atheists and humanists than any other non-Christian denomination.
But Republican lawmakers who have fought these efforts have described the push as nonsensical. The motto of the Army Chaplain Corps is, after all, "Pro Deo et Patria," or "For God and Country."
Fleming said last year that the idea of an atheist chaplain is "an oxymoron."
"It's self-contradictory -- what you're really doing is now saying that we're going to replace true chaplains with non-chaplain chaplains," he said.
But the MAAF argues that military chaplains are not providing enough outreach for those who do not believe in God.
According to research in 2009 by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, about a quarter of military servicemembers who participated in the study said they had "no religious preference." More than 3.6 percent identified as humanist, while a little over 1 percent identified as pagan.
Several organizations and religious scholars have pressed the U.S. military to consider naming chaplains for those servicemembers.
"Such broad-based and growing support of professionals and experts should make it easy for the Department of Defense and the Navy to open their doors to diversity of belief that includes humanists and other nontheists," the group said in a statement last year.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/12/group-preparing-to-press-military-for-atheist-chaplain-source-says/
-
An atheist chaplain?? Those irrational atheists are at it again . . . .
I agree it sounds a bit silly, but I'm curious about something: do you think there ought to be Chaplain who's an ordained Pastafarian minister to tend to the flock of any Pastafarian soldiers? If yes, how is that different from an atheist "chaplain"? And if you don't think there ought to be a Pastafarian chaplain, then why do you think that?
I'm looking forward to your reasoned answer!
-
The title of "chaplain" is weird but atheists in the military probably face a lot of pressure to adopt some form of religious belief so it does make some sense that there should be someone in a role similar to a chaplain that that can talk if they feel they need some support of their beliefs
-
I agree it sounds a bit silly, but I'm curious about something: do you think there ought to be Chaplain who's an ordained Pastafarian minister to tend to the flock of any Pastafarian soldiers? If yes, how is that different from an atheist "chaplain"? And if you don't think there ought to be a Pastafarian chaplain, then why do you think that?
I'm looking forward to your reasoned answer!
To get a "reasoned" answer you have ask a "reasoned" question!
I have no idea what a Pastafarian soldier is.
-
To get a "reasoned" answer you have ask a "reasoned" question!
I have no idea what a Pastafarian soldier is.
Your response is weak. It's obviously a religion given the context of this conversation. But if you want to play along, I'll play along. Pastafarianism is a religion - Pastafarians believe in the flying spaghetti monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster).
And please note: just because that you may find the concept and these particular beliefs ridiculous, doesn't mean very much. Remember, if we go by the "someone finds the concept ridiculous" there would be no Chaplains at all.
-
As I've stated previously (somehow you keep missing it) I will keep responding to you as long as it continues to interest and entertain me to point out the futility in trying to engage a fundie such as yourself in a conversation. It illustrates that the point I made 7 years ago is still true today.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
you keep missing the point
I guess that's not surprising for a guy who thinks that 30% of a population = today the worlds population is mostly christian
you seem to miss a lot of stuff
did you see the article I posted a few pages ago about how neuroscientist are now categorizing religious fundamentalism as a mental illness
I made observation 7 years ago on this board
I think that's worth pointing out over again so thanks for reminding everyone and providing yourself as an example
As I've stated previously (somehow you keep missing it) I will keep responding to you as long as it continues to interest and entertain me to point out the futility in trying to engage a fundie such as yourself in a conversation. It illustrates that the point I made 7 years ago is still true today.
I can copy and paste this as many times as it takes to sink in
-
you keep missing the point
I guess that's not surprising for a guy who thinks that 30% of a population = today the worlds population is mostly christian
you seem to miss a lot of stuff
did you see the article I posted a few pages ago about how neuroscientist are now categorizing religious fundamentalism as a mental illness
I made observation 7 years ago on this board
I think that's worth pointing out over again so thanks for reminding everyone and providing yourself as an example
I can copy and paste this as many times as it takes to sink in
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
I'll keep posting this until you actually read it
after that, I suspect it will take even longer for you to actually understand it
As I've stated previously (somehow you keep missing it) I will keep responding to you as long as it continues to interest and entertain me to point out the futility in trying to engage a fundie such as yourself in a conversation. It illustrates that the point I made 7 years ago is still true today.
-
I'll keep posting this until you actually read it
after that, I suspect it will take even longer for you to actually understand it
Las enfermedades mentales o trastornos psicológicos son alteraciones de los procesos cognitivos y afectivos del desarrollo, consideradas como anormales con respecto al grupo social de referencia del cual proviene el individuo. Se puede tratar de alteraciones en el razonamiento, el comportamiento, la facultad de reconocer la realidad o de adaptarse a las condiciones de la vida.
Dependiendo del concepto de enfermedad que se utilice, algunos autores consideran más adecuado utilizar en el campo de la salud mental el término "trastorno mental" (que es el que utilizan los dos sistemas clasificatorios de la psicopatología más importantes en la actualidad: la CIE-10 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y el DSM-IV-TR de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana). Sobre todo en aquellos casos en los que la etiología biológica no está claramente demostrada, como sucede en la mayoría de los trastornos mentales. Además, el término "enfermedad mental" puede asociarse a estigmatización social. Por estas razones, este término está en desuso y se usa más trastorno mental, o psicopatología.
El concepto enfermedad mental aglutina un buen número de patologías de muy diversa índole, por lo que es muy difícil de definir de una forma unitaria y hay que hablar de cada enfermedad o trastorno de forma particular e incluso individualizada ya que cada persona puede sufrirlas con síntomas algo diferentes.
Debido a su naturaleza única y diferenciada de otras enfermedades, están determinados multifactorialemente, integrando elementos de origen ambiental, familiar, psicosocial y psicológico, teniendo todos estos factores un peso no sólo en la presentación de la enfermedad, sino también en su fenomenología, en su desarrollo evolutivo, tratamiento, pronóstico y posibilidades de rehabilitación.
La mayoría de los trastornos psiquiátricos presentan una etiología desconocida, es decir, no se conoce el origen que da lugar al trastorno. Existen evidencias que confirman la implicación de factores genéticos en estos trastornos, en concreto en cinco de los trastornos psiquiátricos más comunes: esquizofrenia, trastorno bipolar, trastorno depresivo mayor, trastorno de autismo y trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad.
El Estudio de asociación del genoma completo (GWAS) ha permitido la identificación de variantes en genes de pacientes, ausentes en individuos sanos. Estos datos han hecho posible estimar la varianza total explicada por SNP a través de las relaciones genéticas entre los casos afectados y los controles.
Los datos fueron obtenidos por Cross-Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium 1 y demuestran la existencia de heredabilidad de dichos trastornos. Además ha demostrado la correlación genética positiva que existe entre ellos, es decir, los casos de un trastorno muestran mayor similitud con el otro trastorno que con sus propios controles.
1. Heredabilidad de los trastornos
Mediante el cálculo de la varianza total observada de un genotipo se obtienen los datos de la heredabilidad mediante un método univariacional. En el caso de los cinco trastornos mencionados anteriormente se demostró que en todos los casos presentan valores positivos de heredabilidad, por lo que se concluye que dichos trastornos son heredables.
2. Co-heredabilidad entre trastornos
Orden de co-heredabilidad existente entre los diferentes pares de trastornos.
Mediante el cálculo de la correlación genética explicada por SNPs entre casos y control obtenidos independientemente de 2 tipos de trastornos se obtienen los datos de co-heredabilidad mediante un análisis bivariacional. Estos datos reflejaron evidencias empíricas de que los cinco trastornos presentan una etiología genética compartida.
Las parejas de trastornos que presentan un mayor valor de etiología compartida son: esquizofrenia-trastorno bipolar; esquizofrenia-trastorno depresivo mayor y trastorno bipolar-trastorno depresivo mayor. Es importante destacar que a pesar de que los trastornos de autismo y trastornos por déficit de atención con hiperactividad se diagnostican antes de la infancia, y los demás se diagnostican después de la niñez, comparten variantes genéticas comunes.
Esquema que representa los dos principales pares de trastornos que muestran mayor correlación genética.
Existe una relación directa, empírica y cuantificada de la contribución genética a los cinco trastornos.
La heredabilidad procedente de SNPs es positiva para todos los trastornos, por lo que son moderadamente o altamente heredables.
Existen evidencias de la presencia de factores de riesgo genéticos compartidos de los trastornos.
Los datos de correlación reflejan la pleiotropía de SNPs existente en el genoma.
Existe una etiología compartida entre los diferentes trastornos, destacando esquizofrenia y trastorno bipolar y; trastorno bipolar y trastorno depresivo mayor.
Estas evidencias permitirán ayudar a la clasificación de trastornos psiquiátricos y ayudará a entender los mecanismos terapéuticos.
Clasificación
Artículo principal: Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales
Aún cuando clásicamente se han dividido las enfermedades mentales en Trastornos Orgánicos y Trastornos Funcionales, haciendo referencia al grado de génesis fisiológica o psíquica que determine al padecimiento, la clínica demuestra que ambas esferas no son independientes entre sí y que en la patología, como en el resto del desempeño psíquico "normal", ambos factores interactúan y se correlacionan para generar el amplio espectro del comportamiento humano tal como lo conocemos. De hecho, alteraciones biológicas alteran la psique, al igual que alteraciones psicológicas alteran o modifican la biología.
Existen numerosas categorías de trastornos mentales, con mayor o menor gravedad tanto en la vivencia subjetiva del individuo como en su repercusión dentro del funcionamiento social, así se hace alusión a otra clasificación clásica: Trastornos Neuróticos y Trastornos Psicóticos.
Las neurosis afectan en mayor grado a la percepción del sujeto sobre sí mismo, y a su nivel de agrado, de plenitud y de integración del yo, así como a sus relaciones con el entorno social y familiar más cercano; sin embargo, no presentan los síntomas usuales de desconexión con la realidad y amplio alejamiento de la vida social, pueden desempeñarse laboral y académicamente, y según Freud y las escuelas psicoanalíticas este estado es la condición natural de la vida psíquica.
Las psicosis, abarcan la manifestación más claramente asociada con la enfermedad mental, sus síntomas clásicos incluyen las alucinaciones, delirios y grave alteración afectiva y relacional, estos trastornos suelen tener un factor orgánico bastante pronunciado como los Trastornos Depresivos y Bipolares, aunque las esquizofrenias son claramente las de mayor repercusión personal, social y familiar dado su carácter crónico y degenerativo caracterizado por los elementos propios de todos los trastornos psicóticos a los cuales se añaden la desconexión con la realidad y aplanamiento afectivo.
Complicaciones
La enfermedad mental suele degenerar en aislamiento social, inactividad, abulia, desorden del ritmo de vida en general y, en ciertos casos y circunstancias, comportamientos violentos e intentos suicidas.
Antecedentes del tratamiento
En la Edad Media al trastorno mental se le relacionaba con el demonio pues pensaban que la persona estaba poseída por espíritus malvados y que tenía alguna relación con la brujería, así que el tratamiento era tortura o la hoguera para liberar el alma.
En el siglo XIX, los manicomnios eran como cárceles, pues solo se disfrazaba la tortura como una curación, uno de los tantos casos fue en el hospital psiquiátrico Charenton en París, donde aplicaban como tratamiento, mantenerlos atados, sumergirlos en agua fría, golpes y sumergirles la cabeza en una bañera. Todo esto para apartar las ideas e ilusiones que ellos pudieran albergar.
En 1949, Antonio Egas Moniz, un Premio Nobel en Medicina, practicaba la lobotomía, que consiste en retirar un trozo del cerebro en la parte frontal, pero en 1967 este tratamiento dejo de ser legal.
Paralelamente, en 1964 se llevó a cabo el proyecto MK-ULTRA, que buscaba controlar la mente y así borrar la memoria existente y reconstruir el pensamiento, algunos de los experimentos realizados eran la radiación, uso de psicodélicos, inyección simultánea de barbitúricos y anfetaminas, y descargas eléctricas al cerebro. El único resultado de este experimento fue dejar a las personas involucradas con daño cerebral.2
Tratamiento
Actualmente el tratamiento de los trastornos mentales posee un enfoque integrativo y multidisciplinar, en el que participan psicólogos y psiquiatras, educadores sociales, enfermeros psiquiátricos, trabajadores sociales, terapeutas ocupacionales y otros profesionales. Cada tratamiento integra, dependiendo del caso, la administración de psicofármacos como métodos paliativo de los síntomas más pronunciados, para así dar paso a un proceso de intervención psicológica para atender los orígenes y manifestaciones del trastorno y así generar un estado de bienestar más sólido, efectivo y permanente en las personas que sufren de esta enfermedad.
Véanse también: Psicoterapia y Psicofármaco.
Definición de Trastorno mental
Según el DSM-IV-TR, los trastornos son una clasificación categorial no excluyente, basada en criterios con rasgos definitorios. Admiten que no existe una definición que especifique adecuadamente los límites del concepto, careciendo de una definición operacional consistente que englobe todas las posibilidades. Un trastorno es un patrón comportamental o psicológico de significación clínica que, cualquiera que sea su causa, es una manifestación individual de una disfunción comportamental, psicológica o biológica.
Esta manifestación es considerada síntoma cuando aparece asociada a un malestar (p. ej., dolor), a una discapacidad (p. ej., deterioro en un área de funcionamiento) o a un riesgo significativamente aumentado de morir o de sufrir dolor, discapacidad o pérdida de libertad.
Más aún, afirman, existen pruebas de que los síntomas y el curso de un gran número de trastornos están influidos por factores étnicos y culturales. No olvidemos que la categoría diagnóstica es sólo el primer paso para el adecuado plan terapéutico, el cual necesita más información que la requerida para el diagnóstico.
Una concepción errónea muy frecuente es pensar que la clasificación de los trastornos mentales clasifica a las personas; lo que realmente hace es clasificar los trastornos de las personas que los padecen.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
I keep responding because it entertains me and illustrates my point that I made 7 years ago
I notice how you never actually have attempted to address that statement which just furthers proves my point
thanks again
-
I keep responding because it entertains me and illustrates my point that I made 7 years ago
I notice how you never actually have attempted to address that statement which just furthers proves my point
thanks again
Las enfermedades mentales o trastornos psicológicos son alteraciones de los procesos cognitivos y afectivos del desarrollo, consideradas como anormales con respecto al grupo social de referencia del cual proviene el individuo. Se puede tratar de alteraciones en el razonamiento, el comportamiento, la facultad de reconocer la realidad o de adaptarse a las condiciones de la vida.
Dependiendo del concepto de enfermedad que se utilice, algunos autores consideran más adecuado utilizar en el campo de la salud mental el término "trastorno mental" (que es el que utilizan los dos sistemas clasificatorios de la psicopatología más importantes en la actualidad: la CIE-10 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y el DSM-IV-TR de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana). Sobre todo en aquellos casos en los que la etiología biológica no está claramente demostrada, como sucede en la mayoría de los trastornos mentales. Además, el término "enfermedad mental" puede asociarse a estigmatización social. Por estas razones, este término está en desuso y se usa más trastorno mental, o psicopatología.
El concepto enfermedad mental aglutina un buen número de patologías de muy diversa índole, por lo que es muy difícil de definir de una forma unitaria y hay que hablar de cada enfermedad o trastorno de forma particular e incluso individualizada ya que cada persona puede sufrirlas con síntomas algo diferentes.
Debido a su naturaleza única y diferenciada de otras enfermedades, están determinados multifactorialemente, integrando elementos de origen ambiental, familiar, psicosocial y psicológico, teniendo todos estos factores un peso no sólo en la presentación de la enfermedad, sino también en su fenomenología, en su desarrollo evolutivo, tratamiento, pronóstico y posibilidades de rehabilitación.
La mayoría de los trastornos psiquiátricos presentan una etiología desconocida, es decir, no se conoce el origen que da lugar al trastorno. Existen evidencias que confirman la implicación de factores genéticos en estos trastornos, en concreto en cinco de los trastornos psiquiátricos más comunes: esquizofrenia, trastorno bipolar, trastorno depresivo mayor, trastorno de autismo y trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad.
El Estudio de asociación del genoma completo (GWAS) ha permitido la identificación de variantes en genes de pacientes, ausentes en individuos sanos. Estos datos han hecho posible estimar la varianza total explicada por SNP a través de las relaciones genéticas entre los casos afectados y los controles.
Los datos fueron obtenidos por Cross-Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium 1 y demuestran la existencia de heredabilidad de dichos trastornos. Además ha demostrado la correlación genética positiva que existe entre ellos, es decir, los casos de un trastorno muestran mayor similitud con el otro trastorno que con sus propios controles.
1. Heredabilidad de los trastornos
Mediante el cálculo de la varianza total observada de un genotipo se obtienen los datos de la heredabilidad mediante un método univariacional. En el caso de los cinco trastornos mencionados anteriormente se demostró que en todos los casos presentan valores positivos de heredabilidad, por lo que se concluye que dichos trastornos son heredables.
2. Co-heredabilidad entre trastornos
Orden de co-heredabilidad existente entre los diferentes pares de trastornos.
Mediante el cálculo de la correlación genética explicada por SNPs entre casos y control obtenidos independientemente de 2 tipos de trastornos se obtienen los datos de co-heredabilidad mediante un análisis bivariacional. Estos datos reflejaron evidencias empíricas de que los cinco trastornos presentan una etiología genética compartida.
Las parejas de trastornos que presentan un mayor valor de etiología compartida son: esquizofrenia-trastorno bipolar; esquizofrenia-trastorno depresivo mayor y trastorno bipolar-trastorno depresivo mayor. Es importante destacar que a pesar de que los trastornos de autismo y trastornos por déficit de atención con hiperactividad se diagnostican antes de la infancia, y los demás se diagnostican después de la niñez, comparten variantes genéticas comunes.
Esquema que representa los dos principales pares de trastornos que muestran mayor correlación genética.
Existe una relación directa, empírica y cuantificada de la contribución genética a los cinco trastornos.
La heredabilidad procedente de SNPs es positiva para todos los trastornos, por lo que son moderadamente o altamente heredables.
Existen evidencias de la presencia de factores de riesgo genéticos compartidos de los trastornos.
Los datos de correlación reflejan la pleiotropía de SNPs existente en el genoma.
Existe una etiología compartida entre los diferentes trastornos, destacando esquizofrenia y trastorno bipolar y; trastorno bipolar y trastorno depresivo mayor.
Estas evidencias permitirán ayudar a la clasificación de trastornos psiquiátricos y ayudará a entender los mecanismos terapéuticos.
Clasificación
Artículo principal: Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales
Aún cuando clásicamente se han dividido las enfermedades mentales en Trastornos Orgánicos y Trastornos Funcionales, haciendo referencia al grado de génesis fisiológica o psíquica que determine al padecimiento, la clínica demuestra que ambas esferas no son independientes entre sí y que en la patología, como en el resto del desempeño psíquico "normal", ambos factores interactúan y se correlacionan para generar el amplio espectro del comportamiento humano tal como lo conocemos. De hecho, alteraciones biológicas alteran la psique, al igual que alteraciones psicológicas alteran o modifican la biología.
Existen numerosas categorías de trastornos mentales, con mayor o menor gravedad tanto en la vivencia subjetiva del individuo como en su repercusión dentro del funcionamiento social, así se hace alusión a otra clasificación clásica: Trastornos Neuróticos y Trastornos Psicóticos.
Las neurosis afectan en mayor grado a la percepción del sujeto sobre sí mismo, y a su nivel de agrado, de plenitud y de integración del yo, así como a sus relaciones con el entorno social y familiar más cercano; sin embargo, no presentan los síntomas usuales de desconexión con la realidad y amplio alejamiento de la vida social, pueden desempeñarse laboral y académicamente, y según Freud y las escuelas psicoanalíticas este estado es la condición natural de la vida psíquica.
Las psicosis, abarcan la manifestación más claramente asociada con la enfermedad mental, sus síntomas clásicos incluyen las alucinaciones, delirios y grave alteración afectiva y relacional, estos trastornos suelen tener un factor orgánico bastante pronunciado como los Trastornos Depresivos y Bipolares, aunque las esquizofrenias son claramente las de mayor repercusión personal, social y familiar dado su carácter crónico y degenerativo caracterizado por los elementos propios de todos los trastornos psicóticos a los cuales se añaden la desconexión con la realidad y aplanamiento afectivo.
Complicaciones
La enfermedad mental suele degenerar en aislamiento social, inactividad, abulia, desorden del ritmo de vida en general y, en ciertos casos y circunstancias, comportamientos violentos e intentos suicidas.
Antecedentes del tratamiento
En la Edad Media al trastorno mental se le relacionaba con el demonio pues pensaban que la persona estaba poseída por espíritus malvados y que tenía alguna relación con la brujería, así que el tratamiento era tortura o la hoguera para liberar el alma.
En el siglo XIX, los manicomnios eran como cárceles, pues solo se disfrazaba la tortura como una curación, uno de los tantos casos fue en el hospital psiquiátrico Charenton en París, donde aplicaban como tratamiento, mantenerlos atados, sumergirlos en agua fría, golpes y sumergirles la cabeza en una bañera. Todo esto para apartar las ideas e ilusiones que ellos pudieran albergar.
En 1949, Antonio Egas Moniz, un Premio Nobel en Medicina, practicaba la lobotomía, que consiste en retirar un trozo del cerebro en la parte frontal, pero en 1967 este tratamiento dejo de ser legal.
Paralelamente, en 1964 se llevó a cabo el proyecto MK-ULTRA, que buscaba controlar la mente y así borrar la memoria existente y reconstruir el pensamiento, algunos de los experimentos realizados eran la radiación, uso de psicodélicos, inyección simultánea de barbitúricos y anfetaminas, y descargas eléctricas al cerebro. El único resultado de este experimento fue dejar a las personas involucradas con daño cerebral.2
Tratamiento
Actualmente el tratamiento de los trastornos mentales posee un enfoque integrativo y multidisciplinar, en el que participan psicólogos y psiquiatras, educadores sociales, enfermeros psiquiátricos, trabajadores sociales, terapeutas ocupacionales y otros profesionales. Cada tratamiento integra, dependiendo del caso, la administración de psicofármacos como métodos paliativo de los síntomas más pronunciados, para así dar paso a un proceso de intervención psicológica para atender los orígenes y manifestaciones del trastorno y así generar un estado de bienestar más sólido, efectivo y permanente en las personas que sufren de esta enfermedad.
Véanse también: Psicoterapia y Psicofármaco.
Definición de Trastorno mental
Según el DSM-IV-TR, los trastornos son una clasificación categorial no excluyente, basada en criterios con rasgos definitorios. Admiten que no existe una definición que especifique adecuadamente los límites del concepto, careciendo de una definición operacional consistente que englobe todas las posibilidades. Un trastorno es un patrón comportamental o psicológico de significación clínica que, cualquiera que sea su causa, es una manifestación individual de una disfunción comportamental, psicológica o biológica.
Esta manifestación es considerada síntoma cuando aparece asociada a un malestar (p. ej., dolor), a una discapacidad (p. ej., deterioro en un área de funcionamiento) o a un riesgo significativamente aumentado de morir o de sufrir dolor, discapacidad o pérdida de libertad.
Más aún, afirman, existen pruebas de que los síntomas y el curso de un gran número de trastornos están influidos por factores étnicos y culturales. No olvidemos que la categoría diagnóstica es sólo el primer paso para el adecuado plan terapéutico, el cual necesita más información que la requerida para el diagnóstico.
Una concepción errónea muy frecuente es pensar que la clasificación de los trastornos mentales clasifica a las personas; lo que realmente hace es clasificar los trastornos de las personas que los padecen.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
-
Your response is weak. It's obviously a religion given the context of this conversation. But if you want to play along, I'll play along. Pastafarianism is a religion - Pastafarians believe in the flying spaghetti monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster).
And please note: just because that you may find the concept and these particular beliefs ridiculous, doesn't mean very much. Remember, if we go by the "someone finds the concept ridiculous" there would be no Chaplains at all.
Your question is weak. Yes, the concept is ridiculous. And stupid.
Is this your way of not addressing why atheists need a chaplain?
We can add this to the list: atheist churches, magazines, radio station, protests, lawsuits, activism, etc. Such an irrational bunch.
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
ten pages of crazy and now I guess you think large blank spaces make you look sane?
you know all you had to do was say you made a simple mistake when you said that today the world is mostly christian
I'm curious why you didn't just say that and move on rather than going all nutty for ten pages
-
I can easily see why atheist in the military might need some for of equivalent to a chaplain
Atheism is a belief just like any other belief, including religious beliefs and it would make perfect sense to have a need for counsel of someone who shares your beliefs, especially in a situation where you may be surrounded by people who don't share your beliefs and may even harass you for them or aggressively evangelize
I'm sure our christian friends can easily understand that and appreciate it
-
ten pages of crazy and now I guess you think large blank spaces make you look sane?
you know all you had to do was say you made a simple mistake when you said that today the world is mostly christian
I'm curious why you didn't just say that and move on rather than going all nutty for ten pages
Las enfermedades mentales o trastornos psicológicos son alteraciones de los procesos cognitivos y afectivos del desarrollo, consideradas como anormales con respecto al grupo social de referencia del cual proviene el individuo. Se puede tratar de alteraciones en el razonamiento, el comportamiento, la facultad de reconocer la realidad o de adaptarse a las condiciones de la vida.
Dependiendo del concepto de enfermedad que se utilice, algunos autores consideran más adecuado utilizar en el campo de la salud mental el término "trastorno mental" (que es el que utilizan los dos sistemas clasificatorios de la psicopatología más importantes en la actualidad: la CIE-10 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y el DSM-IV-TR de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana). Sobre todo en aquellos casos en los que la etiología biológica no está claramente demostrada, como sucede en la mayoría de los trastornos mentales. Además, el término "enfermedad mental" puede asociarse a estigmatización social. Por estas razones, este término está en desuso y se usa más trastorno mental, o psicopatología.
El concepto enfermedad mental aglutina un buen número de patologías de muy diversa índole, por lo que es muy difícil de definir de una forma unitaria y hay que hablar de cada enfermedad o trastorno de forma particular e incluso individualizada ya que cada persona puede sufrirlas con síntomas algo diferentes.
Debido a su naturaleza única y diferenciada de otras enfermedades, están determinados multifactorialemente, integrando elementos de origen ambiental, familiar, psicosocial y psicológico, teniendo todos estos factores un peso no sólo en la presentación de la enfermedad, sino también en su fenomenología, en su desarrollo evolutivo, tratamiento, pronóstico y posibilidades de rehabilitación.
La mayoría de los trastornos psiquiátricos presentan una etiología desconocida, es decir, no se conoce el origen que da lugar al trastorno. Existen evidencias que confirman la implicación de factores genéticos en estos trastornos, en concreto en cinco de los trastornos psiquiátricos más comunes: esquizofrenia, trastorno bipolar, trastorno depresivo mayor, trastorno de autismo y trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad.
El Estudio de asociación del genoma completo (GWAS) ha permitido la identificación de variantes en genes de pacientes, ausentes en individuos sanos. Estos datos han hecho posible estimar la varianza total explicada por SNP a través de las relaciones genéticas entre los casos afectados y los controles.
Los datos fueron obtenidos por Cross-Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium 1 y demuestran la existencia de heredabilidad de dichos trastornos. Además ha demostrado la correlación genética positiva que existe entre ellos, es decir, los casos de un trastorno muestran mayor similitud con el otro trastorno que con sus propios controles.
1. Heredabilidad de los trastornos
Mediante el cálculo de la varianza total observada de un genotipo se obtienen los datos de la heredabilidad mediante un método univariacional. En el caso de los cinco trastornos mencionados anteriormente se demostró que en todos los casos presentan valores positivos de heredabilidad, por lo que se concluye que dichos trastornos son heredables.
2. Co-heredabilidad entre trastornos
Orden de co-heredabilidad existente entre los diferentes pares de trastornos.
Mediante el cálculo de la correlación genética explicada por SNPs entre casos y control obtenidos independientemente de 2 tipos de trastornos se obtienen los datos de co-heredabilidad mediante un análisis bivariacional. Estos datos reflejaron evidencias empíricas de que los cinco trastornos presentan una etiología genética compartida.
Las parejas de trastornos que presentan un mayor valor de etiología compartida son: esquizofrenia-trastorno bipolar; esquizofrenia-trastorno depresivo mayor y trastorno bipolar-trastorno depresivo mayor. Es importante destacar que a pesar de que los trastornos de autismo y trastornos por déficit de atención con hiperactividad se diagnostican antes de la infancia, y los demás se diagnostican después de la niñez, comparten variantes genéticas comunes.
Esquema que representa los dos principales pares de trastornos que muestran mayor correlación genética.
Existe una relación directa, empírica y cuantificada de la contribución genética a los cinco trastornos.
La heredabilidad procedente de SNPs es positiva para todos los trastornos, por lo que son moderadamente o altamente heredables.
Existen evidencias de la presencia de factores de riesgo genéticos compartidos de los trastornos.
Los datos de correlación reflejan la pleiotropía de SNPs existente en el genoma.
Existe una etiología compartida entre los diferentes trastornos, destacando esquizofrenia y trastorno bipolar y; trastorno bipolar y trastorno depresivo mayor.
Estas evidencias permitirán ayudar a la clasificación de trastornos psiquiátricos y ayudará a entender los mecanismos terapéuticos.
Clasificación
Artículo principal: Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales
Aún cuando clásicamente se han dividido las enfermedades mentales en Trastornos Orgánicos y Trastornos Funcionales, haciendo referencia al grado de génesis fisiológica o psíquica que determine al padecimiento, la clínica demuestra que ambas esferas no son independientes entre sí y que en la patología, como en el resto del desempeño psíquico "normal", ambos factores interactúan y se correlacionan para generar el amplio espectro del comportamiento humano tal como lo conocemos. De hecho, alteraciones biológicas alteran la psique, al igual que alteraciones psicológicas alteran o modifican la biología.
Existen numerosas categorías de trastornos mentales, con mayor o menor gravedad tanto en la vivencia subjetiva del individuo como en su repercusión dentro del funcionamiento social, así se hace alusión a otra clasificación clásica: Trastornos Neuróticos y Trastornos Psicóticos.
Las neurosis afectan en mayor grado a la percepción del sujeto sobre sí mismo, y a su nivel de agrado, de plenitud y de integración del yo, así como a sus relaciones con el entorno social y familiar más cercano; sin embargo, no presentan los síntomas usuales de desconexión con la realidad y amplio alejamiento de la vida social, pueden desempeñarse laboral y académicamente, y según Freud y las escuelas psicoanalíticas este estado es la condición natural de la vida psíquica.
Las psicosis, abarcan la manifestación más claramente asociada con la enfermedad mental, sus síntomas clásicos incluyen las alucinaciones, delirios y grave alteración afectiva y relacional, estos trastornos suelen tener un factor orgánico bastante pronunciado como los Trastornos Depresivos y Bipolares, aunque las esquizofrenias son claramente las de mayor repercusión personal, social y familiar dado su carácter crónico y degenerativo caracterizado por los elementos propios de todos los trastornos psicóticos a los cuales se añaden la desconexión con la realidad y aplanamiento afectivo.
Complicaciones
La enfermedad mental suele degenerar en aislamiento social, inactividad, abulia, desorden del ritmo de vida en general y, en ciertos casos y circunstancias, comportamientos violentos e intentos suicidas.
Antecedentes del tratamiento
En la Edad Media al trastorno mental se le relacionaba con el demonio pues pensaban que la persona estaba poseída por espíritus malvados y que tenía alguna relación con la brujería, así que el tratamiento era tortura o la hoguera para liberar el alma.
En el siglo XIX, los manicomnios eran como cárceles, pues solo se disfrazaba la tortura como una curación, uno de los tantos casos fue en el hospital psiquiátrico Charenton en París, donde aplicaban como tratamiento, mantenerlos atados, sumergirlos en agua fría, golpes y sumergirles la cabeza en una bañera. Todo esto para apartar las ideas e ilusiones que ellos pudieran albergar.
En 1949, Antonio Egas Moniz, un Premio Nobel en Medicina, practicaba la lobotomía, que consiste en retirar un trozo del cerebro en la parte frontal, pero en 1967 este tratamiento dejo de ser legal.
Paralelamente, en 1964 se llevó a cabo el proyecto MK-ULTRA, que buscaba controlar la mente y así borrar la memoria existente y reconstruir el pensamiento, algunos de los experimentos realizados eran la radiación, uso de psicodélicos, inyección simultánea de barbitúricos y anfetaminas, y descargas eléctricas al cerebro. El único resultado de este experimento fue dejar a las personas involucradas con daño cerebral.2
Tratamiento
Actualmente el tratamiento de los trastornos mentales posee un enfoque integrativo y multidisciplinar, en el que participan psicólogos y psiquiatras, educadores sociales, enfermeros psiquiátricos, trabajadores sociales, terapeutas ocupacionales y otros profesionales. Cada tratamiento integra, dependiendo del caso, la administración de psicofármacos como métodos paliativo de los síntomas más pronunciados, para así dar paso a un proceso de intervención psicológica para atender los orígenes y manifestaciones del trastorno y así generar un estado de bienestar más sólido, efectivo y permanente en las personas que sufren de esta enfermedad.
Véanse también: Psicoterapia y Psicofármaco.
Definición de Trastorno mental
Según el DSM-IV-TR, los trastornos son una clasificación categorial no excluyente, basada en criterios con rasgos definitorios. Admiten que no existe una definición que especifique adecuadamente los límites del concepto, careciendo de una definición operacional consistente que englobe todas las posibilidades. Un trastorno es un patrón comportamental o psicológico de significación clínica que, cualquiera que sea su causa, es una manifestación individual de una disfunción comportamental, psicológica o biológica.
Esta manifestación es considerada síntoma cuando aparece asociada a un malestar (p. ej., dolor), a una discapacidad (p. ej., deterioro en un área de funcionamiento) o a un riesgo significativamente aumentado de morir o de sufrir dolor, discapacidad o pérdida de libertad.
Más aún, afirman, existen pruebas de que los síntomas y el curso de un gran número de trastornos están influidos por factores étnicos y culturales. No olvidemos que la categoría diagnóstica es sólo el primer paso para el adecuado plan terapéutico, el cual necesita más información que la requerida para el diagnóstico.
Una concepción errónea muy frecuente es pensar que la clasificación de los trastornos mentales clasifica a las personas; lo que realmente hace es clasificar los trastornos de las personas que los padecen.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
-
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
so that's your response to my question as to why you just didn't admit you made a mistake and move on
Hmmm.... I said 7 years ago the that fundie mindset is akin to mental illness
Do you think ignoring my question and making the same post with the large blank space is proving my point or disproving it?
-
I can easily see why atheist in the military might need some for of equivalent to a chaplain
Atheism is a belief just like any other belief, including religious beliefs and it would make perfect sense to have a need for counsel of someone who shares your beliefs, especially in a situation where you may be surrounded by people who don't share your beliefs and may even harass you for them or aggressively evangelize
I'm sure our christian friends can easily understand that and appreciate it
That's what a therapist is for.
they don't need a "atheist" counselor. that's stupid IMO
-
so that's your response to my question as to why you just didn't admit you made a mistake and move on
Hmmm.... I said 7 years ago the that fundie mindset is akin to mental illness
Do you think ignoring my question and making the same post with the large blank space is proving my point or disproving it?
They're not blank. You are as mentally ill as you say Soul Crusher is.
-
They're not blank. You are as mentally ill as you say Soul Crusher is.
they look that way on my phone
you sure are doing a great job showing that you're not crazy though
keep up the good work
-
That's what a therapist is for.
they don't need a "atheist" counselor. that's stupid IMO
no more stupid than needing a chaplain
-
they look that way on my phone
you sure are doing a great job showing that you're not crazy though
keep up the good work
Thank you!
You are the one entertaining me, and not the other way around. ;D
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
-
That's what a therapist is for.
they don't need a "atheist" counselor. that's stupid IMO
Exactly. Someone made that point yesterday when talking about this issue.
-
Your question is weak. Yes, the concept is ridiculous. And stupid.
Is this your way of not addressing why atheists need a chaplain?
We can add this to the list: atheist churches, magazines, radio station, protests, lawsuits, activism, etc. Such an irrational bunch.
I agree that it sounds silly to use the term Chaplain - it may even be silly. However, I would argue that atheist soldiers benefit from having the ability to go to someone who shares their outlook to discuss issues or concerns that they might have in the same way that a Christian soldier benefits from going to a Chaplain for. Of course, I would also argue that a "therapist" is better suited that chaplains in filling that role, for all soldiers, theist and atheist.
But the fact is that we have chaplains in the army today. With that in mind, should soldiers who follow pastafarianism have access to a Pastafarian chaplain? What about Jedi soldiers? Or native American soldiers? Or any other number of religions? Again, you may find some of religions silly, perhaps even outright stupid. But there are people who find your religious beliefs silly or even stupid, so that's not really an argument for not having pastafarian ministers or Jedi pastors, or Native American medicine men or whatever else.
Or, to put the question more broadly, on what grounds should we decide which religions or viewpoints get military chaplains?
How about you answer that question?
-
Thank you!
You are the one entertaining me, and not the other way around. ;D
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
yes, you've done a great job demonstrating your sanity in this thread
why is it again, that you didn't just admit you made mistake and move on?
btw - very nice touch to really drive home the point of how sane you are to post something in beige so that it can't be seen and in spanish (I assume that is spanish)
kudos
Las enfermedades mentales o trastornos psicológicos son alteraciones de los procesos cognitivos y afectivos del desarrollo, consideradas como anormales con respecto al grupo social de referencia del cual proviene el individuo. Se puede tratar de alteraciones en el razonamiento, el comportamiento, la facultad de reconocer la realidad o de adaptarse a las condiciones de la vida.
Dependiendo del concepto de enfermedad que se utilice, algunos autores consideran más adecuado utilizar en el campo de la salud mental el término "trastorno mental" (que es el que utilizan los dos sistemas clasificatorios de la psicopatología más importantes en la actualidad: la CIE-10 de la Organización Mundial de la Salud y el DSM-IV-TR de la Asociación Psiquiátrica Americana). Sobre todo en aquellos casos en los que la etiología biológica no está claramente demostrada, como sucede en la mayoría de los trastornos mentales. Además, el término "enfermedad mental" puede asociarse a estigmatización social. Por estas razones, este término está en desuso y se usa más trastorno mental, o psicopatología.
El concepto enfermedad mental aglutina un buen número de patologías de muy diversa índole, por lo que es muy difícil de definir de una forma unitaria y hay que hablar de cada enfermedad o trastorno de forma particular e incluso individualizada ya que cada persona puede sufrirlas con síntomas algo diferentes.
Debido a su naturaleza única y diferenciada de otras enfermedades, están determinados multifactorialemente, integrando elementos de origen ambiental, familiar, psicosocial y psicológico, teniendo todos estos factores un peso no sólo en la presentación de la enfermedad, sino también en su fenomenología, en su desarrollo evolutivo, tratamiento, pronóstico y posibilidades de rehabilitación.
La mayoría de los trastornos psiquiátricos presentan una etiología desconocida, es decir, no se conoce el origen que da lugar al trastorno. Existen evidencias que confirman la implicación de factores genéticos en estos trastornos, en concreto en cinco de los trastornos psiquiátricos más comunes: esquizofrenia, trastorno bipolar, trastorno depresivo mayor, trastorno de autismo y trastorno por déficit de atención con hiperactividad.
El Estudio de asociación del genoma completo (GWAS) ha permitido la identificación de variantes en genes de pacientes, ausentes en individuos sanos. Estos datos han hecho posible estimar la varianza total explicada por SNP a través de las relaciones genéticas entre los casos afectados y los controles.
Los datos fueron obtenidos por Cross-Disorder Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium 1 y demuestran la existencia de heredabilidad de dichos trastornos. Además ha demostrado la correlación genética positiva que existe entre ellos, es decir, los casos de un trastorno muestran mayor similitud con el otro trastorno que con sus propios controles.
1. Heredabilidad de los trastornos
Mediante el cálculo de la varianza total observada de un genotipo se obtienen los datos de la heredabilidad mediante un método univariacional. En el caso de los cinco trastornos mencionados anteriormente se demostró que en todos los casos presentan valores positivos de heredabilidad, por lo que se concluye que dichos trastornos son heredables.
2. Co-heredabilidad entre trastornos
Orden de co-heredabilidad existente entre los diferentes pares de trastornos.
Mediante el cálculo de la correlación genética explicada por SNPs entre casos y control obtenidos independientemente de 2 tipos de trastornos se obtienen los datos de co-heredabilidad mediante un análisis bivariacional. Estos datos reflejaron evidencias empíricas de que los cinco trastornos presentan una etiología genética compartida.
Las parejas de trastornos que presentan un mayor valor de etiología compartida son: esquizofrenia-trastorno bipolar; esquizofrenia-trastorno depresivo mayor y trastorno bipolar-trastorno depresivo mayor. Es importante destacar que a pesar de que los trastornos de autismo y trastornos por déficit de atención con hiperactividad se diagnostican antes de la infancia, y los demás se diagnostican después de la niñez, comparten variantes genéticas comunes.
Esquema que representa los dos principales pares de trastornos que muestran mayor correlación genética.
Existe una relación directa, empírica y cuantificada de la contribución genética a los cinco trastornos.
La heredabilidad procedente de SNPs es positiva para todos los trastornos, por lo que son moderadamente o altamente heredables.
Existen evidencias de la presencia de factores de riesgo genéticos compartidos de los trastornos.
Los datos de correlación reflejan la pleiotropía de SNPs existente en el genoma.
Existe una etiología compartida entre los diferentes trastornos, destacando esquizofrenia y trastorno bipolar y; trastorno bipolar y trastorno depresivo mayor.
Estas evidencias permitirán ayudar a la clasificación de trastornos psiquiátricos y ayudará a entender los mecanismos terapéuticos.
Clasificación
Artículo principal: Manual diagnóstico y estadístico de los trastornos mentales
Aún cuando clásicamente se han dividido las enfermedades mentales en Trastornos Orgánicos y Trastornos Funcionales, haciendo referencia al grado de génesis fisiológica o psíquica que determine al padecimiento, la clínica demuestra que ambas esferas no son independientes entre sí y que en la patología, como en el resto del desempeño psíquico "normal", ambos factores interactúan y se correlacionan para generar el amplio espectro del comportamiento humano tal como lo conocemos. De hecho, alteraciones biológicas alteran la psique, al igual que alteraciones psicológicas alteran o modifican la biología.
Existen numerosas categorías de trastornos mentales, con mayor o menor gravedad tanto en la vivencia subjetiva del individuo como en su repercusión dentro del funcionamiento social, así se hace alusión a otra clasificación clásica: Trastornos Neuróticos y Trastornos Psicóticos.
Las neurosis afectan en mayor grado a la percepción del sujeto sobre sí mismo, y a su nivel de agrado, de plenitud y de integración del yo, así como a sus relaciones con el entorno social y familiar más cercano; sin embargo, no presentan los síntomas usuales de desconexión con la realidad y amplio alejamiento de la vida social, pueden desempeñarse laboral y académicamente, y según Freud y las escuelas psicoanalíticas este estado es la condición natural de la vida psíquica.
Las psicosis, abarcan la manifestación más claramente asociada con la enfermedad mental, sus síntomas clásicos incluyen las alucinaciones, delirios y grave alteración afectiva y relacional, estos trastornos suelen tener un factor orgánico bastante pronunciado como los Trastornos Depresivos y Bipolares, aunque las esquizofrenias son claramente las de mayor repercusión personal, social y familiar dado su carácter crónico y degenerativo caracterizado por los elementos propios de todos los trastornos psicóticos a los cuales se añaden la desconexión con la realidad y aplanamiento afectivo.
Complicaciones
La enfermedad mental suele degenerar en aislamiento social, inactividad, abulia, desorden del ritmo de vida en general y, en ciertos casos y circunstancias, comportamientos violentos e intentos suicidas.
Antecedentes del tratamiento
En la Edad Media al trastorno mental se le relacionaba con el demonio pues pensaban que la persona estaba poseída por espíritus malvados y que tenía alguna relación con la brujería, así que el tratamiento era tortura o la hoguera para liberar el alma.
En el siglo XIX, los manicomnios eran como cárceles, pues solo se disfrazaba la tortura como una curación, uno de los tantos casos fue en el hospital psiquiátrico Charenton en París, donde aplicaban como tratamiento, mantenerlos atados, sumergirlos en agua fría, golpes y sumergirles la cabeza en una bañera. Todo esto para apartar las ideas e ilusiones que ellos pudieran albergar.
En 1949, Antonio Egas Moniz, un Premio Nobel en Medicina, practicaba la lobotomía, que consiste en retirar un trozo del cerebro en la parte frontal, pero en 1967 este tratamiento dejo de ser legal.
Paralelamente, en 1964 se llevó a cabo el proyecto MK-ULTRA, que buscaba controlar la mente y así borrar la memoria existente y reconstruir el pensamiento, algunos de los experimentos realizados eran la radiación, uso de psicodélicos, inyección simultánea de barbitúricos y anfetaminas, y descargas eléctricas al cerebro. El único resultado de este experimento fue dejar a las personas involucradas con daño cerebral.2
Tratamiento
Actualmente el tratamiento de los trastornos mentales posee un enfoque integrativo y multidisciplinar, en el que participan psicólogos y psiquiatras, educadores sociales, enfermeros psiquiátricos, trabajadores sociales, terapeutas ocupacionales y otros profesionales. Cada tratamiento integra, dependiendo del caso, la administración de psicofármacos como métodos paliativo de los síntomas más pronunciados, para así dar paso a un proceso de intervención psicológica para atender los orígenes y manifestaciones del trastorno y así generar un estado de bienestar más sólido, efectivo y permanente en las personas que sufren de esta enfermedad.
Véanse también: Psicoterapia y Psicofármaco.
Definición de Trastorno mental
Según el DSM-IV-TR, los trastornos son una clasificación categorial no excluyente, basada en criterios con rasgos definitorios. Admiten que no existe una definición que especifique adecuadamente los límites del concepto, careciendo de una definición operacional consistente que englobe todas las posibilidades. Un trastorno es un patrón comportamental o psicológico de significación clínica que, cualquiera que sea su causa, es una manifestación individual de una disfunción comportamental, psicológica o biológica.
Esta manifestación es considerada síntoma cuando aparece asociada a un malestar (p. ej., dolor), a una discapacidad (p. ej., deterioro en un área de funcionamiento) o a un riesgo significativamente aumentado de morir o de sufrir dolor, discapacidad o pérdida de libertad.
Más aún, afirman, existen pruebas de que los síntomas y el curso de un gran número de trastornos están influidos por factores étnicos y culturales. No olvidemos que la categoría diagnóstica es sólo el primer paso para el adecuado plan terapéutico, el cual necesita más información que la requerida para el diagnóstico.
Una concepción errónea muy frecuente es pensar que la clasificación de los trastornos mentales clasifica a las personas; lo que realmente hace es clasificar los trastornos de las personas que los padecen.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
-
I agree that it sounds silly to use the term Chaplain - it may even be silly. However, I would argue that atheist soldiers benefit from having the ability to go to someone who shares their outlook to discuss issues or concerns that they might have in the same way that a Christian soldier benefits from going to a Chaplain for. Of course, I would also argue that a "therapist" is better suited that chaplains in filling that role, for all soldiers, theist and atheist.
But the fact is that we have chaplains in the army today. With that in mind, should soldiers who follow pastafarianism have access to a Pastafarian chaplain? What about Jedi soldiers? Or native American soldiers? Or any other number of religions? Again, you may find some of religions silly, perhaps even outright stupid. But there are people who find your religious beliefs silly or even stupid, so that's not really an argument for not having pastafarian ministers or Jedi pastors, or Native American medicine men or whatever else.
Or, to put the question more broadly, on what grounds should we decide which religions or viewpoints get military chaplains?
How about you answer that question?
I agree that he word chaplain doesn't really fit but the premise is completely apt
I wonder why anyone gives a shit
let the atheists have someone to talk to if they need it
who cares
The title of "chaplain" is weird but atheists in the military probably face a lot of pressure to adopt some form of religious belief so it does make some sense that there should be someone in a role similar to a chaplain that that can talk if they feel they need some support of their beliefs
-
yes, you've done a great job demonstrating your sanity in this thread
why is it again, that you didn't just admit you made mistake and move on?
btw - very nice touch to really drive home the point of how sane you are to post something in beige so that it can't be seen and in spanish (I assume that is spanish)
kudos
Thank you!
You are the one entertaining me, and not the other way around.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
-
I agree that it sounds silly to use the term Chaplain - it may even be silly. However, I would argue that atheist soldiers benefit from having the ability to go to someone who shares their outlook to discuss issues or concerns that they might have in the same way that a Christian soldier benefits from going to a Chaplain for. Of course, I would also argue that a "therapist" is better suited that chaplains in filling that role, for all soldiers, theist and atheist.
But the fact is that we have chaplains in the army today. With that in mind, should soldiers who follow pastafarianism have access to a Pastafarian chaplain? What about Jedi soldiers? Or native American soldiers? Or any other number of religions? Again, you may find some of religions silly, perhaps even outright stupid. But there are people who find your religious beliefs silly or even stupid, so that's not really an argument for not having pastafarian ministers or Jedi pastors, or Native American medicine men or whatever else.
Or, to put the question more broadly, on what grounds should we decide which religions or viewpoints get military chaplains?
How about you answer that question?
An atheist chaplain is definitely silly. And as Ozmo pointed out, if they need counseling and don't want to use a Christian (et al.) chaplain, they can go to a therapist. Plenty of those available to Soldiers. All those irrational atheists are doing is solidifying the fact that their radical non-belief in something that doesn't exist is actually a religion.
I have no comment about that flying spaghetti monster foolishness. It's too stupid.
Regarding which religions or viewpoints get military chaplains, we've had chaplains in the military since the inception of the country. I'm unsure how they were originally selected, but it was probably based on the fact most "religious" Soldiers were Christian. Today, we have protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc. chaplains. If there is a sizable enough population of Soldiers of a particular faith to warrant a chaplain, then I don't have a problem putting one on the payroll. I assume that's how they are selected, but I don't know.
I'm unaware of this being a problem, except for a handful of vocal irrational atheist activists.
-
Thank you!
You are the one entertaining me, and not the other way around.
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
why no beige text this time
why again didn't you just admit you were wrong and save yourself ten pages of crazy talk
is that really a hard question for you
-
why no beige text this time
why again didn't you just admit you were wrong and save yourself ten pages of crazy talk
is that really a hard question for you
Why don't you just admit that you were wrong?
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
-
Why don't you just admit that you were wrong?
You will keep responding to me even though you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
what do you think I was wrong about?
-
what do you think I was wrong about?
Why are you still talking to me in this thread?
-
Why are you still talking to me in this thread?
you've already asked me that question and I've answered it many times
remember ?
if not, then scroll up
-
you've already asked me that question and I've answered it many times
remember ?
if not, then scroll up
Yes, you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. So why are you still talking to me in this thread?
-
Yes, you've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so. So why are you still talking to me in this thread?
is that all I said
why do you selectively ignore the rest of it
Is that a practice that you picked up in bible study?
seriously man, why didn't you just admit you mispoke and move on
we've all done it
what's the big deal
why ten pages of crazy ?
-
is that all I said
why do you selectively ignore the rest of it
Is that a practice that you picked up in bible study?
seriously man, why didn't you just admit you mispoke and move on
we've all done it
what's the big deal
why ten pages of crazy ?
Why won't you admit that you were wrong? Why do you keep addressing me in this thread?
-
Why won't you admit that you were wrong? Why do you keep addressing me in this thread?
Loco - try to understand
if you ask me the same question and then ignore my answer it doesn't make you look less crazy
-
Loco - try to understand
if you ask me the same question and then ignore my answer it doesn't make you look less crazy
Why do you keep calling others crazy, when here you are behaving far crazier than all?
-
Why do you keep calling others crazy, when here you are behaving far crazier than all?
how is it crazy to entertain myself especially when doing so validates a point that I made 7 years ago (which neuroscientist have recently also suggested)
I mean it's not like I did anything nutty like post a bunch of irrelevant text in Spanish and in beige so it can't be seen
If I did that then you might have a point
-
how is it crazy to entertain myself especially when doing so validates a point that I made 7 years ago (which neuroscientist have recently also suggested)
I mean it's not like I did anything nutty like post a bunch of irrelevant text in Spanish and in beige so it can't be seen
If I did that then you might have a point
Just entertaining myself, at your expense.
So, if I'm as mentally ill as you say I am, what's your excuse?
-
So, if I'm as mentally ill as you say I am, what's your excuse?
I have no excuse as to why you are mentally ill
you might have gotten that way due to your religious beliefs or you might have been mentally ill first
I haven't figured that out yet
It's a chicken or egg thing
-
I have no excuse as to why you are mentally ill
you might have gotten that way due to your religious beliefs or you might have been mentally ill first
I haven't figured that out yet
It's a chicken or egg thing
I see, playing pendejo again. What's your excuse for acting so mentally ill in this thread, if you are so sane?
-
I see, playing pendejo again. What's your excuse for acting so mentally ill in this thread, if you are so sane?
you just refuse to understand that I'm engaging you in conversation to both entertain myself and as a picture perfect example of the point that I made 7 years ago
you still have never answered the question as to why you didn't just admit you mispoke about the world being most christian
why not just admit that statement wasn't correct
why is that so hard for you
I'm heading out to lunch so I'll give you a few hours to think about it
I am looking forward to hearing your answer to that question
-
you just refuse to understand that I'm engaging you in conversation to both entertain myself and as a picture perfect example of the point that I made 7 years ago
you still have never answered the question as to why you didn't just admit you mispoke about the world being most christian
why not just admit that statement wasn't correct
why is that so hard for you
I'm heading out to lunch so I'll give you a few hours to think about it
I am looking forward to hearing your answer to that question
Why are you still talking to me in this thread? You've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
-
Why are you still talking to me in this thread? You've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
so you choose to continue to ask the same question even though I've answered it and continue to ignore and refuse to answer the very simple question that I've asked you about ten times now
I didn't see that coming
-
no more stupid than needing a chaplain
Not really. Beliefs are more powerful than fact. if a persons believes counsel with a chaplain will help him and he has a foundation of faith its not stupid at all.
-
Not really. Beliefs are more powerful than fact. if a persons believes counsel with a chaplain will help him and he has a foundation of faith its not stupid at all.
Are you aware of the heavy (some might say oppressive) influence of fundamentalist christians in the military ?
-
Not sure if this story should be in the religion board but.....
Tennessee atheists win right to distribute literature after schools give Bibles to students
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/29/tennessee-atheists-win-right-to-distribute-literature-after-schools-give-bibles-to-students/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/29/tennessee-atheists-win-right-to-distribute-literature-after-schools-give-bibles-to-students/)
An atheist group in Tennessee won the right to distribute literature at an elementary school after the school allowed the Gideons group to distribute Christian Bibles to students.
The Friendly Atheist blog reported that the Tri-State Freethinkers group in conjunction with the ACLU challenged the decision by Casey County School District Superintendent Marion Sowders to allow the Gideons to distribute copies of the New Testament at the county’s three elementary schools.
The Freethinkers and the ACLU sent the school district a letter demanding equal access and, surprisingly, the request was granted.
On Friday, the group was allowed to leave copies of the book Humanism, What’s That?: A Book for Curious Kids by Helen Bennett.
As with the Gideons, actual group members were not allowed to contact students, but the books were left for interested students to pick up and peruse.
Some Christian parents expressed outrage. Carmen Foster contemplated keeping her kids home on Friday, but changed her mind.
“I work hard everyday of my life as a mother to teach my kids what we believe,” she told WKYT. “If I don’t have enough confidence to send them out in the world, then how strong am I with what I’m teaching them.”
“Whether we like it or not. Our kids are going to go out in to this world. They are going to come across these situations. This is a good opportunity to teach them how to handle it,” she said.
good for them.
-
Are you aware of the heavy (some might say oppressive) influence of fundamentalist christians in the military ?
Yes.
However, I wouldn't characterize it as oppressive influence as you have in your question although I have no doubt there have been instances of abuses, favoritism, unfair treatment, etc...Of which having chaplain available to counsel men of faith who are troubled and or willing to die for our country has anything to with it.
Frankly to even consider removing chaplains from service is retarded, ignorant and naive.
-
Yes.
However, I wouldn't characterize it as oppressive influence as you have in your question although I have no doubt there have been instances of abuses, favoritism, unfair treatment, etc...Of which having chaplain available to counsel men of faith who are troubled and or willing to die for our country has anything to with it.
Frankly to even consider removing chaplains from service is retarded, ignorant and naive.
I can give you some well publicized examples of harassment that seem pretty oppressive but let's not get hung up on semantics
If you agree that there is a heavy influence by christians then why shouldn't atheist solders have access to an atheist "advisor" of sorts
-
I can give you some well publicized examples of harassment that seem pretty oppressive but let's not get hung up on semantics
If you agree that there is a heavy influence by christians then why shouldn't atheist solders have access to an atheist "advisor" of sorts
Like I said, I am sure there are plenty of instances both publicized and unreported. And it should be dealt with.
Advise atheists for what? To continue not to believe in God? Seems silly. If a person is troubled they typically go to a therapist, if they don't want to see a chaplain.
-
Like I said, I am sure there are plenty of instances both publicized and unreported. And it should be dealt with.
Advise atheists for what? To continue not to believe in God? Seems silly. If a person is troubled they typically go to a therapist, if they don't want to see a chaplain.
seems silly to you but maybe not to them
What if the therapist available to them is someone who is also a fundie ?
I just don't see what the big deal is with giving them an atheist equivalent of someone to talk to if they feel they need it
What's it to you ?
-
An atheist chaplain is definitely silly. And as Ozmo pointed out, if they need counseling and don't want to use a Christian (et al.) chaplain, they can go to a therapist. Plenty of those available to Soldiers. All those irrational atheists are doing is solidifying the fact that their radical non-belief in something that doesn't exist is actually a religion.
Although I think their attempt to get an atheist chaplain sounds silly, I don't think it's necessarily without merit in that it is meant* to call attention to the issue of chaplains in the military by, essentially asking the question, "are they needed?" If therapists are good enough for atheists - which you suggested is the case - why aren't they good enough for theists?
You can argue that religious soldiers who are deployed in a war zone don't have easy access to a house of worship, and providing them with someone to oversee their "spiritual" needs is important. I agree that's a consideration and an important one, and this is the reason why chaplains (in the U.S. at least) are supposed to work with people of all faiths (or no faith at all even). But then, can a chaplain that is an ordained minister in some faith properly serve the spiritual needs of someone who believes in something other than X, and which may, very well, be dogmatically opposed to X? And if they can, then why should you be opposed to any kind of chaplain at all?
* This is an assumption; it may be wrong, but for the purposes of this argument, I am assuming that it isn't.
I have no comment about that flying spaghetti monster foolishness. It's too stupid.
You say you don't have a comment, but then you proceed to comment. You also attempt to avoid an issue that undercuts your position by claim it's foolish and dismissing it outright. I have news for you: Your personal evaluation of the merits of Pastafarianism, or any other religion apart from Christianity, is irrelevant. To a non-Christian, the concept of a triune god - the core of your beliefs - might be about as stupid and foolish - or perhaps more - than the concept of a floating mass of spaghetti.
With all that in mind, do you really want religions to be evaluated by what those who don't believe in them think about them? I'm cool with that, but you may not like the end result of that.
Regarding which religions or viewpoints get military chaplains, we've had chaplains in the military since the inception of the country. I'm unsure how they were originally selected, but it was probably based on the fact most "religious" Soldiers were Christian. Today, we have protestant, Catholic, Jewish, etc. chaplains. If there is a sizable enough population of Soldiers of a particular faith to warrant a chaplain, then I don't have a problem putting one on the payroll. I assume that's how they are selected, but I don't know.
So, let me make sure I understand: if enough soldiers want with a Pastafarian chaplain, you're OK with having a Pastafarian chaplain? Or with a Jedi chaplain, if there enough Jedi soldiers? Right? After all, you didn't make it about beliefs. You made it about "enough population of Soldiers".
I'm unaware of this being a problem, except for a handful of vocal irrational atheist activists.
I don't necessarily think it's a problem either, nor am I opposed to military chaplains, despite being an atheist. What I do find interesting, however, is your visceral reaction to the proposal.
-
seems silly to you but maybe not to them
What if the therapist available to them is someone who is also a fundie ?
I just don't see what the big deal is with giving them an atheist equivalent of someone to talk to if they feel they need it
What's it to you ?
If the therapist is a "real" therapist they won't allow their faith to influence their profession. They can also request a different therapist or seek one outside the military.
I am not going to March on Washington if they do, but I think it's a waste.
Straw were you ever a religious person? Did you ever seek counsel from a religious person like a pastor or priest? I was. They give you faith\religious based advice to solve your problems. Therapists do the same thing except they exclude the religious aspect of it.
-
Although I think their attempt to get an atheist chaplain sounds silly, I don't think it's necessarily without merit in that it is meant* to call attention to the issue of chaplains in the military by, essentially asking the question, "are they needed?" If therapists are good enough for atheists - which you suggested is the case - why aren't they good enough for theists?
You can argue that religious soldiers who are deployed in a war zone don't have easy access to a house of worship, and providing them with someone to oversee their "spiritual" needs is important. I agree that's a consideration and an important one, and this is the reason why chaplains (in the U.S. at least) are supposed to work with people of all faiths (or no faith at all even). But then, can a chaplain that is an ordained minister in some faith properly serve the spiritual needs of someone who believes in something other than X, and which may, very well, be dogmatically opposed to X? And if they can, then why should you be opposed to any kind of chaplain at all?
* This is an assumption; it may be wrong, but for the purposes of this argument, I am assuming that it isn't.
You say you don't have a comment, but then you proceed to comment. You also attempt to avoid an issue that undercuts your position by claim it's foolish and dismissing it outright. I have news for you: Your personal evaluation of the merits of Pastafarianism, or any other religion apart from Christianity, is irrelevant. To a non-Christian, the concept of a triune god - the core of your beliefs - might be about as stupid and foolish - or perhaps more - than the concept of a floating mass of spaghetti.
With all that in mind, do you really want religions to be evaluated by what those who don't believe in them think about them? I'm cool with that, but you may not like the end result of that.
So, let me make sure I understand: if enough soldiers want with a Pastafarian chaplain, you're OK with having a Pastafarian chaplain? Or with a Jedi chaplain, if there enough Jedi soldiers? Right? After all, you didn't make it about beliefs. You made it about "enough population of Soldiers".
I don't necessarily think it's a problem either, nor am I opposed to military chaplains, despite being an atheist. What I do find interesting, however, is your visceral reaction to the proposal.
Chaplains serve the needs of people of faith. People of faith actually believe in something (usually God).
Atheists define their label based on the absence of a belief in God. There is no faith-based need for an atheist chaplain, unless atheism is actually a religion (which is what I believe). Now that I think about it, given the atheist churches, organization, meetings, conferences, literature, books, etc., maybe they do need a chaplain for their religion?
Chaplains don’t just meet with people of their own faith. They often meet with Soldiers of different faiths.
I didn’t comment on the flying spaghetti monster foolishness except to call it foolish and stupid. It’s foolish and stupid. There, I commented on it again.
Visceral reaction? lol. That’s pretty funny. All I’ve done is talk about how irrational this whole thing is.
-
Atheists define their label based on the absence of a belief in God.
No, we typically define ourselves by an absence of belief in deities. There's a difference.
There is no faith-based need for an atheist chaplain, unless atheism is actually a religion (which is what I believe). Now that I think about it, given the atheist churches, organization, meetings, conferences, literature, books, etc., maybe they do need a chaplain for their religion?
Atheist churches? Man, you had to go and ruin it for me. Now I won't be able to sleep-in on Sundays! As for the rest - "meetings, conferences, literature, books, etc." you may as well argue that mathematicians (or dentists, or electrical engineers, or just about any other group of professionals) are part of a religion - we've got meetings, conferences, literature, books, etc.
Chaplains don’t just meet with people of their own faith. They often meet with Soldiers of different faiths.
Right, so then an interesting question is: is religious faith required for a Chaplain to do his job?
I didn’t comment on the flying spaghetti monster foolishness except to call it foolish and stupid. It’s foolish and stupid. There, I commented on it again.
It's at least as foolish and stupid as your beliefs: one entity that is three entities creates everything (because everything except the entity needs a beginning), gets upset because things don't go as planned, brands us sinners, decrees that the wages of sin is death and throws us out of Paradise. Then later, he decides he loves us, so he wants us to come back, so he sacrifices himself to himself to satisfy the penalty that he has previously imposed on sinners... yeah, the Christian myth is so much more rational than Pastafarianism - it's a veritable tour de force of rationality Christianity, yes it is. ::)
Visceral reaction? lol. That’s pretty funny. All I’ve done is talk about how irrational this whole thing is.
That your reaction is "X is irrational" doesn't preclude it from being visceral.
-
so you choose to continue to ask the same question even though I've answered it and continue to ignore and refuse to answer the very simple question that I've asked you about ten times now
I didn't see that coming
Why are you still talking to me in this thread? You've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
-
Why are you still talking to me in this thread? You've already stated, twice, that it's both pointless and a waste of your time to do so.
That's irrational. You are as mentally ill as you say that I am. You are more mentally ill than you say Soul Crusher is.
I'm sure Beach Bum is flattered that you, of all people, are going out of your way to prove him right about irrational atheists.
LOL
repeatedly asking me the same question and then ignoring my answer is a great way to prove how sane you are
-
LOL
repeatedly asking me the same question and then ignoring my answer is a great way to prove how sane you are
Thank God you have found someone new to stalk.
-
Thank God you have found someone new to stalk.
says the mentally ill, bald headed dwarf who literally begs me (and others) to reply to his posts and then cries about it
-
says the mentally ill, bald headed dwarf who literally begs me (and others) to reply to his posts and then cries about it
pot meet kettle
-
No, we typically define ourselves by an absence of belief in deities. There's a difference.
Atheist churches? Man, you had to go and ruin it for me. Now I won't be able to sleep-in on Sundays! As for the rest - "meetings, conferences, literature, books, etc." you may as well argue that mathematicians (or dentists, or electrical engineers, or just about any other group of professionals) are part of a religion - we've got meetings, conferences, literature, books, etc.
Right, so then an interesting question is: is religious faith required for a Chaplain to do his job?
It's at least as foolish and stupid as your beliefs: one entity that is three entities creates everything (because everything except the entity needs a beginning), gets upset because things don't go as planned, brands us sinners, decrees that the wages of sin is death and throws us out of Paradise. Then later, he decides he loves us, so he wants us to come back, so he sacrifices himself to himself to satisfy the penalty that he has previously imposed on sinners... yeah, the Christian myth is so much more rational than Pastafarianism - it's a veritable tour de force of rationality Christianity, yes it is. ::)
That your reaction is "X is irrational" doesn't preclude it from being visceral.
That's a distinction without a difference. You define yourself based on the non-belief in deities, which in America mostly means "God." That's who paranoid anti-religious extremists are usually crying about.
When dentists, electrical engineers, etc. form "humanist centers" (i.e., churches), do exactly what activist, proselytizing atheists do, then yes we can call them part of a religion too. But of course that doesn't happen.
Yes, a chaplain should be a person of faith, because nearly all of the people consulting with chaplains are people of faith. My understanding is military chaplains must have credentials issued by a particular faith, which isn't any different than requiring doctors or any other professional to have a license.
I'm not sure you understand what the word visceral means. Or if you do, you're misusing the word, at least in this discussion.
-
pot meet kettle
makes no sense
Do I start threads with titles like this (where I name you ?)
Where is 240, Obama, Jesse, Andre, Straw etc on this? Answer? nowhere
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=484852.0
The answer is no
-
That's a distinction without a difference. You define yourself based on the non-belief in deities, which in America mostly means "God." That's who paranoid anti-religious extremists are usually crying about.
It's a distinction with plenty of difference. If not believing in the Christian God qualifies one as an atheist, then Muslims are atheists, Hindi are atheists, etc. Yet clearly none of them are. So the distinction between your botched definition and the one I provided is huge.
When dentists, electrical engineers, etc. form "humanist centers" (i.e., churches), do exactly what activist, proselytizing atheists do, then yes we can call them part of a religion too. But of course that doesn't happen.
But they do form clubs. Look at the ACM - the Association of Computing Machinery - for example. It tries to promote computer science and has an outreach program to help get youth interested in computer science. It publishes papers, books and articles, holds meetings and conventions. So by your own "definition" - such as it is - you ought to call them a church.
Do you see now why accuracy matters in definitions and why the bullshit you pull out of who-knows-where isn't suitable for much except for flushing down the toilet?
Yes, a chaplain should be a person of faith, because nearly all of the people consulting with chaplains are people of faith.
You treat all faiths interchangeably. If you think that's the case, why do you not worship your God in a Mosque, go listen to a Rabbi, and pilgrimage in a Buddhist monastery? Exactly because you don't think faith is interchangeable.
My understanding is military chaplains must have credentials issued by a particular faith, which isn't any different than requiring doctors or any other professional to have a license.
So do you believe that anyone with credentials ordaining them a minister of a particular faith can be a military chaplain? Becoming an ordained minister is trivial, and the ordination has legal recognition by the state (e.g. spend five minutes online and you have the ability to perform weddings).
Are you okay with an ordained Universal Life Church (http://www.ulc.net) minister becoming a chaplain? What about an ordained Church of the Subgenius (http://www.subgenius.com) minister? Are you going to go with the "this shit ain't a serious religion" bullshit again? And do you really want the government deciding what religion is and isn't serious? It may be to your advantage today, but there's always tomorrow, and if the tides where to turn, you might find some future Beach Bum telling you your particular brand of bullshit doesn't qualify.
I'm not sure you understand what the word visceral means. Or if you do, you're misusing the word, at least in this discussion.
I think that the way you've been arguing about this issue ("this other thing that's the same as my religion with changed names isn't a religion. It just isn't. Wah! Wah! Wah!") proves whether your reaction is visceral or not.
-
It's a distinction with plenty of difference. If not believing in the Christian God qualifies one as an atheist, then Muslims are atheists, Hindi are atheists, etc. Yet clearly none of them are. So the distinction between your botched definition and the one I provided is huge.
But they do form clubs. Look at the ACM - the Association of Computing Machinery - for example. It tries to promote computer science and has an outreach program to help get youth interested in computer science. It publishes papers, books and articles, holds meetings and conventions. So by your own "definition" - such as it is - you ought to call them a church.
Do you see now why accuracy matters in definitions and why the bullshit you pull out of who-knows-where isn't suitable for much except for flushing down the toilet?
You treat all faiths interchangeably. If you think that's the case, why do you not worship your God in a Mosque, go listen to a Rabbi, and pilgrimage in a Buddhist monastery? Exactly because you don't think faith is interchangeable.
So do you believe that anyone with credentials ordaining them a minister of a particular faith can be a military chaplain? Becoming an ordained minister is trivial, and the ordination has legal recognition by the state (e.g. spend five minutes online and you have the ability to perform weddings).
Are you okay with an ordained Universal Life Church (http://www.ulc.net) minister becoming a chaplain? What about an ordained Church of the Subgenius (http://www.subgenius.com) minister? Are you going to go with the "this shit ain't a serious religion" bullshit again? And do you really want the government deciding what religion is and isn't serious? It may be to your advantage today, but there's always tomorrow, and if the tides where to turn, you might find some future Beach Bum telling you your particular brand of bullshit doesn't qualify.
I think that the way you've been arguing about this issue ("this other thing that's the same as my religion with changed names isn't a religion. It just isn't. Wah! Wah! Wah!") proves whether your reaction is visceral or not.
The fact atheists define themselves based on the non-belief in deists, but the primary deist they cry about is God, means there really isn't any difference between "God" and deists in this context.
Does the Association of Computing Machinery meet at a church every week, sing from hymnals, have Sunday School, and run around the country filing lawsuits claiming they have suffered emotional distress because they had to look at a Christian symbol on government property?
Yes, I see how accuracy matters, because the answer to that question is "no." So your absurd hypothetical is . . . absurd.
Where did I say I treat all faiths interchangeably?
Regarding credentialing, what I said is the military requires licenses.
The government already decides which religions are "serious." The only protected faith is a "sincerely held religious belief," which requires an examination of whether the religion is "serious." And not every sincerely held religious belief is entitled to protection.
I'm not looking up whatever other crap you posted about some spaghetti monster or whatever the heck else you posted. The issue is whether atheists deserve a military chaplain, not whether some nonexistent comedic concoction deserves a military chaplain.
No, you clearly don't know what the word visceral means. But no biggie. People often use words out of context to mean whatever they want them to mean.
-
The fact atheists define themselves based on the non-belief in deists, but the primary deist they cry about is God, means there really isn't any difference between "God" and deists in this context.
Does the Association of Computing Machinery meet at a church every week, sing from hymnals, have Sunday School, and run around the country filing lawsuits claiming they have suffered emotional distress because they had to look at a Christian symbol on government property?
Yes, I see how accuracy matters, because the answer to that question is "no." So your absurd hypothetical is . . . absurd.
Where did I say I treat all faiths interchangeably?
Regarding credentialing, what I said is the military requires licenses.
The government already decides which religions are "serious." The only protected faith is a "sincerely held religious belief," which requires an examination of whether the religion is "serious." And not every sincerely held religious belief is entitled to protection.
I'm not looking up whatever other crap you posted about some spaghetti monster or whatever the heck else you posted. The issue is whether atheists deserve a military chaplain, not whether some nonexistent comedic concoction deserves a military chaplain.
No, you clearly don't know what the word visceral means. But no biggie. People often use words out of context to mean whatever they want them to mean.
You clearly don't know what the word deist means
-
The fact atheists define themselves based on the non-belief in deists, but the primary deist they cry about is God, means there really isn't any difference between "God" and deists in this context.
Uhm... You may want to look up the term deist in a dictionary. For someone who was claiming I was misusing a term in his past message, this misuse is comedic gold.
Does the Association of Computing Machinery meet at a church every week, sing from hymnals, have Sunday School, and run around the country filing lawsuits claiming they have suffered emotional distress because they had to look at a Christian symbol on government property?
Plenty of religions don't meet in Churches, don't meet on Sundays, don't sing from hymnals, don't have Sunday school. If all that is a prerequisite to being a religion, that's news to a whole lot of religious people.
The issue of Christian symbols on government property is an interesting one and we can discuss it if your like, but it seems to be slightly off-topic for this thread.
Yes, I see how accuracy matters, because the answer to that question is "no." So your absurd hypothetical is . . . absurd.
I'm just going by what you said. You quoted things which, you implied, make atheism a religion. Don't blame me that they ended up stupid.
Where did I say I treat all faiths interchangeably?
You implied that a chaplain can work with people of any faith (and yes, chaplains typically work with people of any faith, even no faith at all) by virtue of having faith, whereas an atheist cannot. That effectively equates all faiths and suggests the differences between them are just superficial.
Regarding credentialing, what I said is the military requires licenses.
Well, not exactly licenses but let's not ding you too many points since you're not a lawyer. But if a license is all that's needed, I can become an ordained minister in five minutes... and that's recognized not only by the State I live in but by all other States as well.
The government already decides which religions are "serious." The only protected faith is a "sincerely held religious belief," which requires an examination of whether the religion is "serious." And not every sincerely held religious belief is entitled to protection.
The Supreme Court has never defined the term "religion" - much less the term "serious one" so you're talking out of the wrong orifice again. But the Goverment doesn't decide whether a religion is serious or not. You may find Kaufman v. McCaughtry interesting which held that, in the context of the First Amendment religion need not be based on a mainstream faith or a belief in a Supreme Being, but instead “when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of ‘ultimate concern’ that for her occupy a ‘place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,’ those beliefs represent her religion”.
The question is whether a person sincerely holds the beliefs he holds. No further evaluation is made, no critical analysis of the religion in question, no value-judgement by some government bureaucrat about whether this is or isn't a religion.
To be sure, governments have refused to recognize particular practices as legitimate exercises of religion, but they almost always fail in Court. As an example, I'll point to cases where local governments have prosecuted people who practice animal sacrifice as required by Santeria for violating local ordinances. They have, invariably, lost and have often been slapped pretty hard by Courts. Look up "Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah" if you want some background.
I'm not looking up whatever other crap you posted about some spaghetti monster or whatever the heck else you posted.
Of course you aren't. You aren't interested in educating yourself or having a legitimate debate. Just venting and attacking those who don't believe the same things that you believe. That's why I called your reaction visceral.
The issue is whether atheists deserve a military chaplain, not whether some nonexistent comedic concoction deserves a military chaplain.
Again, it's a religion and meets all the requirements you set. But I digress... The question re: chaplains boils down to something very simple. Do chaplains serve a need in the armed forces? If so, what need is that? I submit that they do and it's more than just delivering sermons. I also submit that the need they fill isn't a need that only religious people have.
If your objection is with the name, well... you may as well object that we use terms like "cavalry" or "get on the horn".
If your objection is with the concept, then I'm curious what grounds you have for arguing against this seeing how you consider atheism to be a religion.
No, you clearly don't know what the word visceral means. But no biggie. People often use words out of context to mean whatever they want them to mean.
Like this buffoon earlier, using the word "deists" completely wrong? That you fail to see why the word applies doesn't change the fact that it does. Your reaction is not rational; it's emotional and raw. In your post you throw hissy-fits and refuse to consider - much less answer - questions that challenge your beliefs and you get upset that they're even asked.
-
Ah the personal insults. And you were doing so well. Must have been about three or four posts in a row without them. Big improvement. :)
-
Ah the personal insults. And you were doing so well. Must have been about three or four posts in a row without them. Big improvement. :)
Calling a spade a spade isn't an insult - it's stating facts. If you try to engage in debate, but act like a child, refusing to address the issues that others raise and repeating the same thing ad infinitum don't be surprised when you're called out.
Speaking of which, I notice you didn't address a single point I made in my post...
-
Calling a spade a spade isn't an insult - it's stating facts. If you try to engage in debate, but act like a child, refusing to address the issues that others raise and repeating the EP same thing ad infinitum don't be surprised when you're called out.
Speaking of which, I notice you didn't address a single point I made in my post...
If you engage me like a grown up, I have no problem responding. If you resort to your oft-used personal insults when you are challenged, I'll probably ignore you. Unless I'm bored.
Only caveat is your posts are too long. So, if you have something you want me to address state it succinctly like a mature adult. I know you can do it. :)
-
If you engage me like a grown up, I have no problem responding. If you resort to your oft-used personal insults when you are challenged, I'll probably ignore you. Unless I'm bored.
Oft-used? What a joke...
Only caveat is your posts are too long. So, if you have something you want me to address state it succinctly like a mature adult. I know you can do it. :)
I'm not going to attempt to summarize things for you because you can't be bothered to read. If you don't feel like reading, don't respond. But don't pretend that you won the debate when you are, in fact, abandoning it.
-
Calling a spade a spade isn't an insult - it's stating facts. If you try to engage in debate, but act like a child, refusing to address the issues that others raise and repeating the same thing ad infinitum don't be surprised when you're called out.
Speaking of which, I notice you didn't address a single point I made in my post...
OMG - you called him a buffoon
This is classic Bum. He can't refute your arguments so he will pretend to be insulted to avoid having to continue getting his ass handed to him
-
This is classic Bum. He can't refute your arguments so he will pretend to be insulted to avoid having to continue getting his ass handed to him
Haha, his classic MO.
-
Haha, his classic MO.
Step 2 - post on a bunch of old threads to move this one down the list
-
says the mentally ill, bald headed dwarf who literally begs me (and others) to reply to his posts and then cries about it
you should see what SC begs me to do !!!
-
you should see what he begs me to do !!!
LOL
Straw does not even lift. He just stalks those of us who do
-
LOL
Straw does not even lift. He just stalks those of us who do
spare us your gay fantasies
-
spare us your gay fantasies
I actually love the Straw Man. welcome back!
-
I actually love the Straw Man. welcome back!
Thanks though I never left
-
Thanks though I never left
I haven't been stalking you straw man.
-
I didn't think you were
-
Thanks though I never left
We know . . . . . . .. . ..
;)
-
We know . . . . . . .. . ..
;)
nor did I start a self indulgent thread like an adolescent school girl about leaving after hitting 100k in posts and then never leaving.
-
nor did I start a self indulgent thread like an adolescent school girl about leaving after hitting 100k in posts and then never leaving.
I believe he never technically reached 100k. Ron or mods reset his post count.
-
Those irrational atheists are in trouble on this one.
Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive'
A federal appeals court said this week that an atheist group trying to keep the so-called Ground Zero Cross out of the National September 11 Memorial Museum must better explain how displaying the artifact is “offensive” and violates members’ constitutional rights.
The 17-foot-tall, steel beam “cross” was found in the rubble of the World Trade Center twin towers in New York that fell during the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The cross became a sort of shrine or place of comfort for first responders who often prayed there and left messages or flowers. It was moved away from the debris a few weeks later and became a tourist attraction through several years of reconstruction.
American Atheists filed the suit in 2011, which was thrown out last year by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York.
The appeals court ruling Thursday cites an amicus brief filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm that specializes in church-state law and protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.
“We’re thrilled that the court picked up on this issue,” said group lawyer Eric Baxter, whose brief argued that American Atheists had no right to bring a lawsuit in the first place. “Courts should not allow people to sue just because they claim to get ‘dyspepsia’ over a historical artifact displayed in a museum.”
The museum officially opened on May 21.
The judge has now given the plaintiffs until July 14 to file supplemental legal briefs before deciding whether the case will proceed. Among the questions that must be answered in the new filings is how the offensiveness of the cross, which the plaintiffs view as a Christian symbol for all 9-11 victims, becomes a “constitutional injury.”
The other question is -- if the plaintiffs indeed feel displaying the cross “marginalizes them as American citizens” -- then how is that a “particular and concrete injury" compared to just “the abstract stigmatization of atheists generally.”
The judge has also asked the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim the museum and Sept. 11 memorial are getting taxpayer dollars.
“Taking personal offense is not an injury that warrants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything you disagree with,” Baxter also said. “The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone’s beliefs but your own.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/21/ground-zero-cross/
-
Those irrational atheists are in trouble on this one.
Ground Zero Cross: Court presses atheist group to explain why artifact is 'offensive'
A federal appeals court said this week that an atheist group trying to keep the so-called Ground Zero Cross out of the National September 11 Memorial Museum must better explain how displaying the artifact is “offensive” and violates members’ constitutional rights.
The 17-foot-tall, steel beam “cross” was found in the rubble of the World Trade Center twin towers in New York that fell during the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
The cross became a sort of shrine or place of comfort for first responders who often prayed there and left messages or flowers. It was moved away from the debris a few weeks later and became a tourist attraction through several years of reconstruction.
American Atheists filed the suit in 2011, which was thrown out last year by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York.
The appeals court ruling Thursday cites an amicus brief filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit law firm that specializes in church-state law and protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.
“We’re thrilled that the court picked up on this issue,” said group lawyer Eric Baxter, whose brief argued that American Atheists had no right to bring a lawsuit in the first place. “Courts should not allow people to sue just because they claim to get ‘dyspepsia’ over a historical artifact displayed in a museum.”
The museum officially opened on May 21.
The judge has now given the plaintiffs until July 14 to file supplemental legal briefs before deciding whether the case will proceed. Among the questions that must be answered in the new filings is how the offensiveness of the cross, which the plaintiffs view as a Christian symbol for all 9-11 victims, becomes a “constitutional injury.”
The other question is -- if the plaintiffs indeed feel displaying the cross “marginalizes them as American citizens” -- then how is that a “particular and concrete injury" compared to just “the abstract stigmatization of atheists generally.”
The judge has also asked the plaintiffs to substantiate their claim the museum and Sept. 11 memorial are getting taxpayer dollars.
“Taking personal offense is not an injury that warrants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything you disagree with,” Baxter also said. “The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone’s beliefs but your own.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/21/ground-zero-cross/
Yet pulling a steel beam "Cross" from the wreckage where thousands of people died and using it as a symbol of "comfort" is not irrational? hello?? Mcfly?? There would have been much more comfort had this imaginary god intervened before the crash ...
-
Yet pulling a steel beam "Cross" from the wreckage where thousands of people died and using it as a symbol of "comfort" is not irrational? hello?? Mcfly?? There would have been much more comfort had this imaginary god intervened before the crash ...
If he doesn't exist, why does it bother you that others believe in Him? Why do you care? How does it affect you?
The main basis for all these lawsuits seeking to remove religious symbols is that it's a public property paid by taxpayers. If it isn't, then the atheists have no case. That is why the judge asked them to substantiate their claim the museum and Sept. 11 memorial are getting taxpayer dollars.
-
If he does exist, why did he let his followers die at the hands of fanatics of another deity? Allah is more powerful than YHWH?
-
Yet pulling a steel beam "Cross" from the wreckage where thousands of people died and using it as a symbol of "comfort" is not irrational? hello?? Mcfly?? There would have been much more comfort had this imaginary god intervened before the crash ...
Not at all. It's a symbol of people's faith. Something people actually believe in. Something that has been a symbol throughout our country's history.
What's irrational is to claim that something that symbolizes nothing (if you're an atheist) is somehow emotionally harmful. It's also silly. Glad the judge is calling them on this.
-
Atheist group tells Georgia high school football team to punt the prayers
By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published August 12, 2014
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/team_prayer.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Football coaches at Chestateee High School in Gainesville are allegedly using multiple avenues to promote Christianity among players, including by integrating Bible verses on team documents and pre-game banners and regularly leading the War Eagles in prayer, above. (Courtesy: American Humanist Association)
A Georgia high school football program may have God on its side, but not the Constitution, according to critics who say prayer and proselytization have no place in the playbook.
Football coaches at Chestatee High School in Gainesville are accused of quoting scripture on team documents and pre-game banners and regularly leading the War Eagles in prayer in a religious blitz the American Humanist Association (AHA) declares unconstitutional.
“There’s really no defense for doing this,” AHA attorney Monica Miller told FoxNews.com. “It’s not even solely student prayer — it’s teachers and coaches praying with students. And we have reason to believe it’s not an isolated event.”
"There’s really no defense for doing this."
- Attorney Monica Miller, American Humanist Association
Miller, whose organization sent a letter Tuesday threatening to sue Hall County Schools, said a “concerned citizen” notified the national nonprofit group that the 1,200-student school in Gainesville, about 55 miles northeast of Atlanta, appeared to be doing an end run around the First Amendment. The letter demanded that coaches cut team-sanctioned prayers and remove all Bible verses and other religious messages from team documents and materials.
The group was particularly outraged that outgoing Head Coach Stan Luttrell joined players as they held hands and prayed.
“At times, the head coach has led the prayers, which is an egregious violation of the Establishment Clause,” the letter continues. “This involvement in prayer as a ‘participant, an organizer, and a leader’ would unquestionably ‘lead a reasonable observer to conclude that he was endorsing religion.’”
The letter cited numerous cases of coaches and teachers leading team prayers during practices and after games and said the program cited scripture in
A workout log included a citation to Galations 6:9, which reads: "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up," and a banner used for a pregame ceremony alluded to Proverbs 27:17, which reads: "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."
“Unfortunately, the school’s actions in unconstitutionally advancing and endorsing religion do not end with the prayers,” read the letter.
Gordon Higgins, director of community relations and athletics at Hall County Schools, told FoxNews.com that district officials will probe the allegations.
“We will be investigating, but it’s really too early in the process for me to comment," Higgins said. "But we’re going to start looking at this right away and address any impropriety that we find."
Chestatee may have had a higher power on its side during the regular season last year, when it posted a respectable 9-3 record. But it lost in the state playoffs to Sunday Creek by a 55-7 score.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/12/group-tells-georgia-high-school-football-team-to-punt-prayers/?intcmp=latestnews
-
OMG, drop it already. If coaches and kids want to pray let them.
-
OMG, drop it already. If coaches and kids want to pray let them.
it looks like more than a simple pre-game prayer from what what mentioned in the article
-
it looks like more than a simple pre-game prayer from what what mentioned in the article
Lack of common sense and good judgement on the coaches part
-
it looks like more than a simple pre-game prayer from what what mentioned in the article
Yeah, its a bit over the line according to their rules. Is there a parent protesting the coach doing this?
-
Yeah, its a bit over the line according to their rules. Is there a parent protesting the coach doing this?
how about a compromise
leave the bible verses off team documents, banners, etc.. and stop trying to proselytize
and maybe have moment of silence instead of a prayer (so the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist kids are not forced to pray)
-
Was in my girlfriend's classroom yesterday. She teach 5-6 year olds at a Christian school. Very very uncomfortable watching the indoctrination. She agrees completely. When I introduced myself everyone said 'Hello ●●●●●●● , God bless you'. They kept saying it. Very creepy watching 5yo kids brainwashed like that. Feels like watching a sect.
-
Was in my girlfriend's classroom yesterday. She teach 5-6 year olds at a Christian school. Very very uncomfortable watching the indoctrination. She agrees completely. When I introduced myself everyone said 'Hello ●●●●●●● , God bless you'. They kept saying it. Very creepy watching 5yo kids brainwashed like that. Feels like watching a sect.
That's how the belief survives over a couple thousand years... adults brainwash the children from birth. How else would a grown adult believe all the animals were placed on a boat and the rest of the world wiped out in a flood, the sun stopped in the sky, or a sea parted or any number of the other outrageous claims in the book..
-
how about a compromise
leave the bible verses off team documents, banners, etc.. and stop trying to proselytize
and maybe have moment of silence instead of a prayer (so the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist kids are not forced to pray)
I can live with that. Although, if in the situation, i wouldn't exert much energy over it.
-
That's how the belief survives over a couple thousand years... adults brainwash the children from birth. How else would a grown adult believe all the animals were placed on a boat and the rest of the world wiped out in a flood, the sun stopped in the sky, or a sea parted or any number of the other outrageous claims in the book..
I guess. Goes to show that you can make people believe just about anything. What a great tool to control people with weak minds.
-
That's how the belief survives over a couple thousand years... adults brainwash the children from birth. How else would a grown adult believe all the animals were placed on a boat and the rest of the world wiped out in a flood, the sun stopped in the sky, or a sea parted or any number of the other outrageous claims in the book..
Maybe the same way you get grown adults to believe that all life we see today magically originated in some unexplained fashion at some unknown point by some flash, bang, gas, etc.?
-
Maybe the same way you get grown adults to believe that all life we see today magically originated in some unexplained fashion at some unknown point by some flash, bang, gas, etc.?
But a magical invisible genie that nobody ever laid eyes on whispered a few words and dinosaurs magically dropped out of the sky and landed on a planet made by the same magic?
-
But a magical invisible genie that nobody ever laid eyes on whispered a few words and dinosaurs magically dropped out of the sky and landed on a planet made by the same magic?
Nah. It was probably a wizard from another planet who started the from goo-to-you.
Seriously, I often think about how it all began, and there really is no way to prove how it all started. But when I look around, especially when I'm out in nature, I just don't see an accident. Way too much order. Too much brilliance. It's awesome, however it started.
-
Nah. It was probably a wizard from another planet who started the from goo-to-you.
Seriously, I often think about how it all began, and there really is no way to prove how it all started. But when I look around, especially when I'm out in nature, I just don't see an accident. Way too much order. Too much brilliance. It's awesome, however it started.
You should read some science. the order you see is called natural selection, where you see brillance, I see idiocy, like children in africa starving. If this is a plan, or a design etc he fucked up bad.
-
Nah. It was probably a wizard from another planet who started the from goo-to-you.
Seriously, I often think about how it all began, and there really is no way to prove how it all started. But when I look around, especially when I'm out in nature, I just don't see an accident. Way too much order. Too much brilliance. It's awesome, however it started.
At least you appear to have an open mind. Refreshing to see that from a Christian
-
You should read some science. the order you see is called natural selection, where you see brillance, I see idiocy, like children in africa starving. If this is a plan, or a design etc he fucked up bad.
We have a different outlook. Keep in mind two people can look at exactly the same thing and have two completely different interpretations.
Children starving in Africa has zero to do with the incredibly complex animals we see, the environment, our solar system, the human body, etc.
-
At least you appear to have an open mind. Refreshing to see that from a Christian
Thanks, although I know plenty of Christians with open minds.
-
Navy reverses Bible ban
By Todd Starnes
Published August 15, 2014
FoxNews.com
Put the Bibles back!
A Navy spokesman confirms that Bibles will be returned to base lodges, and they’ve also launched an investigation to determine why God’s Word was removed from guest rooms in the first place.
Navy Exchange, which runs the base lodges, sent a directive out in June ordering the Bibles removed, after the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a complaint. The atheist group alleged the books were a violation of the U.S. Constitution and amounted “to a government endorsement of that religious text.”
Navy spokesman Ryan Perry said the decision was made without their knowledge.
“In June 2014, Navy Exchange Command (NEXCOM) made a decision, without consultation of senior Navy leadership, to transfer religious materials from the Navy Lodge to the local command religious program,” Perry said in a written statement. “That decision and our religious accommodation policies with regard to the placement of religious materials are under review.”
During the review process, Perry said the “religious materials” that were removed will be returned.
The Bibles had been donated to the Navy by Gideons International, a global ministry that provides copies of the Good Book to schools, military personnel and hotels.
Tim Wildmon, of the American Family Association, called the Navy’s decision great news. He said thousands of their supporters contacted the Navy to protest the removal.
“We must be alert to what the secularists are doing inside the military,” he told me. “But this reversal proves that those who believe in religious freedom can make a difference when we take action.”
Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said he was overwhelmed with calls from active duty and retired Navy personnel who were livid that Navy Exchange pulled the Good Book.
He credited their outrage with forcing the Navy to reconsider the ban.
“I believe it is because people like these veterans rose up and said enough is enough,” Crews told me.
"I am most grateful that the Navy has decided to keep Bibles in their lodges and guest quarters while they review this policy,” he said. “It is my sincere hope that Navy leaders will realize that there is nothing wrong with allowing religious literature to be placed in these rooms.”
The offended atheists are not commenting – at least not yet. Their complaints seem to be much ado about nothing – but then again – isn’t that what atheism is all about?
I’m still puzzled how a Bible tucked away in a hotel desk could cause such angst among the godless crowd. Are they afraid they might learn something through osmosis?
The Navy stressed that they make “every reasonable effort to accommodate the religious practices of our members, and places a high value on religious freedoms for all.”
In my new book, “God Less America,” I issue a call to action for people of faith – to stand up and fight back. Religious liberty is under attack – and the atheists are specifically targeting Christians.
But the Navy’s decision to return the Bibles is evidence that demands a verdict – that when people of faith stand united and speak up with one voice – we can right a wrong.
Well done, patriots. Well done.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/15/navy-reverses-bible-ban/
-
I don't see it as a religion at all, although some atheists seem to, in some ways, practice it like a religion. I don't know of any atheists or their organizations that have rituals and chants. But i do see them promoting their ideas.
religion exists where dogma doesnt. I have not been to a church in years, I dont sing hymns, I dont have canned prayers that I recite but I still consider myself religious
-
The basis of being an atheist is the absence of belief. You can't have any kind of religion without belief. It is retarded claiming otherwise.
actually atheism at least the atheism i am familiar with is the belief there is no God. It is not again at least for the ones we see in the media an open minded stance about whether there is a God or not.
Most atheist staunchly believe there is no God.....thats a belief
-
Navy reverses Bible ban
By Todd Starnes
Published August 15, 2014
FoxNews.com
Put the Bibles back!
A Navy spokesman confirms that Bibles will be returned to base lodges, and they’ve also launched an investigation to determine why God’s Word was removed from guest rooms in the first place.
Navy Exchange, which runs the base lodges, sent a directive out in June ordering the Bibles removed, after the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a complaint. The atheist group alleged the books were a violation of the U.S. Constitution and amounted “to a government endorsement of that religious text.”
Navy spokesman Ryan Perry said the decision was made without their knowledge.
“In June 2014, Navy Exchange Command (NEXCOM) made a decision, without consultation of senior Navy leadership, to transfer religious materials from the Navy Lodge to the local command religious program,” Perry said in a written statement. “That decision and our religious accommodation policies with regard to the placement of religious materials are under review.”
During the review process, Perry said the “religious materials” that were removed will be returned.
The Bibles had been donated to the Navy by Gideons International, a global ministry that provides copies of the Good Book to schools, military personnel and hotels.
Tim Wildmon, of the American Family Association, called the Navy’s decision great news. He said thousands of their supporters contacted the Navy to protest the removal.
“We must be alert to what the secularists are doing inside the military,” he told me. “But this reversal proves that those who believe in religious freedom can make a difference when we take action.”
Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said he was overwhelmed with calls from active duty and retired Navy personnel who were livid that Navy Exchange pulled the Good Book.
He credited their outrage with forcing the Navy to reconsider the ban.
“I believe it is because people like these veterans rose up and said enough is enough,” Crews told me.
"I am most grateful that the Navy has decided to keep Bibles in their lodges and guest quarters while they review this policy,” he said. “It is my sincere hope that Navy leaders will realize that there is nothing wrong with allowing religious literature to be placed in these rooms.”
The offended atheists are not commenting – at least not yet. Their complaints seem to be much ado about nothing – but then again – isn’t that what atheism is all about?
I’m still puzzled how a Bible tucked away in a hotel desk could cause such angst among the godless crowd. Are they afraid they might learn something through osmosis?
The Navy stressed that they make “every reasonable effort to accommodate the religious practices of our members, and places a high value on religious freedoms for all.”
In my new book, “God Less America,” I issue a call to action for people of faith – to stand up and fight back. Religious liberty is under attack – and the atheists are specifically targeting Christians.
But the Navy’s decision to return the Bibles is evidence that demands a verdict – that when people of faith stand united and speak up with one voice – we can right a wrong.
Well done, patriots. Well done.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/15/navy-reverses-bible-ban/
A reporter for fox news (author of the article) referred to the bible as Gods Word....that's some neutral reporting there...
-
A reporter for fox news (author of the article) referred to the bible as Gods Word....that's some neutral reporting there...
It's a pretty ridiculous article, what with the underhanded digs like "isn’t [nothing] what atheism is all about?" obviously written by either an imcompetent idiot or someone writing very deliberately for a specific and well-defined audience.
But in all fairness, I am pretty sure that this is posted on their "opinion" pages, where articles are supposed to be closer to op-eds and more indicative of the author's personal opinions as opposed to objective statements or serious reporting.
-
It's a pretty ridiculous article, what with the underhanded digs like "isn’t [nothing] what atheism is all about?" obviously written by either an imcompetent idiot or someone writing very deliberately for a specific and well-defined audience.
But in all fairness, I am pretty sure that this is posted on their "opinion" pages, where articles are supposed to be closer to op-eds and more indicative of the author's personal opinions as opposed to objective statements or serious reporting.
ok...it gets harder and harder these days to tell the difference between a news article and an op/ed piece. You may be right
-
ok...it gets harder and harder these days to tell the difference between a news article and an op/ed piece. You may be right
I didn't notice at first, but the author of this "piece" is Todd Starnes. In retrospect it should be obvious. He's shown himself to be an abject idiot in the past, but he's also an expert in being deliberately provocative (not unlike Todd's street-walker sisters-in-spirit) because that's what the Johns he's marketing himself to want and expect from him.
-
A reporter for fox news (author of the article) referred to the bible as Gods Word....that's some neutral reporting there...
It's an opinion piece.
-
Prayer for injured teen sparks atheist outrage
By Todd Starnes
Published August 28, 2014
FoxNews.com
The injured player was on the ground being tended to by trainers and coaches.
So the Seminole High School football team did what many football teams do. The teenage boys took a knee, bowed their heads and prayed for their injured teammate.
But that simple act of compassion and humanity in Sanford, Florida sparked outrage from the Freedom From Religion Foundation – a group of perpetually offended atheists from Wisconsin.
An FFRF attorney fired off a letter to the superintendent of Seminole County Public Schools – accusing them of having an adult lead the prayer for the injured child.
It truly takes a special kind of evil to threaten Americans because they prayed over an injured child.
A school district spokesman told me the injured child, who is the son of the team’s head coach, has since rejoined the team.
“It is our information and understanding that Seminole High School (is) allowing an adult, a local pastor, to act as a ‘volunteer chaplain’ for the football team,” FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel wrote.
The attorney said the school cannot “allow a non-school adult access to the children in its charge, and certainly cannot grant that access to a pastor seeking to organize prayer for the students.”
The FFRF told the school district to “refrain from having a ‘volunteer team chaplain’ at Seminole High School.
The school district said the prayer was instigated by students and denied that a chaplain prayed with the team. School spokesman Mike Blasewitz told MyNews13.com that the school doesn’t even have a team chaplain, contrary to the FFRF’s allegations.
“There is nothing to cease and desist because our behavior was within the guidelines in the first place,” he told television station WFTV. “No adults in the photo, no adults participating, no adults leading it.”
Seidel told me in a written statement that he’s satisfied with the school’s response – and they now consider the matter closed.
“FFRF is very pleased with central Florida's new-found commitment to upholding the First Amendment and protecting the rights of conscience of all students, not just Christians,” he said.
Parents, meanwhile, are a bit perturbed with the atheist bullying.
“There are a lot more important issues going on in the world than worrying about kids praying at a game,” parent Andre Collins told ClickOrlando.com. “We live in a country where we’re free to do what we want to do.”
Barbara Frase has a grandson on the football team. She could not believe the atheists would call out the kids for praying.
“Come on, let’s get real,” she told ClickOrlando.com.
Seminole County is not the first school district targeted by these rabid atheists – and they won’t be the last. Earlier this week, I exposed the Christian cleansing underway in Orange County, Florida public schools.
But it truly takes a special kind of evil to threaten Americans because they prayed over an injured child.
Heaven help us all.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/08/28/prayer-for-injured-teen-sparks-atheist-outrage/
-
What kind of irrational hypersensitive dummy cries about something like this? Seriously?
Football Team Forced to Remove Christian Crosses from Helmets
September 11, 2014
By Todd Starnes
(http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Arkansas-State.jpg)
Football players at Arkansas State University were ordered to either remove a Christian cross decal from their helmets or modify it into a mathematical sign after a Jonesboro attorney complained that the image violated the U.S. Constitution.
The cross decal was meant to memorialize former player Markel Owens and former equipment manager Barry Weyer, said athletic director Terry Mohajir. Weyer was killed in a June car crash. Owens was gunned down in Tennessee in January.
Barry Weyer, Sr., told me that the players and coaches voluntarily decided to memorialize his son and Owens.
“The players knew they were both Christians so they decided to use the cross along with their initials,” he said. “They wanted to carry the spirits of Markel and Barry Don onto the field for one more season.”
It was a decision that had the full support of the university’s athletic director.
“I support our students’ expression of their faith,” Mohajir said. “I am 100 percent behind our students and coaches.”
However, the athletic director said he had no choice but to remove the crosses after he received a message from the university’s legal counsel.
“It is my opinion that the crosses must be removed from the helmets,” University counsel Lucinda McDaniel wrote to Mohajir. “While we could argue that the cross with the initials of the fallen student and trainer merely memorialize their passing, the symbol we have authorized to convey that message is a Christian cross.”
According to documents provided to me by Arkansas State, McDaniel gave the football team a choice – they could either remove the cross or modify the decal. And by modify – she meant deface.
“If the bottom of the cross can be cut off so that the symbol is a plus sign (+) there should be no problem,” she wrote. “It is the Christian symbol which has caused the legal objection.”
The team had been wearing the decals for two weeks without any complaints. That changed after last Saturday’s nationally televised game against the Tennessee Volunteers.
Jonesboro attorney Louis Nisenbaum sent McDaniel an email complaining about the cross decal.
“That is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause as a state endorsement of the Christian religion,” Nisenbaum wrote. “Please advise whether you agree and whether ASU will continue this practice.”
Ironically, the university’s legal counsel admitted in a letter that there were no specific court cases that addressed crosses on football helmets. Nevertheless, she feared the possibility of a lawsuit.
“It is my opinion that we will not prevail on that challenge and must remove the crosses from the helmets or alter the symbols so that they are a (plus sign) instead of a cross,” she wrote in an email to the athletic director.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation fired off a letter congratulating the university on cleansing the helmets of the Christian symbol.
“The crosses appeared to confer State’s endorsement of religion, specifically Christianity,” the FFRF wrote. “The inclusion of the Latin cross on the helmets also excludes the 19 percent of the American population that is non-religious.”
FFRF co-presidents Annie Lauire Gaylor and Dan Barker went so far as to suggest alternative ways for the football players to mourn.
“Many teams around the country honor former teammates by putting that player’s number on their helmets or jerseys, or by wearing a black armband,” they wrote. “Either of those options, or another symbolic gesture free from religion imagery, would be appropriate.”
That suggestion set off the athletic director.
“I don’t even kinda-sorta care about any organization that tells our students how to grieve,” Mohajir told me. “Everybody grieves differently. I don’t think anybody has the right to tell our students how to memorialize their colleagues, their classmates or any loved ones they have.”
While Mr. Weyer told me he supports the university “100 percent”, he said he took great offense at the FFRF’s attack.
“The fact is the cross was honoring two fallen teammates who just happened to be Christians,” he wrote on his Facebook page. “I just have a hard time understanding why we as Christians have to be tolerant of everybody else’s rights, but give up ours.”
I do, too, Mr. Weyer. I do, too.
Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser told me he would be more than honored to represent the football team in a lawsuit against the university.
“It is outrage that the university defacing the cross and reducing it to what the university calls a plus sign,” he told me. “It is disgusting.”
Sasser said the students are well within their rights to wear a cross decal on their helmets and accused the university of breaking the law.
“It is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination to force the players to remove or alter the cross on their helmets that they chose themselves simply because the cross is religious,” Sasser said.
These young men were simply trying to do a good deed. They were standing up for their fallen teammates. It’s really too bad the university could not stand up for the team.
“The university and others want football players to be positive role models in the community, but as soon as the players promote a positive message honoring their former teammates – the university discriminates against them in a blatant violation of the Constitution.”
Mr. Weyer said he’s not a political man – but he is a Christian man. And he’s tired of having to kowtow to the politically correct crowd.
“It’s time that we as Christians stand up and say we’re tired of being pushed around,” he said. “We’re tired of having to bow down to everyone else’s rights. What happened to our rights? The last time I checked it said freedom of religion – not freedom from religion.”
Well said, Mr. Weyer. Well said.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/11/football-team-forced-to-remove-christian-crosses-from-helmets/
-
why should a state sponsored school allow religious symbols on their uniforms
the answer of course is that they shouldn't
let them go to a private school if they want to do that
and Bum, stop your whining for fucks sake
-
Good grief. I think paranoid anti-religious extremists just might be the biggest crybabies in America.
Atheists Mount Campaign to Boycott the Pledge of Allegiance
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=a724a882-c16e-4a0f-9d9f-f8fb468c0281&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Atheists Mount Campaign to Boycott the Pledge of Allegiance (Ted Jackson/The Times-Picayune/Landov)
Friday, 12 Sep 2014
By Kathy Schiffer, from Aleteia.org
Why the Pledge Was Originally Silent About God and Why It Was Changed 60 Years Ago
The American Humanist Association (AHA) recently launched a national campaign to rally Americans against reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
You can probably guess what phrase the AHA finds offensive: naturally, it's the part about "under God." The ultimate aim of their "Don't Say the Pledge" campaign is to have those two words officially deleted from the pledge. The campaign is currently being promoted through ads at bus stops in New York and Washington, D.C., and videos on YouTube.
Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, explained the group's objection to the Pledge:
"We want everyone to know that the current wording of the pledge discriminates against atheists and others who are good without a god, and we want them to stand up for fairness by sitting down until the pledge is restored to its original, unifying form."
The AHA campaign was encouraged by a May 2014 study by The Seidewitz Group in New York that reported that 34 percent of Americans allegedly favor removing the words, after being told that "under God" was added to the pledge only in 1954. Earlier studies found that a mere 8 percent of respondents favored deleting the reference to God.
It is unlikely, however, that the atheists' campaign to bleach God from public discourse will succeed.
On March 10, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — regarded as the most liberal federal appellate court in the United States — ruled 2-1 in Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and, therefore, did not constitute an establishment of religion.
Later that year, on Nov. 12, 2010, the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston unanimously affirmed a ruling by the federal district court in New Hampshire that the Pledge's reference to God does not violate the rights of non-pledging students, if student participation in the Pledge is voluntary. And on June 13, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of that decision.
The History of the Pledge
It's true that the Pledge of Allegiance was changed in 1954 — and three times before that, since it was originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892.
The omission of any reference to God in the original had nothing to do with "establishment of religion" concerns. It was no doubt due to the original purpose of the Pledge. Its author, Francis Bellamy, was a Baptist pastor, Christian socialist, and a man of strong faith. He wrote the Pledge with the intent of renewing love of country in the years after the Civil War, when patriotic ardor and national feeling seemed to have waned.
Bellamy's original Pledge reflects exactly and only what was at stake in the Civil War — the unity of the United States, liberty for slaves and justice for all:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It was published on Sept. 8, 1892, in the children's magazine The Youth's Companion, as part of the 400th anniversary celebration of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The magazine's publisher, James B. Upsham, hoped that participation in the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day would foster patriotism and the sale of American flags that would be flown in front of public schools. Upsham reportedly told his wife:
"If I can instill into the minds of our American youth a love for their country and the principles on which it was founded, and create in them an ambition to carry on with the ideals which the early founders wrote into The Constitution, I shall not have lived in vain."
It was an Illinois attorney, Louis Bowman, who first proposed the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge — a proposal which earned him an Award of Merit from the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution, who agreed that the idea was a good one. Bowman, who served as Chaplain of the Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, took the words from Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Bowman first used the Pledge with the phrase "under God" on Lincoln's birthday, Feb. 12, 1948.
In 1951, the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal association, also began incorporating the phrase "under God" when saying the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings. By 1952, Knights across America were referencing God in their Pledge; and they campaigned to have the Knights of Columbus' version of the Pledge be officially adopted.
Proponents of the revised Pledge tried unsuccessfully to persuade President Harry Truman to implement the change. When President Dwight D. Eisenhower came to office in January 1953, efforts were stepped up: Democratic Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a Congressional resolution to add the words "under God."
The turning point came the following year, when President Eisenhower heard a sermon by Presbyterian pastor George MacPherson Docherty. On February 7, 1954 — the Sunday closest to Lincoln's birthday — the Rev. Docherty preached a sermon entitled "A New Birth of Freedom" based on the Gettysburg Address.
The nation's might, he said, lay not in arms but in its spirit and higher purpose. Docherty quoted the Pledge of Allegiance, and noted that it could be the pledge of any nation. What was missing, he said, was "the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life." Docherty, well aware of tensions of the Cold War, cited Lincoln's words "under God" — words which set the United States apart from other nations.
President Eisenhower responded enthusiastically. He stopped to speak to Reverend Docherty on the steps of the church; and the following day, the President took steps to effect the change. Rep. Charles Oakman, R-Mich., introduced a bill to change the Pledge.
Congress passed a Joint Resolution amending the Flag Code enacted in 1942. The new legislation was signed into law by the president on Flag Day, June 14, 1954.
That year, in his Flag Day address to the nation, President Eisenhower said:
"From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty …. In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war."
http://www.Newsmax.com/US/pledge-of-allegiance-atheists-boycott-God/2014/09/12/id/594312/#ixzz3D7jstapa
-
Of course Beach Bum would think it's no big deal that "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. After all, fuck those who don't think this nation is under God, right?
-
Of course Beach Bum would think it's no big deal that "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance. After all, fuck those who don't think this nation is under God, right?
No. F those who file lawsuits claiming they are suffering emotional distress because they see the name "God" anywhere in the public square.
This is friggin stupid.
-
No. F those who file lawsuits claiming they are suffering emotional distress because they see the name "God" anywhere in the public square.
This is friggin stupid.
You can't see how it's distressing to someone who doesn't believe in God to either not pledge allegiance to his country or to be forced to either lie or betray his convictions by reciting pledge, by claiming the nation is under an entity he doesn't believe exists.
How would you feel if the pledge of allegiance instead of "under god" explicitly said "independent of deities"? Something tells me that you wouldn't like it one bit.
But somehow it's ok when it happens to others, isn't it?
-
You can't see how it's distressing to someone who doesn't believe in God to either not pledge allegiance to his country or to be forced to either lie or betray his convictions by reciting pledge, by claiming the nation is under an entity he doesn't believe exists.
How would you feel if the pledge of allegiance instead of "under god" explicitly said "independent of deities"? Something tells me that you wouldn't like it one bit.
But somehow it's ok when it happens to others, isn't it?
No. Nobody is being forced to say "under God." If someone is truly offended by that, then don't say those words. How hard is that? Emotional distress? Please. Cry me a river. I find it hard to believe that you accept something like that.
I am a firm believer in church-state separation. But what I really cannot stand is this false notion that God and religion (or in almost every context Christianity) has to be cleansed from the public square. That's not what church-state separation is all about. So I get a little irritated when people like Michael Newdow and Mitch Kahle (examples of irrational atheists) run around the country and my state crying about things like a legislator putting a fish symbol on his office door, or looking for crosses erected as memorials on public property, crying about "In God We Trust" on money, etc. Asinine.
If the government is trying to force a kid to pray, or the government establishes a state religion like England, or people lose the right to have no beliefs at all, then I have a problem. But this kind of stuff? Like I said, it's friggin stupid. It detracts from legitimate arguments involving government and religion.
-
So you would be still be cool if it said: "Under Allah", instead?
-
So you would be still be cool if it said: "Under Allah", instead?
Of course not. I just wouldn't say it. But that's really not a realistic hypothetical anyway. Never going to happen. Our country wasn't founded by Muslims. We don't have deeply rooted Muslim traditions. Mohammad doesn't appear throughout our founding documents, etc.
-
No. Nobody is being forced to say "under God." If someone is truly offended by that, then don't say those words. How hard is that? Emotional distress? Please. Cry me a river. I find it hard to believe that you accept something like that.
I am a firm believer in church-state separation. But what I really cannot stand is this false notion that God and religion (or in almost every context Christianity) has to be cleansed from the public square. That's not what church-state separation is all about. So I get a little irritated when people like Michael Newdow and Mitch Kahle (examples of irrational atheists) run around the country and my state crying about things like a legislator putting a fish symbol on his office door, or looking for crosses erected as memorials on public property, crying about "In God We Trust" on money, etc. Asinine.
If the government is trying to force a kid to pray, or the government establishes a state religion like England, or people lose the right to have no beliefs at all, then I have a problem. But this kind of stuff? Like I said, it's friggin stupid. It detracts from legitimate arguments involving government and religion.
There's also an issue with the Air Force and those who choose to re-enlist and have to sign an oath that says "So help me God"... When the service member crossed out these words as he did not believe (he must have been a "paranoid anti-religious extremist" ::)) he was told he either has to accept "So help me God" and sign it or leave...
So much for "church-state separation", especially in the case when a man wants to serve the country in the armed forces.
-
There's also an issue with the Air Force and those who choose to re-enlist and have to sign an oath that says "So help me God"... When the service member crossed out these words as he did not believe (he must have been a "paranoid anti-religious extremist" ::)) he was told he either has to accept "So help me God" and sign it or leave...
So much for "church-state separation", especially in the case when a man wants to serve the country in the armed forces.
I don't have a problem with him crossing out those words, or not saying them as part of his oath. Shouldn't be a big deal.
-
No. Nobody is being forced to say "under God." If someone is truly offended by that, then don't say those words. How hard is that? Emotional distress? Please. Cry me a river. I find it hard to believe that you accept something like that.
Straw man. The issue isn't whether anyone is forced to say "under God" or not. The issue is different: that is, whether the official pledge of allegiance, codified in law, and recited in many situations by citizens - some of whom believe in many gods and some of whom believe in none, should even mention a deity. In essence, the codified version forces some of us to do one of two things:
- make a false pledge (after all, I don't believe we're a nation under God, so if I include that statement, my pledge is false); or
- omit a part of the pledge (therefore, taking a different pledge that everyone else, which I shouldn't have to do)
So again, why are those words necessary in the pledge?
I am a firm believer in church-state separation.
I'd be curious to know where a sponge falls in your "firmness" scale.
But what I really cannot stand is this false notion that God and religion (or in almost every context Christianity) has to be cleansed from the public square.
Straw man argument. The question is whether Government should adopt and/or promote a particular religion. If you want to wear your "REAL MEN LOVE JESUS AND I'M A REAL MAN" t-shirt, go ahead. If you want to use the power of the Government to compel me to wear one, then go fuck yourself.
The Pledge, as it stands, is forcing me to wear a t-shirt. You are suggesting that it's ok, and maybe I can just tape over or cut out part of the t-shirt and wear it anyways and it's all good.
So I get a little irritated when people like Michael Newdow and Mitch Kahle (examples of irrational atheists) run around the country and my state crying about things like a legislator putting a fish symbol on his office door, or looking for crosses erected as memorials on public property, crying about "In God We Trust" on money, etc. Asinine.
There's all sorts of crazy people - I file Newdow in the same category as the legislator putting the fish symbol on his office door.
If the government is trying to force a kid to pray, or the government establishes a state religion like England, or people lose the right to have no beliefs at all, then I have a problem. But this kind of stuff? Like I said, it's friggin stupid. It detracts from legitimate arguments involving government and religion.
School children recite the pledge of allegiance all the time... not sure where that falls in your "this kind of stuff" test.
I don't have a problem with him crossing out those words, or not saying them as part of his oath. Shouldn't be a big deal.
It shouldn't. But that sidesteps the important, underlying question: why should those words be there to begin with?
-
Straw man. The issue isn't whether anyone is forced to say "under God" or not. The issue is different: that is, whether the official pledge of allegiance, codified in law, and recited in many situations by citizens - some of whom believe in many gods and some of whom believe in none, should even mention a deity. In essence, the codified version forces some of us to do one of two things:
- make a false pledge (after all, I don't believe we're a nation under God, so if I include that statement, my pledge is false); or
- omit a part of the pledge (therefore, taking a different pledge that everyone else, which I shouldn't have to do)
So again, why are those words necessary in the pledge?
I'd be curious to know where a sponge falls in your "firmness" scale.
Straw man argument. The question is whether Government should adopt and/or promote a particular religion. If you want to wear your "REAL MEN LOVE JESUS AND I'M A REAL MAN" t-shirt, go ahead. If you want to use the power of the Government to compel me to wear one, then go fuck yourself.
The Pledge, as it stands, is forcing me to wear a t-shirt. You are suggesting that it's ok, and maybe I can just tape over or cut out part of the t-shirt and wear it anyways and it's all good.
There's all sorts of crazy people - I file Newdow in the same category as the legislator putting the fish symbol on his office door.
School children recite the pledge of allegiance all the time... not sure where that falls in your "this kind of stuff" test.
It shouldn't. But that sidesteps the important, underlying question: why should those words be there to begin with?
Actually, the straw man is you bringing up "independent deities" and that whork gimmick bringing up some Muslim reference.
The entire pledge of allegiance isn't "necessary." Neither is having any statements on money. But our society decided to make reference to God, because the founders of our country believed in God and the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God. The real question is why should those references be removed?
The answer is to appease a handful of hypersensitive, irrational crybabies. Nobody's liberty is being threatened. No national or state church is being established. No one is being deprived of the right to worship how they choose, or not worship at all.
I gave you examples of what I believe would be inappropriate.
-
Actually, the straw man is you bringing up "independent deities" and that whork gimmick bringing up some Muslim reference.
The entire pledge of allegiance isn't "necessary." Neither is having any statements on money. But our society decided to make reference to God, because the founders of our country believed in God and the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God. The real question is why should those references be removed?
The answer is to appease a handful of hypersensitive, irrational crybabies. Nobody's liberty is being threatened. No national or state church is being established. No one is being deprived of the right to worship how they choose, or nor worship at all.
I gave you examples of what I believe would be inappropriate.
In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature. It began, however, as a slang term for something that a con artist or magician had his assistant manipulate to make appearances different from reality. Such things as the manipulating of a gaming wheel led to the idea of a "gimmick" being used. Musicians often use gimmicks such as Slash's top hat, Angus Young's schoolboy uniform and Deadmau5's mouse helmet.[1]
Should i now cry for a mod to delete this moderators post? :)
-
Actually, the straw man is you bringing up "independent deities" and that whork gimmick bringing up some Muslim reference.
Why is a straw man? I am directly suggesting that if the wording of the pledge of allegiance included language that didn't fit with your pre-existing worldview and referenced an imaginary friend other than yours your approach would be quite different.
The entire pledge of allegiance isn't "necessary."
Sure, except that it's effectively required at many schools and is a part of our life outside of school as well. The wording, as it is, requires that people such as myself either refrain from saying the pledge, as codified, or be made into liars. Do you believe this is acceptable? Again, saying "well don't say that bit then" amounts to forcing me to wear a t-shirt under the logic that it's ok to force me to even if the t-shirt says something I disagree with, since I can just cover over that bit.
Neither is having any statements on money.
Right. But there's a fundamental difference in how one uses a dollar bill vs. how one uses the pledge of allegiance.
But our society decided to make reference to God, because the founders of our country believed in God and the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God.
Whether an overwhelming majority believes in God is as relevant as whether an overwhelming majority loves cheeseburgers. We live in a Constitutional Republic and overwhelming majorities can't - by design - just up and do whatever they feel like doing if what they feel like doing is prevented in the Constitution. So the question becomes does having "under God" in the pledge of allegiance violate the Constitution? Maybe, maybe not. Ultimately, only the Supremes can decide that. However, common sense should tell you that it does. What if tomorrow, that same overwhelming majority you reference chose to change "under God" to "under Vishnu the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born"?
The real question is why should those references be removed?
Because it's both unnecessary and inappropriate? Forget the fact that the statement alienates a number of Americans who don't believe this nation is under God. The simple reality is this: common sense tells me that if the pledge of allegiance includes a reference to a deity, then the pledge of allegiance promotes religion - and government isn't allowed to do that and quite rightly so.
The answer is to appease a handful of hypersensitive, irrational crybabies. Nobody's liberty is being threatened. No national or state church is being established. No one is being deprived of the right to worship how they choose, or nor worship at all.
Nice try, but the Supreme Court has, repeatedly, ruled that the doctrine of separation of church and State isn't limited to depriving someone of the right to worship how they choose or whether to worship at all. You may find 1971's Lemon v. Kurtzman (91 S. Ct. 2105) illuminating - especially the second prong of the test.
-
Actually, the straw man is you bringing up "independent deities" and that whork gimmick bringing up some Muslim reference.
The entire pledge of allegiance isn't "necessary." Neither is having any statements on money. But our society decided to make reference to God, because the founders of our country believed in God and the overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God. The real question is why should those references be removed?
The answer is to appease a handful of hypersensitive, irrational crybabies. Nobody's liberty is being threatened. No national or state church is being established. No one is being deprived of the right to worship how they choose, or nor worship at all.
I gave you examples of what I believe would be inappropriate.
I usually base it on if somebody is being forced - but I know that's a can of worms to be sure. Religious references on money, I don't find any harm. Yes, we have to use money, but I just can't give a fuck what's on it, as long as it's accepted. Not really hurting anyone.
The pledge...used to be you had to say it, could be kids get ostracized for not saying currently if they're uncomfortable. To me, it's just more forced than the money issue. And, eliminating religious reference doesn't harm you either. So, trying to be reasonable isn't always easy for either side, lol.
Stuff like Baccalaureate (which I was forced to attend) or these put your head down and pray speeches are a bridge too far.
Keep religion to yourself and other like minded individuals and I doubt there will be too many issues. Crybabies are abound on either side, of course.
-
I wonder if this would have happened if he replaced his Christian references with Islam references?
Does the military have a problem with Jesus?
By Todd Starnes
Published October 31, 2014
FoxNews.com
A colonel’s column was removed from an Air National Guard newsletter because the writer violated military policy by including references to Jesus Christ and God, an Ohio National Guard spokesman said.
Col. Florencio Marquinez, the medical group commander of the 180th Fighter Wing, wrote an essay in the September edition of the “Stinger.” It was titled, “A Spiritual Journey as a Commander.”
He wrote about how his mother’s faith in Jesus Christ influenced his life and he referenced a Bible verse from the New Testament, “With God all things are possible.”
Before you could say God bless America, the military ordered the colonel’s remarks stricken from the newsletter. Ohio National Guard spokesman James Sims told me the column was a clear violation of military policy.
“So no matter how stressful your life can be with juggling family issues, relationships, career advancement, work, school, or any burden that life throws your way, cast it upon the Lord and He will sustain you,” the colonel wrote.
It wasn’t too longer after the newsletter was posted online before someone filed a complaint – lamenting that the colonel’s words had caused great angst and offense.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s Mikey Weinstein reached out to Air Force officials at the Pentagon, the Air National Guard is governed by Air Force rules, as well as the 180th Fighter Wing demanding they remove what he called “that odious and offending proselytizing commentary.”
Before you could say God bless America, the military ordered the colonel’s remarks stricken from the newsletter. Ohio National Guard spokesman James Sims told me the column was a clear violation of military policy.
“It’s very clear what you can and cannot say in an Air Force publication,” Sims said. “Once it was brought to our attention and we compared it with the regulation, we found it was in violation of the regulation.”
So what rules did Col. Marquinez violate by referencing the Almighty? I want to quote from the official statement provided by the Ohio National Guard:
“The article violated AFI 1-1, Sections 2.11 and 2.12.1, and the Revised Interim Guidelines Concerning Free Exercise of Religion in the Air Force guidance, and finally, ‘The Air Force Military Commander and the Law’ book.”
A bit much, don’t you think? All that for mentioning that “With God all things are possible.”
I’m surprised the Air Force didn’t convene a court martial. For the record, Sims told me that to his knowledge the colonel was not reprimanded for writing about Jesus – just censored.
But the Air Force wasn’t content with just removing the colonel’s column. No sir. They had to publically shame and humiliate this officer and gentleman.
As Sims noted in his statement, after the article was removed from the newsletter, it was “followed up with a base-wide email, with updated link for the Singer, stating: ‘The 180th FW Public Affairs office has removed the article ‘A Spiritual Journey as a Commander’ from The Stinger, Volume 52, Issue 09, September 2014 due to sensitivities.”
Sensitivities?
I’ve included a link to the colonel’s “offensive” column. Please note the “sensitive” nature.
Here’s one of the sections that violated the “godless” standards of the Air Force.
“I would not be the man I am today if it wasn’t for my mother leading our whole family to Jesus Christ,” Col. Marquinez wrote. “Her creed to us five children growing up is God first in your life, then comes family and third work.”
The Air Force regulations that were allegedly violated regard “government neutrality regarding religion.”
“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states. “For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”
Think of it as a sort-of religious version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
As you might imagine, the Air Force’s censorship rubbed religious liberty advocates the wrong way.
“Not only did you publicly humiliate him by your actions, but you have sent a chilling message to other members of the Air Force, that they need to keep their faith to themselves or else rise the judgment of the command,” wrote Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty executive director Ron Crews in a letter to the wing commander.
“Your actions violated his rights under the First Amendment – both his free exercise of religion and his free speech,” Crews added.
Chaplain Alliance is calling on the Air Force to reverse its censorship and repost the colonel’s column.
“The Ohio National Guard is not free to censor the protected speech of one of its members based on the content that speech,” he said.
As Crews pointed out in his letter, just last year a Moody Air Force Base publication posted a column entitled, “Atheist Ponders Spiritual Fitness.”
So if the Air Force can make an accommodation for atheists, why can’t they make one for Christians?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/31/does-military-have-problem-with-jesus/
-
Love the expression on the guy's face at the end of the clip when he realizes he's being video recorded:
-
::)
Lawsuit fights against 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance at NJ school
Published November 19, 2014
FoxNews.com
A judge heard arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit filed against a New Jersey school district by a family who claims the Pledge of Allegiance discriminates against children with atheist beliefs.
The Monmouth County family, identified in court papers as John and Jane Doe and their child, sued the Matawan-Aberdeen Regional School District in February, alleging the phrase "under God" in the pledge is discriminatory. State Superior Court Judge David Bauman heard arguments on the school district's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The case was filed by the American Humanist Association, which claims the recitation of the pledge violates Article 1 of the state's constitution.
“Public schools should not engage in an exercise that tells students that patriotism is tied to a belief in God,” said David Niose, attorney for the American Humanist Association’s Appignani Humanist Legal Center. “Such a daily exercise portrays atheist and humanist children as second-class citizens, and certainly contributes to anti-atheist prejudices.”
The school district doesn't require that students say the pledge. Bauman said there wasn't any evidence the student in question had been "bullied, ostracized or in any way mistreated." but he also noted during his questioning of district attorney David Rubin that district policy requires parents whose children don't say the pledge to furnish an explanation in writing.
Rubin said he wasn't aware of any cases in which parents had refused to supply an explanation and didn't know what the ramifications would be if they didn't. He accused the plaintiffs of filing a lawsuit claiming the pledge violates laws against the official establishment of religion "masquerading as an equal protection case."
Bauman didn't issue a ruling Wednesday on the district's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but said he expected to issue one shortly. Bauman, a nominee by Gov. Chris Christie for the state Supreme Court whose nomination expired before being taken up by the Legislature, probed both sides with hypotheticals, including whether substituting the phrase "under God" with "created by great white men" would create grounds for discrimination suits by women and minorities.
School district officials have claimed they're simply following a state law requiring schools to have a daily recitation of the pledge. In a court filing, the district wrote that the plaintiffs can't claim a violation of equal protection laws because all students are treated equally by not having to recite the pledge.
The American Legion and Knights of Columbus have joined the lawsuit in support of the school district.
In a response to the atheists’ lawsuit, New Jersey high school student Samantha Jones is going to court to defend her right to recite the words “one nation under God” in the pledge. Jones and her family are represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
“When I stand up, put my hand over my heart and say the Pledge of Allegiance, I am recognizing that my rights come from God, not from the government,” said Jones, a senior at Highland Regional High School, according to the Becket website. “If anyone wants to remain silent, that is their right. But it is not their right to silence me.”
The phrase "under God" was written into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. In May, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled in a similar case that the words "under God" in the pledge reflect a patriotic practice, not a religious one.
“It's not the place of state governments to take a position on God-belief," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "The current Pledge practice marginalizes atheist and humanist kids as something less than ideal patriots, merely because they don't believe the nation is under God."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/19/family-claims-under-god-in-pledge-allegiance-is-discriminatory/
-
Why can't irrational atheists just be happy during the most wonderful time of the year?
American Atheists' Billboard Campaign in Bible Belt: 'Skip Church' This Christmas and Stop Listening to 'Fairy Tales'
BY STOYAN ZAIMOV , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
December 2, 2014|9:22 am
(http://images.christianpost.com/full/78859/american-atheists-christmas-billboard-reading-dear-santa-all-i-want-for-christmas-is-to-skip-church-im-too-old-for-fairy-tales-released-on-dec-1-2014.jpg)
(PHOTO: AMERICAN ATHEISTS)
American Atheists Christmas billboard reading “Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I’m too old for fairy tales," released on Dec. 1, 2014.
American Atheists has launched a billboard campaign in several Bible Belt states urging people to skip church this Christmas and stop listening to "fairy tales."
"Even children know churches spew absurdity, which is why they don't want to attend services. Enjoy the time with your family and friends instead," said American Atheists President David Silverman. "Today's adults have no obligation to pretend to believe the lies their parents believed. It's OK to admit that your parents were wrong about God, and it's definitely OK to tell your children the truth."
The new billboards feature an image of a young girl writing a letter to Santa Claus, which reads: "Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I'm too old for fairy tales."
The billboards have gone up in Memphis; Nashville; St. Louis; and Fort Smith, Arkansas; while a fifth billboard in Milwaukee is co-sponsored by the Southeast Wisconsin Freethinkers. They have been positioned in residential areas near schools and churches, which marks a change from previous campaigns, which had been centered in urban settings, such as Times Square in New York City.
Last year, the AA billboards claimed that nobody needs Christ during Christmas. The motion graphics featured a text asking "Who needs Christ during Christmas?" before crossing out the word "Christ" and replacing it with "nobody."
The latest billboard campaign was rejected in Jackson, Mississippi, however, with area lessors refusing to put up the ad because of the content. AA Public Relations Director Danielle Muscato claims that the billboards are needed in the South, where "discrimination and mistrust of atheists is especially pronounced."
Earlier this year AA launched its first-ever all-atheist TV channel in July. Atheist TV is being offered on streaming service Roku, with AA asserting that it represents a different option to TV channels that "kowtow" to religious preferences.
A worldwide Pew Research poll released in March found that the majority of Americans believe that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. The results showed that 53 percent of Americans who responded to the survey shared that view, while 46 percent say that belief in God is not essential to morality.
The global poll found that in 22 out of the 39 countries surveyed, the majority of people believe that faith in God is needed for people to be moral and have good values. The results varied considerably throughout regions, with European nations most often rejecting that such a belief is necessary for morality, while Africa and the Middle East were particularly strong in opinion that faith in God is necessary for good values.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/american-atheists-billboard-campaign-in-bible-belt-skip-church-this-christmas-and-stop-listening-to-fairy-tales-130529/
-
Irrational atheists strike again.
Chaplain under fire for comments during training
By Michelle Tan, Staff writer
December 11, 2014
The chaplain for 5th Ranger Training Battalion is fighting back after a soldier complained that he advocated Christianity and used the Bible during a unit suicide prevention training session.
Chaplain (Capt.) Joseph Lawhorn received a letter of concern from Col. David Fivecoat, who commands the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade, the 5th RTB's parent unit. The complaint stemmed from a mandatory training session Nov. 20 in Dahlonega, Georgia. The 5th RTB runs the mountain phase of the Army's storied Ranger School.
"During this training, you were perceived to advocate Christianity and used Christian scripture and solutions," according to the letter of concern. "You provided a two-sided handout that listed Army resources on one side and a biblical approach to handling depression on the other side. This made it impossible for those in attendance to receive the resource information without also receiving the biblical information."
The letter goes on to state: "As the battalion chaplain, you are entrusted to care for the emotional wellbeing of all soldiers in the battalion. You, above all others, must be cognizant of the various beliefs held by diverse soldiers. During mandatory training briefings, it is imperative you are careful to avoid any perception you are advocating one system of beliefs over another."
The letter is administrative, Fivecoat wrote, adding that he intends to file it in Lawhorn's local personnel file for no more than three years or until he leaves the command.
"This is an open administrative action," said Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, in a statement. "It would be premature to comment on the specifics of an option action in which the commander has not yet made a final decision. However, in general terms, a local letter of concern is a temporary administrative action and is not a punishment. It is a counseling tool with no long-term consequences provided any behavior of concern does not recur."
Lawhorn was merely doing his job, said Mike Berry, Lawhorn's attorney.
"The training he conducted, that's something Army regulation designates chaplains do," Berry said. "The Army has decided, appropriately, I would add, that a key component of overall mental health and wellness is spiritual wellness. That's one of the reasons the Army has designated chaplains as what they refer to as gatekeepers. They're on the first line of defense when it comes to suicide prevention and depression."
Berry works for the Liberty Institute, which describes itself as "a nonprofit legal group dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America."
To better relate to his fellow soldiers, Lawhorn shared his personal experience and struggle with depression, Berry said.
"He'd battled depression himself, and he knew where it could lead," Berry said. "He just felt that if there was anything he could do to prevent even one suicide, he opened himself up and made himself vulnerable and shared some of his personal struggles, and he paid the price for that."
At no time during his presentation did Lawhorn consider himself to be in a "preacher" role, Berry wrote in his response to Fivecoat.
Berry said he has submitted to Fivecoat 33 letters of support, both from soldiers who attended the training and those who know Lawhorn well.
"They all almost universally say that he said, 'I'm not telling you that using faith or religion or spirituality is the only way to deal with it. I'm not telling you it's the correct way to deal with it. I'm just saying this was what worked for me,'" Berry said.
Lawhorn didn't know that the complaining soldier was upset or uncomfortable with his presentation, Berry said.
In his response to Fivecoat, Berry wrote: "Had Chaplain Lawhorn known of this, he would have happily sat down with this soldier and answered any questions or concerns he or she had. Unfortunately, Chaplain Lawhorn was not given this opportunity - a professional courtesy - because the soldier in question alerted a civilian advocacy group, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, who apparently then alerted a media outlet, the Huffington Post."
In an article on its website, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers said the chaplain "used his official position to force his personal religious beliefs on a captive military audience."
The article also states: "Suicide is an epidemic in our military. When the military condones evangelism in mental health training, the epidemic will get worse, not better."
Lawhorn, whose endorsing church is Grace Churches International, is a senior captain who's eligible for promotion to major, Berry said. He earned the Ranger tab in 1999 and previously served for three years as an enlisted cook. Lawhorn, who deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, has served as the chaplain for 5th RTB since December 2012.
The goal is to have Fivecoat withdraw his letter of concern, Berry said.
"We want this punishment to be withdrawn and removed from Chaplain Lawhorn's file so there's no risk of this coming back to bite him later on or have any adverse effects on his thus far stellar career," he said. "Chaplain Lawhorn was blindsided by this."
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2014/12/10/army-chaplain-joseph-lawhorn-ranger-training-complaint/20213399/
-
Irrational atheists strike again.
Chaplain under fire for comments during training
By Michelle Tan, Staff writer
December 11, 2014
The chaplain for 5th Ranger Training Battalion is fighting back after a soldier complained that he advocated Christianity and used the Bible during a unit suicide prevention training session.
Chaplain (Capt.) Joseph Lawhorn received a letter of concern from Col. David Fivecoat, who commands the Airborne and Ranger Training Brigade, the 5th RTB's parent unit. The complaint stemmed from a mandatory training session Nov. 20 in Dahlonega, Georgia. The 5th RTB runs the mountain phase of the Army's storied Ranger School.
"During this training, you were perceived to advocate Christianity and used Christian scripture and solutions," according to the letter of concern. "You provided a two-sided handout that listed Army resources on one side and a biblical approach to handling depression on the other side. This made it impossible for those in attendance to receive the resource information without also receiving the biblical information."
The letter goes on to state: "As the battalion chaplain, you are entrusted to care for the emotional wellbeing of all soldiers in the battalion. You, above all others, must be cognizant of the various beliefs held by diverse soldiers. During mandatory training briefings, it is imperative you are careful to avoid any perception you are advocating one system of beliefs over another."
The letter is administrative, Fivecoat wrote, adding that he intends to file it in Lawhorn's local personnel file for no more than three years or until he leaves the command.
"This is an open administrative action," said Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, commanding general of the Maneuver Center of Excellence, in a statement. "It would be premature to comment on the specifics of an option action in which the commander has not yet made a final decision. However, in general terms, a local letter of concern is a temporary administrative action and is not a punishment. It is a counseling tool with no long-term consequences provided any behavior of concern does not recur."
Lawhorn was merely doing his job, said Mike Berry, Lawhorn's attorney.
"The training he conducted, that's something Army regulation designates chaplains do," Berry said. "The Army has decided, appropriately, I would add, that a key component of overall mental health and wellness is spiritual wellness. That's one of the reasons the Army has designated chaplains as what they refer to as gatekeepers. They're on the first line of defense when it comes to suicide prevention and depression."
Berry works for the Liberty Institute, which describes itself as "a nonprofit legal group dedicated to defending and restoring religious liberty across America."
To better relate to his fellow soldiers, Lawhorn shared his personal experience and struggle with depression, Berry said.
"He'd battled depression himself, and he knew where it could lead," Berry said. "He just felt that if there was anything he could do to prevent even one suicide, he opened himself up and made himself vulnerable and shared some of his personal struggles, and he paid the price for that."
At no time during his presentation did Lawhorn consider himself to be in a "preacher" role, Berry wrote in his response to Fivecoat.
Berry said he has submitted to Fivecoat 33 letters of support, both from soldiers who attended the training and those who know Lawhorn well.
"They all almost universally say that he said, 'I'm not telling you that using faith or religion or spirituality is the only way to deal with it. I'm not telling you it's the correct way to deal with it. I'm just saying this was what worked for me,'" Berry said.
Lawhorn didn't know that the complaining soldier was upset or uncomfortable with his presentation, Berry said.
In his response to Fivecoat, Berry wrote: "Had Chaplain Lawhorn known of this, he would have happily sat down with this soldier and answered any questions or concerns he or she had. Unfortunately, Chaplain Lawhorn was not given this opportunity - a professional courtesy - because the soldier in question alerted a civilian advocacy group, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, who apparently then alerted a media outlet, the Huffington Post."
In an article on its website, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers said the chaplain "used his official position to force his personal religious beliefs on a captive military audience."
The article also states: "Suicide is an epidemic in our military. When the military condones evangelism in mental health training, the epidemic will get worse, not better."
Lawhorn, whose endorsing church is Grace Churches International, is a senior captain who's eligible for promotion to major, Berry said. He earned the Ranger tab in 1999 and previously served for three years as an enlisted cook. Lawhorn, who deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, has served as the chaplain for 5th RTB since December 2012.
The goal is to have Fivecoat withdraw his letter of concern, Berry said.
"We want this punishment to be withdrawn and removed from Chaplain Lawhorn's file so there's no risk of this coming back to bite him later on or have any adverse effects on his thus far stellar career," he said. "Chaplain Lawhorn was blindsided by this."
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2014/12/10/army-chaplain-joseph-lawhorn-ranger-training-complaint/20213399/
Color me an irrational atheist then because I agree
-
Color me an irrational atheist then because I agree
You would have gone to the "Military Association of Atheists and Free Thinkers" instead of the just expressing your concerns to the chaplain? That's pretty weak.
-
Why can't irrational atheists just be happy during the most wonderful time of the year?
American Atheists' Billboard Campaign in Bible Belt: 'Skip Church' This Christmas and Stop Listening to 'Fairy Tales'
BY STOYAN ZAIMOV , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
December 2, 2014|9:22 am
(http://images.christianpost.com/full/78859/american-atheists-christmas-billboard-reading-dear-santa-all-i-want-for-christmas-is-to-skip-church-im-too-old-for-fairy-tales-released-on-dec-1-2014.jpg)
(PHOTO: AMERICAN ATHEISTS)
American Atheists Christmas billboard reading “Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I’m too old for fairy tales," released on Dec. 1, 2014.
American Atheists has launched a billboard campaign in several Bible Belt states urging people to skip church this Christmas and stop listening to "fairy tales."
"Even children know churches spew absurdity, which is why they don't want to attend services. Enjoy the time with your family and friends instead," said American Atheists President David Silverman. "Today's adults have no obligation to pretend to believe the lies their parents believed. It's OK to admit that your parents were wrong about God, and it's definitely OK to tell your children the truth."
The new billboards feature an image of a young girl writing a letter to Santa Claus, which reads: "Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I'm too old for fairy tales."
The billboards have gone up in Memphis; Nashville; St. Louis; and Fort Smith, Arkansas; while a fifth billboard in Milwaukee is co-sponsored by the Southeast Wisconsin Freethinkers. They have been positioned in residential areas near schools and churches, which marks a change from previous campaigns, which had been centered in urban settings, such as Times Square in New York City.
Last year, the AA billboards claimed that nobody needs Christ during Christmas. The motion graphics featured a text asking "Who needs Christ during Christmas?" before crossing out the word "Christ" and replacing it with "nobody."
The latest billboard campaign was rejected in Jackson, Mississippi, however, with area lessors refusing to put up the ad because of the content. AA Public Relations Director Danielle Muscato claims that the billboards are needed in the South, where "discrimination and mistrust of atheists is especially pronounced."
Earlier this year AA launched its first-ever all-atheist TV channel in July. Atheist TV is being offered on streaming service Roku, with AA asserting that it represents a different option to TV channels that "kowtow" to religious preferences.
A worldwide Pew Research poll released in March found that the majority of Americans believe that it is necessary to believe in God to be moral. The results showed that 53 percent of Americans who responded to the survey shared that view, while 46 percent say that belief in God is not essential to morality.
The global poll found that in 22 out of the 39 countries surveyed, the majority of people believe that faith in God is needed for people to be moral and have good values. The results varied considerably throughout regions, with European nations most often rejecting that such a belief is necessary for morality, while Africa and the Middle East were particularly strong in opinion that faith in God is necessary for good values.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/american-atheists-billboard-campaign-in-bible-belt-skip-church-this-christmas-and-stop-listening-to-fairy-tales-130529/
Although i think spending money on this is stupid. I think the billboard is funny.
-
You would have gone to the "Military Association of Atheists and Free Thinkers" instead of the just expressing your concerns to the chaplain? That's pretty weak.
No, I would have gone to my supervisor with the expectation they would forward my concern up the chain first.
-
Although i think spending money on this is stupid. I think the billboard is funny.
Yeah it is a little funny.
-
No, I would have gone to my supervisor with the expectation they would forward my concern up the chain first.
Why not just tell the chaplain directly? Seems like the adult thing to do.
And someone getting offended because a chaplain talks about or references God or religion is pretty dang stupid. (Not calling you stupid.)
-
Why can't irrational atheists just be happy during the most wonderful time of the year?
LOL @ a fundie using the term irrational atheist
atheism is de facto a rationale perspective
believing in ANY religion is the irrational choice which is why ...of course... you need FAITH
-
LOL call something that you can't prove and have never personally seen or witnessed a "fairytale" and people just lose their minds.
-
Why not just tell the chaplain directly? Seems like the adult thing to do.
And someone getting offended because a chaplain talks about or references God or religion is pretty dang stupid. (Not calling you stupid.)
Are people offended by the billboard? If so that's funny too
Personally I see nothing wrong with it. I still think it's stupid to spend money on.
-
Are people offended by the billboard? If so that's funny too
Personally I see nothing wrong with it. I still think it's stupid to spend money on.
I don't know if people are offended, but you don't see mainstream Christian churches or groups running around the country filing lawsuits claiming to suffer emotional distress because someone is holding an atheist sign.
-
Filed under the "get a life" category.
Atheists Want To Destroy This Town’s 50-Year-Old Christmas Tradition, But It Won’t Be Easy
“If people don't like the look of it..."
PETER BROWN — DECEMBER 11, 2014
(http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/shutterstock_194328104-1000x641.jpg)
“If people don't like the look of it..."
The town of Brookville, Indiana, is fighting to keep a nativity scene from being torn down. The nativity scene, a town tradition for over 50 years, is placed next to a courthouse, hence the controversy.
A Wisconsin group called the Freedom from Religion Foundation has been sending letters since 2013 insisting that the scene violates the First Amendment to the Constitution and should be torn down. The group says that the scene is proof that the government is endorsing one religion over another.
Advertisement-content continues below
The Freedom From Religion Foundation says its goal is to promote the separation of church and state and to “educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.”
What exactly is the Freedom from Religion Foundation? According to Tad Cronn of Godfather Politics:
“The FFRF, founded by atheists Anne Nicol Gaylor and her daughter, Annie Laurie Gaylor, in 1976, is the major organization whose name crops up whenever someone is “offended” by a public display of the Ten Commandments, a graduation prayer or a Christmas display.”
“They’ve gone after historical markers, courthouse displays and even veterans memorials. There’s no corner of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage that FFRF isn’t low enough to seek to obliterate.”
The town commissioners have so far ignored the letters and have fought to keep the Nativity scene standing.
Brookville resident Wally Munroe said:
“If people don’t like the look of it I think they can look the other way, or don’t look at all. It’s been a tradition here for many, many years and I hope it’s for many more years. I think we deserve the right to put up what the community wants and I don’t think anybody else should tell us what to do.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/50-year-old-nativity-scene-torn-thats-one-group-thinks/#lVkUhO3m7dYy6eCh.99
-
This is hilarious. ;D An example of a rational atheist interviewing an irrational atheist.
Daily Show: Atheist Group ‘Petty A**holes’ Who Need to ‘Lighten the F**k Up’
By Kristine Marsh | December 12, 2014
Instead of the Daily Show’s usual targets – conservatives and Christians – atheists were the surprising villains on the Dec.9 episode of the left-leaning comedy show.
Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper pulled no punches, calling the atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation “petty a**holes,” and “trolls” who needed to “lighten the f*ck up” for making a fuss over a diner offering small discounts to customers who pray before they eat.
Klepper spoke with the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s co-President Dan Barker about the group’s issue with Mary’s Gourmet Diner, a small business whose owner, Mary Haglund offers 15 percent discounts for customers who pray before meals. Klepper asked Barker why didn’t he just fake pray to get the discount, but Barker insisted it would be against his beliefs to do so.
Klepper mocked, “Well what’s going to happen if you’re a hypocrite atheist? You going to go to ‘not-Hell?’”
Barker didn’t do himself any favors by continually comparing his “fight” with the diner to fights over civil rights and even genocide.“ In one case it’s race or skin color, in another case it’s religion,” Barker insisted. At the news that the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent “a threatening note” to Mary’s Gourmet Diner saying she was in violation of the Civil Rights Act, Klepper laughed and said, “Are you kidding me?”
After interviewing actual atheist customers of the diner who said they received discounts for things like telling like the cook “thank you,” Klepper decided that no one was being discriminated against and the atheist group was complaining about nothing.
Barker’s groups’ actions were those of “petty assholes,” Klepper concluded. “In the end, maybe we’d all be a little better off if Dan would just lighten the fuck up.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/12/12/daily-show-atheist-group-petty-aholes-who-need-lighten-fk#sthash.m6iGVr9D.dpuf
-
Why not just tell the chaplain directly? Seems like the adult thing to do.
And someone getting offended because a chaplain talks about or references God or religion is pretty dang stupid. (Not calling you stupid.)
No worries, I'm not offended. I understand that there are people that don't see a problem with government employees participating in a mandatory meeting/function being subjected to an agent of our government advocating for a particular religion. I find it unnecessary and poor judgment as well as a separation of church and state issue, but that's because I'm routinely one of those non believers that are subjected that it. I'm pretty sure if I agreed with their religion I'd probably welcome the interaction, but I don't and not everyone else does. And I think the "offended" word is probably misused in this instance. A person can feel that it's inappropriate for religion to be entered into a government interaction without being "offended" by it. I'm not offended by a white male telling a racial joke at the water cooler, but I certainly think it's inappropriate
-
No worries, I'm not offended. I understand that there are people that don't see a problem with government employees participating in a mandatory meeting/function being subjected to an agent of our government advocating for a particular religon. I find it unneccessary and poor judgment as well as a seperation of church and state issue, but that's because I'm routinely one of those non believers that are subjected that it. I'm pretty sure if I agreed with their religion I'd probably welcome the interaction, but I don't and not everyone else does.
The government employee is a chaplain. Chaplains in the military have to be members of an organized religion. Anyone talking to a chaplain should not be surprised if the chaplain talks about or references God.
I think if someone doesn't want to talk about religion, they shouldn't. If there is something written about religion and they don't want to read it, they shouldn't. This hypersensitivity is just way overboard.
-
The government employee is a chaplain. Chaplains in the military have to be members of an organized religion. Anyone talking to a chaplain should not be surprised if the chaplain talks about or references God.
I think if someone doesn't want to talk about religion, they shouldn't. If there is something written about religion and they don't want to read it, they shouldn't. This hypersensitivity is just way overboard.
Chaplians in the military can talk about their religion at their services, or any place members congregate for the purpose of sharing religious experiences, or religious information.
-
Chaplians in the military can talk about their religion at their services, or any place members congregate for the purpose of sharing religious experiences, or religious information.
Or anytime they meet with anyone, because their entire job revolves around religion.
-
Or anytime they meet with anyone, because their entire job revolves around religion.
I agree it does, but they often portray themselves as counselors which gets them in the door. We have chaplains at our department. They are supposed to counsel with members of the department who seek them out. Typically people seek out the chaplains that represent their particular belief system. That's cool with me. We also have non religious counselors. But when it is a mandatory setting with various beliefs or lack of beliefs, they need to keep their counselor hat on, and leave their preacher hat at the door. if they can't do that, they need to recuse themselves. Just the same as if a non religious counselor started talking about the benefits of being atheist or agnostic at a mandatory government gathering, I would also think it inappropriate.
-
I agree it does, but they often portray themselves as counselors which gets them in the door. We have chaplains at our department. They are supposed to counsel with members of the department who seek them out. Typically people seek out the chaplains that represent their particular belief system. That's cool with me. We also have non religious counselors. But when it is a mandatory setting with various beliefs or lack of beliefs, they need to keep their counselor hat on, and leave their preacher hat at the door. if they can't do that, they need to recuse themselves. Just the same as if a non religious counselor started talking about the benefits of being atheist or agnostic at a mandatory government gathering, I would also think it inappropriate.
They are counselors.
I really don't understand why some people are so hypersensitive about something they don't believe in. I've had numerous lengthy discussions with people of other faiths (and no faith), attended other religious services, participated in Buddhist prayers, etc. I don't share their beliefs, but I was not offended at all. It's really not that hard to listen to, or ignore, something you don't believe in.
-
They are counselors.
I really don't understand why some people are so hypersensitive about something they don't believe in. I've had numerous lengthy discussions with people of other faiths (and no faith), attended other religious services, participated in Buddhist prayers, etc. I don't share their beliefs, but I was not offended at all. It's really not that hard to listen to, or ignore, something you don't believe in.
I don't understand it either, until I mention to someone who is talking to me assuming I share their personal belief that I don't. I witness hypersensitivity shortly thereafter in most cases when they can't fathom how I can ignore the overwhelming evidence and not believe as they do.
-
I don't understand it either, until I mention to someone who is talking to me assuming I share their personal belief that I don't. I witness hypersensitivity shortly thereafter in most cases when they can't fathom how I can ignore the overwhelming evidence and not believe as they do.
Oh come on. You know you're exaggerating. How many times have you seen people go complain to their boss, file a lawsuit, contact the media, enlist an advocacy group, etc. because someone wasn't receptive to just listening to their religious views?
-
Oh come on. You know you're exaggerating. How many times have you seen people go complain to their boss, file a lawsuit, contact the media, enlist an advocacy group, etc. because someone wasn't receptive to just listening to their religious views?
In that regard, when you are holding all the cards, there is no need to complain. How many times have people sat through boring relgious rituals at government functions and not complained? Every single day
-
In that regard, when you are holding all the cards, there is no need to complain. How many times have people sat through boring relgious rituals at government functions and not complained? Every single day
My question was somewhat rhetorical, because the answer is clearly "no." Never happens.
I have sat through countless invocations. Most of them are about six seconds or less. The horror. :)
-
My question was somewhat rhetorical, because the answer is clearly "no." Never happens.
I have sat through countless invocations. Most of them are about six seconds or less. The horror. :)
Speaking of exxagerating.. I've never heard an invocation of 6 seconds or less.. you are very lucky and I am very unlucky I suppose
-
Speaking of exxagerating.. I've never heard an invocation of 6 seconds or less.. you are very lucky and I am very unlucky I suppose
Typo. Meant "60."
-
Typo. Meant "60."
That's reasonable. Thing is.. for me, it's completely out of place there. It's no different than if before each meeting, or retirement ceremony or graduation a guy in indian attire took to the staget and chanted heyah, heyah, heyah for a minute. Or a muslim took to the stage and kneeled down and started praising allah for a minute. I'm not really harmed by it. It can be a little annoying, but again, whats the point of doing such a thing before we can begin our business? Entirely unnecessary in my opinion
-
That's reasonable. Thing is.. for me, it's completely out of place there. It's no different than if before each meeting, or retirement ceremony or graduation a guy in indian attire took to the staget and chanted heyah, heyah, heyah for a minute. Or a muslim took to the stage and kneeled down and started praising allah for a minute. I'm not really harmed by it. It can be a little annoying, but again, whats the point of doing such a thing before we can begin our business? Entirely unnecessary in my opinion
Your examples would be more reasonable if those things have been happening since the country's inception.
I'm glad you said you're not harmed by invocations. I only find the really long ones a little annoying.
-
Your examples would be more reasonable if those things have been happening since the country's inception.
I'm glad you said you're not harmed by invocations. I only find the really long ones a little annoying.
The canned ones..well they are all mostly canned ones.. irritate me somewhat because they are meaningless recitals, a ritual.. Bow your heads while we pray... Our father Jesus.. Lord in heaven, we come to you asking that you watch over us.. Father we ask that..blah blah blah.... If God existed, he's gotta puke a little in his mouth everytime he hears it
-
The canned ones..well they are all mostly canned ones.. irritate me somewhat because they are meaningless recitals, a ritual.. Bow your heads while we pray... Our father Jesus.. Lord in heaven, we come to you asking that you watch over us.. Father we ask that..blah blah blah.... If God existed, he's gotta puke a little in his mouth everytime he hears it
That's one way to look at it. Or you could view it like the ritual of telling your wife or girlfriend you love her every day. There are lots of expressions of love and respect that are somewhat rote.
-
They are counselors.
I really don't understand why some people are so hypersensitive about something they don't believe in. I've had numerous lengthy discussions with people of other faiths (and no faith), attended other religious services, participated in Buddhist prayers, etc. I don't share their beliefs, but I was not offended at all. It's really not that hard to listen to, or ignore, something you don't believe in.
True, but that's not the issue here. The meeting was mandatory, not voluntary.
If you voluntarily put yourself in those situations, and I think we all have, then you don't really have any room to complain about the religion or the services.
-
True, but that's not the issue here. The meeting was mandatory, not voluntary.
If you voluntarily put yourself in those situations, and I think we all have, then you don't really have any room to complain about the religion or the services.
I don't really see a distinction in this instance. The guy was given a two-sided handout that had Army resources on one side and references to God and the Bible on the other. If the Soldier was atheist and didn't want to read about God or the Bible, all he had to do was just ignore the other side of the paper. We ignore things that don't interest us all the time. And if it really bothered him, he could have just told the chaplain he had a problem with the other side of the handout.
-
I don't really see a distinction in this instance. The guy was given a two-sided handout that had Army resources on one side and references to God and the Bible on the other. If the Soldier was atheist and didn't want to read about God or the Bible, all he had to do was just ignore the other side of the paper. We ignore things that don't interest us all the time. And if it really bothered him, he could have just told the chaplain he had a problem with the other side of the handout.
That's works both ways. It's just as easy to keep religion out of a mandatory meeting.
-
That's works both ways. It's just as easy to keep religion out of a mandatory meeting.
Meh. He's a chaplain. It's his job to talk about religion. I would understand if this was a mandatory religious meeting, but that's not what it was. That kids is just hypersensitive and there are advocacy groups ready to pounce all over trivial stuff like this.
-
I agree with Skip on this. A mandatory government meeting where the attendees have no choice but to attend, a particular religion should not be advocated whether implied or directly to the group. The Chaplains should know better, but darn it.. they just can't always play by the rules. Cheating for Jesus is acceptable. ;-)
-
I agree with Skip on this. A mandatory government meeting where the attendees have no choice but to attend, a particular religion should not be advocated whether implied or directly to the group. The Chaplains should know better, but darn it.. they just can't always play by the rules. Cheating for Jesus is acceptable. ;-)
Nobody should be indoctrinated, but people shouldn't have to walk on eggshells. I really think this hypersensitivity is completely illogical. I cannot imagine getting offended, angry, suffer emotional distress, etc. if someone mentions an entity or concept that I believe is fictitious. And the fact some atheists have created organizations, hired PR directors, have radio shows, magazines, etc. is . . . irrational.
-
Nobody should be indoctrinated, but people shouldn't have to walk on eggshells. I really think this hypersensitivity is completely illogical. I cannot imagine getting offended, angry, suffer emotional distress, etc. if someone mentions an entity or concept that I believe is fictitious. And the fact some atheists have created organizations, hired PR directors, have radio shows, magazines, etc. is . . . irrational.
Not when it comes to making money. Reinforcing people's beliefs is profitable.
-
Irrational atheist crybabies strike again. ::)
North Carolina city removes sculpture of soldier kneeling before cross
Published January 11, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/kneeling-soldier.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
King city officials voted to remove this sculpture depicting a soldier kneeling in prayer before a cross to settle a lawsuit claiming the artwork promoted Christianity. (WGHP)
Until a few days ago, a war memorial in a public park in North Carolina included a metal sculpture depicting a soldier kneeling in prayer before a cross. But city officials voted to remove the sculpture to settle a lawsuit claiming the artwork promoted Christianity.
King, a small city of about 6,000 people 15 miles north of Winston-Salem, dedicated the memorial about a decade ago. But the statue was removed Tuesday night, immediately after The King city council voted 3-2 to end the lawsuit. Now, an empty hole can be seen where the statue once stood.
MyFox8 in Winston-Salem, reporting on the controversy the other day, said the memorial is on city-owned land but was paid for through private donations.
“Both sides in this matter wish to avoid further costs, and this agreement will ensure that the City of King will not spend additional taxpayers’ funds to continue litigation in federal court,” the city said in a statement after the vote.
As part of the agreement, the King City Council also said it would stop flying the Christian flag over the memorial and would pay $500,000 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State for the legal costs the group incurred bringing the lawsuit on behalf of local Afghanistan War veteran Steven Hewett.
Hewett explained his reasons for suing in November, the Christian News Network reported Saturday. His lawsuit claimed violations of his constitutional rights.
“I proudly served alongside a diverse group of soldiers with a variety of different religious beliefs,” he said in a news release. “The City of King should be honoring everyone who served our country, not using their service as an excuse to promote a single religion.”
The settlement calls for Hewett to be paid $1 in nominal damages.
The Stokes News reported that King’s elected officials were worried about losing the lawsuit and facing higher legal bills, as much as $2 million by one estimate. The city’s insurer also was insisting on a settlement.
“I feel this city has been sabotaged and bullied by folks who don’t believe in what this community stands for,” the newspaper quoted City Councilman Wesley Carter as saying when he voted against the settlement. “I feel like we have been pressured by insurance companies and attorneys who have never been to King. They don’t know what we are about and what this community stands for.”
King’s elected officials incensed veterans groups, churches and others in the city in 2010 when they ordered the removal of the Christian flag from the memorial. As part of a protest, the Christian flag started flying everywhere else in the town, including barbecue joints and hair salons. Eventually the city passed a law establishing a lottery system in which citizens could choose what flag they wanted flown over the memorial, including the Christian flag.
City officials say they will now draw up plans for a new kneeling soldier sculpture that does not include a cross, and will ask residents for their input.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/11/north-carolina-city-removes-sculpture-soldier-kneeling-before-cross/?intcmp=latestnews
-
What the fuck is a christian flag?
-
When I heard this on the radio I thought "When are they going to finally get it that you can't promote a particular religion as a government entity".. then I see the above picture and I don't see it as a "Soldier kneeling in prayer" but as a soldier mourning a comrade. Definately not a classic case of government promoting christianity in my opinion
-
When I heard this on the radio I thought "When are they going to finally get it that you can't promote a particular religion as a government entity".. then I see the above picture and I don't see it as a "Soldier kneeling in prayer" but as a soldier mourning a comrade. Definately not a classic case of government promoting christianity in my opinion
what is a christian flag?
As part of the agreement, the King City Council also said it would stop flying the Christian flag over the memorial and would pay $500,000 to Americans United for Separation of Church and State for the legal costs the group incurred bringing the lawsuit on behalf of local Afghanistan War veteran Steven Hewett.
Hewett explained his reasons for suing in November, the Christian News Network reported Saturday. His lawsuit claimed violations of his constitutional rights.
“I proudly served alongside a diverse group of soldiers with a variety of different religious beliefs,” he said in a news release. “The City of King should be honoring everyone who served our country, not using their service as an excuse to promote a single religion.”
-
When I heard this on the radio I thought "When are they going to finally get it that you can't promote a particular religion as a government entity".. then I see the above picture and I don't see it as a "Soldier kneeling in prayer" but as a soldier mourning a comrade. Definately not a classic case of government promoting christianity in my opinion
:o
:)
-
if only the stupid christians could have left well enough alone this probably wouldn't be an issue
they have to put up a "christian flag" instead
-
What the heck is an "ordained atheist minister"??
NBC Ignores Militant Atheism, Liberalism of Accused Killer of Muslims
By Scott Whitlock | February 12, 2015
NBC's Today on Thursday ignored the militant atheism and liberalism of a North Carolina man accused of executing three Muslims on Tuesday night. ABC's Good Morning America and CBS This Morning at least mentioned Craig Stephen Hicks's hatred of faith, but none of the networks highlighted the individual's affinity for programs such as the Rachel Maddow show.
Today reporter Mark Potter noted that the sister of one of the victims "insists the killings were religiously motivated." He added that "this case has sparked international attention." Yet, Potter didn't offer viewers any explanation about Hicks's own religious beliefs. In contrast, Good Morning America's Tom Llamas asserted, "But Hicks openly posted on Facebook his proposed solution to problems in the Middle East: Atheism."
Over on CBS This Morning, Vincente Arenas alerted, "Hicks's Facebook page includes rants about religions in general and he calls himself an ordained atheist minister who enjoys target practice."
The accused's wife says the violence was related to a parking dispute.
In 2012, ABC used the mass killing by a gunman in Colorado to, within hours, smear the Tea Party as being connected. This was false, but journalist Brian Ross eagerly tried to link conservatives to the killing.
Imagine if this North Carolina man was a conservative, Tea Party-supporting right-winger?
The International Business Times detailed:
His Facebook 'likes' included the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Bill Nye "The Science Guy," Neil deGrasse Tyson, Gay Marriage groups and similar progressive pages.
...
After it emerged that the suspect is a vocal advocate of anti-theism, evolutionary biologist and atheist philosopher Richard Dawkins condemned the massacre.
On Wednesday's evening news, the same pattern emerged. CBS and ABC mentioned Hicks's atheism. NBC did not.
Partial transcripts of the ABC and CBS segments an be found below:
GMA
2/12/15
7:06
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to turn now to the murder of three Muslim-American students in North Carolina. The neighbor who shot them is being held without bond. His wife says it was a fight over a parking space. The victims' family calling it a hate crime and ABC's Tom Llamas has the latest from Chapel Hill.
...
LLAMAS: But Hicks openly posted on Facebook his proposed solution to problems in the Middle East: Atheism. And Barakat's family tells me, Hicks's complained about loud Arabic conversations in the parking lot and previously threatened Deah.
FARRIS BARAKAT (Brother of victim): He showed him the gun. He kind of warned him of a gun.
LLAMAS: Deah and Yusor had just married in December. Their family Their family calling them model Americans living the American dream.
...
CBS This Morning
2/12/15
7:14
JEFF GLOR: This morning, investigators have not ruled out a hate crime. The three Muslim victims were all related. Now the FBI has joined in the investigation. Vicente Arenas is in Chapel Hill, North Carolina with reaction from both the victims and suspects families. Vincente, good morning.
VINCENTE ARENAS: Good morning. Police are still trying to figure out exactly what happened here, but they theorize it was a dispute over a parking space like this one. They are each reserved and they are also numbered. But there's still a lot of questions about the shooting that took place in the condo behind me, a shooting that has left Chapel Hillin mourning. Thousands gathered on the campus of UNC Chapel Hill to remember the three victims, Deah Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha and her sister Razan Abu-Salha, all shot execution style in their Chapel Hill condominium, Tuesday evening. Omar Abu Dahki [PH] grew up with Barakat and was his classmate at the UNC dentistry program.
...
ARENAS: Hicks's Facebook page includes rants about religions in general and he calls himself an ordained atheist minister who enjoys target practice. Karen Hicks is his wife.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/02/12/nbc-ignores-militant-atheism-liberalism-accused-killer-muslims#sthash.GXf3MYhR.dpuf
-
What the heck is an "ordained atheist minister"??
NBC Ignores Militant Atheism, Liberalism of Accused Killer of Muslims
By Scott Whitlock | February 12, 2015
NBC's Today on Thursday ignored the militant atheism and liberalism of a North Carolina man accused of executing three Muslims on Tuesday night. ABC's Good Morning America and CBS This Morning at least mentioned Craig Stephen Hicks's hatred of faith, but none of the networks highlighted the individual's affinity for programs such as the Rachel Maddow show.
Today reporter Mark Potter noted that the sister of one of the victims "insists the killings were religiously motivated." He added that "this case has sparked international attention." Yet, Potter didn't offer viewers any explanation about Hicks's own religious beliefs. In contrast, Good Morning America's Tom Llamas asserted, "But Hicks openly posted on Facebook his proposed solution to problems in the Middle East: Atheism."
Over on CBS This Morning, Vincente Arenas alerted, "Hicks's Facebook page includes rants about religions in general and he calls himself an ordained atheist minister who enjoys target practice."
The accused's wife says the violence was related to a parking dispute.
In 2012, ABC used the mass killing by a gunman in Colorado to, within hours, smear the Tea Party as being connected. This was false, but journalist Brian Ross eagerly tried to link conservatives to the killing.
Imagine if this North Carolina man was a conservative, Tea Party-supporting right-winger?
The International Business Times detailed:
His Facebook 'likes' included the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Bill Nye "The Science Guy," Neil deGrasse Tyson, Gay Marriage groups and similar progressive pages.
...
After it emerged that the suspect is a vocal advocate of anti-theism, evolutionary biologist and atheist philosopher Richard Dawkins condemned the massacre.
On Wednesday's evening news, the same pattern emerged. CBS and ABC mentioned Hicks's atheism. NBC did not.
Partial transcripts of the ABC and CBS segments an be found below:
GMA
2/12/15
7:06
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to turn now to the murder of three Muslim-American students in North Carolina. The neighbor who shot them is being held without bond. His wife says it was a fight over a parking space. The victims' family calling it a hate crime and ABC's Tom Llamas has the latest from Chapel Hill.
...
LLAMAS: But Hicks openly posted on Facebook his proposed solution to problems in the Middle East: Atheism. And Barakat's family tells me, Hicks's complained about loud Arabic conversations in the parking lot and previously threatened Deah.
FARRIS BARAKAT (Brother of victim): He showed him the gun. He kind of warned him of a gun.
LLAMAS: Deah and Yusor had just married in December. Their family Their family calling them model Americans living the American dream.
...
CBS This Morning
2/12/15
7:14
JEFF GLOR: This morning, investigators have not ruled out a hate crime. The three Muslim victims were all related. Now the FBI has joined in the investigation. Vicente Arenas is in Chapel Hill, North Carolina with reaction from both the victims and suspects families. Vincente, good morning.
VINCENTE ARENAS: Good morning. Police are still trying to figure out exactly what happened here, but they theorize it was a dispute over a parking space like this one. They are each reserved and they are also numbered. But there's still a lot of questions about the shooting that took place in the condo behind me, a shooting that has left Chapel Hillin mourning. Thousands gathered on the campus of UNC Chapel Hill to remember the three victims, Deah Barakat, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha and her sister Razan Abu-Salha, all shot execution style in their Chapel Hill condominium, Tuesday evening. Omar Abu Dahki [PH] grew up with Barakat and was his classmate at the UNC dentistry program.
...
ARENAS: Hicks's Facebook page includes rants about religions in general and he calls himself an ordained atheist minister who enjoys target practice. Karen Hicks is his wife.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/02/12/nbc-ignores-militant-atheism-liberalism-accused-killer-muslims#sthash.GXf3MYhR.dpuf
Apparently it's a made up title by a crazy man
-
Apparently it's a made up title by a crazy man
Do you think all atheist ministers are crazy or just this guy?
-
Do you think all atheist ministers are crazy or just this guy?
:) Just this guy.. the rest of the Atheist Ministers are cool.
-
:) Just this guy.. the rest of the Atheist Ministers are cool.
lol He's not the only one. What about people who attend atheist churches?
-
Why no mention that this guy was a self professed gun nut
His wife said he loved watching the movie Falling Down and that he would watch it over and over again and laugh
Once again, after the fact you have people saying this guy was a nutbag ready to snap
Crazy guy with gun executes three kids
What is the common denominator ?
-
Why no mention that this guy was a self professed gun nut
His wife said he loved watching the movie Falling Down and that he would watch it over and over again and laugh
Once again, after the fact you have people saying this guy was a nutbag ready to snap
Crazy gun with gun executes three kids
What is the common denominator ?
Being a liberal anti Christian nutjob like yourself?
-
Being a liberal anti Christian nutjob like yourself?
Go back to bed loser
-
Go back to bed loser
Sorry - I have a big event to train for coming up. A few of us on this site actually do work out and push ourselves physically because the keyboard. You might want to try it some time.
-
Sorry - I have a big event to train for coming up. A few of us on this site actually do work out and push ourselves physically because the keyboard. You might want to try it some time.
LOL @ "big event"
go back to bed loser
-
LOL @ "big event"
go back to bed loser
You would not last 30 minutes in it let alone 24+ hours. You would quit and crawl home w your tail between your legs.
-
You would not last 30 minutes in it let alone 24+ hours. You would quit and crawl home w your tail between your legs.
LOL - do have any idea what an attention craving, insecure little bitch you sound like ?
Why don't you go to the G&O Board and start a thread about it instead of making these comments on a totally unrelated thread on a political message board
-
LOL - do have any idea what an attention craving, insecure little bitch you sound like ?
Why don't you go to the G&O Board and start a thread about it instead of making these comments on a totally unrelated thread on a political message board
Cause I'm trolling you here and now - that's why.
Now go get your FNG shine box ;)
-
lol He's not the only one. What about people who attend atheist churches?
Dos,
I was reading a site that allowed you to become an ordained atheist minister. It allows you to perform funerals, weddings etc. I guess some atheists may seek out people of like beliefs to perform those services for personal reasons. I don't want a preacher using my funeral as a captive audience to pitch his personal belief so I might even consider it. As for people who attend atheist churches.. kinda weird to me.
-
Cause I'm trolling you here and now - that's why.
Now go get your FNG shine box ;)
LOL - insecure little girl desperate for someone to pay attention to her
-
Dos,
I was reading a site that allowed you to become an ordained atheist minister. It allows you to perform funerals, weddings etc. I guess some atheists may seek out people of like beliefs to perform those services for personal reasons. I don't want a preacher using my funeral as a captive audience to pitch his personal belief so I might even consider it. As for people who attend atheist churches.. kinda weird to me.
Understood. Thanks.
I wonder what they teach people at atheist preacher school?
-
Understood. Thanks.
I wonder what they teach people at atheist preacher school?
Nothing. You can fill out a form and be a minister in minutes. According to the website it's as legal as any other minister. you have to buy the credentials which is where they make the money. There is a short bio on what they believe which is basically "in science". So I would imagine church services would be more of a place where atheist can vent about dealing with religious infringements on their lives and organizing to keep it at bay in legislation.
-
Nothing. You can fill out a form and be a minister in minutes. According to the website it's as legal as any other minister. you have to buy the credentials which is where they make the money. There is a short bio on what they believe which is basically "in science". So I would imagine church services would be more of a place where atheist can vent about dealing with religious infringements on their lives and organizing to keep it at bay in legislation.
That is whacked.
So they sit around at atheist church services and complain about something they don't believe in.
I looked at the site. This is laugh out loud funny. ;D
FAQ
What do we believe?
The First Church of Atheism is formed around the belief that the mysteries of life can be explained through science and reason. We aim to provide a place for atheists to become ordained, for free, as well as a hub for atheists to find ministers to perform their ceremonies. This is our doctrine:
“Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”
Is this really free?
Yes, becoming ordained with the First Church of Atheism is entirely free of charge.
Why is this free?
We believe that everyone should have the right to preach what they believe, to start a congregation, and to perform ceremonies. This is usually reserved for members of traditional religious sects. We have started a church of our own, based on our beliefs, and will provide our service of ordainment free to anyone who shares our beliefs.
Will I be a minister in the eyes of the law?
Yes, you will be a legally ordained minister. You will be able to perform every task that a clergy member can perform.
How do I prove I am an ordained minister?
Visit the store to purchase various items, such as an identification card, certificate, or letters for your local government office.
What type of services can I perform as a minister?
You will be able to perform the following services:
-Weddings
-Funerals
-Commitment ceremonies
-Many others
Are there any privileges of being a minister?
Ministers command a level of respect from the general public. Some parking lots have reserved parking for clergy. You will have clergy level access to prisons and hospitals.
How long does my ordainment last?
Your ordainment with the First Church of Atheism lasts for your lifetime. Once you are ordained, you never have to do anything again. You will be a minister for life.
Can I revoke my ordainment?
Yes, simply contact us and we will remove your ordainment, free of charge.
Can atheism really have a church?
A church is defined as an association of people who share a particular belief system. So yes, a church of atheism can really exist.
Where is the First Church of Atheism located?
The FCA is located in Langhorne, Pennsylvania.
Do you have a physical church that I can visit?
Not yet! To learn more about that, click here.
What do I have to do to start my own congregation?
Once you become an ordained minister, you can begin preaching to a congregation immediately.
Is Ordainment available worldwide?
Yes, Ordainment is available to people worldwide, though the legality discussed only pertains to American citizens. You will have to check your local laws, but most westernized countries have similar religious tolerance laws.
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/faq/
-
They don't actually have a church knucklehead
Looks more like an internet goof and there have always been mail order (and then online) things like this.
-
Losers.
Atheist group threatens suit over 'angels' on memorial to beloved teacher
By Edmund DeMarche
Published February 19, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/teachm3em3.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Joann Christy was a teacher at Ravenswood Middle School for 26 years. (WCHSTV.com)
A West Virginia middle school took down the crosses from a memorial to a beloved teacher, but is standing firm on the angels etched into the stone, despite an atheist group's threat to sue on constitutional grounds.
Joann Christy's 26-year career educating children at Ravenswood Middle School came to a tragic end in 2004, when she died in a car accident. But her loved ones and the community she had served sought to remember her with an engraved, stone memorial near the school's entrance.
"There's so many kids that came through this school that were affected by her death, that were affected by her teachings, and now we're just trying to keep her memory alive here," Tracy Sadecky, a family friend, told the station.
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./880/558/benchwv1.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
The Freedom From Religion Foundation said a memorial for a teacher, that featured angles and crosses, endorses Christianity. (WCHSTV.com)
But more than a decade later, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation wants the memorial gone, claiming its presence on public grounds violates the First Amendment. The foundation criticized the display as a promotion of religion that infringes on students rights. WSAZ.com reported that the foundation wrote a letter to the school requesting an investigation into the memorial and the "multiple Latin crosses" near the school's entrance.
Christy's family, apparently in an attempt to resolve the situation, reportedly agreed to the removal of the crosses, but left the angels in memory of Christy, who had a collection of angel figurines. The school has a meeting scheduled Thursday night to discuss the memorial issue and others that reportedly riled up the foundation, including a Nativity scene.
A lawyer from the Wisconsin-based nonprofit told the station that as long as the angel represents Christy and not a religion, there may not be a legal issue.
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./880/558/wvmem3.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
wvmem3.jpgExpand / Contract
The Ravenwood Middle School removed small crosses at the memorial for a teacher remembered to be a devout Christian. (WCHSTV.com)
Still, the legal threat did not sit well with some in the community, who said the memorial is merely a remembrance of a teacher, not an endorsement of Christianity.
Charles Hicks, the pastor at Christy's church, remembered her as a devoted Christian who died in a car crash after a Bible study meeting at the church.
"It is a remembrance of who Joann Christy was," Hicks said. "And it is hard to separate the good that she did and her devotion to her Christian faith."
WSAZ pointed out that the atheist group did not have an issue with the school's mascot: a red devil.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/19/freedom-from-religion-says-teacher-memorial-violates-first-amendment/
-
Losers.
Yep...strange that people actually have enough free time to whine about this level of bullshit.
-
Yep...strange that people actually have enough free time to whine about this level of bullshit.
Tell me about it.
-
Court Rules 'God Bless America' Not Unconstitutional
Amanda Casanova | Religion Today Contributing Writer
Thursday, February 19, 2015
The Florida high school that told a student not to say “God bless America” during morning announcements said this week that the student did not violate the U.S. Constitution.
"Upon consultation with legal counsel and review of legal advisories, the Nassau County School District has taken the position that a student's use of the phrase "God Bless America" during the morning announcements at Yulee High School does not violate the Constitution of the United States," the school district said in a statement.
Charisma News reports that the student will still have to remain on-script during announcements. The unidentified student has not been named, and according to school officials, he was not punished.
"The student in question has been quite cooperative and understands not to add to the script," said Nassau County School District spokeswoman Sharyl Wood.
The controversy started when the American Humanist Association sent a six-page letter to the principal at Yulee High School on behalf of two atheist students at the school.
In the letter, the Humanist Association said the phrase "God bless America" is a religious message that "is invidious toward atheists and other nonbelievers," and that it violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment that "commands a separation of church and state.”
http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/court-rules-god-bless-america-not-unconstitutional.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=fbpage&utm_campaign=chupdate
-
Irrational crybabies. ::)
Air Force general who spoke of God should be court-martialed, group says
Published May 17, 2015
FoxNews.com
An Air Force general who recently spoke about how God has guided his career should be court-martialed, a civil liberties group is saying.
In a speech at a National Day of Prayer Task Force event on May 7, Maj. Gen. Craig Olson credits God for his accomplishments in the military, and refers to himself as a “redeemed believer in Christ.”
The Air Force Times reports that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has taken issue with Olson’s remarks, is calling for the two-star general to be court-martialed and "aggressively and very visibly brought to justice for his unforgivable crimes and transgressions."
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./880/558/GENOlson.JPG?ve=1&tl=1)
GENOlson.JPGExpand / Contract
Air Force Maj. Gen. Craig Olson (US Air Force photo)
The group authored a letter to Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Walsh, arguing that Olson’s speech violates rules within the Air Force, which prohibits airmen from endorsing a particular faith or belief.
The letter, posted on the group’s website, begins, “This demand letter is sent to you on behalf of countless members of the United States Air Force who are utterly disgusted and shocked by the brazenly illicit and wholly unconstitutional, fundamentalist Christian proselytizing recently perpetrated, on international television (“GOD TV”), and streaming all over the Internet and in full military uniform, by USAF Major General Craig S. Olson on Thursday, May 7, 2015 during a VERY public speech for a private Christian organization (The “National Day of Prayer Task Force”: NDPTF) headed up by Focus on the Family founder, Dr. James Dobson’s, wife Shirley Dobson. “
". . . disgusted and shocked by the brazenly illicit and wholly unconstitutional, fundamentalist Christian proselytizing . . ."
- letter from Military Religious Freedom Foundation
The group, which believes that the American flag and the U.S. Constitution are the only religious symbol and scripture, respectively, for those who serve in the military, also wants other service members who helped Olson to be investigated and punished "to the full extent of military law."
During Olson’s 23-minute talk, the Air Force Times reports, Olson spoke of "flying complex aircraft; doing complex nuclear missions — I have no ability to do that. God enabled me to do that."
"He put me in charge of failing programs worth billions of dollars,” Olson said. “I have no ability to do that, no training to do that. God did that. He sent me to Iraq to negotiate foreign military sales deals through an Arabic interpreter. I have no ability to do that. I was not trained to do that. God did all of that."
At the end of his speech, Olson asked those in attendance to pray for Defense Department leaders and troops preparing to be deployed.
Olson is the program executive officer at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts, where he is responsible for more than 2,200 personnel, according to the U.S. Air Force website. He was commissioned in 1982 following graduation from the U.S. Air Force Academy and has extensive operational, flight test and acquisition experience.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/17/air-force-general-who-spoke-god-in-speech-should-be-court-martialed-group-says/
-
That's a bit of an overreaction. He gave this speech on his own time, right? Although, frankly, he ought to be demoted for - by his own admission - not having the qualifications for the position he holds.
-
That's a bit of an overreaction. He gave this speech on his own time, right? Although, frankly, he ought to be demoted for - by his own admission - not having the qualifications for the position he holds.
Good point..
-
That's a bit of an overreaction. He gave this speech on his own time, right? Although, frankly, he ought to be demoted for - by his own admission - not having the qualifications for the position he holds.
Let's not get all factual and common sense-y ok?
-
That's a bit of an overreaction. He gave this speech on his own time, right? Although, frankly, he ought to be demoted for - by his own admission - not having the qualifications for the position he holds.
I understand where he's coming from. Not trying to turn this into a religious discussion, but it's that Christian humility that acknowledges every good thing comes from above. I just read comments by a Christian I know from Harlem who talked about all of his world travel, military and civilian success, and incredible life after growing up without a father in the hood, and how none of that would have been possible without God's grace. You obviously don't have to agree, but that's a pretty common Christian viewpoint. It's not any kind of acknowledgement of incompetence.
But regarding the story, they are a bunch of hypersensitive and insecure folks to get so offended over a few comments in a speech.
-
I understand where he's coming from. Not trying to turn this into a religious discussion, but it's that Christian humility that acknowledges every good thing comes from above. I just read comments by a Christian I know from Harlem who talked about all of his world travel, military and civilian success, and incredible life after growing up without a father in the hood, and how none of that would have been possible without God's grace. You obviously don't have to agree, but that's a pretty common Christian viewpoint. It's not any kind of acknowledgement of incompetence.
But regarding the story, they are a bunch of hypersensitive and insecure folks to get so offended over a few comments in a speech.
My concern, is if God were to suddenly die tomorrow, this guy might fly a complex nuclear machine into a city. You can say that God won't die, but the bumper sticker "With God, All things are possible" refutes that. :)
-
My concern, is if God were to suddenly die tomorrow, this guy might fly a complex nuclear machine into a city. You can say that God won't die, but the bumper sticker "With God, All things are possible" refutes that. :)
I guess anything is possible. :)
-
I understand where he's coming from. Not trying to turn this into a religious discussion, but it's that Christian humility that acknowledges every good thing comes from above. I just read comments by a Christian I know from Harlem who talked about all of his world travel, military and civilian success, and incredible life after growing up without a father in the hood, and how none of that would have been possible without God's grace. You obviously don't have to agree, but that's a pretty common Christian viewpoint. It's not any kind of acknowledgement of incompetence.
But regarding the story, they are a bunch of hypersensitive and insecure folks to get so offended over a few comments in a speech.
I agree it's an overreaction. But I find this "Christian humility" stuff to be mumbo-jumbo for a number of reasons.
First, there's a difference between being humble and claiming to be worthless and completely dependent on someone else. I understand that many Christians do see themselves that way - and some flavors encourage this viewpoint - but it's still a fucked up way to see oneself.
Second, is the issue Agnostic007 brought up. If this guy is completely and utterly incapable and unqualified to do the job - which is what he admits based on a plain reading of his words, then what happens if one day he's doing something important and God is distracted?
Lastly, what is he suggesting? Well, basically that the Air Force training and evaluation programs are shit. Should that be a cause for concern? Or will God spot us there too?
-
I agree it's an overreaction. But I find this "Christian humility" stuff to be mumbo-jumbo for a number of reasons.
First, there's a difference between being humble and claiming to be worthless and completely dependent on someone else. I understand that many Christians do see themselves that way - and some flavors encourage this viewpoint - but it's still a fucked up way to see oneself.
Second, is the issue Agnostic007 brought up. If this guy is completely and utterly incapable and unqualified to do the job - which is what he admits based on a plain reading of his words, then what happens if one day he's doing something important and God is distracted?
Lastly, what is he suggesting? Well, basically that the Air Force training and evaluation programs are shit. Should that be a cause for concern? Or will God spot us there too?
Exactly. Why train in the first place? Just throw up a prayer and let God do the rest.
It's the same thing when people credit God with things he had no part in anyway. You graduated from college? Just prayed and never studied, God took your test for you. Beat cancer? It was God, not the doctors, technology and/or the cancer itself for going away. Became successful? Nothing about skill, motivation or even luck. Just put a quarter in the collection plate and God will reward you tenfold.
People who do this are generally insecure and have low self esteem. They don't feel as though they are worthy enough for the credit of their own hard work or luck, so they have to offer it to someone else.
-
I agree it's an overreaction. But I find this "Christian humility" stuff to be mumbo-jumbo for a number of reasons.
First, there's a difference between being humble and claiming to be worthless and completely dependent on someone else. I understand that many Christians do see themselves that way - and some flavors encourage this viewpoint - but it's still a fucked up way to see oneself.
Second, is the issue Agnostic007 brought up. If this guy is completely and utterly incapable and unqualified to do the job - which is what he admits based on a plain reading of his words, then what happens if one day he's doing something important and God is distracted?
Lastly, what is he suggesting? Well, basically that the Air Force training and evaluation programs are shit. Should that be a cause for concern? Or will God spot us there too?
It's not about being completely dependent on "someone else." It's about being completely dependent on a higher authority/being. That's precisely what the Bible/Christianity teaches. That doesn't mean you don't work hard, study, train, learn, and do everything in your power to try and excel (also something the Bible teaches).
But like I said, you don't have to agree with that teaching or belief. It's really about respecting differences. That's what the people in the story (and many like them) are apparently incapable of doing.
-
Ahh... apologetics.
-
Meh. Call it whatever you want. I don't consider this some kind of debate. It's just a discussion. An exchange of ideas. Maybe somebody reading it can learn something, or have a better appreciation for how to deal with things they disagree with.
-
But like I said, you don't have to agree with that teaching or belief. It's really about respecting differences. That's what the people in the story (and many like them) are apparently incapable of doing.
That's exactly what religion can't seem to do.
That's why they can't leave gay people alone, that's why they can't leave a woman's body to herself.
-
That's exactly what religion can't seem to do.
That's why they can't leave gay people alone, that's why they can't leave a woman's body to herself.
In what way is "religion" not leaving gay people alone? Or not leaving "a woman's body to herself"?
-
3 recent situations really drive home the point to me Christians are almost mindless in their belief.
1. Friend of mine gets diagnosed with cancer Jan 12. Email and FB strings start flying, sending prayers... and they have faith god will heal him. By mid Feb he is really going down hill... More emails.. "This is the time to pray for our brother, I have faith god will heal him" stuff. End of April... he passes away.. MORE emails sending prayers for his family
2. Co-workers daughter has cancer. They spend lots of money and lots of trips to MD Anderson. Doctors treat her, she is knocked the hell down to almost nothing with Chemo... 18 months of miserable times, cancer is gone, cancer comes back... finally they get an all good test back after 10's of thousands of dollars and extensive medical treatment. His post yesterday "God is Great!"
3. Atheist friend has cancer and through sloppy work by a doctor in the initial discovery it is allowed to spread. It's been 5 yrs , he's been on deaths door a couple times, his Christian friends feel this is a perfect time to preach god to him. He doesn't see their evidence as plausible and remains atheist. Today he is recovering and doing very well..
At what point is it ok for someone to say "Can we stop pretending prayer works for Christ sake?"
-
Court: Jesus Statue Will Remain on Montana Mountain Top
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=353e8cd1-9278-4b8d-8351-25a083ff0330&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Court: Jesus Statue Will Remain on Montana Mountain Top 'Big Mountain Jesus' on Montana mountaintop. (AP)
By Cathy Burke
Monday, 31 Aug 2015
A revered memorial to World War II veterans known as Big Mountain Jesus may stay atop a Montana ski resort in the Flathead National Forest, a three-judge appeals panel has ruled.
In its Monday decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling allowing the 12-foot-high statue and memorial to stay on the federally owned property near Kalispell, Mont., the Christian Post reports.
While the 60-year-old statue has a religious appearance, the display's purposes are secular, the panel decided. The monument is on public land the U.S. Forest Service leases to a private organization, the Missoulian reports.
According to the Christian Post, the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2012 to have Big Mountain Jesus removed, arguing the statue on public land violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
"The government identified secular rationales for its continued authorization including the statue's cultural and historical significance for veterans, Montanans, and tourists; the statue's inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; and the government's intent to preserve the site 'as a historic part of the resort,'" according to the decision, posted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
"Although the dissent focuses on the monument's appearance, that the statue is of a religious figure, and that some of the initial impetus for the statue's placement was religiously motivated, does not end the matter."
A lawyer for the public-interest legal and educational institute hailed the decision.
"Today’s decision rejects the idea that history and the First Amendment ought to be enemies," Eric Baxter, senior lawyer of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.
"Freedom From Religion Foundation wanted to use the First Amendment to erase Big Mountain Jesus from memory, even though it is, as the Court recognized, a crucial part of the history of Montana. Thank goodness for common sense."
The statue of Jesus with his arms outstretched was erected in 1953 by a Knights of Columbus chapter to commemorate WWII vets. It was privately maintained, the Christian Post reports.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Big-Mountain-jesus-statue-remain/2015/08/31/id/672896/#ixzz3kVVD0Mz2
-
Paranoid anti-religious extremists hard at work again.
Bremerton football coach investigated for post-game prayers
Drew Mikkelsen and Heather Graf, KING 5 News
September 15, 2015
(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f5165edfa19bcf273643df7b3770f5690bca06dd/r=x404&c=534x401/http/cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/8f34608b555ec32dd768545f79953f0d1ac02edc/c=1-0-1022-768/local/-/media/2015/09/15/NWGroup/KING/635778750115304547-bremerton-hs-prayer.jpg)
(Photo: Heather Graf / KING)
BREMERTON, Wash. -- The Bremerton School District is investigating a football coach for praying after high school football games. District policy states "school staff shall neither encourage nor discourage" students from praying.
Bremerton High School assistant football coach Joe Kennedy, who is still coaching, said he always prays after games on the 50-yard line. He said sometimes he's alone, sometimes players join him.
"I never asked anyone," Kennedy said. "They just all showed up one day and the next thing I know, the other team was showing up with us."
KING 5 spoke to Kennedy at Monday's JV football game, He's the assistant head coach for Bremerton High's varsity team and the head coach for the JV squad. After Monday's game, Kennedy still prayed on the field, and a large crowd made up of players and parents from both Bremerton and its opponent took part.
"I spent 20 years in the Marine Corps, and it's been about protecting the freedom of other people," he said. "It's about the freedom, and people can believe whatever they want. I'm just exercising my right. The game is over, and I just thank god for every one of these young men that are out here."
It's not yet clear what promoted the district investigation, but many in the stands at Monday's game assumed it came as the result of a complaint or concern about the separation of church and state.
"It's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," said Bill Bailey, who was actually cheering for Bremerton's opponent to win the game, but says he supports Kennedy's post-game prayers completely. "If they don't like it, they don't have to participate."
The district would not comment on the ongoing investigation, except to say that Coach Kennedy has not been fired or placed on administrative leave. News of the investigation spread online over the weekend, sparking protest on a Facebook page called "Support Joe Kennedy."
Kennedy told KING 5 he's not worried about losing his job. Instead, his team remains his top priority.
"I don't really worry about all that nonsense," he said. "The only thing I worry about is the kids. It's not about what my beliefs are, it's about believing in each other. It's about the sport that we love."
Parents in the stands on Monday told KING 5 they've watched Kennedy pray after every game for years. Some didn't seem to understand why it's all of a sudden become an issue.
"Maybe there are some people who don't go to church and don't want their kid exposed to it, but you can't stop it for everyone," said Wanda Stone. "He doesn't tell the kids that if they don't come out and pray they're not going to play. The kids are voluntarily going out there."
A rally in support of Coach Kennedy is planned for Friday - the day Bremerton High School's varsity team takes the field.
The prayer Kennedy prayed after Monday's game lasted only about 13 seconds.
"Lord, I just want to lift up all these warriors that came out here to compete today," he prayed. "I don't care what their beliefs are. We do believe in this sport. We believe in football, we believe in a team and competition. It's all about the game. In your name, Amen."
Many who bowed their heads with him also said "Amen" and cheered when he finished praying.
District policy states that staff members can't encourage or discrouage a student from engaging in non-disruptive oral or silent prayer. So there's nothing wrong with students or student athletes praying, it's just a question of what role the teacher or coach is playing in that prayer. It appears that is what the district investigation will try to determine.
It's not yet clear when that investigation will be complete.
http://www.king5.com/story/news/local/bremerton/2015/09/14/bremerton-football-coach-investigated-post-game-prayers/72281698/
-
Waaaah!
'God bless the military' sign on Hawaii base is questioned
By Rob Shikina
Sep 24, 2015
(http://cloudmedia.staradvertiser.com/images/660*420/MCB-Hawaii-Sign.jpg)
MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION
Twenty-three Marines have complained to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation about this sign at Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe, claiming it violates the First Amendment.
A mainland watchdog group is crying foul over a “God bless the military” sign on the Marine base in Kaneohe, claiming the display violates the U.S. Constitution.
Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent an email Thursday to Col. Sean Killeen, commanding officer of Marine Corps Base Hawaii, asking that the sign be moved to the chapel grounds or removed.
The advocacy group alleges the sign is a “brazen violation” of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which forbids the government from promoting one religion over another.
The group’s email said the sign “sends the clear message that your installation gives preference to those who hold religious beliefs over those who do not.”
The sign, located on a road leading to the marina, reads in full: “God bless the military, their families, and the civilians who work with them.”
MRFF is a nonproft with a mission of protecting the religious freedom of U.S. military members.
MRFF’s founder, Mikey Weinstein, said by phone from New Mexico on Thursday that 23 Marines, from the ranks of the enlisted to officers, have complained about the sign to his organization over the past two weeks.
He said the sign stands out “like a tarantula on a wedding cake” on the small base.
He said the Marines — 21 of whom are Protestant — have not used the chain of command to lodge a complaint because they fear reprisal.
Capt. Tim Irish, spokesman for Marine Corps Base Hawaii, said the commanding officer received an emailed complaint about the sign and ordered his staff to research the sign’s origin and its compliance with existing regulations.
He said the Base Inspector’s Office is also investigating whether there have been complaints in the past about the sign, which may have been there for years.
“MCBH will exercise due diligence to ensure compliance with existing regulations and law, including theEstablishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he said in an email.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20150924_God_bless_the_military_sign_on_Hawaii_base_is_questioned.html?id=329414241
-
The ACLU really needs to learn how to pick its battles.
School district fights ACLU, vows to keep saying ‘God bless you’
By Todd Starnes
Published October 02, 2015
FoxNews.com
The American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana has launched a full-scale assault on Airline High School after the principal wrote the words, “May God Bless You All” in a message posted on the school’s website.
“The Future Starts Today – May God Bless You All,” wrote Principal Jason Rowland in September.
The ACLU also complained about plans by the school’s Fellowship of Christian Athletes to place prayer request boxes around the campus.
Pastor Fream said it’s time for the community to stand together and send a message to the ACLU.
That was all the evidence the ACLU needed to accuse Bossier Parish Schools of engaging “in a pattern of religious proselytization.”
“There is no question that the principal has violated these legal mandates by invoking God, prayer and Christianity in school publications and on school grounds,” Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Marjorie Esman wrote in a letter published by the Shreveport Times. “This unlawful religious coercion is improper from any school employee but it is particularly egregious coming from the school principal, whose job is to teach and uphold, rather than violate, the legal rights of all.”
They allege the principal broke the law with his online message. And they allege the students broke the law by placing “prayer boxes” around the campus.
“Immediately remove all references to prayer from the website of Airline and any other schools in the Bossier Parish school district,” wrote Marjorie Esman, the executive director of the ACLU in Louisiana. “Immediately remove the ‘prayer boxes’ and any similar devices at Airline and another other schools in the Bossier Parish school district.”
On Thursday night the school board issued a statement telling the ACLU they don't plan on losing their religion. They determined nothing improper happened at the high school.
“The Bossier Parish School Board is committed to honoring the state and federal law as it relates to the rights of all students, regardless of their religious beliefs,” read a statement provided to the Shreveport Times.
“The Board and its administration welcome meaningful discussion of this and any issue but will base their decision on the law and facts as they know them to exist. Decisions in the best interest of our students can never result from threats and intimidation.”
The school board also issued a resolution which said U.S. history is built on “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," the newspaper reported.
Supporters blasted the ACLU's attempt to bully the principal and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
“It is a campaign of fear, intimidation and misinformation,” State Rep. Mike Johnson told me. “This is standard practice for the ACLU. What they hope will happen is they make these radical demands and the school board will bow to the pressure.”
Johnson, who is also the chief counsel for the law firm Freedom Guard, said the ACLU has picked the wrong community to attack.
“This is a very conservative area,” he said. “The ACLU picked the wrong sleeping giant this time.”
Thousands of local citizens have mobilized in defense of the school district and a rally has been scheduled for this coming weekend.
“It’s really hit a nerve,” Johnson said. “People have had enough.”
He accused the ACLU of “trolling” – looking for a school district to attack.
“They’ve never even been to this school,” he said. “They literally are trolling the Internet looking for things to be offended by. They are on a search and destroy mission for all things Christian.”
Among those defending the principal is John Fream, the pastor of Cypress Baptist Church. Principal Rowland is a member of the church and teaches Sunday School.
“We all have rights – even Christians,” Pastor Fream told me. “We want our kids to know they have rights. Our kids can pray in school. They can put out prayer boxes.”
Pastor Fream said it’s time for the community to stand together and send a message to the ACLU.
“We don’t hate the ACLU,” he said. “We are just for our Christian beliefs.”
It’s about time that someone stands up to these bullies – and I can’t think of a better place than Bossier Parish.
The ACLU has a predilection for attacking Christians that borders on the bizarre. Maybe they should consider a name change to reflect their disdain for people of faith.
How about the Anti-Christian Liberals Union?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/02/aclu-says-god-bless-is-illegal.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
The principal really needs to learn to keep his personal belief in a god or gods to himself.
-
Or he can just express himself like the typical American, who isn't required to sanitize all of his or her expression of any references to God or religion. That's not what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
-
Or he can just express himself like the typical American, who isn't required to sanitize all of his or her expression of any references to God or religion. That's not what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.
At his home, or away from the job, feel free. But as the principal of the school, when acting as an official from the school, he needs to leave his personal beliefs regarding religion out of it.
-
At his home, or away from the job, feel free. But as the principal of the school, when acting as an official from the school, he needs to leave his personal beliefs regarding religion out of it.
Guarantee you had he said "Praise Allah" there would be an uproar from the community. It has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with separating church and state
-
At his home, or away from the job, feel free. But as the principal of the school, when acting as an official from the school, he needs to leave his personal beliefs regarding religion out of it.
Or on the job. This was not an attempt to have the government establish a church or convert people, proselytize, etc. He doesn't have to check his personal beliefs at the door. Hypersensitive people need to get over it already, especially those who don't even believe in God.
-
Guarantee you had he said "Praise Allah" there would be an uproar from the community. It has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with separating church and state
Except that's not what he said. This doesn't have anything to do with separation of church and state. He wasn't trying to establish a church. It's about freedom of expression.
-
Except that's not what he said. This doesn't have anything to do with separation of church and state. He wasn't trying to establish a church. It's about freedom of expression.
We'll have to disagree. I think a person in a place of authority over people, especially kids, but it could apply to an Army General, should avoid bringing THEIR personal views of religion into their work. This would apply to Wiccans, Sikh, Buddhist, Christians, and even an atheist that had a signature block that said something about their being no gods. Why can't people just focus on work?
-
We'll have to disagree. I think a person in a place of authority over people, especially kids, but it could apply to an Army General, should avoid bringing THEIR personal views of religion into their work. This would apply to Wiccans, Sikh, Buddhist, Christians, and even an atheist that had a signature block that said something about their being no gods. Why can't people just focus on work?
Yes, we will have to disagree. Why can't people respect differences? I never get offended by people expressing themselves, even if they mention things I don't believe in. It's really not that hard. The First Amendment does not require people to cleanse their speech of all forms of religious expression.
-
Yes, we will have to disagree. Why can't people respect differences? I never get offended by people expressing themselves, even if they mention things I don't believe in. It's really not that hard. The First Amendment does not require people to cleanse their speech of all forms of religious expression.
I remember having a Church of Christ member as a teacher in 4th grade. She wouldn't hesitate to tell the class that if you aren't baptized in water you won't go to heaven. That was her opinion. Do you think she has the right to freely express her opinion to the class?
-
I remember having a Church of Christ member as a teacher in 4th grade. She wouldn't hesitate to tell the class that if you aren't baptized in water you won't go to heaven. That was her opinion. Do you think she has the right to freely express her opinion to the class?
If that was a public school, then no I don't think that was appropriate at all.
-
If that was a public school, then no I don't think that was appropriate at all.
But it was her opinion and you argued a person doesn't have to leave their beliefs in the parking lot when at work...
-
But it was her opinion and you argued a person doesn't have to leave their beliefs in the parking lot when at work...
That is proselytizing, which I never endorsed. Not a good comparison. And you're trying to divert attention away from the comments made by the principal.
-
That is proselytizing, which I never endorsed. Not a good comparison. And you're trying to divert attention away from the comments made by the principal.
I think I'm trying to point out the inherent danger in people in power bringing their personal religious beliefs into their job. No need. The danger far outweighs the possible benefits whatever that is
-
I think I'm trying to point out the inherent danger in people in power bringing their personal religious beliefs into their job. No need. The danger far outweighs the possible benefits whatever that is
Maybe that is your intent, although it sounds like you are trying to say the public sector must be free of all religious expression. That simply isn't accurate. I don't see anything dangerous at all with what the principal said.
-
Maybe that is your intent, although it sounds like you are trying to say the public sector must be free of all religious expression. That simply isn't accurate. I don't see anything dangerous at all with what the principal said.
I divide public sector and government sector in this regard. The CEO of Chik Filet can say anything he wants about his personal belief in a god or gods. I don't believe a government official, operating in a government capacity, should.
-
I divide public sector and government sector in this regard. The CEO of Chik Filet can say anything he wants about his personal belief in a god or gods. I don't believe a government official, operating in a government capacity, should.
I was using public sector synonymously with the government. Your position is still an overstatement. The First Amendment does not require a government official to avoid all forms of religious expression.
One of the things that always puzzles me is how atheists get offended by a reference to something they don't believe exists.
-
I was using public sector synonymously with the government. Your position is still an overstatement. The First Amendment does not require a government official to avoid all forms of religious expression.
One of the things that always puzzles me is how atheists get offended by a reference to something they don't believe exists.
I'll try to explain it to you....
I can't speak for all non believers but I can speak for myself and I get a general feel from others I know that this is the issue;
We would be perfectly happy to let people believe whatever they want. Elves, Leprechauns, Gods, Demons, Ghosts, Angels, Psychics etc etc. The list is probably endless. However we oppose people who do believe in those things forcing those personal beliefs on others. Simple as that. Whether it's in the form of a religious ceremonial prayer before a baseball game, promotion ceremony or council meeting to the other many ways they find to expose non believers to their belief.
The concern is, left unchecked, these people historically have been known to grow in confidence when others don't speak up, and before long they're burning witches, creating crusades and "saving" people who otherwise are just fine as they were. So reluctantly, the non believers have to be the bad guys and say "Hey Billy Bob, not everyone believes like you do, so put the torch down before you hurt someone"
-
Would you find it appropriate for a high school principal to have a signature block with "Belief in a God or Gods is silly" under his name and title?
-
I'll try to explain it to you....
I can't speak for all non believers but I can speak for myself and I get a general feel from others I know that this is the issue;
We would be perfectly happy to let people believe whatever they want. Elves, Leprechauns, Gods, Demons, Ghosts, Angels, Psychics etc etc. The list is probably endless. However we oppose people who do believe in those things forcing those personal beliefs on others. Simple as that. Whether it's in the form of a religious ceremonial prayer before a baseball game, promotion ceremony or council meeting to the other many ways they find to expose non believers to their belief.
The concern is, left unchecked, these people historically have been known to grow in confidence when others don't speak up, and before long they're burning witches, creating crusades and "saving" people who otherwise are just fine as they were. So reluctantly, the non believers have to be the bad guys and say "Hey Billy Bob, not everyone believes like you do, so put the torch down before you hurt someone"
The problem with this is nobody is forcing their beliefs on you when they simply express those beliefs. Expression does not always equal proselytizing or coercion. For example, having to stand while others observe a moment of silence or prayer is absolutely harmless, if we're talking about adults. Just keep your eyes open. How hard is that? And no disrespect intended to you, but I really could care less if people get offended by others who make references to their faith, God, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.
You have a very thin-skinned approach to this subject. Using your line of thinking, it would be unconstitutional for the president to say "God Bless America" at the end of every State of the Union Speech, which they all do. Why do they say this? Because the overwhelming majority of the country believes in God and that belief is part of the foundation of our country. Those expressions are a different universe from burning witches, crusades, establishing a national church, etc.
Remember that the First Amendment not only prohibits our government from establishing a church, it also provides for the free exercise of religion (or no religion) and freedom of expression, especially expression that might offend people.
-
Would you find it appropriate for a high school principal to have a signature block with "Belief in a God or Gods is silly" under his name and title?
I think that kind of signature block, or one that says "Belief in God is awesome" would be pretty dumb and inappropriate.
-
I think that kind of signature block, or one that says "Belief in God is awesome" would be pretty dumb and inappropriate.
Yet "God Bless You" automatically infers a belief in God for the Principal. In a school environment where kids are there to learn and can be influenced by people in authority, it doesn't belong. Leave it out. Let them figure it out at home, church or other private sector environments.
-
Yet "God Bless You" automatically infers a belief in God for the Principal. In a school environment where kids are there to learn and can be influenced by people in authority, it doesn't belong. Leave it out. Let them figure it out at home, church or other private sector environments.
Meh. Or people can just build a bridge and get over it. Or more accurately, the ACLU.
-
The problem with this is nobody is forcing their beliefs on you when they simply express those beliefs. Expression does not always equal proselytizing or coercion. For example, having to stand while others observe a moment of silence or prayer is absolutely harmless, if we're talking about adults. Just keep your eyes open. How hard is that? And no disrespect intended to you, but I really could care less if people get offended by others who make references to their faith, God, Mohammed, Buddha, etc.
You have a very thin-skinned approach to this subject. Using your line of thinking, it would be unconstitutional for the president to say "God Bless America" at the end of every State of the Union Speech, which they all do. Why do they say this? Because the overwhelming majority of the country believes in God and that belief is part of the foundation of our country. Those expressions are a different universe from burning witches, crusades, establishing a national church, etc.
Remember that the First Amendment not only prohibits our government from establishing a church, it also provides for the free exercise of religion (or no religion) and freedom of expression, especially expression that might offend people.
They ARE forcing their religious ceremony on me.. sorry but I should be FREE from religious ceremony at a government event or a sporting event. This is where the Christians seem to be oblivious to their intrusion, and pose questions like "Why do non believers care what I believe of they don't believe in god"
-
They ARE forcing their religious ceremony on me.. sorry but I should be FREE from religious ceremony at a government event or a sporting event. This is where the Christians seem to be oblivious to their intrusion, and pose questions like "Why do non believers care what I believe of they don't believe in god"
No they aren't. You can leave. You can sit there and be respectfully quiet. You can go to the bathroom. You can go buy snacks. We have to protect people from government coercion. What we don't have to do is unnecessarily cater to a handful of hypersensitive people.
I've said this several times on the board, but one of my business partners brought his Buddhist priest to the office to have a prayer and blessing. I participated. Didn't offend me at all.
The problem with anti-religious extremists is they want to censor all forms of religious expression. That's not the world we live in.
-
No they aren't. You can leave. You can sit there and be respectfully quiet. You can go to the bathroom. You can go buy snacks. We have to protect people from government coercion. What we don't have to do is unnecessarily cater to a handful of hypersensitive people.
I've said this several times on the board, but one of my business partners brought his Buddhist priest to the office to have a prayer and blessing. I participated. Didn't offend me at all.
The problem with anti-religious extremists is they want to censor all forms of religious expression. That's not the world we live in.
Are you Christian?
-
No they aren't. You can leave. You can sit there and be respectfully quiet. You can go to the bathroom. You can go buy snacks. We have to protect people from government coercion. What we don't have to do is unnecessarily cater to a handful of hypersensitive people.
I've said this several times on the board, but one of my business partners brought his Buddhist priest to the office to have a prayer and blessing. I participated. Didn't offend me at all.
The problem with anti-religious extremists is they want to censor all forms of religious expression. That's not the world we live in.
What if they decided to pray towards mecca during the game? Would that be ok?
What if they decided to play one of these songs during the or before the game?
http://www.thetoptens.com/most-satanic-songs/
Would that be ok?
I mean, it's not your religion, but it's a religion.
-
Are you Christian?
Yep. Also a firm believer in church-state separation.
-
What if they decided to pray towards mecca during the game? Would that be ok?
What if they decided to play one of these songs during the or before the game?
http://www.thetoptens.com/most-satanic-songs/
Would that be ok?
I mean, it's not your religion, but it's a religion.
Will never happen, but I really wouldn't care if that's what people wanted to do. Depending on what it was, I'd probably go get my garlic fries early instead of waiting till halftime like I normally do. I certainly would not be running to the ACLU, filing lawsuits, claiming I suffered emotional distress, etc.
-
Will never happen, but I really wouldn't care if that's what people wanted to do. Depending on what it was, I'd probably go get my garlic fries early instead of waiting till halftime like I normally do. I certainly would not be running to the ACLU, filing lawsuits, claiming I suffered emotional distress, etc.
You're right, it won't because this country is primarily Christian, but I have a funny feeling you're lying saying that you wouldn't care.
You would. To say otherwise is just being disingenuous. You don't want to hear people praising satan or any other god and you know it.
You would care.
-
You're right, it won't because this country is primarily Christian, but I have a funny feeling you're lying saying that you wouldn't care.
You would. To say otherwise is just being disingenuous. You don't want to hear people praising satan or any other god and you know it.
You would care.
Well you can kiss where the sun doesn't shine. I honestly don't care what you think.
-
Yep. Also a firm believer in church-state separation.
I think I understand your inability to see how your beliefs and practicing of those beliefs impact people who don't share your personal belief in a god or gods. That's why you aren't understanding the problem with it. Makes sense to me now. This is a common trait among believers in Christ where they feel other people who don't happen to share their belief in Christ should go buy hot dogs and otherwise occupy themselves while a group of you practice your religion at government and public events. I find it arrogance and unchrist like that people who follow him would insist on inconveniencing others so they can perform a ceremony Jesus himself taught NOT to do. Matthew 6:6 but hey, what the hell does Jesus know anyway right? You guys obviously know more than he did.
-
Jesus:
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 7"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.…
Christian : fuc$ off Jesus, we got this!
-
Well you can kiss where the sun doesn't shine. I honestly don't care what you think.
Oh... you know this isn't true... for various reasons.
One being you just told me to kiss your backside... So you must care more than you claim.
-
I think I understand your inability to see how your beliefs and practicing of those beliefs impact people who don't share your personal belief in a god or gods. That's why you aren't understanding the problem with it. Makes sense to me now. This is a common trait among believers in Christ where they feel other people who don't happen to share their belief in Christ should go buy hot dogs and otherwise occupy themselves while a group of you practice your religion at government and public events. I find it arrogance and unchrist like that people who follow him would insist on inconveniencing others so they can perform a ceremony Jesus himself taught NOT to do. Matthew 6:6 but hey, what the hell does Jesus know anyway right? You guys obviously know more than he did.
Nah. I'm just being very blunt about how hypersensitive anti-religious extremists can be. It's one thing to complain about a government agency trying to force people to worship. It's quite another to complain about anyone who dares express their faith. The problem with your type is you just don't want to hear it and get offended when you do. You just have to learn how to respect differences. Or not, and just complain about it, file lawsuits, etc.
I have participated in numerous services that directly contradict my faith. Not once was I offended.
I find it hilarious that atheists quote the Bible chapter and verse. :)
-
Oh... you know this isn't true... for various reasons.
One being you just told me to kiss your backside... So you must care more than you claim.
Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me? Just can't help yourself can you? lol :)
-
Nah. I'm just being very blunt about how hypersensitive anti-religious extremists can be. It's one thing to complain about a government agency trying to force people to worship. It's quite another to complain about anyone who dares express their faith. The problem with your type is you just don't want to hear it and get offended when you do. You just have to learn how to respect differences. Or not, and just complain about it, file lawsuits, etc.
I have participated in numerous services that directly contradict my faith. Not once was I offended.
I find it hilarious that atheists quote the Bible chapter and verse. :)
Its more likely an atheist has actually read the bible... verses a Christian.. true story plus, Christians rarely follow the bible so someone has to remind them what it says
-
Jesus:
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. 7"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.…
Christian : fuc$ off Jesus, we got this!
Oh nos. Another Bible-quoting atheist. Where can I find a bible or book about the coming subterranean alien invasion? I need to study it. :)
-
Its more likely an atheist has actually read the bible... verses a Christian.. true story plus, Christians rarely follow the bible so someone has to remind them what it says
Well we agree about too many Christians not reading the Bible.
-
Aren't you supposed to be ignoring me? Just can't help yourself can you? lol :)
I think I have been doing quite well.
You've been spouting off nonsense and I don't think I've responded to your ridiculousness in at least a week...
It's not easy when you say such asinine things of course, but I consider it a victory.
Its more likely an atheist has actually read the bible... verses a Christian.. true story plus, Christians rarely follow the bible so someone has to remind them what it says
This is true.
-
Nah. I'm just being very blunt about how hypersensitive anti-religious extremists can be. It's one thing to complain about a government agency trying to force people to worship. It's quite another to complain about anyone who dares express their faith. The problem with your type is you just don't want to hear it and get offended when you do. You just have to learn how to respect differences. Or not, and just complain about it, file lawsuits, etc.
I have participated in numerous services that directly contradict my faith. Not once was I offended.
I find it hilarious that atheists quote the Bible chapter and verse. :)
The hyper sensitive goes both ways.. Tell a "Christian" they can't have organized prayer before a council meeting and they piss themselves...
-
Oh nos. Another Bible-quoting atheist. Where can I find a bible or book about the coming subterranean alien invasion? I need to study it. :)
Thing is, you will completely ignore the fact Jesus taught against praying in the manner you advocate..
-
The hyper sensitive goes both ways.. Tell a "Christian" they can't have organized prayer before a council meeting and they piss themselves...
Sometimes. But what you don't see is Christians running around the country filing lawsuits claiming they are emotionally distressed about seeing or hearing something they don't believe exists.
-
Sometimes. But what you don't see is Christians running around the country filing lawsuits claiming they are emotionally distressed about seeing or hearing something they don't believe exists.
Christians believe everything exists... not a fair comparison
-
Thing is, you will completely ignore the fact Jesus taught against praying in the manner you advocate..
O Rly? What precisely did I advocate?
And why do you care what Jesus taught when you don't believe he exists?
And what teachings are you ignoring yourself, since you apparently like to read the Bible?
-
Christians believe everything exists... not a fair comparison
They do? News to me.
-
They do? News to me.
no doubt
-
no doubt
Invisible omnipotent creator.
Angels.
6000 year old earth.
Humans Riding Dinosaurs
-
O Rly? What precisely did I advocate?
And why do you care what Jesus taught when you don't believe he exists?
And what teachings are you ignoring yourself, since you apparently like to read the Bible?
great point
you don't believe in Allah so I guess there is not reason to care what Muslims believe
same goes for any subject matter.
If you don't agree that it's valid then you don't have any reason to have any opinion about it
-
no doubt
So I take it you're not going to help me find the bible/book about the pending subterranean alien invasion?
-
great point
you don't believe in Allah so I guess there is not reason to care what Muslims believe
same goes for any subject matter.
If you don't agree that it's valid then you don't have any reason to have any opinion about it
Unless, the muslims are forcing their religious practices on you... or making it a mission to convert you, then you arm yourself with the knowledge contained in the book they believe god sent them.. and you are able to point out to them they aren't even following it so kindly stfu.. but nah.. that doesn't even work. They could really care less what the book their god gave them says, because after all, most Christians are in it for all the wrong reasons... status.. insurance, sheep mentality. when it gets down to it.. most Christians don't believe the bible, they just refer to it out of reflex since most were trained from babies that they are supposed to believe it. But when they don't even bother to read the book, that says a lot
-
So I take it you're not going to help me find the bible/book about the pending subterranean alien invasion?
oh, you mean demons from hell...yes.. Christians believe in subterranean aliens who will invade earth
-
oh, you mean demons from hell...yes.. Christians believe in subterranean aliens who will invade earth
Really? What part of the Bible says demons from hell are residing below the earth's surface? I want the other book/bible that talks about the War of the Worlds invasion that is almost upon us.
-
Really? What part of the Bible says demons from hell are residing below the earth's surface? I want the other book/bible that talks about the War of the Worlds invasion that is almost upon us.
I'll get that for you from your gods book tomorrow and post it .. stick with me, you'll learn the bible yet
-
Unless, the muslims are forcing their religious practices on you... or making it a mission to convert you, then you arm yourself with the knowledge contained in the book they believe god sent them.. and you are able to point out to them they aren't even following it so kindly stfu.. but nah.. that doesn't even work. They could really care less what the book their god gave them says, because after all, most Christians are in it for all the wrong reasons... status.. insurance, sheep mentality. when it gets down to it.. most Christians don't believe the bible, they just refer to it out of reflex since most were trained from babies that they are supposed to believe it. But when they don't even bother to read the book, that says a lot
It was sarcasm
Bum seems to believe that atheists or people who don't believe in christianity have no right (or in his mind any logical reason) to criticize, comment etc.. on christianity or the actions of people in the name of christianity and that it's "silly" of them to comment on or have an issue with something that they don't even believe in
-
Even though God is invisible and there is a huge amount of people who either don't believe in Him or believe that He is something other than what He really is, He really does exist and the Bible really is His word.
With that in mind, yeah I think it's ok to give special privilege to the Bible.
Many of you will think that's crazy, but one day soon you will know the truth. When you meet Jesus.
But, just from a purely factual, purely historical point of view: the Bible is relevant to student education, more so than any other book or topic. The entire world has a 7 day week, and recognizes it is the year 2015. Why? Because the Bible says that God created the world in a 7 day week and 2015 years ago Jesus was born. The most significant event in the history of the world, that has absolutely shaped our world's morals and beliefs and way of life, is the life of Jesus and the Jewish scriptures that foretold His coming.
-
Even though God is invisible and there is a huge amount of people who either don't believe in Him or believe that He is something other than what He really is, He really does exist and the Bible really is His word.
With that in mind, yeah I think it's ok to give special privilege to the Bible.
Many of you will think that's crazy, but one day soon you will know the truth. When you meet Jesus.
But, just from a purely factual, purely historical point of view: the Bible is relevant to student education, more so than any other book or topic. The entire world has a 7 day week, and recognizes it is the year 2015. Why? Because the Bible says that God created the world in a 7 day week and 2015 years ago Jesus was born. The most significant event in the history of the world, that has absolutely shaped our world's morals and beliefs and way of life, is the life of Jesus and the Jewish scriptures that foretold His coming.
So you have meet the guy? What did he say?
-
Even though God is invisible and there is a huge amount of people who either don't believe in Him or believe that He is something other than what He really is, He really does exist and the Bible really is His word.
With that in mind, yeah I think it's ok to give special privilege to the Bible.
Many of you will think that's crazy, but one day soon you will know the truth. When you meet Jesus.
But, just from a purely factual, purely historical point of view: the Bible is relevant to student education, more so than any other book or topic. The entire world has a 7 day week, and recognizes it is the year 2015. Why? Because the Bible says that God created the world in a 7 day week and 2015 years ago Jesus was born. The most significant event in the history of the world, that has absolutely shaped our world's morals and beliefs and way of life, is the life of Jesus and the Jewish scriptures that foretold His coming.
By Jesus you really mean Jesus, as in Hey-Sus, the barrel chest Mexican gardener that made you wear the bunny suit?
-
Even though God is invisible and there is a huge amount of people who either don't believe in Him or believe that He is something other than what He really is, He really does exist and the Bible really is His word.
With that in mind, yeah I think it's ok to give special privilege to the Bible.
Many of you will think that's crazy, but one day soon you will know the truth. When you meet Jesus.
But, just from a purely factual, purely historical point of view: the Bible is relevant to student education, more so than any other book or topic. The entire world has a 7 day week, and recognizes it is the year 2015. Why? Because the Bible says that God created the world in a 7 day week and 2015 years ago Jesus was born. The most significant event in the history of the world, that has absolutely shaped our world's morals and beliefs and way of life, is the life of Jesus and the Jewish scriptures that foretold His coming.
Oh brother. I don't even know where to start
If that's what you need to believe to stay off crack and all the other self destructive shit that you've done is your life then I guess it's good for you
-
Atheists Target School Prayer — but Students and Residents Flock to the Football Field to Respond With a Powerful Message
Oct. 6, 2015
Billy Hallowell
After atheists complained and threatened legal action over claims that adults have been leading and participating in prayers at an Arkansas school district, officials and students, alike, are pushing back.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist activist group, recently sent a letter to superintendent Jason Sanders of Ashdown School District in Ashdown, Arkansas, accusing a band director as well as others of praying at school events, KTBS-TV reported.
But Sanders said that the district hasn’t done anything wrong.
“We feel like that the freedom of our students to express themselves will hold up in a court of law,” he said. “We’re not going to stop any student who wants to exercise their freedom of religious expression such as a prayer.”
And students, too, are speaking up, with dozens taking to a football field to pray before a game last Friday night in an effort to defend their right to invoke the Almighty.
Fans and students from both teams were joined by referees, as they kneeled together on the field in prayer.
Freedom From Religion Staff Attorney Elizabeth Cavell told KTBS-TV that the atheist organization was contacted by a concerned student, which is what led to the initial letter questioning school practices.
“We were informed that staff are participating in prayer or inappropriately injecting religion into their public school role,” Cavell told the outlet.
It is unclear what will happen next.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/06/students-and-referees-take-to-the-football-field-to-respond-to-atheists-threats-against-school-prayer/
-
Emanuel County school district settles suit over teacher-led prayer
The Freedom From Religion Foundation settled a lawsuit Monday with the Emanuel County School District after stopping teacher-led prayer, officials say.
In 2014, a family that encountered teacher-led prayer in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms contacted the watchdog group, which sent a letter to the Georgia school district.
Teachers continued to have prayers among elementary school pupils as part of the school day, resulting in bullying and ostracism of two students referred to as “Jesse and Jamie Doe,” according to the group’s staff attorney, Sam Grover. In February, the group sued on behalf of the family, seeking corrective action from the district and financial compensation for any harm sustained by the family.
On Monday, after reaching an agreement with the district, the foundation said it is dismissing its lawsuit. Emanuel County teachers have received educational training on their obligations not to promote religious beliefs in their classrooms, and the family has been financially compensated, according to the organization.
Officials with the school system did not return e-mails seeking comment Monday.
According to the lawsuit, the children attended Swainsboro Primary School and their parents wished to raise them without religion.
In a kindergarten class, Cel Thompson led students in a call and response prayer: “God our Father, we give thanks for our many blessings. Amen.” In a first-grade class, Kaytrene Bright led students in a daily prayer: “God is great. Let us thank you for our food. Thank you for our daily prayer. Thank you. Amen.”
During August 2014, the two children notified Principal Valorie Watkins about the prayers and their objections. Rather than ending the prayers, Thompson and Bright told the two children to leave their classrooms and sit in the hallway while the rest of the class prayed, it was reported.
“Jesse” told his sister that his teacher, Bright, “used her mean voice” when instructing him to wait in the hallway, according to the lawsuit.
“We’re pleased that the Emanuel County Schools has taken action to correct the egregious constitutional violations that were taking place in its classrooms,” said the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s co-president, Annie Laurie Gaylor. “No devotions and religious practices should take place in public schools, and no small child should ever be pressured to take part in such illegal practices. More than 50 years of clear Supreme Court precedent bar such coercive conduct, because religion in schools is divisive and builds walls between children.”
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/education/2015-10-05/emanuel-county-school-district-settles-lawsuit-prayer-classrooms
http://ffrf.org/images/01goComplaint.pdf
-
Atheists Target School Prayer — but Students and Residents Flock to the Football Field to Respond With a Powerful Message
Oct. 6, 2015
Billy Hallowell
After atheists complained and threatened legal action over claims that adults have been leading and participating in prayers at an Arkansas school district, officials and students, alike, are pushing back.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist activist group, recently sent a letter to superintendent Jason Sanders of Ashdown School District in Ashdown, Arkansas, accusing a band director as well as others of praying at school events, KTBS-TV reported.
But Sanders said that the district hasn’t done anything wrong.
“We feel like that the freedom of our students to express themselves will hold up in a court of law,” he said. “We’re not going to stop any student who wants to exercise their freedom of religious expression such as a prayer.”
And students, too, are speaking up, with dozens taking to a football field to pray before a game last Friday night in an effort to defend their right to invoke the Almighty.
Fans and students from both teams were joined by referees, as they kneeled together on the field in prayer.
Freedom From Religion Staff Attorney Elizabeth Cavell told KTBS-TV that the atheist organization was contacted by a concerned student, which is what led to the initial letter questioning school practices.
“We were informed that staff are participating in prayer or inappropriately injecting religion into their public school role,” Cavell told the outlet.
It is unclear what will happen next.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/06/students-and-referees-take-to-the-football-field-to-respond-to-atheists-threats-against-school-prayer/
Apparently the students haven't gotten to Matthew 6:6 and erroneously are praying against Jesus' teaching... once they get to that chapter and verse this should subside...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
Apparently the students haven't gotten to Matthew 6:6 and erroneously are praying against Jesus' teaching... once they get to that chapter and verse this should subside...
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'll get that for you from your gods book tomorrow and post it .. stick with me, you'll learn the bible yet
Sooo . . . . ?
-
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
For Sheol does not thank you; death does not praise you; those who go down to the pit do not hope for your faithfulness
But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Deuteronomy 32:22 says, "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and SHALL BURN UNTO THE LOWEST HELL, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains."
In the King James Version, Ephesians 4:9 says that before Jesus ascended into heaven, “he also descended . . . into the lower parts of the earth.
-
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
For Sheol does not thank you; death does not praise you; those who go down to the pit do not hope for your faithfulness
But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.
For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Deuteronomy 32:22 says, "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and SHALL BURN UNTO THE LOWEST HELL, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains."
In the King James Version, Ephesians 4:9 says that before Jesus ascended into heaven, “he also descended . . . into the lower parts of the earth.
That's it? LOL! No, that does not talk about subterranean aliens currently living below the earth's surface, preparing an alien invasion.
But I'm glad you are reading the Bible. :D
-
That's it? LOL! No, that does not talk about subterranean aliens currently living below the earth's surface, preparing an alien invasion.
But I'm glad you are reading the Bible. :D
:)
-
Waaaah!
'God bless the military' sign on Hawaii base is questioned
By Rob Shikina
Sep 24, 2015
(http://christiannews.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MRFF-compressed-300x171.jpg)
MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION
Twenty-three Marines have complained to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation about this sign at Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Kaneohe, claiming it violates the First Amendment.
A mainland watchdog group is crying foul over a “God bless the military” sign on the Marine base in Kaneohe, claiming the display violates the U.S. Constitution.
Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent an email Thursday to Col. Sean Killeen, commanding officer of Marine Corps Base Hawaii, asking that the sign be moved to the chapel grounds or removed.
The advocacy group alleges the sign is a “brazen violation” of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which forbids the government from promoting one religion over another.
The group’s email said the sign “sends the clear message that your installation gives preference to those who hold religious beliefs over those who do not.”
The sign, located on a road leading to the marina, reads in full: “God bless the military, their families, and the civilians who work with them.”
MRFF is a nonproft with a mission of protecting the religious freedom of U.S. military members.
MRFF’s founder, Mikey Weinstein, said by phone from New Mexico on Thursday that 23 Marines, from the ranks of the enlisted to officers, have complained about the sign to his organization over the past two weeks.
He said the sign stands out “like a tarantula on a wedding cake” on the small base.
He said the Marines — 21 of whom are Protestant — have not used the chain of command to lodge a complaint because they fear reprisal.
Capt. Tim Irish, spokesman for Marine Corps Base Hawaii, said the commanding officer received an emailed complaint about the sign and ordered his staff to research the sign’s origin and its compliance with existing regulations.
He said the Base Inspector’s Office is also investigating whether there have been complaints in the past about the sign, which may have been there for years.
“MCBH will exercise due diligence to ensure compliance with existing regulations and law, including theEstablishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he said in an email.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20150924_God_bless_the_military_sign_on_Hawaii_base_is_questioned.html?id=329414241
Good.
Marine Corps Refuses to Remove ‘God Bless the Military’ Sign Following Complaint
By Heather Clark on October 13, 20151
(http://christiannews.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MRFF-compressed-300x171.jpg)
MRFF-compressedKANEOHE, Hawaii — A Marine Corps base in Hawaii is refusing to relocate or remove a sign that asks God’s blessing on the Armed Forces following receipt of a complaint from a group that seeks to separate God from the military.
As previously reported, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) sent an email last month to Col. Sean Killeen, the commanding officer of Marine Corps Base Hawaii, to take issue with a sign near the marina that reads, “God bless the military, their families, and the civilians who work with them.” It was reportedly erected following the September 11th attack of 2001.
Blake Page of MRFF asserted that the sign is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” He demanded that the sign either be moved to the chapel or removed altogether.
“This sign is a brazen violation of the No Establishment clause of the Constitution, as it sends the clear message that your installation gives preference to those who hold religious beliefs over those who do not, and those who prefer a monotheistic, intervening God over other deities or theologies,” Blake wrote in the email to Killeen.
“We recognize the value that religious activity brings to the lives of many,” he continued, “however, this sign is not in keeping with the time, place, and manner restrictions required by law [or] for any military commander to bolster religious principles through the official authority given to their rank and position.”
But the religious liberties group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) also sent Killeen an email, asserting that MRFF’s demands were unconstitutional.
“As it stands, the sign is not grounds for an Establishment Clause violation. However, removal of the sign would certainly be in violation of the Establishment Clause, showing preference for no religion over religion,” Director of Military Affairs Daniel Briggs wrote.
Connect with Christian News
“Our nation has many constitutionally permissible reminders of our historical and cultural roots, from our national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ to ‘so help me God’ in the Commissioned Officer’s Oath to the presidential proclamations accompanying each National Day of Prayer,” he continued.
After deliberating the matter, Killeen sent a reply to MRFF on Friday refusing to relocate or remove the sign.
“Several Supreme Court court cases and other federal cases, to include the 9th Circuit, support the conclusion that the message on the sign does not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he wrote. “‘God bless’ is commonly used in our culture in a number of contexts and there are numerous references to God in this nation’s symbols, songs, mottos and oaths.”
“To date, we have not received any direct complaints concerning this sign from service members or reports of service member complaints through any official chain of command,” Killeen continued. “We will always support all service members’ rights to pursue and practice their own belief sets, whether religious or not.”
http://christiannews.net/2015/10/13/marine-corps-refuses-to-remove-god-bless-the-military-sign-following-complaint/
-
EXCLUSIVE: Football coach says he will defy school's prayer ban
By Todd Starnes
Published October 14, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/10/14/exclusive-football-coach-says-will-defy-schools-prayer-ban/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1444843113248.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Bremerton High School football coach Joe Kennedy (Courtesy Liberty Institute)
There’s a scene in the great football film “Facing the Giants” when the coach decides to implement a new coaching philosophy – to praise God no matter what the result.
Joe Kennedy, a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington, was so inspired by the film he decided to embrace that philosophy – knowing that to do so could cost him his job. I’ll explain why in just a few more paragraphs.
Kennedy, a Desert Storm and Desert Shield combat veteran, made national headlines in September after the Bremerton School District launched an investigation into his post-game prayer.
Coach Kennedy plans on praying at midfield on Friday night.
Since 2008, Coach Kennedy would walk to the 50-yard line where he would offer a short prayer of thanksgiving for the safety of the players, the fairness of the game and for spirited competition. Over the years, students joined the coach – all voluntarily.
“I’m being investigated for thanking God for the opportunities that have been given me,” he said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”
The Bremerton School District eventually issued a three-page letter to the coach – forbidding him from praying before or after high school football games.
“I spent 20 years in the military defending the Constitution and the freedoms that everybody has,” the coach told me. “All of a sudden, I realized that people who work for the public schools don’t have the same constitutional rights that everyone else has.”
The Bremerton School District took specific issue with the coach’s pre-game locker room prayer as well as his post-game inspirational talk at midfield. “Problematic practices,” is how they phrased it.
“Your talks with students may not include religious express, including prayer,” Superintendent Aaron Leavell wrote in a Sept. 17th letter to the coach. “They must remain entirely secular in nature, so as to avoid alienation of any team member.”
The superintendent’s list of demands is, quite frankly, draconian. Consider this edict:
“If students engage in religious activity, school staff may not take any action likely to be perceived by a reasonable observer, who is aware of the history and context of such activity at BHS, as endorsement of that activity,” the superintendent wrote.
He specifically referenced that such actions would include “kneeling or bowing of the head during the students’ religious activity.”
Liberty Institute, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases, now represents Coach Kennedy and they fired off a letter on Wednesday to the school district urging them to rescind the prayer ban.
“There is no lawful prohibition against Coach Kennedy’s practice of saying a private, post-game prayer,” attorney Hiram Sasser wrote. “The prayers are Coach Kennedy’s private religious speech, and no reasonable observer could conclude that BHS sponsors, endorses, or encourages student participation.”
Sasser blasted the school district for “banning Coach Kennedy from bowing his head or even being physically present where students may be praying.”
He said such action is blatantly unconstitutional.
“This is tantamount to a declaration that Coach Kennedy must flee the scene if students voluntarily come to the same area and pray as well,” Sasser said.
Liberty Institute wants the Bremerton School District to accommodate Coach Kennedy’s religious beliefs. But regardless, Coach Kennedy plans on praying at midfield on Friday night.
He does so knowing that it could cost him his job.
“I’m not a guy who hides in a corner and does a secret prayer to God,” the coach told me. “I’m very open about my faith everywhere I go.”
And that includes the 50-yard line at Bremerton High School.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/14/exclusive-football-coach-says-will-defy-schools-prayer-ban.html?intcmp=hpbt4
-
“I’m not a guy who hides in a corner and does a secret prayer to God,” the coach told me. “I’m very open about my faith everywhere I go.”
Coach Kennedy ought to read Matthew 6:6: "But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you."
-
Coach Kennedy ought to read Matthew 6:6: "But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you."
But there is no "glory" in that... it doesn't draw attention...
-
Coach Kennedy ought to read Matthew 6:6: "But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you."
Well I guess all those churches need to shut down, no religious meetings, and all the public prayer Jesus and his disciplines were involved in were all wrong.
But only if you're trying to take a verse out of context with no real purpose other than to argue.
-
Well I guess all those churches need to shut down, no religious meetings, and all the public prayer Jesus and his disciplines were involved in were all wrong.
But only if you're trying to take a verse out of context with no real purpose other than to argue.
But.. it's not out of context... reading the entire chapter, hell, the entire new testament... you still come to the conclusion Jesus was against the public spectacle and it was more between you and god. That kids have been trained since they could crawl to do otherwise doesn't make it right..
-
But.. it's not out of context... reading the entire chapter, hell, the entire new testament... you still come to the conclusion Jesus was against the public spectacle and it was more between you and god. That kids have been trained since they could crawl to do otherwise doesn't make it right..
Yes, it's out of context and nonsensical. He wasn't advocating for everyone to literally pray in their closets. That's silly. He prayed publicly numerous times.
-
Yes, it's out of context and nonsensical. He wasn't advocating for everyone to literally pray in their closets. That's silly. He prayed publicly numerous times.
That's the beauty of the Bible: you can find a passage to justify _anything_. Want to pray in public? Check. Want to pray in private? Check. All sins forgivable? Check. Some sins unforgivable? Check. OK to marry unbelievers? Check. Not OK to marry unbelievers? Check.
At any rate, you took my mostly sarcastic quip way too seriously.
I don't think the school should be able to regulate the Coach's private exercise of his religion, but when he acts in his capacity as a Coach - as he has - then it certainly can and he ought to be more mindful. I get that you think that this is not a big deal, but try to think about it from the other side for just a second: Let's say there's one kid on that team that's not Christian. Suddenly, his entire team is praying... what are his choices? He can simply not join in, which will cause him to stand out (and teenagers don't like to stand out - they're herd animals) and cause friction with his teammates and perhaps his Coach. Or he can just pretend to join in, debasing his own beliefs in the process.
Before you say that there won't be friction and it'll all be ok, I urge you to read this article about a Hindu dental tech that claims to have been harassed and called a "devil" by her Christian coworkers (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/10/05/air-force-dental-technician-accused-witch/73398304/). If that's the behavior of adults, what can be expected from children?
-
That's the beauty of the Bible: you can find a passage to justify _anything_. Want to pray in public? Check. Want to pray in private? Check. All sins forgivable? Check. Some sins unforgivable? Check. OK to marry unbelievers? Check. Not OK to marry unbelievers? Check.
At any rate, you took my mostly sarcastic quip way too seriously.
I don't think the school should be able to regulate the Coach's private exercise of his religion, but when he acts in his capacity as a Coach - as he has - then it certainly can and he ought to be more mindful. I get that you think that this is not a big deal, but try to think about it from the other side for just a second: Let's say there's one kid on that team that's not Christian. Suddenly, his entire team is praying... what are his choices? He can simply not join in, which will cause him to stand out (and teenagers don't like to stand out - they're herd animals) and cause friction with his teammates and perhaps his Coach. Or he can just pretend to join in, debasing his own beliefs in the process.
Before you say that there won't be friction and it'll all be ok, I urge you to read this article about a [ulr=http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/10/05/air-force-dental-technician-accused-witch/73398304/]Hindu dental tech that claims to have been harassed and called a "devil" by her Christian coworkers[/url]. If that's the behavior of adults, what can be expected from children?
It's true that anyone wanting to manipulate various parts of the Bible can easily do so. Not that hard.
I am much more sensitive to the effects prayer and religion can have on kids, who are often a captive audience. This situation, however, is entirely voluntary. It's also a very common practice at the collegiate and pro levels. Can it make players who don't participate feel uncomfortable? Sure. But that shouldn't be the standard for whether it is acceptable.
Keep in mind that in the speech context, the First Amendment is largely designed to protect unpopular speech, which certainly agitates a lot of people. Religious expression shouldn't be treated any differently. That is, we should not censor religious expression solely because it might make some people uncomfortable.
-
I am much more sensitive to the effects prayer and religion can have on kids, who are often a captive audience. This situation, however, is entirely voluntary. It's also a very common practice at the collegiate and pro levels. Can it make players who don't participate feel uncomfortable? Sure. But that shouldn't be the standard for whether it is acceptable.
I agree with you about captive audiences. As to whether it's voluntary: even if it is, there's a difference between theory and practice. It's voluntary to stand, put your hand over your heart and face the flag when the National Anthem is heard. Or that's the theory. Now, in practice, imagine the grilling that will ensue when one person doesn't do this.
It's true that people shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their action, but the relevant bit here is that we are talking about school-related activities. Are the students a captive audience in the locker room, but not on the field? If there's a Hindu student on the team, is it ok to have the coach effectively lead the team in prayer?
Keep in mind that in the speech context, the First Amendment is largely designed to protect unpopular speech, which certainly agitates a lot of people. Religious expression shouldn't be treated any differently. That is, we should not censor religious expression solely because it might make some people uncomfortable.
I agree, with the proviso that the government can and should control the behavior of its employees in the context of their work-related duties. If I go to a county clerk, I shouldn't have to worry about the individual clerk's beliefs which shouldn't matter or be allowed to interfere with his job (up to reasonable accommodations). Same with a coach - if he's on the clock, he shouldn't be praying; he can do that on his own time. See the URL I pasted in my previous and tell me if you think that the government can't regulate the on-the-job conduct of its employees.
Tell me, would you be ok if Coach Kennedy was Muslim and prayed to Allah instead? Or a practitioner of Santeria?
-
I agree with you about captive audiences. As to whether it's voluntary: even if it is, there's a difference between theory and practice. It's voluntary to stand, put your hand over your heart and face the flag when the National Anthem is heard. Or that's the theory. Now, in practice, imagine the grilling that will ensue when one person doesn't do this.
It's true that people shouldn't be immune from the consequences of their action, but the relevant bit here is that we are talking about school-related activities. Are the students a captive audience in the locker room, but not on the field? If there's a Hindu student on the team, is it ok to have the coach effectively lead the team in prayer?
I agree, with the proviso that the government can and should control the behavior of its employees in the context of their work-related duties. If I go to a county clerk, I shouldn't have to worry about the individual clerk's beliefs which shouldn't matter or be allowed to interfere with his job (up to reasonable accommodations). Same with a coach - if he's on the clock, he shouldn't be praying; he can do that on his own time. See the URL I pasted in my previous and tell me if you think that the government can't regulate the on-the-job conduct of its employees.
Tell me, would you be ok if Coach Kennedy was Muslim and prayed to Allah instead? Or a practitioner of Santeria?
Yes it's still voluntary. The coach started praying on the field by himself. The fact other players joined him is fine. If he was directing his players to do so that would be an entirely different story.
I completely disagree about a coach or any government employee not being allowed to pray while on the clock. That certainly isn't what the First Amendment requires. Public employees pray all the time. They have Bible study groups that meet in their government offices that are purely voluntary. Nothing wrong with that.
Not sure what the point is about the Air Force story? If you're asking me if that was wrong, then yes of course it was wrong. Blatant harassment and discrimination that should not be tolerated.
I could care less if the coach went and took a prayer rug onto the field after games and prayed to Allah, or some other god, so long as he is not forcing his players to participate.
-
But there is no "glory" in that... it doesn't draw attention...
exactly and you also can't complain about being persecuted which is de rigueur for our modern day fundies
-
Yes, it's out of context and nonsensical. He wasn't advocating for everyone to literally pray in their closets. That's silly. He prayed publicly numerous times.
That applies to the entire Bible.
-
That applies to the entire Bible.
How can an entire book be out of context with the book itself?
If you think it's nonsensical then don't read it.
-
How can an entire book be out of context with the book itself?
If you think it's nonsensical then don't read it.
Have you seen the contradictions in the bible? There are many.
-
Have you seen the contradictions in the bible? There are many.
Not really. If you put things in the proper context, and use common sense, it's consistent.
There are some things I don't agree with, but not because they contradict other parts of the book.
-
Not really. If you put things in the proper context, and use common sense, it's consistent.
There are some things I don't agree with, but not because they contradict other parts of the book.
There are many.
You say what you want.
-
There are many.
You say what you want.
I just did.
-
I just did.
That doesn't make you right.
Which you aren't.
-
That doesn't make you right.
Which you aren't.
It's my opinion. You're entitled to your own. I don't care about being "right."
-
It's my opinion. You're entitled to your own. I don't care about being "right."
That's the problem with most religious types. They don't care about being right or being wrong.
They just follow whatever some book or religious person tells them.
Shameful.
-
Not really. If you put things in the proper context, and use common sense, it's consistent.
There are some things I don't agree with, but not because they contradict other parts of the book.
There are multiple creation stories in the book that contradict each other.
What's the common sense explanation for that?
Was Jesus drunk when he wrote it?
-
That's the problem with most religious types. They don't care about being right or being wrong.
They just follow whatever some book or religious person tells them.
Shameful.
Oh brother. This makes zero sense. The only thing that matters is whether I believe in my convictions. I don't give a rip if what I believe makes sense to you or anyone else, or whether you think my beliefs are right or wrong.
I use my own common sense, have my own convictions, make my own decisions. And I'm not burdened by some irrational anti-religious extremism. It's a much easier life than running around arguing and complaining about something I don't believe exists.
-
Oh brother. This makes zero sense. The only thing that matters is whether I believe in my convictions. I don't give a rip if what I believe makes sense to you or anyone else, or whether you think my beliefs are right or wrong.
I use my own common sense, have my own convictions, make my own decisions. And I'm not burdened by some irrational anti-religious extremism. It's a much easier life than running around arguing and complaining about something I don't believe exists.
Yet you have no problem saying that other Christians beliefs are wrong if they are not consistent with yours.
-
Oh brother. This makes zero sense. The only thing that matters is whether I believe in my convictions. I don't give a rip if what I believe makes sense to you or anyone else, or whether you think my beliefs are right or wrong.
I use my own common sense, have my own convictions, make my own decisions. And I'm not burdened by some irrational anti-religious extremism. It's a much easier life than running around arguing and complaining about something I don't believe exists.
Burdened? Who is burdened? It's the exact opposite.
Doing what is right because it's the right thing to do and not because some imaginary omnipotent being is going to punish me is hardly burdened.
If you believe people only do right because they believe in some eternal damnation, then that is the burden, not my way.
If you didn't "give a rip", then you wouldn't continue to respond in this way. You obviously care, you will just say you don't.
It's like the kids on Facebook who says that they don't care what people think, just to make a statement to THOSE people...
What is the most hilarious of this is that I didn't say "you", but you obviously took it personally... so someone (you) must care.
-
Burdened? Who is burdened? It's the exact opposite.
Doing what is right because it's the right thing to do and not because some imaginary omnipotent being is going to punish me is hardly burdened.
If you believe people only do right because they believe in some eternal damnation, then that is the burden, not my way.
If you didn't "give a rip", then you wouldn't continue to respond in this way. You obviously care, you will just say you don't.
It's like the kids on Facebook who says that they don't care what people think, just to make a statement to THOSE people...
What is the most hilarious of this is that I didn't say "you", but you obviously took it personally... so someone (you) must care.
This is a pretty weak analysis. I'm responding because you are asking me questions. And no, I really don't care if you think my beliefs are right or wrong. Saying I actually do care, because I say I don't, is some of the most elementary, twisted logic I've heard. lol
I do the right thing, because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm afraid of some "eternal damnation." If you have something else that drives you, then good for you.
But like I said, you and other anti-religious extremists like you love to talk about something you don't believe exists and spend time reading a book that was inspired by something you don't believe exits. That's retarded.
-
Not really. If you put things in the proper context, and use common sense, it's consistent.
Sure...
With the proper context, it's perfectly sensible for the God of Abraham - a vengeful and angry God - to morph into Jesus's God who - out of love - chooses to send himself to die, to appease himself so that in the process his precious humans don't die to pay for the sins that they can't help committing because that's how he made them!
Consistent? Nonsense. Even basic, fundamental stuff is inconsistent. For example, are you saved through faith or works? Take your pick - you can justify either position Biblically.
There are some things I don't agree with, but not because they contradict other parts of the book.
So you disagree with the consistent stuff, but not the inconsistent stuff. Got it.
-
This is a pretty weak analysis. I'm responding because you are asking me questions. And no, I really don't care if you think my beliefs are right or wrong. Saying I actually do care, because I say I don't, is some of the most elementary, twisted logic I've heard. lol
I do the right thing, because it's the right thing to do, not because I'm afraid of some "eternal damnation." If you have something else that drives you, then good for you.
But like I said, you and other anti-religious extremists like you love to talk about something you don't believe exists and spend time reading a book that was inspired by something you don't believe exits. That's retarded.
Why do you call me an "anti-religious" extremist? That is a false statement.
Have I ever denied anyone their faith? Nope.
Have I ever said that people of faith who are truly good people and are Christ-Like are a problem? Nope.
As a matter of fact, I support THOSE people.
Your analysis of me is completely faulty, and my analysis of you is actually very spot on. Again, if you don't care, you ignore and don't respond... That is not caring... Doing what you are doing and stating all of these things is the exact opposite of not caring.
As is usual, everyone sees these things but you. Then again, I expect nothing else from you.
To be clear, I didn't ask YOU anything... There are no questions in this posts:
That's the problem with most religious types. They don't care about being right or being wrong.
They just follow whatever some book or religious person tells them.
Shameful.
Yet you continued. I guess you can't tell the difference between a statement (not directed at you) and a question.
Hell, even in this post, the questions are rhetorical because I know I'm not an extremist.
Oh brother is right.
-
Sure...
With the proper context, it's perfectly sensible for the God of Abraham - a vengeful and angry God - to morph into Jesus's God who - out of love - chooses to send himself to die, to appease himself so that in the process his precious humans don't die to pay for the sins that they can't help committing because that's how he made them!
Consistent? Nonsense. Even basic, fundamental stuff is inconsistent. For example, are you saved through faith or works? Take your pick - you can justify either position Biblically.
So you disagree with the consistent stuff, but not the inconsistent stuff. Got it.
Yep. Sure is.
I don't really want to get into a religious discussion, but if you're asking me if you are saved by faith or works, it's faith. What happens with practicing Christians is you see "works" consistent with their faith. Beliefs impact what people do and don't do. So although you cannot "work" your way into being a "good" Christian, you pretty much know a practicing Christina when you see one. It's that whole knowing the person by their fruits thing. "Good" works are a natural manifestation of faith.
No, I think it's consistent. There are just some things that I disagree with, but not because they are inconsistent with other parts of the Bible.
-
Not really. If you put things in the proper context, and use common sense, it's consistent.
There are some things I don't agree with, but not because they contradict other parts of the book.
What are they?
-
[...] but if you're asking me if you are saved by faith or works, it's faith.
James 2:14: "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"
-
What are they?
Alcohol is one. A lot of churches believe drinking is a "sin." I don't. Solomon says don't do it, because you will have beer goggles, but I view that more of a recommendation than a command. I don't drink, but not because of that common Christian teaching; it's one of the ways I part company with traditional teachings.
-
James 2:14: "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"
Why is it in bold?
Ok? And? That's entirely consistent with what I said. It's really impossible to have faith and not have that faith manifest itself in how you live your life. It doesn't mean people are perfect.
-
Alcohol is one. A lot of churches believe drinking is a "sin." I don't. Solomon says don't do it, because you will have beer goggles, but I view that more of a recommendation than a command. I don't drink, but not because of that common Christian teaching; it's one of the ways I part company with traditional teachings.
Yes, I understand.
-
Alcohol is one. A lot of churches believe drinking is a "sin." I don't. Solomon says don't do it, because you will have beer goggles, but I view that more of a recommendation than a command. I don't drink, but not because of that common Christian teaching; it's one of the ways I part company with traditional teachings.
How about Thall Shall Not Kill?
-
Why is it in bold?
Ok? And? That's entirely consistent with what I said. It's really impossible to have faith and not have that faith manifest itself in how you live your life. It doesn't mean people are perfect.
You're weaseling out: maybe those whose faith is "true" will do good works. But James asks a very different question. He asks "can faith alone save?" and the answer is clear: no. You suggest you're saved through faith. The plain reading of James 2:14 disagrees. So either you're wrong, or the Bible is inconsistent.
-
How about Thall Shall Not Kill?
That totally doesn't count.
Kill all those motherfuckers.
-
You're weaseling out: maybe those whose faith is "true" will do good works. But James asks a very different question. He asks "can faith alone save?" and the answer is clear: no. You suggest you're saved through faith. The plain reading of James 2:14 disagrees. So either you're wrong, or the Bible is inconsistent.
Or I just think my interpretation is correct. If you're actually going to study the Bible, you have to compare numerous verses with each other (which the Bible itself says to do). You also need to look at context, whether it's a parable, the audience, etc. And use your head. It's a thinking man's game.
-
Or I just think my interpretation is correct. If you're actually going to study the Bible, you have to compare numerous verses with each other (which the Bible itself says to do). You also need to look at context, whether it's a parable, the audience, etc. And use your head. It's a thinking man's game.
Well, it's easy not to have any contradictions if you "interpret" the contradiction away.
-
Well, it's easy not to have any contradictions if you "interpret" the contradiction away.
I wouldn't say it's easy.
-
Or I just think my interpretation is correct. If you're actually going to study the Bible, you have to compare numerous verses with each other (which the Bible itself says to do). You also need to look at context, whether it's a parable, the audience, etc. And use your head. It's a thinking man's game.
possibly the most ironic and funniest thing you've ever written on this board
-
possibly the most ironic and funniest thing you've ever written on this board
agree... :)
-
There are multiple creation stories in the book that contradict each other.
What's the common sense explanation for that?
Was Jesus drunk when he wrote it?
The common sense explanation is that the bible had many anonymous authors. At least 2 for Genesis and you can see the difference in writing styles and content. When compiled, they contradict each other.
-
possibly the most ironic and funniest thing you've ever written on this board
+1000000000000000000
-
Well, it's easy not to have any contradictions if you "interpret" the contradiction away.
That's pretty much the MO of all Bible thumpers.
-
EXCLUSIVE: Football coach says he will defy school's prayer ban
By Todd Starnes
Published October 14, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2015/10/14/exclusive-football-coach-says-will-defy-schools-prayer-ban/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1444843113248.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Bremerton High School football coach Joe Kennedy (Courtesy Liberty Institute)
There’s a scene in the great football film “Facing the Giants” when the coach decides to implement a new coaching philosophy – to praise God no matter what the result.
Joe Kennedy, a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington, was so inspired by the film he decided to embrace that philosophy – knowing that to do so could cost him his job. I’ll explain why in just a few more paragraphs.
Kennedy, a Desert Storm and Desert Shield combat veteran, made national headlines in September after the Bremerton School District launched an investigation into his post-game prayer.
Coach Kennedy plans on praying at midfield on Friday night.
Since 2008, Coach Kennedy would walk to the 50-yard line where he would offer a short prayer of thanksgiving for the safety of the players, the fairness of the game and for spirited competition. Over the years, students joined the coach – all voluntarily.
“I’m being investigated for thanking God for the opportunities that have been given me,” he said. “It’s absolutely ridiculous.”
The Bremerton School District eventually issued a three-page letter to the coach – forbidding him from praying before or after high school football games.
“I spent 20 years in the military defending the Constitution and the freedoms that everybody has,” the coach told me. “All of a sudden, I realized that people who work for the public schools don’t have the same constitutional rights that everyone else has.”
The Bremerton School District took specific issue with the coach’s pre-game locker room prayer as well as his post-game inspirational talk at midfield. “Problematic practices,” is how they phrased it.
“Your talks with students may not include religious express, including prayer,” Superintendent Aaron Leavell wrote in a Sept. 17th letter to the coach. “They must remain entirely secular in nature, so as to avoid alienation of any team member.”
The superintendent’s list of demands is, quite frankly, draconian. Consider this edict:
“If students engage in religious activity, school staff may not take any action likely to be perceived by a reasonable observer, who is aware of the history and context of such activity at BHS, as endorsement of that activity,” the superintendent wrote.
He specifically referenced that such actions would include “kneeling or bowing of the head during the students’ religious activity.”
Liberty Institute, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty cases, now represents Coach Kennedy and they fired off a letter on Wednesday to the school district urging them to rescind the prayer ban.
“There is no lawful prohibition against Coach Kennedy’s practice of saying a private, post-game prayer,” attorney Hiram Sasser wrote. “The prayers are Coach Kennedy’s private religious speech, and no reasonable observer could conclude that BHS sponsors, endorses, or encourages student participation.”
Sasser blasted the school district for “banning Coach Kennedy from bowing his head or even being physically present where students may be praying.”
He said such action is blatantly unconstitutional.
“This is tantamount to a declaration that Coach Kennedy must flee the scene if students voluntarily come to the same area and pray as well,” Sasser said.
Liberty Institute wants the Bremerton School District to accommodate Coach Kennedy’s religious beliefs. But regardless, Coach Kennedy plans on praying at midfield on Friday night.
He does so knowing that it could cost him his job.
“I’m not a guy who hides in a corner and does a secret prayer to God,” the coach told me. “I’m very open about my faith everywhere I go.”
And that includes the 50-yard line at Bremerton High School.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/14/exclusive-football-coach-says-will-defy-schools-prayer-ban.html?intcmp=hpbt4
Praying Football Coach Defies School District And Still Has A Job … For Now
CASEY HARPER
10/23/2015
The Washington state football coach who defied his school district by praying with his team after the homecoming game last week is still employed and plans to coach at the game Friday night, despite the district’s threats against him.
Bremerton School District began investigating the possible legal ramifications of coach Joe Kennedy for his post-game prayers on the 50-yard line, citing possible constitutional violations since it says he is a school employee appearing to endorse religion. Initially, the coach agreed to stop praying but later changed his mind and prayed at the school’s homecoming game Oct. 16.
Hours before that homecoming game, the district warned the coach that “violations cannot be tolerated,” clearly raising the question of whether he would lose his job. Despite this, the coach is still employed and plans to coach, and pray, at the game Friday night.
“We believe he is in compliance with all laws and regulations by praying as he did on Friday night [of last week],” Hiram Sasser, the lawyer from the Liberty Institute, which is representing Kennedy, said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The district confirmed that Kennedy is still employed and said it is continuing talks with him and his legal team to resolve the situation.
“The District continues to hope that the District and Mr. Kennedy can arrive at common understandings that will ensure that the rights of all community members are honored and the law is respected,” the district said in a statement.
So, for now, Kennedy will continue to pray at the games while waiting to see if he will be able to keep his job.
“We don’t anticipate there being much hoopla,” Sasser said in a statement provided to TheDCNF. “He will pray as he did before and go from there.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/praying-football-coach-defies-school-district-and-still-has-a-job-for-now/#ixzz3ph48hUae
-
Student reaches out to Satanist Temple for postgame prayer
By Eric Mandel, Digital Content Producer | October 27, 2015 @ 2:44 pm
Bremerton High School football coach Joe Kennedy made headlines when it was discovered that his players joined him in postgame prayers. The Satanic Temple plans to follow suit this Thursday. (AP)
If Christians can pray on the field, so can the Satanists. And that's what one Bremerton High School student wants to do.
Lilith Starr, chapter head for The Satanic Temple of Seattle, told KIRO Radio's Dori Monson that a student gave a formal request for a Satanic invocation on Tuesday morning. Starr said she wouldn't release the student's name, but that the Temple is in the planning stages of the event.
"We will be at Thursday's game doing a postgame Satanic invocation on the field if Coach (Joe) Kennedy continues to pray," she said. "We won't step on the field if he is stopped or doesn't pray."
Coach Kennedy made headlines when it was discovered that his players joined him in postgame prayers after Bremerton High School football games. Students are free to pray as they wish, but teachers and other district staff are usually banned from such activity. Kennedy has reportedly taken legal action against the high school after the school banned him from praying on the field.
The Satanic Temple of Seattle sent a press release Monday, offering its services to anyone at Bremerton High School who would like to add a Satanic twist for after-game prayers. Starr said that the Seattle Satanist temple is a local chapter of global organization that promotes its brand of non-theistic religion. She said that they believe religion should be about community, connection and purpose without bringing in a god or other supernatural being.
Dori asked why Starr wanted to offer this option if she didn't agree with the Bremerton coach doing it.
"If the church-state separation is breached, we really don't think it's right for the state to be promoting one religion over the other," she said. "We really want to make the point that this is not just a Christian forum. If it's going to be open, it's going to be open to everyone, including us."
Starr said they are in the final stages of the writing the Satanic invocation, saying it will be secular and not be calling on any Gods or demons. She said they want to make a "strong, theatrical, political call to stand up for the beliefs that we believe in," such as their seven tenets and freedom to believe as you wish.
"Basically we just want a symbolic representation of that," she said.
As a Christian, Dori has been a critic of the coach's prayers, saying he would not want coaches to pray with any kids at a public school. Dori called Starr's move a "clever way to make a powerful point."
Starr agreed.
"If that's all he is asking, as not an official school representative, then OK, we can do that, too," she said. "And we're gonna."
http://mynorthwest.com/76/2834847/Student-reaches-out-to-Satanist-Temple-for-postgame-prayer
-
Praying in public? Going to hell for sure. Sucks to be anyone doing this.
-
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
Hate to keep bringing this up but this right here is why Jesus would NOT be in favor of what the coach is doing. The irony is, it is so important to the Christian to be seen as a rebel, wearing his beliefs on his sleeve for the world to see that he/she is willing to completely blow Jesus off in this regard. I can't imagine Jesus being more clear about his disdain for that kind of action.
Christians can continue to pray in public secular places, but they really need to stop pretending it's what the bible tells them to do.
-
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
Hate to keep bringing this up but this right here is why Jesus would NOT be in favor of what the coach is doing. The irony is, it is so important to the Christian to be seen as a rebel, wearing his beliefs on his sleeve for the world to see that he/she is willing to completely blow Jesus off in this regard. I can't imagine Jesus being more clear about his disdain for that kind of action.
Christians can continue to pray in public secular places, but they really need to stop pretending it's what the bible tells them to do.
"Wah! Wah! You're taking things out of context (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=528244.msg8263352#msg8263352)! Wah! Wah!"
-
"Wah! Wah! You're taking things out of context (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=528244.msg8263352#msg8263352)! Wah! Wah!"
Right? It amazes me how a "Christian" can read those pretty specific instructions from the head honcho himself and still argue for public prayer. The only way I can explain it is the need to "show off" their belief system as being part of the majority. No other reason to do it.
-
Right? It amazes me how a "Christian" can read those pretty specific instructions from the head honcho himself and still argue for public prayer. The only way I can explain it is the need to "show off" their belief system as being part of the majority. No other reason to do it.
That passage tells a specific group of people to pray in their closets. I have a walk-in closet, so it's not a problem for me. But I guess all those people without walk-in closets are screwed.
-
That passage tells a specific group of people to pray in their closets. I have a walk-in closet, so it's not a problem for me. But I guess all those people without walk-in closets are screwed.
All true Christians have walk in closets.
-
Praying Football Coach Defies School District And Still Has A Job … For Now
CASEY HARPER
10/23/2015
The Washington state football coach who defied his school district by praying with his team after the homecoming game last week is still employed and plans to coach at the game Friday night, despite the district’s threats against him.
Bremerton School District began investigating the possible legal ramifications of coach Joe Kennedy for his post-game prayers on the 50-yard line, citing possible constitutional violations since it says he is a school employee appearing to endorse religion. Initially, the coach agreed to stop praying but later changed his mind and prayed at the school’s homecoming game Oct. 16.
Hours before that homecoming game, the district warned the coach that “violations cannot be tolerated,” clearly raising the question of whether he would lose his job. Despite this, the coach is still employed and plans to coach, and pray, at the game Friday night.
“We believe he is in compliance with all laws and regulations by praying as he did on Friday night [of last week],” Hiram Sasser, the lawyer from the Liberty Institute, which is representing Kennedy, said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The district confirmed that Kennedy is still employed and said it is continuing talks with him and his legal team to resolve the situation.
“The District continues to hope that the District and Mr. Kennedy can arrive at common understandings that will ensure that the rights of all community members are honored and the law is respected,” the district said in a statement.
So, for now, Kennedy will continue to pray at the games while waiting to see if he will be able to keep his job.
“We don’t anticipate there being much hoopla,” Sasser said in a statement provided to TheDCNF. “He will pray as he did before and go from there.”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/23/praying-football-coach-defies-school-district-and-still-has-a-job-for-now/#ixzz3ph48hUae
BREAKING: High school boots praying football coach
By Todd Starnes
Published October 28, 2015
FoxNews.com
Coach Joe Kennedy has been booted from the locker room at Bremerton High School in Washington State, Fox News has learned exclusively.
Superintendent Aaron Leavell placed the longtime coach on administrative leave after he refused to stop his post-game prayers.
“Effective immediately, pending further District review of your conduct, you are placed on paid administrative leave from your position as an assistant coach with the Bremerton High School football program,” Level wrote to the coach in an Oct. 28th letter. “You may not participate, in any capacity, in BHS football program activities.”
Kennedy, who is a devout Christian, had been under investigation since September after someone complained about his post-game prayers at the 50-yard-line.
He was directed to cease and desist those prayers on Sept. 17th. He was also ordered to avoid kneeling, bowing his head or doing anything that could remotely be seen as religious.
“You violated those directives by engaging in overt, public and demonstrative religious conduct while still on duty as an assistant coach,” Leavell wrote.
Leavell had offered to let the coach engage in “private prayer” following the football games — provided no child could see the coach petitioning the Almighty.
The district’s accommodation for the coach’s “hush-hush, clandestine” prayers would be allowed “so long as your brief, private religious exercise would not interfere with your performance of your continuing duties as an assistant coach.”
It’s unconscionable that a progressive school district would advocate shoving people back into a closet.
Coach Kennedy is represented by Liberty Institute, the nation’s largest law firm dedicated to defending religious liberty.
Attorney Hiram Sasser said the school district is being hostile towards Christianity.
“They are sending the message to all people of faith that they are not welcome,” Sasser told me.
Leavell noted in his letter to the coach that instead of meeting with him, he ignored their directives and prayed following the Oct. 23 football game.
However, Sasser said that’s not exactly accurate.
“We tried to meet with the school officials in-person but they refused to meet,” the attorney told me. “We were only able to have a brief hour and a half call with their lawyer, and the result was a letter banning private prayer just a few hours before last Friday’s game.”
Liberty Institute has already laid the groundwork for a lawsuit against the school district — accusing them of religious discrimination.
“It is unfortunate this school district is choosing litigation instead of a simple meeting,” Sasser said.
It is also unfortunate that the Bremerton School District and Superintendent Aaron Level have shown such animosity towards a good and honorable Christian man like Joe Kennedy.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/28/breaking-high-school-boots-praying-football-coach.html
-
All true Christians have walk in closets.
Word.
-
"It’s unconscionable that a progressive school district would advocate shoving people back into a closet."
It's hilarious that people don't seem to realize THATS WHAT JESUS WANTS! :)
-
Did they put him on leave for fear that the Satanic Temple would do an invocation if the coach continued with the prayers?
-
"It’s unconscionable that a progressive school district would advocate shoving people back into a closet."
It's hilarious that people don't seem to realize THATS WHAT JESUS WANTS! :)
I wonder if Jesus ever literally prayed in a closet?
-
I was really under the impression closets didn't exist back then.. maybe armoires? He was a carpenter.. so maybe..
-
I was really under the impression closets didn't exist back then.. maybe armoires? He was a carpenter.. so maybe..
Would he even fit in one? I think the common artistic portrayals of him as a skinny dude are wrong.
-
Would he even fit in one? I think the common artistic portrayals of him as a skinny dude are wrong.
If a picture of what he probably actually looked like was produced, I suspect he'd lose have his republican followers overnight
-
If a picture of what he probably actually looked like was produced, I suspect he'd lose have his republican followers overnight
Probably all those Republicans who are not supporting a black dude, two Hispanic dudes, and a female? Pretty weak.
-
Probably all those Republicans who are not supporting a black dude, two Hispanic dudes, and a female? Pretty weak.
When this came up a couple weeks ago, I did a demographics check of congress... wasn't pretty if you are trying to convince someone republicans are about diversity. But yes, the current make up of the candidates is refreshing as far as that goes.
-
I was referring more to the fact it would be more difficult for many folks to worship Jesus if they didn't picture him as a anglo tall good looking dude with a swimmers body. :) I'll go out on a limb and say if Jesus was depicted as Flavor Flavs look alike.. church attendance would be cut in half overnight
-
When this came up a couple weeks ago, I did a demographics check of congress... wasn't pretty if you are trying to convince someone republicans are about diversity. But yes, the current make up of the candidates is refreshing as far as that goes.
I don't what the Congressional demographic looks like, but I'll defer to you. No denying the presidential field is very diverse. Much more so than the Democrats, which is ironic.
-
I was referring more to the fact it would be more difficult for many folks to worship Jesus if they didn't picture him as a anglo tall good looking dude with a swimmers body. :) I'll go out on a limb and say if Jesus was depicted as Flavor Flavs look alike.. church attendance would be cut in half overnight
Or if he looked Charles Manson, or any other unattractive dude, regardless of his ethnic background.
-
I was referring more to the fact it would be more difficult for many folks to worship Jesus if they didn't picture him as a anglo tall good looking dude with a swimmers body. :) I'll go out on a limb and say if Jesus was depicted as Flavor Flavs look alike.. church attendance would be cut in half overnight
Haha. You know Jindull is pissed because he is still struggling to turn white and Jesus turned white overnight thousands of years ago.
-
BREAKING: High school boots praying football coach
By Todd Starnes
Published October 28, 2015
FoxNews.com
Coach Joe Kennedy has been booted from the locker room at Bremerton High School in Washington State, Fox News has learned exclusively.
Superintendent Aaron Leavell placed the longtime coach on administrative leave after he refused to stop his post-game prayers.
“Effective immediately, pending further District review of your conduct, you are placed on paid administrative leave from your position as an assistant coach with the Bremerton High School football program,” Level wrote to the coach in an Oct. 28th letter. “You may not participate, in any capacity, in BHS football program activities.”
Kennedy, who is a devout Christian, had been under investigation since September after someone complained about his post-game prayers at the 50-yard-line.
He was directed to cease and desist those prayers on Sept. 17th. He was also ordered to avoid kneeling, bowing his head or doing anything that could remotely be seen as religious.
“You violated those directives by engaging in overt, public and demonstrative religious conduct while still on duty as an assistant coach,” Leavell wrote.
Leavell had offered to let the coach engage in “private prayer” following the football games — provided no child could see the coach petitioning the Almighty.
The district’s accommodation for the coach’s “hush-hush, clandestine” prayers would be allowed “so long as your brief, private religious exercise would not interfere with your performance of your continuing duties as an assistant coach.”
It’s unconscionable that a progressive school district would advocate shoving people back into a closet.
Coach Kennedy is represented by Liberty Institute, the nation’s largest law firm dedicated to defending religious liberty.
Attorney Hiram Sasser said the school district is being hostile towards Christianity.
“They are sending the message to all people of faith that they are not welcome,” Sasser told me.
Leavell noted in his letter to the coach that instead of meeting with him, he ignored their directives and prayed following the Oct. 23 football game.
However, Sasser said that’s not exactly accurate.
“We tried to meet with the school officials in-person but they refused to meet,” the attorney told me. “We were only able to have a brief hour and a half call with their lawyer, and the result was a letter banning private prayer just a few hours before last Friday’s game.”
Liberty Institute has already laid the groundwork for a lawsuit against the school district — accusing them of religious discrimination.
“It is unfortunate this school district is choosing litigation instead of a simple meeting,” Sasser said.
It is also unfortunate that the Bremerton School District and Superintendent Aaron Level have shown such animosity towards a good and honorable Christian man like Joe Kennedy.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/28/breaking-high-school-boots-praying-football-coach.html
PRAYING COACH FILES DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT IN WASHINGTON
Coach files discrimination lawsuit
A football coach is filing a federal discrimination lawsuit after he was put on leave for praying after games
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
BREMERTON, WA (KTRK) -- An assistant football coach who was suspended for praying on the field after games has filed a federal discrimination complaint against his school district in Washington State.
Joe Kennedy claims he's facing discrimination because of his religious beliefs.
Kennedy told local station KCPQ, "I never wanted any of this. I'm just the average guy. You know, I just want to coach football."
Kennedy was told by the school district earlier this year that his tradition violated school policy. He was asked to stop, but didn't. He was placed on paid administrative leave in October, and then on his evaluation last month, a note at the bottom read "do not rehire."
Kennedy called the note "a knife in the heart."
He said, "There's a constitutional right that I have as an American."
Kennedy has filed a complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His attorney, Mike Berry with the non-profit Liberty Institute, said, "We really feel that this school district has forced our hand into doing this because of the unlawful religious discrimination against Coach Kennedy."
The school district told KCPQ it cannot comment because it has not received official notification of the complaint yet.
Kennedy says he's still hopeful he can return to coaching at Bremerton. He says he's received offers to coach at other schools, but Bremerton is his home and where he wants to stay.
Kennedy said, "The community is our family and these kids are everything. I mean, we've got a lot invested in Bremerton."
http://abc13.com/religion/praying-coach-files-discrimination-complaint/1124632/
-
Somebody complained about Charlie Brown. ::) We are turning into a nation full of sissies.
Kentucky Grade School Scrubs All References To Christianity In ‘Charlie Brown Christmas’
ERIC OWENS
Education Editor
12/17/2015
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Charlie-Brown-Christmas-Linus-speaks-YouTube-screenshot-BeLio-Productions.jpg)
Charlie Brown Christmas Linus speaks YouTube screenshot/BeLio Productions Charlie Brown Christmas Linus speaks YouTube screenshot/BeLio Productions
Thursday’s theatrical performance of “A Charlie Brown Christmas” at W.R. Castle Elementary School in rural Johnson County, Kentucky will be bereft of its heart and soul because a single whiner has scared school district officials into censoring all references to religion.
The main scene which will be deleted involves Linus van Pelt reciting a handful of verses from the New Testament’s Gospel of Luke to explain to Charlie Brown “what Christmas is all about.”
Castle Elementary principal Jeff Cochran — whose “principal’s message page says “Insert text here!” — has announced that anything related to Christianity will be completely scrubbed from the play, reports the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Johnson County school district superintendent Thomas Salyer said he has concluded that both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals flatly forbid any public school student from uttering Linus’s seven Bible verses.
“I want to clarify that all programs will go on as scheduled. In accordance with federal laws, our programs will follow appropriate regulations,” the taxpayer-funded superintendent said in a Dec. 11 statement obtained by the Herald-Leader. “The U.S. Supreme Court and the 6th Circuit are very clear that public school staff may not endorse any religion when acting in their official capacities and during school activities. However, our district is fully committed to promote the spirit of giving and concern for our fellow citizens that help define the Christmas holiday.”
Salyer added that he recognizes “the significance of Christmas and the traditions and beliefs associated with this holiday.”
Local scuttlebutt appears to be that the complaint arose from someone related to Castle Elementary.
When asked who complained, Salyer would not say. He cited unspecified confidentiality regulations.
On Monday, about 30 people from the local area protested with signs and an American flag outside the Johnson County Board of Education office in Paintsville, Ky. “Jesus in the reason,” read one sign.”
A smaller group of dedicated demonstrators also showed up on Tuesday.
Salyer told the Herald-Leader he made the decision to censor the Christmas of the Christmas play on the advice of his lawyers and Kentucky state education officials. (RELATED: Kentucky Education Bureaucrats Fail To Spell KENTUCKY Correctly)
“We are just trying to meet the letter of the law,” he said.
American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky spokeswoman Amber Duke applauded the decision.
“It appears the Johnson County School district is committed to honoring its constitutional obligation to protecting students’ freedom of religion and belief,” she told the Lexington newspaper.
Linus’s quotation of the Gospel of Luke takes up 51 seconds — or just 3.3 percent of — “A Charlie Brown Christmas.” It occurs at a point when Charlie Brown has become angrily frustrated because he believes that people aren’t celebrating the true spirit of Christmas.
Linus walks with his blanket to the center of a stage in an adult-less auditorium where several Peanuts characters — and Snoopy — have gathered. As a spotlight shines upon him, Linus quotes from the second chapter of Luke:
“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and goodwill towards men.”
“And that’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown,” Linus concludes, after picking up the blanket which he had symbolically dropped right after he says, “Fear not.”
WATCH:
Linus’s speech inspires Charlie Brown. He picks up his barren, sad little tree and walks it outside into the snowy, starry night. He looks up at a star and it twinkles at him.
“Linus is right,” Charlie Brown declares. “I won’t let all this commercialism ruin my Christmas.” He then vows to take his little tree home to decorate it. His Peanuts pals then magically turn it into a real tree festooned with popcorn and ornaments. Lucy van Pelt calls him a “blockhead” but admits his tree is fabulous.
“A Charlie Brown Christmas” originally appeared as a CBS special in 1965. To the horror of CBS network executives, Charles Schulz, the creator of the Peanuts comic strip, insisted on the inclusion of the verses from the New Testament in “A Charlie Brown Christmas.”
The execs were sure they had a flop on their hands, as National Review explains, but fully 50 percent of Americans watching television in the United States watched “A Charlie Brown Christmas” in 1965 and it has now endured as an essential Christmas season staple for 50 years.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/kentucky-grade-school-scrubs-all-references-to-christianity-in-charlie-brown-christmas/#ixzz3udaMaRQg
-
Air Force Academy to Continue with Pre-Game Prayers
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=dd10c150-5c8c-4014-9f83-984e60e7b975&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Air Force Academy to Continue with Pre-Game Prayers
Thursday, 24 Dec 2015
Air Force Academy football players may continue to take a Tim Tebow-style pre-game prayer break on the field, officials say.
The decision comes after a complaint from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation about the practice, Air Force Times reports. http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/sports/2015/12/23/air-force-academy-football-players-allowed-pray-publicly/77838894/
"An inquiry was initiated, which found the football players' actions to be consistent with Air Force Instruction 1-1 and its guidance on the free exercise of religion and religious accommodation," Academy officials said in a statement, the newspaper reports.
The complaint came after the Falcons, dropping to one knee, prayed in the end zone after their Nov. 28 game against the University of New Mexico – and then did it again at their next game against San Diego State University.
The Foundation's founder and president, Mikey Weinstein, tells the newspaper he's considering going to federal court to get an injunction "to stop this pernicious and pervasive practice of fundamentalist Christian supremacy, triumphalism and exhibitionism."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/air-force-academy-pregame/2015/12/24/id/707036/#ixzz3vGcELpIz
-
Newdow is such a loser. What a colossal waste of time.
Lawsuit demands US remove 'In God We Trust' from money
Published January 14, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2016/01/14/lawsuit-demands-us-remove-in-god-trust-from-money/_jcr_content/par/featured_image/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1452780625948.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
A new lawsuit filed on behalf of several Atheist plaintiffs argues the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. money is unconstitutional, and calls for the government to get rid of it.
Sacramento attorney Michael Newdow filed the lawsuit Monday in Akron, Ohio. He'd unsuccessfully sued the government at least twice challenging the use of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Throughout much of his lawsuit, the word appears as "G-d."
Newdow claims "In God We Trust" violates the separation of church and state. One plaintiff says his Atheism is "substantially burdened because he is forced to bear on his person a religious statement that causes him to sense his government legitimizing, promoting and reinforcing negative and injurious attitudes not only against Atheists in general, but against him personally."
The lawsuit represents 41 plaintiffs from Ohio and Michigan, including many unnamed parents and children who are atheists or are being raised as atheists. Defendants include Congress, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and various federal agencies.
A message seeking comment was left Wednesday at the office of U.S. attorney for Ohio's northern district.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/14/lawsuit-demands-us-remove-in-god-trust-from-money.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
It must be nice to have the time and energy to waste worrying about having "In God We Trust" on legal tender.
-
'God Bless America' signs fly after atheist group targets post office banner
Published February 07, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2016/02/07/god-bless-america-signs-fly-after-atheist-group-targets-post-office-banner/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1454872687796.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
A poster from Jake's Fireworks now hangs in Sen. Jerry Moran's Kansas office. (@JerryMoran)
A Midwestern community has united in a show of patriotism after an atheist organization targeted a local post office’s “God Bless America” poster.
Freedom from Religion Foundation cried foul after the group noticed a “God Bless America” banner that employees at a post office in Pittsburg, Kan., had erected after Sept. 11, 2001. A lawsuit filed by FFRF on behalf of a Pittsburg resident forced the banner down in late January, The Christian Post reported.
But the sign’s removal after nearly 15 years of display had an unintended effect.
When news of the banner’s banishment spread, a business in the area, Jake’s Fireworks, printed 1,200 “God Bless America” yard signs and 300 banners. Jake’s gave away all of the signs within 45 minutes, according to the Post.
“Obviously, we’re among the majority that didn’t agree with the decision to take the sign down,” retail sales director Jason Marietta told The Morning Sun.
But not all residents supported the post office flying the banner.
“Let’s call a spade a spade,” Bert Patrick wrote in a Letter to the Editor for The Morning Sun. “The sign was removed because the postal officials realized, most likely after consulting legal counsel, that the sign’s message violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from supporting any religion.”
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., however, said the Constitution guarantees “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”
“It is outrageous that some would aim to divide a community over a banner that has been proudly displayed since Sept. 11, 2001,” Moran wrote on Facebook. “I commend the Pittsburg community for rejecting this decision and I stand with them.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/07/god-bless-america-signs-fly-after-atheist-group-targets-post-office-banner.html?intcmp=hpbt4
-
'God Bless America' signs fly after atheist group targets post office banner
Published February 07, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2016/02/07/god-bless-america-signs-fly-after-atheist-group-targets-post-office-banner/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1454872687796.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
A poster from Jake's Fireworks now hangs in Sen. Jerry Moran's Kansas office. (@JerryMoran)
A Midwestern community has united in a show of patriotism after an atheist organization targeted a local post office’s “God Bless America” poster.
Freedom from Religion Foundation cried foul after the group noticed a “God Bless America” banner that employees at a post office in Pittsburg, Kan., had erected after Sept. 11, 2001. A lawsuit filed by FFRF on behalf of a Pittsburg resident forced the banner down in late January, The Christian Post reported.
But the sign’s removal after nearly 15 years of display had an unintended effect.
When news of the banner’s banishment spread, a business in the area, Jake’s Fireworks, printed 1,200 “God Bless America” yard signs and 300 banners. Jake’s gave away all of the signs within 45 minutes, according to the Post.
“Obviously, we’re among the majority that didn’t agree with the decision to take the sign down,” retail sales director Jason Marietta told The Morning Sun.
But not all residents supported the post office flying the banner.
“Let’s call a spade a spade,” Bert Patrick wrote in a Letter to the Editor for The Morning Sun. “The sign was removed because the postal officials realized, most likely after consulting legal counsel, that the sign’s message violated the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from supporting any religion.”
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., however, said the Constitution guarantees “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”
“It is outrageous that some would aim to divide a community over a banner that has been proudly displayed since Sept. 11, 2001,” Moran wrote on Facebook. “I commend the Pittsburg community for rejecting this decision and I stand with them.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/07/god-bless-america-signs-fly-after-atheist-group-targets-post-office-banner.html?intcmp=hpbt4
100% WRONG
Freedom of religion INCLUDES freedom from religion
-
Paranoid anti-religious extremists strike again.
Bible removed from POW/MIA display inside VA clinic
By Todd Starnes
Published February 29, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2016/02/29/bible-removed-from-powmia-display-outside-va-clinic/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1456777704029.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Military Religious Freedom Foundation
A Bible and Bible verse were removed from a POW/MIA display inside an Ohio Veteran’s Administration clinic after the notorious Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained.
The religious artifacts were part of a “Missing Man Table” recently erected by volunteers at an outpatient clinic in Akron.
Click here to join Todd’s American Dispatch – a must-read for Conservatives!
MRFF founder Mikey Weinstein alleged the inclusion of the Bible was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. He said he intervened at the request of nearly a dozen, mostly Christian, military veterans who utilize the clinic.
However, clinic administrator Brian Reinhart said to his knowledge no one ever complained. In other words, Mr. Weinstein’s allegations are a bit dubious.
Nevertheless, Reinhart relented and evicted God’s Word from the display.
“I just wanted to let you know that the Bible has been removed from our POW table and the Bible verse has been removed from the framed scripture,” Reinhart wrote in an email to Weinstein.
To say that Weinstein was giddy over the desecration of such a moving tribute would be an understatement.
“MRFF’s veteran client soldiers and we at the MRFF as well, applaud this VA Clinic Administrator’s sage wisdom and courage in recognizing that the U.S. military is comprised of hundreds if not thousands of diverse faiths as well as no faiths,” he wrote in a statement. “We heartily commend his taking decisive and swift action to remedy the situation so that the MIA/POW table truly honors all.”
I reached out to Reinhart and he told me that he alone was responsible for ordering the Bible removed from the display.
“In discussing it with the volunteers, we thought as though it was the best course of action since several veterans did express concerns regarding it,” he said in a telephone interview.
Reinhart probably should’ve run Weinstein’s demand up the flag pole – because he may have committed an egregious error.
“MIA/POW tables have been part of military tradition for generations,” said Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “They have always included certain elements including a Bible.”
The official Navy blog clearly identifies the Bible as a significant part of the Missing Man Table & Honors Ceremony.
“The Bible represents faith in a higher power and the pledge to our country, founded as one nation under God,” the Navy ceremony text reads.
The National League of Families of American Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Asia has similar wording in its ceremony.
“The Bible represents the strength gained through faith to sustain us and those lost from our country, founded as one nation under God.”
Crews lamented the decision to remove the Good Book.
“It is a sad day when the Veteran's Administration caves to one narrow view of the proper way to honor the courage and sacrifice of those who have dedicated their lives in service of their country,” he said. “Many have died to protect the right of Americans to have and read the Bible. Surely we can honor their sacrifice by allowing a Bible at their table of remembrance.”
It’s not the first time the military has desecrated a Missing Man table. In 2014 a Bible was removed from a display at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida – to make the table more “inclusive.”
And whenever you see the word “inclusive” it normally means Christians are about to get silenced.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/29/bible-removed-from-powmia-display-outside-va-clinic.html?intcmp=hpbt3
-
"And whenever you see the word “inclusive” it normally means Christians are about to get silenced. "
Long overdue
-
Blatantly unconstitutional IMO. But I do like fact the fact they made a .50 cal sniper rifle the official state rifle. :)
Tennessee lawmakers vote to make Bible official state book
Published April 05, 2016
Associated Press
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/04/05/tennessee-lawmakers-vote-to-make-bible-official-state-book/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1459824679532.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
April 4, 2016: Sen. Ferrell Haile, R-Gallatin, left, speaks during debate on a bill by Sen. Steve Southerland, R-Morristown, front right, to make the Holy Bible the official book of Tennessee. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Having already made a .50-caliber sniper gun the official state rifle, Tennessee lawmakers on Monday gave final approval to making the Holy Bible the state's official book.
The state Senate voted 19-8 in favor of the bill despite arguments by the state attorney general that the measure conflicts with a provision in the Tennessee Constitution stating that "no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship."
Opponents argued the Bible would be trivialized by being placed alongside other state symbols such as the official tree, flower, rock or amphibian. But both chambers of the Legislature brushed aside those concerns to send the bill to the desk of Republican Gov. Bill Haslam. He opposes the measure but hasn't said whether he'll issue a veto.
Republican Sen. Steve Southerland argued that his bill is aimed at recognizing the Bible for its historical and cultural contributions to the state, rather than as government endorsement of religion.
Democratic Sen. Jeff Yarbro questioned why the legislation highlights the economic impact of Bible publishing in the state, or that Bibles were traditionally used to track family histories.
"I don't think that's why we read the Bible, I don't think that's why we send our kids to vacation Bible school," Yarbro said. "To those of us who grew up in this faith, it is so much more."
In solidly Republican Tennessee, heavy doses of God and guns are considered reliable election-year politics.
The Bible bill came to a vote just days before the candidate filing deadline, giving lawmakers pause about being portrayed by political rivals as being as opposed to the Bible if they voted against the bill.
Earlier this session, the Legislature approved a resolution to add the .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifle the state's official symbols. The Murfreesboro-based company run by a prominent Republican supporter, Ronnie Barrett, supplies its firearms to law enforcement agencies, private citizens and more than 70 militaries around the world.
Hedy Weinberg, the executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, called on Haslam to veto the Bible bill. She called it a "thinly veiled effort to promote one religion over other religions clearly violates both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions."
Southerland said that an outside legal organization has offered to defend any lawsuits challenging the bill for free.
"So I ask you, what do we have to lose?" he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/05/tennessee-lawmakers-vote-to-make-bible-official-state-book.html?intcmp=hpbt4
-
Blatantly unconstitutional IMO. But I do like fact the fact they made a .50 cal sniper rifle the official state rifle. :)
Tennessee lawmakers vote to make Bible official state book
Published April 05, 2016
Associated Press
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/04/05/tennessee-lawmakers-vote-to-make-bible-official-state-book/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1459824679532.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
April 4, 2016: Sen. Ferrell Haile, R-Gallatin, left, speaks during debate on a bill by Sen. Steve Southerland, R-Morristown, front right, to make the Holy Bible the official book of Tennessee. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Having already made a .50-caliber sniper gun the official state rifle, Tennessee lawmakers on Monday gave final approval to making the Holy Bible the state's official book.
The state Senate voted 19-8 in favor of the bill despite arguments by the state attorney general that the measure conflicts with a provision in the Tennessee Constitution stating that "no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship."
Opponents argued the Bible would be trivialized by being placed alongside other state symbols such as the official tree, flower, rock or amphibian. But both chambers of the Legislature brushed aside those concerns to send the bill to the desk of Republican Gov. Bill Haslam. He opposes the measure but hasn't said whether he'll issue a veto.
Republican Sen. Steve Southerland argued that his bill is aimed at recognizing the Bible for its historical and cultural contributions to the state, rather than as government endorsement of religion.
Democratic Sen. Jeff Yarbro questioned why the legislation highlights the economic impact of Bible publishing in the state, or that Bibles were traditionally used to track family histories.
"I don't think that's why we read the Bible, I don't think that's why we send our kids to vacation Bible school," Yarbro said. "To those of us who grew up in this faith, it is so much more."
In solidly Republican Tennessee, heavy doses of God and guns are considered reliable election-year politics.
The Bible bill came to a vote just days before the candidate filing deadline, giving lawmakers pause about being portrayed by political rivals as being as opposed to the Bible if they voted against the bill.
Earlier this session, the Legislature approved a resolution to add the .50-caliber Barrett sniper rifle the state's official symbols. The Murfreesboro-based company run by a prominent Republican supporter, Ronnie Barrett, supplies its firearms to law enforcement agencies, private citizens and more than 70 militaries around the world.
Hedy Weinberg, the executive director of the ACLU of Tennessee, called on Haslam to veto the Bible bill. She called it a "thinly veiled effort to promote one religion over other religions clearly violates both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions."
Southerland said that an outside legal organization has offered to defend any lawsuits challenging the bill for free.
"So I ask you, what do we have to lose?" he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/05/tennessee-lawmakers-vote-to-make-bible-official-state-book.html?intcmp=hpbt4
I wonder if these retarded rednecks happened to mention which version of the bible was the official state book
-
::)
Congressman Wants A ‘National Day Of Reason’ As Atheist Alternative To Day Of Prayer
Because not everyone has a god to pray to.
04/13/2016
Nick Wing
Senior Viral Editor, The Huffington Post
(http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/570e76be2e00006400951324.jpeg?cache=bmw0bpkzlm)
BILL CLARK/CQ ROLL CALL VIA GETTY IMAGES
Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) says it’s time to officially recognize a secular version of the National Day of Prayer.
Each year, on the first Thursday of May, elected officials gather in Washington, D.C., and around the country for the National Day of Prayer. It’s a day when public servants from the president on down encourage Americans of all faiths to pray and contemplate the role of the divine in their lives. But 20 percent of Americans identify as religiously unaffiliated or simply don’t believe in God — and many of them aren’t comfortable with the idea of a government-sanctioned occasion that shuts them out entirely.
This week, Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat who represents the District of Columbia in the U.S. House of Representatives, introduced a resolution to create a secular alternative to the National Day of Prayer. The one-time occasion, known as the National Day of Reason, would be observed on Thursday, May 5, the same day as this year’s National Day of Prayer. According to the resolution’s authors, the National Day of Reason would provide an opportunity for the religious and non-religious alike to come together and recognize “the importance of reason in the betterment of humanity.”
“The application of reason has proven to improve the conditions in which people live, offer hope for human survival on Earth, and cultivated intelligent, moral, and ethical behaviors and interactions among people,” said Honda in a Tuesday press release. “I encourage everyone to take this occasion to reflect upon the way that philosophical principles developed during the Age of Reason influenced our Founding Fathers as they formed our country and how the employment of reason, critical thought, the scientific method, and free inquiry can help resolve human problems and improve the welfare of humankind.”
Honda introduced a similar resolution last year, only to see it die in committee. Atheism and outspoken support for non-traditional religious beliefs remain, for the most part, a third rail in politics. There isn’t a single openly atheistic member of Congress, and only one — Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Democrat from Arizona — who lists herself as unaffiliated. More than 90 percent of members of Congress identify as Christians, and an entire 57 percent, including Honda, consider themselves Protestants.
But the American Humanist Association, a nonprofit that lobbies Congress on the separation of church and state, hopes to see more progress on the resolution this year, perhaps starting with a companion measure in the Senate.
“Our final hope would be to have something similar to what’s done with the National Day of Prayer, where you have a presidential proclamation being issued calling on people to use their reason, to come together, to unite and essentially celebrate the same values that are in the National Day of Prayer but without the call to prayer,” said Matthew Bulger, a legislative assistant at the American Humanist Association.
“The National Day of Prayer has a lot of good things about it,” he went on. “They celebrate the values of freedom, civil rights — all things that atheists and nontheists want to be able to join into, but would feel uncomfortable praying about because it contradicts their religious views.”
Every year on the National Day of Prayer, the president signs an official statement stressing the importance of expressing one’s faith. And while President Barack Obama’s proclamations have included gestures of inclusion toward nonbelievers as well as the faithful — “I invite the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings,” the 2015 proclamation read — the day is still most closely associated with Christianity, a religious identity that 75 percent of Americans claim.
For example, the National Day of Prayer Task Force, an organization that coordinates events nationwide and will host congressional lawmakers in a Capitol Hill ceremony next month, says it “represents a Judeo-Christian expression of the national observance, based on our understanding that this country was birthed in prayer and in reverence for the God of the Bible.”
This intersection of religion and politics has caused controversy in the past, with groups unsuccessfully challenging the National Day of Prayer as a violation of church-state separation.
Groups like the American Humanist Association acknowledge that the current political climate makes it hard to take much of a stand against the National Day of Prayer. But they’re encouraged by recent moves at the state and city level to break up the strictly religious tone of the day’s events.
In states like Delaware, Iowa and Nebraska, governors have officially declared the first Thursday in May a National Day of Reason. The governors of Iowa and Nebraska are both Republicans, which some see as a sign that controversy over the effort is waning.
For Bulger, it’s important to send a message to all Americans that they are equally welcome to engage in civic life, regardless of their faith — or lack thereof.
“The National Day of Reason is an observance worthy of government recognition not only because of the values it promotes, whether it’s reason-based public policy or community cohesion, but because of the idea that when government decides to take part in a private observance, it needs to do so on the most inclusive grounds possible,” he said. “It cannot effectively say to a whole segment of the population that you are not able to participate in American civil life because you do not hold the same religious views that we hold.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-day-of-reason_us_570e7143e4b08a2d32b89ad5
-
It's a shame they have to jump through these hoops to deal with a handful of irrational crybabies.
Texas city hatches real estate deal with church to cross out atheists' lawsuit
Published May 23, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2016/05/23/texas-city-hatches-real-estate-deal-with-church-to-cross-out-atheists-lawsuit/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1464014391464.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Residents of Port Neches rallied when an atheist group demanded removal of a cement cross, but the city seems to have found a way to keep it. (Fox4Beaumont.com)
A $100 real estate deal may have ended a potential constitutional crisis in a small Texas city.
An atheist group sued Port Neches last fall over a 10-foot cement cross that stood in a public park for more than 45 years, saying its presence on public land violated the First Amendment's establishment clause. But the city short-circuited the lawsuit by selling the 400-square-foot plot where the cross stands to a local church.
“We found a section in the local government code that allows the sale of property to a religious organization, as long as that organization owns land within the municipality and there’s an agreement to revitalize that land,” Port Neches City Attorney Lance Bradley told 12News Now.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation raised the issue last November, after it said it received a complaint from an unidentified citizen of the community of 13,000 near the East Texas city of Beaumont.
“The government’s permanent display of a Latin cross on public land is unconstitutional,” the group wrote in a letter to Port Neches Mayor Glenn Johnson. “The display of this patently religious symbol on public property confers government endorsement of Christianity, a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.”
The organization demanded the removal of the cross, sparking a backlash from area residents buoyed by a defiant Johnson.
“I want to make it perfectly clear to the citizens of Port Neches specifically that this mayor and this city council will not fold, it will not bend, it will not roll over,” Johnson told reporters. “We’re going to fight this all the way. And if it goes to court, then it goes to court. And we’ll fight it there as well.”
But the sale of the cross and the land on which it stands to First United Methodist Church of Port Neches seems to have satisfied all parties.
“We looked at a number of options and this is the direction that city council decided to proceed,” City Manager Andre Wimer told ChristianNews.net.
FFRF called the sale a “victory,” but expressed skepticism about the price.
“The action to remove the Christian symbol from the public park is certainly a step in the right direction,” attorney Rebecca Markert told local television station KDFM. “FFRF will be looking into the details of the land sale to ensure the law was followed. If it is determined that the sale did not go through the proper process and the purpose was to save a religious symbol, then it’s not a closed case.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/23/texas-city-hatches-real-estate-deal-with-church-to-cross-out-atheists-lawsuit.html?intcmp=hpbt4
-
I applaud the FFRF for holding government accountable
-
Memorial Day crosses honoring fallen soldiers removed from public property after complaint
Published May 24, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2016/05/24/memorial-day-crosses-honoring-fallen-soldiers-removed-from-public-property-after-complaint/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1464107276441.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
A Memorial Day display featuring crosses to honor fallen soldiers was removed from public property in Georgia after someone questioned whether the soldiers were all Christian.
The 79 white, handmade crosses posted on public property along state Highway 92 in Hiram, Ga., were meant to represent the 79 Paulding County residents who died in America’s wars, according to town officials.
But the crosses were abruptly taken down last Friday after someone called Hiram City Hall questioning whether the cross is an appropriate symbol for the memorial.
Hiram Mayor Teresa Philyaw said the cross display, which she approved and planned, was never intended to be religious.
"It was never about religion -- it was just to honor them," Philyaw told FoxNews.com on Tuesday. "I was devastated when it had to come down."
"We wanted to make sure that they weren’t forgotten. We also wanted their families to know that our hearts still bleed for them," she said. "At the time, it never, ever crossed my mind about the religious factor in it."
"The cross is a 'rest in peace' symbol to me," said Philyaw.
But not everyone in the Georgia town with a population of 2,332 agrees with Philyaw.
Hours after the crosses were posted, an unnamed resident called the office of city manager Barry Atkinson and asked whether all 79 military personnel were Christians.
Philyaw said they had died in wars from World War I to Iraq and Afghanistan. She said to her knowledge, none of their families had complained.
The cross memorial has since ignited fierce debate on social media -- with many people saying its removal is political correctness run amok, while others argued all faiths should be represented.
"The 79 veterans from Paulding County who sacrificed their lives for our nation are being taken down for the Memorial Day holiday because some find it offensive," wrote one Facebook user. "Tell that to the families of these brave veterans who died for us so we can have freedom and shame on you, mayor of Hiram, Georgia, for caving in to their demands."
"It is impossible to do anything good in this world anymore," wrote another.
Some Facebook users posted photos of other memorial sites in which crosses were used to honor the fallen.
Barry Atkinson indicated he agreed with the decision to remove the crosses, WSB-TV reported.
The phone call, Atkinson told the station, "opened our eyes that we missed something here.”
“We immediately took corrective action,” he said.
Atkinson also noted that the caller offered to make a donation should the city plan to build a permanent memorial.
"If Hiram was willing to do a permanent veterans memorial, they offered to make a cash contribution, so I wouldn't say they were really mad," he said.
Some Hiram residents, meanwhile, are searching for private property where the crosses can be displayed, according to the station.
For her part, Philyaw said, "If there is one of those 79 that they know to be of a different religious belief, we will gladly put up."
A city council meeting is schedule for Tuesday night to debate the proper way in which to honor the fallen heroes.
"Whatever the choice is, a memorial of some kind will be displayed," said Philyaw.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/24/memorial-day-crosses-honoring-fallen-soldiers-removed-from-public-property-after-complaint.html?intcmp=hpbt3
-
"Barry Atkinson indicated he agreed with the decision to remove the crosses, WSB-TV reported.
The phone call, Atkinson told the station, "opened our eyes that we missed something here.”
“We immediately took corrective action,” he said.
Atkinson also noted that the caller offered to make a donation should the city plan to build a permanent memorial.
"If Hiram was willing to do a permanent veterans memorial, they offered to make a cash contribution, so I wouldn't say they were really mad," he said. "
Barry seems like a reasonable guy
-
Barry should have told the crybabies to go pound sand.
-
You know, I'm not religious myself, but really, who does it harm if people want to use crosses to commemorate their fallen friends and family?
They aren't hurting anyone.
Barry should have told the crybabies to go pound sand.
I agree.
-
PRAYING COACH FILES DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT IN WASHINGTON
Coach files discrimination lawsuit
A football coach is filing a federal discrimination lawsuit after he was put on leave for praying after games
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
BREMERTON, WA (KTRK) -- An assistant football coach who was suspended for praying on the field after games has filed a federal discrimination complaint against his school district in Washington State.
Joe Kennedy claims he's facing discrimination because of his religious beliefs.
Kennedy told local station KCPQ, "I never wanted any of this. I'm just the average guy. You know, I just want to coach football."
Kennedy was told by the school district earlier this year that his tradition violated school policy. He was asked to stop, but didn't. He was placed on paid administrative leave in October, and then on his evaluation last month, a note at the bottom read "do not rehire."
Kennedy called the note "a knife in the heart."
He said, "There's a constitutional right that I have as an American."
Kennedy has filed a complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His attorney, Mike Berry with the non-profit Liberty Institute, said, "We really feel that this school district has forced our hand into doing this because of the unlawful religious discrimination against Coach Kennedy."
The school district told KCPQ it cannot comment because it has not received official notification of the complaint yet.
Kennedy says he's still hopeful he can return to coaching at Bremerton. He says he's received offers to coach at other schools, but Bremerton is his home and where he wants to stay.
Kennedy said, "The community is our family and these kids are everything. I mean, we've got a lot invested in Bremerton."
http://abc13.com/religion/praying-coach-files-discrimination-complaint/1124632/
Court rules high school football coach cannot pray on the field
By Todd Starnes
Published August 23, 2017
Fox News
A Washington state high school football coach who was punished for taking a knee at the 50-yard line for a post-game prayer violated the U.S. Constitution, according to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
A three-judge panel ruled the Bremerton School District was justified in suspending Coach Joe Kennedy after he took a knee and prayed silently at midfield after football games.
Click here for a free subscription to Todd’s newsletter: a must-read for Conservatives!
"When Kennedy kneeled and prayed on the fifty-yard line immediately after games while in view of students and parents, he spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected," the 9th Circuit wrote.
Kennedy, who served as an assistant coach at Bremerton High School from 2008-2015, was ordered to refrain from bowing his head, taking a knee or doing anything that could be perceived as praying on public school property.
PODCAST: Listen to Todd interview Coach Joe Kennedy’s Attorney
To be fair – it’s not like Coach Kennedy was conducting a Billy Graham Crusade at midfield. He would simply take a knee, bow his head, thank God for a good game and 30 seconds later – he went about his business.
"An objective student observer would see an influential supervisor do something no ordinary citizen could do – perform a Christian religious act on secured school property while surrounded by players – simply because he is a coach," the judges wrote.
The evangelical Christian was suspended in 2015 when he defied school officials and continued his post-game religious ritual.
Kennedy was not rehired when his contract expired.
"This is deeply disappointing to us," First Liberty Institute attorney Jeremy Dys said on The Todd Starnes Show.
"The 9th Circuit believes they can ban all coaches from praying individually in public just because they can be seen," Dys said. "That is simply wrong. It is not American. And it is not the America contemplated by our Constitution."
First Liberty Institute said they have not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling.
"Now all coaches across the country stand under the prospect of being prevented from engaging in any outward displays of religion,” Dys told me. "That includes crossing yourself or even taking a knee to pray."
That’s right, folks – not even Catholic coaches will be allowed to cross themselves in public, the attorney said.
Welcome to the America that was fundamentally transformed by President Obama and his activist judges.
It’s a nation where football players can take a knee to disrespect the flag, but a coach can’t take a knee to pray to the Almighty.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/23/court-rules-high-school-football-coach-cannot-pray-on-field.html
-
Teacher: Dear Parents, Tell Your Kids to Stop Talking About God
By Todd Starnes/Twitter
August 30, 2017
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/559fd6e7e4b090c945b91506/t/59a6a9e712abd9d5f98fe0e8/1504094708468/mccordsville-letter-3.jpg?format=500w)
Photo/Fox9
School is back in session across the fruited plain and students are getting settled in their new classes – adjusting to new teachers.
So it's not all that unusual for moms and dads to receive letters from their child's teacher - especially regarding inappropriate classroom behavior. But a letter written by a first grade teacher and sent to parents in McCordsville, Indiana is causing quite a stir.
The teacher urged parents to encourage their children to stop using religious words in the classroom.
“I have had a group of about five students using the words God, Jesus and Devil in conversation,” the teacher wrote.
Back when I was in grade school my classmates would typically invoke the Good Lord's name -- usually just before an exam.
She explained that she had “a talk” with the children regarding inappropriate classroom language – but the lesson did not seem to work.
“With McCordsville Elementary being a public school, we have many different religions and beliefs, and I do not want to upset a child/parent because of these words being used,” she wrote to parents.
In other words – Jesus is not welcome in McCordsville Elementary School.
“If you go to church or discuss these things at home, please have a talk with your child about there being an appropriate time and place of talking about it,” the teacher wrote.
In my new book, “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again,” I delivered a call to arms. I urged you to take a stand for your Constitutional rights – to take a stand in your neighborhoods.
And that’s exactly what happened in McCordsville. One of the parents sent a copy of the teacher’s Jesus-ban to a local Fox News station – and faster than you could say, “God bless America,” the school district backtracked.
“Trying to limit a student’s view on religion is a violating of a student’s first amendment rights,” the district wrote in a statement.
Patriots took a stand and as a result a terrible wrong was made right.
Sadly, in many school districts parents have capitulated and allowed their school districts to become public indoctrination centers for far left activists – schools where words like “Jesus” are banned, but words like “gender fluid” are celebrated.
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/teacher-dear-parents-tell-your-kids-to-stop-taking-about-god
-
Atheists Tell School to Stop Playing Hallelujah Chorus
By Todd Starnes/Twitter
A gaggle of disgruntled atheists are doing a whole lot of hollering about the Hallelujah Chorus in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation’s local chapter is angry after a teacher at Linden Elementary School played a portion of the “Hallelujah Chorus” during morning announcements.
“While this music may be beautiful and even inspirational for Christians, it is not acceptable for broadcasting to the entire student body at Linden Elementary,” Aleta Ledendecker wrote in a letter to the school district that was obtained by the Oak Ridger.
The aggrieved atheist group said they were acting on behalf of two parents who had children enrolled in the school.
“In consideration of all the possible choices of music, this piece with its distinctly religious content can be interpreted as proselytizing,” Ledendecker wrote.
For the record, there have not been any reports of children spontaneously converting to the Christian faith as a result of George Handel’s beautiful song.
“This is the litmus test I use: if I were a Christian parent walking in the school, and I heard over the PA system during morning announcements music with the words ‘Praise Allah. Allah is king on high. Bow down to Allah,’ how would I feel as a Christian parent with that being broadcast to all the children in the schools,” Ledendecker told the Oak Ridger.
The school district told the Todd Starnes Show that a teacher had a good reason for playing a 20 second excerpt from Handel’s Messiah.
“The passage was selected to correspond with the school’s overall music curriculum that, for that particular week, featured the musical works of George Handel,” the school spokesperson told me.
Long story, short – Handel is not going anywhere.
“The school system strongly disagreed with her position and, through our school board’s attorney, we responded promptly to the writer suggesting that she was in error,” the spokesperson told me.
“The criticisms articulated by Ms. Ledendecker appear to have been based upon insufficient information taken entirely out of context, incorrect assumptions about the school’s music curriculum and a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment’s relationship with historically sacred classical music compositions being taught in a public school music curriculum,” the spokesperson added.
Yeah, that response is probably going to jingle the atheists’ bells.
It’s about time a school district stood up to those godless bullies and politely told them to blow it out their piccolo.
As George Handel would say, Hallelujah!
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/atheists-tell-school-to-stop-playing-hallelujah-chorus
-
School Marching Band Stands Up to Tone Deaf Atheists
By Todd Starnes/Twitter
High school football is a religion in the Deep South. So, it’s really no surprise that the halftime show at Leeds High School is a religious experience.
The Alabama high school marching band’s show includes classical music, pop rock and several traditional hymns.
Click here for a free subscription to Todd's newsletter: a must-read for Conservatives!
This year’s show features renditions of among others Amazing Grace, Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee and Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.
In addition to the religious-flavored music, the marching band’s routine includes church pews – on the football field.
While the show is quite popular with most of the folks in town, it’s not exactly a toe-tapper for an aggrieved atheist.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group of perpetually offended atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers, fired off a letter to the school district – warning that the halftime show violates the law.
“Turning a school-sponsored marching band performance into a religious event violates the constitutional separation of religion and government,” the FFRF wrote.
“Leeds City Schools has a responsibility to ensure that performances by school-sponsored groups do not impermissibly promote religion over non-religion or Judeo-Christianity over all minority faiths,” they added.
They alleged (without proof) that the marching band’s director told students if they did not like religious music they should “drop out.”
“The band director’s actions are over the line,” FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement.
Normally, terrified school districts capitulate once they receive one of FFRF’s threatening letters.
But we’re talking about the Deep South, folks. And the good people of Alabama don’t have any qualms about telling a bunch of out-of-town agitators to take their threats and blow ‘em out their trombone.
“We are going to keep the music as is,” Principal Brent Shaw told me. “We have evaluated our props to see if we need to adjust those, but we are not changing the music.”
The principal pointed out that the halftime show is instrumental – not a single word is sung.
“We are not trying to offend anybody or convert anybody,” the principal told me. “It’s just a variety show with all types of cross-cultural music.”
For example, the band’s version of “I Saw the Light,” was written by Hank Williams, Sr.
“And Hank, Sr. was not trying to convert anybody,” the principal said.
Still, the atheists are a defiant bunch of bullies. They say public school marching bands are not permitted to toot their horns to any religious tunes (and that goes for the oboe and piccolo, too).
https://www.toddstarnes.com/column/school-marching-band-stands-up-to-tone-deaf-atheists
-
Federal court rules World War I memorial cross must be torn down
Todd Starnes By Todd Starnes, Fox News
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/opinion/2017/10/18/federal-court-rules-world-war-memorial-cross-must-be-torn-down/_jcr_content/par/featured_image/media-0.img.jpg/1862/1048/1508345236795.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial, Bladensburg, Md. (First Liberty Institute.)
Back in 1925, the American Legion erected a memorial in Bladensburg, Md., to honor the memory of 49 men who perished during World War I.
The 40-foot tall memorial became known as the "Peace Cross."
In 2014, the American Humanist Association -- a group that believes in "being good without a god" -- filed a lawsuit alleging the cross-shaped memorial is unconstitutional and demanding it be demolished, altered, or removed.
They alleged the cross carries "an inherently religious message and creates the unmistakable appearance of honoring only Christian servicemen."
"Today's decision sets dangerous precedent by completely ignoring history, and it threatens removal and destruction of veterans memorials across America."
On Wednesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and ruled the historic memorial must be torn down -- all because the Bladensburg Memorial is in the shape of a cross.
The Fourth Circuit said the memorial excessively entangles the government in religion because the cross is the “core symbol of Christianity” and “breaches” the wall separating church and state.
Writing separately, Chief Judge Gregory wrote, “This Memorial stands in witness to the VALOR, ENDURANCE, COURAGE, and DEVOTION of the forty-nine residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland ‘who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.’ I cannot agree that a monument so conceived and dedicated and that bears such witness violates the letter or spirit of the very Constitution these heroes died to defend.”
The American Legion could appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
"Today's decision sets dangerous precedent by completely ignoring history, and it threatens removal and destruction of veterans memorials across America," First Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser said.
First Liberty Institute and the Jones Day law firm are representing the American Legion in their fight.
“This memorial has stood in honor of local veterans for almost 100 years and is lawful under the First Amendment,” Jones Day attorney Michael Carvin said. “To remove it would be a tremendous dishonor to the local men who gave their lives during The Great War.”
I warned Americans in my new book, “The Deplorables’ Guide to Making America Great Again,” that the war against religious liberty and traditional American values is far from over.
A militant group of atheists, agnostics and free-thinkers want to eradicate Christianity in the public marketplace. The only way to stop this evil scourge is for people of faith to stand together and fight back in the courts.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/18/federal-court-rules-world-war-memorial-cross-must-be-torn-down.html
-
Navy Investigates Bible on “Missing Man Table” Tribute
By Todd Starnes - April 8, 2018
The U.S. Navy is investigating complaints lodged by a sailors and Marines about a Bible and a “One Nation under God” placard placed on a POW/MIA table at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Okinawa, Japan.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a radical group that has a history of targeting public displays of Christianity, filed the complaint on behalf of 26 military personnel and civilian staff.
They wrote a seven-page complaint alleging that a Christian Bible was placed on a Prisoner of War/Missing in Action display in the hospital’s public gallery.
“Why is that Bible there,” MRFF president Mikey Weinstein demanded to know in an interview with Stars & Stripes. “Can you imagine if somebody put a Quran there, or the book of Satan, or the Book of Mormon? It’s violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as well as DoD and Navy regulations.”
Rear Adm. Paul D. Pearigen ordered an investigation into the public display at the Navy’s largest overseas hospital, the San Diego Union Tribune reports.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation also wants the Navy to remove a placard explaining the reason why the Bible is a part of the display.
“The Bible represents the strength gained through faith to sustain those lost from our country, founded one nation under God,” the placard reads.
The MRFF was grossly triggered and offended by the statement – calling it unconstitutional and a “slap in the face to every non-Christian.”
“The statement on the Exhibit’s placard is nothing more than an illegal, unconstitutional proselytization from an extremist, fundamentalist Christian sect,” their attorney wrote. “It ignores all followers of other religions and totally ignores all those who subscribe to no religion – all in blatant violation of DoD and DON regulations.”
However, according to the U.S. Navy the Bible and the placard are on the table for a reason. Click here to read it for yourself.
Hiram Sasser, general counsel for First Liberty Institute and a former Army Reserve officer, urged the Navy to resist the demands of the militant MRFF.
“The Bible is on the table because it is part of the tradition that predates our current demands for political correctness,” Sasser told the Todd Starnes Radio Show. “When we telegraph to our global military competitors that the mere presence of a Bible mentally destroys some of us, we are doomed.”
So why is the Navy wasting its time to investigate the unfounded allegations made by Mikey Weinstein and his minions?
This is nothing more than a despicable attack by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on the families of those with a loved one who is missing in action.
It’s time for the Trump Administration’s Pentagon to stop this radical group from bullying military families and desecrating any more Missing Man tables.
“You imagine if President Trump found out about this, that someone was complaining about a Bible being on a table? He’d probably put two on the table,” Sasser said.
Indeed.
https://www.toddstarnes.com/show/navy-investigates-bible-on-missing-man-table-tribute/
-
Minnesota Democrats wage war on God, faith and American history
Lauren DeBellis Appell By Lauren DeBellis Appell | Fox News
A bill in the Minnesota Senate that would allow schools in the state to voluntarily display the national motto “In God We Trust” has state Democrats spiraling into fits of outrage, because God offends them.
By waging war on God, they are showing contempt for people of faith and disregard for the history of our country.
On the floor of the Minnesota Senate, Democratic Sen. Scott Dibble suggested using “Allah” in place of “God” – as in “In Allah We Trust.” Dibble wondered how the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Dan Hall, would react, since the words “God” and “Allah” (an Arabic word) mean the same thing.
Here’s a little history lesson for Dibble.
“In God We Trust” was recognized as our nation’s motto more than 200 years ago when Francis Scott Key penned it in “The Star Spangled Banner” as he watched the Battle of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812. He wrote: “And this be our motto – ‘In God is our trust.’
So this motto goes almost as far back as the founding of our country. It’s very much ingrained in our heritage.
Note the humility of this statement. Key was saying that the United States – a very young country at war again with the nation from which it won its independence – defers its destiny to a higher power.
God is one of the most unifying and inclusive aspects of America. The term is used by many religions to reference the Supreme Being. Christians, Jews and Muslims all refer to the higher power they worship as “God,” with variants in different languages all having the identical meaning.
The Democratic Party has been completely hijacked by political correctness, which is one of the reasons Donald Trump was elected president. Voters saw the assault on their religious freedoms and the war on God and people of faith by the Democrats. That’s why the faith community has rallied behind this president so intently.
There is something very dangerous about having to attack people of faith or any expression of faith, and yet Democrats continue to travel down this road, abandoning a large portion of their voting base in the process.
Who can forget when God was literally booed at the Democratic National Convention in 2012? The Democrats removed recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and God from their party platform and then moved to add the references back in after concerns about losing Jewish voters and Christian independent voters. However, when they added the references back in a voice vote, the move was met with loud boos on the floor of the convention.
It’s worth noting that Charlotte, North Carolina – where the 2012 Democratic National Convention was held – is the same city where we recently saw the funeral service for the Rev. Billy Graham, who spoke at President Bill Clinton’s first inauguration in 1993.
It’s a sad commentary on the Democratic Party that it went from welcoming one of the most influential religious figures in America at the Clinton inaugural to booing God at its convention just 19 years later.
The more Democrats want to take God out of our daily lives, and our children’s lives, the more they expose themselves as extremists who want to take our country down a very destructive path. This is where they completely lose honest, hard-working, law-abiding people of faith.
Protesting the bill to allow display of the “In God We Trust” national motto, Democratic state Sen. John Marty said: “The money in my wallet has to say 'In God We Trust.' I think that's offensive.”
Marty could certainly make a donation to any number of good causes that wouldn’t find his money offensive. Perhaps he should start with his local school. Teachers are underpaid and always forced to reach into their own wallets for classroom supplies, which add up quickly. I’m sure they would welcome the generosity of the money that so offends the senator.
What many parents find offensive are politicians like Marty, whose salaries and office staff are paid for by the taxpayers. With the many problems plaguing our public schools – safety and security being the biggest – why are Democrats like Marty working overtime trying to keep God out of schools rather than focusing on keeping kids safe in schools?
Republican Sen. Hall said he sponsored the “In God We Trust” legislation to bring back respect, which has been lost.
Hall said: “We’ve lost a lot of respect for those things in life that we should be respecting. I only assume that if you take those things out of government, if you take the things that are respectful out, you're going to put in something different.”
That’s exactly what has happened. The further we’ve moved away from God in our schools, the more he’s been replaced by the extreme indoctrination of our kids with teaching and programs that completely undercut what families teach their children at home.
Nobody seems to care that parents are offended that many schools are no longer interested in partnering with them and instead are undermining them as the primary authority in the lives of their children.
Political correctness has infected schools to the point where priorities are out of whack. Our schools lack the security they desperately need, teachers are underpaid, and yet politicians ignore these real issues and, instead, pick fights with people of faith.
As the Democrats’ war on God wages on, the political consequences for them will only be secondary to what this will say about us as a nation.
Openly attacking God or people of faith is the only form of acceptable bigotry left in this country.
If God is our problem, what is the answer?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/13/minnesota-democrats-wage-war-on-god-faith-and-american-history.html
-
Minnesota Democrats wage war on God, faith and American history
Lauren DeBellis Appell By Lauren DeBellis Appell | Fox News
[…]
If God is our problem, what is the answer?
The national motto is just a blurb and I don’t much care if it stays or goes. It’s got a certain “historical” heritage, I guess, which is important for a relatively young nation. Plus, it’s what separates us from the dang Commies, so yeah, take that!
The original opinion piece, like most writings on this topic, is basically a longform appeal to emotion and tradition. I’m not gonna bother dissecting it. But I do have a couple of questions I wish could ask the author:
Why bother with God in the first place? What problem does he solve that humans aren’t better equipped to solve?
-
The national motto is just a blurb and I don’t much care if it stays or goes. It’s got a certain “historical” heritage, I guess, which is important for a relatively young nation. Plus, it’s what separates us from the dang Commies, so yeah, take that!
The original opinion piece, like most writings on this topic, is basically a longform appeal to emotion and tradition. I’m not gonna bother dissecting it. But I do have a couple of questions I wish could ask the author:
Why bother with God in the first place? What problem does he solve that humans aren’t better equipped to solve?
I don't have a problem appealing to tradition. I'm sure emotion is part of it, but emotion is normal.
-
I don't have a problem appealing to tradition.
I do. "Tradition" has been used to justify the continuation of all manner of horrible practices.
I don't really see what "In God we Trust" adds. I mean, our national motto might well be "Can I have a refill?" or "Yo. Grab me a bud, will ya?" It's just a meaningless thing, which is why I don't much care if it is or isn't there.
But I am curious who "we" are. It can't be referring to me, therefore, by definition, it can't be referring to Americans, since I am an American. So, who are the people that trust in God and why do they need to and get to proclaim their faith on our money?
-
I do. "Tradition" has been used to justify the continuation of all manner of horrible practices.
I don't really see what "In God we Trust" adds. I mean, our national motto might well be "Can I have a refill?" or "Yo. Grab me a bud, will ya?" It's just a meaningless thing, which is why I don't much care if it is or isn't there.
But I am curious who "we" are. It can't be referring to me, therefore, by definition, it can't be referring to Americans, since I am an American. So, who are the people that trust in God and why do they need to and get to proclaim their faith on our money?
I agree that, like many other good things, "tradition" has been misused. But not always. Celebrating good things is a . . . good thing. Not everyone has to like or agree with it.
"We" means the people who like the tradition. You're not any less of an American because you don't like certain traditions. Nor are people who support or participate in traditions any more of an American. Someone will always be unhappy. I'm not one who believes that everything we do has to try and avoid offending people, particularly if the people being offended are a small minority.
Different analysis if we're talking about Constitutional rights, etc.
-
I do. "Tradition" has been used to justify the continuation of all manner of horrible practices.
I don't really see what "In God we Trust" adds. I mean, our national motto might well be "Can I have a refill?" or "Yo. Grab me a bud, will ya?" It's just a meaningless thing, which is why I don't much care if it is or isn't there.
But I am curious who "we" are. It can't be referring to me, therefore, by definition, it can't be referring to Americans, since I am an American. So, who are the people that trust in God and why do they need to and get to proclaim their faith on our money?
What does it hurt?
-
What does it hurt?
Oh, is that what's important? Heck, in that case, let's just put: "Only you can prevent forest fires". I mean, what does it hurt, right?
-
What does it hurt?
what does it achieve?
-
Oh, is that what's important? Heck, in that case, let's just put: "Only you can prevent forest fires". I mean, what does it hurt, right?
We already do that on signs. Doesn't hurt anything.
what does it achieve?
Hope and belief for billions around the globe.
-
We already do that on signs. Doesn't hurt anything.
Hope and belief for billions around the globe.
I suspect no one gives it a thought unless it's brought up in a conversation like this.
-
I suspect no one gives it a thought unless it's brought up in a conversation like this.
This is correct.
-
I suspect no one gives it a thought unless it's brought up in a conversation like this.
Correct
-
We already do that on signs. Doesn't hurt anything.
Why not dollar bills too?
Hope and belief for billions around the globe.
“In God We Trust” on the dollar bill gives hope and belief to billions? ???
-
Why not dollar bills too?
“In God We Trust” on the dollar bill gives hope and belief to billions? ???
Yes. Little Timmy in south Africa holds the dollar I donate every month and prays for a prosperous future.
-
Yes. Little Timmy in south Africa holds the dollar I donate every month and prays for a prosperous future.
I'm quite sure Little Timmy would appreciate your donation whether or not it had "In God We Trust" on it. Besides, Little Timmy's "prayers" (if he prays) are answered by you, not the God in which you (or perhaps Timmy) place your trust. God doesn't even have voicemail setup.
-
I'm quite sure Little Timmy would appreciate your donation whether or not it had "In God We Trust" on it. Besides, Little Timmy's "prayers" (if he prays) are answered by you, not the God in which you (or perhaps Timmy) place your trust. God doesn't even have voicemail setup.
So to little Timmy, I am god. What's the harm?
If it bothers you, I'll be happy to take the money the offends you. :D
-
So to little Timmy, I am god. What's the harm?
If it bothers you, I'll be happy to take the money the offends you. :D
The money doesn’t offend me. The statement “In God We Trust” doesn’t offend me either. I just find it stupid and pointless.
-
The money doesn’t offend me. The statement “In God We Trust” doesn’t offend me either. I just find it stupid and pointless.
To you it may be stupid and pointless, and you're entitled to your opinion, belief, or lack thereof. But Europe, for example, pushed out Christianity, embraced secularism, then in came Islam to fill the new void left by Christianity. Now many European atheists regret pushing out Christianity and creating the void now being filled by Islam.
Hopefully you won't see "To Allah We Submit" on American currency and government buildings some day.
-
To you it may be stupid and pointless, and you're entitled to your opinion, belief, or lack thereof. But Europe, for example, pushed out Christianity, embraced secularism, then in came Islam to fill the new void left by Christianity. Now many European atheists regret pushing out Christianity and creating the void now being filled by Islam.
Hopefully you won't see "To Allah We Submit" on American currency and government buildings some day.
Can you provide any evidence that an atheist in Europe regrets pushing out Christianity (hows that even done) and now regrets it?
-
Can you provide any evidence that an atheist in Europe regrets pushing out Christianity (hows that even done) and now regrets it?
What would you accept as "any evidence"? And what do you mean by "hows that even done"?
-
Well?
-
To you it may be stupid and pointless, and you're entitled to your opinion, belief, or lack thereof.
To me, Christianity and Islam are two sides of the same coin: a belief system that is based on superstition and fear. I don't think one is better than the other; both are responsible for atrocities and both have the same end goal: to enslave and control human beings. Islam is just more openly virulent than Christianity.
But Europe, for example, pushed out Christianity, embraced secularism, then in came Islam to fill the new void left by Christianity. Now many European atheists regret pushing out Christianity and creating the void now being filled by Islam.
So Christianity is the "bastion" that was keeping the Muslims at bay? Sounds like you need to read up on the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. You know, before we restart the Crusades to "reclaim" Europe from the Muzzies!
Hopefully you won't see "To Allah We Submit" on American currency and government buildings some day.
I'd rather not see any superstitituous bullshit on American currency and government buildings. And unless we take a cheat-meal sized dump on the Constitution, we won't.
-
To me, Christianity and Islam are two sides of the same coin: a belief system that is based on superstition and fear. I don't think one is better than the other; both are responsible for atrocities and both have the same end goal: to enslave and control human beings. Islam is just more openly virulent than Christianity.
So Christianity is the "bastion" that was keeping the Muslims at bay? Sounds like you need to read up on the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. You know, before we restart the Crusades to "reclaim" Europe from the Muzzies!
I'd rather not see any superstitituous bullshit on American currency and government buildings. And unless we take a cheat-meal sized dump on the Constitution, we won't.
Don't argue with me. Ask your fellow atheists and agnostics. According to them, you are being neither practical nor realistic. I thought this stuff was well known, but apparently you and our resident ex-cop had not heard of it:
Richard Dawkins: ‘Benign’ Christianity is about to be replaced by ‘something worse’ – Islam
UNITED KINGDOM, March 23, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Despite his years of denouncing religion, Richard Dawkins does not welcome a European future without Christianity.
On Wednesday, the atheist author and evolutionary biologist warned those inclined to “rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion” to keep in mind the danger of "something worse" taking its place.
That worse alternative, Dawkins suggests, is Islam, which he has previously called “the most evil religion in the world.”
Despite having once claimed that government needs to “protect” children from being “indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in,” Dawkins recognizes that European Christianity serves as a “bulwark against something worse.”
“There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/richard-dawkins-benign-christianity-is-about-to-be-replaced-by-something-wo
I'll be posting more on this as I find time to dig it up.
-
What would you accept as "any evidence"? And what do you mean by "hows that even done"?
Ok, how does one push out a religion? Is it simply by being outnumbered by non religious people? Did the Christians all move out of Europe? Again, how did Europe push out Christianity. And as far as evidence to your claim Atheists are sorry Christianity is somehow gone from Europe, just a link to a news article indicating Atheists regret pushing Christianity out of Europe because Muslims are taking over would do. I would think, an Atheist would just rather both groups be gone.
-
Ok, how does one push out a religion? Is it simply by being outnumbered by non religious people? Did the Christians all move out of Europe? Again, how did Europe push out Christianity. And as far as evidence to your claim Atheists are sorry Christianity is somehow gone from Europe, just a link to a news article indicating Atheists regret pushing Christianity out of Europe because Muslims are taking over would do. I would think, an Atheist would just rather both groups be gone.
It's a figure of speech. You do understand what that means, don't you? Western Europe has become secularized and hostile toward Christianity since WWII. That's a well known fact.
As for me posting an article, and I will dig up more as time allows, did you not see the one that I just posted?
-
Don't argue with me.
I will if I want to.
Ask your fellow atheists and agnostics.
Why would I? Do I need their permission? Are we all supposed to have the same opinion and I’m deviating?
According to them, you are being neither practical nor realistic.
And why would I give a s*** about what others think?
I thought this stuff was well known, but apparently you and our resident ex-cop had not heard of it:
Richard Dawkins: ‘Benign’ Christianity is about to be replaced by ‘something worse’ – Islam
Yeah, sorry. I don’t subscribe to the “Richard Dawkins Newsletter” nor do I pay attention to what he says.
I'll be posting more on this as I find time to dig it up.
No need to. I don’t doubt that Islam is a virulent religion that’s now spreading through Europe, at the expense of Christianity. Viruses infecting other viruses (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/viruses-theyre-alive-and-they-can-i-2008-08-08/).
-
I will if I want to.
Why would I? Do I need their permission? Are we all supposed to have the same opinion and I’m deviating?
And why would I give a s*** about what others think?
Yeah, sorry. I don’t subscribe to the “Richard Dawkins Newsletter” nor do I pay attention to what he says.
No need to. I don’t doubt that Islam is a virulent religion that’s now spreading through Europe, at the expense of Christianity. Viruses infecting other viruses (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/viruses-theyre-alive-and-they-can-i-2008-08-08/).
So, if you want to, you will argue with me Western European atheists' point of view regarding Islam replacing Christianity in Western Europe, knowing that I'm neither Western European nor atheist? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Well, at least unlike our resident ex-cop, you don't doubt many European atheists and agnostics are feeling this way and saying these things today, if I understood you correctly.
Assuming you are an American citizen living in the US, you really don't mind if the conservative, church going Christian majority in the US gets replaced with a Muslim majority instead?
I know you prefer neither. You made that clear. But I ask because you also seem to be saying that you see no difference between countries where the majority religious people are Christian and countries that are predominantly Muslim.
-
Atheist group sues over Bible display at VA hospital in New Hampshire
Caleb Parke By Caleb Parke | Fox News
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/05/1862/1048/vA-bible-2.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
A Bible donated by a World War II veteran on display in a Manchester VA Medical Center memorial is at the center of a lawsuit filed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on behalf of a New Hampshire veteran. (Courtesy of First Liberty Institute)
An atheist group filed a lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs over a Bible displayed at a VA facility in New Hampshire.
The group called the Bible's presence in the missing veterans and POWs memorial unconstitutional and an “outrage,” but the VA says it won't be "bullied" into removing the Bible from the display.
The Bible was donated to Manchester VA Medical Center by former U.S. Army Air Corps Technical Sergeant (TSgt) Herman "Herk" Streitburger, of Bedford, who was held captive in a German Prisoner of War camp during World War II.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation said it filed the lawsuit on behalf of a New Hampshire veteran.
“That is stamping it with the approval of raising one faith over all the others,” Mikey Weinstein, the founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told USA Today. “From our perspective, it’s a repugnant example of fundamentalist Christian triumphalism, exceptionalism, superiority, and domination, and it cannot stand.”
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/03/1862/1048/VAbible.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
A Bible donated by a World War II veteran on display in a Manchester VA Medical Center memorial is at the center of a lawsuit filed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on behalf of a New Hampshire veteran. (Office of Public Affairs, Manchester VA Medical Center via AP)
Department of Veteran Affair Press Secretary Curt Cashour told Fox News the Bible, although incorrectly moved earlier this year, stays.
"This lawsuit – backed by a group known for questionable practices and unsuccessful lawsuits – is nothing more than an attempt to force VA into censoring a show of respect for America’s POW/MIA community," Cashour said. "Make no mistake: VA will not be bullied on this issue."
The VA briefly removed the Bible from the display case when MRFF initially complained about it, but put it back following an outpouring of complaints from veterans groups and religious liberty groups, including the First Liberty Institute, the same law firm that argued on behalf of the Bladensburg "Peace Cross" memorial in front of the Supreme Court earlier this year.
The MRFF lawsuit described the New Hampshire veteran, James Chamberlain, as a “devout Christian” who wants the Bible removed from the display.
“As a Christian, he respects and loves all his military brothers and sisters and does not want to be exclusionary by placement of the Christian Bible,” the complaint says.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction requiring that the Bible be removed from the display.
Those in favor of keeping the Bible on display said the lawsuit is frivolous.
“POW/MIA Remembrance displays have a long, cherished history in our nation,” said Mike Berry, chief of staff at the First Liberty Institute. “Veterans organizations like the Northeast POW/MIA Network should be able to honor and remember those killed, captured or missing with a display that includes a Bible donated by a WWII veteran that represents the strength through faith necessary for American service members to survive.”
https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/atheist-group-sues-over-bible-display-at-va-hospital-in-new-hampshire
-
I think they should add a copy of Playboy as well.
-
Supreme Court: Cross Can Stand On Public Land In Separation Of Church And State Case
June 20, 2019
Nina Totenberg
Domenico Montanaro
(https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2019/06/16/harlan_npr_scotus_cross-35_custom-e7cdc4358c640f3b9167b7362d7150daec2233b0-s1600-c85.jpg)
A World War I memorial cross sits in Bladensburg, Md., just outside Washington, D.C. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the cross.
Becky Harlan/NPR
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a 40-foot World War I memorial cross can stay on public land at a Maryland intersection.
The cross "has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions," the court wrote. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion for the court.
"And contrary to respondents' intimations, there is no evidence of discriminatory intent in the selection of the design of the memorial or the decision of a Maryland commission to maintain it. The Religion Clause of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim."
The decision was 7-to-2, but had multiple parts and not all of the seven agreeing on every aspect. The decision reverses a lower-court ruling that said the memorial is unconstitutional because it is on public land and maintained at taxpayer expense. The high court's ruling is a major victory for religious groups and the American Legion, which warned that if this cross had to be moved, so too would other crosses that serve as war memorials.
Alito argued that the cross had essentially become secular. He invoked the history of World War I memorials noting the rows and rows of crosses and stars of David at cemeteries that memorialized those who died in that war and that established in people's minds, in his view, that that was a way to honor to dead.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent, disagreed with Alito's history. She noted that it's clear what the purpose and meaning of the cross was from the start — it was religious. She argued Americans knew what it meant then and know what it means now.
"Decades ago," Ginsburg wrote, "this Court recognized that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution demands governmental neutrality among religious faiths, and between religion and nonreligion. ... Numerous times since, the Court has reaffirmed the Constitution's commitment to neutrality. Today the Court erodes that neutrality commitment, diminishing precedent designed to preserve individual liberty and civic harmony in favor of a 'presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices.'"
She adds, "The Latin cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the 'central theological claim of Christianity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead, and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.' ... Precisely because the cross symbolizes these sectarian beliefs, it is a common marker for the graves of Christian soldiers. For the same reason, using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized."
The decision could have sweeping implications in terms of symbols, like crosses and the 10 Commandments that are already constructed. Those that are already there, likely will be able to stay; it's a question of removal, not putting them up. It could still be contested, however, if someone wanted to construct something new, because the purpose would be better known than something historic.
The concrete cross at the center of the court's decision is located in the middle of a busy median strip and directly across the street from a large pawnshop in Bladensburg, Md.
It was erected nearly 100 years ago when bereaved mothers in Bladensburg decided to build a World War I memorial to honor their fallen sons. When they ran out of money, the American Legion took over the project. But by the 1930s, a local parks commission had taken over the memorial and the responsibility for its maintenance.
Today, the cross is more grungy than grand. The concrete is crumbling; a canvas tarp covers the top, and without the $100,000 that the parks commission has budgeted for repair, the monument looks like it may not be long for this world.
The American Humanist Association challenged the placement of the cross, contending that "there is no meaning to the Latin cross, other than Christianity." A federal appeals court agreed, declaring that its placement violated the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion. The appeals court ruled that the cross should be moved to a private location and funded without taxpayer money.
Now the Supreme Court has reversed that ruling.
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/731824045/supreme-court-cross-can-stand-on-public-land-in-separation-of-church-and-state-c
-
Justices reject challenge to 'In God We Trust' on U.S. money
By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Monday, June 10, 2019
The Supreme Court rejected a case Monday brought by an atheist who wanted to scrub “In God We Trust,” the U.S. motto, from the nation’s currency, claiming it was an entanglement of state and religion.
Michael Newdow, an activist who previous challenged reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, had set his sights on money, but lost at the district, circuit and now Supreme Court levels.
On behalf of a group of atheists, Mr. Newdow argued America’s money lacked an reference to God until 1864, when it was added in. He said that amounted to an endorsement of religion.
“By mandating the inscription of facially religious text … on every coin and currency bill, defendants have turned petitioners — among whom are nine children — into ‘political outsiders’ on the basis of their most fundamental religious tenet,” he argued in his petition to the Supreme Court.
The justices rejected his petition without comment.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in its ruling last August against Mr. Newdow said the Establishment Clause of the Constitution doesn’t force the government to purge itself from all religious reflection.
“Precluding general references to God would do exactly that,” the federal appeals court ruled.
Mr. Newdow lost a similar challenge in 2014 when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a previous effort to strip the motto from currency. Four other appeals courts, dealing with the issue before, also have upheld the motto’s place on American money.
The activist has also launched a series of other legal challenges, attempting to separate religion from the public sphere. Some of his well known battles include trying to halt the Pledge of Allegiance from being said in public school due to the phrase “under God,” and also trying to stop prayers and religious references at the inaugurations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Becket Religious Liberty for All, a religious liberty focused law firm, said the high court made the right move by dismissing Mr. Newdow’s challenge Monday.
“The result is the right one, but the multiyear process is a grand waste of time and money,” said Eric Rassbach, an attorney for Becket.
He said it’s time for the Supreme Court to revisit the “Lemon test,” a framework the Supreme Court laid out in a 1971 case for reviewing when a government’s action crosses the line into unconstitutional religious entanglement. Under the Lemon test, an action must have a secular purpose, must not advance or inhibit a religion, and must avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion.”
Mr. Rassbach said the Lemon test invites cases like Mr. Newdow‘s.
The Supreme Court has a chance to retire the Lemon test in another case this term involving a nearly 100-year-old war memorial cross in Bladensburg, Maryland. The Peace Cross, which stands on public land, is dedicated to local soldiers who died in World War I.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, during oral argument in that case, suggested Lemon’s usefulness was at an end.
“It’s been a long time since this court has applied Lemon,” Justice Gorsuch said. “Is it time for this court to thank Lemon for its services and send it on its way?”
A decision in the Peace Cross case is expected by the end of the month.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/10/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-god-we-trust-us-mo/
-
This is where progressive atheist groups lose me.
"In GOD we trust" on US bills is not threat to personal freedoms.
Thats really not the criteria though.
-
What irrational crybaby complained about the word Christmas? Good grief.
West Virginia mayor restores city's 'Christmas Parade' after protests over name change
By Vandana Rambaran | Fox News
Charleston Christmas parade now called 'Winter parade'
The parade will still be Christmas themed.
The mayor of West Virginia's capital city has reversed her earlier decision to rename the annual "Charleston Christmas Parade" the "Charleston Winter Parade" after protests.
Mayor Amy Goodwin announced the original name change Monday, saying it would encourage inclusivity. However, the parade's theme was to remain "Twas The Night Before Christmas."
“The City of Charleston is an inclusive community. We want everyone to participate in this parade,” Goodwin said in a video posted to Facebook.
The decision prompted a backlash, with Republican State Senate President Mitch Carmichael urging constituents to plead with Goodwin to reverse the name change. Officials from several churches quickly criticized the decision and said they wouldn't attend.
On Thursday, Goodwin reversed her original decision "after much consideration and conversation with religious leaders from all faiths and community members."
"We understand the history and tradition of the parade and we want to continue that for years to come," she said in a statement posted to Facebook.
"I truly appreciate all the calls, emails and feedback we have received regarding the Charleston parade. However, the kind of vitriol that has come forth since announcing the change in the name of the parade has been truly disappointing and hurtful. But I do respect those individuals’ freedom to deliver that message to my doorstep," she said.
Goodwin still kept to her message of inclusivity, saying: "To be sure, this city needs everyone included. We need to be kind. We need to work together, and this administration will continue to work every day for a more inclusive community where everyone is welcome to celebrate and come together."
Carmichael praised Goodwin's change of heart, saying in a statement: "Christmas celebrates the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is a central holiday for thousands of Christians in our Capitol City and throughout West Virginia.
“I am thankful Mayor Goodwin listened to her constituents and decided to cancel her plans to rename the parade ... People of all faiths, Christian, Judaism, Islam and all other faiths, should never feel as though the government is prohibiting their ability to worship and celebrate their religion. That is what inclusion looks like and that is what West Virginia should look like."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/charleston-west-virginia-christmas-parade-name-change
-
Th public schools shouldn't be giving out bibles or the Torah, or Book of Mormon, etc. in the first place (unless they are private schools).
-
Ya know Dos, I'm a lonely guy on the religion issue.
Basically, I believe in "GOD" , but I don't belong to any religion or faith doctrine.
For me , it's pretty simple :
I look out at the night sky and accept that the universe was made by something a
lot bigger and better than humans.
Interesting position
-
Court rules high school football coach cannot pray on the field
By Todd Starnes
Published August 23, 2017
Fox News
A Washington state high school football coach who was punished for taking a knee at the 50-yard line for a post-game prayer violated the U.S. Constitution, according to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
A three-judge panel ruled the Bremerton School District was justified in suspending Coach Joe Kennedy after he took a knee and prayed silently at midfield after football games.
Click here for a free subscription to Todd’s newsletter: a must-read for Conservatives!
"When Kennedy kneeled and prayed on the fifty-yard line immediately after games while in view of students and parents, he spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected," the 9th Circuit wrote.
Kennedy, who served as an assistant coach at Bremerton High School from 2008-2015, was ordered to refrain from bowing his head, taking a knee or doing anything that could be perceived as praying on public school property.
PODCAST: Listen to Todd interview Coach Joe Kennedy’s Attorney
To be fair – it’s not like Coach Kennedy was conducting a Billy Graham Crusade at midfield. He would simply take a knee, bow his head, thank God for a good game and 30 seconds later – he went about his business.
"An objective student observer would see an influential supervisor do something no ordinary citizen could do – perform a Christian religious act on secured school property while surrounded by players – simply because he is a coach," the judges wrote.
The evangelical Christian was suspended in 2015 when he defied school officials and continued his post-game religious ritual.
Kennedy was not rehired when his contract expired.
"This is deeply disappointing to us," First Liberty Institute attorney Jeremy Dys said on The Todd Starnes Show.
"The 9th Circuit believes they can ban all coaches from praying individually in public just because they can be seen," Dys said. "That is simply wrong. It is not American. And it is not the America contemplated by our Constitution."
First Liberty Institute said they have not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling.
"Now all coaches across the country stand under the prospect of being prevented from engaging in any outward displays of religion,” Dys told me. "That includes crossing yourself or even taking a knee to pray."
That’s right, folks – not even Catholic coaches will be allowed to cross themselves in public, the attorney said.
Welcome to the America that was fundamentally transformed by President Obama and his activist judges.
It’s a nation where football players can take a knee to disrespect the flag, but a coach can’t take a knee to pray to the Almighty.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/23/court-rules-high-school-football-coach-cannot-pray-on-field.html
Bremerton School Board approves settlement with coach over on-field prayer
March 17, 2023
By Seattle Times staff
The Bremerton School Board voted Thursday to accept a nearly $2 million settlement with Joseph Kennedy, a high school assistant football coach who was placed on leave in 2015 for praying on the field with players.
The unanimous approval by the five-member board comes after the Bremerton School District announced Kennedy would resume his old coaching role and return to the sidelines for the upcoming football season.
The district said last week it had reach an agreement to settle a claim for Kennedy’s attorney fees for $1,775,000.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that Kennedy’s prayer fell under his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. After the decision, Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction said the ruling affirms that school employees can engage in individual prayer as long as there’s no expectation that others join and the prayer is not part of official duties.
Kennedy, who started coaching at Bremerton High School in 2008, initially prayed alone on the 50-yard line at the end of games. But students and players soon joined him, and he began giving talks with religious references.
The district asked him to stop. Kennedy and district officials disagreed about whether he complied. He was put on administrative leave at the end of the 2015 season, and a school official recommended against renewing his contract. Kennedy did not reapply for his job.
Kennedy has completed human resources paperwork, according to the district. The School Board will approve football coach contracts on Aug. 3, and Kennedy will be included in coaching staff communications and begin coaching in mid-August, the district said.
“We are thrilled that Bremerton and Coach Kennedy are back together and we hope they go undefeated,” Hiram Sasser, executive general counsel at First Liberty Institute, the legal organization that represented Kennedy, previously said in a statement.
Seattle Times staff reporter Amanda Zhou contributed to this report, which includes material from Seattle Times archives.
This story has been updated to show that Joe Kennedy was not fired as a football coach but placed on leave in 2015.
Seattle Times staff
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/bremerton-school-board-approves-settlement-with-coach-fired-for-praying/#:~:text=Bremerton%20School%20Board%20approves%20settlement%20with%20coach%20over%20on%2Dfield%20prayer,-March%2017%2C%202023&text=The%20Bremerton%20School%20Board%20voted,on%20the%20field%20with%20players.