 |
| Rhode Island Public High School Students arrive on National Mall in Washington. |
(Dissociated Press) Atheist organizations are hailing their success in forcing public schools to protect students from violations of the Constitution during class trips to our nation's capitol.
Richard Stifle, president of The Freedom from Religion and Anything Atheists Don't Like Foundation, announced that his organization and a coalition of atheist public-interest lawyers have reached a pre-trial settlement with the nation's 98,817 public schools to avert a multi-trillion dollar lawsuit over the exposure of students to illegal violations of the First Amendment during school trips to Washington, D.C.
Beginning January 1, 2012, students visiting the National Mall and other historic locations in Washington D.C. will be required by federal court order to wear blindfolds.
However, Stifle cautioned against calling the mandatory eyeware "blindfolds".
"Oh, we... don't call the mandatory opaque student optical apparel "blindfolds". We atheists call them "First Amendment Spectacles"-- they help kids see the atheist version of their First Amendment rights and help to protect kids from violations of their right to separation of church and state."
Why are schoolkids required by the Constitution to wear blindfolds in our nation's capital, this reporter asked?
"The National Mall is a crime scene", Stifle said. "Everywhere there are references to God and Christianity on government buildings. The National Mall is one big prayer mural. We have a Constitutional responsibility to protect students."
Stifle noted that many major government buildings in the heart of the capital are slathered with God-talk, which is obviously a violation of the First Amendment, which explicitly demands separation of church and state and prohibits all civic reference to God everywhere forever.
"We protect our kids from seeing even a whiff of religious speech in school, but who protects them when they're on class trips?" Stifle implored. "The danger to students is real. Some may feel ostracized and excluded if they realize that our nation's most important institutions and monuments are covered with illegal references to God. "
"Child safety doesn't end when kids leave school property."Stifle warned. "Prayer predators are everywhere, waiting to violate your child's right to Constitutional separation of church and state".
Stifle provided The Dissociated Press with several crime scene photos:
 |
| Display of Ten Commandments on frieze of Supreme Court, which has outlawed display of Ten Commandments on the friezes of court buildings. |
 |
| Display of Ten Commandments on door of Supreme Court chamber, where the Supreme Court has outlawed display of Ten Commandments on doors of court chambers. |
 |
| Display of Ten Commandments over Supreme Court benches, where Supreme Court Justices sit and outlaw display of Ten Commandments over court benches. |
 |
| Display of Ten Commandments on floor of entrance to National Archives, which contains the Constitution that outlaws display of Ten Commandments on floors of entrances to government archives. |
 |
| Lincoln Memorial: Outrageous display of a violation of separation of church and state by our 16th President, with actual Bible quotations! |
 |
| Thousands of violations of separation of church and state at Arlington National Cemetery! |
 |
| Notorious violations of separation of church and state at National Archives: "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." |
 |
| Jefferson Memorial: Violation of wall of separation between church and state in quote from Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom written by author of term "wall of separation between church and state". |
"We need to protect our children from seeing violations of the Constitutional separation of church and state", noted Stifle, solemnly, "even when they're not actually on school property.' "We are teaching children how to spot violation of separation of church and state crimes that put their freedom in danger on all government property. We are putting lessons in schools to educate students".
Here's one lesson that warns of the dangers:
 |
| Attention Kids! Danger to your freedom! Anodyne fifty-year old prayer mural |
And here's another lesson that shows how to spot friendly adults who don't put your freedom in danger:
 |
| Attention Kids! No danger to your freedom! Judge ordering people to shut up. |
Stifle beamed: "We've even started a public education campaign for school kids to help them appreciate the atheist interpretation of the First Amendment. We are putting up posters in all public schools around the country, in place of where the illegal prayers used to be."
"We call it the 'Freedom is Blind' Campaign."
 |
| "Freedom is Blind" The Constitution protects you from seeing things atheists don't like! |
"Finally", Stifle intoned, smiling, "we're going to teach kids what separation of church and state really means."
Masterful blog, Dr. Egnor.
ReplyDeleteIf atheists don't get the message this time, they'll never get it!
Of course they'll never get it. Or at least they'll never stop pretending not to get it, since the alternative to pretending not to get it is to openly admit their totalitarian impulses.
DeleteDr. Egnor really has a knack for making the same points over and over and over again. Unfortunately many of the pictures Dr. Egnor has included don’t make the strong case he thinks they do.
ReplyDeleteThe display pf the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building features blank tablets held by Moses who is flanked by Confucius and Solon, representing the three great civilizations contributing to our legal inheritance. This is exactly the kind of governmental display featuring the Ten Commandments that has been deemed constitutional. Note that the Commandments themselves are not displayed and no religious message is conveyed.
The display of the Ten Commandments on the door of the court chamber again does not display the commandments, only the roman numerals I thru X. again no overtly religious message is displayed. It has also been argued that these numerals represent the Bill of Rights! This display is about as minimally religious as is possible. I don’t have a problem with it, although technically it should probably go.
Same for the display on the floor on the National Archives, although being able to walk all over it doesn’t really seem to display much respect for the symbol.
The display of the Ten Commandments over the Supreme Court Benches is again part of a much larger display of the great law gives of history. Moses is one of numerous lawgivers, is given no special place, and only displays portions of the commandments that aren’t inherently religious (5-10). Again displaying the Ten Commandments in a way that has been found to be constitutional.
As for the grave markers, crosses have been employed as grave markers since long before Christianity, and the military will be happy to provide other markers, including one for Atheists. I don’t see any problem here.
Besides, these are far different than a giant prayer hung in a public school that students are compelled by law to visit five days a week.
-KW
...provide other markers, including one for Atheists.
DeleteHere is what I suggest as a grave marker for a dead atheist.
Interesting, Now you claim that any display of the Roman numerals I-X is a display of the Ten Commandments. I wonder how Moses got those numerals on his copy given that they weren't invented when he supposedly lived. Or perhaps they are references to the Bill of Rights, which are traditionally displayed with Roman numerals. Or maybe that is too difficult a point for your faith-addled brain to grasp.
ReplyDeleteIt's well established that the symbols we now know as Roman numerals predate the Roman empire by tens of thousands of years. Their adoption by the Romans brought them into the cultural mainstream, and they came to be called Roman Numerals. But Dude, they were around long before the Romans. Sort of like Hitler and the Swastika. ;-)
DeleteAnyway, don't feel bad. I used to think they were invented by the guy who keeps track of which Super Bowl it is? (Speaking of which ... Here comes Super Bowl XLVI ... Gooooo Patriots! Brady rocks!!!). Peace out.
It's well established that the symbols we now know as Roman numerals predate the Roman empire by tens of thousands of years.
DeleteMore like about 500 years or so, as they are derived from Etruscan numerals and date back to about 1,000 BC. Moses (if he existed in reality) live at least 600 years before that.
Egnor keeps blaming atheists for opposing government-sponsored religious brainwashing, but he conveniently neglects to mention that many theists are also opposed to such practices. There are plenty of Jewish and Christian opponents of unlawful religious displays in public schools, including many federal judges.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that Egnor is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, whose goal is, according to a leaked DI document - the infamous Wedge Document - to
"reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
That's a quote from a secret document produced by the DI.
Egnor is a professional (albeit a dimwitted) propagandist of a theocratic organization that seeks to overthrow the secular laws of the USA.
...reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions...
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with that goal?
Pepe, because science doesn't care if reality matches (or not) with Christian and theistic convictions. "Christian and theistic convictions" can say, for examples, that Man and chimpanzee don't share a common ancestor, that there was a literal, worldwide Flood, that the world is only 6,000-10,000 years old, gay-baiting chicanery or global warming denial (all common convictions. Less so here, I should hope, but common none the less), but reality says otherwise. Sticking to the evidence isn't "stifling". You wouldn't harangue the cops for insisting on using the forensic evidence as "stifling", would you?
DeleteIt's not science's job to bend reality to theology. Science that does isn't science.
You must be suffering from logorrhea, a common disease among atheists when they are cornered. Other common name for this ailment are darwinism, naturalism, scientism, materialism...
DeleteBut don't despair you will be cured at the end of your life!
@Modusoperandi
Delete"..that Man and chimpanzee don't share a common ancestor"
Do they share a common number of chromosomes? Do ANY of the other members of the class Hominidae have the same number of 'pairs' and mankind? In short: No and no.
"that there was a literal, worldwide Flood,"
Aside from the enigmatic use of the word 'literal' and the interpretative use of the term 'world' (ie YOURS), so does science.
Catastrophes are real. Not only do we have countless cultural records of a great deluge that coincides with end of the last ice age, but we also have plenty of fossil evidence of SEVERAL events like the biblical flood.
"that the world is only 6,000-10,000 years old"
Why do you folks always harp on about the calendar? The year is AD 2012 (Christian Era), not 10,105. Are you suggesting Rome and Judea did not exist when we say it did?
If not, then what are you on about?
Could you be actually suggesting you know WHEN - the exact point on our scale - when TIME itself came into existence? At the end of the line? The beginning? in the middle? Fifty seven hundred odd years ago?
If that is so, you are have common ground with certain religious sects who think the calendars significance is more than commemorating the times of Adam, Noah or Christ, and is in fact a cosmic indicator of the creation point. This is a profound point of theology to these folks. Is it to yours? When do you place the moment that time came to be? What do you call your 'singularity' moment?
"gay-baiting chicanery "
I was under the impression it was the materialists who thought that gays were genetic defects/mutations. Correct me if I am wrong, here. As a Christian I see gays as making a choice about sin and love - I believe this. They must judge the worth of these things in their lives and will be judged.
I am not their judge, I am their brother. I pray they are forgiven as I am.
As a proponent of 'progressivism' (Social Darwinism-lite) we must assume you see homosexuality as a deviance brought on by an error in the reproductive instinct. That error will be corrected at the reproductive level...or by means of 'kin', no?
I see us ALL as sinners, and am commanded to forgive that sin, in order for MY OWN to be forgiven.
You see a genetic mutation that results in a population reduction.
Surely you must see the bigotry towards homosexuality in the same sterile light? Just a 'natural' reaction to this inferior, impotent strain? no? The reaction of 'kin' to a defective behaviour?
Be honest now!
CNTD
Delete"global warming denial "
Tisk, tisk. Don't you know it's called 'climate change' since the law suites and criminal investigations?
You have a short memory, Modus. Don't you recall JUST criticizing the concept of mass floods? Global cycles and cataclysm are part of the Biblical narrative...and we are superstitious for buying into that hokum.
There are plenty of Christians who buy into AGW. It is an easy sell.
I know many of them.
I, personally, do not.
Earth changes are real, but I am not convinced they are man-made or induced. That has no relation to my theology.
"all common convictions"
Among whom? Some commune or something?
I live and work with Christians all about and hear none of what you describe. I only ever hear about 'New Earth' theology and 'gay baiting' from critics. Must be where you live, Modus. The only folks I can think of within miles that are even close to what you describe are Pakistani Migrants in Toronto...
"You wouldn't harangue the cops for insisting on using the forensic evidence as "stifling", would you?"
If the 'cops' were self anointed experts who were attempting to prove the obviously unprovable by using a whole series of category errors as 'evidence' and the court was presided over by a blind autistic who kept yelling 'hate!', I would definitely do more than harangue them."
"It's not science's job to bend reality to theology."
Agreed.
A-theology included, of course.
Ditch the positivism and let's get back to work on the assumption that there are detectable patterns in the order of creation / the cosmos.
"Science that does [is dogmatic?] isn't science."
Correct. It is dogma driven pretension. Like evolutionary psychology, for example.
Don't you know it's called 'climate change' since the law suites and criminal investigations?
DeleteWhat is a "law suite"?
Your spelling is a weak as your ability to follow the teachings of the faith you pretend to be a member of.
crusadeREX "Do they share a common number of chromosomes? Do ANY of the other members of the class Hominidae have the same number of 'pairs' and mankind? In short: No and no."
DeleteI believe Ken Miller covered that during Dover.
"Aside from the enigmatic use of the word 'literal'..."
Enigmatic? Even a casual googling renders oodles of hits for "literal worldwide flood" that aren't from "my" side (and, I assume, not yours).
"Catastrophes are real. Not only do we have countless cultural records of a great deluge that coincides with end of the last ice age, but we also have plenty of fossil evidence of SEVERAL events like the
biblical flood."
People tell stories.
People live near rivers. They're a good source of water, food and
transport.
Rivers flood. People remember that.
Sometimes rivers flood worse. People remember that.
Ergo, every culture has flood stories.
"Why do you folks always harp on about the calendar? The year is AD 2012 (Christian Era), not 10,105. Are you suggesting Rome and Judea did not exist when we say it did?"
What?
"If not, then what are you on about?"
Reality denial. Four in ten Americans polled "believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago", with similar results for YEC as a package.
"Could you be actually suggesting you know WHEN - the exact point on our scale - when TIME itself came into existence? At the end of the line? The beginning? in the middle? Fifty seven hundred odd years ago?"
Oh, please. At least try to argue in good faith.
"I was under the impression it was the materialists who thought that gays were genetic defects/mutations. Correct me if I am wrong, here."
Some, probably. Jerks fall under all banners.
"As a Christian I see gays as making a choice about sin and love - I believe this. They must judge the worth of these things in their lives and will be judged."
From what I saw of a lesbian co-worker's relationship, for one example, it's functionally the same as other healthy relationships I've seen.
"I am not their judge, I am their brother. I pray they are forgiven as I am."
I have yet to see something they need to be forgiven for.
"As a proponent of 'progressivism' (Social Darwinism-lite)..."
Have you seen politics? Social Darwinism comes almost entirely from the Right (which, I'm told, really loves it some Jesus. Jesus, I should hope, denies the close relationship). The "Party of Life" only cares about the beginning and the end, not the eighty years in the middle.
"... we must assume you see homosexuality as a deviance brought on by an error in the reproductive instinct. That error will be corrected at the reproductive level...or by means of 'kin', no?"
You do know that there are gay families with children, right? Production is more complicated (except in those families where one realized post-child that they were gay), but they can and do have (or adopt) and raise children. And they're good at it.
"You see a genetic mutation that results in a population reduction."
Personally, I doubt much of a genetic link. More likely, hormonal influences while in the womb and early life experience.
"Surely you must see the bigotry towards homosexuality in the same sterile light? Just a 'natural' reaction to this inferior, impotent strain?"
Wow. The me that lives in your head must be terrifying.
CrusadeRex, chimpanzee have fewer pairs of chromosomes than humans. In fact, we can point to where two chromosomes in chimpanzees were fused, whereas the corresponding pairs have remained separate in the line that led to humans. The new fused chromosome has remnants of two centres. The genetic material in that chromosome is still similar enough to line up with two human chromosomes like the ones it was formed from. There is no doubt that we are related.
DeleteWe are not only related to chimpanzees, we are related to the dry-nosed monkeys that they came from, to the primates that they came from, to the primitive mammals that they came from, to the Tiktaalik that crawled out of the swamps, to the worms that have calcium-secreting glands where we have teeth and loose molecules of hemoglobin floating in their one-chambered hearts, to the jellyfish that use the same calcium-sodium ion gradients for nerve transmission that we use, and to the yeast that uses the same ADP/ATP energy cycle that we use. And your point was?
You must be suffering from logorrhea, a common disease among atheists when they are cornered.
ReplyDeleteSo Pépé, when you are unable to respond to the substance of a post, you just dodge and weave? How very predictable.
It's "bob and weave," not "dodge and weave." If you can't get that right, denying the existence of God may be a bit over your head just now. Stay out of the deep end, Anon., until you learn to swim. "Teen Beat" magazine has a chat room that might be a better place for you to start. And your parents' content filter will let you in without a password!
DeleteDon,
DeleteWelcome!
Mike
It's "bob and weave," not "dodge and weave." If you can't get that right, denying the existence of God may be a bit over your head just now.
DeleteGood to see that you are as good at making inane posts entirely lacking in content as Pépé is. Do your parents know you've gotten hold of their computer?
Do a survey showing this image and ask people what it reminds them of.
ReplyDeleteI bet more than 90% will say the 10 Commendments!
Someone who is really a Christian demonstrates why Egnor, Pépé and all of the other faux "Christians" who post here should be ashamed of themselves
ReplyDeleteSomeone who is really an Atheist demonstrates why anonymous, anonymous and all of the other faux "Atheists" who post here should be ashamed of themselves
DeleteInteresting. One wonders exactly what the image you linked to has to do with anything. But then again, your faux faith-addled brain really isn't up to the task of functioning. When you decide to actually behave like your book suggests you do, then your comments might have more weight. Of course, you'll probably be very ashamed of the comments you've posted up to that point, but that's not my problem.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOkay. I will just say it like I see it.
DeleteYou, Anon, are a posturing, pompous, poseur. Every line is a sneer. Every comment a loaded with a semi educated, and utterly sophomoric snark.
You presume to lecture us all on everything, and have a clear understanding of NOTHING.
Do us all a favour at stop waxing pious and attempting to play the priest or rabbi role.
It's like listening to a Texan speak Urdu.
AND!!
Do yourself a favour: Get over yourself.
My comment was a joke, and the art ('Yellow Submarine') obviously out of your time /taste scale as well as obviously WAY over your head. You may want to look up what/who the 'Blue Meanies' were in that film and who/what they were analogous of.... that is if you can climb down from Olympus for long enough to mix with simple, earthly minds.
My comment was a joke, and the art ('Yellow Submarine') obviously out of your time /taste scale as well as obviously WAY over your head. You may want to look up what/who the 'Blue Meanies' were in that film and who/what they were analogous of....
DeleteYep. The Blue Meanies are pretty much analogous to well, you, Pépé, and Egnor. Or did you really think that the Beatles would be on your side?
Perhaps you might actually check the link I embedded in my post. Then you might gain some sense of shame. I doubt it though, since you're not actually strong enough to try to walk the walk that is laid out in the book you claim to follow. You're just a weak, pathetic man who is so afraid of the outside world that he wraps his hatred around the cross and calls it religion.
"Or did you really think that the Beatles would be on your side?"
DeleteLOLOLOLOLOL
Sure. All of them except the guy who went nuts and broke the band up. You know? The one who got shot by a disillusioned fan - they guy who could just not 'imagine' his own end.
But sure the Beatles are 'on our side'.
Ditto with Superman, Spiderman, Batman and Chuck Norris.
Captain Kirk, Elvis and Bruce Lee are also on our side. Lorne Green, too! (and he was the Orig Adama!)
"Perhaps you might actually check the link I embedded in my post.Then you might gain some sense of shame. "
I did. I fail to see the shame. Mea Culpa!
Perhaps you could shine forth your wisdom on us, oh mighty and radiant one!
" I doubt it though, since you're not actually strong enough to try to walk the walk that is laid out in the book you claim to follow. "
No one is....or very rarely. But we reach and fall. Our salvation, I pray, is in the effort to be good - not in the attainment of that perfect state.
"You're just a weak, pathetic man who is so afraid of the outside world that he wraps his hatred around the cross and calls it religion."
Spoken by someone that understands me and my faith so well. A personal friend who has seen the light about this horrible sinner....Give me a fucking break.
You have NO idea of who I am or what my personal stamina, morality, or accomplishments and failures are. Is that inane insult some sort of attempt at reciprocating for calling you out as an arrogant, self righteous, preachy ignoramus?
If this is the best you can do, you should take note of Don's advice: Stick to Teen-Beat.
I did. I fail to see the shame.
DeleteWhich is just evidence that you are one of the faux Christians that Pastor Mook calls out in his message. You see, you fail utterly to follow the creed you so loudly claim to be defending. You aren't even reaching or attempting to follow its principles. You're just ignoring the message of the Bible and screeching.
To quote Pastor Mook:
"The Scriptures call us to love our enemies. Love those who persecute us. Or in this case, love those who express their constitutional right (I don’t believe this is worthy of even being called persecution for Christians). We (followers of Jesus) have an opportunity to engage the world around us with Jesus’ sacrificial, calvary-like love."
You haven't even come close to this. For that you should be ashamed.
"Sadly, there are some who have identified themselves as Christians who are behaving so frustratingly un-Christ-like by hurling insults and attacking Ms. Ahlquist. It deeply saddens me, and I believe it hurts the heart of God."
This describes you, Pépé, Egnor, The Deuce, and others who pretend they are Christian. For that, you should be ashamed.
"At a time like this we need to be reminded that when we try to impose our faith through government it NEVER looks like Christ. We cannot legislate prayer, belief, faith, or love… ever. It’s not how Jesus worked. Thus it should not be how we work. Feet washing, cheek turning, dying for His enemies, befriending the hurting… this is how God works."
You aren't even close to this. You don't even try to aspire to these ideals. Yet you claim you are a Christian. For that you should be ashamed.
"Followers of Jesus, let us be the ones who reach out, love, and comfort Ms Ahlquist during these attacks – because that is what Jesus would do."
None of the faux Christians here have behaved in any way similar to this. For that, you should be ashamed.
"Lastly, as my brother Stephen posted – ”if Christians spent as much time with the poor as has been spent arguing over a prayer on a Cranston RI school wall then Jesus would be glorified."
And you've failed in taking up this sort of action, and for that, you should be truly ashamed.
You don't see a reason to be ashamed, because you are too weak and scared to walk the walk of the faith you pretend to be a member of. You loudly trumpet your "personal stamina, morality, accomplishments, and failures", yet you display none of these things. All you display is hatred, nastiness, and a chest-thumping hubris that is decidedly unChristian. As a Christian you are a failure. Not because you've tried and fallen short, but because you don't even try.
If this is the best you can do, you should take note of Don's advice: Stick to Teen-Beat.
ReplyDeleteGiven that Don's post was a semantic game about "bob and weave" as opposed to "dodge and weave", I'm inclined to treat him as an idiot. Especially since his assertion that "bob and weave" is somehow more correct than "dodge and weave" is spurious. (Go ahead, look it up. You will find many references to "dodge and weave").
Dodge and weave is a military term I quite familiar with. The lesson Don was -apparently in vain - trying to convey, is that in the context of conversation it is a textile reference. Metaphor is important.
DeleteHence his advice that you may be out of your depth. (**forgive me Don, if I overstate or exaggerate your inference for rhetorical purposes**)
Prove us both wrong, PLEASE.
Just change your tone and open your mind a degree or two. |
JUST Remember: The Beatles are on OUR side.
LOL
The lesson Don was -apparently in vain - trying to convey, is that in the context of conversation it is a textile reference.
DeleteYou can't even get your references correct. "Bob and weave" is a boxing reference. With the same meaning as "dodge and weave". Are you really a big a moron as you appear to be?
Do you know what a bobbin is? Do you know what a wind up is? A stitcher? A cross? A tack? These are ALL terms used in sport, pro fighting, and military tactics. I wonder where they came from? Maybe they evolved out of 'protoplasmic' languages? Or maybe they have something to do with SAILS and the like?
DeleteDo you box or sew/knit in your self esteem and diversity courses?
"Are you really a big a moron as you appear to be?"
Yes...and not just me.
We all are. It is ONLY you who are smart and sane. The rest of us are all insane idiots.
Now, go and ask the nice man for your pills.
Yes...and not just me.
DeleteYou seem to have more than your fair share of stupidity. Is the point of your post to demonstrate that you can also post inane drivel just like Don Austen? Because that's all you seem to be doing.
"Which is just evidence that you are one of the faux Christians that Pastor Mook calls out "
ReplyDeleteNo, rather it is evidence that I am not Christ Himself.
You also make an error. You seem to think I give some great worth to this Pastor's ideas. Not so.
"You see, you fail utterly to follow the creed you so loudly claim to be defending. "
I make no claims of being a defender of the Faith. I simply a bearer of the Cross.
I have fought in defence of the central principles of tolerance, and for individual freedom and common law - but not in some perverted desire to enforce God's love on the heretics and heathens. Rather, I have fought to deny the sworn enemy a safe haven from which they may attack and dominate civilians, like you. Part of my 'weak' and 'pathetic' calling.
"You haven't even come close to this."
Forsooth, not many of us EVER will.
"For that you should be ashamed."
There are things I have said and done that I am ashamed of. That I am not the glorious, utterly free, and super-sentient Godhead, Christ - that is our Lord - is just not one of them. I love Him and do my best to follow his word. That is enough. That HAS to be enough.
But more to the point: YOU who extol this shame on me, do YOU feel shame? Do you feel shamed that you are not a fraction Son of Man? Of He, who that was Christ?
Do you tremble with shame and self loathing that you're not Perficti? That you have not achieved a glorious Gnosis?
Maybe it is you, who could use reading some more "red ink" and some less little red books.
BE HONEST, don't be a COWARD confess your Faith or lack thereof.
Are you a sanctimonious ignoramus, or a hypocritical one?
CNTD
Delete"You don't see a reason to be ashamed, because you are too weak and scared to walk the walk of the faith you pretend to be a member of. "
Lazy and tired is more like it. Fear is something that is more instinctive to me in these years of my life. I fear for others, I fear for the meek.
As for my faith, your questioning of it belies your pretensions agenda. You do not seek to converse or exchange ideas, but rather to PREACH your doctrine.
What, pray tell, is that GREAT TRUTH that you seek to free us all with?
"You loudly trumpet your "personal stamina, morality, accomplishments, and failures", yet you display none of these things. "
Eh? On what, my shirt sleeve? A bumper sticker?
What on EARTH are you on about now?
"All you display is hatred, "
Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Agree or disagree with me - fine. But this kind of talk is useless and uninteresting. TAKE NOTE: Lies are just BORING to the adult mind.
"...nastiness, and a chest-thumping hubris that is decidedly unChristian."
Hubris? I am the one who presumes there is a God. You are the one suggesting, by inference of 'shame', that you ARE or should be a God.
As for thumping chests: No need. No interest.
The phrase you're looking for is 'breaking balls', and yes, I did 'break your balls' with the meanies. It was a joke, you sap.
"As a Christian you are a failure."
There you have it! Excommunicated by his Lordship the Bishop of Bunk. Again, you have it wrong: As a CHRIST I could be nothing but a failure, as a Christian I simply AM. I am no Christ. I am sinner.
Not even a Constantine, though more like him in temperament.
"Not because you've tried and fallen short, but because you don't even try."
Hey, well! You're the expert on me and my psychological profile, Boss. You must be the guy who grants me my clearance.
Well maybe not, but you're also an expert on philosophy, religion, specific theologies, and on everything in general right?
Wrong.
But, like a nut in a turd, there may be a grain of truth in your Anti-theology.
I may actually NEED to come to understand and forgive my enemies EVEN more than I do. To love them more than I have.
I will start by forgiving you of the barrage of language intended to marginalize and excommunicate me from my own culture and Faith. Of your condescending, sanctimonious air, and your pretensions on truth.
I will entreat my Lord God to do the same, to beg that your breaking of one of his most basic commandments (Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain) be forgiven as a sin committed in ignorance, as He may of any ignorant child.
And that he forgive me for remaining sceptical of your agenda at preaching morality from an empty pulpit. Even as I forgive the sinner, I see the sin and feel contempt.
For that I would ask to be forgiven, if it is possible.
You seem to think I give some great worth to this Pastor's ideas. Not so.
DeleteThey aren't the Pastor's ideas. They are the ideas laid out in the book you claim as the backbone of your faith. Ideas that you seem to have missed, and that you seem to be unable to live by. You claim to be humble because you believe there is a God, but you only use that belief as a club to attack other with - far from humble, you possess an overweening pride in your professed faith, but are unable to actually abide by the principles it mandates. And you seem to not even want to make the effort. This makes the rest of your post meaningless drivel, because the foundation of your argument is built on nothing but sand.
You convict yourself with your own words. You claim to be humble, and yet are full of pride. You claim to be forgiving, and yet hold others in contempt. You claim to be Christian, yet fail to even realize that your actions are in direct opposition to the credo laid out by Christ. You are, in short, a lazy, weak, pathetic man using a faux assertion of religion to prop up your own sense of self-worth, while failing to abide by the difficult provisions that faith would require of you.
"You claim to be humble"
DeleteA Lie. I do not.
I am far too proud.
I admire humility. I practice it far too infrequently.
"and yet are full of pride."
Half of a lie. I am 'full' of many things. It takes many things to fill me up.
Shame and pride coexist in my being.
I am human. I am a sinner.
Seems Anon is full of something too!
What could it be? Oh yes, I know: SHIT!
Also very human...or maybe from a horse or bull?
"You claim to be forgiving, and yet hold others in contempt. "
Another brazen lie. I claim to TRY to be forgiving, and I openly hold sin (even, especially my own) in contempt. But Anon would not know that, as he does not know me AT ALL. These assertions are aimed only at myself for conveniences sake.
Let's face it, they may as well be open letters to ALL Christians from 'a hater'.
"You claim to be Christian, yet fail to even realize that your actions are in direct opposition to the credo laid out by Christ."
Rank hypocrisy and more LIES again.
My claims and actions are an unknown to this Anon person. Nor is he in a position to dictate Christian truths. He is an anti-Theist of the most vitriolic form. Anyone who follows this blog can see that.
Why does he attack me so personally?
I have learned in my capacity as a member of the forces to take such aggression as a compliment. Something I have done or said has triggered the F/F response. In short: I am doing something correct.
But, I digress...
Anon, You deliberately and nakedly distort the truth, and God's word, in order to malign a man and creed you do not even begin to know or understand.
I am ashamed for you, who feels none.
I hold your sin in contempt, even as I pray you are forgiven.
"You are, in short, a lazy, weak, pathetic man using a faux assertion of religion to prop up your own sense of self-worth, while failing to abide by the difficult provisions that faith would require of you."
Aww he likes me, after all!
First off, there is nothing short about me. I am a tall guy and talk far too much for my own liking (and I like it a lot). Why use 5 words when 10 will fit?
Re the 'weak, pathetic' etc etc ad naseum:
More unsubstantiated personal attacks that have nothing to do with the subject, nor have any interesting bearing on the topic at hand.
The weakest thing on this blog, and demonstrably so, is your argument, Anon.
Your straw man arguments lack even in the straw. They are manure men, and smell terrible when burned.
Part II
DeletecrusadeREXJ "Tisk, tisk. Don't you know it's called 'climate change' since the law suites and criminal investigations?"
Yeah! Take that, nine investigations into 'Climategate' that found nothing!
"You have a short memory, Modus. Don't you recall JUST criticizing the concept of mass floods? Global cycles and cataclysm are part of the Biblical narrative...and we are superstitious for buying into that hokum."
Obviously. Because I don't believe that God made it rain for forty days (plus those pesky "fountains of the deep"), saving only one 600 year old man and his family and his zoo and his boat, I must not accept that climate has changed.
And AGW probably won't be cataclysmic to me. But then I'm not trying to feed Southeast Asia on rice paddies that are just barely above sea level, or trying to irrigate Pakistan or India using rivers that depend on the snow pack, or tilling land in Africa that in a good year barely feeds the people it has now. For those, what, three billion people, even minor changes can be catastrophic.
"There are plenty of Christians who buy into AGW. It is an easy sell."
"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
It doesn't have the same ring as the "subdue" passage, sadly.
"Among whom? Some commune or something? I live and work with Christians all about and hear none of what you describe."
Citations, for the most part, provided above. If you haven't noticed that sizeable group, you haven't been paying attention since at least the late 70s. That they aren't your co-workers or your neighbors doesn't mean that they don't exist.
"I only ever hear about 'New Earth' theology.."
[Although a googling of the term comes up with hits from whatever the hell this is to mushy hippie stuff, based on context I assume that means "YEC", ]. Ken Ham, Ken Hovind. Everybody named Ken, actually. Again, that they aren't around you doesn't mean that they don't exist. And, again, they serve a sizeable audience.
"...and 'gay baiting' from critics..."
The Catholic League. Focus on the Family. Rick Santorum. "Homosexuals are recruiting in our schools". The foolishess around what terrible things would occur if DADT was repealed (or gay marriage allowed, or adoption by gays allowed, etc).
"The only folks I can think of within miles that are even close to what you describe are Pakistani Migrants in Toronto..."
Toronto? Do you know Dave?
"If the 'cops' were self anointed experts who were attempting to prove the obviously unprovable by using a whole series of category errors as 'evidence' and the court was presided over by a blind autistic who kept yelling 'hate!', I would definitely do more than harangue them."
"Self anointed experts"? I prefer actual experts to Dembski's "fun with math" or Behe being surrounded by stacks of the evidence he insisted wasn't known.
Can you have faith and do science? Of course. Millions have and do. Kurt Wise, for one, is not one that pulls it off.
Part III
DeletecrusadeREXJ "Agreed. A-theology included, of course. Ditch the positivism and let's get back to work on the assumption that there are detectable patterns in the order of creation / the cosmos."
Exactly. What we have to do is abandon the presumption of naturalism, while simultaneously assuming the opposite, while simultaneously assuming that the assumed supernaturalism isn't messing with the natural.
What's the difference between "God is, but doesn't tinker, or at least isn't tinkering with whatever experiment I'm running now" (methodological naturalism + theism) and "God is not, or probably not" (philosophical naturalism) when doing science? The former is Ken Miller and the latter is Dawkins. Both come to the same (or similar enough) conclusions from the same data. The universe is plenty strange enough, from the scale of "very big" (the area around the sun is much, much hotter than the sun, for one example) to the very small (like entropy going out the window when you're looking) without adding supernatural variables to the equation.
"Correct. It is dogma driven pretension. Like evolutionary psychology, for example."
Yeah, take that, fairly recent subdiscipline of psychology that bears the considerable weight of trying to study the minds of others while also trying to do the same for their ancestors, most of whom aren't even around to tell us about themselves!
Part Ia
DeletecrusadeREX "Do they share a common number of chromosomes? Do ANY of the other members of the class Hominidae have the same number of 'pairs' and mankind? In short: No and no."
I believe Ken Miller covered that during Dover.
"Aside from the enigmatic use of the word 'literal'..."
Enigmatic? Even a casual googling renders oodles of hits for "literal worldwide flood" that aren't from "my" side (and, I assume, not yours).
"Catastrophes are real. Not only do we have countless cultural records of a great deluge that coincides with end of the last ice age, but we also have plenty of fossil evidence of SEVERAL events like the
biblical flood."
People tell stories.
People live near rivers. They're a good source of water, food and
transport.
Rivers flood. People remember that.
Sometimes rivers flood worse. People remember that.
Ergo, every culture has flood stories.
"Why do you folks always harp on about the calendar? The year is AD 2012 (Christian Era), not 10,105. Are you suggesting Rome and Judea did not exist when we say it did?"
What?
"If not, then what are you on about?"
Reality denial. Four in ten Americans polled "believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago", with similar results for YEC as a package.
dsfb hjkrcfhsdkvas il 'pdsfkjlv ashiulvcdsZj o;w
ReplyDeletedslkfnv jsh kuySGfsb hjxcdf cuyLk;l zx
'
Zdkjzsd fjS fdhzh cfiwh ilqwkSP: FDSJKLZC HSDJKLZVFEN JKLVRWAEH JZKL
SCRDNFC ZKJLHJSKL.
(You had so many pictures of religious things that my only option was to close my eyes while I typed my comment.)
Never mind, KT.
ReplyDeleteIt makes much more sense than the anonymous posts, and it has a certain artistic merit to it as well.
Maybe this could be the new 'random banner' for Cranston High-School. You know? It would show the true nature of the universe and intone the correct 'purpose' as seen by the Atheist who attends that school.
It would have to be scrutinized by a professional bigot...er secularist, to make sure there is no patterns or embarrassing hidden acronyms. But I am sure the censors would approve, say, a fifth or tenth version (edited).
Just a 'random' idea :P
Maybe this could be the new 'random banner' for Cranston High-School.
DeleteI am unworthy to comment on the same blog as you.
Aside: A few years back when some universities were changing their mascots because they were culturally insensitive*, I proposed that all mascots should be done away with and replaced with 32-digit random numbers. The Ohio State 231478132748647614756845816248264798264646...
* - Here in San Diego, SDSU's mascot is the Aztec. Nothing wrong with a little mass human sacrifice, you know. Meanwhile, Ole Miss had to get rid of Colonel Reb.
Part Ib
ReplyDelete"Could you be actually suggesting you know WHEN - the exact point on our scale - when TIME itself came into existence? At the end of the line? The beginning? in the middle? Fifty seven hundred odd years ago?"
Oh, please. At least try to argue in good faith.
"I was under the impression it was the materialists who thought that gays were genetic defects/mutations. Correct me if I am wrong, here."
Some, probably. Jerks fall under all banners.
"As a Christian I see gays as making a choice about sin and love - I believe this. They must judge the worth of these things in their lives and will be judged."
From what I saw of a lesbian co-worker's relationship, for one example, it's functionally the same as other healthy relationships I've seen.
"I am not their judge, I am their brother. I pray they are forgiven as I am."
I have yet to see something they need to be forgiven for.
"As a proponent of 'progressivism' (Social Darwinism-lite)..."
Have you seen politics? Social Darwinism comes almost entirely from the Right (which, I'm told, really loves it some Jesus. Jesus, I should hope, denies the close relationship). The "Party of Life" only cares about the beginning and the end, not the eighty years in the middle.
"... we must assume you see homosexuality as a deviance brought on by an error in the reproductive instinct. That error will be corrected at the reproductive level...or by means of 'kin', no?"
You do know that there are gay families with children, right? Production is more complicated (except in those families where one realized post-child that they were gay), but they can and do have (or adopt) and raise children. And they're good at it.
"You see a genetic mutation that results in a population reduction."
Personally, I doubt much of a genetic link. More likely, hormonal influences while in the womb and early life experience.
"Surely you must see the bigotry towards homosexuality in the same sterile light? Just a 'natural' reaction to this inferior, impotent strain?"
Wow. The me that lives in your head must be terrifying.
"As a Christian I see gays as making a choice about sin and love - I believe this. They must judge the worth of these things in their lives and will be judged."
DeleteFrom what I saw of a lesbian co-worker's relationship, for one example, it's functionally the same as other healthy relationships I've seen.
Excellent! I just bought a onesie for their new baby. Where shall I send it?
Wups. My chopped up reply is all over the place (and there appears to be no way to me to delete and repost). My apologies.
ReplyDelete"We need to protect our children from seeing violations of the Constitutional".
ReplyDeleteAre they educating or deceiving.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We have NO law respecting an establishment of religion, as in the Church of England.
Since when has a hate group (atheist) the right to take away these kids constitutional right to freedom of religion, or freedom of speech?
These kids need to be educated in the history of our country, and the freedom we have as Americans to practice our religion freely without a hate group mocking us for our religion.
Our government is made up of Americans, Free to practice whatever they believe, it is part of who they are. Mentioning God, or our Divine Father in a speech,or letter does not violate anyone's rights.
Learn your rights before this group destroys ours! We need to educate the atheist that they are NOT a religious group.
The goal of our constitution is not to REMOVE GOD from our government, it is that we don't make a mandatory government run church! They are violating these kids rights.
Welcome to America, idiots. "IN GOD WE TRUST!" You don't like it, excuse me, LOVE it, leave it. The exact words of the First Amendment are "freedom of religion." Never did the founding fathers ever say "freedom from religion." I have to hand it to you atheists. I don't have enough faith that suddenly there was something out of nothing. I'm a fish and I don't want to live under water any more, so I'm going to spontaneously grow lungs instead of gills. Life came from some batch of primordial soup that trickled out from under a rock? Get over it. To live like there is no God makes you a fool. Like it or not, religion is part of our American way of life. You have the right to be an idiot, but I have the right to believe that Jesus Christ really lived, really died, and really rose again, and you can not stop me from proclaiming that until my last breath leaves my body, and I defy you to even try!
ReplyDeleteyour last image is being used allegedly by Universal Brain
ReplyDeleteUniversalmidbrain.com