Riled up by Christian music
I read with interest Roger Faber’s Aug. 29 letter, “Choir ban offensive,” in which he calls the decision to ban the gospel choir at the Columbine Memorial “offensive” and “insensitive.”
I would like to have a predominantly homosexual, devil-worshipping, communist choir sing at the event instead. I wonder if Faber would agree that keeping them from performing would be as “offensive” as excluding the gospel choir.
I can hear Faber out there asking the question, “Are there people who are as offended by Christian music as I am by homosexuality, communism and devil worshipping?” Honestly? Yes. Christians are so accustomed to walking all over everybody else that not having Christian music gets them all riled up.
If Faber finds not hearing Christian music so offensive, he is welcome to hum it to himself, which he probably has to do ’round the clock, since even the thought of a moment without it sends him into a tizzy.
Greg Palmer, Aurora
Memorials, eulogies and the like are for the living, the survviors, etc...as the dead...are dead and it makes no matter to them. It is only for the living to say goodbye(at least in the ideal world), but now it becomes a politcal football and everyone has(yes, including me) has to put in their two cents worth. A similar letter was posted some weeks ago and one person replied that maybe having a representative of each family give a little eulogy about each victim. This is the best idea...but it will not fly, because it seems like many people have to make some sort of cause, political statement out it...and in my opinion cheapens the whole memorial.
Posted by Yaakov on September 7, 2007 03:47 AMand so goes a tribute to the kids and teacher who lost their lives.
your wish for what you want is wonderful at your event but dont push it on others.
Greg, you are a freak.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 05:47 AMYour secular beliefs are your religion. By not hearing Christian music at this event, you and those who practice your religion have won the right to enjoy a memorial that practices your beliefs. I'd say that rather than it being Christians that walk all over everyone, this struggle is a religious arm wrestling match in which, in this decade at least, the Christians, despite having pretty good numbers, have regularly been the losers. That fact is kind of a bummer in a nation that practices freedom of religion and freedom of speech. In addition, the memorial is for those who were involved in or related to someone who was involved in the massacre. If the majority of those people happen to be Christians, it does not make sense that you and your kind can walk all over them and the methods by which they choose to publicly remember their friends and loved ones.
Posted by Vince on September 7, 2007 06:52 AMAs the saying says about opinions...everybody has one....and Greg Palmer is one of them.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 06:58 AMBoring...... Yawn....ZZZZZZ....
Posted by A on September 7, 2007 07:27 AMVince,
The left has made tolerance, which is a virture, a value. In fact, it seems to be the only value they hold. That is the point of Palmer's letter.
They see, and society accepts, that absence of prayer is a public school as a neutral, or tolerant, postion. It is not.
There two choices in a public school: the students can a) pray or b) not pray. Each is an affirmative choice and each sends a definitive message.
We have selected. The Ten Commandments have come down off the wall and the metal protectors have gone up on the doors. The crimes commited at Columbine, and subsequently schools across the nation, are in part the fruit of that choice.
We will start to make some progress when we come to realize that tolerance as a value is actually the absence of values.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:37 AMVince,
Make that metal detectors on the doors.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:40 AMJones' claim that tolerance has no value is so absurd as to make one wonder if he was serious. Of course, all virtues have value. It just may be that Jones needs a little further education in vocabulary.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 07:56 AMNow, chillun, You done heerd tha Word o' tha Lawd, as deee-liv-errd by our own bee-lov-ed Pastor Deacon James Jones.
Ain't no more dis-cuss-shun ne-cess-sary!
"Tain't no VALUE in thet thar tolernce bidnus; an them as air reeeel Christians ain't agonna do no more o' thet thar toleratein.
Thet thar's tha Word o tha Lawd!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 08:10 AMTruth,
You are correct - virtues have value. You have a mind with an iron-clad grasp on the obvious. It's in the area of comprehension that you need a little work.
My point is that when virtue becomes a value in and of istelf, then the ethical sense is actually void of values.
See the difference? It's actually not that nuanced.
If not, get someone else to explain it to you.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 08:11 AMA bigot is one who refuses to use rational discrimination when judging others. "All blacks are [whatever]". They paint with a group-wide brush, claiming that everybody in a group believes the same thing about a certain issue.
By that standard, Jones is clearly a bigot.
He says the left is opposed to prayer in school. Many on the left indeed are opposed to prayer in school. Many are not. Many on the right support prayer in school. Many do not.
Jones simply does not have the mental framework or the basic sense of fairness to appreciate the diversity of opinion on all sides of issues such as this.
An ABC poll in 2000 found that:
20% of Republicans do not support prayer in school.
59% of Democrats do support prayer in school.
I don't think Jones is a liar. I think he is just ignorant, an ignorance begotten by his failure to have that great value, tolerance. He is not far removed from those wild men standing on the street corner shouting out their prejudices. He is not a man to be trusted.
Posted by Truth on September 7, 2007 08:19 AMTruth,
I'm pretty sure that Jones' point was that tolerance has become a societal value (the only one that the left accepts), where it should only be a personal virtue (and in the mainstream, there is little tolerance of un-PC thought by people on the right, such as the notion of allowing a Christian music group to sing at a memorial).
I digress though; I think most people on the right, including Jones, recognize that there is value in being tolerant as long as that tolerance is a two-way street and not the only value governing society.
Posted by Vince on September 7, 2007 08:23 AMJonesy,
Every once in a while you even out-do yourself. That one sentence there takes the cake.
" . . . when virtue becomes a value in and of itself, then the ethical sense is actually void of values."
That even beats out the one about chipmunks and the Moonlight Sonata, which you used way back when on the subject of abortion.
But, you are certainly showing your aptitude for a Pulpit! Totally meaningless double-talk, solemnly delivered with an offer of "explanation" yet!
De word o de Lawd, straight from the . . . (you pick the orfice) . . . of Preacher Deacon Jones!
Posted by Old Grouch on September 7, 2007 08:42 AMAren't most choirs already predominantly homosexual? It may be that they are in the closet. Maybe Greg can sue somebody. All the poor Christians are being discriminated against so that must be the new thing to do. sue for all the unwarranted funds you can get.
Posted by just sayin' on September 7, 2007 09:15 AMIf the kids and the teacher were christians then christian music is morally and ethically the right thing because the event is in remembrance of them. If they were not so religiously affiliated than it is not right. What the living want is not the point nor is it morally or ethically right for them to create a bebacle of a memorable service that has nothing to do with them. And shame on those who think it right to drag this into the swamp of inane and meaningless arguement.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 7, 2007 09:27 AMVince,
I do. If in fact Mr. Palmer wants to hold memorials based on homosexuality, communism and devil worshipping then he has the perogative to do so. It's a free country.
Another point I didn't make is that despite all the rhetoric, the religious tend to be much more tolerant than the secular.
Personally, I don't think Palmer will draw much of a crowd.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 09:45 AMI don't object to Greg's sentiment on Communism and Devil worshipping; however, his hatred of gay people; his hated of those born left-handed; his hatred of people because of the way they were born is reprehensible. Could Greg have helped the way he was born? I've sired five and none have been born left-handed. Greg would hate one of my kids had he/she been born left-handed. Greg is a very offensive person.
That "jew" from the "loins of David" with his Holy Genocide imminent beginning within a generation of his assisted suicide is a one-jew plague on the world. In Luke 19:27 (his fan club said [because the jew never reduced one word of what he allegedly said to print]) the jew said to kill all those who would not that a king should reign over them so more than Saddam needed killing this king of the jew needs to die and this Deicide, is the guy to do to the jew what he would do to the Deicide. Ah! This god crap is so ridiculous giving meaning to "God is a spoke in the wheel of shit."
Deicide Corner: “Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.” -- John Morley
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape and Apostate as I told pope Rat... to take a hike. on September 7, 2007 10:47 AMGreg Palmer says in his letter, "I would like to have a predominantly homosexual, devil-worshipping, communist choir sing at the event..."
Sorry, Greg, you're out of luck. I checked, and they're already booked up for the Democratic National Convention and various "Hillary For Pres." fund raisers.
I guess we'll just have to go with an ordinary, traditional choir.
Bummer, huh?
James Jones wrote:
"the religious tend to be much more tolerant than the secular."
Thank you James. I haven't had a good, long laugh all day, and that one statement of yours did the trick! Boy, it must be nice living in a world so delusional that you could actually beieve such a statement!
I would draw your attention to a little thing called history. There's even a section devoted just to it in most book stores and libraries. James, check out history. All of it. Any of it. And it will prove you wrong.
Until then, enjoy the taste of that sand.
Posted by shaupeen on September 7, 2007 12:38 PMJames Jones decries using the coercive force of the government to represent our religious values by using the tax code to support the less fortunate, yet supports using the coercive force of the government for actual religious practice by prayer in school.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 7, 2007 12:49 PMShaupeen,
Parts of history will often show a self-righteous attitude by Christians that helped them to justify mass murder and persecution, not completely unlike Islamic Jihad today, but don't group all Christians of today into that category.
There are still the finger-pointing self-righteous, but there are also those that would encourage people whose cultural, religious or otherwise social practices are not in line with their own thinking (such as homosexuals) to step into their churches and worship with them. They would tell you that homosexuality is wrong but that we are all sinners and practice sin. They believe in the verse in the bible (and I am paraphrasing, not quoting), "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." They would welcome people of contrary beliefs and practices in with open arms. We are all brothers and sisters. Jones' statement was wrong, only because he made an absolute statement (and your belief might be somewhat confused for the same reason).
Posted by Vince on September 7, 2007 01:01 PMI am confused - if folks want to hold a private memorial (that is, funded with non-public dollars) they can have all the choirs and displays of Christianity they want. If it is a public memorial, funded by tax dollars, I suppose it would be okay to have a Christian Choir if every other religion was also invited to provide a Choir - open it up to all and it won't conflict with the first amendment. Close it to all except Christians, and, well, you have a definite problem.
It is really pretty simple - at a government sponsored event you cannot favor one religion over all others.
later,
connie
Christians have had a lock on memorial services in this country until, well until the
Secular Progressive Humanist Lynch Mob (name trademarked) started to call them out on this tradition.
Imagine a memorial service about the dead and not about God, Jesus or Heaven.
New ideas take time to be accepted, like the term "marital rape" did.
But JJ is right, never in my entire life have I been subjected to any kind of intolerant treatment from Christians. My little Darwin symbol on my car just lost his feet, Christians did not break them off.
Christians have never quoted the Bible to me in that smarmy way they have. Not one has ever said "well, I will pray for you" snicker, snicker, smirk.
Their tolerance of my disbelief has been a real Godsend to me.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 01:16 PMSharon B - Is that "little Darwin symbol" one of those used to mock the Christian symbol representing the fish Jesus used to feed the masses? Snicker, snicker, smirk?
I can see your utter dismay at the thought of someone actually taking offense to being mocked.
The nerve of them!
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 01:32 PMshaupeen
Let's look at history and the great mass murderers since, oh, the French Revolution.
They are Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Saddam. One thing they have in common is the secularism of their movements.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 01:54 PMKW, boy you put a heavy hand on everything.
You all communicate now, and in the past, with the fish symbol. It was your way of saying "hi fellow of like mind".
so my Darwin fish is only to mock Christians? And of course it is personal property, so breaking it is a kind of theft, is it not?
My little Darwin symbol is to say "hi fellow, educated person who has studied some of the life sciences and understands the foundation of Evolution" but my car is too small and all that will not fit, so the Darwin fish it is.
And of course, the large fish labeled Truth, eating the word Darwin or the Darwin fish is not to mock us scientists?
NOooooo, of course not.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 01:58 PMRepugnants,
This really isn't as difficult as you think. Using the tax code to redistribute income is not a religious teaching.
You get confused because you advocate communistic beliefs with dogmatic fervor and so you think communism is a religion.
It's not the same thing.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 01:59 PMThat's a nice little rationalization you have there Vince. I hope it helps you sleep at night. If it was just stones being thrown, then history would be much nicer to you. But your people lopped off a lot of heads in the name of your god, you tortured and burned a lot of innocent people in the name of your god, and you still ostricize, humiliate, or rape way too many people in the name of your god for you or James to claim any sort of tolerance. The fact is the jihadists have a lot of catching up to do with the catholics. Even after 9/11, Madrid, and the Tube, they haven't even reached the number of murders committed in the first crusade alone.
Yeah, sleep well, hypocrite.
Posted by shaupeen on September 7, 2007 02:00 PMA yes, we all remember well how Hitler had no preference for or animosity against a particular set of religious beliefs.
You left out Osama Bin Laden.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 7, 2007 02:00 PMNo, not confused, James Jones, but entertained when you make dumb-as$ comments like you have. Again, thanks for the good laugh.
Posted by shaupeen on September 7, 2007 02:17 PMShaupeen,
Now we look at Truth's definition of a Bigot.
In the name of Christianity or otherwise, I and millions like me have never lopped off anyone's head, raped, pillaged, tortured, or done anything else unethical or otherwise evil. Many of us don't even point fingers. I am not perfect, and I mess up a lot, but it is not because I am a Christian.
And how can you hold people, especially American Christians of today, responsible for something Catholics did in centuries past.
Not to mention, I'm not even Catholic.
The point is that many Christians (not all of them by any means) are just as tolerant as secular people, if not moreso.
How can anyone refer to an archaic history that is in some cases over a millenia old, to label someone from this day and age?
Besides, everything that you have written in this blog is intolerant and bigotted.
Until now, the topic of concern between you and I has been intolerant Christians. Maybe, based on you, we should focus on intolerant secular people such as yourself and label all seculars and other non-Christians as intolerant.
Actually, I wouldn't do that because a) that would be stereotyping and b) I am more tolerant than that, and c) I happen to have deep friendships and mountains of respect with and for many secular and other non-Christian people.
Posted by on September 7, 2007 02:28 PMNo heavy hand Sharon B, just an observation.
The fish is a symbol of Christianity.
The Darwin fish is to mock Christianity because some believe the literate word of the earths creation as described by Moses. But most Christians understand that God created the earth and everything in it, including evolution. Everthings gotta grow, right?
Now those who broke your little mocking fish legs were wrong. In doing so they lower themselves to the level of those who mock them.
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 02:40 PMVince, sin is a religious word, it actually doesn`t mean anything outside the confines of church.
Now if I say "tree" that means something. A few of the words that Christians use that have no meaning are sin, evil, devil, demon, hell, abomination and so on.
All these words describe opinions or imaginary beings, not things.
Some of us do not sin. We were not conceived or born into original sin and do not think that "all men are sinners".
JJ, All those mass murderers were men, and I think they all had mustaches. Comparisons aside, they were not religious, they also were not humanists. However they tried to justify their behavior they were just dictators of one kind or another.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 02:48 PMOh, be still my beating heart!!!! There goes that Old Grouch being so darn cute again.
Posted by Sue Donihm on September 7, 2007 03:03 PMKW, now that is my idea of God. She created evolution.
We have been mocked, we mock back. Dueling bumper stickers.
Have you never sat at a red light and seen this one "Fish and Chips" next to "My boss is a Jewish carpenter"?
Take away our bumpers and we would be speechless.
I also have a dinosaur sticker, since some Christians would now have us believe that all those animals were plant eaters. Why? so they could all exist on the ark at the same time. When religious people mess with facts I mock them.
Check out Genesis, I don`t think Moses was the one to describe creation. And by the way, the Bible has two creation stories. One for the masses, Adam and Eve, and the other one for the educated Rabbis.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 03:09 PM"Repugnants,
This really isn't as difficult as you think. Using the tax code to redistribute income is not a religious teaching.
You get confused because you advocate communistic beliefs with dogmatic fervor and so you think communism is a religion.
It's not the same thing.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 01:59 PM "
Besides confusing me with someone else, you're accusing me of saying things I didn't.
You also didn't state your justification for using the coercive power of the state for religious indoctrination.
Posted by James Jones is a glow in the dark bitch on September 7, 2007 03:17 PMHey, 2:28, who are you, what are you talking about, and why should I care?
Posted by shaupeen on September 7, 2007 03:40 PMSharon B - You can mock others if you wish. Just don't be surprised when some of those you mock respond with anger or violence.
It's not the correct way for them to respond but then again, everyone in this world isn't perfect either.
If they were, some wouldn't fell the need to mock others.
Posted by KW on September 7, 2007 04:08 PMCould one not enjoy a choir for the beauty of its music without being threatened by its religious undertones? As a "secular" individual myself, I find many beautiful things in all religions, and have yet to worry that listening to a choir will automatically brainwash me into becoming a Christian zealot.
Some days, one has to wonder how far from monkeys we truly have evolved.
Posted by Dan on September 7, 2007 04:14 PMKW--
An excellent point that you made at 4:08pm. Well said.
We secular folks were mocked first, so there. Childish isn`t it?
But the strangle hold that Christianity has on society, needs to stop somewhere. Anywhere will do.
Educated people are mocked daily by Christians and finally we get one little symbol, the Darwin fish, which is so perfect, and you all can`t even let that alone.
A memorial service without Christianity, Imagine that.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 04:30 PMJimmy Jones, at 1:54, why start at the French Revolution. Ah, I see, so you can leave out the Crusades. How many were killed in the name of Christ? Throw in Cromwell, and the Protestants forced starvation of the Irish and....
I think we got a winner! Kill that sinner! Yay Christ!
Posted by HistoryRepeats on September 7, 2007 04:46 PMVince,
What absolute statement did I make that was wrong?
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 04:58 PMHistoryRepeats
Actually it doesn't that's a myth for people who think in platitudes.
Why start with the French Revolution?
Because it is not informative to compare contemporary Western Civilization with the conditions 1,000 years ago. Too many conditions have changed.
If you want an accurate comparison it doesn't make any sense to go back much past the Reformation.
Does that help?
Sharon you sound like a 2 year old today.....
"You mocked us first" AKA "You started it" or how about going ahead and saying something like " I know you are but what am I".......
Posted by Heather on September 7, 2007 05:06 PMRepugnant,
"You also didn't state your justification for using the coercive power of the state for religious indoctrination."
That's because I don't advocate using the coercive power of the state for religious indoctrination. I follow the Christian teaching of Church/State separation which obviates the need to make the case.
You on the other hand follow the secularist teaching of making political belief a religion. So you are the one who needs to make the case - not I.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 05:15 PMSharon B,
Mao and Pol Pot were clean-shaven so I'm afraid your historical analysis linking mustaches to mass murder rather comes undone. You probably got confused with all the "m's" involved.
Was that thesis part of your graduate work? Don't worry - we'll just keep it our secret.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 05:19 PMHeather,
You just offended an awful lot ot 2-year olds.
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 05:39 PMHeather, honest to Goddess, did I not say "childish isn`t it? Well, did I?
This is too fun, who mocked first, who gets to mock now. They rip off the feet of my Darwin and that "brings them down to my level". Go back and read KW, that is hilarious.
Lighten up
Christians looking for little puffs of persecution.
Christians were persecuted by Rome and boy did they ever learn how to give it right back.
JJ, feel free to jump in any time with something of substance. Of course they didn`t all have mustaches. That was a joke.
You make awful comparisons, why can`t I?
Mass murderer=secular humanists. Not.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 05:55 PMSharon, my favourite symbol is the Duck-billed Platypus.
Trailing that is Leonardo's "Vitruvian Man", followed by the Pioneer Plaque panel on the Voyager.
A distant contender is the International Humanist "Happy Human" figure.
Although I find the Darwin Fish funny, it is too much of a thumb-in-the-eye to Christians to be comfortable.
Bango, well sigh, I guess you are right. Duck-billed Ptatypus symbolizes what?
I always liked Gary Larsens cartoon "evolution of the stick figure." That is funny.
I will just glue the feet back on again.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 7, 2007 08:21 PMKW said mistakenly:
"But most Christians understand that God created the earth and everything in it, including evolution. Everthings gotta grow, right?"
Christians might believe that out of profound ignorance, but if they think they understand that, they are deluded.
But I can be convinced otherwise if someone brings me even the barest shred of evidence that God exists.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:14 PMKW warned:
"You can mock others if you wish. Just don't be surprised when some of those you mock respond with anger or violence."
Just like Jesus taught them.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:20 PMNoggindog drops in for a bit of ever-so-civil and serious debate of the issues.
Please note the lack of mocking, name calling, and stereotyping in the following bit of learned prose:
"Greg Palmer says in his letter, "I would like to have a predominantly homosexual, devil-worshipping, communist choir sing at the event..."Sorry, Greg, you're out of luck. I checked, and they're already booked up for the Democratic National Convention and various "Hillary For Pres." fund raisers."
Ahh yes, let's raise our glasses and toast to the one -the only- Mr. Congeniality!
What.....a......twit.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:29 PMSharon, to me the DBP is the absolute symbol of evolution’s power and range, and maybe the best example of just how weird the planet can be.
Besides, it is as funny as heck, and would force a creationist to admit that their god has a very peculiar sense of humour or aesthetics. (we can politely avoid asking why there are so many beetles).
Exploding bugs, things that cannibalize their sex partners, and males that get pregnant are odd, but the DBP is in a class (literally) all of its own.
One would think that the Columbine Memorial would be for the victims and their families. Apparently that thinking is wrong. Apparently the victims and the families of the victims must accept the dictates of atheists who may or may not profess any tie to the incident at Columbine High School, but would nonetheless be "offended" if a "Christian" choir sang at the Columbine Memorial, regardless of what the majority of the victims and their families would prefer.
Thus the atheists do what atheists do best: The atheists must offend others so that they don't get their feelings hurt by listening to a few songs at a Memorial they don't have to attend.
If atheists are so offended by "Christians" singing a few "Christian" songs, then, in the long run, they have absolutely nothing to worry about. If Christians and God are that offensive to atheists, I can virtually guarantee them that, once their time on earth is over, they will see God only briefly -- and then they will never, ever have to worry about being bothered by seeing the sight of Him ever again.
One would think that the Columbine Memorial would be for the victims and their families. Apparently that thinking is wrong. Apparently the victims and the families of the victims must accept the dictates of atheists who may or may not profess any tie to the incident at Columbine High School, but would nonetheless be "offended" if a "Christian" choir sang at the Columbine Memorial, regardless of what the majority of the victims and their families would prefer.
Thus the atheists do what atheists do best: The atheists must offend others so that they don't get their feelings hurt by listening to a few songs at a Memorial they don't have to attend.
If atheists are so offended by "Christians" singing a few "Christian" songs, then, in the long run, they have absolutely nothing to worry about. If Christians and God are that offensive to atheists, I can virtually guarantee them that, once their time on earth is over, they will see God only briefly -- and then they will never, ever have to worry about being bothered by seeing the sight of Him ever again.
See Charles, a virtual guarantee. Isn`t that what you asked for?
Bango, thanks for DBP, I always heard that the Basset Hound was a dog so weird it was designed by a committee.
You even beat that.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 12:20 AMMr.Forman, maybe it escaped your attention, but you are also an atheist.
As far as Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, etc, etc. you are an atheist just like me.
I am just an atheist about one or two more religions than you
Bango: I never thought of it that way before, but you are OOOOO SOOOOO CORRECT. People who disagree with other religions are, as you stated, athiestic toward those religions. Brilliant. :-)
ROBERT FORMAN: how you can 'virtually guarantee' anything post-life is beyond me. It is also beyond you. But, seeing as you are now considering yourself to be an all-seer and all-knower, may I ask: can you please tell me where I left the keys to my car?
Posted by Sheila on September 8, 2007 07:42 AMIt's music, get it, not a threat to anyones belief but, if one's belief is offended by music, I suggest their belief is not held in very high regard by them.
My, my, my children, if you and your belief are on such shaky and tenuous ground that you find it necessary to announce you will be offended by music at a memorial, if you go to it, that has nothing to do with you, you had better pray to what ever you believe in for the courage and strength to live in a world of the differing beliefs that put you in danger of what? Loosing your belief ? Becoming socially disfunctional ? Or is it just simply that you need to screw things up for other people because your life is in the toilet ?
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 08:05 AMSkank:
You like to parse word meanings and yet you never seem to use the correct meanings themselves. An atheist believes in NO diety, so how can it be construed that foreman is an atheist??? your stretch is no stretch but completly untenable. And your favorite symbols.........how are any of these things symbols, except to you? I've been trying to determine what they symbolize and can't do it. They may be examples of something to you, but they are in no way symbols, a symbol must be recognized, and I cannot make out your professed symbology here.
And Truth carped about someones use of the words tolerance and value when his own statements completely misused those words, using any of websters definitions.
Maybe they had good teachers. Like, Like a B...job is not sex. or "inventing" the internet.
AF
Posted by on September 8, 2007 08:45 AMAnother round of "Theology". HAH!
Beam me up, Scotty; Now I KNOW there's no intelligent life on this planet.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 09:07 AMHistory does repeat it's self, just look at the postings about this subject and the witless banter that has nothing to do with the subject matter of it.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 09:09 AMGreg,
The bitterness..the anger.
Posted by on September 8, 2007 09:17 AMBango-
Surprising to see you try that tactic. "you are also an atheist."
We are not all "asexual" AND heterosexual if we are strictly hetero, are we?
A person or instrument is not "atonal" or even "partly atonal "just because it cannot hit ALL notes, is it?
Foreman and Campbell have it right. WELL over 80% of Americans say they believe in God in some way (some poles go well above 95%). The vast majority of those identify the Christian God as the focus of that belief. A very small group made up of anti-theist fanatics are the only people who fuss about this stuff- a tiny fraction of those who make up the atheistic portion of our population care enough about the issue to make a fuss about this, or to require a city to pull down a display of a memorial cross on public land, or remove the 10 commandments from a courtroom, etc. And if they were not encouraged by the lefties who's creed it is, "let us not offend anyone but Republicans," they would have very nearly zero impact on this culture at all.
Charles B
Your insults are just way to clever for me. How have I survived even this far against your comedic wit?Please forbear further chastising me, or I will have to leave this forum forever...
Okay, just kidding, you mental midget. Had you going there, didn't I? I know, it's cruel to tease the handicapped, so I will leave you alone for a while now... For a while.
Now if you go back through this thread and pick out the attitude, the name calling, the threats of eternal damnation, well they all came from lefties, didn`t they.
Allen Campbell, we can see that some people are horrified at the idea that Christianity does not "own" every memorial service, but as Dillon said " The times they are a changing".
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 11:01 AM"Ahh yes, let's raise our glasses and toast to the one -the only- Mr. Congeniality! What.....a......twit.
Posted by Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:29 PM
Definitely a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black...
Posted by on September 8, 2007 11:18 AMNoggindog,
Thank you for your observation that those of us who seek to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the First Amendment guarantee of NO establishment of religion are, in your words:
"A very small group made up of anti-theist fanatics . . . the only people who fuss about this stuff - a tiny fraction of those who make up the atheistic population . . . etc. . . not encouraged by the lefties they would have nearly zero impact on this culture".
I see that you are now identifying yourself as being the same kind of arrogant, insulting, and stupid ignoramus as James Jones; just another would be Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ franchisee, looking for a pulpit from which to sound off, and a flock of sheeple to sheer.
What is an "anti-theist"?
Do you also subscribe to James Jones's statement that Buddhists, Bhraminists, Jainists, and others are "atheists"?
And to his additional statement that "Leftists have no morals"?
Do you, or do you not, hold to - or have you even read - the Dictionary definition of "atheist"?
Or, as with Jones, is that "merely semantics", with your fatuous flatulence to be taken as the "real" definition?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 11:46 AMIt's a shame ol' Bango Skank, that sleazy character created by horror novelist Peter Straub, isn't an American citizen. With his megalomania, parsing of words and ability to spin the truth to shade a given situation, he could become president. He's a perfect composite of Clinton and Bush -- a faux intellectual liar with wet dreams of superiority and dominance.
Oh well, I guess our lose will become another's bigger lose...
kcw
Posted by on September 8, 2007 12:11 PMOld Grouch
Well, it appears that sometimes I do make mistakes. In this case, I erred in the judgement that you tend to make rational arguments.
atheist: -noun- one who believes that there is no deity (Meriam-Webster on-line)
Note that it does NOT say, "one who believes in a different god than you do," as Bango Skank, and apparently you, would have us believe.
re: "A very small group made up of anti-theist fanatics"
What is an anti-theist? I admit, I made it up (though I doubt I am the first to use it). I used it to refer to those who not only don't believe in any god, but actively oppose any expression of belief in god in the public sector. I know, it's a bit confusing, but you see, "atheist" by itself does not suggest one must interfere with theists. That would be the prefix "anti" rather than the prefix "a."
anti = against
a = no or none
See how it works? The literal meaning of "anti-theist" would obviously be "against god." If you didn't understand it, I bet you were the only one.
Now, have some fun: Go look up the membership in organizations like "Freedom From Religion" and the like. Include the ACLU. Compare it to church membership in this country. See what the numbers tell you. While many people think prayer in school is a bad idea (and I admit, I am not eager to see teachers proselytizing students for every different group or cult, so I am not big on removing these strictures across the board) it is a vocal few that actively voice opposition to things like crosses in military cemeteries. And while it has happened in the past, it is not common for folks who are religious Jews or Buddhists to oppose the cross because it is sectarian.
The numbers I gave earlier are not exact; therefore I expressed them conservatively. The VAST majority of Americans identify as at least nominal Christians. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is. And most of those who are not do not overtly object to ceremonial expressions that reference God in public, except rather more don't want any reference to any god in public schools.
(by the way, thanks for resisting taunting me about "poles" instead of "polls." I hate that kind of typo, since spell check does not pick it up. And please note that reasonable people can disagree on the original meaning of constitutional references to state-church issues. There are good arguments on each side.)
Now let's all sit back and watch to see what sort of personal diatribe Charles B comes up with because I dared to post again...
Now for the hypocrite of the day...
Charles B on September 7, 2007 09:29 PM
""Ahh yes, let's raise our glasses and toast to the one -the only- Mr. Congeniality!"
This from Mr. Acerbic Tongue himself...
Posted by on September 8, 2007 12:36 PMOld Grouch,
I command thee to no longer call thyself a Christian. You have embarrassed me for the last time. I have given up all hope for ye. Go to hell!
Posted by Jesus Christ on September 8, 2007 12:36 PMNoggindog on September 8, 2007 12:25 PM
"Old Grouch
Well, it appears that sometimes I do make mistakes. In this case, I erred in the judgement (sic) that you tend to make rational arguments."
Old Grouch is an intelligent man whose intellectual rationalization is quite often overwhelmed by his emotions, resulting in BS.
He reminds me of the old adage: If you can't dazzle em' with your brilliance, bury em' in bullshit. He takes it one step further by polishing the turds for a better presentations.
PS: Only a child couldn't understand the term anti-theist...HE (Old Grouch) challenged it because it ran counter to his argument.
Posted by on September 8, 2007 12:50 PM12:50
Yes, Old Grouch is a bight guy, well educated, and able to assemble pretty good arguments most of the time. Sometimes he seems to have an off day and get prickly (or, any day James Jones is posting- you go, James!) I just though I might bring to his attention that he needs to take a deep breath once in a while.
Oh, and not to split hairs, but:
(Marium-Webster on-line)
Main Entry: judg·ment
Function: noun
Variants: or judge·ment/'j&j-m&nt/
(give a minute; you're bound to catch me in a spelling error soon enough...)
Noggindog,
Yep! As with Jones, you didn't say it. . . or, rather, if you said it, you didn't mean it. . .but, even if you said it, it means something else. . .so forth. And of course, you deliberately mis-quote - or deliberately mis-state, or mis-interpret - what the other person wrote; so you can demolish a straw-man, as if it were an answer to what was really there in the first place.
I know what an athiest is. My question was, Do you? You're the one who applied the word - by way of the phrase, "atheistic" population - to those of us who uphold the Constitution by opposing having your set of religious symbols erected on public property; a typical expression of Jonesian double-talk.
Sonny, that "VAST majority" can be found mostly in your imagination. And, as to the response to such matters as a "vocal few that actively voice oppostition, etc."; that, too is highly imaginary.
I pass on the point of "crosses in military cemetaries", since that one, too, seems to come from imagination, rather than from any event publicized around here. But, as to the rest . . . well, of course, again you make statements; and again, as with Jones, you weasel around about them.
Sonny, there is a simple Constitutional reference to the matter of church and state. It's called the First Amendment. Read it! Despite what folks like you and Pat Robertson put forth, THAT IS the position of those of us who uphold the Constitution.
It was early expressed for popular consumption as being: "An absolute wall of separation between church and state."
Jefferson used the phrase when writing about it, and his work in bringing about the Virginia freedom of religion statute. The very first case to come before a Federal Court concerning the matter quoted it. And there is no "good argument" about it.
I've cited before - and you have remarked that you don't need to bother to read books, or other works, since YOU only look for "authority" - but I'll cite again:
"Cases on Church and State", a Harvard Casebook, which details the case I cited above.
"Church and State in American History", John F. Wilson and Donald L. Drakeman, MJF Books, New York, 2003.
As to your made up expression, "anti-theist", another figment of your imagination, just as with Jones, you apply it to others in a pejorative sense; and then everyone is supposed to take for granted that it actually is descriptive of a real position or belief, held in common someplace other than in your own fantasies.
You've made your statement. You've established your position. Some of my ancestors would express it as having "spoken with forked tongue"; while some would add "out of both sides of your mouth". That's it, boy.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 01:17 PMNoggindog on September 8, 2007 12:58 PM
"Variants: or judge·ment/'j&j-m&nt/"
Now you've gone and given Old Grouch new ammunition to twist around, massage, spin and fire at you and James Jones.
Specifically, his interpretation: Variant = deviant
You are "confirming" that your positions are in fact deviant from the recognized "norm" of modern intellectual thought.
Posted by on September 8, 2007 01:24 PMGreg makes an interesting point, “I would like to have a predominantly homosexual, devil-worshipping, communist choir sing at the event instead.” –- you don’t have to wait for any special event for that Greg, this “choir” is “singing” in classrooms already, busy brainwashing the next generation, and contradicting what most parents believe in. It’s simple, classify anything not meeting the liberal agenda as religious (preferably Christian), and keep it out of the classrooms using the ACLU. May be Greg can scout funeral homes next, to make sure no crosses displayed and prayers said. After all, funeral homes are public places, and we know from new smoking laws how much the government cares about private property rights.
Posted by Uno on September 8, 2007 01:26 PMI certainly do hope that all those reading this thread will use the hypelink provided as the screen signature by the posting of 12:36 PM, and consider the source.
And to all you anonymous folks: Thank you for your kind and generous comments and observations. At least you're reading what I write, even if it is so far above your abilities to comprehed that you miss the points. That's at least half-way on the road to wanting to learn; which is vastly different from knowing all about everything alrready; as well as being far and away better than being one of those who just can't learn to begin with.
Keep up the good work. You'll enjoy the fruits of your labors in the end.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 01:32 PMOld Grouch, or anyone that know Catholicism
"I certainly do hope that all those reading this thread will use the hypelink provided as the screen signature by the posting of 12:36 PM, and consider the source."
Isn't using the name Jesus Christ in a vain or derogatory manner considered blasphemy in Christianity?
Posted by mongoose on September 8, 2007 01:41 PMmongoose,
On that one, I think you would have to ask someone such as Noggindog, or one of the other "Theologians" of the website. You'll probably get as many answers as there are those who want to call themselves by the title. So many here think that what they post actually has some kind of "mana", or "power" to it; and that by saying something, it will actually BECOME, or even BE, as they speak the magick words.
But, that's what makes the forum fun.
And, Faith an begorrah! 'Tis a joy indeed to find all the religious nuts, kooks, loose screws and blatherskites with their knickers all twisted up. It goes to assure one that he's doing SOMETHING right, anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 8, 2007 01:59 PMOld Grouch
"I pass on the point of 'crosses in military cemeteries', since that one, too, seems to come from imagination"
Yes, that was an error. I should have said "military memorials," since these are not actually at the places soldiers are buried. The example I had in mind was "Sunrise Rock" in the Mojave National Preserve, where a memorial was erected to soldiers who died in combat. It was erected between WWI and WWII, and it was just a few years ago that the ACLU sued to have it removed because it was a cross. The crisis was resolved when congress authorized passing the land it is on into private ownership. A similar example in 2005 was observed when an atheist group petitioned to have a memorial to fallen State Patrol officers in Utah blocked because it was to be a cross. While they were at it, they sought the removal of crosses in 6 other places where they memorialized slain law enforcement officers in the state.
I provided the definition of "Atheist" in my previous post. You are simply nit-picking to make a fuss because some few people who fuss about crosses in public places identify as leftist Christians. Almost all of these kinds of petitions and suits are initiated by atheist organizations. So don't try to confuse matters by trying to say I used the word incorrectly.
I believe you have me confused with someone else regarding "you have remarked that you don't need to bother to read books, or other works, since YOU only look for 'authority.'" I don't think I ever said that. Ever. But if you can show it to me, I'll have a look to see what you may have misconstrued as that statement. If you cannot produce such a comment, please refrain from such libel.
I am not going to take up the "wall of separation" argument. You know that's a case of choosing which early statements you want to credit to make a case for what the founders really meant by that. If you don't, then I have grossly overestimated you. And as to "anti-theist," I will leave it to other readers to determine if it is descriptive or not. I think it is not only clear, but also accurate.
Don't be obtuse, Grouch. It is unbecoming.
Posted by Noggindog on September 8, 2007 02:02 PMYou guys seem to have wondered off the ranch a bit.
The person who needs religious music at this affair was encouraged to hum it to himself.
For generations, Christians have thought they owned memorial services, that they were allowed to make kids pray in school, that the laws should be made to protect their holy day etc.
This tiny voice of dissent is getting stronger.
Maybe because so many of the professed theists are not really Christians at heart. It is awkward saying " I believe there is no God" so people just say yes. It beats a long discussion of "I think there is a God, but I don`t like organized religion" and so on that folks often say.
A lot of us are don`t-have-a- cluests and we don`t have a name.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 02:51 PMSharon B. on September 8, 2007 02:51 PM
Noddingdog can conjure words to fit his thesis, why can't you?
A suggestion to start the thinking process:
Lacacluist = One who can't claim with certainty the existence or absence of a god. Open to definitive evidence validating one position or the other.
Posted by CA on September 8, 2007 03:03 PMNoggindog,
Just taking your 3rd paragraph: You have made a statement. We are to accept your definition of the organization opposing monuments, etc., as "athiest". After all, thou hast said it; therefore it must be so.
And again, in that same paragraph: "some few people . . . identify as leftist Christians." Again, thou hast said it; it must be so.
PROVE IT! Identify the "atheist" source of the organization. Identify the "few . . 'leftist' Christians". And give us the evidence that their Christianity is "leftist", as opposed to what you deem Right - or "correct" - Christianity.
Back on your "Theology" debate line, I cited some Theology texts, which give the position of Orthodox Christianity. Your reply was that you didn't care about the citations, as you preferred the authority. The line of postings has gone into the archives; and I am paraphrasing. But, you certainly went on to ask me questions about why it was necessary to abandon certain Western ideas, as if my statements were without foundation, AFTER I had told you to read the works and you would find not only the foundation, but the exposition of the development as well.
I had told you that I refrained from the Western form of mutual mental masturbation, as it had nothing to do with my Theology, Orthodox Theology. But, you still seemed to think it was necessary for me to respond in your terms, without regard to the absolutely different foundations and sources. Fine and dandy. The works are there. READ THEM! And then, if you have questions, I'll do my best to answer, and/or explain. Otherwise, I simply take you as you have expressed your own position. Except, of course, when, as with Jones, your position is on the merry-go-round of whatever happens to be today's response for what was said yesterday.
You might also look at the dictionary for a definition of "libel" - but, there too, as with Jones, if it makes you feel good to use the word YOUR OWN way, go right ahead.
Oh! Yes! I'm "obtuse" when I find your neologisms to be faulty and ridiculous, just as with Jones when I find his to be the same. According to YOU, to uphold the separation of church and state, by way of NOT placing religious symbols on public land is "anti-theist". So . . . ? Just another apprentice wizard to the Whiz of a Whiz, James Jones, making it up as you go along.
As to your neologizm: "deism (L, deus, god) the belief that God exists . . . . 2. also found as theism (G, theos, god0 . . . ." I presume you understand that the initials stand for Latin and Greek; and that "Deist" and "Theist" are the proper nouns for those holding the belief.
Are the stone monuments then - those that people who uphold the Constitution want eliminated from public places - your "god", or "gods", in which you "believe"? Or is your remark about "anti-theists" just a stupid attempt to show off, by calling people "anti"-something, as if the insult were meaningful?
Hi Sharon!
That's wonderful! Lackacluist! I love it! Beats Nobrainer all hollow!
Best yet, dear lady!
Hi OG. Yes it is a good word.
I would love to see the 10 commandments posted all over the place, but use the original, long, threatening version, and not the cutesy one we have today.
We Lacacluists are always willing to learn. All Deist/Theist ideas will be considered.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 04:17 PMOld Grouch
Really, this is getting a bit tiresome. Next time around, do your own homework if you want to refute me.
"PROVE IT! Identify the "atheist" source of the organization."
The organization that petitioned to remove the crosses for the Utah State Patrol officers who died in the line of duty is American Atheists. You can find their stuff referencing this at atheists.org/flash.line/utah12.htm (I can't seem to get a working hyperlink in here for some reason, so you'll have to type it in.)
and
"...identify the few leftist Christians..."
If you look quickly, there's one in the mirror right now.
Moving on...
"You might also look at the dictionary for a definition of 'libel'"
Libel:
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means
I looked at the archives. You could have done it yourself before you made the charge, and then you could have done it before you wrote back when I said you should refrain from such libel. But I did it for you. Your words about me were: "you have remarked that you don't need to bother to read books, or other works, since YOU only look for 'authority.'"
In the actual exchange you demanded of me, "Please cite your sources." I responded with, "First of all, I know you are a teacher (50th or 60th anniversary of your teaching career this month, yes? Happy anniversary, sincerely!) but I will decline your instruction to cite sources, unless I rely on someone else's authority. Feel free to mark down my work for that failure..."
That is hardly stating that I disdain books. It is saying I don't need to cite sources unless I am depending on someone else's work for a particular argument. Therefore, my judgement that you engaged in libel stands, unless you would like to say you erred in your understanding of my words.
The next issue:
"As to your neologizm..."
I presume you mean "neologism"? (not to worry, I don't spell well either.)
I should think it is obvious, if "theist" is a pronoun for those holding the belief that God exists, then anti-theist would refer to someone who either opposes the belief itself, or opposes theists. Either works well for my purposes.
However, in all of that rant, you did get one thing right. Sharon and CA were very funny in the posts that lead up to "Lacacluist." Although I notice now that you spelled that wrong, too, as "Lackacluist." Darn. I was trying to say something to boost your self-esteem...
Now, Grouch, let us leave the arcane argument of definitions and such, and stick to exchanging ideas, okay? It's a better investment of everyone's time.
Posted by Noggindog on September 8, 2007 04:37 PMOld Grouch is one of the best educated and most fascinating on this board. His arguments are clear, his points are well-thought out and seldom, if ever, says nasty things to or about other people. Proof that you don't have to believe in superman or santaclause to be a truly good person.
Now... if we think of how many people claim some sort of religion and then go back through their posts and look at all the times they have belittled, befuddled, and insulted anyone who doesn't believe as they do... and, well you can see where I'm going with this.
Keep it up, Old Grouch. I may not write as eloquently as you, but I agree with 99.99% of what you have to say.
Posted by Sue DohNihm on September 8, 2007 05:03 PMSue DohNihm
"...but I agree with 99.99% of what you have to say."
Let me say it in jest, before it's some how taken serious:
But, man...that .01% is the crucial deal breaker!
Posted by on September 8, 2007 05:29 PMSue-
Nice post. However, may I make a few small points?
Old Grouch is one of those who "claims some sort of religion." He claims Orthodox Christianity, what we usually call "Eastern Orthodox" here. Therefore, he is one of those who believe in "superman or santaclaus" as you put it (please correct me if I am wrong, Grouch. I think you have made this clear, but I certainly would not want to libel you in any way.) The difference between Old Grouch and the rest of us is, Old Grouch is adamant that only the Orthodox know superman's secret identity! (I know, it's stretching the metaphor painfully, but it was fun.)
Grouch regularly and rigorously says nasty things to and about James Jones. And he took it up today with me. However, I have not argued with him on things like calling me a liar ("spoken with forked tongue") or calling my posts "fatuous flatulence." I have only met his challenges and addressed his unfounded accusation, and tossed a little condescension back his way. I don't even begrudge him those gratuitous comments as I do some others because, with me at least, he has always made real arguments as he spouts them off. Others simply make insults and THINK it is an argument. And, from me at least, he will be answered in kind.
I would be the first to agree with you, Old Grouch is one of the best educated, most interesting people on this forum. In fact, I have said so several times already. But if he brings matches, I'm bringing gasoline. That's how this game is played around here.
5:29
That was SERIOUSLY funny... This has been a good thread for the "one-liners" today.
Now it's religion you have a pissing contest about, I would have thought you had used up all the bitterness on politics. It would seem though that the contest is not over. Fare thee well my mighty intellectual midgets. Hence forth the war shall continue, while I, at my own pleasureable observe , lean back with a long sigh, and a longer drink , to consider the sanity of those who think this inane display of confusion actually accomplishes any thing of any value at all.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 8, 2007 06:11 PMAllen, better to drink and post than drink and drive.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 07:56 PMNoggindogmism's real civility on display:
you mental midget. Had you going there, didn't I? I know, it's cruel to tease the handicapped, so I will leave you alone for a while now... For a while.
You shall know him by his love...
Isn`t that what Hannibal said to the psychiatrist.? I will leave you alone for awhile?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 8, 2007 10:12 PMCharles, the people you think you are talking to can read my posts as well as you can. 'They can decide if I am going too far over the top with you or Old Grouch. So, the truth is, the things you post demonstrate nothing about me. But they reveal rather much about you, don't they? Well, no harm done, I suppose. From the look of the things people here have been saying all day for the last 3 days, people already know what they think of you, don't they, "Mr. Acerbic tongue himself"
You might observe that Grouch is getting some support from other people here. You, on the other hand, do not seem to be getting much support. I wonder why that is?
Posted by noggindog on September 9, 2007 12:53 AMI'll try one more time. All your arguemental diatribes are meaningless. The salient point in all this is; the only ones who have any right whatsoever to have an opinion as to whether or not to allow Christian music, ( someone please explain to me what qualifications are needed to be called that ), at the memorial are the parents and direct family relatives of the dead based the faith of those that were slain. This is a privately organized event, you have the free choice to go or not but, nowhere in any constitutional or other law is any right you have being violated, in any way, by the music they have freely chosen to be part of the memorial. Any claim made that there is a violation of rights by anyone not directly related to the slain victims is nothing more than grandstanding for a unwarranted intervention in what is essentialy a private matter.
Anyone who tries to intervene based on their personal preferences and contrary beliefs is employing unethical, immoral and imprudent means to interfere in the private interests of a solemn and morally appropreiate ceremony that, quite frankly, is none, and will ever be none, of their lawfully or socially acceptable business.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 9, 2007 08:05 AMNoggindog,
Thank you for noting the typos. I do have difficulties with 6.5 to 7 point sans-serif type face in the posting, and a different type style and size in the writing box when attempting to proofread. Getting to the age of bifocals seems to being along with it a tendency towards having problems such as that.
I shall presume you are intending that one takes you seriously, at least when you are "theologising". So, back to your neologism:
You say: "If 'theist' is a pronoun for those holding a belief that God exists, then anti-theist would refer to someone who either opposes that belief itself, or opposes theists."
You previously referred to those who opposed setting up stone-monuments in public places - such as schools and court houses - as being both "atheist", and "anti-theist". Thus, you are positing that the stone-monument is the "god" in which you have belief; and that those who oppose erection of this "god" in public places have NO god - "atheist" - and also oppose YOU, the believer in the stone-monument "god", as well as the stone-monument "god" itself - "anti-theist".
Christians call that, "idolatry"; but, since you dismiss Christianity as being nothing more than a belief in "superman or santaclaus", and, since the aforementioned idolatry is central to your own belief-system, you have removed the matter from debate.
Belief-systems are, by nature, un-debateable. They may be accepted or rejected. They may be praised, or scorned and criticized. But, since belief, itself, is, among other things, a CONCLUSION to the process of discussion, comparison, and modification; and not a postulate for these processes, debate is no longer possible.
I wish you well as you bow down and worship before your stone-monument "gods". This is your right, under our Constitution; just as it is my right to oppose the erection of those idols in public places - such as schools and court houses - and require that others worship them also.
Thank you for elightening us as to the real structure and purposes of your religion's "game".
Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 08:13 AMFirst off Allen: Most of the time, I consider myself an athiest or agnostic. That said, however, I feel you are right: if they want to play christian music at this memorial that is THEIR affair and none of my business. THAT IS, of course, if not one single penny of tax money is involved. In which case, yes, we should ban the playing of any religious music. This memorial (which, by the way, when are we going to stop with all the dang memorials????) is for the family, friends AND community affected by the murderous minds of DK and EH. Being a member of the community, Mr. Barber is correct in speaking his mind that it should be banned. (IF it involves tax dollars. If not, all parties not party to the party should shut up and let the mourners have their tunes.)
Personally, I object to any city, state, or federal government sponsoring a religious event. I absolutely believe in the separation of church and state! (I suppose one could argue that Christian music is just another form of music, but not in the context of a memorial.)
That said, I believe a memorial to be for the related survivors. After all, they are the ones who best knew the deceased and can plan the appropriate memorial for them. As for everyone else, they can remember the deceased as they see fit in private, even if that means listening to Christian music or throwing a party or dancing . . .
Back to the separation of church and state. I also intensely dislike seeing a country's flag in church. I believe religion should not recognize any man made physical or territorial boundaries or display symbols of them.
Posted by Linda on September 9, 2007 08:33 AMAllen Campbell,
Some time back, when this topic appeared on the website for the first time, I mentioned that this was a Columbine Memorial to Columbine's own beloved lost ones. At that time, I also mentioned that, way back in my day, we had school choirs, who would have provided music for such an event, were it ever to have been necessary. I also suggested that, since it was to be Columbine's own Memorial, it would be most appropriate to let the Columbine School Choir - if the school had one - provide the music.
A simple solution to what is really a non-problem.
The loud howls of the host of religious nuts, kooks, cranks, loose screws, and wannabe preachers, who infest the atmosphere surrounding any and every public event, were immediately raised, descrying the idea that a school Memorial Service did not include THEIR prescriptions concerning its contents and presentation.
And, unfortunately, the subject has done nothing more than degenerate, and deteriorate, into what you so rightly describe as a "pissing contest", ever since.
This is, however, good old Cowlorado, at its Architypical best - or worst, if you prefer. Having never really grown up, and out of the stage where the appearance of the Tent Show Revival Preacher and Snake Oil Peddler, was the biggest event of the year; the villages still cling to the idea that their RELIGION is the local expression of "the greatest show on earth"; and the sole and only three ring circus for everyone.
I, too, get carried away - most of the time doubled up with belly laughter as the "theology expert" performers put on their clown acts. And, as was the tradition of the old Tent Show Revival, I also fall into the "audience participation" part of the show.
Since, in the end, it does all boil down to farce and slapstick, it is something of a waste of time and energy today. But, there is the psychological need for catharsis there, in all of us; and disputing the stupidities, idiocies, and inanities of the "sawdust trail" entertainers does tend to carry one away at times.
I apoligize to you, and to the others who would actually prefer to carry on intelligent and reasoned exchange of ideas in the forum.
And, I would repeat what I've said ealier: Let Columbine memorialize its own, its own way.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 08:52 AMYes in spades OG, let those who are left behind to organize a memorial for the deceased do so as they see fit. I, for one, would never, for any reason, think my agreeing or disagreeing on the music chosen for it is in any way germane to the issue. Indeed it would be more than a little unethical and perhaps even immoral for me or anyone else to interfere in what is a non taxpayer, privately funded event. I might even donate to the fund, if needed, based on my humanity and it's responsibility to support my fellow man in time of sorrow and need. And please, don't anyone of you try to tell me I have any ulterior motive in so doing. That would be a personal insult to me and any other who would do the same based on the stated reasons.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 9, 2007 09:46 AMNoggindog makes much of Christianity's popularity in this country. Okay...so? The reason religion itself has endured so long is because the primary human dilemma--fear of death--has. (It's just too creepy to imagine a time when we simply won't exist anymore, so lots of fantasies about "alternative lives" have been comfortingly conjured.) And just because a "VAST majority" of people in this country choose to identify themselves as Christian says less about the supposed worthiness of Christianity than the human fear of being pointed out as "different," something you're not supposed to be (quite as prevalent as the fear of death, if not more so--as the surge in suicides among teenage girls may indicate). And I hope Noggindog will grant at least a possible difference between "nominal" Christians and actual practicing ones.
Despite Matthew 6, today's culture of conspicuous Christians demands its "right" to public expression--even though Christians never lacked a forum for their agenda (they're called churches, and can be found even in very small towns, sitting tax-free on prime real estate)--because of the political power to be gained in "selling their product." The notion that Christians must be deferred to because they represent "the majority" is like going back a half-century in time and telling people of color to stay in the ghetto "where they belong" because they're only "the minority" and therefore don't matter.
And by the way, "Valley of the Dolls" is the most important American novel in literary history because it still holds the record for copies sold. So burn all your other books or else you're not really an American. ;-\
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 9, 2007 11:04 AMNoggindogma:
It doesn't matter to me whether I am supported or denounced by other posters on this board.
I expect to be attacked since the things I write regarding religion go directly to the heart of most people's belief systems.
It is to be expected that many would voice support for you, since you attempt to validate their beliefs.
Pointing out supporting comments on the board is an appeal to popularity that provides no support for your contentions.
By quoting your name-calling and condescension, I am merely helping people see through your pretensions of being above the fray and not prone to insult and rudeness, since I imagine most people don't get all the way through your long-winded and masturbatory posts.
As for having an acerbic tongue, I thank you for the compliment.
Posted by Charles B on September 9, 2007 11:10 AMOld Grouch
I'll begin by acknowledging that I shouldn't have needled you regarding your typos. It was a cheap shot, and I shouldn't have taken it. I knew they were typos when I wrote that, so I apologize.
That said, it is remarkable to me that you could not bring yourself to acknowledge that you mischaracterized my statements from the previous thread which you referred to. I provided the text, and it is clear what I said. You should acknowledge it, since your accusation was unfounded.
You subsequent remarks which also mischaracterized my words also are somewhat less troubling, since the text is right here with your comments, and any reader has only to scroll up to see what I really said. But I think it is still beneath you, since I am sure you know the "belief in superman and santaclaus" comment was a quote of the post preceding mine, and since I am also sure you know I don't posit stone memorials as gods. If I played that logic and language game, I could say, "Oh, so you want to oppose placing idols in public places, but you want to force us all to worship them?" because you made a small error in your sentence structure in your post to me. But that would be childish and silly, since we all know that is not your position, just as you know I do not invest deity in symbols. Why don't you just say, "I think it's silly to concern yourself with symbols which you know do not contain God?" But of course, I did not make that error. I simply ignored your baseless argument on it's lack of merit, so you wanted to find something, ANYTHING, to skewer me on.
Well, my previous post answered all your points save that one and one more. Let me answer the other one now. You said the "VAST majority of Americans identify as at least nominal Christians" which I referenced is Largely in [my] imagination." (see my post of 09/07, 12:25 and your response, 09/08, 1:17) As it happens, I checked the figures after I wrote that. In actuality, "About 8 in 10 Americans adhere to some form of Christianity." This according to the Gallop Poll (you have to subscribe to see the whole poll, but this quote is observable in an abstract which can be viewed at galluppoll.com/content/?ci=17041&pg=1)
And with that, I have addressed all the specifics you tossed out at me, declining only to further debate the meaning of "anti-theist," which is just a silly rabbit-trail. My original point, that people who make the sort of fuss this thread started with do so from hostility to religion in general, and Christianity in specific, rather than concern for "church/state" issues, stands. I will concede that some few, such as you, do so for reasons other than spite and hostility. And I have "cited my sources" as you are want to demand.
For a long time now Christianity has been the default position in our culture for memorial services, people being sworn into office etc.
We are only trying to challenge that position and free ourselves from religion wherever we can. Our Constitution give us freedom "of" and we want freedom "from" religion wherever and whenever we can manage it.
Christmas will soon be upon us and here we go again with the "War of Christmas" drek.
This particular memorial service has become a battle in the religion wars. But the battle represents a larger issue: Christian contol of our culture.
some of us just want that control to end.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 11:43 AMHans-
Christians do not complain they have no forum (at least, mainstream Christians do not). They complain that they are being forced out of venues they have enjoyed for two centuries because of confusion over "freedom of religion" vs. "freedom from religion ." We disagree with Grouch's understanding of that portion of the Constitution. Many of us also feel that since ANY group other than Christians can get a float into a parade, to use an example, we should not be excluded from presenting one. Another example, look at the recent flap over a graduation speech by one of several valedictorians which included her personal testimony of what she credits as the most meaningful thing in her life. No one else has to agree, but she should have been allowed to make the speech.
To answer your question, about 40-45% of Americans seldom or never go to church. That makes at least 60% who attend frequently or regularly. Those would be the "practicing Christians" you refer to (attendance to non-Christians churches nationwide is a very small percentage of the up to 65% that attend church.) Regarding the above example, most Americans believe that religion is over-excluded from public schools, and would support "a moment of silence" etc. See the same address I gave Grouch a moment ago.
Charles B-
"Noggindogma"- that was pretty good, Charles. You may have some redeeming qualities after all.
"An appeal to popularity..." nice to see you were paying attention in your freshman logic class. However, I am not making an appeal to popularity as an argument for my position. I did not even point out posts that support me. I pointed out posts that support Grouch as a way of showing that he gets support because he makes arguments instead of JUST name-calling. For that purpose, the "appeal to popularity" is appropriate. This post you wrote today is an example of an appropriate argument. Well done. See, I don't mind the insults when they are accompanied by actual reasoning, even specious reasoning, if it is a sincere effort.
You need not point out my name-calling and condescension. I readily acknowledge both, as well as waxing prolific in my posts. I even mention these things myself. After such a promising beginning, why devolve into histrionics now? Don't be a conophile, Charles (Since Grouch has a hard time with new words, I will explain: It means, don't be a lover of cone-heads, Charles. Don't practice being obtuse just because you are irritated by me.)
"Noggindogma"- I might just have to change my screen name...
Sharon B
I agree with your assessment. To bad I didn't see it before I posted, since some of my post just echos yours. I land on the oppostite side of the issue, but you have stated the atheist issue well, and it supports my understanding of the issue.
It's funny, after serving in Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq (soon to return to Afghanistan mountains) in the military, I've never found an atheist in a fox hole under live fire; nor, within moments following a mortar or IED incident, or the death of a battle buddy.
Just an observation from a soldier.
Posted by on September 9, 2007 12:10 PMSome of these finger pointing legalistic types that call themselves Christians need to grow up a little. Maybe I can help this disturbed man a little: No, I'm not a devil worshiping communist and there's no reason why I would be. But yes, I'm gay. If you can't handle it that's your problem. I'll never let you make it mine. Now try reading your bible with a little more comprehension. Can you do that? Give it a shot and you might finally become a grown up.
Posted by cs on September 9, 2007 12:10 PM"The Ten Commandments have come down off the wall and the metal protectors have gone up on the doors."
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 07:37 AM
So that wasn't advocacy, just bull$hit posturing?
"You on the other hand follow the secularist teaching of making political belief a religion."
Posted by James Jones on September 7, 2007 05:15 PM
And I said that when?
Hans-
Sorry, I erred. The figures for frequent or regular church attendance should be 55%-60%. Higher for those who say they take religion seriously but do not attend often.
cs-
Who are you addressing? Mr. Palmer, who wrote the letter lumping gays in with devil worship is, one presumes, not a Christian at all. Further, the line he gives about being offended by gay people is the sentiment he supposes someone else to have. I, who have staked out a position in favor of Christianity, have said nothing about gay people. If anyone has said something in this thread deriding gay people, I missed it, and I didn't see it after taking a quick look back through the posts. So, I wonder what you are objecting to.
Hi Sharon,
Perhaps you have hit the heart of the point. The dogmatists and "theologists" here want "freedom OF religion" - which to them means the freedom to ram their ignorance, superstitions, and idiocies down every else's throats as they please. Those of us who have actually studied the Constituion however, know that freedom is a two way street; and that these already enjoy ALL the freedom OF religion that any person in the United States is guaranteed.
But freedom ALWAYS being a two way street, the guarantee of freedom FROM religion is the other side of that same coin, and of equal importance and reality. And no one has to have the noxious nonsense of another's religion forced upon him or her - especially in those areas of Government, such as schools and Courts, that are on the state side of the wall of separation.
The specious and spurious wails, whines, and moans about not being able to have a float in parades, or stone monuments on Government grounds, etc., etc., are just the kind of fatuous flatulence that marks the religion racket for what it really is, a kind of, "What we've got already, we'll keep; and what we don't have, we'll try to take.", approach, that is a hallmark of the Bu$ine$$ of peddling Je$u$.
Thus, the religionists throw pejorative epithets at those who would clearly uphold the separation of church and state; along with lies and fabrications about the reality of both the separation itself and its logical consequences; the reality of "freedom OF" - for those who want to be entertained of a Sunday morning by some blatherskite in a pulpit - and the direct concomitant of "freedom FROM" - for those who do not choose to waste their time and or substance, especially by way of their tax monies, on hucksters and con artists.
The religionists certainly do come up with fantasy words, and meaningless neologisms, to indicate how "evil", "immoral", etc., etc., those of us are who don't care to belong to the flock of dumb sheeple being sheered, while at one and the same time taking great umbrage when their noxious nonsense is shown to be just what it is, nothing more than arrogant and insulting self-righteousness and pride in ignorance. But, it does make the suckers - ooops, excuse me, the flock of sheeple - feel sooo gooooood to be able to look upon themselves as being so much "above" all those who aren't stupid enough to stand still for the sheering.
All part of the whole history of human growth and development. The constant struggle between the forces of ignorance, stupidity, and superstition to keep hold of all power over the people, and the advocates of education, enlightenment, and advancement to throw off the chains, and someday even, reach for the stars.
A very wise man once said: "Christianity is a THINKING MAN'S religion."
Perhaps that might be considered a guide to the nature of the religions most loudly, vociferously, and intrusively promulgated by the book-bangers and bullshiters in the mega-auditoriums and Bu$ine$$e$ of peddling Je$u$ today.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 02:35 PMNoggindog, thanks for the comment. I am not speaking for atheists, some of us kind of think there might be a God. But not the Judaeo/Christian one.
Anon 12:10. That says a lot about war, stress and fear, but does not prove the existence of God.
Thank you for your service. Write to us if you can, pick a screen name so we can follow you around.
JJiagitdb. JJ makes simple comparisons, such as: Mass murderers are secular, humanists are secular so all mass murderers are secular humanists.
The 10 very truncated commandments came down, metal detectors went up so, the lack of commandments made kids bring guns to school and kill people.
Even the one boy who shot someone from his after hours Bible study group.
Noggindogma is funny, even if you don`t like the originator of the name.
Pick something new, see if we can mess it up.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 02:38 PMI think cs is referring to the original letter writer who writes with a sarcastic slant which would lead some to believe he was a christian putting the shoe on the other foot as example.
Posted by on September 9, 2007 02:46 PM"specious and spurious wails, whines, and moans "
"fatuous flatulence" (the Grouch really seems to like this one)
"pejorative epithets"
"lies and fabrications"
"the forces of ignorance, stupidity, and superstition"
All this from "the advocate of education, enlightenment, and advancement to throw off the chains, and someday even, reach for the stars..."
Cue the "Star Trek" theme music, please...
And even with all that, you can't admit that you misrepresented me, and you owe me an apology, huh Grouch? I expected better of you, you great enlightener and educator, you.
Let me recommend a different proverb for you: "Christianity is an HONEST man's religion."
Sharon B-
I was serious when I said it was funny (Noggindogma). Did you think I meant it sarcastically? I didn't, and I thought about signing "Noggindogma" for the rest of this thread. It's really very clever.
I don't defend everything JJ has to say, though I think he does a good job often enough, and even when he stretches a point past it's natural breaking point, at least he is always trying to make a good argument. He doesn't toss around gratuitous arrogance anymore than many others (including me, so save your typing fingers for a minute, Charles.) He does paint with a rather broad brush at times, but who among us has not been guilty of that?
Posted by Noggindog on September 9, 2007 02:59 PMMs. Sharon, you said: "Anon 12:10. That says a lot about war, stress and fear, but does not prove the existence of God.
pick a screen name so we can follow you around.
Belief in God comes through individual acceptance of "faith". Such "faith" can result from many different things, as can the rejection of "faith" come from individual circumstances.
When I was in college I had the mandatory course in philosophy. One of the guys we studied was Kirkigarrd (sp?) who explained that it was a "leap of faith" to accept God as there is no verifiable, hands on proof you could touch and feel to get there.
My comments were given in that context. In combat it seems more people are inclined to make that "leap of faith" when they witness and experience first hand man's inhumanity to man. I was not attempting to provide any sort of proof, just observation as I said.
I'm just visiting my parent while on leave and will leave again in a few days for Ft. Bragg and my next deployment. I'll use my MOS (military designation) as a screen name if I have time to return to the website after today.
Posted by SF 18D on September 9, 2007 03:05 PMSharon B-
I see what you were responding to, re: JJ , now. I missed JJiagitdb's post before. I still like a good bit of what JJ says, but you are right in this example, he used a shotgun when a rifle would have been better.
SF 18D:--
You said that was your MOS. What is the designation?
Posted by CA on September 9, 2007 05:07 PMCA, Special Forces Medical Sergeant
Posted by SF 18D on September 9, 2007 05:21 PMSF18D Thank you for your service to our country, and please keep in touch if you can. We are waiting for a poster called "Trinity" to do the same.
I tried so many times to believe, then I would make, I guess a slip of absurdity, I could call it and loose all the new faith again and again.
I like Einsteins God, the rational one.
Noggindog, I was not sure if you liked the name game or not. One of the best word plays so far is
Richard Grimes to richie grimy to grimy dick.
That one cracked me up.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 9, 2007 05:32 PMSF 18D:--
There is another letter on this blog about Who Is Losing the War In Iraq. Can you go there and provide some comments?
Posted by CA on September 9, 2007 05:52 PMSharon B
Yeah, I think the quips and quills thing is all good fun, most of the time- so long as there's a POINT behind it. Charles calling me a twit is just an insult and, aside from ego is meaningless. "Noggindogma" is funny on more than just the insult, it's also an appropriate quip because of the positions I have taken here. I give him props for that one.
I missed that one on Grimes. I was about to ask if he took it well, but then I thought, with Grimes, how would anyone know?
Posted by Noggindog on September 9, 2007 06:10 PMCA, No. I'm a soldier, not a politician.
Posted by on September 9, 2007 06:42 PMThe rediculous thing about this thread is that like so many on this forum the premise is faulty.
The controversy about the Columbine memorial is not WHETHER there will be a Christian presence, but WHAT KIND of Christian presence is approved.
This tragedy occured in a mostly Christian community and all the victims (I believe) were Christian. This event is being held by a private foundation, and they can invite anyone they want. Who they don't want is a BLACK gospel choir.
rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5670633,00.html
"the community wouldn't approve of something like that. He said he has nothing against religion, and we could do it if we submit a CD."
Shoels said she interpreted Easton's response as having racial overtones.
"The way I took it, they (the choir) wouldn't have to be seen," she said. "If I got him a CD, the less black faces that he has to see."
So if anyone has an axe to grind here it's 40Acres, but I guess he has other things to worry about.
As for Darwin fish, mine is there not because I object to Christianity, but I object to Christianity masquerading as science being forced into public schools.
And Jimmy bitch-boy (who doesn't want to discuss his own religious views, but is happy to tell others what theirs are): If you think I'm your glow in the dark nemesis and political belief is my religion, you're forgetting two things:
1) The Rocky's "Hygienic practices" you love so much
2) I told you a long time ago I'm Jewish.
Repugnants,
Ah! Yes! That wonderfully "Christian" bit, once given me by a Presbyterian Elder - one time Pastor of the largest Presbyterian Church in what is now the Metro-Denver area - when he solemnly informed me: "It is the duty of every real Christian to remember that Niggers don't have souls. They are not really humans, just a form of highly trainable apes."
Pure Protestantism! And, ABSOLUTELY "CHRISTIAN" as "Theology" - preached and taught in Church and Sunday School when I was a boy - taken from Genesis, Chapter 9, the myth of Noah and the flood, where Noah exclaims: "Cursed be the sons of HAM".- supposedly the progenitor of the black people - and used even today as the justification for both slavery and discrimination, including Apartheit.
"HONEST" man's religion, Noggindog?
You're the great defender of the Puritans, and the other WASP racists and bigots, boy; and the resident "lord-high-theologian". What's the answer?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 9, 2007 09:33 PMWell that just tears it. We liberals were against Christian music at a public memorial, but now that we hear they wanted to keep black singers out, we are forced to change sides and want them to sing.
This is too complicated, I`m getting a headache trying to figure out which side to be on.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 12:06 AMRepugnants,
The hygienic measures are defeated by posting from a different computer. You post under many names. In your ingnorance you fail to respect human integrity. But your cheap tricks will not hide you from me.
I have never asked and don't care what religion you are. I won't tell you mine for very good reasons. I am only interested about what you have to add to this page.
The Ten Commandments on the wall for a century or so did not force any religion on any one. It ddi not make the US a theocracy - in fact it did just the opposite.
The commandments did however serve as a daily reminder of an ethical code which instructs us to treat our neigbors we would be treated ourselves. That message has been removed and now we think we need metal detectors to keep us safe. Which of course they don't. Our own designs never do.
None so blind as though who will not see.
Religion does not masquerade as science in the hands of the genuinley religious. Science does however prove out religion in the hands of the genuinely inquisitive.
I suspect you know very little of religion or science or you would not say such foolish things.
Noggindog,
I give up my flame thrower for a shotgun and you fault me for not using a rifle? You wound me my friend but I will forgive you as you must me.
I see you have discovered the vileness of the Grouch. There is an innocence in the others that is missing there.
Psalm 62
Power belongs to God;
so too, Lord, does kindness,
And you render to each of us
according to our deeds
Jimmy, get some help dude.
Spend the money, get some ther-a-pee.
According to James Jones, God renders kindness to us in accordance with our deeds. What world does he live in? The world is filled with people who through no fault of their own suffer immensely. There is no shortage of good and loving people having nature crater their lives. The standard answer is that it is man's fault; in other words, this all loving and all powerful God is helpless to do anything about man, so that it looks like man is the powerful one. But is man responsible for natural disasters? This all loving and all powerful God is also helpless there.; nature, too, is his master.
What Jones has done with his quote is to expose his grotesque hypocrisy. Quoting meaningless biblical passages can be quite pharisaical and unctuous. Jones is a master of that.
God is ineffable. We will never be able to explain the pain and suffering in the world. People like Jones simply don't have the integrity to acknowledge that simple and obvious fact.
Posted by Truth on September 10, 2007 07:32 AMNoggindog,
I asked you a question. You certainly have answered. And, you have proved my point quite well.
Way back, I wrote - on another line - concerning the history of the Puritans in Holland, and on some of that same history here in the early days of the Colony. You disputed my statements; and defended the Puritans' actions, as they are written about in what appears to be something of the equivalent of a "propaganda leaflet", or church flyer type of publication.
George Washington had his Parson Weems, and most other historical figures and events also have their equivalent of that kind of whitewash. I call it, "defense" - just as you call those who disagree with some of your positions, "anti-theists". The word, "defense", is not a meaningless neologism, however; and it does have a place in the dictionary; and a clearly defined meaning. Unlike James Jones, for instance, I do not regard dictionary definitions as "merely semantics"; nor do I feel it necessary to "use (my) imagination to understand" what is supposedly meant by something written.
What I asked you, sir, concerns something that is still taught in Protestantism; and lies deeply rooted in Calvinism, and is not by any means whatsoever, just the idea of "one racist old man" of 50 years ago - actually 60+, and quite prevelant in the WASP religions throughout America at the time; as it has been prevelant since the first white men settled in the Northern part of the Western Hemisphere.
YOU were the one who indicated that, for YOU, Christianity was an "HONEST man's religion". As someone who claims to be a Christian, and a "theologian", then, what is your answer concerning racism as part of YOUR idea of (Protestant) "Christianity"? The answer hardly requires your tempermental - one might even say, hysterical - fulminations.
But, that aside: My point, all along, has been, simply, this: ALL Protestantism is based upon PERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL forms of "make it up as you go along, and invent 'theology' along the way". And, while for you, Christianity as I have presented it, is nothing more that a belief in "superman and santaclaus", it has a Theology, expressed in a succinct form, called the Symbolion - known in the West as, "Creed" - and, its Theology is NOT merely a matter of reaction to social, political, economic, or other problems and situations of human affairs.
I choose to call Protestantism the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$, as that is the form in which it is to be found most prevelantly and predominantly today. You disagree. And you appear to present Protestantism - your own version, whatever that might be - as being something founded in some sort of "superior" way to that of the Christian Church itself.
And, thus, you - and others posting here - become outraged and furious when someone points out to you just how INDIVIDUAL AND PERSONAL - without foundation in anything other than individually egotistical claims to