Choir ban offensive
Banning the gospel choir at the Columbine Memorial dedication is not only offensive but insensitive and displays gross intolerance. Letter writer Milo Ramirez’s only thought is for his own feelings (“Choir at dedication would be offensive,” Aug. 22).
Why are atheists so intolerant? He claims offense. What about his offending those who don’t hold his views? He wants to force his “religion” or lack thereof on the rest of us.
It was not his child or relative who was killed at Columbine. If the choir singing a message of hope is offensive, God help us. Ramirez can put his fingers in his ears, close his eyes and concentrate on his navel if he chooses. Let the choir bring comfort and a message of hope.
Roger A. Faber, Westminster
This is a direct result of longitudinal marxism pervasive on college campuses. Find out who "banned" the choir, remember the names and get after them with a vengeance at every opportunity.
Posted by Ben on August 29, 2007 02:43 AMJust remember it is these so called atheists, and people on the left that claim every thing is a right wing religous conspirocy. It is they who are takeing away the individuals rights and forceing thier will upon others. Thier anti God views are considered p.c. and the only way to think.
Just remember the squeeky wheel gets the greese, even when it doesnt require it.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 04:19 AMwe cant have a chior because it might offend this moron but lets all be very tollerant of the muslims and we will install foot baths at airports and bend over spots for them, all paid for by the government. says a lot doesnt it. If it has anything to do with Christianity its really bad but we have to be very sensitive and pc with muslims and let them have publicly funded foot baths for there religion.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 05:39 AMMaybe it should be up to the parents of the Columbine dead, not you clowns
Posted by Get Real on August 29, 2007 07:11 AMRoger A. Faber asked:
"Why are atheists so intolerant?"
Why do people from Westminster paint with such a broad brush?
Oh, and Roger, when did you stop beating your wife?
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 07:17 AMI personally would not attend a program with gospel music, especially if heaven forbid, I had a child who was a Columbine victim.
Gospel songs have words which will advance a message that will not be welcomed by some. While I don't begrudge people their tastes, I certainly do not want to listen.
On the other hand, I'm certain there will be no lack of speakers advancing other agendas, some of which would have bothered some of the victims.
The lessons I have heard from Columbine range from tolerance of diverse viewpoints to mandatory mental health screening, from banning guns to arming all adults, from the need to believe in a creator to the futility of religion, etcetera etcetera etcetera
What would be good is to briefly eulogize each victim individually. The conflicting summary views can be presented elsewhere so that mourners will not be victimized by speakers with an unwelcome agenda.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on August 29, 2007 08:45 AMYaakov, why do your thoughts, wants and opinions have more weight than anyone elses? It seems that if a family wants to eulogize their child with song they should be allowed to. Instead the rants of individuals like you think it is ok to discriminate against someone because they belive in God. Gospal songs adcance a message of love, peace and hope. These are messages that are not welcomed by you? If you don't want to listen then don't, but don't think that you have the right to keep others from listening. Maybe you should realize that your agenda is not welcomed by all.
Posted by Mickey on August 29, 2007 09:34 AMI wonder just who really gives a damn what program Yaakov and others, would or would not attend, when planning a Memorial for THEIR OWN lost loved ones.
I also wonder why Yaakov, and others, think that their likes, dislikes, and opinions are of any damned importance to the plans of others in the first place.
Columbine's Memorial is Columbine's business. The Columbine Community, past and present, is Memorializing its own.
Yaakov and others can quite well stay home, and go about such business as they have. No one will miss them. And their absence is just about as important as their opinions of what the Memorial "should be"; not worth the waste of time to express them.
Those who cannot respect Columbine's right to its own way of remembering its tragedy, and paying respects to its own lost and their survivors are really pathetic.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 29, 2007 09:38 AMMany atheists are tolerant, its the intolerant ones with whom I have issue. In the posts of RMN, their are many who state their offense. Few religious folks have expressed offense to altheism in these posts. Atheism itself, is a religious perspective with the zeal of faith or belief. How can one question the belief of another? For this country to take an atheist stance is just as wrong as selecting a Christian, Jewish, or Isamic stance. Nuf said, the choir should sing.
Posted by Breeze on August 29, 2007 09:48 AMReligion ruins everything it touches and its followers are mentally ill. You believe in some sky-god that has already mapped out your destiny. Why not believe in Zeus, Thor, Ra, or any other number of gods? They are all as ridiculous as the god of Abraham.
Ban the choir band and get some decor of sanity and good taste to this solemn occasion.
Sean
Besides your personal opinion, what makes your denial of religion, how others should believe and what constitutes "...some decor of sanity and good taste to this solemn occasion..." the only a priori, correct position?
Are you saying that only you embrace the truth and real knowledge and that anyone not in accordance to that intellectual structure is therefore "mentally ill?"
Posted by mongoose on August 29, 2007 10:43 AMSo tell us Sean, what ruined you?
That's right your "Religion" did. The religion of atheists of course is Darwinism and evolution.
Everyday science like microbiology and others have shown that evolution is not a fact or even a theory but a metaphysical notion. Poor confuse and lost soul and not to mention a hypocrite also.
I'm part of Sean's religion. So..we're both mentally ill...or not. I guess we wont know until we're dead. That's the beauty of religion. You never know until your dead.
Posted by JFalwellJr. on August 29, 2007 11:00 AMMongoose:--
Aren't you just standing up for your believes over Sean's? Why are yours right and not his? The question goes both ways.
CA
Posted by on August 29, 2007 12:36 PMLet them sing!! You have nothing to fear from music, be it bluegrass, gospel or heavy metal!!
Posted by Grim Reefer on August 29, 2007 12:47 PMWow,
I can't believe we are so rediculious now that people want to ban a gospel chior from an event. Who cares? Music rather religous or not is music. Lyrics being gospel or otherwise have different meaning to different people. Religous music effects some more deeply than others. I'm not religous but if you don't like it wait a while and it will be over. So what!!!!
Posted by Mike D. on August 29, 2007 12:53 PMThere's a saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
Is it really so hard for an atheist to sit still and take in the unique rhythms and sounds of gospel music? Travelers understand that when you visit another country, the opportunity to take part in alien customs is part of the fun. That doesn't mean you have to beleive everything you hear. Regardless of whether or not you are a Christian, gospel music is a unique American art form that is appropriate when remembering the life of an African-American.
Posted by karen on August 29, 2007 01:04 PMCA
Since my beliefs were not provided in any manner as either contrary, or agreeing to Sean's, I'm not in the position of having to defend my beliefs regardless of what they may be.
Nor was I challenging Sean's beliefs as to their validity or legitimacy as I am of the opinion that an individual's belief structure is their own.
My challenge is for him to provide justification that his beliefs are in fact the only ones that can be held as true and absolute, and all others are false and without merit. And therefore, his beliefs should prevail and be adhered to in all situations in place of anybody else's beliefs.
Just because he labeled beliefs other than his own as being ridiculous and only held by the mentally ill does not validate his assertion. It just exemplifies a false arrogance that can be observed on both sides of the augments regarding the existence of a supreme being.
Posted by mongoose on August 29, 2007 01:16 PMThere are literally libraries, museums, labs, universities, etc. that are full of proof that evolution did occur, the Earth is billions of years old and that many of the 'miracles' that took place in the Bible ,and other religious texts, are impossible.
Your blind faith leads you to cherry pick what is canon in the Bible and what is myth.
Most sane people believe that the Earth was not created in six days, that Adam and Eve were not the first humans and the world is a lot older than six thousand years. Yet these same people take it as gospel that Jesus is the son of God and came back from the dead; not to mention that Jesus died because we sinned.
Either the whole Bible is true or none of it is true. If even one of the miracles that took place turns out not to be true, and they all are untrue, then the entire credibility of the Bible collapses.
Talk about lack of credibility. Sean spouts more personal believes and assumes everybody who disagrees with him to be wrong. It still doesn't give you the right to dictate wha others believe or want to do in memorial. Your just a arrogant bully
Posted by on August 29, 2007 02:58 PMDarwinism validates evolution within a species. It does not validate evolution from one species to another. Unless, of course, Sean has the so called missing link in his hip pocket. If so, many scientists have been looking for that critter for many a year; cut them some slack and introduce them will you?
Thank you from skeptical of both absolutes.
Posted by on August 29, 2007 03:04 PMThe difference between atheism and religion is that the first is rational while the second is not. It is not rational to believe something without evidence. If there is a god, where is the slightest bit of evidence that this is so? If there is a god and he gave us reason, why would he not expect us to use it? I have never seen a miracle, I don't know of a single person who has, so why would I believe in such things without evidence?
Posted by Romulus on August 29, 2007 03:07 PMSean
You mean like the Piltdown man fraud and all the others perpetrated since the this lie was dreamt up by Darwin in the 1840's and also has been called the age of atheism. A fairly new phenomonen in the entire history of man.
Check out www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
Of course your atheist libraries, labs, museums and Godless Univerities are filled with this pseudo science junk "Pound the Square Peg into the Round Hole" until it fits our agenda. The same is done by frustrated kids with a puzzle piece that does'nt fit.
It's laughable if you think about the comparision. On day in the near future evolution will just be a footnote in all the Encyclopedias around the world.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evolution was an extraordinary claim when it was first proposed, however, Darwin also presented extraordinary evidence to back it up. Now there is even more extraordinary evidence that supports evolution mainly DNA. The events that are supposed to have taken place in the Bible are extraordinary, but not only do they lack extraordinary evidence, they lack evidence period.
God did not create humans, humans created God, in fact they have created many gods, semi-gods, imps, devils and spirits throughout the ages.
Hey Hogwash, don't forget godless hospitals. Next time you get sick, just rely on prayer to heal you. Chemotherapy?, just another godless belief.
Religion is perpetuated by hypocrisy. Otherwise, the true believers would be dead by leaving all illness to be treated by their all powerful god. Belief is expedient when you need an oncologist, isn't it?
Posted by JFalwellJr on August 29, 2007 03:44 PMRomulus said:
"The difference between atheism and religion is that the first is rational while the second is not. It is not rational to believe something without evidence. If there is a god, where is the slightest bit of evidence that this is so?"
You want evidence? Look in the mirror. Or look around. How much more evidence do you need?
Posted by John II on August 29, 2007 04:06 PMHogwash,
I agree that nobody should dictate the contents of a private ceremony besides the individuals who are organizing it.
That said, your link to the www.nwcreation.net site is so absurd as to make one wonder how ignorant you must be to pass it on. You obviously don't know a thing about biology.
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 04:10 PMCharlie B
I don't blame you for being afraid of the truth.
I thought your type was open minded but of course that's what is absurd! Typical for atheists and evolutionists. Validates all I wrote.
Thank You Charlie!
Neither side of the "God issue" has empirical evidence to totally validate their position. Any attempt at empirical validation requires shaping that evidence to fit a theory of and for validation. A discipline within philosophy (metaphysics) has been arguing this point for centuries without reaching a clearcut answer -- only assertions.
I guess my reason for raising the question as to who holds the one and only absolute truth is so that you can see how your own beliefs are formed and held - subjectively, whether arrived at individually or collectively. Both sides of the argument as to the existence of a, or many "God/s" is subjective regardless of the intellectual arguments you incorporate in your position of advocation.
Many people have been slaughtered in the name of religion. The Crusades are a good example of two religions clashing for their own reasons and beliefs. But, many have been slaughtered in the simple ascension to, and holding on to power. Stalin or Genghis Kahn could be used as examples in this case. Neither case should be used exclusively in argument for or against religion.
The most objective positions I've seen in this entire thread have been to let the people organizing the memorial service include or exclude what they want. Those who are not in agreement with a selected component have no more right than the others to have their own belief system prevail. All inclusion or exclusion is based on personal subjectivity, not absolute empirical fact. Perhaps a little tolerance and respect should be considered before forcing one's belief on another.
Posted by mongoose on August 29, 2007 04:33 PMI guess the pc thing to do is have the choir hum.
Posted by A on August 29, 2007 04:45 PMMongoose claimed:
"Neither side of the "God issue" has empirical evidence to totally validate their position."
Only one side needs evidence. The side claiming that there is a God.
Shall I post Russell's teapot analogy again?
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 06:05 PM
Hogwash said with ineffective sarcasm:
"I don't blame you for being afraid of the truth. I thought your type was open minded but of course that's what is absurd! Typical for atheists and evolutionists. Validates all I wrote."
Yeah, right. You have an open mind..like a sieve.
Here's a tip. Read more than one source for your information and always read both sides before engaging in an argument about subjects where your ignorance is profound.
Here's a couple refutations of the Nebraska Man "fraud" that your link purports.
Nebraska Man:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
and:
www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm
Regarding Java Man:
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
Regarding Neanderthals being humans with bad posture:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html
If you need to be taken to school regarding the other ridiculous claims in the link, let me know. I'd be happy to provide you more reading material.
You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about, but rather are grasping at straws to "prove" something you already "know".
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 06:41 PMJohn II said:
"You want evidence? (that God exists) Look in the mirror. Or look around. How much more evidence do you need?"
Wow, and here I expected more from you. Do you even know the definition of "evidence"?
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 06:44 PMCharles B
The teapot analogy is an excellent argument. But it's not final as the finite has no boundaries, especially in a metaphysical argument such as this. Theologians have a similar argument that isn't conclusive either. It goes something like this:
If an all powerful, all seeing God does exist and, is in fact omnipresent and can do anything He wants, can He create a mass so large and heavy that He can't lift it if He can find where He hid it from Himself?
Metaphysical exercises are challenging and fun. But in and by themselves they can't prove that which is empirical; they can only provide an approximation of probability, not finality.
Analogies, while demonstrative, are still a partial similarity or resemblance in function between two distinct organs; not to be considered "as goes one, thus goes the other."
Again, it comes down to an individual's personal acceptance or rejection of the basic tenants available one sorts through in building their own belief structure.
Posted by mongoose on August 29, 2007 06:57 PMhello atheist hating Christians, Muslims, Jews and any other religions who think all atheist are lefty libs and religion hating people, F^@k off, i am an atheist, i am a conservative, i don't really care what other people have as a religion, as long as you don't call me a sinner b4 you call yourself a sinner like most of the Hippocrates out there do, i have no opinion in the gospel issue , i actually like some gospel music cause i listen to the music no the words, it is the origination of the blues, and i am a blues musician
also how do you know it was an atheist who did not want the gospel sang there , it could have been another denomination of Christianity or another faith, that does not like gospel music
and also just because i don't believe in a god or higher power doesn't mean you have to force me to, i really don't care what people believe in, that is whats great about this country we have freedoms to what we wish to believe in or not to believe in, i prefer science it is not a religion or a faith based initiative , it is based on scientific evidence of facts, theories and hypothesis , not a guy who said he talked to go and every one should believe this one guy,
there have been many people in the world who have deemed a messiah in the history of people , mankind, for thousands of years, there were people before Jesus and after, David Koresh
is one of them , people have been on the planet for tens of thousands of years not 6 thousand like alot of the fundaMENTAList believe , you know there are other history books full of facts and un-contradictories unlike the bible , a book that has changed translations several times over the course of history, and another thing Christianity was not established until 800 years after the death of Jesus
one more thing that really bothers me , all the religions out there are feeling picked on and excluded from the rest of the united states, all feeling persecuted and hated, i got news for you , the 1 % of atheist out there making the other 99 % of the country feel persecuted, come on grow up read a real book learn science use your own mind and think freely , dont let others tell you what you can and cannot think
your local CONSERVATIVE Atheist
Hoimaha
Now friends,
I am sure that everyone here on this blog wants to further the wonderful work that our Brother Hogwash is doing, in presenting the truths of righteousness to all the mizerable sinners who do not understand; and have not yet bowed down before, the wrath of God.
To aid our good Brother Hogwash in his efforts, I recommend you all visit that wonderful Christian super-website that is sponsored by Landover Baptist Church, the home of True Christians (Trade Mark Registered).
There is a truly wonderful aritcle on the web page today, about how to take back the schools from all that nasty, evil, secular thought; and re-afirming the simple truth that the Bible - in English, 1611 KJV version only, which is the only language God speaks to the True Christians (Trade Mark Registered) - and I am certain everyone here would profit from reading it.
Unfortunately, my poor old machine doesn't make hyperlinks. But each of you equipped with modern devices can provide all that computereze, like http:, slash marks, and www. for:
Landoverbaptist.org. Where you will find Brother Hogwash's inspiration, and validation, to the delight of your souls.
Do visit Brother Hogwash's foundation today.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 29, 2007 07:13 PMI am so sorry.
In my enthusiasm for presenting Brother Hogwash's inspired message, and the relevant site for even more of his message, I didn't finish the sentence concerning the "Bible in English is the only book anyone needs to read." With of course, the instruction that it must be the KJV, etc., etc., as Bother Hogwash's fellow leader, Pastor Deacon Fred reminds us, since English is the only language True Christians (Trade Mark Registered) uderstand.
Please forgive my ommission.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 29, 2007 07:22 PMHere you go Ol Grouch, per your request:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
The title claims "America's Favorite Church" -- again, based on someone's belief structure....
Posted by mongoose on August 29, 2007 07:24 PMMongoose said:
"The teapot analogy is an excellent argument. But it's not final as the finite has no boundaries, especially in a metaphysical argument such as this. Theologians have a similar argument that isn't conclusive either. It goes something like this:"
I have news for you. The finite does have boundaries. That's what makes it finite.
By making the assertion that "A" exists, a person is assuming the burden of proof.
Lacking evidence that "A" exists, the default position that logic requires is that it doesn't.
That is why the Teapot analogy is germane, and the following is not:
"If an all powerful, all seeing God does exist and, is in fact omnipresent and can do anything He wants, can He create a mass so large and heavy that He can't lift it if He can find where He hid it from Himself?"
The "if" in the above recipe for mental masturbation is the "Teapot" in Russell's analogy.
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 07:32 PMCharles B
Germaine yes, definitive, no. Define the extreme outer or inner boundary of finite. Give me a truly 100% provable example of the end of finite. Is an inch finite outside of it's definition? If it's impossible to measure a perfect inch every time attempted with perfect uniformity and accuracy it is not finite; nor is it's definition.
The "if" in the theologian's "recipe for mental masturbation" is expressed as "suggest"... "provided I were"..."But if I were"...etc. These are all qualifiers utilized to support the theoretical premise. Without them the premise would dissolve. Remember, within every thesis resides it's antithesis.
Charles, please don't assume that I'm challenging your beliefs. They are yours, and founded on your exploration of available facts, fictions and suppositions, selecting the ones for inclusion that fit your intellectual comfort zone. I'm just saying that is how all people, to one extent or another, arrive at their beliefs without rational prejudice to the beliefs of others. With the arguments you've used it's apparent that you have done a lot of personal study to arrive at your beliefs. I also sense that you are continually looking to reinforce that belief through whatever knowledge or supporting arguments you can find. That's how all belief structures should be built...one brick a time ad infinitum.
Posted by mongoose on August 29, 2007 08:17 PMApologize again. I left the end of a sentence off in my rush to type.
"The "if" in the theologian's "recipe for mental masturbation" is expressed as "suggest"... "provided I were"..."But if I were"...etc. SHOULD CONT> in the teapot analogy.
Posted by mongoose on August 29, 2007 08:19 PM"I shall pass through this world but once. Any good therefore that I can do or any kindness that I can show to any human being, let me do it now. Let me not defer or neglect it, for I may not pass this way again."
Posted by on August 29, 2007 10:47 PMMongoose you said:
"The "if" in the theologian's "recipe for mental masturbation" is expressed as "suggest"... "provided I were"..."But if I were"...etc. These are all qualifiers utilized to support the theoretical premise. Without them the premise would dissolve."
Without evidence as to the validity of the qualifier(s) in the theoretical premise underlying the "masturbatory" exercise you outlined, the whole thing seems superfluous.
I simply don't see the value of spending time evaluating highly improbable hypotheticals.
But this is a bit of a tangent innit?
Posted by Charles B on August 29, 2007 11:18 PMHogwash, and just who showed that Piltdown man was a fraud, church people? No it was scientists who finally figured out how he was made.
Science is self correcting, religion isn`t.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 30, 2007 01:04 AMMongoose & Charles B,
BRAVO! Gentlemen, BRAVO!
For once, a philosophical/religious discussion appears on the blog, between two parties who not only know, but also know how to use, Logic; and who have gone beyond the "Baltimore Catechism Number One" - generally used for preparation of 7 year olds for First Communion - level in the area of religion as well.
Seriously, after months of suffering through the flatulence of James Jones, and that ilk, I am both amazed and refreshingly pleased to find an INTELLIGENT discussion
in those areas on the blog.
I will admit that Russel is not among my favorites; my personal preference running more to Alfred North Whitehead, when it comes to those usually designated as "modern". But, again, it is a refreshing pleasure to read well reasoned judgment and discussion; especially where the usual presentation rarely rises above the level of a "Proof-Text" from a mythology book.
Again, Gentlemen, BRAVO!
And, thank you for your presentations. "Tangent" or not, they stand out, and are well worth the effort.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 30, 2007 07:55 AMOld Grouch, do you ever stand up for religion? You've claimed numerous times that you are a Christian. But, you seem to hate religion with the same zeal as the atheists. Why is that?
Posted by John II on August 30, 2007 09:43 AMJohn 2,
Your imagination seems to be working overtime today. Is that because you are trying to get "in tune" with . . . Jones, maybe?
In fact, I get a great deal of fun out of "religion". And I certainly don't hate something that amuses me no end. Indeed the "religious" postings here are, far and away, what makes the forum fun, and provide the most hearty belly laughs of a morning - or whenever they show up.
In fact, Johnny, my posting here does stand up for what you seem to be calling "religion". I heartily praise a well reasoned, mature/adult discussion of the subject. Just as I often jeer at the kind of thing that seems to be the "religious" way of insisting that the world functions - or even really IS, in the sense of ding an zich - exactly as presented in a mythology book, or in a child's manual.
A wise man once said: "Christianity is a THINKING MAN'S religion." (And, of course, he was NOT excluding other belief systems at the time.)
If you believe that . . . oh, say someone such as Pat Robertson, for instance . . . has a direct line to the Almighty, upon which he receives "God's instructions", and "God's promises of what's going to happen" - as well as "God's assignment of blame for disasters, such as tolerance of Gay people", for instance: O. K. Well and good. That's your "religion". (The "you" always being generic.)
I answer, simply: Man talks to God regularly. It's called, Prayer. And, for the most part, it seems to be beneficial for those who do it. However, when God starts talking back, it's time to call in the Psychiatrist.
And, that's more or less the example of what I present in reply, when "religion" of that kind presents itself.
Of course, Johnny, you are always entitled to present your "religion" your way. Just as is everyone else.
And, conversely, I am equally entitled to respond to your presentation my way. Again, just as is everyone else.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 30, 2007 10:18 AMjohn II, why do say all atheist hate religion, i am an atheist, religion doesn't bother me as much as the people that try and shove it down my throat , i have my thoughts , y'all have your beliefs , i respect that
you not being very Christian like judging others before yourself , thats all i am saying , i am a conservative moderate free thinker who studies all sciences and philosophies but keep them as separate issues you cannot mix the two , thats what causes forums like this.
i respect your choice to believe in what you want, it is your American right, as it is mine to not believe in your religion
Posted by Hoimaha on August 30, 2007 05:45 PMI am an agnostic, a cowardly atheist, which means I am an atheist in the closet. Prayers before and especially after the tragedy whether they be upfront, intercessory, or imprecatory which Christians, Jews, and Muslims are fond of since it urges God's vengeance unto the believer's enemies and these idiots do all the time: Pat Robertson, the late Falwell, Dobson, Graham, Bush (who operates a chapel in the White House) and their ilky a-holes.
Candle light vigils thank God for the good that occurs but never the bad that occurs. I despise this type of notoriety. In America, such vigils seek respite from grief through prostration before a Jew (from the loins of David) or instance when God implants a penis on Ghost with his semen inside and sends him to earth to impregnate a 13-year-old Jewish girl whose offspring will save the House of Israel (Jews) and the world’s greatest double-cross occurs and the offspring saves the Gentiles.
When my daughter died, they held a candle-light vigil. I simply held the puke inside of me and held my nose and participated by my appearance in the same manner as when they utter the pledge of allegiance with its "under god" insert about 1950 turning it into a prayer.
For Devil's sake, another fiction, we are a nation under the Constitution; Iran, Iraq , et al are nations under God. Participate in your cave-man ritual and if compelled to be there, I’ll endure in silence. “A million years of evolution had its way so we can blame it on our parent’s DNA,” says the song I sing in E-flat.
Let them have their bearded monsters in the sky; just don't compel me to embrace them. I have a Right to be free of and from religion, and keep your imprecatory prayer to yourself which gives substance to the notion that "Nothing fails like prayer." Richard Grimes lacking courage to come out of the closet. I admire Watkins and Milo unafraid to endure the brick-bats Christians will toss. “Onward Christian soldiers marching off to war.”
All my life I have had to endure memorial services that were heavy handed Christian propaganda.
Lets start a new trend of talking about the deceased without a single mention of God.
The families that worship can do it in their homes, in their heads and all their lives.
I love the humming choir suggestion. Best post on here A.
When I`m gone I want a Viking funeral and let all my friends indulge in legal and illegal substances in my memory.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 31, 2007 12:06 PM