In Matters Of Church And State, We May All Have Too Much Time To Argue

0 Shares
146003001

Too often, it becomes painfully obvious that we Americans burden the legacies of the men who founded our Nation with powers of knowledge and reason unattainable as a result of the forever-present fickleness of the human condition.

In arguments of modern political and social import, we harken back to the simply worded — and, therefore, easily victimized by agenda-driven interpretation — Bill of Rights. We argue over whether the Nation’s Constitution is one of concrete command or an always-beating heart, swayable by the demands of modernity. And we rely on interpretation of the country’s supreme law by a group of noble judges who are granted full-faith public trust — even if their decisions are still subject to disagreement.

This is a system that, by the wisdom of the Founders, has kept this great Nation unified — if only by a thread at times — through innumerable disagreements of public sensibility.

A battle being waged between the majority population and an outsider-aided minority group in the modest town of Cullman, Ala., seated in the Nation’s Bible Belt, exemplifies the very type of disagreement that — despite endless debate, historical study and emotional outburst — will never be publicly settled. It involves that pesky tendency of Americans, for faith or due to the lack thereof, to argue over the properness of interchanging the prepositions “of” and “from” in using abbreviated language to narrate the portion of the Nation’s 1st Amendment regarding matters of religion.

This happens despite the fact that the portion of the Amendment addressing religious matters reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” And it really should leave no room for the irreverence of truncation that allows us to quarrel over the fair use of “freedom of” or “freedom from” religion. But it seems that public disagreement is a characteristic of the American condition more ingrained than even faith and freedom, and no one ever seems to attempt to argue in favor of substituting “from” for “of” in the phrase “freedom of speech.” So on goes the debate.

In Cullman, Billy Coleman, the elected superintendent of the county’s school system, recently posted announcements to a system-controlled Facebook account and calendar announcing a Saturday event giving students, faculty and the community to opportunity to voluntarily gather on county school campuses for prayer to kick off the school year.

Because Coleman was obviously acting in his official capacity as a school official in posting the event (otherwise he would have not had access to the system), it’s easily arguable that he violated Department of Education guidelines that resulted from Supreme Court rulings and that prohibit school officials from promoting prayer.

That Cullman is a heavily religious community and that participation in the event is voluntary and scheduled to take place outside of regular school hours were of no consequence to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). Despite being headquartered hundreds of miles away in Wisconsin, the organization caught wind of Coleman’s actions and promptly sent him a cease and desist letter demanding that he cancel the event it labeled an “especially egregious violation” of the separation of church and state.

But Coleman was certainly not interested in backing down, even facing a lawsuit from the group.

“We’re not going to cancel it. We’re not praying for our schools to make a point. We’re praying for our schools because we want to thank God for the blessings he gives us, and pray for our students and communities,” he told The Cullman Times. “I think the problem is they assume our school system is sponsoring it, and it is not. It’s called the Cullman County Schools Prayer Caravan because it goes to all the county schools. We just want to give folks the voluntary opportunity to come out and pray on a Saturday.”

In a bid to appease the group, the superintendent promptly removed the announcements posted online; and the local board of education issued a resolution officially denying any system involvement in its organization.

But the Freedom From Religion Foundation remained unsatisfied. In an interview with Personal Liberty, FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel explained why.

“Coleman was acting as a school official when he posted the announcements of the prayer meeting,” Seidel claimed. “And simply removing the announcements isn’t enough to fix the problem; canceling the event in his official capacity is the only way to cure it.”

Seidel explained that his group’s mission is to act as an advocate for Americans who consider themselves non-theists or secularists and to uphold the Constitutional separation of church and state. The attorney said that FFRC didn’t go looking for a fight with the Cullman County system, but was contacted by members of the local community who complained of the event and other — unverifiable by nature — religious intrusions in that public school system.

“We’ve had reports of prayers over intercom in schools in the district, religious speeches and other complaints,” Seidel said.

When asked for a specific number of complaints, the attorney said more than 10.

Seidel went on to explain that while those who complain about religious activity in schools may be a minority in Cullman, his organization doesn’t consider majority opinion a justification for abuses of the Constitution. What’s worse, he said, is that those people in the minority are sometimes subjected to death threats and attacks from angry religious believers. He backed his assertion citing the story of Jessica Ahlquist, a 16-year-old Rhode Island student who led a charge — and eventually successfully sued — to have a prayer banner removed from her public school auditorium. She was eventually subjected to such abuse from her peers and other community members, Seidel said, that she required a police escort at school.

Despite its protest, Seidel said his organization is under no illusion that Coleman will back down. And FFRC is prepared to sue the school system, confident that legal precedent is on its side.

Asked whether it seemed at all irrational to fight an uphill battle in the name of secularism in a very religious community, Seidel said simply, “They may have God on their side, but we have the Constitution on ours.”

Coleman and his legal advisers have made numerous statements to local media regarding the issue, and they appear comfortably certain that they have taken the correct steps to remedy any Constitutional or legal issues stemming from the event.

Taking a day of leave to speak freely, the superintendent delivered an impassioned speech this week, complete with an attempt to answer the question of where our Nation’s Founders would fall on the issue.

The conclusion of Coleman’s speech was recorded by The Cullman Times as follows:

There has been a lot of debate on what was inside the heads of our founding fathers when this country was established. Why did they write what they wrote? What was the meaning of the First Amendment and public free exercise of religious belief? There is a host of documentation as to their original intent, including that found in the 1789 Northwest Ordinance, adopted after the First Amendment was ratified: ‘Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.’ Thus, we know that the first public schools were established to teach children how to read the Bible and the New England Primer, which was one of the first textbooks in America and certainly made reference to the Bible. Now we have come to this, an activist organization located halfway across the country attempting to eliminate private expressions of faith and worship by public school officials and employees acting on their private time and in their private capacity as citizens of Cullman County. We strongly feel this goes well beyond what even modern Supreme Court decisions require, regarding the scope of the First Amendment.

In conclusion, I want to thank all those who have offered so much support for our Prayer Caravan and for the citizens of Cullman County’s decision to take a stand. I would like to finally close with the first and last lines of the first prayer given at the Continental Congress on September 7, 1774.

‘O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings,

and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the

dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and

uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee form the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee…

All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen’

God bless you all, and God bless America.

Of course, it’s no surprise that Seidel interprets the Founders’ proposed relationship between religion and public institutions in the United States a little differently.

He prefers quotes attributed to James Madison, such as that which was written in a letter to Edward Livingston: “Religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

And Seidel described Thomas Jefferson’s infamous taking of a razor to the Bible to remove supernatural anecdotes from its moral message as a wonderful and telling act that gives insight to the Founder’s religious mindset.

While we probably shouldn’t expect Seidel and Coleman to sit down over a cup of coffee and come to an agreement about the threshold of separation of church and state violations anytime soon, they certainly offer a valuable lesson to the rest of us. We’ll never know exactly how the men who founded the Nation expected its modern citizens to exercise the freedoms they sought to guarantee, nor will we know exactly where they sought to limit the power of government in every scenario.

But it seems pretty plausible that if Jefferson and Madison were here today and they suffered the opportunity to read an account of the argument Coleman and Seidel are having, they’d shake their heads in disapproval, knowing that this is how some Americans now spend the spare time not constrained by the sort of hardships the founding generations faced.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • WTS/JAY

    Groomed by the Muslim Brotherhood—is Obama the Muslim nation’s new caliph? Try to remove him and see “jihad” as never imagined before!

    Obama is galvanizing (uniting) the Muslim nation.

    The Muslim Brotherhood is primarily Sunni, one of the two major sects of Islam and which the majority of Muslims are, including all in Indonesia where Obama was in his most formative years raised by his Muslim stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, and where his name was Barry Soetoro, not Barack Obama. And now he is aiding the Muslim Brotherhood with American tax-dollars and weapons to overthrow the Shia sect in Syria. The Shia Muslims in Syria were until recently aided by the mullahcracy in Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, both are Shia Muslims. But don’t misunderstand, the violent conflict between Sunni and Shia sects (seen in Iraq and Syria today) has always been temporary, i.e., until a new caliph is chosen.

    NOTE: Mohammad gave no directions as to the choosing of his successor. There were two customary means of selecting a leader — having a hereditary leader, or choosing someone when OPPORTUNITIES for action arise, i.e., opportunities to conquer (dominate) the world in accordance with the Qur’an.

    So now We the People of the United States of America have a Sunni Muslim in our White House aiding, comforting and uniting Islamic powers into a caliphate while most American Citizens are truly struggling financially. Many of us don’t even have a bank account any longer and are dependent on food stamps.

    If you do not know that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is a Muslim, then you do not know what Islam is, (i.e., you do not know what the Quran instructs), and have not acknowledged the facts.

    Obama wrote in his book, “The person who made me proudest of all though was Roy, he converted to Islam.” A Christian would NEVER say that! Roy is Barack Obama’s brother and after “he converted to Islam” he changed his name to “Abongo“. What we must acknowledge here is that Obama’s mother married a second Muslim, Lolo Soetoro, who adopted her son in Indonesia and his name was Barry Soetoro. “Barry” is not a Muslim name and after leaving Indonesia he changed his name to “Barack,” an Arabic Muslim name. Also Barack wrote in his book, “Lolo followed a brand of Islam… I looked to Lolo for guidance.” What we must acknowledge is that Barry’s stepfather, Lolo, and mother enrolled him in two separate Indonesian schools as a Muslim. They could have circled Catholic, Christian, Buddhism, Hindu, but they circled Islam. And in a third quote from Obama’s book he says, “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Instead of saying he is on the side of America, or of Western civilization, or on the side of the Jews and the Christians who are the victims of Islamic terrorism instructed by the Quran and hadith, he is going to stand with the Muslims. And we see him doing this daily: He has been aiding and comforting the Muslims on every issue and at every step of the way.

    March 2009: Obama declares the “war on terror” is over, despite a dramatic increase in jihad war ops.

    March 2009: floats idea he will talk to violent genocidal Hamas.

    March 2009: he demands that more Muslim Americans work in the Obama administration and insists that they be recruited.

    April 2009: Obama tells Europe to admit Islamic Turkey into the European Union, much to the consternation of the Europeans.

    April 2009: Obama demands that non-Muslims respect Islam (despite our differences) in a speech in Turkey.

    April 2009: Obama says in Turkey, “We are not a Christian nation.”

    April 2009: Dalia Mogahed, the first hijab-clad senior adviser to Obama on Muslim affairs, says in an interview with terrorist-and on jihad-supporting Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi’s website, “Many have claimed terrorists have ‘hijacked Islam.’ I disagree. I think Islam is safe and thriving in the lives of Muslims around the world. What terrorists have been allowed to take over are Muslim grievances.”

    April 2009: Obama lays groundwork for a partnership with Hamas.

    May 2009: Obama promises “personal commitment” to Muslims.

    May 2009: Obama calls America “one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet.”

    June 2009: Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood, a violent global jihadist group whose sole objective is a universal caliphate, to his speech to the ummah (Muslim community) in Cairo.

    June 2009: Obama makes a stunning speech to the Muslim world from Al Azhar University in Cairo. It defies explanation.

    July 2009: Obama reaches out to the violent jihadists of Hezbollah.

    July 2009: Obama’s new office at the State Department, Outreach to the Worldwide Muslim community, reporting to Hillary Clinton.

    July 2009: The State Department Welcomes Hamas mouthpiece Al-Quds TV to D.C. to film Propaganda.

    Obama promises to close GITMO.

    Obama is rebuked when plans are revealed for CIA prosecutions for 911 interrogations: Seven Ex-chiefs of CIA Oppose Case Review: ALL Sign letter to Stop CIA Persecutions.

    July 2009: Obama sanctions the brutal crackdown on those marching for freedom in Iran and sides with the mullahcracy. He is silent about the regime’s mass executions, mass rape, and murder.

    July 2009: Obama plans to slash the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

    September 2009: Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton on Obama at the U.N.: “This is the most radical anti-Israel speech I can recall any president making…I have to say I was very shaken by this speech.”

    October 2009: Obama offers millions in Muslim technology fund.

    November 2009: Fort Hood Jihad Coverup: Obama Urges Congress To Put Off Fort Hood Probe, Warns Against Turning Tragedy Into “Political Theater”

    November 2009: Obama offers the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar, and Nuristan provinces, in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

    November 2009: Obama reaches out to jihadis in the Philippines.

    On Thanksgiving eve: Obama issues a special Hajj message to the world’s Muslims.

    December 2009: Obama’s “Non-Religious” White House Christmas and No Christmas Gifts for his Kids.

    February 2010: Obama names a Hafiz to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. “And as a hafiz of the Koran, [Hussain] is a respected member of the American Muslim community,” Obama said in his message to the Doha meeting, using the Arabic world for someone who has memorized the Islamic holy book.

    February 2010: Obama cuts U.S. space program, orders NASA to work with Muslim countries

    February 2010: Covering up for jihadists in the White House.

    Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, Involved in Obama Passport Breach

    March 2010: Obama Obsession with Islam: Calls “entrepreneurship summit” with Muslims.

    April 2010: Libyan President Gaddafi Praises Obama: “Barakeh Obama is friend”; “He is of Muslim descent, his policy should be supported…”

    May 2010: Obama’s Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad “Legitimate Tenet of Islam.”

    May 2010: White House Pro-Terrorism John Brennan Speechifies in Arabic, Equates Terrorists with Shoplifters, Lawmakers Call for his Firing.

    June 2010: Obama equivocates on the jihad warship convoy (affectionately named a “flotilla” by the media): Obama “Expressed a Deep Regret Over Loss of [Jihadist] Life”

    June 2010: Obama to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at U.N.

    And that’s just up to 2010, and he has not changed course since then. And while he did approve of the killings of bin Laden and al-Awlaki (Islam permits killing fellow Muslims to spread Islam as the dominant power) Obama has never said anything negative about the advance of Sharia, including in the United States.

    In 2008 a poll found that 1 out of 10 Americans believed Obama to be a Muslim. In 2012, four years later, a poll found 1 out of 6 believed Obama to be a Muslim, and these figures are rising. That’s because Americans are beginning to see and acknowledge that the Quran instructs Muslims to lie to unbelievers.

    Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey considers Turkey to be the head of the Sunni sect and is part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    NOTE: The last caliph was in the Ottoman Empire (in Turkey). For this reasonObama needs Erdogan who is also a member of the Brotherhood headquartered in Egypt, financed by Saudis, trying to destroy Israel, and dominate the world.

    much more here: https://ofthehighest.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/groomed-by-the-muslim-brotherhood-is-barack-obama-the-muslim-nations-new-caliph-try-to-remove-him-and-see-jihad-as-never-imagined-before/

  • Alex

    Go to church—you are free to discuss your fables and your myths and your visions and your superstitions THERE. School is for ED-U-CA-TION, not for playing Fairyland.

    I believe in a God (or some Gods), but there is precious little EVIDENCE to back my belief. I cannot expect to run through my views in the setting of PUBLIC education. Unless one attends a religious school, time is to be spent on fact-based learning, and not superstitious beliefs handed down by people who have no more rational idea of God and what She wants than any other person.

    Faith is based in large part on fear and hope. American “Christians” FEAR God and each other, and at the same time HOPE for a denial of the gravity of death through the attainment of a POSSIBLE Afterlife.

    Do your church stuff in CHURCH, and not in the public schools which are open to ALL. Anyone with a brain knows that a “voluntary” prayer group sets the ground for the type of “us versus them” mindset so typical of Religion-baiters. It forces non-believers and believers in variant faiths to feel different and unwelcome. And that is decidedly unAmerikan…

    • Vigilant

      “Do your church stuff in CHURCH, and not in the public schools which are open to ALL.”

      That’s called an authoritarian edict, and by definition it’s unconstitutional. What part of the First Amendment restricts religious observances to churches only?

      You have a right to your religious opinions, you DO NOT have a right to dictate terms to those who know how to read the Constitution.

      • Robbie

        So not just in churches. You can do your religious stuff at home, in your backyard, in your RV, or in the mall parking lot. Just not in a publically funded institution like a school. Just as Alex said.

        • Vigilant

          Wrong again. I can do my “religious stuff” wherever and whenever I choose. What part of “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof” do you have a problem with?

          And when did you decide to revise the Constitution to prohibit the right to peaceful assembly?

          • Robbie

            There are plenty of places and times for religious people to do their thing. Why do you have to be so “in your face” about this religious crap? It’s mostly dumb and it’s mostly disgusting and hateful. Keep it to yourself and keep it out of our PUBLIC schools. How would you like Muslims to start demanding prayer time in PS101? I bet you’d be kind of upset about that no?

          • Vigilant

            No.

            If the meeting is voluntary and peaceful and does not interfere with school classes, they have a perfect right. It appears YOU are the one who would deny it to them.

            “It’s mostly dumb and it’s mostly disgusting and hateful.”
            And you have as much right to that view as do the people who wish to voluntarily congregate for prayer. If atheists wish to peaceably assemble to protest the prayer meeting, they are free to do so.

          • Robbie

            I suggest that folks who think they are Christians follow what their founder (Jesus) had to say. He said to pray in private – not in public as the heavens do.

          • WTS/JAY

            And i suggest you mind your own business and get a life! (-:

          • RL

            Robbie-just when exactly is the right time and place to pray and worship God and Jesus? The answer is ANYTIME! And why are you so ‘in your face’ with your lack of belief? I don’t appreciate an atheist saying when it’s ok to pray and celebrate God. The attitudes in public schools have become hateful and disgusting since prayer was eliminated from them. I see nothing wrong with a voluntary gathering to celebrate God and Jesus on the true sabbeth. This gathering is not school related and just because the person organizing the event WORKS for the school system doesn’t make the event school related.

          • Robbie

            You claim to be a Christian so why not do as Jesus said – pray in PRIVATE – not in public AS THE HEATHENS DO.

          • RL

            You’re an extremely hostile individual. What is wrong with me or anyone saying a silent prayer? And even if I say it out loud and someone doesn’t like it, perhaps that person should not be eavesdropping. I don’t push religion so why should you push your non-religion? And I doubt heathens pray in public or private. Religion is a manmade thing. Not much for that. However, even if you don’t believe,
            I will say a SILENT prayer for you. Gob bless.

          • Robbie

            You are simply supporting what Jesus requested and which I pointed out. A silent prayer done in private is fine. It was also Jesus who chided those who want to pray in a group in PUBLIC. He called them heathens. I happen to agree with that but it was Jesus who said it. So if you or the other poster wants to take issue with it don’t complain to me.

          • Ponderosadon

            Robbie apparently you are unaware that Islam is already being taught in the public schools and in fact is included in as a whole chapter in one textbook in Florida. Regular leave and places prepared in some schools for Muslim students to pray, But not Christians, or Jews. That would be “the establishment of religion”.

          • Robbie

            I suggest you have a word with the school board(s) in question.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            You write: “Why do you have to be so “in your face” about this religious crap?” I know why you fear seeing people practice religion. Do you?

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            Oh I most certainly do. And I’m willing to say that you don’t know why I am disturbed by religious practice.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            I understand perfectly, and I’d like to open a private dialogue with you to help you with it, if you’re interested.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            I can sum it up for you very quickly: most aspects of religion are based on the ideas and a worldview of ancient men who had not even a superficial knowledge of the natural world. The ancient texts they wrote contained SOME positive insights on law but for the most part those texts display what we now see as ignorance and an unenlightened view of how things work. If you want to take these ancient texts as reality you might as well also go back to believing that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth (actually something like 25% of Americans DO believe that), and that the stars are just a bit out of our reach and could be reached if we built a tower. Mostly just silliness and sometimes downright evil (i.e. killing women who were not virgins at marriage and killing children who swore at their parents.) As I said: backward and ignorant. Of course back then they had an excuse – a lack of scientific knowledge. But now…???

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            I believe that an all-powerful God spoke the universe into existence. You believe from nothing, everything. I believe an all-powerful God created life on earth. You believe a series of chance actions reacted to spark life, and that life evolved into what we know of today as creatures. Neither belief can be supported by science. My view is completely rational. I see the wonder of God all around me. Evidence of his divine nature is found in the scriptures, a book written by dozens of men over thousands of years that doesn’t contain a single contradiction and predicted future events that have come to past as described. Evidence of his advance planning is found in nature, weather patterns and the movements of the solar system. Your belief of from nothing, everything is not supported by scientific theory but is simply a faith-based belief system. There has yet to be any evidence that matter can can form from nothing. Your belief in evolution is equally unsound scientifically. There is no science that can even speculate on a series of events that can create life from nothing, much less a way to recreate that in a lab. There has been no link established demonstrating how one “kind” evolved into another “kind.” Talk about irrational, backward and ignorant.

            And by the way, your understanding of the Bible is as unsound as your understanding of the Constitution.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            I do not know how life began in the first instance. This has not yet been discovered by science. But for centuries now science has been debunking all manner of religious mythologies so I’m supposing that science will still be discovering more truths about our world and the universe. In the meanwhile I do not feel any particular need to believe in primitive “explanations” for the way nature has unfolded. There was a time when Christians believed that Jesus physically went up in to sky and went somewhere just over the moon. Of course now that science has allowed man to actually go in to space we know for sure that Jesus is not up there. I have no idea what Christians now say about Jesus’ location and, frankly, I don’t care because whatever it is it won’t make any rational sense.

            The Torah (first half of your Bible) is a wonderful book that I hold very dear for many reasons but I also realize it is filled with foolishness on virtually every page. But I can live with that too because I am aware of the limitations the authors had to deal with. They simply didn’t know very much and did the best they could to “explain” the unknown.

            I too find nature amazing and the best explanation for evolution is Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. I know that you haven’t the slightest idea what Darwin proved because you don’t want to know. I suspect that you are much like that McDonnell woman who ran for Congress who said evolution could not be true because when she went to the zoo she didn’t see the monkeys turning into people. OMG how dumb is that? A total lack of education.

            Anyway if you knew how many new forms of dogs and tulips and moths have been bred in our lifetime you would see how natural selection actually works. But you refuse to see. Did you ever wonder even for a second how come there are constantly new forms of the flu virus? Did you? I mean if god created all at the beginning how come new virus’ are popping up all the time? That is because evolution is in play.

            Your comment that “God spoke the universe into existence” is truly amazing. I know it is in the first few lines of Genesis. But may I ask where God came from? Oh, he was always there was He? [ Historically, of course, Moses and his contemporaries picked up the idea of monotheism from the Egyptian king Akhenaton but then you don’t know much history either I dare say].

            But listen there is hope for religious progress. Why it was only a few decades ago that the Catholic Church finally agreed with Copernicus that the earth was NOT the centre of the solar system! So religious myths can be updated although it does, sadly, take centuries in some cases. Incredibly, however, something like 25% of Americans still think that the sun revolves around earth because the church had convinced folks that earth – God’s darling little creation – just had to be the centre of everything. Of course now – thanks to modern day explorers – we know that earth is a mere speck of dust in an every expanding universe the sheer magnitude of which our meager brains will likely never be able to fathom. And did you know that the Church used to think that inside a drop of sperm was a tiny teeny little fully formed human that merely grew inside the mother? Well we now know how stupid that idea is but that’s because we have science that has developed ways of study and equipment like microscopes that have revealed cell division to us and we no longer need to depend on some unwashed and uninformed cleric for our information.

            By the way I have made reference to one (of 3) of the ancient Egyptian creation stories – their Genesis as it were. It explains how the world, man, and the universe came in to being. Like the Torah it is pure unmitigated nonsense written by people about 2,000 years before Moses and just as ignorant of the natural world and how it works. But I’m now wondering why you don’t believe in what THAT creation story says. Well I will tell you why. You don’t believe in the Egyptian creation story because you were not indoctrinated in it as a child whereas that is how you came to believe in the Bible.

            I’m not going to bother to explain natural selection to you but I will correct one bit of misinformation that you seem to believe. Darwin and natural selection has to do with how life organisms change (evolve) over the generations. Darwin and the theory of evolution have nothing to do with how life began in the first place. Science has yet to discover that.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            As I expected, you did not address from nothing, something. Nor did you address the origins of life. You did not address the difficulty in proving change from one “kind” to another. You simply equivocated. Darwin’s theories are irrelevant. They have been replaced in scientific thought by modern synthesis. You are behind the times. What the “Church” believed is irrelevant. If by the “Church” you mean the Catholic Church, they stray far from Scripture, which is the only doctrine that matters.

            You write: ” [ Historically, of course, Moses and his contemporaries picked up the idea of monotheism from the Egyptian king Akhenaton but then you don’t know much history either I dare say].” Actually, we have proven that I know much more about history than you ever will in just the last couple of days.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            I did indeed address the origin of life. I very clearly stated that science has not yet – and perhaps never will – know how life started. I guess that is not good enough for you because – as religious people everywhere – you seem to have a need to know how life started and religions around the world have provided a myriad of myths on that topic. Genesis is one of them. If you are happy saying that life started because god said so then so be it. Same for how Jupiter was created – god said so and it just appeared! (Wait Torah doesn’t mention Jupiter does it? You got me there Bob.) But as for me I simply don’t know. You may think I’m pretty smart but I’m not that smart. The difference between a religious person like you and an enlightened person like me is that you are willing to accept a story about creation written by some folks just a step or two out of the cave whereas I’m willing to say that we simply don’t know yet and are waiting for the evidence to come in just as we have been discovering things about the universe all through the ages despite what the clergy has forced upon us.

            Darwin’s theory of natural selection is totally relevant and clearly explains how life forms evolve over time. {I bet you’ve never been to a museum of natural history}. But do you also think that all the species of dogs currently on earth were created by god on day three or whatever? By the way I know you believe that god created Adam and Eve who supposedly were the first two people on earth. And I know you believe that they had two sons because that’s what the Torah says. But you need you to clear something up for me. You’ve got Adam and Eve and the two lads Eve bore. But then the Torah simply states that the two sons suddenly “knew their wives”. Seems odd that Torah would not inform us where these two gals came from. So where did they come from? Please answer. Was god busy creating other people over in a near by garden near Eden? I’ve been told that god moves in mysterious ways so maybe he didn’t want us to know where the two wives came from. Maybe he just wanted to keep us guessing. Anyway to me it seems like an important detail that was left out. Maybe your pastor knows the answer.

            Also I’m guessing that Adam and Eve where white? Or would they have been black? Which would it have been Bob? For now lets just say they were Chinese. That’s as good a guess as any right? I mean there are over a billion and a half Chinese on earth so it’s pretty possible Adam and Eve were Chinese. (I guess that bothers you though because I bet you always thought of Adam and Eve as being white folk). Anyway, Bob, if Adam and Eve were Chinese would you agree that their sons were Chinese too. I mean you do agree with a little detail called heredity don’t you? After all Chinese people who have kids tend to have kids who are Chinese just as when white folks have a baby the baby is usually white too. And black people tend to have black babies don’t they? You’ve got to agree with me on these points no?

            But, O.K., to make life easier for you let’s say that Adam and Eve were white and that their sons were white. That would make god white right? After all god created man in his image. Torah says so. (Could god be Chinese maybe?!?) So if Adam and Eve were created white by god and were the first two people and their children were white where on earth did Chinese folks come in to the picture? And black people? And brown people? And Polynesian people etc. etc. Now you can’t deny that there are different races now can you? Please chew on these questions and see what you come up with. I’d really like to learn your answers to the above questions – I don’t need just another posting about how you figure I know nothing and you know everything thanks to what your pastor has told you. So I await serious answers to my questions.

            [ Just as an aside I’ll share with you the explanation for the different races as told in the Polynesian creation story. What they say is that god took clay and formed it in to the shape of a man and put the clay in an oven to bake but left it in too long and it burned and when god took it out he beheld a black man. He put it to the side as he was not pleased with the result. Then he took more clay and shaped it like a man and put that in to the oven to bake. But god was going to be real careful this time and before you knew it he whipped it out – but too soon this time – and was disappointed to behold a pale white man. He put that aside as well right next to the black man. God then gave it one last try. Shaped the clay and put it in the oven to bake. And by now god knew exactly how long to leave it in the oven and when he took it out he beheld the perfect human creation – a lovely brown skinned Polynesian man! Isn’t that an interesting co-incidence that the Polynesian creation story has the perfect man as being Polynesian? How remarkable is that?] And, Bob, are you getting any new insights out of any of this? Have a nice evening and I await your answers which I might not see until tomorrow.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: I did indeed address the origin of life. I very clearly stated that science has not yet – and perhaps never will – know how life started.

            Previous to that, Robbie said: Our knowledge now about how all living things have evolved from early life forms via the process of natural selection totally debunks the nonsense contained in the Book of Genesis. Science has allowed us (the educated among us that is) to witness evolution and natural selection as we watch the “creation” of a new flu virus virtually every year or so. And we ourselves have “created” new species of dogs and tulips. The notion that everything was created as is in the Garden of Eden during the revolution of one week is now known to be plain silly although it does make for a cute childrens’ tale. We also have ample evidence through the fossil record of how species have changed over the centuries and millenium. The process of natural selection – once you learn about it – is so simple to comprehend and understand.

            Well which is it, Robbie?

          • Robbie

            Both. There is nothing contradictory in what I wrote. There are two separate issues here. Darwin’s Natural Selection informs us how life forms change (evolve) over time. It’s an easily understood process. How life began in the first place is a totally other matter. Natural Selection does not deal with that.

            A third matter would be WHY there is life on earth but this is not a scientific concern. That gets us into the realm of religion. I suppose its normal for humans all through the ages to guess at why we are here. Because we simply do not know mankind is forever attributing our existence to a god or gods etc. Many, many cultures have their own myths about this. Some of them are quite entertaining.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: Darwin’s Natural Selection informs us how life forms change (evolve) over time. It’s an easily understood process.

            It is an easily understood, “Theory”, not, “Process”, Robbie. Nice try!

            You can’t observe natural-selection directly. You can’t determine with certainty what will be selected. It is a compilation of after the fact observations. An extraordinary feature of natural selection is that it does not actually select anything. Selection, i.e. the ability to make a choice, is a function of intelligence. Natural selection makes no decisions, or choices. So how does something that can’t choose make a choice, Robbie?

          • Robbie

            The theory of Natural Selection has been proven true and is accepted by 99% of scientists. Just as we know the Theory of Gravity to be true. Basically the way it operates is that in any given species the individuals that are best suited to survive in their particular environment will, indeed, survive. They do so because the characteristics – usually physical – that they have allow them to survive. Others in the species without those characteristics do not survive. Then when the survivors reproduce their characteristics show up in the next generation. Then the struggle to survive happens again because the environment is also changing to greater and lesser degrees and so, over tens of thousands and even millions of generations a specie evolves into something different from what it was at the beginning of the process.

            If you followed that and if it seemed logical then you believe in evolution. A good example would be the peppered moth in England. That species was – back in time – mainly green in colour and lived in the mainly green forests of England.. That moth was a favorite food item for birds. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution and an increase in pollution trees in the forest became darker. Because of this the light green moths were more easily spotted and picked off by birds. Because in any species there are various differences between individuals some of the peppered moths were somewhat darker than others. The darker ones were less easily spotted by bird of prey so they tended to survive and hence there offspring which were also dark came to predominate.

            So the way to look at it is that the natural environment determines selects if you will – which individuals in any given species will live and reproduce. This same process of natural selection explains the different races within the human species and how those races came in to being. I’ve overly simplified Darwin’s hypothesis but given you the main jist of it.

            Remember that in Genesis we are told that God creates the first two people – Adam and Eve. They were almost certainly black but that doesn’t matter. They had two sons who would have been whatever colour their parents were. The Bible does not tell us how come there are different races now and many, many different types of people on earth. If the Bible was totally “true” all humans would still be whatever colour skin, colour hair, colour eyes, height, etc., etc., etc., that Adam and Eve were. And, as noted, that’s NOT the case. There has been evolution – change – over time.

            Now, there was no Garden of Eden but the evolution which even the Book of Genesis begs – if we go back even further in time (billions of years) we surmise – with the help of the fossil record as well – that humans and all other animals and plant and fish species were very different than they are today.

          • WTS/JAY

            If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the evolutionist’s magic wand. Fairy tales come in many forms!

            Darwin’s theory of evolution says that over millions of years simple life forms (one celled creatures) slowly evolved into complex life forms (fish), and that one kind of animal evolved into another kind (ape to man).The creation model, on the other hand, says that all life forms were created in six, 24 hour days. If the creation model is wrong and man actually did evolve in small graduations over a long period of time, we should find ample fossil evidence of links in intermediate stages of transition. For decades, evolutionists have searched for fossils of these links to prove the creation model wrong. Although millions of fossils have been unearthed, even evolutionists acknowledge that the links have not been found.

            Darwin taught that many little changes over a long period of time will add up to big changes. Darwin predicted that the fossil record would either prove or falsify his theory. Darwin realized the difficulty the fossil record (missing links) gave his theory when he said, “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” Today, top evolutionists know that Darwin’s predictions of what the fossil record would reveal have failed.

            It is a well guarded fact that many evolutionists rejected Darwin’s theory of evolution over 20 years ago. Stephen Jay Gould, a professor at Harvard University and one of the foremost authorities on evolution in the world said, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms (missing links) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,…we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study”. Natural History, Vol. 86. Gould is still an evolutionist, he just rejects much of Darwin’s theory.

            Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, “a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. …In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, “punctuated equilibrium” or the “hopeful monster theory”. From the fossil record, they know that change didn’t take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick “quantum leaps” over long periods of time. In Darwin’s theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution. The new theory says the change takes place so quickly it that too cannot be observed. Unobservable science? What a contradiction!

            Evolutionists tell us in the new “punctuationalist” theory, that, in effect, a lizard laid an egg and out pops a baby bird. Because of the compete lack of missing links, evolutionists now accept as fact what creationists predicted from the creation model all along; namely, that no transitional fossils would be found. Evolutionists that still use Darwin or the fossil record as evidence of their theory in the ’90’s, are like stubborn and closed minded old country doctors who have not kept up with the latest developments of science. Then there are those who cannot even consider the possibility that there is a creator God. These scientists are so biased that they cannot not see how much better all the scientific data fits the creation model of origins as opposed to the evolution model.

            Archaeopteryx, a star attraction “link” between reptile and bird has been refuted . Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677, “Fossil Bird Shakes evolutionary Hypotheses”, reported this in 1986, “Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found…a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. …tend to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds.”

            Australopithecus or “Lucy”, another big star to the evolutionists’ stage show, has also been discarded by many evolutionists. Even the Leakey’s never believed it had anything to do with the evolution of man. With good reason, they considered it simply and extinct ape. It stood three feet tall, had arms that hung down to the ankles and had a brain one third the size of humans. Adrienne Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, said, “Zihlman compares the pigmy chimpanzee to ‘Lucy’, one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size…indicates that pygmy chimps use their limbs much the same way Lucy did…” Science News, Vol. 123, Feb. 5, 1983, p89

            So Good-bye Lucy! Au revoir Archaeopteryx! R.I.P. Darwin!

            Although knowledgeable evolutionists buried most of Darwin’s theory over 20 years ago, they still cling to a few parts like “time”. Lots of time! Darwin and modern evolutionists still have faith that given long enough periods of time, frogs would evolve into handsome princes. Today they just can’t explain how! With enough time the impossible becomes probable! What today’s evolutionists lack for hard proof in the fossil record they make up for in blind faith in a magic wand called time. Have you ever considered that when God created the universe in six short 24 hour days, He may have been taking His time?

          • Robbie

            Can you not think for yourself? It’s pretty clear you lift writings from others. The first clue is that the above piece is not filled with cursing and swearing and insults. You are pathetic.

          • WTS/JAY

            In a debate, it is required that you dispute the argument(s), and not personally attack your opponent with insults and cursings. You have violated the rules of debating, Robbieson. You have disappointed me, Robbieson

          • WTS/JAY

            In a debate, it is required that you dispute the argument(s), and not personally attack your opponent with insults and cursings. You have violated the rules of debating, Robbieson. You have disappointed me, Robbieson

          • BobTrent

            “Big Bangism” and evolutionism is just warmed-over Spontaneous Generation applied to both living things and to the cosmos.
            Stephen Jay Gould rejected Darwinist Evolution with Punctuated Equilibrium, sudden changes in living things giving rise to new species.
            The Roman Catholic Church accepts (Theistic) Evolution as a good explanation of how things got as they are, and not incompatible with the Bible or the Church.
            Why can’t biologists create living tissue from dead chemicals in their laboratories? Why, just take a just-died animal and restore it to life. After all, all the chemicals are already there in all the right combinations and arrangements. Should be simple to light the fire of life.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: But for centuries now science has been debunking all manner of religious mythologies…

            Could you provide some examples?

          • Robbie

            For sure. Let’s start with the nonsense that Jesus physically rose from the dead and went to a place up in the sky waiting to return. People actually believed that for centuries. Science and technology has allowed us to explore the heavens and we know that Jesus is not up there unless he’s hiding behind a big rock on Uranus.

            Our knowledge now about how all living things have evolved from early life forms via the process of natural selection totally debunks the nonsense contained in the Book of Genesis. Science has allowed us (the educated among us that is) to witness evolution and natural selection as we watch the “creation” of a new flu virus virtually every year or so. And we ourselves have “created” new species of dogs and tulips. The notion that everything was created as is in the Garden of Eden during the revolution of one week is now known to be plain silly although it does make for a cute childrens’ tale. We also have ample evidence through the fossil record of how species have changed over the centuries and millenium. The process of natural selection – once you learn about it – is so simple to comprehend and understand.

            Simple common sense reveals that the story of Noah’s Ark is an impossibility. You don’t have to know much science – or math – to know that 7 or 8 of every species on earth could not possibly fit on to a small boat not to mention all the food for all of those creatures for a period of 40 days! Do you know how much a hippo eats for heaven’s sake? The Bible tells us that water covered the entire earth to height of the highest mountains. Ask yourself if that makes sense to you.

            Christianity has a long record of opposing scientific theories and discoveries. The greatest human minds ever did their work during what we call the Renaissance in Europe in the 1500’s. Lonardo Da Vinci was almost lynched by Christian believers because he studied human anatomy. Copernicus was condemned because he figured out that the earth revolved around the sun not the other way around. And the horrifying thing is that to this day a full 25% of Americans – and probably even higher percentages elsewhere – still think that the sun goes around the earth. People still believe that you can be swallowed by a great fish and live in the belly for days and days and come out alive! They heard about that one in church after all. Some church people still believe that snakes can talk and that there are angels.

            One could go on and on but what’s the use really? Religious folk have been so brainwashed from birth. Mind you fewer and fewer people are attending church these days so perhaps there is some hope.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: We also have ample evidence through the fossil record of how species have changed over the centuries and millenium.

            Really?

            (with credit to elshamah888)

            The existence of fossils shows that there are many extinct organisms, all of which appear in the fossil record fully formed. (The supposed links in lineages are inferences required by the theory of descent with modification but not otherwise demanded by the evidence.) Many fossils appear abruptly, with no apparent ancestral lineage (e.g., in the “Cambrian Explosion”), and fossils thought to be transitional forms are rare. Yet by Darwin’s own admission in his book Origin of Species, the fossil record did not then support his theory because we should find literally millions and millions of transitional fossils. Darwin believed that later fossil finds would confirm his theory of gradual descent with modification.

            Stephen J. Gould, the preeminent modern evolutionist and Harvard paleontologist recognized Darwin’s fossil problem persisted and was essentially unchanged from Darwin’s day, stating: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”

            Question: Does the fossil evidence also support alternative theories, including an inference of intelligent causation (i.e., is the evidence consistent with what one would expect to observe if intelligent design were true)?

            Answer: Yes. The existence of fossils of extinct organisms, each of which has all the hallmarks of being intelligently designed, is consistent with what one would expect to find if the organisms were in fact, intelligently designed.

            Question: Does the fossil evidence, taken as a whole with other evidence, weigh more heavily in favor of unintelligent processes of evolution or an alternative theory?

            Answer: Taken as a whole, the evidence weighs more heavily in favor of intelligent design. Consider, as admitted by all knowledgeable Darwinists, that the fossil record does not support the continuity of gradual development that Darwinism predicts. However, a fossil record showing extinct organisms exhibiting the
            hallmarks of intelligent design is perfectly consistent with what intelligent design theory would predict.

            Question: Does the fossil evidence as a whole, taken together with other evidence, rule out a particular alternative theory?

            Answer: Possibly. Taken as a whole, the evidence could be construed to rule out Darwinism. However, and importantly, whatever the fossil record shows, it cannot rule out intelligent design theory. As long as design can be scientifically detected, intelligent design theory cannot be ruled out as an explanation of the fossil record. But, and equally importantly, scientifically detected design in the fossil record does
            rule out Darwinism as a theory; Darwinism is the antithesis of intelligent design.

            The fossil record is perhaps the most important evidence that demolishes the theory of evolution’s claims. Living things did not come into being through the imaginary processes of evolution. fact of creation is once again revealed in the traces left behind them by flawless living things.

          • BobTrent

            How life began is history, not science.
            The “homunculus” idea was derived from the way vegetable seed is a complete embryo. Animal sperm was discovered before the mammalian ovum. It was thought that sperm, which is Greek for “seed,” was like vegetable seed. This idea isn’t stupid, it’s just incorrect.

          • William C. Brooks

            Robbie: There has been no hate expressed. We do express the fact that the Cullman Community, which is strongly Christian, has the right to assemble, at the school, or any other place in the their community, to express their faith and pray for their schools to be better, if they so choose. On the other hand, you can choose to denigrate them, knock them around, and get all negative, and that is your right. In fact, if you can find others who believe as you do, you can have the same right of assembly as these Christians in the community of Cullman, Alabama. Get on it! Do your thing! But don’t destroy their right to express their desires for their children in their own community!!! What right do you have in their community? Do you pay taxes for their schools? no, you don’t –but they do!! So, if a majority of them desire to reach out to God for the benefit of their children…WHAT IS IT TO YOU? Why stick your nose in their business??? What right do you have to dictate to them, when they pay the taxes, they hire and fire the leaders and teachers in the School, and it is their right to live and act as they see fit — and you have no rights at all about their business!!!!
            I do not mean to be aggressive, but I hope I can help you to see some truth in what I AM DEFENDING, REGARDING THE RIGHTS OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IN CULLMAN, ALABAMA, a town very near where my father grew up on a cotton farm. They all prayed too, except for his Daddy, who was a terrible drunk. But they supported him in love, took care of him, and gave him love and full respect as their father. These things represent the Christian way of doing things. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” It is the prominent way of doing things in Alabama.

          • Vigilant

            I submit that the preponderance of “in your face” crap is from almost all of the atheists who haunt this site. They are not content with tolerating beliefs foreign to their own. They feel the compulsion to tell believers how stupid and Neanderthal they are, touting their “intellectual superiority” (HA!) and in general finding ways to marginalize, denigrate and ridicule believers.

            Perfect example is dm_apostate. Click on his icon and look at his rantings on many other sites besides this one. It’s patently clear that he’s not a casual atheist but one who’s accepted a mission to gratuitously besmirch religion at any and every opportunity. He’s not a normal human being

            THAT is “mostly dumb and it’s mostly disgusting and hateful.” Most atheists never learned the distinctly human ideal of “live and let live.” They are bitter and acrimonious to a “T.”

          • Robbie

            Actually you have things reversed. The very worst crimes and wars and human suffering have been perpetrated in the name of religion. And this has always been the case because religions all believe that THEY and THEY alone hold the truth and know THE way and all others are going to hell or whatever.

          • BobTrent

            Um, what was Hitler’s religion? He rejected his original Catholicism. What was Stalin’s religion? He rejected his original Orthodoxy. (He was named after St. Joseph.) What was Mao Zedong’s religion? He rejected Buddhism. What was Pol Pot’s religion? He rejected Theravada Buddhism and Catholicism, yet his Khmer Rouge were largely Buddhists.

          • Robbie

            Europe went through centuries of religious wars and did you ever hear of the Inquisition? Ever hear how the Christian settlers treated the original inhabitants of North America? How about the Christian Crusades to conquor the “Holy Land”? Those religious wars lasted a few centuries. Spanish armies with their Jesuit priests did quite a number on the folks in Latin America. Shia & Sunni Muslims have been at war for about 12 centuries and we see the hate stirred up by that in our daily newspapers. Muslims and Jews have had 4 or 5 nasty little wars during my lifetime. Muslims and Hindus in Pakistan and India respectively have had a few centuries of “troubles”. Catholics and Protestants have a history of warfare in Europe right up to modern times.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: Actually you have things reversed. The very worst crimes and wars and human suffering have been perpetrated in the name of religion.

            So secular-wars were a little less worse, Robbie. How much, less worse were they, Robbie?

            As a History Professor at a Junior college I challenge my classes to comment on the following statement:

            Organized religion has caused more suffering, wars and violence than any other cause.

            Almost all the students raise their hands in agreement. I then demand that they provide dead bodies as evidence. They usually mention the Crusades and one or two other religious wars they might have heard of but in none of their examples can they come up with a million deaths. (Some scholars used to teach that the Thirty Years’ War in Germany resulted in 8 million deaths, but modern scholars have demonstrated it was more like 200 thousand and in fact the population of Germany actually increased during that war.)

            I then point out that most of the people who have died as a result of war, have done so in the Twentieth Century and that most of the killing was done in the name of secular ideologies.

            I then ask them who is the “baddest” of them all.

            Most guess Hitler. I then tell them that he is rated #3.

            Some then guess Stalin and I inform them that most scholars place him at #2 with 20 million killed.

            Almost no one gets #1 who, of course, is Mao who starts with an estimated 40 million.

            I then point out that the top two were Communists and Hitler was a radical proponent of Social Darwinism.

            All of these ideologies are based on atheistic systems.
            -Professor Pat Johnson

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: There are plenty of places and times for religious people to do their thing. Why do you have to be so “in your face” about this religious crap?

            You are not seeing the big picture, stupid. It matters not what you, think regarding this matter. The Constitution trumps and negates your prejudice against religious-expression in public places. Deal with it! (-:

          • dm_apostate

            That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

            -Alabama Constitution

            The tax funded public schools can not be used for superstition or to favor one belief over another.

          • Vigilant

            And what belief. pray tell, is being favored by the school to the exclusion to others? You’ve got some explaining to do.

            Let’s take the provisions one by one:

            “That no religion shall be established by law.” Precisely what religion has Alabama established by law?

            “that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship.” Please cite the Alabama law that gives preferential treatment to any religion.

            “that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry;” Where do you see a violation of law in this?

            “that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state;” See a violation here?

            “and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.” Now HERE we have a violation of the Alabama Constitution. Someone is attempting to abridge the right of citizens to peaceably assemble, and to curtail their Constitutional right to freely exercise their religion.

            “Fraid you lost out, armchair lawyer. Not only did your conclusion fail to follow the premise (Alabama Constitution), it was downright CONTRADICTED by that document.

            Better luck next time.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Vigilant,

            You beat me to it.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • BobTrent

            They already are. The fantasy of cosmic evolution is taught in Alabama public schools.

          • WTS/JAY

            The boil on America’s butt, Robbie, revised the Bible, so why not also the Constitution?

    • Ponderosadon

      Unfortunately Alex every myth and fable apart from Christianity (which is at its very core the ultimate truth) is given free expression in the colleges and universities all across the land and as a result the line between truth and lies has become very blurred. Instead of the teachings of love, mercy, kindness, patience, and gentleness, the youth and young adults of this country are being taught anger, hate, intolerance and violence. The result is chaos. The word Shalom normally translated as peace means literally Destroys the Authority that Builds or Establishes Chaos. Praying for peace is praying that the authority of the God of the Universe would destroy the establishment of chaos by the gods of this world. (I won’t expound further because that is a much longer discussion than will fit here.
      I would say that to deny me to practice my belief to gather for prayer where-ever is decidedly unAmerican (perhaps you should learn to spell American) A voluntary gathering neither denies nor forces non-believers or believers in variant faiths to be unwelcome. They are free to choose to gather for their own purposes with whomever they wish. I am sorry that you have been so bruised in your view of Christianity and in the development of your intolerance.

      • dm_apostate

        We don’t need these people that teach hate, intolerance, rape, murder, incest, slavery and that women are property in our public schools.

        http://www.evilbible.com

        • WTS/JAY

          True, we already have liberal-progressives that teach just that.

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          Talking about the Muslims again are we? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

    • Derek Taunton

      Alex, do you mean fact based learning such as evolution and the big bang theory? God help the ignorant among us.

    • WTS/JAY

      Alex, you suffer from Christianophobia. Christianophobia deals with the extreme fear of Christians or the Christian faith.

      Symptoms of Christianophobia:

      There are several ways to spot someone who may be christianophobic. If you or someone you know experience one of the following viewpoints, consider seeking professional therapy or external help in dealing with the situation:

      Conflicting religious views that lead to an intolerance of other religions outside of their own.

      An irrational fear that Christians are conforming together to take over the majority of the world.

      A fear that if Christians are not “stopped” they will do the same to their own religion.

      Avoidance of Christians

      Radically violent or complete intolerance of the Christian religion.

      This fear does not only include those specifically expressing Christian faith but also to those who “support” the “Christian agenda.” This fear can be so severe it may cause christianophobes to start to avoid or even attack anyone who is expressing an external viewpoint. It is important to remember that this phobia is not something commonly seen in an individual. It is usually rooted in a group, where individuals pickup the viewpoint and carry it into their own personal lives.

      Christianophobia cannot only hold you back in your life, it can also hold back others around you. This condition is not only an extreme or irrational fear of Christian people, it is usually coupled with a hatred of their religion. As a result, it leads to an unfair demeanor towards someone’s right for a personal choice. The tolerance of other religions has recently become a relatively significant issue in our society.

      Making the effort for conquer the phobia will make a huge difference in your personal life, usually resulting in a more calm and collected composure in previously perceived stressful situations. If you are ready to make this positive change, on both a personal and social level, do some preliminary Internet research to find the best treatment options available locally to you.

      What is therapy? http://www.allaboutcounseling.com/library/therapy/

    • William C. Brooks

      Alex, Alex, Alex! Be reasonable, man! If a community decides they want to have a meeting, it is their decision, and should be honored. If you have a group in your town or county or State, who wants to do whatever it is that you believe, then you have that right — which is called “Freedom of Religion,” which is guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You are as free as the folks in Cullman to choose. And you are free to set your own agenda with like believers, as are the folks in Cullman. What right have you to decide their practices? Or their prayers? Or any of their actions? You have no grounds for your argument, sir;. Do as you legally and lawfully please, and let the folks of Cullman do as they legally and lawfully please. And we’ll ALL be happy! In other words, BUTT OUT!!!!!!

    • http://batman-news.com samurai

      Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the benefit of mankind, schools and the means of education, shall be forever encouraged.
      Northwest Ordinance
      April 07, 1789
      Article III
      Now what was this about not having prayer, religion, or Bibles in our schools, hmmm? I just love proving you people wrong. Here is a list of everything your ilk wants removed from America. Though it will be a cold day in Hades before these things happen.
      http://www.aclj.org/in-god-we-trust/complete-religious-guide-religious-heritage
      Here are some articles about the faith of George Washington.
      http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g0ll.html
      http://www.chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwandreligion.htm
      http://www.onug.us/content/was-george-washington-christian-man
      Here is one for you secluarists.
      http://www.clashdaily.com/2013/07/hey-secularists-our-founders-respected-christianity-get-over-it
      FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
      You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
      “The internal effects of a mutable policy poisons the blessings of liberty itself.”
      James Madison
      Devout Christian

    • BobTrent

      The Atheists, Liberals and Progressives say we should do our religion in private, but they get to push their philosophy on our children at our expense in the Public Schools.

    • WTS/JAY

      Alex: Go to church—you are free to discuss your fables and your myths and your visions and your superstitions THERE. School is for ED-U-CA-TION, not for playing Fairyland.

      Sorry, the Constitution says otherwise; that public praying/worship/religious-expression is permissible. Deal with it!

  • Vigilant

    “Seidel went on to explain that while those who complain about religious activity in schools may be a minority in Cullman, his organization doesn’t consider majority opinion a justification for abuses of the Constitution.”

    Seidel’s (and Alex’s) understanding of the Constitution is rudimentary at best.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    The Constitution was NOT written to contain contradictory provisions, and the First Amendment is true to that construction. The Supreme Court be damned; The prohibition of the free exercise of religion is unconstitutional, and the right of the people to voluntarily assemble for peaceful purposes is protected in law.

    Seidel & Co. should be countersued for attempting to violate the Constitutional position on free assembly, for ANY peaceful purpose.

    • dm_apostate

      “Seidel’s (and Alex’s) understanding of the Constitution is rudimentary at best.”

      “ANDREW SEIDEL graduated cum laude from Tulane University with a B.S. in neuroscience and environmental science and magna cum laude from Tulane University Law School, where he was awarded the Haber J. McCarthy Award for excellence in environmental law. He studied human rights and international law at the University of Amsterdam and traveled the world on Semester at Sea. In May of 2011, Andrew completed his Master of Laws at Denver University Sturm College of Law with a 4.0 GPA and was awarded the Outstanding L.L.M. Award. He has written a book on International Human Rights Law and his essay on the role of religion in government and the founding of our nation placed second in the FFRF’s 2010 graduate student essay contest. Andrew is a former Grand Canyon tour guide and accomplished nature photographer; his work has been displayed in galleries in Colorado, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Maryland. He joined the FFRF staff as a constitutional consultant in November 2011.”

      Andrew has racked up countless legal victories in the short time he has been at FFRF. I would say he has a pretty firm grasp of the Constitution and he will prevail in this case as he always does.

      • Vigilant

        Frankly my Dear, I don’t give a damn WHAT his creds are. It’s obvious from his history that he categorically disqualifies himself on any matters Constitutional.

        Environmental law? Tell me what that has to do with the subject at hand.

        “…human rights and international law at the University of Amsterdam?” That merely qualifies him to speculate on matters international, of which I ask again: what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

        “…and traveled the world on Semester at Sea.” Wow! That may impress simple minds like yours, but once again, what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

        Believe me, if “his essay on the role of religion in government and the founding of our nation placed second in the FFRF’s 2010 graduate student essay contest,” he has already shown his obvious agenda, and that should impress NO ONE who has an understanding of the Constitution. Hell, the name of the organization itself is a clue, n’est-ce pas?

        And I’m confident that he can bring to bear on this subject his experience as a former Grand Canyon tour guide and accomplished nature photographer.

  • Lee Berry

    I would rather the education system lean more toward Christian belief and example than what is currently shown today. Our children are being taught to hate, disrespect and deny the Constitution, their elders and the most basic of morals we learned as children. Our children are being taught to accept Islam as a good thing, “leaders” such as Obama as good examples, and defiance.
    Our founders had good reason to assemble the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. King George, much like those that wish to dictate our every thought and breath today, sought to mold minds, to stifle growth and creativity, and forever keep people under his control. Our founders wanted to insure that would not happen here in the new world. But it has been creeping in – and as of late – was slow – now is speeding!
    Beliefs or no, prayer – no matter where – who or how, does make a difference. Pray to your pet rock, and ask it to save America. The message will go to the right recipient.
    To the loud mouths up north — An “atheist” is a fraud. The first tell-tale sign is when they say, “I believe,” because a true atheist has no beliefs at all.

  • JimH

    The main word here is voluntary. No one is being forced by the school to go.
    Why are people who claim they don’t believe in God so afraid of him?
    Dear God,
    Why do you allow so much violence in school?
    Parent
    Dear Parent,
    I’m not allowed in school.
    God

    • Robbie

      I thought god was all powerful and could go anywhere. Come to think of it how come God needs folks to pray to him? Is it a self identity issue?

      • JimH

        God doesn’t need us to pray to him, we pray to him because we need him.
        You don;t believe in him and come judgement day that will be your problem.
        We won’t force you to pray, just respect our right to pray if we want to.
        God gave us free will to choose, I can’t help you choose poorly.

        • Robbie

          Dust to dust.

          But regarding school prayer I’m wondering which ideology is supreme. And this is a genuine question that perhaps you can honestly answer. Which is supreme – the U.S. Constitution or the word of Jesus, your Lord?

          The reason I thought of this question is because while reading and making these comments about school prayer I was reminded that Jesus said – in the Book of Mathew – that one should pray in PRIVATE, that one should shut ones self away and pray silently NOT in a public place as – and Jesus said this – the HEATHENS do. So why is it that contemporary Christians seem so intent on doing the OPPOSITE – praying IN PUBLIC (as the heathens do!). Does being in everyone else’s face trump following Jesus’ dictate? I think this is an interesting question and an honest answer with no insults would be appreciated.

          • JimH

            You’re half right.

          • Robbie

            I added to the posting. Have another look. R

          • WTS/JAY

            Yeah, you added some more bull-chit to your posting. No surprise here!

          • JimH

            In Jesus time there were people that would pray and or give alms to the poor in a very public way. Fasting was also very big in those times. It was to impress other people and not because they really wanted to pray or help the poor.
            People of faith gather to pray together, in a church or a prayer meeting. Some because it gives them a sense of community and others, because of what Mathew is warning us about.
            Because it is a voluntary prayer meeting and won’t be out on main street it will more likely be a case of honest prayer and not showboating.
            The Bible also says don’t hide your lantern under a bushel. Meaning don’t be ashamed of your faith.
            Sometime it seems contradictory,but you just have to balance it out.

          • InHisName

            Jesus also said when two or more come together in my name I will be present with them… so corporate prayer and worship is quite expected by Him as well… especially for requests and petitions. If we were to only pray and worship in private, there would be no churches.
            The Christian religion comes from the Jewish religion… and what would they do if they found the masses engaged in sin? Go to Jerusalem and sacrifice critters to the Lord to cleanse themselves and ask forgiveness, and repent.
            Why should we not be able to come together and ask the Father for His grace and mercy. Or hide inside churches only to come together. God is everywhere…

          • Robbie

            I don’t think Jesus expected that whenever two or more came together that they had to burst into prayer. His dictate to pray in private and not in public as the heathens do still stands. It’s much more specific than your reference.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: I don’t think Jesus expected that whenever two or more came together that they had to burst into prayer.

            He certainly expected/commanded such from His followers. Are you completely ignorant of what Jesus said regarding how His followers should spend their time when they gather together?

          • Robbie

            Obviously you consider yourself to be a Christian. Do you really burst in to prayer every time you meet up with a fellow Christian? Wow. Does that leave time for anything else? Do you ever have time to go to the ice cream shop?

          • WTS/JAY

            Don’t you have a life, you pathetic and nosy cretin? What makes you think that everything that goes on in other people’s lives is any of your business? Is your life that empty that you can’t find anything else to do but meddle in other people’s personal affairs? Btw, you exhibit the classic mentality of a stalker; are you aware of that?.

          • Robbie

            You are not setting a very good example.

          • WTS/JAY

            You mean standing up to ignorant people like you?

          • William C. Brooks

            Robbie: Look at this below, please.
            Romans 3:3-4:
            “3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
            4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. {KJV}.
            If you please, or even if you don’t, God’s Word is above all things earthly, a Divine institution preserved for the benefit of mankind. No constitution has leverage against God’s Word as the Word is Supreme over all earthly things — whether you like it or not.

            Whether you believe or not, it is still true!
            LET GOD BE TRUE, AND EVERY MAN A LIAR.”

          • Robbie

            So you agree with Jesus that a Christian should NOT pray in a public place – like a school – as the heathens do but rather shut him/herself away and pray in private. Good.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: So you agree with Jesus that a Christian should NOT pray in a public place – like a school – as the heathens do…?

            Only if the reason for praying in public is the same as the reason why heathens pray in public; to be honoured by men. Otherwise, praying in public is perfectly acceptable in the sight of God!

          • WTS/JAY

            You answered your own question and you don’t even realize it. Jesus said; “don’t do as the heathens do”, don’t pray in public so as to be honoured by men. So, as long as you are not praying so as to be honoured by men, then public praying is not only permissible, but perfectly acceptable in the sight of God!

          • Robbie

            Interesting point but it is still a big IF. Difficult to understand peoples’ motivations. Better safe than sorry, I say, and just pray in private which is the first part of what Jesus said.

          • WTS/JAY

            Why not just mind your own business, instead of sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong, nosy? How’s that sound, to you? Nothing more irritating than a self-rightious control-freak, Robbie. Get a life, and stop interfering in other people’s lives. Nazi!

          • Robbie

            I suggest that when you are engaged in a debate that you show a bit more respect to those who have views different than yours.

          • WTS/JAY

            Yes Robbie, that is good advice. Now go practise what you preach. Oh, and take a picture of me wherever you go as a constant reminder that i’m always with thee. Now go, my son.

          • WTS/JAY

            Yes Robbie, that is good advice. Now go practise what you preach. Oh, and take a picture of me wherever you go as a constant reminder that i’m always with thee. Now go, my son.

      • William C. Brooks

        Robbie: God can get along fine if I refuse to worship, praise, or adore Him. He doesn’t need me — in fact, the truth of the matter is that I NEED HIM! Since He came into my life, I have learned that I need to pray to Him because, first of all, people like you need me to pray for you. Then, I need prayer for myself continually, because I make so many mistakes in life, but I know my remedy — prayer is my remedy, because God has power to change, correct, realign, direct, and fix me to become a better person and better servant to expound His great WORTH! Oh, how I WISH YOU KNEW HIM AS I DO!!!!!

        • Robbie

          I wish you well in your quest for self improvement.

          • WTS/JAY

            And i wish you well with yours, Robbieson.

          • WTS/JAY

            And i wish you well with yours, Robbieson.

      • WTS/JAY

        Don’t you ever get lonely, Robbie, with only your ignorance to keep you company?

        • Robbie

          Darn. It was beginning to look like you had gotten away from responding with nothing more than insults.

          • WTS/JAY

            I tell you what, you self-righteous pimple. If you cease in denigrating and insulting the posters you don’t agree with, then i’ll do likewise with you. How’s that sound, turnip?

          • Robbie

            If you find tough questions and Bible quotations that don’t suit your worldview to be denigrating and insulting then I can only suggest you not engage in debate.

    • William C. Brooks

      Absolutely love this one!!! By JimH, the reply of God to the Parent, saying: I’m not allowed in school.” Wow! When I turned my life over and dedicated it to Jesus, after years of drinking and carousing around the world, my life so radically changed over-night that my wife said, “I don’t know anything about this church and its beliefs, but one thing I do know for sure and that is that you are a totally different person.” No drinking, no smoking, no cussing, going to church, helping others, lifting up the Jesus-led life, and happiness that is so good I cannot find adequate words to describe it, along with so many other wonderful things…..
      That was in 1972 — and I’m still living that same life today! And I am so happy about it, sometimes I just have to get excited about how good a life it has been because of that one Man who changed my life so radically — Jesus Christ. Dave Burrier, I wish you knew Him as I do!!!

      • dm_apostate

        You just keep telling yourself that and someday even you might really believe it as true.

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          Be quiet and go home. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
          *Sook Young and I will pray for you tonight.

  • Ponderosadon

    If the Supreme Court or Congress, or the Executive were to come into alignment with the Freedom From Religion group to prohibit the free exercise of the religious practice of others, they are and would be in violation of the constitution in the same way that if the those who practice the religion of atheism have the right to hold their blind and deceived beliefs and the government does not have the right to make a law against them. The Freedom From Religion group needs to get a life, literally an eternal life!

    • dm_apostate

      FFRF does not want to “prohibit the free exercise of the religious practice of others.” They just want you to do as our founding fathers made very clear and the courts have backed up time and time again, keep our government neutral in matters of religion.

      • http://batman-news.com samurai

        Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You made me laugh with that last one. So you are saying, that if the president wanted to start the day with a prayer, he couldn’t do it? What about Congress and the Senate starting each day with a prayer? What about the Ten Commandments on display outside and inside the SCOTUS? Don’t sound too neutral to me. Please study more before you open your yap again on the subject and stop listening to the FFRF’s propaganda. You are making yourself sound less intelligent. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 나님하고 나라를 위해서!
        You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
        “The Federalist may fairly enough be regarded as the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution as understood by the body which prepared and the authority which accepted it.”
        James Madison
        Devout Christian

        • dm_apostate

          Why would you want him to? Jesus doesn’t like that.

          “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

          Matthew 6:1

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            That is a bald faced lie!
            “Take heed that yo do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.”
            Matthew 6:1
            It is talking about giving thithings, not righteousness. Such a less intelligent thing to do by replacing words. How about you remembering these?
            “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
            And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
            Revelation 22:18-19
            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

          • WTS/JAY

            Oops, my apologies, Samurai! I failed to notice your correct response to dm_apostate before posting my comment…

          • WTS/JAY

            Practising “righteousness”(giving alms/helping the poor) in front of others, is not the same as acknowledging the existence of, and giving thanks to a “Supernatural-Being”. Btw, i noticed that you did not provide the full-quote from the source, Matthew 6:1, and have conspicuously edited/altered the specific text.

            Here then, is the complete quote:

            “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. 2″So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.…

          • Vigilant

            YOU had best heed those words, sonny.

  • Ponderosadon

    The practice of a religion is not the same as the establishment of a religion. In England the Church was controlled by the government and the government to a degree controlled what was taught and prohibited the freedom of others to meet and teach as they believed. The first amendment was to prevent the action of government to prevent the freedom of religious practice. People coming onto a school ground at the invitation of a school official to pray for the protection of those who work there and learn there is in no way the establishment of a religion and the atheist certainly have the right to pray that there will be no influence of any god over what happens on that school ground. But I as a Bible believing Christian have a right and a biblical responsibility to pray for God’s protection over my children and my workplace. Congress shall make no law to establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of it. Period.

    • dm_apostate

      Why do you need our tax supported schools and tax supported government employees to endorse your god? Use your own money and resources to promote your religion on your own time and dime.

      • http://batman-news.com samurai

        Why do we need to spend our tax dollars on the ones, you and your ilk caused, that are part of the welfare state? What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism to be accurate and correct? FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
        You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        • dm_apostate

          I know of no atheist that wants a government to promote atheism.

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            Answer the question. What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism to be accurate and correct? If you don’t like living in a Christian nation, then go somewhere else to live. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
            “If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the atheist? Their virtue then, must have some other foundation than the love of God.”
            Thomas Jefferson
            Signer of the Declaration of Independence
            3rd President of the U.S.
            Orthodox Christian

          • MarkSebree

            Samurai – “Answer the question. What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism to be accurate and correct? ”

            Actually, the “proof” is the complete lack of objective, verifiable evidence that any deity exists.

            You are also committing a logical fallacy. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. You are the one that is making the positive claim that your deity exists. Therefore, it is your responsibility to support your claim with objective evidence. And objective evidence does NOT require that the other people believe as you do for them to reach the same conclusion.

            Therefore, where is your objective evidence that your deity exists? The fact that we exist is not evidence, nor the fact that this planet exists or the universe exists. There are other explanations for all of these in science that are perfectly reasonable and which do not require any deity.

            Additionally, the United States of America is NOT a “Christian nation”. It is a secular nation with a majority population of Christians. And to address a previous statement in this thread, a person can love this country and all its freedoms and not be religious or worship a different deity than you or even many other deities. That is what the individual freedom of religion and conscience is about in the First Amendment.

          • BobTrent

            Mankind at large has from time immemorial held to the idea that some god, some super-natural being, created everything, at least to start out, and many think such a being should be respected, even to find out what he/it wants.

            It is belief in God, or a creator, that precedes the idea of Atheism.

            To the Romans an “atheist” was one who did not believe, or pretend to believe, in the Roman or equivalent gods.

            There was a humorous moment in Polycarp’s appearance in the arena. The proconsul commanded him to say “Away with atheists,” referring to the Christians who were considered atheists because they didn’t worship the Roman Gods. Polycarp pointed at the jeering mob and cried out as instructed “Away with the atheists!”

          • WTS/JAY

            Bob Trent: It is belief in God, or a creator, that precedes the idea of Atheism.

            Ever ask yourself why?

          • Vigilant

            Surely you jest. There are VERY FEW atheists trolling the websites that don’t project a holier-than-thou attitude toward those of religious faith. Your sarcastic ridicule and denigration are all too typical of the chip-on-the-shoulder, bitter sociopath who believes his position is superior to all others.

            You are mostly spoiled children, not content to be given equal time for the practice of your own religion, desiring instead to throw unconstitutional roadblocks in the way of others to discourage their practice.

            THAT, my friend, is precisely the ADVOCATION of atheism, and you dolts won’t be happy until all Christian worship is once again held behind closed doors.

            Freedom FROM religion is the name of the foundation, and it speaks volumes about the true intent of its advocates.

            “The battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom…between the rotting corpse of Christianity…and the new faith of
            humanism. Humanism will emerge triumphant.”– John Dunphy, January/February, 1983, issue of “The Humanist”

          • BobTrent

            Atheists who “don’t project a holier-than-thou attitude toward those of religious faith” don’t bother to try to force their views on anyone, or to shut anyone else up unless the atheists is being shouted at. They are personal atheists and public agnostics.

          • Vigilant

            “Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the Cultural Revolution are… [a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”
            William Z. Foster—Toward Soviet America, 1932

          • Vigilant

            Right. When the communist leaders all died off, that left no communists in the world.

          • WTS/JAY

            Could the suppression of all religions and religious expression be considered as the attempt to promote Atheism? After all, and if such an endeavour were to succeed, what would be left to fill the void…? but pure Atheism!

      • JimH

        A voluntary prayer meeting will be held at the school. The people there already believe in God. (capitol G) The employees are voluntary. No wages. The building is already there. No expense.
        No one is being forced into it.
        SO WHY DO YOU CARE.
        On a side note, churches are used as polling places during elections. Do you get all bent out of shape that religious places are used for government business? Just wondering.

      • WTS/JAY

        Tax-payers who contribute to, and support, via tax-dollars, the education-system come from a myriad of religious and non-religious backgrounds. Who are you, and what makes you so special, that you should insist that only your existential-view be heard and that it be considered as the ultimate, and to the exclusion of all others? As much as you rail against religion and religionists, you fail to see that you behave in like-manner as those with whom you take issue with; religious-zealots!

      • BobTrent

        What are now state (government) schools were once community schools. Gradually they were taken over and supplanted by government schools. Another instance of government monopolizing an industry.
        Then stop using the tax supported schools to promote the naturalistic pseudoscience generally called Evolution, which has all the characteristics naysayers say characterize religion, such as belief in what is unproven and unprovable. Just teach as science what can be proven by observation and demonstration. Leave the religion and the quasi-religious philosophies to their true believers.

  • Jim S

    What’s interesting is that atheists claim to have no religion, but they are actively trying to get the military to accept atheist Chaplains. Seems to me that having a Chaplain would denote religion. But then what do I know, I’m just a stupid, unenlightened Christian that served 23 1/2 years in the military.

    • Vigilant

      Atheism, notwithstanding the strident protests of its adherents, has always been a religion. They take on unprovable faith that God does not exist.

      Their philosophical position is neither superior nor inferior to the position of Theists.

      • Dave Burrier

        Wrong,it is not necessary to disprove what cannot be proved. If one claims to have invented a time machine, would it be necessary to disprove it, or should the claimant be required to prove it? If you or anyone else in the world claims there is a god, please prove it so that the rest of can be saved/reborn also.
        There are no gods, heaven or hell.

        • WTS/JAY

          Dave Burrier: Wrong, it is not necessary to disprove what cannot be proved.

          Then your assertion that there is no God is not a true scientific statement/finding, but merely philosophical musing. You are no further ahead than the theist(s), i’m afraid.

        • Vigilant

          Tell you what. At the very moment you can describe a scientific experiment to prove or disprove the existence of God, I’ll be all ears.

          But that day will never come. Any philosophy that purports to deal with the spiritual, supernatural world is called metaphysics. Metaphysical propositions are neither provable nor disprovable by the physical, scientific means within our grasp.

          I believe in God, but I’m not so much of a fool as to claim that I can prove his existence scientifically. An atheist who claims that God does not exist is stating an opinion, not a fact.

        • Vigilant

          Obtuse Dave says, “Wrong, it is not necessary to disprove what cannot be proved.”

          You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.

          An experiment could be devised to prove or disprove whether the Moon is made of green cheese. You cannot devise an experiment to prove that God does or does not exist.

          When you say “There are no gods, heaven or hell,” you are asserting an opinion you cannot prove, not a fact.

          • dm_apostate

            “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
            -Christopher Hitchens “God Is Not Great” pg. 150

          • Vigilant

            Excellent. There is no evidence to substantiate your assertions that God does not exist. We can therefore dismiss your ravings.

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          No response possible due to lack of intellectual content by Dave. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

          • BobTrent

            “I am inclined to believe that few attacks either of ridicule or invective make much noise, but by the help of those they provoke.” — Samuel Johnson, Letter to Hester Thrale (1783-07-05)

            “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
            April 7, 1775, p. 253
            Boswell’s full mention of this statement reads:

            “Patriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.’ But let it be considered, that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self-interest.”

          • WTS/JAY

            Samuel Johnson made this famous pronouncement that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel on the evening of April 7, 1775. He doesn’t provide any context for how the remark arose, so we don’t really know for sure what was on Johnson’s mind at the time.

            In all fairness, then, we should propose the possibility that Johnson was not indicting patriotism in general, but only false patriotism. Does that work for you?

      • dm_apostate

        “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
        -Penn Jillette

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          The fool hath said there is no God within his own heart.
          Psalms 14:1
          Psalms 53:1
          FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

          • dm_apostate

            Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

            Psalms 137:9

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            Not correctly interpreted.
            “But the king shall rejoice in God; everyone that sweareth by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.”
            Psalms 63:11
            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        • Vigilant

          “dm_apostate is a rational human being like psychosis is not a mental aberration.”
          -Vigilant

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            D’oh! :-) :-) :-) FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot.

          • MarkSebree

            Nope. You only need love of this country and the desire to defend it against threats to make you a patriot. There are countless patriots who do not believe in any deity as well as countless more that believe in deities other than your own. There are many serving in this country’s armed forces right now, and many more who have previously served as well as who work as civilians directly or indirectly for this country’s defenders.

            And people like you can easily become a threat to this country because of your apparent desire to deny other people their rights, and your apparent desire to change this country into a theocracy or theonomy beholden to your beliefs while denying others the right to follow their own beliefs in opposition to yours.

          • BobTrent

            Depends on what you believe are your “rights.”

            Law forbids what some claim as their right or rights, and mandates what some believe is their right not to do.

            All law is based on someone’s or some group’s belief as to what is right and what is wrong.

            I prefer the idea that murder, robbery, rape, theft, fraud are wrong and believe there should be laws to forcibly impose my beliefs on others.

          • WTS/JAY

            Are you saying that you would support laws against abortion?

      • TML

        Atheism isn’t a religion, Vig… I would expect better from someone with your intelligence.

        Atheism is the lack of belief/faith in a god or gods; it has no tenets, no doctrine, no worship, or ritual. It is not a religion in any sense of the word.

        No atheist takes on “faith” that God doesn’t exist. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, without providing proof of that claim, does it mean everyone who dismisses the claim is acting on faith? Nonsensical.

        Granted, some atheists are stupid enough to claim “God doesn’t exist”, but that merely places the burden of proof upon them. It’s said out of stupidity rather than faith, because one cannot prove a negative that there isn’t an invisible pink unicorn under my bed.

        • Vigilant

          If no proof can be furnished to dismiss a claim, then it is indeed as nonsensical as the claim.

          Thus was the philosophy of logical empiricism promulgated by Alfred Jules Ayer. He stated that unless an empirical (scientific) experiment can be designed to prove or disprove a proposition, then BOTH the proposition and counterproposition are neither true nor false, they are nonsensical.

          Ergo, as far as SCIENCE is concerned, any talk ONE WAY OR THE OTHER about the existence of God is nonsensical.

          The point of metaphysical propositions is to assert or deny that our knowledge of the world can be obtained by more than just scientific experiments and observation. Thus, science is deemed insufficient, nay, completely irrelevant, to such determinations.

          The argument boils down to faith, belief or unsubstantiated opinion on BOTH sides of the question.

          • TML

            Indeed, therefore, when someone claims that an invisible pink unicorn is under my bed (that God exists) the claim itself is nonsensical because there is no way to neither prove nor disprove the claim. The claim itself is made without any empirical evidence, and purely subjective, so yes, science is insufficient.

            But that doesn’t boil the argument down to faith, belief, or unsubstantiated opinion on ‘both’ sides, because one side is driven by the LACK of faith and belief that, for example, there is an invisible pink unicorn under my bed. You can’t just make a such a claim, and then shift the burden of proof to someone else and say if you can’t prove me wrong, then, God exists.

            That’s all atheism is about; it’s simply a dismissal of an extraordinary claim, which lacks extraordinary evidence to support it. It certainly isn’t a “religion”.

          • Vigilant

            “You can’t just make a such a claim, and then shift the burden of proof to someone else and say if you can’t prove me wrong, then, God exists.”

            You have misread what I said. No one, least of all I, is making such a claim. Since neither position can be proven or disproven, both positions and claims are pure nonsense, according to Ayer.

            Lack of faith does not exist in a vacuum. It carries with it a POSITIVE statement of belief, an alternative. It claims that the total scientific experience of humans is that what we can observe is the sum total of the universe. That is a statement that cannot be proven (or disproven).

            In fact, if you are at all familiar with quantum mechanics, it mathematically postulates a universe that can NEVER be known by all the instruments at our disposal, nor could anyone even describe an experiment to yield such answers.

            Both at subatomic and universal levels, quantum events occur in almost infinite numbers every second. And those events are neither explainable, nor ever likely to be.. Research the double slit experiment and the light cone theories of time/space, or the movements of subatomic particles within the atom. Investigate quantum events in which backward and forward time travel is possible. As Hamlet said, “there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

            P.S. Interesting discussion.

          • TML

            Vigilant says, “Lack of faith does not exist in a vacuum. It carries with it a POSITIVE statement of belief, an alternative.”

            With the exception of this statement, we agree. A lack of belief, or faith, in a given claim is not a positive statement of belief. “Faith” literally mean; belief without evidence. What you describe is the understanding that a lack of evidence is not evidence against and that science doesn’t necessarily “prove” anything; there are only degrees of probability.

          • Vigilant

            “science doesn’t necessarily “prove” anything; there are only degrees of probability.”

            THAT is quantum physics.

          • TML

            Yes, you were a bit more articulate, and I summed up what I thought you were saying. Going further, Quantum Mechanics, in layman terms, says that your computer could suddenly grow legs and run down the street, but the probability of that is near zero.

            How is this relevant to your argument that atheism is a religion?

            If I understand your argument correctly then I will say; An atheist says they ‘do not believe there is’ a god. They don’t say ‘I believe there is no’ god; it’s mere semantics and often depends on the definition a person gives to that god.

            I see no reason to even postulate the existence of a god.

            To use my same analogy, the probability of there being an “invisible pink unicorn” under my bed is so low, that i do not believe there is one. Lack of evidence is not evidence against… I guess there could be one… but not likely.

          • Vigilant

            “Going further, Quantum Mechanics, in layman terms, says that your computer could suddenly grow legs and run down the street, but the probability of that is near zero.”

            You’re entirely correct in that assessment. Quantum mechanics does not deal with the “macro” world in which we live, i.e., the sublight speed, everyday world within which we believe we exist. On the other hand, it deals with the truly spectacular subatomic and whole universe levels where one would expect to find the answers to our very existence.

            In this sense, and at these levels, quantum physics is entertaining concepts so foreign to our existence that language itself is insufficient to describe them. For example, the words “same” and “different” have no meaning in quantum physics. It’s a fascinating world, a world of parallel universes from which, by the way, the producers of movies have had their source of inspiration.

            The relevancy of the quantum physics angle to the God argument should be apparent.

            Can you wrap your mind around the mathematical concept of infinity? Can you explain it to anyone so that it can be visualized? I think not. But it is the very basis of calculus, without which Einsteinian physics would have no meaning or usefulness, and without which great technological advances could not be realized. Indeed, a metaphysical concept can have meaning and usefulness in our world.

            As for the semantics of the arguments, that is precisely what I was wishing you to confirm. Words convey meaning, and if that meaning is based purely on usage where two parties are giving a word two definitions, then there is no communication, and no learning takes place.

            You see no reason to even postulate the existence of a god, and in saying so you are making a value judgment. There are many millions of people on earth who do see a reason to postulate the existence of God, and they are making a value judgment.

            My point, since I am not arguing for or against either proposition (that’s another discussion completely) is that neither judgment is superior to the other.

            One side believes that scientific method and observation (basically inductive thinking) are the only sources for our knowledge about the world, the other side believes that science as a discipline is extremely valuable but is insufficient to the task of uncovering other distinct sources of information about our world.

            For sure, the concept of God is a product of deductive reasoning. It guided the Founders so strongly that they declared that His existence and the natural law which he dictated were self-evident.

          • TML

            Actually quantum physics, in the idea that subatomic particles ‘pop’ in and out of existence, gives explanation for the universe and life itself that does not require ‘god’.

            I also don’t see any reason to postulate the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, and that isn’t a value judgment.

            Religion and a belief in God is borne out by faulty premises and circular reasoning in which what is trying to be proven is often used as the proof of that thing. Religion, or belief in god, actually assumes that the order of natural events is not determined by immutable laws, but is to some extent variable and irregular at the will of a great invisible being behind the veil of nature, and this is not deduced from any premise gained through objective observation. (Concepts of talking donkeys, people turning into pillars of salt, and horses that look like locust with scorpion tails in the bible – just to name a few examples). The other distinct sources of information outside of that which is laid down by the scientific theory, are subjective based judgments the same as has been used in the folly of man throughout history. Religion, regarded as an explanation of nature has been displaced by science. Natural law is not dependent upon deduced reasoning in the belief of a god, but is deduced from a value based premise that life and liberty, for example, are essential to the progress of mankind.

            Sure, while the scientific theory of the world is the best that has yet been formulated, it is not necessarily complete and final. The laws of nature are merely hypotheses devised to explain the thoughts which we dignify with the high-sounding names of the world and the universe. Religion, and science are nothing but theories of thought; and as science has supplanted its predecessors, so it may hereafter be itself superseded by some more perfect hypothesis, but faith based assumptions have no place in that process. Such assumptions, like religion or a belief in god, are merely an extension, by false analogy, of the order in which ideas present themselves to our minds, whereas the order laid down by science is derived from patient and exact observation of the phenomena themselves.

            On that basis, this idea that neither judgment is superior to the other is completely wrong in my opinion, since a belief in god doesn’t even necessarily cause one to be moral, and often times used as excuse to commit immoral acts. Whatever you are getting at, it certainly doesn’t come to any rational conclusion that atheism is a religion.

          • Vigilant

            “Religion, or belief in god, actually assumes that the order of natural events is not determined by immutable laws…”

            Not so. Jefferson and other Deists believed quite the contrary. That is precisely why they rejected the idea that God would step in to suspend natural law.

            Your statement would be correct if you said, “Christianity actually assumes that the order of natural events is not determined by immutable laws.”

            “Natural law is not dependent upon deduced reasoning in the belief of a god, but is deduced from a value based premise that life and liberty, for example, are essential to the progress of mankind.”

            Afraid you put the cart before the horse. God can be known, according to the Deists by observation of the natural law in operation as a universal truth. You would find the writings of C.S, Lewis of interest, I think.

            It has been the moral relativism of human beings that has put this world in the sorry status in which it now exists. Any society or group of leaders who assume that life and liberty are not immutable values of natural law, but the conclusions of mankind, are sadly mistaken.

            “…since a belief in god doesn’t even necessarily cause one to be moral, and often times used as excuse to commit immoral acts.”

            And what does that have to do with the existence or non existence of God? Answer: nothing whatsoever. Of course what you said is true, but you’re falling into the same error so often expressed by atheists: the condemnation of human beings as hypocrites.
            For sure, “a belief in god doesn’t even necessarily cause one to be moral.” No one, least of all Christians, would deny that. Please remember that we were discussing the philosophical proposition regarding the existence of God, NOT the frailties and foibles of human beings.

          • TML

            Vigilant says, “Not so. Jefferson and other Deists believed quite the contrary. That is precisely why they rejected the idea that God would step in to suspend natural law.
            Your statement would be correct if you said, “Christianity actually assumes that the order of natural events is not determined by immutable laws.”

            But that even makes less sense, because whereas Christians believe there is a god based on their subjective experiences drawn from a belief that god does suspend the law of nature, deist then draw the conclusion that a great invisible being behind the veil of nature exists and which does not interact in any way with his creation. From whence, then, is the conclusion drawn by deist that god exist if there is no evidence or reason from which to even make such a hypothesis? It seems to me that Deism is simply a way of explaining away the lack of evidence for the existence of a god, while maintaining the presupposition that god exists. It is presupposed that god exists rather than being deduced from a premise gained through objective observation of nature.

            Vigilant says, “Afraid you put the cart before the horse. God can be known, according to the Deists by observation of the natural law in operation as a universal truth. You would find the writings of C.S, Lewis of interest, I think.”

            I’m afraid that the objective observations of natural law do not lead to a conclusion that God exists. You’re actually putting the cart before the horse by postulating explicitly that God can be known (notice the idea that he exists is presupposed) by such observation.
            Any particular writing from Lewis that you suggest on this subject? He is a Christian apologist you realize…

            Vigilant says, “It has been the moral relativism of human beings that has put this world in the sorry status in which it now exists. Any society or group of leaders who assume that life and liberty are not immutable values of natural law, but the conclusions of mankind, are sadly mistaken.”

            It isn’t a sad mistake to say that mankind has concluded that life and liberty are immutable values of natural law; it’s a fact. Relativism is a product of morality because morality is subjective by nature – it requires emotion to make a moral judgment. I don’t agree that the world is in a sorry status of such values when compared to the history of mankind; I see no reason to think that mankind is incapable of concluding what we call immutable values of natural law, especially when religion is removed from the equation.

            Vigilant says, “And what does that have to do with the existence or non existence of God? Answer: nothing whatsoever. Of course what you said is true, but you’re falling into the same error so often expressed by atheists: the condemnation of human beings as hypocrites.

            For sure, “a belief in god doesn’t even necessarily cause one to be moral.” No one, least of all Christians, would deny that. Please remember that we were discussing the philosophical proposition regarding the existence of God, NOT the frailties and foibles of human beings.”

            It was said, not in concerning the existence of god, but in response to your claim that one ‘judgment is not superior to the other’. I made the difference between them by showing one is based on objective observation and evidence, while the other is based on subjective judgment and assumption; and further pointed out that even on a moral basis, religion or belief in god, gains no superiority, or brings us closer to the revelations of natural law as they stand today. The belief in god has often been used to suppress liberty throughout history.

            I actually though you were still trying to prove that atheism is a religion, but if we have gone to the proposition of the existence of god, then I must first ask you to define what that god is as you see it. What do you believe constitutes proof of the existence of that god, and what attributes does it have? As I mentioned, there is no reason to postulate the existence of a god, the same as I see no reason to postulate the existence of a flaying spaghetti monster. To do so without objective evidence, IS the frailties or foibles of human beings.

          • BobTrent

            “… quantum physics, in the idea that subatomic particles ‘pop’ in and out of existence, gives explanation for the universe and life itself that does not require ‘god’.”

            Ideas also ‘pop’ in and out of existence. What does that explain? If I wished I could come up with many explanations of origins and subsequent events.

            “Sonny, yer all wrong. The earth is on the back of a giant turtle.
            “Madam, and what does the giant turtle stand on?
            “An even bigger turtle.
            “And what does the bigger turtle stand on?
            “Gotcha there, Sonny, it’s turtles all the way down!”

          • TML

            Vigilant says, “It guided the Founders so strongly that they declared that His existence and the natural law which he dictated were self-evident.”

            “Shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear” – Thomas Jefferson

          • Vigilant

            Please investigate Jefferson with a little more detail. Not only did he believe in the existence of God, as evidenced by the Enlightenment iteration of Creator-endowed natural law in the Declaration, he spent much time studying the Bible.

            He did not believe in the supernatural aspects of Christianity (miracles, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) but he revered the moral teachings of Jesus. To this end he created the “Jefferson Bible,” which was simply the New Testament with all references to supernatural events excised from the pages.

            “Question with boldness even the existence of a God” is not an enjoinder to become an atheist, it was the eloquent expression of the primacy of reason, the very basis of the Enlightenment and the method which Deists like Jefferson arrived at the conclusion that God does indeed exist..

          • TML

            I’ve studied Jefferson probably more than any other historical figure. The statement wasn’t quoted with the intention of claiming he was atheist; he was a deist for sure. It was in response to your statement that ‘his’ existence is ‘self-evident’ – it isn’t, even by Jefferson’s own words, it is the natural law which he claims to be self-evident. But to question the existence of a god, that existence must clearly not be self-evident on any objective basis.

            Btw, one doesn’t have to believe in god, or even Jesus for that matter, to revere the moral teachings of Jesus in the bible.

          • Vigilant

            “It was in response to your statement that ‘his’ existence is ‘self-evident’ – it isn’t, even by Jefferson’s own words, it is the natural law which he claims to be self-evident.”

            Sorry. Read the Declaration again: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

            “Endowed by their Creator” is very specifically that which is held a self-evident truth. To quote your words to me yesterday, and with apology beforehand, “I would expect better from someone with your intelligence.”

          • TML

            I’m aware of what was written on the Declaration – I can recite it from memory. I was merely challenging that portion based on my arguments that the existence of that “Creator” (whatever that is) ‘really’ wasn’t self-evident, but that the context is more to the point of the natural law being self-evident. Such as the right to life. To liberty. To self-defense, which are values that have been collectively formulated based on the history of man’s mistakes.

            Edit: It would be just as fitting to say, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Humanity with certain unalienable Rights”

            Btw, my statement that I expected more from someone with your intelligence was directed to your claim that atheism is a religion; which you seem to have abandoned. Honestly I said that as more a complimenting invitation to engage. :)

          • Vigilant

            Jefferson’s own words in the Declaration are testimony to the influence of Deism in the founding of our country. “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” Supreme Judge” and “divine Providence” were all terms that did not issue from Christian pulpits of the day. “First Cause,” “Divine Artist,” “Divine Author of All Good,” and the mason George Washington’s favorite, “Grand Architect,” were all specifically Deist terms to describe a Deity that refused to be pigeonholed or claimed by one religion.

            Sorry I’ve got to go, TML. This has been a most refreshing discussion, edgy but civil, and I would wish that more atheists who some to this site were like you and DaveH, balanced, intelligent and thoughtful about their beliefs.

            Discussion on matters religious are generally unable to proceed with anyone changing their mind, but it’s nice to engage with worthy participants like you. Thank you.

          • TML

            Likewise my friend

          • BobTrent

            To a degree the Deists were trying to strike a neutral position for the new national government among the various “Christian” denominations.

    • Dave Burrier

      It is never too late to be enlightened. Atheist Chaplains would be there to confort, advise, listen to, help any service member who request it. Religion has nothing to do with it and is not needed.

      • WTS/JAY

        But how would an “atheist-chaplin”comfort one who is of faith?

      • http://batman-news.com samurai

        You need faith in order to be a chaplian. Here is something for you to read.
        http://www.politichicks.tv/column/the-bill-of-rights-and-sharia-law/
        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
        You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
        “We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”
        James Madison
        Member of the Constitutional Convention
        “Father of the Constitution”
        4th President of the U.S.
        Devout Christian

      • BobTrent

        Why (I’m not an Atheist so I can ask “why”) would an Atheist need comfort?
        Bobggles the mind.

  • Ponderosadon

    1 Timothy 2:1-6
    2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.

  • JimH

    There is alot of prayer in public school during finals week.

    • MarkSebree

      But none of it is organized by the school, and none of the children’s beliefs are shown any preferential treatment.

      There isn’t anything to stop individual students from praying, nor is there anything that stops groups of students from forming religious clubs. What is prevented is the schools’ employees from endorsing or showing any favoritism of any religion or denomination over any other. Teachers and administrators of schools have a lot of power over the students, and a lot of direct and indirect influence over them. It is also a vertical, hierarchical system of authority where the students cannot easily escape undue or unwanted influence exerted by the school’s employees. (Note: the military has a similar power structure that is more granulated.) That is why there are such strong prohibitions against public school teachers and administrators discussing religion and religious subjects.

      • JimH

        It’s just a joke, Mark. The conversation was getting heated so I thought I would lighten things up a little.

  • justasec

    Two comments:

    First, whenever this type of situation occurs there’s always a surge of what I term “TLC treatment: — as in Taliban-Like Christian treatment. If you profess to follow what Jefferson usually termed the “most sublime and ethical” legacy of Jesus — then walk the walk — and quit the insults and threats!

    Second, with regard to “But it seems pretty plausible that if Jefferson and Madison were here today…” A reading of Jefferson’s and Madison”s church state-related correspondence, especially that written during and after their presidencies, makes it crystal clear that they would have vehemently disagreed with Colemen et al.

    Note: Since Madison is generally recognized as “the father of the COTUS,” his views should be critical here.

    • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear justasec,

      You write: “A reading of Jefferson’s and Madison”s church state-related correspondence, especially that written during and after their presidencies, makes it crystal clear that they would have vehemently disagreed with Colemen et al.” You demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution in particular and the 1st Amendment specifically. SCOTUS rulings notwithstanding, the 1st Amendment simply prevented Congress from establishing religion as a state religion as in the Church of England. It also reinforces the idea that people are free to practice religion as they see fit. The 9th and 10th Amendments affirm that all matters not covered in the Constitution are reserved to the people and the states. Thus, as the Founders understood it, states would have been free to establish state religions if they saw fit. Massachusetts had a state church until 1833. Several others forbid any but protestants from holding elected office.

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • BobTrent

        “… people are free to practice religion as they see fit …”
        As long as it does not breach the peace. Some like to say, “does not harm others” but most religion, both theocratic and secular, does harm others. Some of it has injury and bloodshed as cardinal tenets, not just collateral damage.
        The Mormons are free to teach, as their Book of Mormon still does, that polygamy (polygyny only) is not only lawful (in their religion) but required. As long as they do not practice concurrent polygamy, only consecutive, as the state church teaches and allows.
        Hindus are free to teach that suttee is pleasing to their god or gods as long as they don’t do it.
        Mohammedans are free to teach, as do their scriptures, that massacring “infidels” (non-Mohammedans) and “heretics” (fellow Mohammedans who differ in some point) as long as they don’t do it.
        The only quasi-religious teaching that is presently illegal is to teach that the government needs to be violently overthrown, or a government official assassinated, even if one doesn’t make the attempt. Does that make state-worship the true established religion?

  • dm_apostate

    These are very primitive people we are dealing with. In deep woods Alabama they worship the Boll weevil beetle because they think god sent them to encourage diversifying to peanut farming. They will soon learn (again) the Constitution (We the people) is far more powerful than the invisible man in the sky.

    • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

      Dear dm_apostate,

      Thank you for revealing your bigotry to the masses. You compassionate and intelligent progressives are truly wonderful examples of humanity. But still, we Alabamians pray for your God-rejecting soul every day. God bless!

      Best wishes,
      Bob

      • Dave Burrier

        “Nothing fails like prayer”

        • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston
          • Dave Burrier

            Not true. You may as well fart in the wind. Wishful thinking. There is nothing up there to pray to. No heaven or hell. Been there, done that.

          • WTS/JAY

            Dave Burrier: There is nothing up there to pray to. No heaven or hell. Been there, done that.

            Your statement implies that you have infinite-knowledge…do you?

          • Dave Burrier

            No one has infinite knowledge, but I do know enough to say that the concept of a god is an impossibility.

          • WTS/JAY

            A concept is an abstract idea; a general notion. Your statement “concept of a god is an impossibility” is a definitive-statetement; but technically, it’s just another concept, or an abstract idea in refutation to the concept; there is a God! You argue against a “concept” with a “concept” which is irrational and self-defeating and places you in the same position to that of the theist; provide proof. Therefore, and in step with your peculiar-logic, your abstract-idea “there is no God” is as irrational as the idea; “there is a God”! A true Atheist would never argue against the idea that there is a God, for doing so, would place the Atheist in a position to argue/prove the non-existence of a God; a pointless exercise, as proof, (scientific), cannot be provided from either positions; and further, it would bring into question the Atheist’s conviction in his/her “concept”; there is no God. Irrational! For if you posit the “notion/concept”, there is no God, by what means do you qualify that statement? Certainly not by the scientific-method. Conversely, neither can the theist. For both “beliefs/convictions” are of a personal-nature, seemingly immutable…?, and transcend the limitations of science!

          • Dave Burrier

            wts/jay, I wrote a reply but got timed out or somefin. Try again tomorrow

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            Must of been lacking those cognative thinking skills. Here is an article with a prayer for our rebelling country. I suggest you read it.
            http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-prayer-for-a-nation-in-rebellion/
            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
            “The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the Word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts.”
            John Jay
            Letter to Peter Augustus Jay
            April 08, 1784

          • Dave Burrier

            Samurai, you must be the only genius on here with an IQ of 60.

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            The personal attack and argument to ridicule. Very immature behavior. Here is a nice source for you to look at.
            http://www.politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/washington-post-writer-wrong-about-religion-america-and-the-constitution/
            BTW, when I entered the army, I had an IQ of 127 and an IQ of 140 when I left. I assume that is a vastly higher number than yours. Neeeeed to study a lot more than you have. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! ㅏ나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
            “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
            Genesis 1:1

          • Dave Burrier

            What happened to you since you left the military so as to devolve so? Head wound perhaps? Sorry about that, but we are proud you served our country so well.

          • BobTrent

            Drugs.

          • WTS/JAY

            I suggest you stop taking them, Bob. (-:

          • BobTrent

            Marilyn vos Savant claims an IQ (“Idiocy Quantity?) of 200+. Yet she can’t tell the difference between her…uhhh…belly button and a hole in the ground.
            Intelligence is highly overrated.
            Einstein couldn’t get his Relativity theorem to work, so he sneaked in a Fudge Factor. Worked fine thereafter.

          • Dave Burrier

            Your response is irrelevant. With or without the word “concept” the statements, god is an impossibility, and there is no god, can stand alone. A god cannot be proven, therefore it is not a requirement to disprove of its existence. AS Christopher Hitchens said “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.
            Now, you know for a fact that god was an invention of man several thousand years ago, and you have to know that evolution is true, ID and creator are false. So I can only assume that you are on here for some sort of self gratification. Ego issues perhaps?
            If you come back and you perchance claim to be a christian or some sort of believer, you best have a ton of evidence for that belief. Other wise your credibility will be zero, same as with your rant about liberals.

          • WTS/JAY

            Dave Burrier: AS Christopher Hitchens said “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

            While an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence we can only prove a positive. If you had to prove you were not guilty of some offense most of us would be in jail. We dismiss court cases everyday for lack of evidence. In some idealist world that doesn’t exist, Christopher’s quote may have some validity but not in the real world…

          • Dave Burrier

            So in other words, one who is not required to disprove what cannot be proved, is guilty of same? What kind of sense does that make? None. You inject here a misdirection, a smoke screen to deflect from the issue at hand. Nice try.
            Back to the original premise: If I told you that I invented a time machine, would you, wts/jay, be required to dispute and disprove that claim, or would I, Dave Burrier, be required to provide the proof that it actually exist? If you or the pope or a billion others tell me, Dave Burrier, there is a god, you, the pope and those billions are required to prove that to me. I am not required to disprove what you all cannot prove. Very simple, down to earth stuff, no BS.
            God is an invention of man, you, wts/jay, have to know that as well as most thinking people. So why all these silly games, wts/jay, that only go to appease the non-thinking Zombies? Are we having fun yet?

          • WTS/JAY

            Dave Burrier: So in other words, one who is not required to disprove what cannot be proved, is guilty of same? What kind of sense does that make? None.

            Then why does the one who is not required to disprove that which cannot be proved demand proof for that which cannot be proved?

          • Dave Burrier

            Easy answer. I said that if you, wts/jay or the pope or billions of others tell me, Dave Burrier, that there is a god, I demand proof. Otherwise you must claim nothing and say nothing to me. You must be quiet and go away to a church or what ever suits your needs.
            I also said that god is an invention by man and this is provable by historical records,and science, but also by just plain common sense. Would you care to disprove this provable fact? The bible is the most goofiest book ever published. It is also the least read, which could be a good thing or not, depending on who and how one chooses to use it.

          • Vigilant

            “I said that if you, wts/jay or the pope or billions of others tell me, Dave Burrier, that there is a god, I demand proof.”

            And I say that if you tell me that reality is completely described or describable by science alone, I demand proof.

            Grapple with that one, sonny.

          • Dave Burrier

            I wouldn’t try to tell you anything, little worm.

          • Vigilant

            Of course you wouldn’t. You’ve run out of talking points and find it impossible to engage in a rational conversation. If you had an original thought, it would die of loneliness.

            As with all people of limited mental resources, you prefer to dodge the question, then insult the questioner.

            I repeat, “…if you tell me that reality is completely described or describable by science alone, I demand proof.”

            Cat got your tongue? Or will you “shift the burden of truth” on that?

            To borrow your words, otherwise you must claim nothing and say nothing to me. You must be quiet and go away to your bedroom or what ever suits your needs.

          • BobTrent

            Job 25:6

          • BobTrent

            Sorry, I’m not that far along in science. I remain stuck at the primordial speck, that mote of no height, no breadth, no depth and infinite mass from which the entire cosmos Banged so Bigly.
            If all is an inherent characteristic of the Primordial Speck (the naturalist god), then all is preordained, even this disCUSSion. Super-Calvinism? Or SuperCaliFragilisticExpialaDocious Calvinism?

          • WTS/JAY

            Dave Burrier: Easy answer. I said that if you, wts/jay or the pope or billions of others tell me, Dave Burrier, that there is a god, I demand proof. Otherwise you must claim nothing and say nothing to me. You must be quiet and go away to a church or what ever suits your needs.

            I think you confuse “praying in public” with “proselytizing”. Perhaps you should re-acquaint yourself with the definition of both; as well, with what the Law/Constitution has to say in regards to each…?

            Dave Burrier: I also said that god is an invention by man…

            One could argue that the concept, “God doesn’t exist”, is an invention of man.

            Dave Burrier: and this is provable by historical records,and science, but also by just plain common sense. Would you care to disprove this provable fact?

            Really? Are you proselytizing?

            Dave Burrier: The bible is the most goofiest book ever published. It is also the least read, which could be a good thing or not, depending on who and how one chooses to use it.

            Well, i hate to burst your bubble, but the Bible is still on the #1 best seller’s list, to date! The bible is printed in more than 2000 languages and more copies of the Bible have been sold every year than any other book ever published. Ouch!

          • Dave Burrier

            Your continual misdirection and off topic ramblings are not worth answering. But, I am quite aware that the bible is the biggest seller of all time. My implication was to mean that, for the numbers sold, percent wise, it is the least ever read. That is my own idea, with no proof to back it up.

          • WTS/JAY

            Dave Burrier: My implication was to mean that, for the numbers sold, percent wise, it is the least ever read.

            Again, you claim to posses infinite-knowledge, omniscience; the capacity to know everything that there is to know. In particular, to know everything that can be known about a character(s), all persons, including their past history, habits, their thoughts, feelings, etc. An “attribute” assigned to an invisible, super-natural being. Are you claiming to be God? God, is that you? (-:

          • Vigilant

            “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.

            You’d better heed those words, son. Your assertion is without evidence.

          • dm_apostate

            Christopher Hitchens “God Is Not Great” pg. 150

          • WTS/JAY

            From the Reviews: God is not Great

            “This book is not only a polemic against literalism; it is an attack on any accommodation between religion and science, faith and progress. But the problem with Hitchens’ thesis that religion poisons everything is how to explain those who use it to do good. Hitchens says that Stalin understood his people’s religious superstitions and mimicked them. So King wasn’t really religious and Stalin was. If that sort of intellectual and moral shabbiness is to your taste, this book should be too.” – Michael Skapinker, Financial Times

            “Anyone expecting a masterful demolition of all things sacred will be disappointed. Bullying and shallow, God Is Not Great is a haute middlebrow tirade, a stale venting of outrage and ridicule. Beneath his Oxbridge talent at draping glibness in the raiment of erudition, Hitchens proves to be an amateur in philosophy, an illiterate in theology, and a dishonest student of history. Too belligerent to be nimble and too parochial to be generous, the once-captivating Hitchens demonstrates why he has forfeited any claim on our attention. I’m sure this act plays to rave reviews in the Beltway and Manhattan, but Hitchens is just too acidulous and unfair to pull it off here. Hitchens’s command of philosophy is as dubious as his account of science. All too often his pose of encyclopedic learning rests on namedropping and straw men. On theological issues, Hitchens is even more at sea.” – Eugene McCarraher, Commonweal

            “Christopher Hitchens’s new book, God Is Not Great, is the most recent and in many ways the most engaging of these exercises, displaying a range of reference and a degree of energy, wit, and learning that the others conspicuously lack. Correspondingly, however, its flaws go much deeper. Shorn of the culture we have, a culture nurtured and preserved by monotheistic religion, his proffered utopia amounts to just another invitation to barbarism. Hitchens here shows himself to be more credulous and sentimental — and much more insidious –than any of the religious mythmakers he so earnestly despises.” – Sam Schulman, Commentary

            “Hitchens has written a book that is seriously harmful, not because of his attack on religion, some of it deserved, but because he will divert people away from the real problem: which is we human beings, both religious and irreligious.” – Richard Harries, The Guardian

            “Christopher Hitchens, in his book God is Not Great, has conflated religion with tribalism. This book refuses to deal with the nuances of religious thought. Hitchens, unequipped to deal with other expressions of religious belief, tries vainly to argue against their authenticity. Hitchens, in common with a group of anti- religious writers including Sam Harris, author of Letter to A Christian Nation, confuses the irrational with the non-rational. The danger, which Hitchens fails to see, is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart — the capacity we all have for evil. Hitchens’s arguments are the mirror image of those used by the fundamentalists he despises. He embraces a self-serving and simplistic view of the world.” – Chris Hedges, New Statesman

            “This is Hitch versus God, slugged out to the bloody death. On the evidence of this book, Hitchens has spent too much time around religion, not too little. Like an ex-smoker who grows to loathe the habit more than those who have not tasted nicotine, he abominates God with the zealotry implicit in dictatorial faith. Anyone who has grown up in the shadow of hellfire evangelism will recognise some answering echo here. This is a papal bull for the non-believer. Science and reason have all the answers, but the spiritual solace they lack is also missing in an encyclical whose many qualities include no shred of tolerance or doubt. Hitchens’s book will be manna to the converted, but his explicit aim is to win believers to his cause. I doubt that he will reclaim a single soul.” – Mary Riddell, The Observer

            http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/religion/hitchens.htm

          • Dave Burrier

            Don’t talk to your superiors like that, little worm.

          • Vigilant

            Oh, we’ve ruffled the feathers of the great Dave Burrier! LOL!

          • Dave Burrier

            Great is spelled with a capital G little worm.

          • Vigilant

            God is spelled with a capital “G,” Big Idiot.

          • Vigilant

            Then obviously your “knowledge” is as rudimentary as a rock.

            NO ONE ON EARTH can “say that the concept of a god is an impossibility.”

          • Dave Burrier

            There are many millions of people here on earth who will say that the concept of a god is an impossibility. I am but just one.

          • Vigilant

            And you are overwhelmingly outnumbered.

            Sucks to be you.

          • BobTrent

            And he is absolutely wrong. A “concept” is an idea. I have the idea that there is an infinite, eternal, supernatural God. Therefore I have the concept that there is an infinite, eternal, supernatural God.

            The cosmos is impossible. Yet it is here. Particle theory, which seems to be validated by amplified observation, has it that the particles, which in turn are composed of smaller particles, are widely separated by empty space. The volume of discrete particles appears to be but an infinitesimal portion of space. So in comparison to what appears to be, we and our world are barely here.

            “Just because we don’t have the capability to measure something doesn’t mean it doesn’t make a difference.”

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            Sook Young and I will pray for you. Though we may wear out the rug. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Dave Burrier,

            You write: “Wishful thinking. There is nothing up there to pray to. No heaven or hell. Been there, done that.” You have been to Heaven and hell and returned to tell about it? My my. You must have quite a story to tell.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Dave Burrier,

            You write: “Wishful thinking. There is nothing up there to pray to. No heaven or hell. Been there, done that.” You have been to Heaven and hell and returned to tell about it? My my. You must have quite a story to tell.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Dave Burrier

            Yes I have quite a story to tell, but I am not telling. It is a secret. Sorry.

        • Derek Taunton

          Your brain has obviously failed you along with the “raising” your parents gave you.

          • Dave Burrier

            Thank you sir. You are obviously one of the good christians.

          • Derek Taunton

            Thank you for your kind comment. I am simply tired of folks persecuting Christians by perverting the meaning of The Constitution. Coach Coleman was one of my high school teachers and he is a fine man.

          • BobTrent

            Oh, infidels can persecute Christians quite well without giving any attention whatsoever to the Constitution.
            Their major problem is finding any Christians to persecute. Matthew 7:14

        • William C. Brooks

          Your comment shows you don’t know how to get answers to prayers. I do, and the methods work continually — if a person is willing to perform the efforts — of which, obviously, you know nothing. I am very sorry for you!
          I will join the Alabamians to pray for you! you need it!!!!

          • Dave Burrier

            “Pray-verb: to ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.” Ambrose Bierce.
            Pray for me William and I will think for you. You need it.

          • Vigilant

            Uh, Ambrose Pierce didn’t write the dictionary.

          • BobTrent

            Bierce wrote the “Devil’s Dictionary.”

            “Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another.”
            ― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil’s Dictionary

            H’mmm…looks like that one’s from the Reporter’s Dictionary.

            “Selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others.”

            “Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.”

            “Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen.”

            “Positive, adj.: Mistaken at the top of one’s voice.”

            “Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding. The basic of logic is the syllogism, consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion – thus:

            Major Premise: Sixty men can do a piece of work sixty times as quickly as one man.
            Minor Premise: One man can dig a post-hole in sixty seconds; Therefore-
            Conclusion: Sixty men can dig a post-hole in one second.
            [Therefore, as one man can have sex with sixty women and potentially produce sixty or more offspring, one woman can have sex with sixty men and potentially produce sixty or more offspring.]
            This may be called syllogism arithmetical, in which, by combining logic and mathematics, we obtain a double certainty and are twice blessed.”

            Dictionary, n. A malevolent literary device for cramping the growth of a language and making it hard and inelastic. This dictionary, however, is a most useful work.”

            And,

            “Christian, n.: one who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.”

            ― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil’s Dictionary

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          That is a bald faced lie. Show a source that will prove that statement. It must be credible, not secularist, not atheist, and not from some stupid science book. Ooops! I forgot that your ilk don’t possess good thinking capabilities. To say there is no God, tec., shows a person to be less intelligent. No go home before your mom notices that you are gone. Here is something that shows the intent of our Christian founding fathers.
          http://www.americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/the-original-intent-of-the-founders
          FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
          “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of this country. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be better prepared to defend and assert them.”
          John Jay
          Founding father
          Devout Chistian

      • BobTrent

        “Liberal”-Progressives are SOOOOO intolerant of intolerance!!

        Do the rest of us have to pay for research and treatment of their diseases?

    • WTS/JAY

      Liberal-progressives worship the “phallus” and the “anus”(homosexuality); so what’s your point? Should not everyone be free to worship what they so choose?

      • dm_apostate

        Did you learn that from Ted Haggard’s sermon or the local Catholic church?

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          Sheesh! I’ll bet it took some real thinking for you to come up with that remark. Speaking of sermons, here is one telling of how a patriot is to be a Christian.
          http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=74
          FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
          “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the priviledge and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
          John Jay
          Founding father
          Devout Christian

        • WTS/JAY

          No, i learned that from liberal-progressives. (-:

      • BobTrent

        Do the rest of us have to pay for research and treatment of their diseases?

        Mt. 7:1, 2 teaches that one is not to judge others by a higher standard than he adheres to himself. The parable of the speck and the log illustrates this point.

        Christians are to judge one another.
        “11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler– not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I [apostle Paul] to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges.” — 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 NASB

        • WTS/JAY

          Who said anything about the treatment of their diseases, or judging them, for that matter? My comment was in response to dm_apostate who was discussing matters of worship, namely; the ungodly things which people choose to worship. You seem a little weak in reading comprehension…?

    • http://batman-news.com samurai

      It seems that you know nothing about our founding. Our founding fathers believed that Americans had a God-given right toexpress their religious beliefs and they can do this anywhere, to include schools. You do not have the right to infringe on their rights to do so. Saying there is no God reall shows just how less intelligent you are. Now go home before your mom notices that you are gone. Here is a source for your to look at that destroys everything you have just said.
      http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government
      http://www.americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/historical-documents-showing-state-support-for-religion
      http://www.americasfoundingfathers.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/biblical-inscriptions-on-public-buildings
      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=56
      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=144096
      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=131332
      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=98
      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=51
      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=44
      Here is one from Samuel Adams.
      http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=43
      There are just so many of these that proves you ignorance wrong, but unfortunately, I don’t have the time to set you onto the straight and narrow path. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
      You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
      “Condescend, merciful Father, to grant us as far as proper these imperfect petitions, to accept these inadequate thanksgivings, and to pardon whatever of sin hath mingled in them for the sake of Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord and Savior; unto Whom, with Thee, and the blessed Spirit, ever one God, be rendered all honor and glory, now and forever.”
      John Jay
      The Life of John Jay, 1833.
      Founding father
      Devout Christian

      • dm_apostate

        The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust” (Art. VI), and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn’t our Constitution say so?

        In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

        more….

        http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13354-america-not-a-christian-nation

        • http://batman-news.com samurai

          SSDD, eh less intelligent one? The same lies told over again. In Article VII there is a reference to Jesus. In the preamble it says “…the blessings of liberty…” which refers us back to the Declaration of Independence which states our “liberty” is “…endowed (blessed) by their Creator (GOD)…”. Ergo, an indirect invoking of God’s name. The Treaty of Tripoli? Which one? Why not mention the one that was written in 1805 that does not mention that 1 sentence. BTW, for you to say that 1 sentence of a treaty is how we believe, shows your lack of knowledge of our founding. FFRF? Those people are fools and know nothing about the God-given right of freedom of religion. All they believe in is freedom of religion for everyone, except Christians. Sorry dud, but we were founded a Christian nation and are still one today. Here is an article that proves you wrong, once again.
          http://www.politicaloutcast.com/2013/06/treaty-of-tripoli-america-not-founded-on-the-christian-religion/
          Don’t let the title fool you. Since we were founded a Christian nation, you are just upset because you can’t prove otherwise. Here is another article that proves you wrong.
          http://www.theblacksphere.net/2013/08/the-forgotten-first-freedom/
          Neeeeed to study a lot more and quit listening to that infidel groups propaganda. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
          You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.
          “Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere abd humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son. Blessed be His holy name.”
          John Jay
          Founding father
          Devout Christian

          • dm_apostate

            “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

            Matthew 6:1

          • http://batman-news.com samurai

            “Judge not, lest ye be judged. For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
            Matthew 7:1-2
            FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
            You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

        • Vigilant

          “The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. As the embodiment of the Declaration’s principles, the Constitution created a frame of government with a clear objective. The Constitution is not a collection of compromises, or an empty vessel whose meaning can be redefined to meet the needs of the time; it is the embodiment of an eternal, immutable truth.”
          (https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=279)

          If you ever read the Declaration of Independence, you’d know PRECISELY what that eternal,. immutable truth is.

        • BobTrent

          The US Constitution constitutes the system of national government, not the nation itself, which was established by the unanimous Declaration (“Declaration of Independence”).
          The U. States functioned pursuant to the Declaration alone from 1776-1781, the Articles of Confederation 1781-1789 and the Constitution of the United States since 1789, more or less.
          Many state constitutions refer to “God,” some to Jesus Christ. The USA is supposed to be a voluntary union of sovereign states. Without the states there are no states to be united.

    • BobTrent

      It’s a joke, son. Tongue-in-cheek. It was G.W. Carver who promoted switching to peanuts, sweet potatoes and soybeans.
      Hardly “deep woods,” Enterprise has a population of over 26,000. Surrounded mostly by farmland.

  • WTS/JAY

    For those of you who do not know, especially young people, I am compelled to inform you of the generally un-known truth that the word “Liberal” has a proud heritage and was originally a word that described men who were the political opposites of modern “Liberals.”

    The word “Liberal” was forcibly stolen and corrupted by evil men who intentionally perverted the use and meaning of the word.

    In the long forgotten past, the word “Liberal” described honorable and principled men who held to a philosophy of government that advocated Constitutional Republicanism. Constitutional Republicanism is a type of government almost unknown to most of the world. America was originally a Constitutional Republic. A Constitutional Republic defined is characterized by a very small government with limits on its powers of taxation and whose other powers are strictly limited by rigorously enforced Constitutional edicts.

    But modern Liberals are nothing more and nothing less than Communists, Socialists and Dictators. Modern Liberals promote, advocate and enforce the centralization of all political power into an all powerful central government.

    The honorable old Liberals of the 19th century must be spinning in their graves over the outrageous corruption and modern use of the word “Liberal.” Following are 60 Truisms about Liberals:

    At the most basic level, the Liberal is anti-God. He is an intellectually dishonest, unprincipled, mentally immature, spoiled child who is forever in search of a world without moral consequence. That is why the Liberal makes “The State” his god. The Liberal worships THE STATE.

    The Liberal attempts to use his god (government) to eliminate all moral consequences for immoral behavior. In the name of “Justice,” the Liberal also pretends to make his god (The State) “level” all peoples so that the wise or the beautiful or the genius will have no advantage over the unwise, the ugly and the simpleton in the marketplace. The Liberal calls this tyrannical State of Government, UTOPIA.

    The Liberal vainly imagines that freedom from moral consequence can be secured by a collectivist, totalitarian state.

    Liberals use moralistic platitudes and catchy phrases like “social justice” and “The Brotherhood of Man” to appeal to the naive masses who are duped into believing that the ultimate goals of Liberals are genuinely benign and beneficient. However at the root, like the Prince in Machiavelli’s greatest work, the single moral principle that Liberals adhere to is the continual accumulation and centralization of all power.

    The ideologies of Liberals must inevitably end in world-wide totalitarianism.

    All non-sexual individual freedoms are despised by the Liberal. Why? Because those kinds of individual freedoms, (such as economic self-reliance) demand moral responsibility.

    The fundamental power struggle of Liberals may be classified as the individual versus the collective. The Liberal supports the collective in every contest against the individual. The individual must be relieved of all power in favor of the collective. All power must be centralized.

    Liberals hate Individualism because it demands moral responsibility. Liberals support collectivism because they hope to eliminate the need for moral responsibility.

    The U.S. Constitution and specifically the support for rugged individualism which is evident in the Bill of Rights, is the enemy of the Liberal.

    The Liberal despises the United States because it is the premier protector and promoter of individualism in the world.

    In the mind of a Liberal, all institutions and concerns schools, environment, courts, etc. – serve no relevant purpose other than the promotion of collectivism.

    In the depraved thought processes of a Liberal, abortion becomes necessary to guarantee sexual freedom and eliminate moral consequence.

    The basis of traditional healthy psychology is to help individuals take personal responsibility for the choices they have made and to help them make better choices in the future. The basis of modern psychology as defined by the Liberals who are members of the self deluded, isolated and ill-educated Professorial Class living in their government financed socialist Ivory Towers, is the elimination of moral responsibility.

    In order to advance their agenda, Liberals create an atmosphere of crisis and fear that is used to justify their collectivist oppression. Liberals love to go to war against other nations for it is during times of war that they are most successful in getting the most oppressive legislation passed in Congress. Check your history books and you will see that every major war America has fought in the last 100 years was started by a Liberal or a statist who philosophically supported centralized government…

    more here: http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/Articles/Liberals.htm

    • Vigilant

      Absolutely superb posting.

      • WTS/JAY

        (-:

    • Don 2

      Great read Jay. Thanks for the site.

      • WTS/JAY

        My pleasure, Don 2! (-:

    • BobTrent

      Not all Atheists and Agnostics are grossly immoral people. Some live as Christians are supposed to, except for the worship aspect. There are some who are not self-righteous but simply believe in being good.
      Professed Christians, impostors, do more harm to Christianity than all the Atheists, Agnostics and Pagans combined.

      • WTS/JAY

        Again, you have misread, Bob! The article dealt with today’s Liberals, not Atheists and Agnostics; as not all Atheists and Agnostics are Liberals! (-:

  • dm_apostate

    If you are on the fence and lack the motivation to educate yourself, please consider the fact that the more educated you are the least likely you are to believe in fairy tales. The elite scientists, educators, members of high I.Q. societies and those that thirst for knowledge and understanding are overwhelmingly non-religious. The internet has allowed us access to research bible contradictions, learn about the evils of religion, see scientific facts that contradict the primitive teachings of religion and help us understand that countries and communities have a much higher quality of life as religiosity decreases. The bible was written by ignorant primitive people, much like those that are still isolated in deep woods Alabama or the hills of West Virginia. The numbers of the religious are drastically declining and they are desperate. Their god is not powerful enough to attract membership, they need our government to subsidize superstition and recruit for them. Are you going to side with the smart people or those from deep woods Alabama?

    “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
    -Stephen Hawking

    “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
    -Christopher hitchens

    • http://batman-news.com samurai

      Quoting a couple of lying losers I see. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY! 하나님하고 나라를 위해서!
      You need both love of country and faith in GOD to be a patriot. This leaves you out.

      • MarkSebree

        You quote losing liars all the time. Or are you unaware that David Barton is NOT a historian and NOT a credible source. He is well known as a “liar of Jesus”, a hack, a revisionist, and a propagandist for the far religious right. He has no credentials, and his claims are regularly ripped to shreds by credible historians, including ones who are professors at Christian colleges. Quoting or linking anything from WallBuilders or David Barton as a source only hurts your cases.

    • WTS/JAY

      dm_apostate: The elite scientists, educators, members of high I.Q. societies and those that thirst for knowledge and understanding are overwhelmingly non-religious.

      Famous Scientists Who Believed in God and laid the ground/foundations for what we call today, Science. If not for these scientific/religious men, we would not have science, but would still be living in the dark-ages. The scientists of today owe a great-deal to their predecessors for their tremendous, intellectual-contributions!

      Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
      Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.

      Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
      Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.

      Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
      Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity – well before Newton was born!

      Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
      Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo’s telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one “proof” based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope’s favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo’s) was very offended. After the “trial” and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

      Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
      Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy.

      Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

      Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
      Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air.

      Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
      In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God’s plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, “The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

      Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
      One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: “By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, ‘for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels…’ As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty.” Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

      Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
      Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature.

      Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
      Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called “Mendelianism”. He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and “rediscovered” him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860’s was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of “conflict” between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics – selective breeding among humans to “improve” the stock). He was writing how the “priestly mind” was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton’s contribution.

      William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
      Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says “Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions.” Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth’s age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

      Max Planck (1858-1947)
      Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture “Religion and Naturwissenschaft,” Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that “the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols.” Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols.

      Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
      Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. TheEncyclopedia Britannica says of him: “Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in “Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists.” This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: “I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Einstein’s famous epithet on the “uncertainty principle” was “God does not play dice” – and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

      http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

      • dm_apostate
        • BobTrent

          Wikipedia is not in itself a valid source as it may be changed by anyone at any time. Wikipedia is at best a good source for real references.

          Good to know that the Hell-Bomb was invented by an Atheist, Robert Oppenheimer, along with Hans Bethe, Marc Oliphant, and Harold Urey, better known for his work on a theory of spontaneous generation, and Enrico Fermi, an Agnostic.
          One evil that is not blamed on a Christian. And it was invented for use on Pagans.

          Ordered to be used by Harry S Truman, by his own words not a very good Baptist:
          “I believe that every problem in the world today could be solved if men would only live by the principles of the ancient prophets and the Sermon on the Mount.”
          If that doesn’t work, nuke ‘em.
          “It is the Golden Rule in reverse–and it is not an uplifting sight. What a pity that the human animal is not able to put his moral thinking into practice!”
          “I am by religion like everything else. I think there is more in acting than in talking. I had an uncle who said when one of his neighbors got religion strong on Sunday, he was going to lock his smokehouse on Monday. I think he was right from the little I have observed.”
          “I’m not very much impressed with men who publicly parade their religious beliefs…. I’ve always believed that religion is something to live by and not to talk about. I’m a Baptist because I think that sect gives the common man the shortest and most direct approach to God. I’ve never thought the Almighty is greatly interested in pomp and circumstance, because if He is He wouldn’t be interested in ‘the sparrow’ alluded to in St. Matthew’s Gospel. Religious stuffed shirts are just as bad or worse than political ones in my opinion.” (From a handwritten autobiographical manuscript, 1945.

          • WTS/JAY

            …”It’s relatively easy for presidents to get on the outs with their denominations,” says Wake Forest University Divinity School Dean Bill J. Leonard. It’s hard to find a 20th-century president who didn’t butt heads with some in his faith:

            …Harry Truman, the first Southern Baptist in the White House, annoyed some in that denomination by spouting “hells” and “damns” in conversation. Jimmy Carter angered Baptist pastors by favoring abortion rights.

            Truman, Harry S. (1884-1972) – also known as “Give ‘Em Hell Harry” – of Independence, Jackson County, Mo. Born in Lamar, Barton County, Mo., May 8, 1884.

            Grand-nephew of James Chiles; married, June 28, 1919, to Elizabeth Virginia “Bess” Wallace. Democrat.

            Major in the U.S. Army during World War I; county judge in Missouri, 1922-24, 1926-34; U.S. Senator from Missouri, 1935-45; delegate to Democratic National Convention from Missouri, 1940, 1944, 1952, 1960; Vice President of the United States, 1945; President of the United States, 1945-53; candidate for Democratic nomination for President, 1952. Baptist.

            Member, American Legion; Freemasons; Knights Templar; Eagles; Elks; Lambda Chi Alpha; Phi Alpha Delta.

            He was a little more than just a Baptist, Bob. (-:

    • Vigilant

      Now I get it. dm_apostate is an intellectual wannabe. Figures if he aligns himself with the smarties it will make him look smart. Too bad he so abjectly fails in his subterfuge.

      Tell you what, sonny (and I address your mental age, not chronological age), IF your ever mature above the mental age of 14, you might actually learn something about life.

      Your insistence on relying upon science as the answer to everything is testimony to YOUR ignorance. And your “proofs” address NOT the existence of God but the mistakes, misconceptions and brutality of human beings in history. As such, your “evidence” doesn’t even reside in proximity to philosophical discussions about the existence of God.

      Your absolute dependence upon science ignores the largest truth of all: that science can answer the question “how,” but will NEVER answer the question “why.”

      “The elite scientists, educators, members of high I.Q. societies and those that thirst for knowledge and understanding are overwhelmingly non-religious.” Such may be the case, but it’s obvious that their truncated cognitive powers stop at the blind wall of human arrogance and bigotry. Their “thirst for knowledge and understanding” is certainly easily satiated, I would say. YOU and your fellow atheists are that portion of the incomplete human beings who people this world.

      • WTS/JAY

        Now that, was a superb posting! (-:

        • Vigilant

          Thank you sir!

      • BobTrent

        The elite don’t need a “why.” “Why” is irrelevant to them. Why (oops!) do we have more an more laws that are concerned only with whether or not the forbidden act was committed, or the mandated act was neglected. Why the accused violated the law is not considered at trial. Maybe at sentencing.

  • prinefan

    R.I.P. Religion, Ignorance, Poverty, feed off of an compliment each other. Example; the middle east and developing nations. In ALABAMASTAN The fanatics want a caliphate with mandatory prayer and punishment for refusing. Just like the Taliban in Pakistan etc. I fear that the conflict of death and violence in the middle east, all over religion will eventually come to the U.S. All religion (of any stripe) has ever done is mostly devastate humanity. Remember, just because John Gotti gave out turkeys at X-mas, it did not change the fact that he was a black hearted murderer.

    • Vigilant

      “In ALABAMASTAN The fanatics want a caliphate with mandatory prayer and punishment for refusing.”

      As you atheists are fond of saying, “provide proof of that statement.”

      Apparently you’re a professed mind reader to make an idiotic statement like that. Wait a minute, mind reading is a paranormal activity…is that your true religion?

      Ignorance, thy name is Charles Sparrow.

  • TML

    Idiots

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

    This clause means that no law may be created on the national level that respects a religion (Yes, that means any laws concerning marriage that discriminate)

    “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    And this clause means the federal government cannot create laws which prohibit the free exercise of religion, so long as that exercise does not harm anyone physically or financially. (Yes, that means that prayer should be allowed in schools)

    I don’t see what the hell is so hard to understand.

    • MarkSebree

      You forgot to include the 14th Amendment, which applies the 1st Amendment to all levels of government down to the local level.

      • TML

        The 14th is unnecessary in concluding that the 1st Amendment applies to the states, since each state was required to conform their own constitutions to this principle upon ratification.

        • Montezuma58

          Do some research on incorporation and the 14th Amendment. Basically if the Feds can’t do it the states can’t.

          • TML

            I’m well aware of that claim; I’m simply saying that point is moot because each state already has freedom of religion within their own Constitutions upon ratification of the US Constitution.

            Take Alabama for example (the state mentioned in the above article): Article 1: Section 3: “That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.”

            The 14th is therefore irrelevant. If a state tried to remove religious freedom from their state constitution then I’m sure the 14th would be applicable, but not necessary for this discussion.

        • BobTrent

          At the time of the framing and ratification of the US Constitution:
          Most states in early America had established churches
          Established Church: a church officially supported (and paid for) by the government
          Dissenters from established churches were tolerated but not always treated equally
          First Amendment originally limited only federal government, not state governments
          First Amendment contains two clauses on religion: Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause
          Pennsylvania (Quakers) and Rhode Island (Baptists) did not.
          Connecticut (Congregationalism) disestablished its state church in 1818.
          Not until 1833 did the last state disestablish its state church – Massachusetts: Congregationalism)

          As to the 14th, read Dyett v. Turner, 20 Utah 2d 403, 439 P.2d 266 (1968) at http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/Dyett.htm .

  • prinefan

    TML, Not hard to understand at all. The privileged position religion has enjoyed of using the resources of others to ram it down our throats for thousands of years is over with. We do not want or need your religion.
    w

  • prinefan

    TML, Not hard to understand at all. The privileged position religion has enjoyed of using the resources of others to ram it down our throats for thousands of years is over with. We do not want or need your religion.
    w

    • TML

      As an atheist, I don’t have a religion, but I’m sure that I can maintain my position in the midst of the mere opinions of mankind to the contrary. We may not need or want religion, but we certainly don’t need to use government or force to suppress the religion of others. History itself has shown that to be a great folly. Does it make you feel like you going to burst into flames or something when you hear someone pray?

  • WTS/JAY

    God Hates Religion…

    A survey of the Scriptures reveals that there is one category that God hates above all others. God hates religion! Many will be confused, if not offended by such a statement, for they have identified God with religion. Religion, therefore, needs to be defined and differentiated from the Christian gospel.

    The English word “religion” is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to “bind up.” Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.

    Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the molds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.

    It is the propensity of man to formulate religion ­to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion! The apostle Paul refers to it as “self-made religion” (Colossians 2:23), and goes on to indicate that it is of no value against fleshly indulgence. In essence, Paul is saying that “religion is of no value against man’s sinfulness.” In fact, religion is a co-dependent enabler of the sins of mankind. It is itself an addiction.

    Religion is essentially idolatry. Men worship their man-made formations and structures ­ their ideological idols formed in the concrete of inflexible minds. When the apostle Paul came to Athens (Acts 17:22), he observed their idols and exclaimed, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.” The Greek word that Paul used for “religious” literally means “to have great respect for demons.”

    To document that God hates religion, note the following passages of Scripture:

    “…every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)

    “I have had enough of burnt offerings…Bring your worthless offerings no longer…I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts; they have become a burden to Me… So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you… I will not listen…” (Isaiah 1:10-15)

    “I hate, I reject your festivals; nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies…take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.” (Amos 5:21-24)

    These passages bear out the fact that God hates religion, and all of its procedures and programs; rituals and regulations.

    Religion is inevitably the result of man taking that which is of God and forming it, formulating it, in such a way that men end up “playing God.” Men can form idols out of wood or stone in an attempt to represent God, or they can formulate ideological idols (belief-systems, doctrinal definitions, theological theses). The men who thus form and formulate become the “chief priests” of the new religion because they are regarded as knowing the most about what God is like, and well they should for they formed “it.”

    There are three features which seem to be basic to all forms of man-made religion. Religion involves absolutism, authoritarianism and activism. Now there is nothing wrong with absolutes, authority or activity. God is absolute, authoritative and active. But when any man or group of men attempts to establish themselves as the arbiters or regulators of God’s absoluteness, authority or activity, they then begin to “play god,” and religion is the result as they impose their perspective of absolute, authority and activity on others…

    continued: http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html

    • Vigilant

      Exceptionally perceptive, and as close to an absolute truth as you can get.

      The atheists never seem to understand that they have perennially attacked those who have “played God” in history, and those who continue to do so. Sadly, many Christians as well are also locked into the ritualistic aspects of organized religion.

      I have often said, and have never seen it proven wrong, that once you organize ANYTHING it turns to excrement. Churches are not purely, but largely political structures with hierarchies and rituals. The evils perpetrated upon the world by organized religion were the result of human decisions alone.

      But the atheists assume the illogical position that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is OK. The general summary of almost all snide atheist claims made on the internet is as follows: Because mankind, in his foibles, lack of understanding, thirst for power and general stupidity has mishandled his beliefs in an ultimate being, that ultimate being cannot exist.

      It is NOT a logical argument. No Christian with common sense would believe that faith in God is dependent upon buying into the terrible acts perpetrated by human beings throughout history in the name of God.

      • WTS/JAY

        Vigilant: But the atheists assume the illogical position that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is OK. The general summary of almost all snide atheist claims made on the internet is as follows: Because mankind, in his foibles, lack of understanding, thirst for power and general stupidity has mishandled his beliefs in an ultimate being, that ultimate being cannot exist.

        If a religionist/christian, after having preached endlessly against the immoral act of stealing is found out be a thief, does that invalidate his statement that stealing is wrong, or make it any less true? Rhetorical question…(-:

        • Vigilant

          More than a rhetorical question. It strikes to the heart of the matter, WTS/JAY.

          That religionist/Christian you cite is of course a hypocrite, and of course the injunction against stealing is not one iota diminished because of his actions. And that was precisely my point.

          The action of the Christian deserves censure. The wrongness of stealing is not affected one bit.

          It would not be inconsistent with the screwy logic of the atheists to say that the Christian (or all Christians) was/were wrong to believe that stealing is wrong.

          The actions of human beings IN NO WAY diminish the legitimacy of religious principles or a belief in God. Only the secular humanists (atheists) would have you believe that. ,

          • WTS/JAY

            Precisely!!!

          • BobTrent

            The thief doesn’t want the law forbidding theft repealed, for he doesn’t want his stuff stolen by another thief while he’s out stealing. He just wants an exception made in his case, mainly not getting caught.

    • BobTrent

      “Religion [θρησκεία – threskia < threskos – devout, religious] that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." — James 1:27 NIV

      What is the problem with absolutes? We live by absolutes. "Gray areas" are matters in which we have not found or understood an absolute.

      Authority is necessary despite all too common abuse. Laws must be enforced or they are no law at all. Enforcement requires authority.

      Anarchy cannot exist but for a moment. If the existing authority collapses, a new one, usually a formerly lesser magistrate, will take over, and quickly. In the USA, if the federal government collapsed, the states would rise to the occasion. And if a state government collapsed, the county sheriff would quickly establish authority. If he hesitated he would be replaced by a new sheriff willing to keep order.

      • WTS/JAY

        Bob Trent: What is the problem with absolutes?

        Man’s distorted-absolutes, was what the article addressed, Bob. Specifically, the corrupt absolutes of certain men hiding behind religion, not God’s! You need to learn to read more carefully, Bob. (-:

  • dm_apostate

    If these zealots would read their own bible they would see Jesus doesn’t want them praying out in the open. Issue resolved, everyone go home.

    “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

    Matthew 6:5-6

    • Vigilant

      What is your point, child?

      You are like the mosquito in the dark bedroom: You’re insignificant but a pain in the ass.

      • dm_apostate

        Maybe god will wipe dung on their faces for this disobedience.

        “I will reject your seed; I will throw dung in your faces, the dung from your festival offerings; and you will be carted off with it.” Malachi 2:3

        • Vigilant

          Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
          Robert A. Heinlein

          • dm_apostate

            “…whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”Matthew 5:22

          • Vigilant

            The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.

            Albert Einstein

          • dm_apostate

            Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind:

            “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can change this.” -Albert Einstein

            Excerpt from, “The Good Atheist” -Dan Barker FFRF

          • Vigilant

            Einstein quotes:

            1. I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

            2.Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

            3.My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

            4.The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

            5.Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

            6.The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

            I’ve got more quotes than these if you care to see them, but I know you don’t.

            You, my ignorant friend, don’t have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about. And that goes double for Dan Barker

            The quote he so speciously uses to convince you that Einstein was an atheist does not accomplish his nefarious end. Einstein was NOT an atheist, as my quotes prove.

            You idiots will never understand that non-belief in the Bible is completely irrelevant to the belief in the existence of God. For Thomas Jefferson and other Founders, as well as Albert Einstein, the bible was indeed “a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

            I know you probably have difficulty walking and chewing gum at the same time, but try hard to put these two concepts together: non-belief in the Bible is not an infallible indicator of atheism. You got that, child?

          • Dave Burrier

            Vigilant. I love your posts. You are very funny.

          • Vigilant

            And you are very impotent when it comes to answering fact-filled, logical arguments. Moreover, your psyche is transparent to all persons with normal intelligence, i.e., it’s not a matter of considered philosophical position that motivates you, it’s the bitter hatred of Christians.

            Your response was predictable. Lose an argument and you (1) ignore the factual content of the argument with which you were slain, (2) fail to gracefully admit you were wrong, and (3) make some irrelevant comment.

            The pity of it all is that you and all the other scheming idiots of your ilk will continue to use that ridiculous Einstein quote as some sort of “proof” that he was an atheist.

            You are not philosophers, you are cheap and underhanded propagandists.

          • WTS/JAY

            Vigilant: You are not philosophers, you are cheap and underhanded propagandists.

            I think that a more precise diagnosis; psychological-projection. As you know, it is a defense mechanism in which a person, or in this case, anti-religious propagandists, unconsciously reject their own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or Christians. They project their thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings that they cannot accepted or deal with by placing them in the outside world and attribute them to someone else, in particular, Christians. Another words, what their ego(s) repudiates is split off and placed in another.

          • Vigilant

            Excellent analysis.

            It would account for the fact that rarely is an attack initiated by a believer in God. It almost invariably originates with the atheist throwing brickbats.

            They have never been content to live and let live.

            Einstein said “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.”

            That, too, sums up the paltry intellectual life of those bigoted atheists who stopped questioning a long time ago. I think it may be a sign of insecurity that everything has to be settled and in a neat little package for them. Their miniscule minds require that life be simple and uncomplicated. No unanswered questions, no mystery, no imagination.

          • Vigilant

            “The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.”
            Albert Einstein

          • WTS/JAY

            Vigilant: Einstein said “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.”

            Faith is a belief held without evidence. The scientific method, a loose collection of procedures of great variety, is based on precisely the opposite concept, as famously declared by Thomas Henry Huxley:

            The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.

            Huxley was one of a long tradition of British sceptical philosophers. From the Bacons, through the likes of Locke, Hume and Russell, to the magnificent climax of Popper’s statement of the principle of falsifiability, the scientific method was painfully established, only to be abandoned in a few short decades. It is one of the great ironies of modern history that the nation that was the cradle of the scientific method came to lead the process of its abandonment. The great difference, then, is that religion demands belief, while science requires disbelief. There is a great variety of faiths. Atheism is just as much a faith as theism. There is no evidence either way. There is no fundamental clash between faith and science – they do not intersect.

            The difficulties arise, however, when one pretends to be the other…-John Brignell

            http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm (-:

          • hddragracer

            ‘propaganda’ = religion.

          • BobTrent

            ‘propaganda’ = government, the state.
            See the government “priests” in their black robes of ecclesiastical origin. Hear the government loyalty oaths. Experience the response of government to “heresy.” The enforced “contributions” to the state religion, which is government itself.
            The “separation of church and state” is separation of private church from the government “church.” The government is to stay out of the religious faith of private persons except in cases of breach of the peace.

          • WTS/JAY

            hddragracer: ‘propaganda’ = religion.

            Does that mean that Stalin, Mao and Hitler were religious?

          • dm_apostate

            Richard Dawkins provides adequate evidence that does in fact show that Einstein, in all sense of the word is an atheist.

            http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/8/15/albert-einstein-s-historic-1954-god-letter-handwritten-shortly-before-his-death

          • Vigilant

            “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.” -Albert Einstein.

            Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. Dawkins is free to lie all he wants about Einstein. Einstein’s not here to defend himself. I accept Einstein’s own words at face value (and there are MANY of his quotes concerning God).

            Now, you may call Einstein a liar if you wish. People of normal intelligence and common sense understand fully what he said.

      • BobTrent

        This “mosquito” just may carry Malaria (“bad air”) or Yellow Fever.

  • Joseph

    Atheism is a religion.Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)
    A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:

    They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
    They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
    They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
    They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
    They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
    They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
    They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by … faith.There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
    Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.

    • hddragracer

      ATHEISM is NOT a religion, rather the disbelief in religion and in any “god.” Atheism is a “thought form.” Religious people “DON’T THINK.” They believe whatever ‘their book’ says, never questioning ‘authority.’

      • WTS/JAY

        hddragracer: They believe whatever ‘their book’ says, never questioning ‘authority.’

        Which authority?

  • WTS/JAY

    17 Kinds of Atheism

    ‘Atheism’ is a much simpler concept than ‘Christianity’ or ‘Hinduism’, but the word atheism is still used in a wide variety of ways.

    This can cause confusion. Someone may announce that she is an atheist, and her listeners may assume she is one type of atheist, when really she is a different type of atheist.

    So to clear things up, here are 17 kinds of atheism, organized into 7 sets. Some kinds of atheism can be combined in a person, and some cannot. For example, it is perfectly consistent to be an agnostic, narrow, friendly atheist. But one cannot simultaneously be both a passive atheist and a militant atheist.

    This list is not definitive. There are many ways to organize and label different kinds of atheism.

    For brevity’s sake, I have substituted “gods” for the usual phrase “God or gods.”

    1. Difference in Knowledge

    A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.

    An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods.

    2. Difference in Affirmation

    A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.

    A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.

    3. Difference in Scope

    A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.

    A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

    4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism

    An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.

    An indifferent atheist doesn’t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.

    A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.

    5. Difference in Openness

    A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.

    An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.

    6. Difference in Action

    A passive atheist doesn’t believe in god but doesn’t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.

    An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.

    An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.

    A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term “militant atheist” is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the “militant Christian” who bombs abortion clinics or the “militant Muslim” suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of “militant atheist” that assumes acts of violence.)

    7. Difference in Religiosity

    A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.

    A non-religious atheist does not practice religion.

    Of course, there are many more “kinds” of atheism than this, for one may be a Republican atheist or a Democratic atheist, a short atheist or a tall atheist, a Caucasian atheist or an Hispanic atheist, a foundationalist atheist or a coherentist atheist, an enchanted atheist or a disenchanted atheist.

    http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

  • WTS/JAY

    Types of Atheists

    Contrary to popular opinion which seems to club all kinds of atheists into one type, there are different kinds of ‘atheists’. ‘Non-belief in an organized faith’ is usually considered a ticket to atheism. However there are different kinds of people who profess such non-belief. I could think of four types here:

    Iconoclasts

    These are idol-breakers. They would like to break the existing notion of belief in the God as preached by a certain religion or cult they are familiar with. They see a certain religion and its practices to be detrimental and hence they go about shattering those icons, those symbols, those houses of worship. Sometimes these iconoclasts tend to establish a different kind of ideology in the place of the idols they have fought. Certain Communists fall into this category. Karunanidhi and Periyar fall into this category to an extent. Adolf Hitler and Stalin could be grouped into this.

    Their non-belief is not scientific in origin and it may not have a rational outlook either. The rejection of God could be out of anger, frustration with the way the world is working, or with a hidden agenda to replace existing faiths with a different ideology. Some iconoclasts who broke up paganism settled down to embrace Abrahamic religion. Some iconoclasts who broke up Christianity embraced Nazism or Communism.

    Pragmatists

    They are practical people who rationalize and see that most things in life can be explained away without involving God or his divine intervention. They see no need for God to run things. They see rituals as an encumbrance to leading a practical life.They see organized religion serving certain vested interests. For them miracles are just coincidences. These people may not have known the deeper topics of science or inner understandings of nature. But they have enough logical and reasoning power to conclude that running of things does not need intervention of a supernatural being and hence there is a good enough reason to conclude that God does not exist.‘Show me the proof, only then will I believe’, is their stand.

    Some pragmatists may turn into believers if they are touched by supposed miracle.They may take a U-turn to embrace religion and its all elements to become their champions. Some people in their young age may dabble with atheism, more as a rebellious streak, and they may eventually become strong proponents of religion and belief in God after certain incidents or revelations.

    Deists

    They are complete nonbelievers of a religious God. They are of scientific bent and have asked deeper questions about the forces of nature, and how nature is run.They don’t think a God is running this place. They don’t think God listens to one’s prayers. They do not see God as creator of life. They do not see God intervening into human life. However, they do feel that there could be some supernatural force that has brought this Universe into place. And that supernatural force need not be a conscious being, not someone who is concerned with affairs of men and their petty exams and wars. But they concede that certain supernatural force may be the one that set the universal laws and their properties in motion, only during the first few nanoseconds of the creation of Universe. And thereafter has NOT tampered with Universe ever again. (Example: Albert Einstein)

    Absolute Atheists

    They are nonbelievers of all kinds of God including a supernatural force. They are of scientific bent too and have asked deeper questions about forces of nature. They inherit all other traits of Deism, but they do not believe that a supernatural force is needed to set the Universe into motion. They believe we just happen to be a in a Universe that could spawn life and hence we happen to ask these questions. In Universe which could not spawn life there is no one to ask these questions.

    http://sujaiblog.blogspot.ca/2007/09/types-of-atheists.html

    • dm_apostate

      Which type doesn’t believe in separation of church and state?

      • WTS/JAY

        There is no state-religion. Duh…!

        • hddragracer

          THERE WILL-BE!

          • WTS/JAY

            If there will be one, it will be Islam!

        • BobTrent

          Except the state itself.

  • JimH

    I’ve been reading all of the comments.
    It seems to me the issue is , Does the FFRF have the right to tell these students they can’t have a prayer meeting, before school formally starts, on the school grounds.
    There are many posts claiming God doesn’t exist. That is irrelevant. The students believe in God and have a constitutional right to worship. Don’t let yourself be lead away from the main issue. It is an interesting topic, just not relevant.

    There is talk about using tax payer money, for a few students. The school officials are there on their own time and the school is already there. Minimal to no cost. No one is forcing anyone who doesn’t want to go, but all are invited and are welcome. Many of those tax payers are believers and have the right for some of the money they provided to go for something they want.
    Many churches are used during elections as polling places. Does FFRF have a problem with that? Do they boycott voting at their polling place if it’s in a (gasp) church?

    • WTS/JAY

      JimH: I’ve been reading all of the comments.
      It seems to me the issue is , Does the FFRF have the right to tell these students they can’t have a prayer meeting, before school formally starts, on the school grounds.

      No, they do not! I seriously doubt that the ones who doth protest are true Atheists. A true Atheist is indifferent to what others believe, or what others worship, just as long as the religionists don’t force it upon them. Anyone who claims to be an Atheist yet purposely goes out of their way to shut-down people’s right to pray or worship in public is not a true Atheist, but something else entirely; may very well be Atheists-fundamentalists, of the same stripe as religious-fundamentalists/communists/satanists; who knows for sure with this rabid bunch of kooks? But they are not true Atheist!

      • JimH

        They do not. I agree.

    • dm_apostate

      “The Establishment Clause prohibits public schools and their officials from acting in ways inconsistent with the now-famous, three-part
      Lemon test, named after the Supreme Court case that first articulated that standard. Under the Lemon test, the actions of educators (1) must have a primary secular purpose; (2) must have primary effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) must not result in excessive entanglement with religion.”

      https://www.au.org/files/Religion%20in%20the%20Public%20Schools%20-%20entire%20text_1.pdf

      • JimH

        I read your link. If you keep reading past the part you posted, it will show you that what is going on at this school is permitted.
        Again you tell half the story, and present it out of context.
        Thanks for providing the link that proved my point and you wrong.

        • WTS/JAY

          Yes, you have to keep an eye on dm_apostate; he’s a sneaky one! (-:

          • JimH

            To bad he uses all that cleverness for evil, instead of good.(-:

      • JimH

        dm, The Establishment Clause is followed by the Free Exercise Clause. Having the prayer meeting not during class hours and not mandatory is enough to allow it to be on school grounds.

      • BobTrent

        Nonprofit charitable organizations such as public schools can charge rent for the use of facilities by other organizations as long as the rate is a fair reflection of the cost to the providing organization.
        Many public schools rent space to churches and other community organizations. Charging rent avoids the appearance of conflict of providing free space to a religious or other group using government provided space as long as all are charged the same rate (time x space) for the same facilities and the rate is reasonably connected to the cost of providing the facility.

    • Robbie

      Jesus said to pray in private. He also said to NOT pray in public (i.e. at school) as the HEATHENS do. Lest you be a heathen I suggest you follow your Lord and pray at home with the door closed. Do what Jesus said if you claim to be a follower of his.

      • JimH

        And the Lord said,”Do not pray in school.”
        That would be the 11th Commandment.
        We have already gone over this.

        It was explained to you what it meant.
        Keep trying though. Some day you may get it.
        It is a group of believers assemble on school grounds, not Main Street. These people will pray as a group, in the “privacy” of the school hall.
        For someone who claims not to believe, you sure seem to “think” you know what God wants.

        • Robbie

          “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues… that they may be seen by men…But when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut the door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place…” Jesus

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            What is your point? Do you have one?

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            If you don’t know my point then you haven’t been very good at following or comprehending the debate. But put simply Jesus requires his followers to pray in private out of sight of others. Group prayer in a public school auditorium is NOT a private setting. Personally I don’t pray at all but those who claim to be Christian ought to do as their leader commands.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            You write: ” But put simply Jesus requires his followers to pray in private out of sight of others.” You are ignorant of many things, including the context of this verse. This is neither a requirement nor a command to pray only in public.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            Oh yeah? What’s the context then (pray tell)?

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            You write: “What’s the context then..” Jesus is talking about attitude. Feel free to read all of Matthew 5 & 6 yourself.

            You write: “(pray tell)” In your current state, it won’t do you any good.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            Generally I agree with you that praying does not do any good. There have been some studies, however, that seem to indicate that prayer can have some positive effects on a sick patient. But it has to be the patient doing the praying. Obviously prayer can lift a persons spirits. Other people praying for someone else has no effect.

            Anyway, I’d have liked to have had your take on the context of the stipulation to pray in private but I guess you don’t care to explain. That said I’ll continue to rely on what Jesus said. And, by the way, I’d say I have read the Sermon on the Mount at least 3,000 times and during a 28 year high school career teaching ancient history I would have exposed thousands of students to it as well.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Robbie,

            You write: “Generally I agree with you that praying does not do any good.” That is not what I said.

            You write: “Other people praying for someone else has no effect.” Yes it does.

            You write: “Anyway, I’d have liked to have had your take on the context of the stipulation to pray in private but I guess you don’t care to explain.” You have either a reading problem or a comprehension problem. Since you missed it the first time, I’ll repeat: The context is about attitude.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Robbie

            Studies have been done about the effect of prayer and I noted the results truthfully. I suspect that when religious people pray for a sick person and the person gets better they rejoice and celebrate the “result” of prayer. But when they pray for someone and that person dies they state that “god works in mysterious ways”.

            Then you say “attitude”. I guess I’ll just have to ponder that one. It’s really not clear to me what you mean. Perhaps a rationalization for not NOT exactly following what Jesus stipulates?

          • WTS/JAY

            You’re way in over you head, Robbie, and it is only your arrogance that prevents you from seeing that! “Pride goeth before the fall.”

          • Robbie

            Sorry but I’m not understanding what you mean by being in over my head. Care to explain rather than just spouting religious ditties?

          • WTS/JAY

            Your question just confirmed my statement; You’re way in over your head. You’re not too bright, are you, Robbie?

          • Robbie

            Well there was something you said that I didn’t understand so asked you what you were trying to get at. Your response was to try to insult me. First of all that’s not very kind. Secondly the proper response would have been to explain yourself. Thirdly your lack of a real reply might indicate that it is YOU who can not articulate terribly well.

          • WTS/JAY

            “Way in over your head”…meaning; you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about regarding the topic(s) discussed. Comprende? Come on, Robbie, you can’t be that, STUPID? Can you?

          • Robbie

            Your posting is strong on insults and bluster but really short on an answer. As I noted before, you must be unable to actually explain yourself.

          • WTS/JAY

            Can’t stand your own medicine, can you, putz?

          • Robbie

            I do not swear or curse in my postings. You do almost every time. I find people who swear usually have no other way of expressing themselves.

          • WTS/JAY

            Are you crying, Robbie?

          • Robbie

            Crying? Why would I be crying? It’s you who has the foul mouth. You can enjoy walking around in your little world supposing that you’re some kind of big shot. But you’re just a guy with a foul mouth.

          • BobTrent

            The proposition: “praying does not do any good.”

            “Now we know that God hears not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and does his will, him he hears.” — the man born blind who was given his sight, John 9:31

            He had learned this somewhere, and as he was a Jew, probably learned it from the teachers of religion.

            Now we know that God heareth not sinners,…. All mankind are sinners, even God’s elect; yea, such who are truly gracious and righteous persons; for there is no man without sin; and God hears such who cry unto him day and night; such Christ came to save; for such he died; and these he calls to repentance; and every penitent sinner God hears: but by “sinners” are meant notorious sinners, such in whom sin reigns, who live in sin, and particularly impostors. — Gill’s Commentary

            As according to the New Testament the age of instantaneous supernatural miracles (such as raising a rotting dead body – Lazarus – back to life) is past, “miracles” today cannot be seen or perceived directly. To those who believe in them, miracles of today are directing the order of nature contrary to the direction in which it otherwise would have proceeded, as cancer disappearing when all the efforts of experienced oncologists have failed, or even not begun.

          • WTS/JAY

            Question: “Does God hear / answer the prayers of a sinner / unbeliever?”

            Answer:John 9:31declares, “We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will.” It has also been said that “the only prayer that God hears from a sinner is the prayer for salvation.” As a result, some believe that God does not hear and/or will never answer the prayers of an unbeliever. In context, though,John 9:31is saying that God does not perform miracles through an unbeliever.First John 5:14-15tells us that God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will. This principle, perhaps, applies to unbelievers. If an unbeliever asks a prayer of God that is according to His will, nothing prevents God from answering such a prayer—according to His will.

            Some Scriptures describe God hearing and answering the prayers of unbelievers. In most of these cases, prayer was involved. In one or two, God responded to the cry of the heart (it is not stated whether that cry was directed toward God). In some of these cases, the prayer seems to be combined with repentance. But in other cases, the prayer was simply for an earthly need or blessing, and God responded either out of compassion or in response to the genuine seeking or the faith of the person. Here are some passages dealing with prayer by an unbeliever:

            The people of Nineveh prayed that Nineveh might be spared (Jonah 3:5-10). God answered this prayer and did not destroy the city of Nineveh as He had threatened.

            Hagar asked God to protect her son Ishmael (Genesis 21:14-19). God not only protected Ishmael, God blessed him exceedingly.

            In1 Kings 21:17-29, especially verses 27-29, Ahab fasts and mourns over Elijah’s prophecy concerning his posterity. God responds by not bringing about the calamity in Ahab’s time.

            The Gentile woman from the Tyre and Sidon area prayed that Jesus would deliver her daughter from a demon (Mark 7:24-30). Jesus cast the demon out of the woman’s daughter.

            Cornelius, the Roman centurion in Acts 10, had the apostle Peter sent to him in response to Cornelius being a righteous man.Acts 10:2tells us that Cornelius “prayed to God regularly.”

            God does make promises that are applicable to all (saved and unsaved alike) such asJeremiah 29:13: “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” This was the case for Cornelius inActs 10:1-6. But there are many promises that, according to the context of the passages, are for Christians alone. Because Christians have received Jesus as the Savior, they are encouraged to come boldly to the throne of grace to find help in time of need (Hebrews 4:14-16). We are told that when we ask for anything according to God’s will, He hears and gives us what we ask for (1 John 5:14-15). There are many other promises for Christians concerning prayer (Matthew 21:22;John 14:13,15:7). So, yes, there are instances in which God does not answer the prayers of an unbeliever. At the same time, in His grace and mercy, God can intervene in the lives of unbelievers in response to their prayers.

            http://www.gotquestions.org/unbeliever-prayer.html#ixzz2cKqIm8OZ

          • Robbie

            Ah, silence.

          • JimH

            All this is about the motivation to pray.
            In Jesus time there were many who prayed, gave alms to the poor and fasted. They made sure others saw them do it. They were more interested in impressing other men, then actually praying or helping the poor. It is really saying pray and help the poor for genuine reasons, not to impress others.
            It isn’t a condemnation of group prayer. It means make sure your motives are pure.
            God also says don’t hide your lamp under a bushel.
            Meaning don’t be ashamed of your faith.
            The point of this article is really to decide if this meeting breaks any of “mans” laws. So the point you are trying to make is irrelevant to the debate anyway.(get back on track)

          • Robbie

            I dare say Jesus’ reasons – which you have outlined – for requesting prayer in private are every bit as valid today as they were in the past.

          • JimH

            If it is one person, or a group prayer, Jesus words are as valid today as they were when he first spoke them.
            If one is alone or in a group your prayer should be sincere.

            I don’t think the FFRF is really worried about the sincerity of the prayers though. They have a different agenda and it isn’t an altruistic one.

          • Robbie

            You may very well be correct. In fact there’s at least a 75% chance that you are. Nevertheless the motivation behind the FFRF should not be the main focus of Christians. The focus should be on the type of prayer that Jesus himself advocated. Real Christians ought not treat FFRF members as an enemy but then that’s a slightly different part of the Sermon on the Mount.

          • JimH

            The FFRF picked this fight, not the Christians, or anyone of any other faith, that choose to attend the prayer meeting.
            If they aren’t the enemy, they certainly made themselves an opponent.

            The issue here is does the FFRF have a right to stop this meeting or are they overstepping their bounds?
            So far nobody has refuted that the students, DON’T have that right to meet. Any of the other stuff to try to guide the conversation away from that, as interesting as it is to discuss, is irrelevant.
            Forgiveness is a good thing, But I don’t think Jesus wants people to be pushed around by bully’s(FFRF) either.
            The meeting is voluntary and before the school season starts. It is open to anyone who wants to attend, but it will be in the privacy of the school hall.
            It won’t cost the tax payer( many who are believers) any thing. It isn’t hurting the public at all.
            It is the FFRF who are making a big deal out of it.
            They made the students ‘their” enemy, not the other way around.
            Only 75%? Come on. It’s more than that.

            The motivation of the FFRF, that is a huge part(100%) of the equation.

          • Robbie

            As I said before this is not about the FFRF. It is about how Christians – real ones that is – behave. To state that the FFRF “picked this fight” is like kids in a school yard getting into a fight and saying “you started it.” Christians are supposed to be above that kind of foolishness. Christians are supposed to love their enemy, do good to those who persecute them, and love those who hate them. Or, at least that’s what Jesus said. It’s not an easy regimen which is why there have been so few real Christians all through history – perhaps less than 200 in all. But this particular “fight” is a minor thing. It’s not really that important compared to, say, standing up to the Nazis or defying the Roman emperor. All a real Christian has to do in this case is stay home and pray in private, not in public as the heathens do. That should be easy enough.

          • JimH

            The students were going to have a small prayer meeting.

            You are right it wasn’t a “big” deal, until the FFRF found out and blew it all out of proportion.
            They had to stick their nose into something that wasn’t their business. So, yes it is about the FFRF.
            It is all about, does the FFRF have a right to come in and tell these people where they can and can’t have a prayer meeting.(NO they can’t is the answer)
            Your attempt to steer away from the real topic and try to misinterpret Jesus teachings didn’t work.
            Just because it is a group prayer doesn’t make it sinful.
            They are in a school hall, not in public. Your analogy doesn’t fly and is irrelevant to the topic anyway.
            You can get off this praying as the heathens do kick because it is based on a false premise.
            Yes, Christians are supposed to forgive and love their enemies. That doesn’t mean roll over and be a doormat to anyone who wants to take advantage of that and be a bully.
            We don’t have to lock ourselves in and cower in a corner to pray.

          • Robbie

            Sorry, I didn’t realize you felt the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus was irrelevant. His words are very clear. Christians may follow them or decide not to.

          • JimH

            I never said the Sermon on the Mount was irrelevant, in our lives. Your buddy’s in FFRF could really benefit from it.
            In the debate in whether the FFRF has a right to dictate to others where they can or can’t have a prayer meeting, it is irrelevant to the debate.
            They don’t have that right and since you can’t refute that you try to steer away from it with a different topic.
            While the topic is a good one it isn’t what is being talked about.
            Every year one of the Gospel readings is the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon afterwords explains it in more detail. I’ve heard it discussed dozens of times and have a good working understanding of it.
            If you add to it with other teachings and Gospel readings there is more to go on.
            It is OK to stand up for yourself, or to protect yourself according to Jesus.
            To get a clearer understanding of what Jesus taught, you can’t pick one or two of your favorites and go with only that. You have to read all of it.

          • Robbie

            I find Jesus’ views in the Sermon on the Mount to be not only extremely powerful but definitive.

          • JimH

            Since you won’t try to refute it, I will take it, that you concede that FFRF is in the wrong.
            Take the teachings from The Sermon on the Mount and live your life accordingly, I I’ll try to do the same, along with his other teachings.

          • Robbie

            Thank you. Your words are kind. It’s rather nice for a change to not get an angry, rude response to honest views. As far as the FFRF is concerned I can suggest some of their motivation. It seems to me that non and even anti religious types consider fundamentalists as ignorant, unenlightened, dogmatic, close minded, and myopic. It frustrates them knowing that they are living in a country where a fairly high percentage of the people still follow dictates written by folks 2,500 years ago who were just a notch above cave dwellers. My guess is that many of them do not realize the importance of the contribution to modern life especially legal concepts from the Torah. They also see fundamentalists as unable or unwilling to ever change and they resent having religion shoved “in their face” such as in the school prayer debate. Those who are the subject of their criticism ought to keep these suggestions in mind. It might help. Have a good one.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: I find Jesus’ views in the Sermon on the Mount to be not only extremely powerful but definitive.

            Yeah, only the part regarding praying in public, which you liberals twist out of context and use the bastardized version in your crusades to suppress religious expression. Btw, Jesus’ views on the Torah were extremely powerful and definitive, and He believed every jot and title, the very same book you liberals consider, pure poppycock. Only an ignoramus would take liberal-theology seriously; you, being one of them!

          • Robbie

            Talking snakes – pure poppycock. 7 of all species and food for them all for a month on a small boat – pure poppycock!

          • WTS/JAY

            Prove it false, Einstein! Btw, it was two of all species, you nitwit. LOL!

          • Robbie

            Genesis 7: 2-3 “You shall take with you SEVEN each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean… Also SEVEN each of birds of the air, male and female to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth.”

            You might think about reading your Bible before you call others nitwits. Also, relying on the Disney animated version of Bible verses can be risky.

            So now that that’s cleared up back to my question. How did so many animals and birds fit on such a small boat? And how did they ever find any room for food for the mall for more than 150 days at sea?

          • WTS/JAY

            You just can’t help yourself, can you Robbie? Jerking Scripture out of context seems to be a disease with you. And you have the nerve to call yourself a professor?

            How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven?

            Genesis 7:2-3 and Genesis 6:19-20

            Two (Genesis 6:19-20) – “And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.”

            Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) – “You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.”

            Genesis 6:19-20 simply instructs Noah to preserve two of every kind. Genesis 7:2-3 is additional information where seven of the clean animals were to be taken and two of every other kind. The reason for this is that the extra animals were for sacrifice. “Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar,” (Gen. 8:20).

            Logically, to have seven pairs also means that there are two pairs, since the two are included in the seven. If one verse said take only one pair and another verse said seven pairs, that would be a contradiction.

            Isn’t it so much clearer when you include the WHOLE text, professor stupid?

          • BobTrent

            The SOTM is largely hyperbole, a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect.

          • WTS/JAY

            You confuse the SOTM with your comments, Bob! Another words, you’re “projecting”!

          • WTS/JAY

            When Jesus gave the sermon on the mount, the listeners where not Christians, but folks like just like you, not yet saved/unbelievers. And the listeners also heard that you should not judge…so why are you not following the commandment, “thou shall not judge”; because you are not a Christian, and therefore, exempt, Robbie?

          • Robbie

            Although I consider Jesus a personal hero of mine along with the likes of St. Francis you are certainly correct that I am not a Christian. I admire anyone who could reach the high moral ground of the Sermon on the Mount but they are few and very far apart and the negative aspects of Christianity and other religions are just too profound. I could never go along with the foolishness in the Bible.

            I don’t understand what your point is about the original listeners of the Sermon on the Mount still being non believers. Are you suggesting that folks today who call themselves Christian don’t have to follow what Jesus said???? Boy, that would be pretty dumb if it’s what you mean. And as far as judging, well, I judge all the time. I judge and evaluate and ponder just about everything I hear, see, read every day. The full meaning of the “judge not” commandment is that if you do you should expect to be judged yourself and I’m good with that.

          • WTS/JAY

            You’re a babbler and a fool, Robbie. You just like to hear yourself talk. Unfortunately for you, you’re not listening to the nonsense and garbage that comes out of your mouth.

          • Robbie

            Why is it that most of your responses are just a string of insults and that you never actually do respond to anything substantive? I have been commenting on and directly quoting the Sermon on the Mount and you call that “nonsense and garbage”. I – and I think real Christians – would find you deeply insulting.

          • WTS/JAY

            Why is it that most of your passive-aggressive comments are for nothing else but for the purpose to deceive and be-little your listeners, you intellectual twerp?

          • Robbie

            Why do you swear & curse and insult in almost all your postings? I asked you that last time and your response was just more of the same.

          • WTS/JAY

            Why do you ridicule that which people/Christians consider to be sacred? I asked you that the last time and your response was just more of the same.

          • Robbie

            I find it scary to be in a world where so many people believe nonsense that was conjured up by folks 3,000 years ago who were just a step or two out of the cave.

          • WTS/JAY

            Ignorance breeds fear, and in your case, you should be be very afraid, Robbie.

          • WTS/JAY

            Ignorance breeds fear, and in your case, you should be be very afraid, Robbie.

          • Robbie

            Why is it that most of your responses are just a string of insults and that you never actually do respond to anything substantive? I have been commenting on and directly quoting the Sermon on the Mount and you call that “nonsense and garbage”. I – and I think real Christians – would find you deeply insulting.

          • WTS/JAY

            I think it is you, Robbie, and the one’s who complained about a few Christians praying in public, who are making too much of this. You busy-bodies could have simply ignored them! But you control-freaks are sick people, Robbie. Clean the sh*t in your head first, and then you’ll see clear to help others!

          • Robbie

            Just do as Jesus said O.K.? Thanks ever so much.

            Oh, and watch your foul mouth.

          • WTS/JAY

            Just mind your own business and leave people in peace, and let people do their thing. OK, control freak?

          • Robbie

            But I am minding my business as it were. And if you feel uncomfortable about reading quotations spoken from the mouth of Jesus Christ your Lord then you needn’t read them. So actually it is YOU who should mind your business. I guessing that you are one of these religious freaks who doesn’t actually know the first thing that is in the Torah. You’re a thumper (and a windbag).

          • WTS/JAY

            No, you are not minding your own business, Robbie. In fact, you are sticking your big, dirty-nose where it doesn’t belong. Incidentally, i find it rather amusing that you resort to quoting Scripture in an effort to qualify your argument that praying in public is, in your imbecilic-estimation, wrong. I’m rather surprised you didn’t use the Constitution to beat us over the head with to prove your point. Why is that, Robbie? Oh wait, the Constitution allows, public praying/worship. Isn’t that right, hammer-head? Using Scripture to shame and guilt people so as to control them, is not only wrong, but it is the mark of a cultist, or in your case, a religious-zealot. Perhaps an Apostate…? Btw, your theology, SUCKS!!! Stick to revising history, Robbie, there’s a very high demand for such a discipline in Liberal-academia, or as i like to call such institutions; ship(s) of fools!

          • Robbie

            Merely quoting from the King James Bible the words of Jesus Christ YOUR Lord. Ignore them at your peril. And try to be a bit more respectful. Mind you when you curse others or me it actually shows more about YOU than anyone else.

          • WTS/JAY

            You are merely jerking text/quotes out of context to suit your pre-conclusions, that’s what you a merely doing, Robbie. Your theology ain’t worth spit! In fact, i spit on your pathetic attempt at theology. You’re a hack, a carnival barker!

          • Robbie

            I merely quote directly from the Sermon on the Mount. You may find the words of Jesus to be difficult to take – or absorb – but that’s really YOUR problem.

          • WTS/JAY

            Quoting is one thing, jerking text out of context to suit your idiotic-conclusions, is quite another. But then, what else can we expect from a progressive(s)…? Revisionists-exemplar!

          • Robbie

            Matthew 6:6: But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut the door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place;…” There’s the quote about praying in private; going to your room and shutting the door. The meaning is clear. I have not jerked the text out of context whatever that is supposed to mean.

          • WTS/JAY

            Again, out of context!

            6 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

            2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

            3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

            4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

            5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

            6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

            7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

            8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

            9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

            10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

            11 Give us this day our daily bread.

            12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

            13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

            14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

            15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

            16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

            17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

            18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

            The cautionary instructions were that one guard against praying as the heathens/hypocrites pray; so as to be rewarded by men. Should it become necessary that one need pray in private because they cannot resist the temptation to be rewarded by men, then remove yourself from such temptation and pray in private. Its that simple, Robbie!

          • Robbie

            Yes, pray in secret. Pray in your room and shut the door. This applies to all not just those who might be tempted to seek the rewards of others.

          • WTS/JAY

            That is your, interpretation, Robbie, and yours alone!

          • Robbie

            Yes, number 5 above is very clear.

          • WTS/JAY

            Not by itself it’s not!

          • WTS/JAY

            You just can’t help yourself, can you Robbie? Jerking Scripture out of context seems to be a disease with you.

            How many kinds did Noah bring into the ark, two or seven?

            Genesis 7:2-3 and Genesis 6:19-20

            Two (Genesis 6:19-20) – “And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.”

            Seven (Genesis 7:2-3) – “You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female; also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.”

            Genesis 6:19-20 simply instructs Noah to preserve two of every kind. Genesis 7:2-3 is additional information where seven of the clean animals were to be taken and two of every other kind. The reason for this is that the extra animals were for sacrifice. “Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar,” (Gen. 8:20).

            Logically, to have seven pairs also means that there are two pairs, since the two are included in the seven. If one verse said take only one pair and another verse said seven pairs, that would be a contradiction.

            Isn’t it so much clearer when you include the WHOLE text, professor stupid?

          • Robbie

            Well you are correct that for one verse to say take seven pairs and another says to take two pairs that there is a contradiction. No argument from me there. And yes if you have seven pairs of, say, cows, one pair would be a part of that. So?

            Regardless of the suggestion that some of the animals would be used for sacrifice the fact remains that seven pairs were indeed going on board the ark and my questions was how could so many animals fit on such a small boat. That has yet to be answered and additionally how was there room for food for all of those creatures for 150+ days. Taken literally this story is poppycock and, by the way, it is also plagerized from a myth written some 300 years earlier in the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh. So it’s poppycock and not even original!

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: and my questions was how could so many animals fit on such a small boat.

            For one who claims to know what the Bible says better then most, you sure have a hard time understanding it, don’t you Robbie?

            Noah’s Ark was huge! If you wrongly imagine the Ark looked like some of those little cartoon boats in children’s story books, with a couple of elephants’ trunks and giraffes’ necks sticking out the top, think again.

            Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark’s dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That’s 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark.

            (A cubit was the length of a man’s arm from fingertips to elbow.)

            Higher than a 3-story building!

            Noah’s Ark was three stories high (Genesis 6:16). Its total deck area was equivalent to the area of about 20 standard college basketball courts or 36 lawn tennis courts. The world had to wait until AD 1884 before the Ark’s size was exceeded, when the Italian liner Eturia was built.

            The rectangular dimensions of the Ark show an advanced design in ship-building. Its length of six times its width and 10 times its height would have made it amazingly stable on the ocean. Remember it was made more for floating than sailing, because it wasn’t headed anywhere. The Ark was made to withstand a turbulent ocean voyage, not to be at a certain place at a certain time.

            Recent thought on the Ark’s design is that it could have had a slightly tapered top at the front and back, instead of being squared off. But the famous rock formation near Mount Ararat with pointed ends, which some think is Noah’s Ark, is definitely not!

            Interestingly, British civil and mechanical engineer Isambard Kingdom Brunel built a steamship (the Great Britain) in 1843 that had almost the same proportions as the Ark, although it was smaller. This was regarded as a remarkable feat of Victorian and maritime engineering. The Great Britain was the first large vessel to be propelled by a screw propeller.

            http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

          • BobTrent

            The “public” (government) schools are paid for with money extracted from the people by force, as all taxes are.
            This money should not be used to either promote or to suppress religious belief or practice.
            Individual teachers do not have to pretend they have no religious faith while at school but they should not use the public school room as their own little “tent meeting.”
            If those teachers who profess Christ would spend their effort (as many do) LIVING their faith instead of PREACHING it they would have more effect in evangelizing among the students.

          • WTS/JAY

            You, Bob, are a walking contradiction. I would suggest you acquaint yourself with the definition of contradiction, and then re-read your above comment! LOL!

          • WTS/JAY

            Matthew 6 passage primarily addresses the intent of the heart. Jesus says if you are looking for recognition from others, that’s all you are going to get. Therefore, since you have no way of knowing the intent of the one’s praying in public, you have no way of knowing if their reason for praying is to impress bystanders, or not, Robbie.

            Btw, the Bible tells us in (1 Thess 5:17) to “pray without ceasing.” So for those who work and have to move about in public, praying in private may not always be possible. What would you suggest, Robbie, that they violate 1 Thess 5:17?

            While I don’t believe this literally means to never stop praying, I would say that Jesus probably came closer to never stopping than any person who has ever lived on this planet.

            He was continually in a prayer mode.

            He is shown to pray: alone (Mt 14:23)(Mk 1:35)
            (Lk 9:18)(Lk 22:39-41),

            in public (Jn 11:41-42)(Jn 12:27-30), before meals
            (Mt 26:26)(Mk 8:6)(Lk 24:30)(Jn 6:11),

            before important decisions (Lk 6:12-13),

            before healing (Mk 7:34-35), after healing (Lk 5:16),

            to do the Father’s will (Mt 26:36-44), among other things.

            He also taught on the importance of prayer
            (Mt 21:22)(Mk 11:24-26)(Mt 7:7-11)(Lk 11:9-13)(Jn 14:13-14)(Jn 15:7,16)(Jn 16:23-24) (Mt 5:44)(Lk 6:27-28)(Mt 6:5-15: including the Lord’s Prayer)(Lk 11:2-4)
            (Mt 18:19-20).

            Below are all of the verses I could find in the Gospels that show Jesus praying.

            (Lk 3:21-22) At His Baptism.

            (Mk 1:35-36) In the morning before heading to Galilee.

            (Lk 5:15) After healing people.

            (Lk 6:12-13) Praying all night before choosing His 12 disciples.

            (Mt 11:25-26) While speaking to the Jewish leaders.

            (Jn 6:11) Giving thanks to the Father before feeding 5000. (Also see: Mt 14:19, Mk 6:41, Lk 9:16)

            (Mt 14:22) Before walking on water. (Also see: Mk 6:46, Jn 6:15)

            (Mk 7:31-37) While healing a deaf and mute man.

            (Mt 15:36) Giving thanks to the Father before feeding 5000. (Also see: Mk 8:6-7)

            (Lk 9:18) Before Peter called Jesus “the Christ.”

            (Lk 9:28-29) At the Transfiguration.

            (Lk 10:21) At the return of the seventy.

            (Lk 11:1) Before teaching His disciples the Lord’s Prayer.

            (Jn 11:41-42) Before raising Lazarus from the dead.

            (Mt 19:13-15) Laying hands on and praying for little children. (Also see: Mk 10:13-16, Lk 18:15-17)

            (Jn 12:27-28) Asking the Father to glorify His name.

            (Mt 26:26) At the Lord’s Supper. (Also see: Mk 14:22-23, Lk 22:19)

            (Lk 22:31-32) Prayed for Peter’s faith when Satan asked to “sift” him.

            (Jn 17:1-26) Prayed for Himself, His disciples, and all believers just before heading to Gethsemane.

            (Mt 26:36-46) In Gethsemane before His betrayal. (He prayed 3 separate prayers.) (Also see: Lk 22:39-46, Mk 14:32-42)

            (Lk 23:34) Right after being nailed to the cross, Jesus prayed, “Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

            (Mt 27:46) While dying on the cross, Jesus cried out, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Also see: Mk 15:34)

            (Lk 23:46) In His dying breath, Jesus prayed, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”

            (Lk 24:30) Prayed a blessing on the bread before He ate with others after His resurrection.

            (Lk 24:50-53) He blessed the disciples before His Ascension.

            There are also verses outside of the Gospels that show us that even though Jesus is now in Heaven, He is still making intercession on our behalf (Rom 8:34)(Heb 7:25) (Heb 9:24)(1 Jn 2:1).

            So you see, Robbie. Jesus did, pray in public. But this in no way contradicts Jesus’s instructions not to pray in public, as his concern was that people would do it for the wrong reasons, the same reasons the Pharisees were, so as to gain rewards from men. So his instructions to pray in private, obviously, was for those who could not control such temptation, and going to a private place, naturally, would free them from such a temptation. Theology 101, sonny! (-:

          • Quester55

            Robbie, Continue to Distort The Creator’s Words & one Day You’ll stand before Judgement over your Actions!What excuse will you offer up then?

          • Robbie

            First of all Jesus wasn’t the Creator. If you actually read the Bible you’d learn that the Creator was God. The story about that is on the very first few pages so you should be able to locate it fairly easily. Secondly, we’re interested in knowing how I distorted Jesus’ words. What I wrote is a direct quotation from the Book of Mathew (you should read that sometime also). I can only guess that you are surprised that Jesus actually said those things (according to Mathew anyway). Thirdly, there will be no Judgement as you call it. That’s something made up by religious leaders many centuries ago.

          • WTS/JAY

            Question: “Is Jesus God? Did Jesus ever claim to be God?”

            Answer:The Bible never records Jesus saying the precise words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words inJohn 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming—deity. When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence.John 8:58is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!” Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).

            John reiterates the concept of Jesus’ deity: “The Word [Jesus] was God” and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1,14). These verses clearly indicate that Jesus is God in the flesh.Acts 20:28tells us, “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. And this same verse declares that God purchased His church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

            Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him.Titus 2:13encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ (see also2 Peter 1:1). InHebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’” The Father refers to Jesus as “O God,” indicating that Jesus is indeed God.

            In Revelation, an angel instructed the apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11;14:33;28:9,17;Luke 24:52;John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation did. There are many other passages of Scripture that argue for Jesus’ deity.

            The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that, if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). A created being, which Jesus would be if He were not God, could not pay the infinite penalty required for sin against an infinite God. Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected, proving His victory over sin and death.

            http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html#ixzz2cM0Wg1SE

          • Robbie

            First of all the creation of the world and the cosmos by God is described in the first Book of Moses known as Genesis in the Torah. And it was written – by men – approx. 1,500 years before Jesus was even born. Full stop.

            Secondly your final paragraph is total poppycock as is most of the New Testament.

          • Robbie

            First of all the creation of the world and the cosmos by God is described in the first Book of Moses known as Genesis in the Torah. And it was written – by men – approx. 1,500 years before Jesus was even born. Full stop.

            Secondly your final paragraph is total poppycock as is most of the New Testament.

          • WTS/JAY

            So why are you quoting from a book you consider to be “poppycock”, Robbie? Is it because you are a complete fool and a charlatan?

          • Robbie

            At many points I have noted that Jesus is one of my personal heroes and I happen to consider the Sermon on the Mount as the most important and influential speeches of all time. I do not consider, as you have gathered, that Jesus was a god or son of god or whatever. Just a man with an amazing vision especially for the times in which he lived. I have also noted the importance of Old Testament laws. But, yes, the Bible is indeed filled with lots of poppycock as well and you know that to be the case.

          • WTS/JAY

            Robbie: At many points I have noted that Jesus is one of my personal heroes…But, yes, the Bible is indeed filled with lots of poppycock as well and you know that to be the case.

            Jesus your hero would not agree with your statement; “the Bible is indeed filled with lots of poppycock.” In fact, when Jesus was teaching, it was always from the old testament, you know, the Torah, the book you think is filled with poppycock? Interestingly, the references Jesus made to the Old Testament were often the most controversial parts and/or those characters that some liberal theologians think were fictional – Satan, Noah, Jonah, Sodom. When Jesus refers to them there isn’t even a hint that they weren’t real. He didn’t appear to have any problem with the destruction of the world (except for Noah and his family) and He clearly taught that the majority of people will go to Hell. Jesus quoted or referred to the Old Testament roughly 180 times – about 10% of everything recorded in the Gospels. He thought the Old Testament was error free.

            So how can you claim Jesus to be your hero, when in fact, you deride/redicule everything He believed and taught? Can you not see how foolish you are, Robbie?

          • Robbie

            Hey, finally some good points being made. Thank you.

            In response I’d say that I would never demand total agreement before I felt they were really special. That’s too high a standard to demand of any man.

      • hddragracer

        CORRECTAMUNDO!

      • Quester55

        Back so soon Robbie, How was your Lunch, Did your master allow you to speak again on his behalf?
        Taking Things out of Context & Giving what you’ve Read, is also covered in Scripture, for Example, ” Cast ye Not your Precious Pearls, Before Swine. Guess where you fit in to this command, Robbie?
        You’d be better off Robbie, if you where to Tie a Rope around your Nick & around a Big Rock, Climb a Tall Mountain & Cast the Rock off a high Cliff, than to Curse Jesus the way you do!

        • Robbie

          Me curse Jesus???? Mind telling us where I did that? It seems you are letting your imagination get way ahead of you. All I have been saying here is that Christians ought to follow what Jesus said. If you consider that to be cursing then there’s something the matter with you. Also, your final words lead me to believe that you could benefit from some anger management sessions with a professional.

  • JimH

    Why are you so frightened of someone you don’t believe exists?
    So much so you feel you need to deny us of him.
    Don’t try to coexist, ram your way of thinking down our throats.
    You are every thing every thing you accuse us of.
    Keep up that fight though, we need more influence from a hypocrite.
    Keep using half of the law or Bible passage, out of context to promote your agenda. The fact you knowingly do that, it hasn’t dawned on you after reading all of it, before you deceitfully edit it, you are wrong?
    You didn’t find the truth?
    You poor, poor “victim” of Christianity.

    • brente

      We’re not afraid of the fantasy god we are terrified at the lengths the followers of these myths go to enforce their beliefs!

  • Flashy

    In Egypt, the Islamic Conservatives said it was ” voluntary” … and look at Cairo today. To religious conservatives, the right to excise their religion from public rule is always always a “sin” and an attack on “their religion”. If the county would allow a “voluntary” day of prayer on the same place, with the same benefits, for each religious group who wants to conduct “services”, ya think they’d allow Muslims. Wiccans, etc a similar accommodation?

    There’s no difference between the Superintendent in Alabama from Muslim Brotherhood member demanding Islam in Egyptian schools. no difference at all.

    • Bob19006

      In Communist Countries, those that want to preserve Communism are called conservatives as they want to conserve/ preserve the existing system). In the USA, conservatives are the ones who want to preserve the original intent of the US Constitution. So US Conservatives are very anti-Communist, while in Communist countries, the conservatives are pro-Communist. You are foolish to equate “conservatives” for one ideology or religion with another. You are equating apples with oranges! You have to look at what is being conserved! Same goes for “liberal.” The history of the world is one of most countries being dictatorships of Kings with absolute power and having divine rights. Those promoting individual rights were called “liberals” or in today’s vocabulary they would be called “classical liberals” with our own Thomas Jefferson being one of many famous worldwide promoters of “classical liberalism.” Today, American “liberals” are NOT classical liberals but in fact are “statists” promoting more and more power to the state (180 degree opposite of classical liberals), with a growing government needing more & more taxes.

    • BobTrent

      Mohammedanism is by doctrine an aggressive religion that does not recognize any separation of religion and government.
      The religion of Israel was also an aggressive religion that had as formal doctrine driving out all others from the land from the “River of Egypt” to the Phrat (Euphrates) (Genesis 15:18) except such as would surrender without a fight. (Deuteronomy 20:11) Also see Numbers 34. However, it was not commissioned to take the entire planet as Mohammedanism professes.
      Christianity is to be an evangelistic, not an aggressive, religion. Unfortunately too many who profess to be Christians do not know or care to follow the teachings of Jesus and His evangelists and have made a bad name in this respect.

      • WTS/JAY

        You need to re-check your history, professor. Yours seems a little revised…? Why am i not surprised? Oh yeah, i’m talking to a liberal-progressive…

    • Quester55

      Flashy, Ar0e you really that Dumb?, Islamic Cults are Nothing like a Faith in JESUS! AND Those SATANIC, DEMON, WORSHIPERS, offer up Human BLOOD to their False idol, Allah.
      In the world, Their are Many Sick Cults, comparing their religions with the Christian Faith & there IS NO Comparisons, that are True.
      Flashey, Today is the Hour, When you read these words, It will all be up to you; Jesus Came to this earth, To Die for your Sins, He Died on a Cross, But three days he Arose from the Grave As was Witnessed by many, & presented himself to his Living Disciples, He Gave Peter the KEYS to the Kingdom & the Authority to Loose or Bind on this earth

      then he Arose into Heaven, Awaiting the time for his Soon Return. It’s up to you to except him into your heart or to Reject his Gift of Eternal Life. it’s All up to you. How ever, Don’t wait too long, as NONE of us Know the Day or the Hour of his return!
      I Pray you Choose Wisely!

    • WTS/JAY

      Flashy: In Egypt, the Islamic Conservatives said it was ” voluntary” … and look at Cairo today. To religious conservatives, the right to excise their religion from public rule is always always a “sin” and an attack on “their religion”. If the county would allow a “voluntary” day of prayer on the same place, with the same benefits, for each religious group who wants to conduct “services”, ya think they’d allow Muslims. Wiccans, etc a similar accommodation?

      Yes!

      There’s no difference between the Superintendent in Alabama from Muslim Brotherhood member demanding Islam in Egyptian schools. no difference at all.

      Except for the be-heading, and the public-stoning part. (-:

  • Dave

    Here is a thought. The prayer at the school wasn’t a, must attend. It was an invitation. Don’t go if your not a Christian or believe in God. That simple! To make any kind of a big deal with this. Well, its just ignorant! DON’T ATTEND MORONS! Lets not forget. This is Colemans right to have a prayer gathering. Where are these non-believers when schools and work places are making rooms and giving time. For the Muslims to have their prayer time. You don’t hear a word from them. Maybe is easier for them to accept a radical religion. Or their chokers get pulled tight by the leash,if they want to say something. Who knows. And, really? Clear across the nation in Wisconsin. You don’t have anything better to do than worry about people in Alabama. I thought my life was boring! Maybe people should start publicly marking you non-believers. Jeopardizing your status in the work place(if you even work,i don’t know how you have time.minding other peoples business),your neighborhoods,etc. See how the majority accepts you.

    • Quester55

      Dave, i agree 100%, however, We’ve been Trying to Reach Atheist for years 7 they’ll fight you with every bit of HATE they can Muster, Yet, I’ve been around those dying 7 They all Die with the Look of Horror on their Faces? Yet they say there is No Afterlife!
      I Wish we could save them all.

      Most of the Time, I get too ruff with those Pig Headed Swine, & forget my self. That doesn’t mean that I hold any Hate in my Heart for them, Shoot, If I Hated these nuts, I wouldn’t try to reason with them.

  • Dave

    Is there really an argument going on,where you should pray. Seriously? There is know certain place. If your a believer. You can talk to God anywhere. A personal relationship is what its all about. When the believers were walking across the desert . There was no temple or a Holiday Inn. So, where do you thank they prayed. Some of these comments are from non-believers that are trying to quote the Bible. 1. If you don’t believe,why are you reading the Bible. 2. If you read it to argue a point. Better read it again so your clear.

    • Bert Cundle

      But Part of the Biblical Christ teachings… are that No one can get to God Except through Jesus Christ! ( any wonder that he got crucified?)

  • brente

    Believing and reading the bible are nothing to be ashamed of but you should do it behind closed doors and wash your hands after.Religious freedom means freedom from religion and not having it stuffed down your throat,be it Christian or Muslim or any of their offshoots.

    • Quester55

      Whom Gives you the Right to Dictate Where & When we Read our bibles or speak to others on what we have Read or Believed in?
      After all, you Wouldn’t want Us, To dictate how you MUST act at a FOOTBALL Game, would You??
      how would you feel f some Cop grabbed your Cell phone & Told you that you can’t talk to your Wife or Girl/boy Friend over the Phone, As it May Offend someone in Utah, 5 States away?

      Brent, Your smart enough to run a Computer, Yet your So Dumb about the U.S.Constitution, What is it, Your Mom flush you down a toilet when you where born?Brent, Those words you & your Atheistic Friends love to Spew out of your mouths,” FREEDOM FROM RELIGION “, NEVER APPEAR ANYWHERE in the U.S.Constitution & Unless your Muslim Hero, Obama Alters it, They Never Will!1

  • Quester55

    Just how does a bunch of CULTIST in WIS. Think They have the RIGHTS to Tell The People in ” CULLMAN, ALA. Whom & Whom Not they can Believe in or openly Worship?NOT All Schools are OWNED or OPERATED by the Government, Nor does the PRIVATE Interpretation by those Communist in their Atheistic CULT!
    CAN’T Those ATHEIST, MORONS READ? guess not, as they can have the exact words, 4 inches high & right in front of them & Still come out with their mantra of,” Separation of Church & State!
    My best Suggestion on handling those Wisconsin Invaders, if they have the Guts to come to Town, Warm up some Cold Tar & Pluck a few Chickens & send their Sick, Atheist/God Hating Butts back to where they Came!!!

    • BobTrent

      None of the Atheists are trying to stop worship services held in private, non-government owned schools. At least not yet. Some want to deny tax exemptions to religious-affiliated institutions.

      But government property is tax exempt, so why shouldn’t other religions’ property be exempt?

      Government, or the will of The People, is the only definitive judge of rectitude for the Atheist, so government is the Atheist “church.” It’s the only thing left in the absence of religion to define right and wrong.

      • Quester55

        Even a Dumb COMMUNIST knows your words are based on a LIE! The Government Controls it’s offices, Like the U.S.Treasury Dept. IF The U.S.Government were Atheist as you Lie About, Then Pray Tell, Why do the Words” In GOD WE Trust”, Appear on our MONEY??
        Why Does our House Speakers open the sessions WITH PRAYER??
        Why Does the 10 Commandments STILL appear on & In Many Government Offices ??And Why Pray Tell are EVERY PRESIDENT & VICE PRESIDENT SWORN INTO OFFICE, WITH THEIR RIGHT HAND ON THE BIBLE???
        No Bob T., your Information & Twisted Cult is Wrong & Full of LIES!!By the way, The American Society of ATHEIST is Recognized by the U.S. Government as a Legit CULT or Religious Body & therefore Tax Exempt!!You need to start studying again & this time, Try to pass a third Grad reading level & for your sake, Quit Lying on maters you have little or No Knowledge of!!

        • BobTrent

          Typical irrational rant. The materialist quasi-religion is based on falsehoods and fantasies.

          Many atheists are able to present a rational argument for their beliefs. Many others are capable only of ranting.

          And why does “Quester55″ think (‽) lying is wrong? Must have gotten that moral idea from somewhere.

          The Am.Soc. of Atheists is not the only atheist organization and does not speak for all atheists.

          • Quester55

            Oh You HYPOCRITES, You Claim that any Religion other than your own Is a Pack of Lies & then you make Morality Statements that ACCORDING to you DO Not Exist?
            Why Do I think Lying is Wrong?, so Be It, The Next time Your Doctor has your Test results back, If He LIES to you, That is O.K. By You??? How about any child you may have, Is it o.K. by your standards, If they Die, To Lie to you that they Didn’t Know about it?/
            MUST BE, as LYING to YOU is no problem as it Involves MORALITY Being Taught.The Worse LIAR AROUND, LIES TO HIMSELF & BELIEVES HIS OWN LIES!

  • CommonSense4America

    Seidel,,,I’m not very PC,,,go f-ck yourself. the Constitution NEVER mentions the seperation of church and state. BTW,,,Congress is not trying to establish a religion. Once again,,,go f-ck yourself.

  • DurdyDawg

    I really don’t understand the debate of can we? No you can’t! Does that not sound like freedom extraction? Damn! You can bring prayer back in schools, have a class just for that and make it voluntary so that hecklers can’t come in and exploit this freedom.. True it may be inappropriate to have prayer anywhere on campus just as it isn’t any longer appropriate to smoke cigarettes anywhere you choose but by giving them a secluded area that doesn’t invade those who choose not to pray, to me is a win-win situation and could take at least this argument out of the equation. But alas, just as they’ve forbidden smokers from lighting up even in such secure places, their holier than though attitude (an oxymoron) would insist NO ONE pray even in hiding. Preposterous! I do not pray (agnostic) but I certainly do not see any wrong in those who choose to as it does not ‘insult’ me by merely thinking they’re doing such behind closed doors.

  • laura merrone

    The Founding Fathers nowhere said a public official could not promote a religious event. They said they could not ESTABLISH a religion or have a favored church that they would support such as a state church. If you think that no religion at all can be discussed in school, then we might as well be just like the USSR once was. And now we have the witch-hunt groups that keep God out of our schools as much as their snoopiness demands. I’m surprised that the Pledge of Allegiance still states “One nation under God”. I guess that last vestige of God they will erase someday and then they will wonder why are public schools are in compete disarray…but in atheistic compliance.