Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, July 13, 2007

Three people were arrested Thursday after staging a noisy protest as a Hindu chaplain was read as the US Senate's opening prayer for the first time. "This shows the intolerance of many religious right activists," said the Reverend Barry Lynn, the executive director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

oldCADuser

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"This shows the intolerance of many Religious Right...

It IS clear that Christians believe this is a Christian nation and that freedom of Religion only applies to Christianity.

I support the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy for Religion and Politics.

If a Politician should speak of religion they should be forced to resign immediately

It IS clear that Christians believe this is a Christian nation and that freedom of Religion only applies to Christianity.


I loathe blanket statements.

Not all of us feel that way, in fact, the majority of us wish the vocal minority would just shut the fuck up, already.

Those intolerant fools are doing more harm to the faith than any other religion could possibly do. The attack on Christianity is coming from within, from the intolerant fundamentalists that wouldn't understand or know the word of God if it came up and shoved a burning tree up their collective ass.

I'm ashamed, not of my faith, but of those that claim to be a part of the Christian Community whose actions clearly reflect a different master entirely.

I am a Catholic a recent convert 1998 and I do not want this Nation to turn into a Theocracy. I have Wiccan Friends I have druid Friends I have ATheist Friends I have Satanic Worshipping Friends and I believe they should all be free to live their lives FREELY without being Persecuted or forced into believing a certain Way. It also goes Contrary to what theis Country was founded upon.

Larry

Trees-

I probably should have said the Christian Right...but

Do YOU believe this is a Christian nation?

Do YOU believe that it is your duty to convert us all to the TRUE religion?

Do YOU believe that the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God?

If you believe any of those things then I AM talking about you.

www.theocracywatch.org

you can't make this shit up...there really is a well funded conspiracy. Even the Dems see the power of the Religious Right...


www.time.com

Donnerboy,

I do not believe this is a "Christian" nation. I do believe in give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.

I do not believe it is my duty to "convert" anyone. I believe that the father I worship wants people to come to him because they choose to, not because they're forced to.

I believe the Bible is an oft translated, edited and manipulated work that is fraught with the inconsistencies of the flawed men who have been molding it to shape their equally flawed ideologies. I believe the Bible is wielded like a sword against those who disagree with the perception that it is the inerrant word of God. I believe using the Bible in that manner is an abomination.

And finally, I can no more convince you that there is a God than you could convince me that God does not exist, yet that divide does not seperate us as humans. We are all in this together, regardless of faith, and it will take each one of us working together to bring about the changes that are best for all of humanity. Not one of those changes includes converting the masses to Christianity.

I live with the possibility that I could be wrong, so why would I wait for another paradise when my life on Earth could be all I ever get?

Theological differences aside, I'm big on "living like it is Heaven on Earth".

"see the power of the Religious Right"

They will be extinct soon.

End italics, end italics, end italics is your friend.

Bleh.

Excuse me, I need to go worship at the alter of more caffine.

Gosh Trees!

Then I wasn't talking about you.

But, may I say... I do think I love you!

I think the biggest mistake all religions make is that they think heaven is out "there" and is only available to dead people!

If anything Earth is Heaven but we have to make it heaven ..it don't come naturally.

I believe that is our great lesson.

Unfortunately, we ALL have to learn it at the same time or it won't work.

But, may I say... I do think I love you!


Aw, shucks. :)


I think the biggest mistake all religions make is that they think heaven is out "there" and is only available to dead people!

If anything Earth is Heaven but we have to make it heaven ..it don't come naturally.

I believe that is our great lesson.

Unfortunately, we ALL have to learn it at the same time or it won't work.


We're definitely a work in progress. Mankind has to shed its lust for domination over others before we can go any further.

I think that's what the fundamentalists in any religion fail to grasp, it isn't about power, it is about peace.

Unfortunately, we ALL have to learn it at the same time or it won't work.

Yeah...lots of luck with that.

YEAH!

A Bravo Flag for tree's

It's bad enough that in the 21st century we have people praying in the Senate, but to add insult to injury, it's even worse when a bunch of crazies start fighting about whose god damned imaginary friend is better. Lock them all up I say (as In a mental institution).

"This shows the intolerance of many Religious Right activists," said the group's executive director, Reverend Barry Lynn.
* * *

Actually, I think the correct number is "3".

Actually, I think the correct number is "3".

Posted by rightisright at 2007-07-12 11:16 PM


That was just the 'team' assigned to the Senate on Thursdays. I understand that there are people in both the House and Senate galleries EVERYDAY that are there for no other reason than to disrupt the proceedings if something to their disliking occurs. And while they have a Constitutional right to be there, that right ends when they attempt to halt any Congressional activities that may be contrary to their narrow interpretation of what they think America should stand for.

OCU

OK, so how many would there be, then? Like, 8?
That's about a thousand times fewer than show up at San Francisco's Gay Pride rallies, but I'm told that those people don't necessarily represent "the gay community at-large."
But if it's fewer religious nuts than I can count on both hands, it "shows the intolerance of many (on the) Religious Right".

"Three" (THREE !!!) people were arrested Thursday "...""This shows the intolerance of many "...(MANY!!!)..."Religious Right activists,"

"United States population "Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est)"


We will always have extremists.

"Three" (THREE !!!) people were arrested Thursday "...""This shows the intolerance of many "...(MANY!!!)..."Religious Right activists,"

"United States population "Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est)"


We will always have extremists.

Damn !RisR ....
"OK, so how many would there be, then? Like, 8?
That's about a thousand times fewer than show up at San Francisco's Gay Pride rallies, but I'm told that those people don't necessarily represent "the gay community at-large."
But if it's fewer religious nuts than I can count on both hands, it "shows the intolerance of many (on the) Religious Right"."

...that was spot on...pretty profound for 4 in the morning...what's your brand of coffee?

YEAH!


You DingyWings should form a circus act ---- they way you all contort is phenomenal!

Here is a real time example:

We have vern over here, all of a sudden concerned for the health of poor woman's vaginas!
"It mostly means that plenty of poor women don't get prenatal care."
Posted by vernon at 2007-07-12 11:02 PM


Note how he says "plenty"!

I'm looking at the normative data for the entire southeast and the number of women NOT receiving OBGYN services is 3 out of 1,000.

But over here we have verns comrade RR downplaying the number of extremist Christians
"Actually, I think the correct number is "3"."
Posted by rightisright at 2007-07-12 11:16 PM
as though their "low" number of arrests in this case has significance!

See, on one hand its "plenty" when it doesn't suite, but at the same time for another topic ----- eeh, not so many!

Oh, and guess what they concluded as to why 3 out of every thousand women in the south east DON'T seek OBGYN's!
Religious (Extreme) Beliefs!

AHAHAHAHAH!
Fools!

Anyone get that?

If the protestors are for having their religion represented on public/government land, then they are hypocrites.

People who defend a Hindu prayer in Congress but also want the 10 commandments removed from courthouses are equally hypocritical.

People who defend a Hindu prayer in Congress but also want the 10 commandments removed from courthouses are equally hypocritical.

Make that people defending ANY prayer in Congress being hypocritical and I'd agree with you.

OHH MY GODS!

Its high time to show intolerance for their intolerance and beat the living shit out of those that want to force any religion down our collective throat..wanna get in our face about allah,god,vishnu and anyone else.. mr nose meet mr fist..

They could have just not participated, like Daniel in the OT.

"Make that people defending ANY prayer in Congress being hypocritical and I'd agree with you."

Sure, anyone who defends any religious display in one government building but not another is a hypocrite regardless of the religions involved.

This particular situation involves a Hindu prayer.

Personally, this doesn't bother me but I don't flip out over a 10 Commandments statue either.

"and beat the living shit out of those"
--LEGIO


My guess is that you've never beaten the shit out of anything except a penis.

""Actually, I think the correct number is "3".""

Yeah, and there aren't really millions of Americans that agree with them.
Riiiight.

""That's about a thousand times fewer than show up at San Francisco's Gay Pride rallies, but I'm told that those people don't necessarily represent "the gay community at-large.""

Your point being???


""People who defend a Hindu prayer in Congress but also want the 10 commandments removed from courthouses are equally hypocritical.""

Did he really post this?? Laughable. NOt even deserving of a counter argument because it is such a poor analogy.

...that was spot on...pretty profound for 4 in the morning...what's your brand of coffee?

Posted by kerrin57
* * * *

Thanx, but it was only a quarter of 7 or so.
Don't drink coffee, just a lot of sweet iced tea which, if you ask my doctor, is a lot less healthy.

OHH MY GODS!

I like it. Funny flag.

Did he really post this?? Laughable. NOt even deserving of a counter argument because it is such a poor analogy.

Posted by danni
* * * *

Plus, you don't really have a counter argument. Otherwise we would've heard it.

imagesource.allposters.com

My guess is that you've never beaten the shit out of anything except a penis.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

guessed wrong dicklips...

"I do believe in give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free."

Trees, unfortunately that phrase has no meaning anymore. There's no freedoms left in the United States. Every activity we do now requires permission or license to perform. There are no real freedoms here.

"I believe they should all be free to live their lives FREELY without being Persecuted or forced into believing a certain Way."

Yet were forced to believe and participate in the socialist ideal. That we must give our labor for the less forunate. not that we should, but that we MUST... Or face Persecution.

"If anything Earth is Heaven but we have to make it heaven ..it don't come naturally."

Yes it does. It is the attempt to make earth into heaven that makes it hell. Ever heard the phrase, "One man's heaven is another man's hell?" Sure, if everyone had the same desires it could be accomplished. But, as soon as there is a difference of desires it becomes impossible. And nobody has exactly the same desires.

"Mankind has to shed its lust for domination over others before we can go any further."

Democrats seek domination over the rich to support the poor. Republicans seek domination over the people to regulate behaviour. Although the desires stems from noble intentions the implementation of them has caused strife ever since. Democrats and Republicans both have too many well intentioned desires to bring about any heaven under their watch.

""Plus, you don't really have a counter argument. Otherwise we would've heard it.""

If you say so RisR but I doubt that you would have used such a stupid analogy yourself and you know it.
If you would have then fine, I overestimated your thought process.
My bad.

Sully's point was that it is hypocritical to say on the one hand that the Hindus should have a right to religious expression in the Congress, but that other religious faiths do not.

I was hoping by now for a nuanced point of view from the libs on the DR: the fundies are wrong to expect THEIR prayers to be voiced in Congress, but are correct on the point that the Hindus should be denied. But, as usual, the libs here have failed to rise to the occasion. Quelle surprise.

It's funny how dogmatic Atheists can be in the practice of their "Religion".
I am by no means a christian, I consider myself an agnostic and leave it at that.
But to stand back and watch Atheists attack religious people with the same fervor and righteous indignation they claim to despise, is humorous to say the least.
How much different is to despise someone because they believe in "a god", as opposed to not believing in "Your God".

Just goes back to the point, religion isnt the problem, it just gives people a focal point for their intolerance. IF religion was completly wiped out next week do you really think some other bias wouldn't crop up to immediately take its place?

RIR,

Is there room for anyone who believes the Hindus should have their day, as well as the fundies, the Jewish, the Buddhists, etc?

???he said " prenatal care." RED said "woman's vaginas" I am assuming you're a little worked up and posted to the wrong thread. But shit man that is a big leap even for you...ya know... a lot of times you sound less than rational.

A good little read




www.booksamillion.com

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.


-Thomas Jefferson.


"See, on one hand its "plenty" when it doesn't suite, but at the same time for another topic ----- eeh, not so many!"

Not that I agree or disagree with Vern's numbers, but I have to play devil's advocate.

I won't touch definitions of "plenty" and "low number", but 3 is indeed a larger number when you're talking about 3:1000 (women not receiving OB/GYN services) vs 3:300,000,000 (Americans intolerant of religious views)

Where were these defense of marriage, abstinence and marital faithfulness religious zealots when the Vitter story came out?



"""And finally, I can no more convince you that there is a God than you could convince me that God does not exist, yet that divide does not seperate us as humans.'''

If you believe in something, especially "a something" that exists and that is not immaterial like thought, the burden of proof is yours. Objectively, your god does not exist until you can prove that it does. You can claim that you BELIEVE he-she-it exists, but you can no more claim his existance than I can claim the existence of the great pasta monster.

And, unfortunately, organized religion in the past and even today is more of a divider than a uniter, because everyone claims absolute truth and knowledge, and man is not noble enough to be true to the original words of spiritual guides. Mix that with government or leaders that think that god talks to them, and you've got a major fucking problem.

And BTW, the u.s. is seen, at least from the outside, as a christian nation, governed with a paper wall between religion and stage. When your leader says things like "god told me to attack Iraq" and no one puts a straight jacket on him, I think you have your answer about what religion drives your government, your people.

"""But to stand back and watch Atheists attack religious people with the same fervor and righteous indignation they claim to despise, is humorous to say the least.
How much different is to despise someone because they believe in "a god", as opposed to not believing in "Your God"."""

I'm agnostic as well, but I think that the attacks come when religious zealots push their believes onto others by way of legislation or laws. You don't want your wife to get an abortion because of your religious beliefs, fine. You don't want MY wife to get an abortion because of your religious beliefs? Fuck you.

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

Thomas Jefferson

RIR,

Is there room for anyone who believes the Hindus should have their day, as well as the fundies, the Jewish, the Buddhists, etc?

Posted by Danforth at 2007-07-13 12:37 PM | Reply

No. Not within the gov't.

Have a picnic and invite them all with their funny hats and strange ceremonies. But keep them ALL away from any government body.

but I think that the attacks come when religious zealots push their believes onto others by way of legislation or laws.


That's how a Democratic Republic works. People vote for legislators who most closely support their views. Legislators attempt to create law that is in line with the desires of their consituency.


You don't want your wife to get an abortion because of your religious beliefs, fine. You don't want MY wife to get an abortion because of your religious beliefs? Fuck you.


I can turn that one back at you:

"You want to help the poor and thus give time and money to charity, fine. You want to raise MY taxes to provide money for causes YOU deem important? Fuck you.


See how this works?

"But to stand back and watch Atheists attack religious people with the same fervor and righteous indignation they claim to despise, is humorous to say the least."

I agree.

Certain atheists feel superior to anyone who doesn't believe as they do and get off on making it known. They engage in self-worship rather than non-worship.

"guessed wrong dicklips..."
--LEGIO


LOL! Yeah, ok tough guy...

Have a picnic and invite them all with their funny hats and strange ceremonies. But keep them ALL away from any government body.

Posted by panchovilla



I don't understand.


Are you saying that anyone with religious beliefs should be Constitutionally prevented from being able to hold public office?

Data gets a FF for this:>)

imagesource.allposters.com

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Apparently that day hasn't come.

"You don't want MY wife to get an abortion because of your religious beliefs? Fuck you."
--PANCHOVILLA


I can't speak for all pro-lifers, but I don't want your wife to get an abortion for the sake of your son or daughter she's pregnant with. I imagine that's ok with you because its not for religious reasons.

Sully's point was that it is hypocritical to say on the one hand that the Hindus should have a right to religious expression in the Congress, but that other religious faiths do not.

I understood the point he was trying to make, but being allowed to say a prayer in the Senate is hardly the same thing as a permanent exhibit of the ten commandments on a court house. The Senate had him there specifically to demonstrate that all faiths were welcome, the ten commandments is specific to certain religions, not all.
That's what I said, it was a poor analogy. It was. It is.

U.S. Constitution: Article VI

Article Text | Annotations

Article. VI. [ Annotations ]

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


"You want to help the poor and thus give time and money to charity, fine. You want to raise MY taxes to provide money for causes YOU deem important? Fuck you.


See how this works?"""


You're confusing the moral beliefs of a society with the religious beliefs of followers. In one case, the belief system can be shared by all and debated objectively. In the other, it is limited and driven by religious tenets given to you, not the moral beliefs of society as whole. At times they intersect, most often, they don't.

LOD,

My abortion example wasn't the best as it does stradle both moral and religious sensitivities, maybe teaching abstinence in school instead of sex ed or the subserviance of women would be better examples.

""Are you saying that anyone with religious beliefs should be Constitutionally prevented from being able to hold public office?"""

No. I'm saying that religious symbols, practices or ceremonies should be excluded. If someone with deep religious convictions does get to a seat that wields power, s-he should be able to govern without his or her religion determining their position on issues, and I'm not sure that's possible. That's why I think we should all be wary of electing anyone with overt and deep religious convictions to office.

You're confusing the moral beliefs of a society with the religious beliefs of followers.

People, who comprise society, derive their moral beliefs from a variety of sources, including religion. You seem to be suggesting that any morals that are based in religion, lack merit.


s-he should be able to govern without his or her religion determining their position on issues, and I'm not sure that's possible.

And so what if it isn't? If said individual campaigns on his religious principles and that strategy resonates with enough voters for him to secure his position, where's the problem?

Where were these defense of marriage, abstinence and marital faithfulness religious zealots when the Vitter story came out?

Posted by geezer1

They're waiting to find out which Church Vitter was redeemed by so they know where to send their check.
Unless the redemption took more than 30 minutes, cause there are a lot of "redemptions in 30 minutes or its free" churches out there.

If anyone really cares (why should anyone?), I support no prayers in the Houses Of Congress, whether to Shiva, Jehovah, Allah or The One Who Hates Fags. That said, I'm not sure they ought to be allowed to disrupt the proceedings of the nation's No. 1 legislative body. herm


""People, who comprise society, derive their moral beliefs from a variety of sources, including religion. You seem to be suggesting that any morals that are based in religion, lack merit."""

That's an oversimplification. I'm saying there are moral beliefs that represent a common ground, that are shared by the majority, believers or non-believers, at which point the origin of the belief is irrelevant.


"""And so what if it isn't? If said individual campaigns on his religious principles and that strategy resonates with enough voters for him to secure his position, where's the problem?"""

Well, fine, there's no real apparent problem as long as the candidate is crystal in terms of intent and source of ideology, but you've then got a theocracy and are not too far off what your gov't is trying to abolish in the ME as a governing system: extreme belief that tends to generate extreme actions.

Are you suggesting that you would be comfortable with a religious zealot at the head of your country? Or that you don't believe in the separation of church and state? Or are these moot questions because of your current president?

That's an oversimplification. I'm saying there are moral beliefs that represent a common ground, that are shared by the majority, believers or non-believers, at which point the origin of the belief is irrelevant.


You are making a distinction without a point.


Well, fine, there's no real apparent problem as long as the candidate is crystal in terms of intent and source of ideology, but you've then got a theocracy and are not too far off what your gov't is trying to abolish in the ME as a governing system: extreme belief that tends to generate extreme actions.


Democratic Republics are, for the most part, majority rule. Fortunately, the US has a Constitution which prevents certain majority actions resulting in tryanny of the minority. Granted, the Constitution can be ammended, but that's a difficult process. In short, having an elected official attempt to legislate in accordance with his religious beliefs is not akin to a theocracy.


Are you suggesting that you would be comfortable with a religious zealot at the head of your country? Or that you don't believe in the separation of church and state?

It's not an 'either/or' scenario as you've structured your question. In short, the contruct of your 2 combined 'yes or no' questions are such that whether I answer 'yes' or 'no', my answer is wrong. It's an old lawyer trick.


I am not going to make this easy for you.

Re-word your question(s) using open-ended quesitons (in lieu of yes or no questions) if you want to better understand my position.

""If said individual campaigns on his religious principles and that strategy resonates with enough voters for him to secure his position, where's the problem? ""

WE currently have a president who did just that. There is the problem. When people choose who to vote for based on religious reasons then they aren't using logic to determine who will best be able to solve problems, avoid future problems, manage, etc. Pres. Bush is a sincere Christian I am sure, millions considered that when deciding whether to vote for him, his abilities as a president have proven non-existent. We would have been better off with a real smart atheist.

Danni,


Your argument is different from Pancho's (I think).

You are arguing based upon what you believe to be the best course of action.


Pancho seems to be taking the whole separation thing to an illogical extreme (if I am understanding him correctly).

Pres. Bush is a sincere Christian I am sure...

Posted by danni

Being Generous today are we ~ Danni?:>)

"I am a Catholic a recent convert 1998 and I do not want this Nation to turn into a Theocracy. I have Wiccan Friends I have druid Friends I have ATheist Friends I have Satanic Worshipping Friends "

Larry, too bad all of your friends are going to Hell when they die.

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

WE currently have a president who did just that. There is the problem. When people choose who to vote for based on "party affiliation" then they aren't using logic to determine who will best be able to solve problems, avoid future problems, manage, etc. Pres. Bush is a sincere "Republican"I am sure, millions considered that when deciding whether to vote for him, his abilities as a president have proven non-existent. We would have been better off with a real smart atheist.


Fixed that for ya Danni. :)

"We would have been better off with a real smart atheist."

Indeed. In fact, I would reckon there are a lot more atheists in office than they admit. A declaration of one's atheism would undoubtedly ensure a loss at the polls.

Are there any "out of the closet" atheists in congress, I wonder? I can't think of any.

dangit... atheist shoudla been "independent".. oh well

"""You are making a distinction without a point. """

The distinction is the point Jeff. Try a little harder.

""" In short, having an elected official attempt to legislate in accordance with his religious beliefs is not akin to a theocracy."""

Agreed, your country does have safeguards against a derailement. But when the governing body is trumped by religious beliefs, that's were I see a problem. If one has a moral code that is defined by his religion and that resonates with the majority, that's fine by me. If that person tries to integrate religious icons, sayings (In God we trust, the 10 commandments, etc.) in public institutions, then there is no separation of state-church, and that is were religious beliefs, traditions, etc. trump democracy. The result? you have a theocracy: guided by religious beliefs, demonstrated by icons, relics and prayers in public areas. Again, if the majority wants this, fine. But don't tell me it's not a theocracy.

I've read the questions and granted, they can lead you down a path.

What is your take on the separation of religion and government?

Do you think you presently have a religious zealot as president or did he lie about that as well to get the votes he so desperately needed?


Pancho,


Given the solid clarification of your position, it is evident to me that you and I are arguing about very little.


Let me re-print this:


If one has a moral code that is defined by his religion and that resonates with the majority, that's fine by me.


That's really all I was trying to say.

I've read the questions and granted, they can lead you down a path.

What is your take on the separation of religion and government?




Ah!

Now THAT's a question!


The reply could be the length of a novel.

Nevertheless, here is what I offer as an answer, for now:


"Congress shall make no law...."

Is the key, and oft ignored portion of those 10-words in the Consitution that anti-religious folk like to torture.


A statue of the 10 Commandments in a court-room isn't making law.

Establishing a tithe to a given church IS.

Establishing law mandating church attendance IS.

Establishing law mandating prayer in school IS.

"A statue of the 10 Commandments in a court-room isn't making law"

Nor would be fashioning the entire courthouse as a Catholic church, complete with the 14 stations of the cross and confessionals. So I guess that would be OK too?

I know that is the absurd extreme, but my point is, where is the line drawn?

"Larry, too bad all of your friends are going to Hell when they die.

"John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

See the dilemma for us Free Speech guys? People who post this sort of idiocy allowed to breathe the air that ought to go into the lungs of those who CAN think ... herm

"Pres. Bush is a sincere Christian I am sure..."

Danni, since I respect your views as much as anyone's on the DR, please give me your view on this:

Does Bush truly believe the crap he mouthes? Does his religion really encourage the murder of innocent Iraqis (and Americans)? Does he really envision Al Qaedas marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, or is it all part of the bluff for a Repub/Big Oil dynasty? herm

Herm, my theory on Bush is that he is the product of a family that has earned wealth in the past by dealing with our enemies. His father had no problem violating American laws to combat communists in S. America and even selling Cocaine in America to finance it.
George may now believe he is a Christian but I think he is the kind that use it to help combat their alcoholism more than to learn love for others. He is the kind of Christian, IMNSHO, who prays for God to murder his enemies. I think he believes he is a Christian and just ignores any contradictions that his behavior presents.

I am coming into this conversation late and am still reading through the comments. I just wanted to say that I like Trees and Larry's take on religion.


Is there room for anyone who believes the Hindus should have their day, as well as the fundies, the Jewish, the Buddhists, etc?


As a practicing Catholic, I would have no problem at all with the Hindus having their day to say the prayer. Actually, I think it would be great. I would encourage various faiths to be able to. I would suggest that atheists should have their day also and be asked to recite a poem in lieu of an actual prayer. Despite the very vocal minority of some very intolerant religious groups, the practice of spiritual inclusion would probably do more to advance more positive dialogue in this country about the nature of various beliefs.


Cheers

I would suggest that atheists should have their day also and be asked to recite a poem in lieu of an actual prayer.

I would choose a moment of silence to commemorate the death of God.

Are there any "out of the closet" atheists in congress, I wonder? I can't think of any.

Posted by goatman at 2007-07-13 02:54 PM


In town hall meetings in Newark and San Leandro today, the 35-year congressional veteran received only cheers and applause when a speaker brought up a survey this week that named Stark as the highest-ranking politician in America who was willing to admit he doesn't believe in God.



sfgate.com

macgyver a Catholic a recent convert 1998 and I do not want this Nation to turn into a Theocracy. I have Wiccan Friends I have druid Friends I have ATheist Friends I have Satanic Worshipping Friends "
Larry, too bad all of your friends are going to Hell when they die.
John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Posted by ZOT at 2007-07-13 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

I would caution You about who You think will go to hell. For I am reminded about an email I once received and it goes something like this.

One day while St Peter manned the pearly gates a new arival came up from Earth, His name was ZOT and St Peter checked His manafest and sure enough ZOT's name appeared. St Peter declared onto ZOT Come in and welcome to the Kingdom of heaven. Zot proceeded to look around and saw familiar faces such as Ted Bundy the Boston Strangler He also noted some personal familiar faces in amongst the throng of masses. He there is that SON OF A BITCH that stole money from Me. St Peter ZOT Declared why are these people laughing and snickering at My Arrival. St Peter whispered to ZOT why they can not believe that even YOU made it to heaven.


Larry

'I would choose a moment of silence to commemorate the death of God.'

Posted by Ray

LOL Bowa of the atheist stripe?:>)

I would choose a moment of silence to commemorate the death of God.

Ray,

C'mon; don't think small. I think atheists should be allowed to observe at least a year of silence. Maybe more.

Cheers

But to stand back and watch Atheists attack religious people with the same fervor and righteous indignation they claim to despise, is humorous to say the least.
How much different is to despise someone because they believe in "a god", as opposed to not believing in "Your God".


Well, I find THIS to be an interesting observation. You see I don't "despise" anyone for "believing" anything. It is not the believing part that bothers me at all!

I used to just think it was kinda funny that these fundamentalist folks got all worked up about a myth and a legend and told funny stories on TV.

But when I found out they had organizations funded by millions of dollars
www.discovery.org to lie and distort the truth and undermine our education system www.infidels.org and government and when they started a WAR because a GOD told them to and tried spread these LIES to my children and change history and distort the TRUTH and even distort the CONSTITUTION, www.theocracywatch.org I did start to change my tune a bit.



Now I face off squarely and immediately and will hold ANYONE accountable for what they said AND I require proof.

Do I despise them? Only as I would any other common criminal if they broke the law disrupted the peace and caused harm or death to others.

No longer will I allow untruths to be spread in the name of some unseen God or allow lies to be spread because "they" are "true believers" and in is thier mission to spread the "word".

It is also my mission to spread the word too.

The word is TRUTH.

Don't be greedy Grendel, a minute of my time for something worthless is overly generous.

That a body of some of the most corrupt men in the nation start off each session with a prayer tells a lot about the perverse nature of Christian "morality." It's right out of the Godfather.

This is what you get when you mix religion and politics. Keep the two separate if you want peace. You can see the old bumper sticker is true that says "Know Jesus, no peace, no Jesus Know peace" or was it the other way around? Think about it.

That a body of some of the most corrupt men in the nation start off each session with a prayer tells a lot about the perverse nature of Christian "morality." It's right out of the Godfather.

I think Chesteron said it best,

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."


Cheers

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."

In other words, after 2,000 years of experience, it has proven to be an unrealistic fantasy.

World Peace is the delusional fantasy that has even the Dali Lama advocating it.

Any spiritual path that claims that when some savior arrives ~ then there will be world peace is probably/most likely a nice person & all that, but really, the only peace one can control is within one self...in the now...moment by moment (in the DR?:>)

There is always going to be some crazy person who many think is sane ~ shocking everyone by either nuking and/or murdering someone in the name Allah, Jesus, or whatnot...& telling his "constituents" God told him to do it for them.

This is Truth.

In other words, after 2,000 years of experience, it has proven to be an unrealistic fantasy.

I guess that's true if you think ideals themselves are unrealistic fantasies.

For example, who among us ever achieves perfect honesty or peace with themselves and those around them? No one does. Why even bother being honest at all then? Why even attempt world peace? It hasn't happened in MORE than 2000 years of history. It has obviously been proven to be an unrealistic fantasy; therefore, the very idea of peace should be thrown out.




Cynicism is the lazy man's philosophy--the belief of the man who has gone up against the world only to find himself giving up. As such the cynic hates those who haven't given in or refuse to. The cynic hides his shame and disappointment in himself by scorning those who still fight the fight. He hates those who have dreams and hope because his are dead. He then denies his loss and self contempt by convincing himself that he is the only who grasps things as they truly are. All else are fools for being happy or believing in it.

Nah, No thanks. I don't think so. I will hold on to ideals and believe in the reality of peace, love, forgiveness, hope and sacrifice for others. I will be a Christian.

I am with Chesteron and Browning.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp -- or what's a heaven for?"

-- Robert Browning


PAX

Grendel: Peace, love, forgiveness, hope and sacrifice for others are not synonomous with being Christian. Quite the opposite. In fact, as Senator Vitter reminded us last week, it is often Christians who proclaim these virtues the loudest who practice them the least. (I trust you are not like that.)

Furthermore, many of the most virtuous people I have known in my life have rejected Christianity completely. The hypocrisy and lies attached to it are too difficult for many honest minds to overcome. Anybody who needs an external God or spiritual force in order to find the ability to lead a moral life just really does not get it. And thus is sooner or later doomed to give in to evil.

I guess that's true if you think ideals themselves are unrealistic fantasies.

Ideals are by definition, unrealistic.

It has obviously been proven to be an unrealistic fantasy; therefore, the very idea of peace should be thrown out.

The vast majority of people in the world do live in peace in their private lives. The ideal of peace through a worldwide system of nation-states is what should be thrown out.

Cynicism is the lazy man's philosophy--the belief of the man who has gone up against the world only to find himself giving up.

Cynicism is a necessary means of self-protection in a dangerous world. What you don't know CAN hurt you, and often does.

I will hold on to ideals and believe in the reality of peace, love, forgiveness, hope and sacrifice for others. I will be a Christian.

That's exactly why I'm not a Christian or a Statist. It frees me from the tribal divisions fostered by both.

A man's reach should be realistic. Otherwise he will live a life of frustration and squandered opportunities. - Ray

Cynicism is the lazy man's philosophy--the belief of the man who has gone up against the world only to find himself giving up.

Grendel

I basicly agree. Marcus Aurelius "Stoicism" comes to mind...

"The Latin writings of Marcus Aurelius, letters to a teacher, Fronto, are not interesting, but the "Writings to Himself", called Meditations, are remarkable. They are personal reflections and aphorisms, written for his own edification during a long career of public service, after marching or battle in the remote Danube. Meditations are valuable primarily as a personal document, what it is to be a Stoic. His opinions in central philosophical questions are very much similar to Epictetus's (c. 55-135 AD) teachings. Epictetus's two basic principles were: Endure and Abstain. He stressed that inner freedom is to be attained through submission to providence, and rigorous detachment from everything not in our power."

www.kirjasto.sci.fi


"He(Epictetus)stressed that inner freedom is to be attained through submission to providence, and rigorous detachment from everything not in our power."


Stocism goes beyond Cynicism as I see it...


Stoics - Moral Philosophy
Epictetus

http:// ancienthistory.about.com/ library/weekly/aa010400a.htm

By N.S. Gill
"Imagine someone's twisting your leg. It hurts. "If you don't stop you'll break it," you warn him. A few moments later you calmly say, "See, I told you you'd break it." It's for just such stoicism that the philosopher Epictetus is remembered.

Epictetus was born a slave in Phrygia but came to Rome. Eventually he won his freedom from his crippling, abusive master and left Rome because of Domitian's edict against philosophers. The date of this edict (89) is the only firm date we have for Epictetus, but it is thought he lived from c.55-c.135 A.D.

As a stoic, Epictetus thought man should be concerned solely with will, which alone he can control. External events are beyond such control.

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.
(http://www.utm.edu/research/ iep/text/epictet/epicench.htm) Epictetus's "Enchiridion" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). In following such principles, the stoic should try not to desire or have aversions because he who fails to obtain the object of his desire is disappointed, and he who incurs the object of his aversion wretched. Thus, hating sickness, death, and poverty will do no good but will lead to disappointment.
Epictetus is full of words of wisdom that, if followed, would lead to a happy and free life. While all but impossible for most of us, they are goals worth considering."

"only to find himself giving up"

Not a pilot are you?

www.marshbunny.com

www.marrazzo.net

Anybody who needs an external God or spiritual force in order to find the ability to lead a moral life just really does not get it. And thus is sooner or later doomed to give in to evil.

..in order to find the ability.....????

I suppose Law was not taught to you, you were just born with its' workings.

In fact, many people have "got it" when lead to a spiritual force, just ask an alchoholic.

The spiritual force is letting go of the EGO of self which is just a guide to being a virtuous individual.

The cynic hides his shame and disappointment in himself by scorning those who still fight the fight.

the cynic hides his EGO and disappointment of his shame in himself by scorning those who still fight instead of flight.

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the council of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornfull.



"only to find himself giving up"

Not a pilot are you?

www.marshbunny.com

www.marrazzo.net


Posted by Zatoichi

No, I'm not, but JFK jr had over 300 hours in & he didn't seem to be having any problems that fateful day ~ did he?:>)

Ps nice picture & funi website!

Thanks!


The crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's aircraft and the indications of a cover-up.

For Data only:>)


The crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's aircraft and the indications of a cover-up.

Hindu's praying?:>)


No sooner were the various stories put out but they quickly fell apart.

Here are some examples.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. was lost.
FACT: When JFK Jr. radioed controllers on the Cape (as reported on Boston TV News) to announce his approach to Martha's Vineyard, radar showed him to be just where he stated he was and at the correct altitude for the approach.

PROPAGANDA: JK Jr. was in "over his head".
FACT: JFK Jr's conversational tone on the radio reveals that he was calm. He was not disoriented. He didn't ask for directions. He didn't indicate he had any problem at all. He clearly was confident he was going to find the airport and land.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. stalled the plane.
FACT: The radar track shows that he was well above stall speed.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. went into a steep turn and lost hi horizon.
FACT: There is no reason for JFK Jr. to have been in any turn at all at that point on the flight path leading into the airport. He was already lined up with the main runway at Martha's Vineyard airport.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. didn't know his altitude and simply "flew into the ocean".
FACT: The radar track shows him flying at the proper altitude, then (as ABC News put it) "falling out of the sky".

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. lost his instruments, and that is why he could not handle the dark and hazy (?) conditions
FACT: The fact that the radar was getting good data from his encoding altimeter proves his instruments were operating.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. would have lost his artificial horizon if the vacuum pump failed in the aircraft.
FACT: MSNBC is the only media outlet to have tried to hype this one, using a self-proclaimed "aviation expert". His claim is also false, as there is a backup vacuum system in the pitot assembly of that aircraft.

PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. was a reckless pilot.
FACT: This claim was planted everywhere in the media, always attributed to an "unnamed source". One reporter, Cindy Adams at the New York Post, later had cause to suspect she had been lied to. So did Andrew Goldman at the New York Observer. Interviews with individuals directly familier with JFK Jr's flying ability shown on Inside Edition confirmed that he was a highly skilled and careful pilot.

PROPAGANDA JFK Jr's wife was afraid to fly with him.
FACT: Again a story attributed to "unnamed sources", and again debunked by the interviews shown on Inside Edition. JFK Jr's wife had no problem flying with JFK Jr. and flew with him often.

PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. had only 40 hours experience.
FACT: He had 40 hours in that one aircraft. His total experience was about 300 hours, more than enough to qualify him for a commercial pilot's license. According to FAA statistics, 300 hours made him a more careful and safer pilot than one with 1000 hours, who is more complacent.

PROPAGANDA The weather was very hazy.
www.whatreallyhappened.com

"JFK jr(sic) had over 300 hours in"

bullshit

Try 40 or so.

For me it's 40 YEARS.

Now die in a fire.

oops

my bad

"Kennedy was a relatively inexperienced pilot, with 310 hours of flight experience, including 55 hours of night flying and 36 hours in the high-performance Piper Saratoga."

en.wikipedia.org

And no instrument rating.

And a Saratoga is about as much high performance as a Civic.

Classic graveyard spiral.

"the indications of a cover-up."

Probably the toxicology.



What do JFK JR and a penguin have in common?

They both look great in a tux and they

CAN'T FLY!


oops

my bad

"Kennedy was a relatively inexperienced pilot, with 310 hours of flight experience, including 55 hours of night flying and 36 hours in the high-performance Piper Saratoga."

en.wikipedia.org

And no instrument rating.

And a Saratoga is about as much high performance as a Civic.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-07-14 12:14 AM | Reply

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Larry

I used to fly a jump plane in the 60's.
One of my favorite jumpers:

www.virtualwall.org

Crazy SOB would actually jump parachutes I made. As you can see he was killed elsewhere.

I've skydrived, but I packed my own chute:>)


"see the power of the Religious Right"

They will be extinct soon.

Posted by Zatoichi at 2007-07-12 09:43 PM


so lets see now, this just cant be true because for some time now I have written about the war on religion from the leftists in this country and that was met with scorn and ridicule........so there just cant be anyway that it will be going anywhere.....


and heres the rub.........if the protesters were shouting down ann coulter, you here on the retort would be giving them kudos, if they were shouting down anyone from the right, you would want them to appear on jon stewart, but oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooo these people dont have that same right of the first amendment.......and you can talk about law against them interupting but that wouldnt matter at all if it were the other way around........

Agreement was a fleeting thing, was it not?

Madison didn't like this superstitious crap in the first place. He didn't like chaplains, either.

The government should not be having prayer services to begin with. Complete waste of time praying to some bogus imaginary being. I hope these Christian Activists have the book thrown at them. Let them show their faith while rotting in a jail cell.

Only on the Retort can it go from Hindu prayer protest to JFK Jr!...ain't it grand??

I'd like to see someone shout down some Hari-chrishna's.

Those obnoxious fools can drown out a 747 with sound to spare.

Comments are closed for this entry.

Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable