I thought mods were supposed to be impartial.

[markw]

I guess they don't like it being pointed out that they aren't.

[ForeverAutumn]

I didn't delete your posts and close the thread because you accused me of not being impartial. For what it's worth, I haven't even read the Romney thread other than the last three pages. I closed the thread because I wanted to make a point about the comfort of the users of this site and you and Feanor wanted to hijack the thread and fill it with your negative comments.

I made my point and deleted everything else, including a negative comment about you.

[JohnMichael]

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.

[dingus]

good moderation is never impartial when it comes to the well being of the forums...

[Feanor]

I didn't delete your posts and close the thread because you accused me of not being impartial. For what it's worth, I haven't even read the Romney thread other than the last three pages. I closed the thread because I wanted to make a point about the comfort of the users of this site and you and Feanor wanted to hijack the thread and fill it with your negative comments.

I made my point and deleted everything else, including a negative comment about you.
You have shown impartiality, IMO.

[Feanor]

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.
I agree that moderators here are forbearant as well as impartial, and the recent Romney thread is good example.

[markw]

This is probably one of the least moderated sites as far as giving much leeway. We rarely ban anyone, we seldom close a thread and do not get overly concerned when threads go too far off topic.

Mark if you have an accusation to make, make it and show what you see as partiality.It's strange that you chose to finally close that "Romney" thread when it encroached on a subject close to your heart. Had you left it closed when you initially did, this would not have been an issue but, I guess since up to that point it consisted of mainly religion-bashing, a subject you tangentially support, I gather you had no problems with reopening it on request.

Does that answer your question?

[JohnMichael]

It's strange that you chose to finally close that "Romney" thread when it encroached on a subject close to your heart. Had you left it closed when you initially did, this would not have been an issue but, I guess since up to that point it consisted of mainly religion-bashing, a subject you tangentially support, I gather you had no problems with reopening it on request.

Does that answer your question?



No it does not. my opinions as a member are different than my actions as a mod. I am not always impartial in beliefs but when it comes time to close a thread it is not one comment or theme. I first closed it when the inbred comments began. Next I gave everyone a 24 hour warning because the thread had become so hate filled that they had that time to get the hate out. I also wanted to give everyone a chance for a final say. Sounds impartial to me.

Again what in your mind thinks something was close to my heart that caused me to close the thread? Out with it man.

[markw]

Romney thread,post 415: Comment is made for me to "bend over and turn the other cheek.

Post 416: I note the offensive nature you might see in that terminology. I surely saw it. If you try to deny it, I'll outright call you a liar to your face.

Post 418: In you come, jumping in with both feet playing the big, bad mod. It's odd that you didn't say a word with all the religion bashing but, let one a gay allusion is made, you come running in, all huffing and puffing.

So, as I said before, it all depends on whose bull is being gored, doesn't it?

Happy now?

[JohnMichael]

Mark that comment was not directed at me. It was you that tried to bring me into it. You took a comment directed to you and tried to divert it to my attention. He did not tell you to bend over and spread the other cheek. It would be silly to think I would be offended by it. You have an interesting preoccupation with me, I hope you can get over it.

[markw]

Mark that comment was not directed at me. It was you that tried to bring me into it. You took a comment directed to you and tried to divert it to my attention. He did not tell you to bend over and spread the other cheek. It would be silly to think I would be offended by it. You have an interesting preoccupation with me, I hope you can get over it.Please note I said "turn", not spread.

From that "slip", I can see where you saw where this came from, and was going so thank you, I feel vindicated here,

IIRC, I made a similar joke a few weeks ago in a different thread,on a totally benign subject, not even in the steam vent, and you got yer panties all in a wad over it so I guess can take as a personal thing with you. So be it.

As I said before, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Deal with it.

[JohnMichael]

Please note I said "turn", not spread.

From that "slip", I can see where you saw where this came from, and was going so thank you, I feel vindicated here,

IIRC, I made a similar joke a few weeks ago in a different thread,on a totally benign subject, not even in the steam vent, and you got yer panties all in a wad over it so I guess can take as a personal thing with you. So be it.

As I said before, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Deal with it.



Mark the longer this goes on the harder I am laughing.

[markw]

Mark the longer this goes on the harder I am laughing.As I said, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Deal with it.

[Worf101]

is why I rarely discuss politics withe FRIENDS in person and NEVER online. Like any true person engaged in the wider world I've friends that are conservative, friends that are Republicans, I don't think I've any T-party associates in that they're not very sociable for reasons of their own. I've friends that are liberal, independents, like myself, and some folks to the right of Marx. What matters most is NOT our ideology but how we treat one another. Online and offline I live by the simplest rules there are...

Treat everyone as I'd like to be treated.

Do good when I can, where I can.

Simple as that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not Cain from "Kung Fu" nor am I a saint. But having seen violence up close and personal, both in and out of uniform, I pick and choose my fights VERY carefully. When I saw the way that the original thread was headed, I stopped reading it, stopped commenting. I've enough drama that I can avoid with taking on any I can. It's not that I'm apolitical or uninformed either, but I prefer to keep my politics and my cards close to my chest.

I hope we can see our way clear to continue to be kind to one another irrespective of the outcome of this divisive political contest.

Worf

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Personally having been a moderator here, I have strong respect for the moderation staff here. They are all far better the EricL ever was, and they are definitely not heavy handed in closing threads or deleting posts. At first I asked JM NOT to close the Romney thread, now I am glad it got closed.

One of the stupidest things one can do is engage in religion bashing. After reading what some have said, I have lost respect and a positive opinion about some folks here, and that is a shame.

Worf, you are an extremely wise individual. I do not EVER discuss my religious views EVER in public. I will only go so far on politics. The quickest way to turn a friend into an enemy(are you reading this Bill) is to insult people's religious views, and essentially tell them they are crazy and weak for believing is what Richard calls a "sky God". Certain people I will never have respect for again.

[Feanor]

Personally having been a moderator here, I have strong respect for the moderation staff here. They are all far better the EricL ever was, and they are definitely not heavy handed in closing threads or deleting posts. At first I asked JM NOT to close the Romney thread, now I am glad it got closed.

One of the stupidest things one can do is engage in religion bashing. After reading what some have said, I have lost respect and a positive opinion about some folks here, and that is a shame.

Worf, you are an extremely wise individual. I do not EVER discuss my religious views EVER in public. I will only go so far on politics. The quickest way to turn a friend into an enemy (are you reading this Bill) is to insult people's religious views, and essentially tell them they are crazy and weak for believing is what Richard calls a "sky God". Certain people I will never have respect for again.
Sorry, Sir Terrence. I shouldn't take my lead from RGA (though he and I a pretty close on the subject).

I agreed early on that nobody was likely to dissuade you of your religion: I should have left it at that. I was insensitive but didn't set out to be insulting.

There is a member here who is a whole different order of insulting and methinks he means to be.

[RGA]

If a person says they're an Atheist - you pretty much know exactly what they're religious views are and what they think about people who believe in a sky-God. They may be tactful, they may be polite, they may not call it out in person or on forums - but they all think it's sheer and utter nonsense - otherwise they'd call themselves something else.

Someone once said "never discuss religion or politics on a first date." And that is odd to me. I don't want some person who is going to try and convert me nor do I want Ann Coulter. Better to know early on what you're getting.

To me religion and politics are closely linked. And they affect everyone. If you're a lefty and the right wingers get in that effects you negatively. If the left wingers get in that effects right wingers (well positively mostly except they rage and use false facts to shoot themselves in the foot). But in general left leaning parties don't take things away like the right to have an abortion. Right wing parties want to tell everyone how to run their lives and wish to (or do) close off options for people who did not vote for them. Right wing parties get their beliefs from a religious book. So in fact do many of the lefties but they're smart enough to "compartmentalize" their personal beliefs from imposing it on others.

I've said this probably a dozen times - I don't care what a person believes in their home. You want to be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Wicka, Scientologist, Mormon, or any of the other 1000 religions out there it's all fine by me - you're gay, straight, bi, pansexual, polyamorous - I really don't care.

You want have to have Christmas and light up the city or you want a Gay pride parade not a big deal (hard to drive down the street is a minor inconvenience) and (wasting tons of electricity and killing more turkeys (but saves chickens and cows) than usual is more of an issue but the boost to the economy makes up for it and the kiddies like it so no problems).

Churches being tax exempt = problem
Churches influencing schools to not teach Evolution in science = problem
Churches promoting intolerance and racial superiority that leads the more "devoted" to beat and murder African Americans and homosexuals = problem
Religions that all claim "thou shalt not kill" and proceed to start wars (killing) with people who believe in something else = problem
Religions telling others how to care for their body = problem
Religions denying the effectiveness of 2000 year old contraceptive (and denying medical options at religious run hospitals) = problem

I have absolutely no problem if someone believes in God - wants to go to church, finds meaning in the teachings, benefits from it. I may question the logic but as is often pointed out to me - for them - faith trumps the logic for them. Fine by me - so long as the logic enters into, and is the ONLY, consideration when deciding public policy.

It's disturbing that people of faith seem to get very easily offended by Atheists as if being attacked. How? We don't lobby government to ban churches, and we don't go to your house to beat you with a bat because you're Muslim (we let the Christians do that :lol:

Seriously. Atheists make up the largest minority in the U.S. And can't run for office in 7 U.S. States? Whaaaaat?

"Intolerance is a bitter beast. There are many groups in America that are subject to discrimination and prejudice, but none are more hated than atheists. Research conducted a couple years ago at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that atheists are more distrusted than muslims or homosexuals in the US.

Austin Cline from about.com writes, “Every single study that has ever looked at the issue has revealed massive amounts of bigotry and prejudice against atheists in America. The most recent data shows that atheists are more distrusted and despised than any other minority and that an atheist is the least likely person that Americans would vote for in a presidential election. It’s not just that atheists are hated, though, but also that atheists seem to represent everything about modernity which Americans dislike or fear.

The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in ‘sharing their vision of American society.’ Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.” The results from two of the most important questions”

This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society…

Atheist: 39.6%

Muslims: 26.3%

Homosexuals: 22.6%

Hispanics: 20%

Conservative Christians: 13.5%

Recent Immigrants: 12.5%

Jews: 7.6%

I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group….

Atheist: 47.6%

Muslim: 33.5%

African-American 27.2%

Asian-Americans: 18.5%

Hispanics: 18.5%

Jews: 11.8%

Conservative Christians: 6.9%

Whites: 2.3%

The degree of this intolerance is a bit surprising. My experience has taught me that atheists tend to be very intelligent, thoughtful people with a high standard of ethics that they carry through to their everyday lives.

So why the fear, why the hatred? This situation is not the norm for most of the planet. Most East and South Asian countries don’t exhibit this fear of atheists or agnostics. In fact, many of these countries have a significant portion of their population that does not believe in any deity.

European countries have large portions of the population that are atheist. There is not the mass discrimination there based on one’s freedom to believe or not to believe. About the only places in the world that tend to have intolerant attitudes are nations with strong monotheistic cultures, such as both latin and anglo America, and the Islamic countries (particularly Turkey).

Considering that atheist nations are more peaceful, it seems particularly odd that there would be a predilection towards animosity towards atheists. When one group is being discriminated against, it detracts from the freedoms of every group. A society based on tolerance must support the rights of minority groups, including atheists." Research Finds that Atheists are Most Hated and Distrusted Minority | NEWS JUNKIE POST (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/)


40 Million Nonbelievers in America? The Secret Is Almost Out | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/story/139788/40_million_nonbelievers_in_america_the_secret_is_a lmost_out)

[markw]

Richard, you're a perfect example of why athiests are the most hated and distrusted minority. Keep it up.

Let's end this with a little humor, shall we?

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

" Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, that’s a very good question. I have no idea."

The little girl replied, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don't know s**t?" And then, smiling,she went back to reading her book.

How long do you think this thread will stay open now that you've seen fit to reopen old wounds with your trademark verbose virtol?

[JohnMichael]

Richard, you're a perfect example of why athiests are the most hated and distrusted minority. Keep it up.

Let's end this with a little humor, shall we?

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

" Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, that’s a very good question. I have no idea."

The little girl replied, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don't know s**t?" And then, smiling,she went back to reading her book.

How long do you think this thread will stay open now that you've seen fit to reopen old wounds with your trademark verbose virtol?


There has been much vitriol on both sides.

[markw]

There has been much vitriol on both sides.Note well who always manages to turn threads towards sh*t flinging threads on religion. ...always.

..and who lets them continue unabated.because it suits their agenda and beliefs.

[RGA]

Let me repeat once again:

"I've said this probably a dozen times - I don't care what a person believes in their home. You want to be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Wicka, Scientologist, Mormon, or any of the other 1000 religions out there it's all fine by me - you're gay, straight, bi, pansexual, polyamorous - I really don't care."


The only thing I care about is when your beliefs affect me in any way shape or form. The reason there is so much vitriol on the net and in the world about religion is because religion has allowed the nutwings to take over and become "powerful."

That is the real problem - not that some guy believes in God - I don't care if you believe in God and don't believe in evolution - I 100% could care less. I do care that a president attacks Iraq because apparently he hears voices from his Lord telling him to do it and other people (not him or his family) goes to war and dies because he hears voices.

Why is that difficult for you to understand? You don't want me telling you how to run your life - you don't want me telling your wife or daughter what she should do if she's in the hospital after a rape - all I ask is for autonomy over my life such that it does not negatively impact others. That's the ONLY thing non-believers want. Stay the hell out of my life and I am more than happy to reciprocate.

[Florian]

I did not know we where the most hated group. I asume this is only for red states in the USA?

[Feanor]

...To me religion and politics are closely linked. And they affect everyone. If you're a lefty and the right wingers get in that effects you negatively. If the left wingers get in that effects right wingers (well positively mostly except they rage and use false facts to shoot themselves in the foot). But in general left leaning parties don't take things away like the right to have an abortion. Right wing parties want to tell everyone how to run their lives and wish to (or do) close off options for people who did not vote for them. Right wing parties get their beliefs from a religious book. So in fact do many of the lefties but they're smart enough to "compartmentalize" their personal beliefs from imposing it on others....
BTW, the case the right-wingers are religionists while left-wingers are atheists and/or secular humanists is weak. In most countries -- and that certainly includes the USA and Canada -- the agenda of the right-wing power brokers is one of secular greed. Appeals to religion and socially conservative "values" are entirely for show, that is, designed to co-op the gullible average people to support policies that are ultimately contrary to their own best interests.

I agree do that atheists are the most despised minority. I never felt uneasy about saying, "I'm Presbyterian", but I'm very careful when & where I say, "I'm atheist". (That's why even today I often just say the former when asked about religion.)

[RGA]

Feanor

I tend to agree that many of these greedy people use religion merely to get people on board - unfortunately we can't know "for sure" but if we want to take the "Morality of Jesus" he'd hardly vote Republican. Yet somehow that party seems to own this religion.

I know this is silly but I was watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade the other night and Indy has that scene where he picks the cup of Christ which of course is a plane cup in a sea of brilliant gold. He was about helping the downtrodden and give of yourself - the EXACT opposite of the accumulation of wealth is the most important "goal."

But Mormons don't choose that religion to "look good" by being religious. Romney is 'FULLY" Mormon all the way. So I don't believe in this case that he's just using religion as a prop.

[noddin0ff]

The only thing I care about is when your beliefs affect me in any way shape or form.

Well, we live in a Society so we all impact one another regardless of what we believe or what those beliefs rest on. It is possible to respect, but differ. Set a good example and over time people may follow it.

[ForeverAutumn]

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

" Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"OK," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, that’s a very good question. I have no idea."

The little girl replied, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death, when you don't know s**t?" And then, smiling,she went back to reading her book.

LOL! That's pretty funny, I must say.

Well, since it looks like some of you have unresolved issues on this topic I have moved this to the Steel Cage. Even though we haven't quite reached that stage yet...I can't help but feel it's inevitable. So go at it again if you must.

And BTW, impartiality is not my goal here. The well-being of this site and the participants here is. If you don't feel like the mods are treating you fairly, take it up with management. :p Having said that, I'm not your baby sitter. You're all grown men and should behave accordingly.

That is all.

[ForeverAutumn]

Atheists...can't run for office in 7 U.S. States?

Is that true? It seems to me that would go against First Amendment rights.

[markw]

Is that true? It seems to me that would go against First Amendment rights.I'd like to see some proof of that, too. But, since it's more of rich's delusional BS, I doubt it'll be forthcoming.

[noddin0ff]

From Wiki (Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists))

The constitutions of these six US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[78]

Maryland:

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[79]

Mississippi:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[80]

South Carolina:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[81]

Tennessee:

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[82]

Texas:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[83]

A seventh state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."[84]

[noddin0ff]

Perhaps we could all try to use our heads instead of calling BS (both ways)

[ForeverAutumn]

Thanks noddinOff. The silly thing about this is that's it's impossible to prove someone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof). If I wanted to run for office in any of these states, and it was important enough to me, I would just join a church, become very active in the church community, and claim that I found religion. Whether I actually truly believed in a "Supreme Being" would up for the voters' interpretation.

But I also wonder about my original question...how is this not going against the First Amendment? Or is it just that since nobody has ever challenged the laws in these States they remain on the books.

[markw]

From Wiki (Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists))

The constitutions of these six US states ban atheists from holding public office:

Arkansas:

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[78]

Maryland:

"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”[79]

Mississippi:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[80]

South Carolina:

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[81]

Tennessee:

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[82]

Texas:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[83]

A seventh state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.

Pennsylvania:

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."[84]
Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

[ForeverAutumn]

Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

Or an atheist walks among you. :yikes: I mean, if an atheist wanted to run for office in one of those states it's not likely they would show their horns. :devil:

[markw]

Or an atheist walks among you. :yikes: I mean, if an atheist wanted to run for office in one of those states it's not likely they would show their horns. :devil:Can you find any athiests that hold any office in any state at all? I can't. And I'm not just looking in those seven states.

So, it's a moot point. They simply aren't interested in running for office anywhere AFAICT.

[Hyfi]

Interesting is that many of the USAs founding fathers were Unitarian.

Some of the beliefs are:
One God and the oneness or unity of God.

The life and teachings of Jesus Christ constitute the exemplar model for living one's own life.

Reason, rational thought, science, and philosophy coexist with faith in God.

Humans have the ability to exercise free will in a responsible, constructive and ethical manner with the assistance of religion.

Human nature in its present condition is neither inherently corrupt nor depraved (see original Sin), but capable of both good and evil, as God intended.

No religion can claim an absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit or theological truth.

Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error.

Traditional doctrines that (they believe) malign God's character or veil the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ, such as the doctrines of predestination, eternal damnation, and the vicarious sacrifice or satisfaction theory of the Atonement are rejected.

So it is of no surprise that no candidate has admitted to being an Atheist knowing very well they will be criticized, chastised, and and deemed unworthy so they may not admit it publicly and play the game it is.

Also I found this:

Can there be an atheist president?

Yes. Many countries do not have any state religion, i.e. they are secular and a specific religion is not prerequisite for being elected.

Answer 2:

In fact there have probably been several atheist or agnostic US presidents. Probably the most famous is Jefferson - although he may have been a deist. But Franklin Pierce, although brought up in a religious household, reportedly lost all belief after the death of his son and affirmed his presidential rather than swore it. There is no constitutional reason to prevent an atheist becoming president.

Answer:

Yes. In the United States there is a law stating that no religious test shall be required to run for office; however, due to religious bias in the USA, a person who is openly atheist is unlikely to get elected. (Take a look at the fiasco happening in North (?) Carolina because of an atheist in public office. Even with a federal court precidence in Torasco v. Watkins, they're still trying to get him removed from office using an unconstitutional (federal) law that is still in the state's constitution.

With the number of senators and people in the house of representatives, it is unlikely though that none are atheists. They simply are not open about it for fear of something happening like in Carolina.

Answer:
Depends on where you are really. In America, according to the constitution no religious faith is required for positions in office, ie separation of church and state. However, around 75% of Americans believe in God. A presidential candidate announcing his/her atheism would be committing political suicide. In countries like Iran, announcing one's atheism would actually be suicide.

Read more: Can there be an atheist president (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_there_be_an_atheist_president#ixzz2A9EQRd5v)


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Anti-Mormon-billboard.jpg

If the above is true, Romney should already be disqualified

[noddin0ff]

Apparantly, no atheist has ever shown an interest in serviig the public by running for office in any of those states. If they had, this issue would have been brought up sooner. So, obviously, it's a moot point.

Kinda like saying no gays ever showed an interest in being in the military until they were allowed to do so. ;-)

[ForeverAutumn]

Can you find any athiests that hold any office in any state at all? I can't. And I'm not just looking in those seven states.

So, it's a moot point. They simply aren't interested in running for office anywhere AFAICT.

First of all, that's not a logical argument. (There are no atheists in office therefore no atheists are interested in running). There are all kinds of other reasons that an atheist may choose not to run. Or perhaps they ran for office and were not elected. Or perhaps there are atheists in office and you just don't know it.

Second, based on the strength of religious beliefs in the USA and the importance that it plays in politics, if I were an atheist who wanted to run for office I would not be waving my atheist flag (as I stated in my last post).

Third, just because you think it's true (AFAYCT) doesn't make it so.

[markw]

Kinda like saying no gays ever showed an interest in being in the military until they were allowed to do so. ;-)Well, it's been over a year since they were allowed in and I haven't heard of any breaking down the doors to the recruiting centers to enlist. Anoter moot point. Lotsa noise, all for nothing.

[Hyfi]

Gay NWI soldier re-enlists after repeal of Don (http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/lake/9006774-418/gay-nwi-soldier-re-enlists-after-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell.html)

With don't ask, don't tell gone, gay man re-enlists in military - Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-24/news/ct-met-dont-ask-dont-tell-1024-20111024_1_lee-reinhart-gay-veteran-sexual-orientation)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/dont-ask-dont-tell-anniversary-passes-with-little-note.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Repeal of Don (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/09/20/38764/the-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-1-year-later/)

Maybe some people might find it interesting to learn how to do a google search or maybe it's just a reading-comprehension issue.

[RGA]

All you have to do is claim to believe in a Deity - any deity - so long as you believe in a creator.

And as Atheists we believe in a very special deity who we consume fairly regularly. He's a wonderful deity who allows us to eat the body of his being.

And there is now a church for Atheists Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)

[ForeverAutumn]

Okay, I've had a bit more time to thoroughly read this...


Arkansas:

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[78]

So if you wanted to get out of testifying in court in Arkansas all you have to do is claim that you're atheist? I'm willing to bet that's not well publicized.

[JohnMichael]

Well, it's been over a year since they were allowed in and I haven't heard of any breaking down the doors to the recruiting centers to enlist. Anoter moot point. Lotsa noise, all for nothing.



Federal Eye - Eye Opener: Estimate: 66,000 gays in the military (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/01/eye_opener_estimate_66000_gays.html)

Eye Opener: Estimate: 66,000 gays in the military
By Ed O'Keefe

Happy Tuesday! An estimated 66,000 gay, lesbian and bisexual people are serving in the U.S. military, roughly 2 percent of all military personnel, according to a report released Tuesday by a gay rights policy center. The figures suggest a slight increase in the number of gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the military, and they provide opponents of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with fresh data as they lobby the Obama administration for its repeal.

Gays, lesbians and bisexuals account for approximately 13,000 active duty service members, equal to less than 1 percent currently deployed, the report estimated. About 53,000 others serve in the National Guard and reserves, equaling about 3.4 percent.



I remember a highly decorated soldier speaking to us at a Gay Alliance after his discharge and his words stuck with me. I received a medal for killing men and I was discharged for loving a man. It was then I realized how screwed up things were. Now that gays can serve openly is a step in the right direction and after all they have been serving along side straight service people for years.

[StevenSurprenant]

I received a medal for killing men and I was discharged for loving a man. It was then I realized how screwed up things were.

There are many contradictions like that in society. One of the most prevalent ones is that nudity and sexual exploits are shunned and made to be dirty and immoral in print and in movies, and yet movies of murder, mutilation, and vice on the boob tube is acceptable and even praised.

Atheists are like homosexuals in that they have been in the closet, but that is changing. Many people are moving away from religion. They first call themselves spiritualists or say that they believe in a divine being but don't support any religion. For many, this is the first step away from the superstitions that have plagued humanity for most of it's existence.

The question has been asked if atheists have tried running for office in the states that disallow it and I don't know, but I do know that people have tried to remove these restrictions against atheists, so far without success. It's only a matter of time till they succeed.

[Hyfi]

Oh, and the repeal is little over a year old and the oppression was possibly close to 200 years so I guess someone here thinks a miracle needs to happen to show a huge result after only 1 year.

Lets revisit the question in 50 years or so

[StevenSurprenant]

Lets revisit the question in 50 years or so

50 Years is, for all intents, a completely different society. 50 years ago it was 1962 and back then no one could have conceived what the world is like today and there's no going back.

[Hyfi]

50 Years is, for all intents, a completely different society. 50 years ago it was 1962 and back then no one could have conceived what the world is like today and there's no going back.

My point was more towards an earlier comment that after the repeal, they are not lined up to enlist.

I was pointing out that for over 200 years, nobody in the US military could admit they were gay. It has now really only been a year and a few months that they can and it will take much longer than a year to majorly change the percentage of open gays enlisting.

It will take more than a year or a miracle for it all to change this quickly.

[Hyfi]

Oh, and by the way, I think the Mods here are awesome!

[StevenSurprenant]

My point was more towards an earlier comment that after the repeal, they are not lined up to enlist.

I understand now.


Oh, and by the way, I think the Mods here are awesome!

I agree. The only thing I would change is to block any posts that contain name calling, especially when it gets really stupid and vindictive. Other than that, two thumbs up!

I've been to sites where they over moderate and have left because you never know when you might cross the line. You put your heart and soul into replying to a blog only to have it blocked. Not good! They might just as well give you an acceptable list of multiple choice responses rather than allow you to voice your own opinion.

I've also been to sites that have no moderation and there are fights, but everyone seems to survive. Most people on these sites criticize your beliefs and your honesty, but rarely does it get to a point of anal name calling for the sake of hurting the other person on a personal level.

[markw]

Gay NWI soldier re-enlists after repeal of Don (http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/lake/9006774-418/gay-nwi-soldier-re-enlists-after-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell.html)

With don't ask, don't tell gone, gay man re-enlists in military - Chicago Tribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-24/news/ct-met-dont-ask-dont-tell-1024-20111024_1_lee-reinhart-gay-veteran-sexual-orientation)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/dont-ask-dont-tell-anniversary-passes-with-little-note.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Repeal of Don (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/report/2012/09/20/38764/the-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-1-year-later/)

Maybe some people might find it interesting to learn how to do a google search or maybe it's just a reading-comprehension issue.He was already in and,apparantly, quit happy. As for your other example? OK, that's one.

...big whoop. :rolleyes:

FWIW. anyone that enlists has my respect no matter their orientation. They certainly are more "man" than any of the whiners here, and that goes double for the canadians who are so concerned with us. Get used to it guys, and girls, you're like fleas on the back of a big, bad dog. Like it or not, you go where he goes if you wanna keep sucking that blood.

PS. you might want to keep watch on your northeren "shores where the ice melt is. Lots of new open water with oil under it is quickly becoming international waters, ...better whip that navy into shape...

[markw]

Oh, and the repeal is little over a year old and the oppression was possibly close to 200 years so I guess someone here thinks a miracle needs to happen to show a huge result after only 1 year.

Lets revisit the question in 50 years or soWith all the publicity this issue has gotten, one would tink that vaulted gay pride would have encouraged more than a few to proudly enlist and make a big story of it.

I guess those that really cared were already in the service and didn't need the publicity to encourage them to enlist.

[Hyfi]

OK, that's one.

...big whoop. :rolleyes:

.

That was from a 2 second search and if I cared more, I'm sure I could find many more but it does not matter, you were wrong and also expecting something that has effected people for 200 years to automatically turn around in one year is a bit unrealistic.

By the way, you and T have been the only cry baby whiners around here lately. You first by starting the deleted post just trying to stir up trouble and this post crying about the same people who have not banned your old sorry @ss already.

[ForeverAutumn]

I agree. The only thing I would change is to block any posts that contain name calling, especially when it gets really stupid and vindictive. Other than that, two thumbs up!


My thanks to you and Hyfi for the appreciation.

I agree with your comment above. Unfortunately, this site only has three mods for the entire forum and we all have our own lives. Personally, I work full-time and go to college part-time. I haven't had a lot of free time to spend here reading everything that goes on. But after the Romney thread, I am trying to keep a closer eye on things and, believe me, if this thread starts heading in that same direction we will be deleting comments and entire posts if we need to.

[ForeverAutumn]

But I also wonder about my original question...how is this not going against the First Amendment? Or is it just that since nobody has ever challenged the laws in these States they remain on the books.

I had a bit of time tonight to review the link that Noddinoff provided, and found my answer...


In the United States, six state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century.[40][41][42] The U.S. Constitution allows for an affirmation instead of an oath in order to accommodate atheists and others in court or seeking to hold public office.[40][43] In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[40][44][45] This decision is generally understood to also apply to witness oaths.[46]

[ForeverAutumn]

Can you find any athiests that hold any office in any state at all? I can't. And I'm not just looking in those seven states.

You're not looking very hard then. Several are named in the article that noddinoff posted.

I'll post the link again so that you don't need to scroll back to find it and read it. Just scroll down to where it says United States. Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists)

And before you suggest it, I'm not whining that Atheists are being descriminated against (as the article title implies) I'm just responding to your inquiry regarding whether I can find an atheist in any office in any state at all. My answer is "yes, I can".

[Hyfi]

Maybe some people might find it interesting to learn how to do a google search or maybe it's just a reading-comprehension issue.

:ciappa:

[markw]

You're not looking very hard then. Several are named in the article that noddinoff posted.

I'll post the link again so that you don't need to scroll back to find it and read it. Just scroll down to where it says United States. Discrimination against atheists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists)

And before you suggest it, I'm not whining that Atheists are being descriminated against (as the article title implies) I'm just responding to your inquiry regarding whether I can find an atheist in any office in any state at all. My answer is "yes, I can".Then they have nothing to complain about. If it doesn't bother the Americians, why should it bother a few powerless canadians so?

As for Hifi, it's nice to see him having such fun playing with himself.

[JohnMichael]

Then they have nothing to complain about. If it doesn't bother the Americians, why should it bother a few powerless canadians so?

As for Hifi, it's nice to see him having such fun playing with himself.



Mark, I am sensing anger and bitterness from you. Everyone else is being civil but you. Your being able to rant and offend is proof we are impartial.

[noddin0ff]

I had a bit of time tonight to review the link that Noddinoff provided, and found my answer...

Originally Posted by Wiki
In the United States, six state constitutions officially include religious tests that would effectively prevent atheists from holding public office, and in some cases being a juror/witness, though these have not generally been enforced since the early nineteenth century.[40][41][42] The U.S. Constitution allows for an affirmation instead of an oath in order to accommodate atheists and others in court or seeking to hold public office.[40][43] In 1961, the United States Supreme Court explicitly overturned the Maryland provision in the Torcaso v. Watkins decision, holding that laws requiring "a belief in the existence of God" in order to hold public office violated freedom of religion provided for by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[40][44][45] This decision is generally understood to also apply to witness oaths.[46]

Cool. Your question was really bugging me. It just seemed inconceivable that you could get out of being a witness, but I hadn't spent the time to go a looking...or read the rest of that long article. :-)

[StevenSurprenant]

Markw -

The bottom line is that all special interest groups, where they are based on religion, race, sex, or national ties exist for the purpose of changing laws that favor their group. Affirmative action is a prime example of how far reaching the efforts of these special interest groups play on society.

Back in the 70's I was told by the phone company (when I tried to apply for a job) that they were hiring only blacks and women so, in effect, they created a nation that discriminated against white males. I would have thought that the best approach would be to put everyone on equal ground and end discrimination for everyone, but their solution was to create discrimination against the one group that the Afro-American and feminists claimed were discriminating against them. I hardly call this good government, but in the end, it helped these special interest groups achieve their goals.

With politicians clamoring to get money for re-election, they have created laws that give corporate special interest groups an open door to directly influence our government. The end effect is that corporations, with their huge sums of money, sway politicians to vote in their favor instead of the people that vote for them. Politicians deny that the money affects their decisions, but only a fool would believe that.

Religion has had it their way for a very long time, but efforts have succeeded at squelching that advantage (in part) and returning this nation to the intent of the founders, which was a nation that allowed freedom of religion. What religious groups fail to understand is that there are many religions and those that don't believe, so that when any one group imposes their beliefs on the laws and governors of this nation, they are in effect destroying the very foundation of which this nation was formed.

There is another monster on the horizon, the feminist groups. Hanna Rosin wrote a book titled, “The End of Men” which makes note of how much better girls do in school, that they have become the largest portion of college students, and that they are, in ever increasing numbers, filling middle to upper management jobs in companies around the globe. On the surface it appears that women are stepping up to the plate and taking their place in modern society, but what the book fails to explain is why boys are doing less well in school than they have in the past and why are the businesses biased in their hiring practices against men. You can read and interpret this book either way, but ask enough questions and you will soon come to the conclusion that special interest groups are guiding this phenomena. The other thing to watch are the number of laws written to help women, at the expense of their male counter part.

The point is that all special interest groups exists for the purpose of helping their own kind at the expense of all other people who are not part of that group. I don't know how many special interest groups exists, only that there are many, all based on the idea that they are not being treated equally. The problem with these groups are that they are not striving for equality, rather the upper hand.

The only group that doesn't seem to be trying to get the upper hand are the Atheists. They seem to only want religious influence removed from government and their lives. If the movement grows, that may change someday and then it will be as biased and damaging as all the other special interest groups. However, I do support any special interest groups that has a legitimate basis for their complaints.

As for Canadians, I welcome their input as well as the input from anyone from any other nation. Many times, people that can see the situation from outside the box have a clearer understanding of the dynamics.

You have made some valid points which I fully support, but I too, think you're taking things a little too personal. BTW, I joined the military and even volunteered for duty in Viet Nam, so I imagine that I have your respect on that. Ironically, my days in service didn't increase my support for our nation, rather it made me question the motivations of our government.

[RGA]

StevenSurprenant

One of the reasons I liked the show Boston Legal is that the two leads were best friends - one a Democrat the other a Republican.

Questioning the government in a time of war is not anti-Americanism - it's one of the most patriotic things that you can do because you're putting your head in the guillotine. People were right to question Vietnam (I would say they were wrong to question the soldiers). Many soldiers were drafted and in today's army they often make promises to "poor" 18 year olds such as promising them 1 year of service and no combat and then having hidden clauses to keep them in for 20 years and throwing them into harm's way untrained.

How can a citizenry not question the government?

As for people from other counties questioning U.S. Government policy well that's no going to change mark - deal with it.

Many people view America the way America once viewed England and that's as an imperialistic nation trying to take over the planet. Ousting one dictator to place their own lapdog dictator in his place - selling arms to a dictator and then a decade later complaining they're getting unruly. Hussein was a U.S. appointed dictator who killed nearly hundreds of thousands of people and you can blame the liked of Dick Cheney and Haliburton and Regan for putting him in charge. But that's the kin dof history you don't want to read - you want to read the U.S. propaganda version from Faux news.

As for Canadian military history you might want to read up on it. I am not exactly sure if mark is trying to get a rise out of Canadian posters - basically arguing that we're more of a pacifist nation, and that we have less of a taste for killing is more a compliment.

Further - countries are lines on a map. Just as religious faith happens to be a result of what your parents taught you. If you were born in Pakistan you'd be Muslim and probably highly anti-American. We're creatures of our upbringing (according to science so yeah chuck that out right. :frown2:

[StevenSurprenant]

RGA - We seemed to be aligned on most issues. I think you might enjoy reading the writings of a gentleman who goes by the moniker "The Desert Dweller". As far as I know he doesn't write for a living, but I have read some of his book reviews on Amazon and I find his thought processes to be extremely clear and focused. He is very anti conservative, but time after time he has demonstrated the ability to make his point clear. Of course, there are many who don't agree with him, but that's normal.

Amazon.com: Profile For The Desert Dweller: Reviews (http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/AP5YP97XSRLMH/ref=cm_pdp_rev_all?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview)

If you do read this, be sure to read the Comments too. I think you will enjoy it.

[RGA]

Another book - lol - oh the list is getting long but I'll look for it.

I actually hate politics - the people elected are mouth pieces. All you can do is elect the lesser of two evils (or 4-5 evils in Canada).

In BC there are two provincial parties - teachers will mostly vote for the lefty NDP party because the Liberal party hates teachers, education and are basically crooks through and through. But people have short memories - the NDP proved to be crooks liars and buffoons which is why they got booted out resoundingly more than a decade ago. Sure their "philosophy" or what they "say" lines up with the ideology better but their actions didn't line-up.

Still, I suppose that's all you have in the end - to take them at their word that they're going to do what they say or at least most of what they say.

The outside perspective on your two candidates. Well at least Pakistan wants Romney. LOL. Seriously though sometimes an outside perspective can look at the two with dispassion and can call a sleazy used car nutcase easier than people who always vote party line cause their household always did.

And before someone says - "lefty countries always prefer lefties" take Canada - we have not only elected a "Right Wing (the earth is 6000 years old nutter" we RE-ELECTED him to a majority government!! And even these people are afraid of how bat-crap crazy Romney will be.

[StevenSurprenant]

Another book - lol - oh the list is getting long but I'll look for it.

No, the book is not important, it's the philosophical writings of "The Desert Dweller" that I find interesting. He's just a person who comments on the books.

As for, "I hate politics..."

Over time the left becomes the right and the right becomes the left.

Years ago I tried to get people on a political site to define left and right, liberal and conservative, and no one could do it. Many right wingers think that liberalism supports socialism/communism and that the conservatism supports a pure capitalistic system where people get out of it what they put into it, which they deem fair.

The problem is that neither idea can exist without creating problems of their own. Pure socialism/communism is based on sharing the wealth, but removes any motivation in the form of rewards for creativity or job performance. Hence, those nations become stagnant in terms of social and technological growth. Pure capitalism is based on rewarding people for their creativity and job performance, but in the long term, wealth becomes the bastion of a few while the ever increasing number of poor are left to fend for themselves.

I've heard many on the right vehemently complain about socialism, but where would we be without it? Our education system, health insurance, auto insurance, Social Security, roads, police, fire departments, and more are all based on socialism. Of course the definition of socialism is multifaceted and the part I am referring to is the unequal distribution of goods/services. For instance, we all pay for the education system, but only people with children derive any benefit out it. Most people never use the services of the police or the fire department but have paid for it their entire life.

The other aspect of socialism/communism that the right/capitalists seems to hate is that private ownership of property is not allowed, instead the government owns everything. The truth is that we own nothing. Sure we buy property, but then we have to pay the government property taxes in order to keep it. In a way it's a form of rent. In the end, even in a capitalistic society, the government still really owns all the property.

Getting back to the point...

CLP - Vanity Card #221 (http://www.chucklorre.com/index-bbt.php?p=221)

CHUCK LORRE PRODUCTIONS, #221
We have once again arrived at a moment in history where the truth can be defined as "that which you can make other people believe." The methodology for creating that belief is repetition. Say something enough times and it becomes, for millions of people, the truth. I am endowed like a stallion. This is why control of the media equals control of the populace. I am endowed like a stallion. And also why a state run television news channel is so very dangerous. I am endowed like a stallion. Now there are those who would argue this has already happened and that a certain cable news channel is actually a covert extension of our government. I am endowed like a stallion. The fact that the channel is run by a high-ranking party official, an anchor person from the channel became a White House spokesman, and another top-ranking party official became an on-air news commentator is often used to make this argument. I am endowed like a stallion. Of course, this fact would be entirely inconsequential if the oft-repeated falsehoods they attempt to imbed into the Zeitgeist were simply amusing, or at worst, inane. I am endowed like a stallion. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. I am endowed like a stallion. The heavy repetition of lies and smears for political gain are by no means inconsequential. I am endowed like a stallion. Which is why each and every one of us must use whatever resources we have at our disposal to disseminate the actual truth. I am endowed like a pony.

[dingus]

....I've heard many on the right vehemently complain about socialism, but where would we be without it? Our education system, health insurance, auto insurance, Social Security, roads, police, fire departments, and more are all based on socialism. Of course the definition of socialism is multifaceted and the part I am referring to is the unequal distribution of goods/services....

i've never thought of social programs as being socialist in any sense. if a determining factor of socialism is the unequal distribution of goods and services, well... we've always had that with capitalism/democracy.

[markw]

Mark, I am sensing anger and bitterness from you. Everyone else is being civil but you. Your being able to rant and offend is proof we are impartial.The biggest whiners abourt religion and how it impacts our country are three canadians. Now, if they don't have enough to keep them occupied up there without butting into our business, well, then I feel I can note it. here as well.

As for their removing it from te vocabulary of this country, it ain't gonna happen. Atheists are as bad as muslims in their procolimations and bogus claims of being offended. Free speech assures that and simply because they are "offended" by the mere mention of things they see as religious, well, there's no guarantee nobody won't be offended. Remember, we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Big difference. The atiests should get used to it and pull up their big boy pants.

In fact, offense seems to be a very effective way of getting publicity. Note Westboro. Those scum are dispiciple but, as the SCOUTS has ruled, they have the legal right to be scumbags as long as they follow certain precautions.

And, religious text and icons are built into buildings all over Washinton and the senate begins each day with a prayer, not tomention other ingrained areas as well.

Now, if someone wants to discuss audio or soccer, fine but if the main purpose of tis forum is to "dig" on groups you don't like, well, I'll play. but I do hope the mods keep the field level, though.

BTW, gas is really, really cheap in Colombus. I can see why you like it here. Be thankful for small favors. ...too many obama/bidet signs, though.

[ForeverAutumn]

Markw, please show me where I have whined in this thread or said that I've been offended. I questioned RGA's claim. I found my answer. I shared my answer. End of story.

You seriously need to chill out man. Your blood pressure must be crazy high.

[JohnMichael]

The biggest whiners abourt religion and how it impacts our country are three canadians. Now, if they don't have enough to keep them occupied up there without butting into our business, well, then I feel I can note it. here as well.

As for their removing it from te vocabulary of this country, it ain't gonna happen. Atheists are as bad as muslims in their procolimations and bogus claims of being offended. Free speech assures that and simply because they are "offended" by the mere mention of things they see as religious, well, there's no guarantee nobody won't be offended. Remember, we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Big difference. The atiests should get used to it and pull up their big boy pants.

In fact, offense seems to be a very effective way of getting publicity. Note Westboro. Those scum are dispiciple but, as the SCOUTS has ruled, they have the legal right to be scumbags as long as they follow certain precautions.

And, religious text and icons are built into buildings all over Washinton and the senate begins each day with a prayer, not tomention other ingrained areas as well.

Now, if someone wants to discuss audio or soccer, fine but if the main purpose of tis forum is to "dig" on groups you don't like, well, I'll play. but I do hope the mods keep the field level, though.

BTW, gas is really, really cheap in Colombus. I can see why you like it here. Be thankful for small favors. ...too many obama/bidet signs, though.


Ya $2.97 a gallon is what one of our stations was today for a gallon of gas. If I knew you were in Columbus you could have bought me a very nice lunch.

I think it is fun that you copied what I wrote "Your being able to rant and offend is proof we are impartial". and you wrote what you did "but I do hope the mods keep the field level".

Mark you must be posting from a cell phone or a stroke recovery center. By the way it is not bidet but Obama/Biden. After all a bidet is something you can sit on to make you feel fresher.

Sorry I missed you in Ohio.

[StevenSurprenant]

i've never thought of social programs as being socialist in any sense. if a determining factor of socialism is the unequal distribution of goods and services, well... we've always had that with capitalism/democracy.

Exactly my point. We are a mixture of a number of ideologies. When people complain about social programs turning our nation into a socialist nation they don't seem to realize that in many ways we already are and they too benefit from numerous social programs.

Another example is that we keep calling ourselves a democracy, but once we walk out of the voting both then the democracy ends. After that we lose all rights on how the government is run. The only thing that keeps politicians in line is their strong desire to get re-elected.

We like to label things, but rarely do the labels we use describe what is true. That's one of the reasons the far right get's our support. They call themselves conservatives and so all the people who consider themselves conservative votes for them. Mostly everyone is a mixture of conservative or liberal depending on the issue so it's gets real confusing when we make a blanket claim about our stance. The same as when we support one party or the other, there are liberals and conservatives in both groups, depending on the issue.

Since I'm just rambling...

I've always liked to listen to the left media, liberal if you will, because they seemed to be more focused with presenting facts, but of late, they've become just as stupid and irritating as the far right media. Now, both present one fact and then spend the rest of their air time whining and misleading their listeners. Considering what goes for election campaigns, now a days, it's understandable. Both sides base their campaigns on trying to ruin the reputation of their opponent rather than point out their own virtues.

One last thing...

Parties scare the bejeebers out of me. I don't know much about them and I'm pretty sure they are not part of the elected government. As far as I am concerned, they are special interest groups acting in their own self interest to get people elected whom will support their interests. For all I know, a bunch of business men got together and created them for their own purpose. All they had to do was tell people what they wanted to hear (wave a carrot) to get them to vote for the candidate that would support their need for greed. Sure I'm paranoid about this, but who in their right mind wouldn't be?

[Feanor]

Feanor

I tend to agree that many of these greedy people use religion merely to get people on board - unfortunately we can't know "for sure" but if we want to take the "Morality of Jesus" he'd hardly vote Republican. Yet somehow that party seems to own this religion. ...
I've said over & over that the Christianity of the Christian Right isn't. It certainly bears little similarity to the compassionate attitude of Jesus or even of Paul.

With their narrow, ego-centric focus personal self-righteousness, and enforcing rules on other people, they more resemble the Pharisees, as characterized by Jesus in the Gospels, than adherents of Jesus. Accordingly I call them "neo-Pharisees".

[dingus]

....Parties scare the bejeebers out of me. I don't know much about them and I'm pretty sure they are not part of the elected government. As far as I am concerned, they are special interest groups acting in their own self interest to get people elected whom will support their interests. For all I know, a bunch of business men got together and created them for their own purpose. All they had to do was tell people what they wanted to hear (wave a carrot) to get them to vote for the candidate that would support their need for greed. Sure I'm paranoid about this, but who in their right mind wouldn't be?

that is a very accurate assessment. your feelings of paranoia on the matter are no doubt a result of wishful thinking.

[markw]

I've said over & over that the Christianity of the Christian Right isn't. It certainly bears little similarity to the compassionate attitude of Jesus or even of Paul.

With their narrow, ego-centric focus personal self-righteousness, and enforcing rules on other people, they more resemble the Pharisees, as characterized by Jesus in the Gospels, than adherents of Jesus. Accordingly I call them "neo-Pharisees".Funny, it looks to me that it's the atheists forcing their beliefs on believers by claiming offense every time they see a cross or christmas decoration in a pubic place, not unlike muslims do.

Apparently, church's in your area are prevented from opening and running soup kitchens, battered women's shelters, giving food to the poor, sending humanitarian aid in the form of sending food, medical supplies and building schools and hospitals in impoverished foreign countries, not to mention a plethora of other good works. It's not hard to find these if you tried at all to find this on the internet, assuming you care to do so.

[Feanor]

Funny, it looks to me that it's the atheists forcing their beliefs on believers by claiming offense every time they see a cross or christmas decoration in a pubic place, not unlike muslims do.
...
Do I need to repeat this again? Atheists are skeptics who don't have "beliefs", ergo they can't force them on other people. It's so many religionists, (yes, certainly including Muslims), who like to force beliefs on others.

[RGA]

It might surprise you Mark but as a teacher I am 100% AGAINST the removal of Christmas in schools. So are most teachers I know (even the Atheist ones). I am fine with Christmas - the tree, Santa and ALL of the Christmas songs including all the ones that reference God.

That having been said I am also very much for having Halloween in schools letting the kids dress up in costume and getting candy. But teachers have very little say in what gets taught or what holidays or various social programs are taught in their classes or in schools. Usually some political hack outside the system trying to make a name of themselves get rid of singing the national anthem or removing Christmas.

So at least here we agree. You don't need to be Christian to enjoy Christmas and you don't need to be Christian to respect the "good messages" in the bible.

Battles over these things I suspect began because populations of schools and classrooms have shifted away from all white Christian based religious students to a representative population of students with a variety of people from all sorts of faiths.

In my practicum I prepared and was ready to teach "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" by CS Lewis (a Christian). No problems until parents of Jehovah Witness kids found out and freaked out on the school for teaching the book.

This is a government approved book - it's on the accepted list of books that teachers can teach. 2 kids out of 28 or so basically forced me to come up with a second program for their kids that their parents would approve. Aside from the fact that it's a tremendous amount of added work for the teacher, it also requires someone to watch them as they sit in a different classroom to study their approved book,

As you can probably tell, when teachers get confronted by P.C. policies of caving at every demand from each parent they have decided to take a middle road and remove any controversial things - perhaps in the states they also fear lawsuits - parents have taken schools to court over celebrating Halloween so it happens.

What happens though is the teacher and staff will learn from this and then when they get a class where they have a Jehovah Witness student they will simply dump "The Lion, The Witch..." and teach something else that won't require two separate less plans, a separate room and a second staff member to watch them. And to be safe - better not teach any book that has "fantasy" in it at all.

And the same for Christmas - I was going to have the kids make decoration cards with Christmas Trees, Angels, Santa Clause which they were excited about. Nope! The Johovah parents freaked out that it was Christmas and we were trying to indoctrinate them. I'm serious.

So I made a compromise and changed the decorations to snowflakes, snowmen, sleds, stars, and I kept the trees. I could justify that it was "seasonal" because when it snows it snows and a snowman is not really Christmas and the trees are aver BC so I said it was "the winter season." And STILL they complained because they "knew what those decorations "reall" meant." :mad2:

They pretty much pulled their kids out of school for most of December anyway.

The teaching of religious holidays is a part of Social Studies curriculum - therefore they should be taught in schools especially in Canada and the U.S. People need to know what large segments of a population believe in (that's the Study of Society).

I don't mind if the schools want to "add" the other religions because that also is a part of social studies but dumping Christmas in school is highly bothersome.

[ForeverAutumn]

Oh please. Christmas isn't a religious occasion. It's a celebration of capitalism. Sure it's Christ's birthday and there are lots of folks who attend midnight mass. But for the most part it's cultural more than religious. There is no Santa Claus in the bible.

I was raised in a Jewish home and even we celebrated Christmas. We never had a tree, but we hung our stockings on our bedroom doors and in the morning we would wake up to full stockings and wrapped gifts outside our doors. We celebrated Hannukah too. Our parents would just split our gifts between the two holidays so that we never felt like we were missing out on anything.

My husband and I are both atheists and we decorate our house for Christmas and have Christmas dinner. Some years we get a tree and some years we don't bother. We always wake up and make a huge Christmas breakfast and then exchange gifts.

I don't understand people who are offended by Christmas trees and Santa Claus for religious reasons. There is nothing religious about trees or a fat man delivering gifts to children.

[JohnMichael]

Oh please. Christmas isn't a religious occasion. It's a celebration of capitalism. Sure it's Christ's birthday and there are lots of folks who attend midnight mass. But for the most part it's cultural more than religious. There is no Santa Claus in the bible.

I was raised in a Jewish home and even we celebrated Christmas. We never had a tree, but we hung our stockings on our bedroom doors and in the morning we would wake up to full stockings and wrapped gifts outside our doors. We celebrated Hannukah too. Our parents would just split our gifts between the two holidays so that we never felt like we were missing out on anything.

My husband and I are both atheists and we decorate our house for Christmas and have Christmas dinner. Some years we get a tree and some years we don't bother. We always wake up and make a huge Christmas breakfast and then exchange gifts.

I don't understand people who are offended by Christmas trees and Santa Claus for religious reasons. There is nothing religious about trees or a fat man delivering gifts to children.



You are right it is more of a commercial holiday and it is more pagan than christian. They know when taxes were paid and it was not in December so Jesus was not born on 12/25. That date coincides with the celebration of the Yule. The yule log and the christmas tree were part of the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. Religions adapt as humans change and grow which to me is the greatest sign that religions are man made.

[Smokey]

You are right it is more of a commercial holiday and it is more pagan than christian. They know when taxes were paid and it was not in December so Jesus was not born on 12/25. That date coincides with the celebration of the Yule. The yule log and the christmas tree were part of the pagan celebration of the winter solstice.

Winter solstice is still celebrated in countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and northen India. It is a cultral tradition that come from old world religion Zoroastrian that used to be the religion of those countries (Persian empire to be more correct).

Zoroastrian religiion worship Sun and fire and celebrated winter solstice (longest night of the year) by staying up all night and have a party to usher in the new Sun [position].

[JohnMichael]

Winter solstice is still celebrated in countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and northen India. It is a cultral tradition that come from old world religion Zoroastrian that used to be the religion of those countries (Persian empire to be more correct).

Zoroastrian religiion worship Sun and fire and celebrated winter solstice (longest night of the year) by staying up all night and have a party to usher in the new Sun [position].


You are correct sir! Those religions are still practiced today. It is intersting to folllow the progression of religion with the progress of humans. Many of my friends still celebrate the energies of the earth and nature. We have many ancient Indian mounds in the area that guide the faithful to times of celebration.

[Smokey]

It is intersting to folllow the progression of religion with the progress of humans.

Too bad the former have not kept the same pace with the latter as sometimes we seems to go backward on that end :)

[RGA]

Yes I understand that Christmas is not "really" a Christian holiday - it's one that Christians have "taken over" - nevertheless it is the day chosen to celebrate the birth of Christ and the majority of Christmas songs are heavy on Jesus and God.

But it's a marketing machine just like Valentine's Day, Halloween, Easter (where are the chocolate bunnies in the Bible?), Chinese New Year, Western New Year, associating diamond rings with weddings etc.

All of it is designed to sell people stuff that they probably otherwise would never buy.

And I am cynical but at the same time I really don't have problems with these designated holidays - the more the better. They're a release valve for people for various reasons - Christmas if nothing else is "pretty" and kids are hugely excited by it and generally people give more to food banks and various charities.

As a kid going through school I don't recall every actually learning about the real origins of Christmas. Either Christian teachers deliberately avoid the issue that Dec 25 was not the actual birth date and that it is a Pagan holiday, or they didn't know, or they fear complaints from parents and admin I don't know. Generally, Christmas isn't so much taught in schools but rather is a month long time waster because kids are generally super hyper for the weeks leading up to the holiday. Here cut and paste this Santa Clause, make a Christmas Tree card, add sequins to the snowflakes etc.

When I was a kid I don't ever recall being taught any of the Jewish holidays or any other religious holidays in any depth. And my parents rarely talked badly about any groups of people and if they did it was usually about their governments (middle East) and their lack of freedom of rights of their people. Even by 18 I would not have known a Jewish person if I fell over one and if I did I would not have cared. I suppose that was ignorance but in good way for personal living if not global knowledge.

High School was where the education came when they taught WWII and English Lit where we had novels that were more worldly (Ann Frank). I basically chose my minor history minor because of Schindler's List (movie) and later read the book - (movie was better which is rare). In university one of the standout books was I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933-1941 by Victor Klemperer - Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/255161.I_Will_Bear_Witness) for a diary that is considerably bigger in scale than Frank's in terms of the political macro events of the period - understandable coming from different age and education backgrounds.


OT:

There are a lot of changes I'd like to see - especially at the high school level - but educators get zero say in what happens. Basically the people trained in the field take orders from people who who are A) idiots or B) political sleaze bags.

Teachers didn't ask for Christmas to be booted, didn't ask for "inclusion" (severe behaviour and anti-social borderline serial killers) to be place in the room with regular non future criminals, nor did they elect to have a system that has each kid come with a dollar figure attached making it next to impossible for schools to get rid of the serial killers to be booted, teachers didn't elect to have a system where "no one fails" no matter how bad they are, and teachers didn't decide on the "no F's policy" or the "everyone should get a prize because they sit in the chair. Nor did teachers decide on the mandatory policy that kids have to be in school until a given age.

If I had my way I would allow kids to leave at 14 (grade 8). If you can't read write or add 9+3 then you're wasting everyone's valuable time and money. The kids who get suspended for violence continuously also get booted because if you can't function as a proper citizen then "You are - the Weakest Link - goodby" - Send your kid to remedial school or learn to parent properly but we don't need him screwing up everyone else.

You're pretty much a hopeless waste of space and booting the 15-30% of dimbulbs or cocaine selling thugs will serve all of society.

1) it reduces class sizes which teachers complain about
2) school equipment is less likely to be damaged since it's the trouble maker thugs that destroy everything that can;t be replaced because there is no money.
3) teachers don't have to dumb everything down for the average to braniac kids for the dummies to catch up (and never do even with the simplified material.
4) High Schools typically prep kids for University - not to have a career sweeping floors at McDonalds. Since wasting 4 extra years 14-18 of the kid's life to wind up with floor sweeping jobs ANYWAY - may as well let them out so they can have 4 extra years of saving money - they're going to need it to live on.

Hong Kong kind of does this - the smart kids all go to top banded schools - those kids are tested at 12 and deemed to be the future doctors lawyers, teachers, pilots, engineers, CEOs, inventors, physicists, biologists etc.
Band 2 has the next tier of students but who "might" possibly put the pieces together as they mature to be at a band one level - perhaps they're just shy or are not strong in certain subject areas but excel in some.

Band three are for the future people who have no future in getting jobs outside manual labor and where special needs students are placed. The teaching here is heavy handed on "morality and ethics" and being "good citizens" and they have daily routines to follow.

[Feanor]

You are right it is more of a commercial holiday and it is more pagan than christian. They know when taxes were paid and it was not in December so Jesus was not born on 12/25. That date coincides with the celebration of the Yule. The yule log and the christmas tree were part of the pagan celebration of the winter solstice. Religions adapt as humans change and grow which to me is the greatest sign that religions are man made.
All true. In post-Medieval Europe the Christmas festival became increasingly non-religious -- virtually as much so as it is today.

So much so that in the mid 17th century various Calvinists, notably Presbyterians in Scotland, actually banned Christmas celebrations; e.g. it was illegal to close your business Christmas Day.

[StevenSurprenant]

Talk about getting an education, I'm learning a great deal from you folks. It's always interesting to hear the different viewpoints that gets glossed over in the media, or should I say propaganda machine. I believe there to be a great difference between what we hear that the public should feel and think and what the general populous really thinks.

Religion has been around for thousands of years and while I can point out a few good things that religion has done, like occasionally helping the poor or comforting the dying, over it's entire existence I can't think of any way that's it's improved the world that has lasted through the millenniums. On the whole, it has only caused strife. Albert Einstein said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It seems that the main goal of religion is to prepare people for death and the end of humanity, i.e... Live a good life and reap the rewards of a good afterlife.

The simple invention of the wheel has done more for humanity than all the thousands of years of religion.

As for the school system, it is in need of serious overhaul. The biggest problem with it is that it was created during a time when knowledge was very limited and the masses were uneducated, ignorant of the world, and the world changed very little. It made sense then, but today, the very face of the planet changes almost on a daily basis. What we knew and what we believed are being challenged moment to moment, both socially and scientifically. Education in the past was rote learning and it served it's purpose, but it stifles creativity. Albert Einstein had quotes for this too, “ The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” and “It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.”. He had many good quotes, but the thing to consider is that, in today's ever changing world, our greatest need is to learn how to think and not so much, what to think.

As RGA mentioned, the educational system is designed for the lowest common denominator, the slowest student. The damage this creates is that the brightest students are not helped to reach their highest potential. It wouldn't surprise me if these bright students become the disruptive students from the boredom they endure. Children are much brighter than we give them credit for. I watched a 7 years old who couldn't speak a word of English learn to speak it well enough in six months that no one could tell that they weren't born and raised in this country. Imagine what else a child could accomplish in a few years given the right motivation and education. I think the key is not to dictate what they learn, but build on what interests them.

I have many opinions about the educational process, but I'm sure everyone else does too. I think the best approach to learning is instant feedback, doable in today's world, to expedite the learning process. As an example, a motivated person can learn to type in hours compared to months by using a typing program instead of classroom instructions. After they master it, they need to be able to move to the next subject rather than wait for the rest of the class to catch up. This could be applied to any subject. Teachers play a pivotal role in the learning process and I think their most important goal is to spark interest and to give the students the tools to accomplish the learning process. I realize that this is easier said than done, but it should be the paradigm that we should be trying to reach.

[Feanor]

...
As RGA mentioned, the educational system is designed for the lowest common denominator, the slowest student. The damage this creates is that the brightest students are not helped to reach their highest potential. It wouldn't surprise me if these bright students become the disruptive students from the boredom they endure. Children are much brighter than we give them credit for. I watched a 7 years old who couldn't speak a word of English learn to speak it well enough in six months that no one could tell that they weren't born and raised in this country. Imagine what else a child could accomplish in a few years given the right motivation and education. I think the key is not to dictate what they learn, but build on what interests them. ..
The system has been better about catering to the weakest pupils than the best -- or for that matter, the merely good. It is the strongest reason that can be offered for private schools, (or "charter schools", etc.); this drain further weakens the public system.

I'd say that Hong Kong, as RGA describes it, is the better course, but is it politically achievable?

[RGA]

If you look deeply at the private system you'll find they're not generally better or even as good as many public schools. But that's a long analysis.

When I taught in South Korea the max class size allowed was 12 and usually 8-9 students. This was K-2 and those kids even the weakest ones were quite a bit further ahead than any kid at that level that I taught in Canada - indeed some of the grade 2's could write considerably better than many of the Grade 7 Canadian kids. And English is their first language. It has less to do with ability than effort (that starts in the home).

There is a reason teachers complain (or whine) about class size because all the research points to a 12-1 student to teacher ratio (max) - once you're up to 22-30 you're now a lecturer - may as well be a university professor standing at the front blathering to a sea of bodies. It wasn't so bad when I was a kid because schools could actually discipline students in some way and parents would almost always side with the teacher. Severe behavior would be expelled and special needs had their own schools or rooms.

It's a function of time. Behavior kids and low ability kids simply take up the vast majority of time. The bright kids you can leave on their own because "they can figure it out" but of course it's not fair to them that you may only talk to that kid for 2 minutes the whole day. Some do become behavior issues because the work is beneath them. For them it's busy work and they know it. Most good teachers will have "tiered" assignments so if the lesson is about Rome and you're assigning students in groups you can have the bright kids tackle more of the difficult social elements - "compare Roman government to current Canadian government structures and the assignment might be to make a film - so they have to create a script, make a story board etc."

Weak kids will be given the assignment to talk about the kinds of "food" that Romans liked to eat - and make a poster.

What I do is for one month I have "everything" we do in a class revolve around one theme (and I usually pick Science). In Grade 2 for example we would do a unit on Whales. I would have a table set-up at the back with 20 or so books about Whales - science books and fiction books. I would make up 30 assignments numbered 1-30 - every kid would get a bingo card - when they complete an activity - say number 6 they'd get a stamp over number 6 to show it was completed. These would be Whale math, science, reading comprehension, social studies assignments to easy word searches and art works about the ocean.

Those are all bonus assignments. So when we do a regular math lesson and the smart kids finish 3 place multiplication in 8 minutes - they can then go to the Whale station and choose a "bonus assignment" to work on while I help the weak kids count to ten. There would be prizes for completed bonus cards. For the weak kids their bingo cards would be set-up where the easiest assignments would be on their card (word searches and art works) while the better kids would be completing the tough assignments. This was so the weak kids could still win something.

But this is what we do - constantly trying to figure out a way to keep the 5 brains interested while dealing with the 5 special needs kids - the religious demanding kids, the violent kids etc. And the social issues some of them have is beyond reason.

HK is a lot less stressful but as much as the banding works for the kids it's difficult on the teachers. I am at the lowest banded schools - the kids have been written off so how do you motivate kids with no interest in school in a system that has told them they have no future? The pass rate for the school's senior class was 12% and that's just the pass rate - University? forget it. We had a girl pass enough to go to University but not high enough to get the scholarship so she's got the brains but not the money so she's not going to University.

But the government is taking an "evolutionary" approach of survival of the fittest. And they put the money into the fittest. Canada does the exact opposite - there is ZERO money for gifted students in Canada - your son is Sheldon Cooper a little weird Brainiac you get no money to further his remarkable mind - you have to do it on your own at your expense. But if your kid has an IQ of 40 and with ten years of practice may learn to tie his shoes the government will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for his schooling.

In HK parents buy their kids ALL the textbooks, uniforms, and even pay a percentage of the electrical and air conditioning costs. The books are in pretty good shape 20 years on. In Canada where it's all free the kids don;t care about property because they didn't pay for it. They're torn to crap within 2-3 years and or missing. So the class has 30 English students but only 18 books.

Guess who buys the other 12? The teacher. Photocopy? Nope copyright. The school? Nope - make do.

You'd have to be an idiot to be a teacher in Canada IMO and since I'm not I got out - if I go back to Canada I will find something else to do. I like the kids who make the attempt and I'll give them 150% no matter what level they're at. But I didn't sign up to try and plead with future drug dealers, murderers, and sociopaths and deal with incompetent government administrators and numerous parents who should never have spawned another one of them.

I have somewhat been tempted to write a book about the education system how shockingly screwed up it is. And you know what the sick part is - the B.C system of education is viewed worldwide as one of maybe the two or three best in the world for "teaching standards" and "best practices" but the training and the people are fine - it's the inability to be able to put the lessons into practice via the working environment.

I loved this article which is the reason why I will try my best to avoid teaching in the west - though it's creeping into HK.

Shaun Johnson: What If We Treated Doctors The Way We Treat Teachers? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shaun-johnson/treating-doctors-like-teachers_b_812096.html)

[Smokey]

I have somewhat been tempted to write a book about the education system how shockingly screwed up it is.

I think you already doing it with your long posts :D

[markw]

Do I need to repeat this again? Atheists are skeptics who don't have "beliefs", ergo they can't force them on other people. It's so many religionists, (yes, certainly including Muslims), who like to force beliefs on others.Really? Where have you been hiding you head? Don't bother answering that. I'm pretty sure I know.

You're not a skeptic. You're dam*ed assured (and smug) in your beliefs that all religions are pure BS and focus on Christianity simply because that's got the biggest audience for you to offend.. All you and RGA talk about here is how "inferior"people that believe in religion are. In fact that's a favorite subject for both you and RGA. If that's not an agenda, obviously English is a second language for you. guess canada doesn't afford you a large enough audience.I

So, if you're gonna try to outright lie to our faces, at least try to be more realistic about it. We're not as stupid as you think.

But, IIWY, I'd start boning up. You know the final exam is comiing pretty soon and you can't cheat on that one.

[Feanor]

...
But, IIWY, I'd start boning up. You know the final exam is comiing pretty soon and you can't cheat on that one.
If you believe in it, you should start boning up yourself. Seems to me by your attitude your salvation is not assured.

[markw]

If you believe in it, you should start boning up yourself. Seems to me by your attitude your salvation is not assured.Nobody can be assured I'll but betca smugly mocking believers publicly is a great way of assuring one doesn't get to be in a good place, if there is one.

[Feanor]

Nobody can be assured I'll but betca smugly mocking believers publicly is a great way of assuring one doesn't get to be in a good place, if there is one.
Could be you're right, but then I'm sufficiently sure there IS no good place to go to -- or bad place for that matter -- that I'm not worried.

BTW, speaking for myself only, I don't feel I've mocked any believers. If they choose to interpret as mockery my pointing out the irrationality their beliefs, then I apologize for my insensitivity but the problem isn't all on my side.

For your part you've tried your best to mock me on account of my nationality, age, and health, as well as my atheism: what a stand-up guy. :rolleyes5: You have failed because I'm very thick skinned, not for lack of trying.

[Hyfi]

Could be you're right, but then I'm sufficiently sure there IS no good place to go to -- or bad place for that matter -- that I'm not worried.

BTW, speaking for myself only, I don't feel I've mocked any believers. If they choose to interpret as mockery my pointing out the irrationality their beliefs, then I apologize for my insensitivity but the problem isn't all on my side.

For your part you've tried your best to mock me on account of my nationality, age, and health, as well as my atheism: what a stand-up guy. :rolleyes5: You have failed because I'm very thick skinned, not for lack of trying.

Don't worry, he like so many others like him are all set. They go to church each week and drop some coin in the plate, act like they love everyone around them, do a little AV work for the church, and then they can treat everyone else the way they do but they are covered because some guy who died over 2000 years ago forgave them for being that way.

Makes total sense to me.

[ForeverAutumn]

Nobody can be assured I'll but betca smugly mocking believers publicly is a great way of assuring one doesn't get to be in a good place, if there is one.

If there is one?

IF THERE IS ONE???

Mark, could it be that you secretly doubt it yourself? :ihih:

Maybe we're getting through to you. :devil:

[markw]

If there is one?

IF THERE IS ONE???

Mark, could it be that you secretly doubt it yourself? :ihih:

Maybe we're getting through to you. :devil:For non-believers and mockers, I'm pretty sure there is none. ...at best, just a void.

For me, well, I certainly hope so. Only one guy ever came back to verify it.

[Hyfi]

For non-believers and mockers, I'm pretty sure there is none. ...at best, just a void.

For me, well, I certainly hope so. Only one guy ever came back to verify it.


So now you really are not sure. Way to flip flop on your stance.

You are Pretty Sure and you Hope So

So it's really just a big crap shoot for all of us, right, including you.

And who came back to verify that there is actually a Heaven as you see it with any actual proof?

[noddin0ff]

I gotta say, I don't think it's fair to mock how people observe their faith in their church. Yes, there's a lot of commercialism around Christmas. I don't, however, think its the faithful that are pushing the commercialism and I don't see how one can blame the faith for commercialism. Also, what's wrong with dropping coins in plates? How can anyone possibly know what goes on in another persons heart and mind?

Religious rituals have their purpose and their meanings. From the outside they may seem silly, but most things in this world seem silly until you begin to understand what lies behind them.

[Hyfi]

I gotta say, I don't think it's fair to mock how people observe their faith in their church. Yes, there's a lot of commercialism around Christmas. I don't, however, think its the faithful that are pushing the commercialism and I don't see how one can blame the faith for commercialism. Also, what's wrong with dropping coins in plates? How can anyone possibly know what goes on in another persons heart and mind?

Religious rituals have their purpose and their meanings. From the outside they may seem silly, but most things in this world seem silly until you begin to understand what lies behind them.

I mentioned the coins in the plate for a specific reason. I have nothing against it or the rest of the rituals as long as when that person leaves the church, their behavior towards others does not change. And in this case, it does for the individual it was meant for.

I have seen many people in later years become very scared and attempt to buy their way in, and that is nothing new in the christian religion if you take a little history tour.

I can tell you I see it every week as my local church lets out. They jaywalk with no concern of traffic, they ram out of the parking lot with no concern for traffic and others, all just minutes after shaking hands and saying peace be with you. I have a running gag line for them....Peace be with you, now Get the Fock Out of MY Way!

[markw]

So now you really are not sure. Way to flip flop on your stance.

You are Pretty Sure and you Hope So

So it's really just a big crap shoot for all of us, right, including you.

And who came back to verify that there is actually a Heaven as you see it with any actual proof?It's called "belief" hiifi. No proof is given.

It's funny, though. On another thread, you gave frenchy your belief on what your spiritual beliefs are and saying how you believe your good works (ha!) will save you from any possible illeffects and now, here you are, mocking people tt beieve.

Trying to cover both bases? Face it, hi, you're a hypocrite, pure and simple. Man up and take a stand.

[ForeverAutumn]

For non-believers and mockers, I'm pretty sure there is none. ...at best, just a void.

For me, well, I certainly hope so. Only one guy ever came back to verify it.

I'll accept that response. :) Touché.


And who came back to verify that there is actually a Heaven as you see it with any actual proof?

I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Jesus's resurrection.

[Hyfi]

Trying to cover both bases? Face it, hi, you're a hypocrite, pure and simple. Man up and take a stand.

I guess we are a lot more alike than you want to admit. Except that I don't have any false hopes.