+AMDG+ > Comments on ATHEISTS ARE BIG PHONIES

Go to +AMDG+Add a commentGo to ATHEISTS ARE BIG PHONIES

You're right on what WWCG thought about the Catholic Church.
Me? I do not disparage faith.

posted by Xeno-x on May 19, 2004 at 9:17 AM | link to this | reply

WWCG
Only place I can post -- most fitting I guess -- your only blog in this section.

I was 15 or 16, hanging out in a cousin's farm house while my Dad went out deer hunting (the country, some of the best times of my life -- gonna had to add a blog I think). There was this magazine, with several articles arguing against the Theory of Evolution. There were these ads in Capper's Farmer, all about the 12 tribes of Israel and the coming End of the World. They were offered for free. I was sceptical. My cousin's wife (they were in their 40's) said they were legitimate.
I sent off for the tracts and the magazine THE PLAIN TRUTH.
If you have read any of these then you know that the basic premise was that the U.S. was the Tribe of Manasseh, Britain, Ephraim, and several European Countries others of the Ten Lost Tribes.
Germany was Assyria, which was to lead a united Europe against the U.S. and defeat us (this after the plagues and natural disasters that each claimed 1/3 of the lives on Earth).
Then there would be Armageddon, where USSR would lead armies agains Europe. Of course the Temple in Jerusalem would have been rebuilt by then and the "Beast", leader of Europe, would be the "abomination of desolation sitting in the holy place".
Christian holidays were pagan. Jewish Holy Days were what Christians should observe (quartodecimani controversy).
Then Jesus would come, take up his elect (144,000 who would be in "The True Church" -- WorldWide Church of God) into the air (I Corinthians 15 & I Thessalonians) and the dead in Christ would rise out of the ground to meet him in the air (having been saved from the Holocaust surrounding them by being whisked away to Petra) then they would all come down, Christ standing on the Mount of Olives, which would split, and we all would reign with Him for 1,000 years (The Millenium) in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 20?), then after that, an eternity of growth and populating other planets, etc. We would be mini-gods, doing with other planets what God did with Earth (something like that).
I left when I started rereading the Bible and seeing different things there than they were saying. There was no discourse. I walked out in the middle of Gerald Waterhouse's diatribe (it usually lasted 3 hours), when he said "God requires obedience, not knowledge."
That was 1973, when the Big Split happened.
I skipped around to various denominations, have esconced myself (since 1976 -- the year of the prophesied holocaust) in a St. Louis Episcopal Congregation (surprised -- well, I am too, since I still see things from a WWCG perspective in many ways -- and also my new perspective -- but I'm here because this has been a maverick church -- I could leave because of the weight of the hierarchy being shown more now -- they have ways of squelching opposition too -- I've left various churches and wouldn't be Catholic because of their having the same basic philosophy as I walked away from in WWCG.
WWCG has enlightened me to Christian History. You'll see hints of that in what I've said.
Anyway, you asked and I'm telling, although I probably should say it in Kooka's (my son's blog, which I think I will do)

posted by Xeno-x on May 19, 2004 at 6:51 AM | link to this | reply

well, we're all in this together even if it doesn't seem so sometimes by the way we go at each other.
We've all got agenda.
what we got to do is menda.

posted by Xeno-x on May 14, 2004 at 6:51 AM | link to this | reply

thank you for your graciousness
don't see that everyday!

posted by AnCatubh on May 13, 2004 at 11:18 PM | link to this | reply

apology
I don't mean to infer certain thoughts on your part.
I think sometimes we must together reach a conclusion re: what we are talking about.
I'm not inferring that you personally are attempting to read the minds of our Founding Fathers.
I think some do in their attempts to sway government or public opinion to their own viewpoint.
Rhetoric is an amazing thing. It seems people will agree with the person who shouts loudly enough, for long enough and with a perceived accuracy.
Speech is the most effective vehicle for this type of rhetoric -- remember Marc Antony's speech in JULIUS CAESAR? "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." and then he turned the crowd against Brutus et al.
The advantage to writing like this is that we have more time to digest the comments and understand each other better without the furious debate we find on CNN.
So I apologise if I've misunderstood you in my zeal to promote my own agenda.

posted by Xeno-x on May 13, 2004 at 2:28 PM | link to this | reply

WESTWEND--Search my posts and tell me...
where I said the creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is a Christian God. I'm well aware of the fact that Jefferson and a number of the founders did not belong to a particular organized religion. Some did as did most of the colonists. The names "Creator", "Judge", and "Providence" sound distinctly Jewish to me, not Deist. It would make sense for the framers to use the Jewish testament understanding of God because it was common ground.

I agree with what you wrote below; I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to read the minds of the authors of the D of I.

My point is they DID acknowledge a Creator from whom certain rights come. There are those who want to ignore or downplay this. My next post will be on why religion,i.e. a moral code (organized or not), is necessary for a free society.

posted by AnCatubh on May 12, 2004 at 9:55 AM | link to this | reply

A nondescript creator
I hope you notice that our founding fathers did nothing more than to mention "Creator" in their document, and left it up to the reader to determine for him or her self the nature of this "creator". We have to remember that, since Thomas Jefferson wrote much of this and that he did not have the perception of religion that out blogger here, or Cantey or other contemporary Christians do, that his perception of "creator" was very different (redundancy) and that he was writing for an audience and his audience had a different perception that he.
Lets not try to read the mind of the authors of the Declaration, shall we?

posted by Xeno-x on May 12, 2004 at 6:42 AM | link to this | reply

and my ad hominem beats your ad nauseam anyday

posted by AnCatubh on May 11, 2004 at 11:12 PM | link to this | reply

I never said it
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mention Jesus Christ or the God of Christianity. I never said it did.

The difference between "the" Creator and "their" Creator in the Declaration of Independence is nil "...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator.." Whom does "their" refer to? ALL MEN mentioned in the phrase before. Presumably, the founders thought evryone has the same creator. Your discrepancy changes the meaning, mine does not.

It doesn't matter what someone's understanding of God is. That the founders believed he existed and that certain rights come from HIM/HER/IT is their point.

Maybe my ascerbic style is preventing you from appreciating what I'm saying. Sorry. Thank you for reading. Your remarks are welcome.

posted by AnCatubh on May 11, 2004 at 1:47 PM | link to this | reply

It's Late In The Day ---

--- and I have far more important projects to address right now. I might respond to your flimsy, ad hominem post by tomorrow. For now, though, I can shut this down with one simple request, please quote directly from either the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution where either document acknowledges Jesus Christ or the God of Christianity in clear, unambiguous terms. The phrase, "Nature's God" does not meet the threshold of unambiguous, since the Native American vision of "nature's god" vastly differs from the Christian idea of nature's God. (Oh yeah, that's right! Christians at that time didn't regard native Americans or niggers as people. I forgot.)

     And by the way, the Declaration of Independence states that men are guaranteed certain rights by "their" creator--not "the" creator as you've so stated. Much bigger difference here than the difference seen in the "respecting" and "with respect to" flap you so gleefully focused on earlier. Funny how you suddenly lose your scholarly zeal for detail when such zeal fails your point of view.             --D

posted by Dennison..Mann on May 11, 2004 at 12:36 PM | link to this | reply

Navajo cave drawings?Any Constitutional scholar will tell you that's
total nonsense.The Declaration of Independence is this Nation's Charter and it provides the moral vision for the country. The inalienable rights enumerated in it and long list of the offenses of the king are the basis for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No, God is not mentioned in the Constitution. The language of the Constitution is broad and it receives it's guiding light from the Declaration of Independence. It's The D of I that provides the 'vital clues' to the meaning and intent of the Constitution. I'm pretty sure the drafters of the Constitution didn't get their ideas from Indian cave drawings.

The invocation of God on currency is not a law respecting religion anymore than the founders invoking the Creator is. Nowhere does it say in the D of I or Constitution that any or all religions must be officially recognized. That's what the first ammendment is supposed to safeguard against. Recognizing a higher power from whom our rights come is not respecting any particular religion. Of course, it might bother atheists. I suggest they move to a country where any mention of a Supreme Being is banned. The downside of that,though, is they very likely won't enjoy the freedoms they do here.

The Magna Carta was written in 1215 in England--The D of I was drafted at the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776. Hey, that's same day we celebrate the birth of our country. Coincidence??

We don't have Zeus on our currency because we ain't Greek.

I didn't say I couldn't find in the first ammendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". I said it never said 'freedom FROM religion'. Read a little more closely and if I were you I'd get my money back on that " American History-in 3 easy lessons" you got.

posted by AnCatubh on May 11, 2004 at 10:44 AM | link to this | reply

Why Rewrite Either Document?

     Why should we rewrite the US Constitution? Nowhere does the body of the Constitution mention God or Jesus Christ. As the law-making body of government, however, Congress did violate the First Amendment ban on laws respecting an establishment of religion when it ordered the motto “In God We Trust” to appear on official government documents in 1956. Congress had no authority to level such an order without creating a law to enforce their order. If the US Treasury Department refused such an order, exactly what recourse would Congress have at hand? Could they call the cops on the US Mint? Without law, Congress cannot endorse anything—let alone a trust in God.

     As for the Declaration of Independence, although a fine document, we cannot include it as one of the US Government’s official documents any sooner than we can include the Magna Carta among any group of official US documents. Both the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence appeared for the benefit of humanity long before Americans officially established the US Government with general ratification of the US Constitution on September 17th, 1787. Until that date, the original colonies stood as little more than as a loosely united opposition to the king of England and the Declaration of Independence functioned as their collective voice. Even as late as 1781, not one of the original colonies regarded itself as part of a sovereign nation under the confederacy of “The United States of America.” (You’re the martinet of technicalities. Check your date of the Declaration of Independence.) Therefore—with respect to the designation of “official document” of the United States government—the Declaration of Independence ranks no higher than Navajo cave drawings in New Mexico. We must regard it as part of history occurring before the birth of the United States of America because a government cannot possibly produce documents before that government even exists.

     Remember, Americans didn’t invent democracy; we only copied it from the Greeks who believed in a completely different set of gods. Should we honor Zeus on our currency? After all, that’s part of our nation’s democratic history, too. Or would such homage to Zeus seem silly?

     And lastly, I can’t believe that you’ve read the First Amendment over and over and still can’t see the part that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Anyone with two working brain cells can clearly see that such a ban on laws of religion indicates that the United States Government of the people shall enjoy freedom from religion. No reasonable patriot, however, would dispute the people’s freedom to freely exercise their religion. I say we allow all people to freely exercise their religion by endorsing all religions on our currency. Apparently, you’d agree with me.

---D 

posted by Dennison..Mann on May 11, 2004 at 8:18 AM | link to this | reply

So You Agree?

     The US Government should allow for the exercise of all religious beliefs, right? You agree that people have the right to exercise their faith in any legal way? And you also agree that the US Government must honor all requests to exercise those beliefs, right? You allow that such exercises of faith should appear on official documents--as guaranteed by the First Amendment? Am I correct here? To reject such requests for the free exercise of faith would mean a curtailment of basic rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.  And you further agree that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, right? A trust in God, does that match the definition of "an establishment of religion"? Can we place "Under Vishnu We Live" on our official documents without regarding it as an establishment of religion? As a matter of fact, the US Constitution obligates the US government to acknowledge (and endorse on its documents) all religious faiths, including a faith in Satan. Failure to acknowledge and endorse any faith represents the inhibition of a free exercise of religion, which the US Constitution prohibits (as you so eagerly pointed out!)  

   What's more--judging from your need to address the slight difference between "respecting" and "with respect to"--you agree that the details of the language used in the US Constitution provide vital clues to its meaning and intent?

                                                                                                                                            ---D

posted by Dennison..Mann on May 11, 2004 at 6:28 AM | link to this | reply

oops-posted too soon
I will also add that open expression of religion does not mean equal time, effort, or whatever has to exist. Just that any group may freely express it's beliefs.

posted by AnCatubh on May 10, 2004 at 10:33 PM | link to this | reply

dennison-the 1st ammendment is as follows...
"Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." A little different from what you wrote.

Congress has made no law respecting the establishment of religion that I know of and if "in God we trust" is a violation of the Constitution we'd better rewrite the darn thing and the Declaration of Independence, too. Except it's gonna be hard trying to figure out where those inalienable rights come from. And what the hell is up with that "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence"???

I've read the 1st ammendment over and over and I can't find the part that says "freedom from religion". But the part about "free exercise thereof" seems pretty clear. The same ammendment guarantees the freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble. It doesn't mean only in church or at home under a freakin' blanket. Free exercise means free exercise and it is not an infringement on anyone's rights.

posted by AnCatubh on May 10, 2004 at 10:27 PM | link to this | reply

The First Amendment to the US Constitution ---

...states that, "Congress shall make no law with respect to an establishment of religion." Trusting in God clearly matches the definition of an establishment of religion. Any law calling for the endorsement of God on official documents (such as currency) violates the US Constitution. In the interest of unbiased promotion, the US Government must now produce  currency  endorsing the gods of ALL Americans...we must trust in God...Buddha...the Wind...Vishnu....Venus...Thor...the Son of Sam...and any fantastical being we can possibly conjure. After all, as an American you believe in being fair, right?   ---D     

posted by Dennison..Mann on May 10, 2004 at 3:19 PM | link to this | reply

new era
we are ascending.
there is that feeling that people are finding a light they have never found before.
Then there are those who cling to the chains of the past, which chains are like a weight pulling them down into the depths of religous narrowness.
Our country was founded on faith, for sure, people who saw the better part of existing -- and the interesting thing is these people would be the very ones criticizing Christians for their narrow and limited sight.
Jefferson, Franklin, Paine -- they expounded and embraced religious tolerance -- that was the reason for certain aspects of the Constitution.
The paradigm was Christianity, for sure, and they expressed themselves through that paradigm, in order to have their ideas come to fruition.
They sowed the seeds for a country that could doff the garments of religious narrowness.
We are continually doing that, so that this country can become less religiously exclusive.
We do not want to go down the path of religious narrowness, respecting any one religion over another. We set a precedent in that direction and the possibility is that many of you who support certain public religious expression can be left out and that a narrow expression of Christianity could exert control and your own religious freedoms be abridged.
Freedom for one is freedom for all -- freedom for all is freedom for you.
Respect for a few is abridgement of the others' rights of expression.
I don't care if it's Atheism, Mohammedism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Baptist, Assemblies of God, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Church of Christ, -- Zoroastrianism.
Satanism -- did I say that? -- put that little upside down pentacle out there --
All are equal in the sight of God.
They should be equal in the sight of Man.

posted by Xeno-x on May 10, 2004 at 3:05 PM | link to this | reply

well, kooka, I could spend a day
pointing out everything wrong about what you say. I don't have the time and you definitely don't seem inclined to listen.

I'd like to see some examples of Christianity being forced upon society and how you think it's keeping us from where we need to go.

posted by AnCatubh on May 10, 2004 at 8:21 AM | link to this | reply

...and kooka,
It's "SIGNS," honey, not "SINGS."

posted by Gheeghee on May 9, 2004 at 1:12 PM | link to this | reply

Isn't it nice to get such intellectually stimulating critiques from Kooka.
Nice to see that he's spelling better.

posted by Gheeghee on May 9, 2004 at 1:11 PM | link to this | reply

amdg
Just the fact that the only part you commented on was that last line just helps me to prove my point. You do not care what us non-believers say. As soon as I say I do not believe in God you stop listening to my comments. It is so nice to see people like you prove my points in such a fashion.

And Gheeghee is still as wrong as can be. Christianity is still running wild in our country and keeping us from going where we need to go. Hardly a day goes by when I do not see some sings of Christianity being forced on us as though it were fact. It is much more accepted in our country than any other religion or lack of religion.

posted by kooka_lives on May 8, 2004 at 7:16 AM | link to this | reply

and gheeghee is absolutely right
the far Left has it in for the Christian Right, no question. Listen to certain radio stations and hear Lefties talk about the Evangelical Republican in the White House and you'd think Hitler had been reincarnated.

posted by AnCatubh on May 7, 2004 at 8:39 PM | link to this | reply

why do you bother,kooka
hardly a post or a comment is made by you without you saying "I know this is going to go in one ear and out the other..." or words to that effect. If Christians are such a mindless, ignorant lot, why do you keep conversing?

posted by AnCatubh on May 7, 2004 at 8:29 PM | link to this | reply

gheeghee
Discouraged? That is such a load of BS. Christians are the group that is in power in this country and that is why we have so many problems. I could only imagine how great our country could get if we were able to discourage Christian thinking and get on track for once. Christian thinking goes against true freedom. You, like may others are trying to make Christians look to be victims when they are not. It is sad, and sick and annoying.

Atheists do not want religion forced on us and so when we go and point out religion being forced on us as well as everyone else, we try to get it stopped. Christians go and try to claim that is not what they are doing, but I have seen it too many times to believe otherwise. There were Bible groups that met at my High School, and I had no problem with that because they met outside of school time and it did not interfere with my rights. That is how it should be. If we are to allow Christian thinking in such things as commencement addresses, then we also need to allow Satanist to say as they like in such things. And you know what? If a satanist were to ever speak about how great Satan was in such a speech, I would bet you any amount of money thousands of Christians would throw the biggest fit you have ever seen and start suing the schools and trying to get rules enforced to keep such things from being said ever again, but if it is a Christian, then somehow that will not violate anyone's rights and no one should be offended. We need to be kind and make sure no one is offended if at all possible. Just because it may not offend you does not mean it does not offend others, because what does offend you may not offend others.

I already know all of this is going in one ear and out the others. All you are hearing is 'I am not a Christian and I do not agree with you so I must be a bad person'. Logic and reason will never sink through your blindness in such things.

posted by kooka_lives on May 7, 2004 at 8:16 PM | link to this | reply

But the government is not fair to all religions.
Christianity is singled out and discouraged over and over.

posted by Gheeghee on May 6, 2004 at 8:48 AM | link to this | reply

Religion belongs anywhere a free people decides to express it.
If the state erects a mennorah, creche, or what-not that might be construed as endorsement of religion. However, the state can and should allow private citizens to exercise their religious freedom anywhere. Why do people fear that? Where the heck is the tolerance?

posted by AnCatubh on May 4, 2004 at 7:24 PM | link to this | reply

the idea behind government not showing favor to any one religion is to be fair to all.
religion belongs in churches
or in discussion forums such as this.
any expression that would seem favored by government then becomes the abridgement of the others.

posted by Xeno-x on May 4, 2004 at 1:39 PM | link to this | reply

"We" don't have to do anything...
just tolerate people's freedom of religious expression. What the hell are y'all afraid of?

posted by AnCatubh on May 4, 2004 at 11:46 AM | link to this | reply

ya gotta blame somebody
Actually, maybe to be fair to all religions -- we decide first that it's all right to have the manger displays and such.
WE have prayer is schools and errect religious monuments.
So that at Christmas, we have the usual displays and such.
Hannuka -- the Menorah.
Passover -- the lamb in public display and Tv and radio can have Jewish songs and such.
Ramadan (sp) we can have a holiday however we need to and have public displays of Moslem holy items.
Of course there are the Hindu and Buddhist holidays, events and holy things that we will need to respect.
Also, we shouldn't forget our Eastern Orthodox Brethren, who observe Christmas at Western Christianity's Epiphany -- keep the manger scene over for that and sing their Christmas carols.
Then there are other religions: indigenous American, various others throughout the world -- we know I haven't covered them all here -- we need a holiday and a season for every one of them.
Then of course we need prayer in schools.
We need to be certain that the prayer includes the beliefs of as many Christian sects as possible.
We need to have special prayers for the other religions: Judaism, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc.
If we are going to make religion public, it's only fair that we treat all religions equally.
Otherwise, this is not a free country.
Or -- maybe . . .
If our country and schools were to rise above the fray of religion -- maybe that's the best way to hold to the constitutional precept of not respecting any religion above another.
Doesn't have to do with Atheists -- it has to do with protecting your beliefs.

posted by Xeno-x on May 4, 2004 at 5:41 AM | link to this | reply

Referrals - About Us - Press - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Conduct Policy
Copyright © 2019 Shaycom Corporation. All rights reserved.