home
RSS
Atheist group apologizes for misquoting Palin, but defends billboard's intent
March 4th, 2013
04:06 PM ET

Atheist group apologizes for misquoting Palin, but defends billboard's intent

By Dan Merica, CNN

Washington (CNN) – An atheist group that misquoted former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in a billboard in Texas is apologizing to the Republican and correcting the mistake. But it continues to defend the “intent and context” of the effort.

CNN first reported on Sunday that American Atheists, a group known for its in-your-face tactics, was sponsoring a billboard calling out Palin for something she said while on Fox News.

“We should create law based on the God of the Bible,” the billboard reads.

The only problem: That isn’t what Palin said.

In an interview with Fox News’ Bill O'Reilly, Palin addressed the growth in American secularism by saying of America's founding fathers “we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments,” not “should.”

Dave Muscato, the group’s public relations director, said in a release that because American Atheists holds itself “to the highest standards of accuracy,” it will “move the quotation marks at our expense, so they do not include the word ‘should.’”

Both Muscato and David Silverman, the group’s president, however, stand by the “intent and context” of the billboard.

“While I admit that the word 'should' should technically not be inside the quote, the meaning was correct,” Silverman said in a statement to CNN.

Silverman initially defended the misquotation, tweeting that “Sarah Palin was NOT Misquoted” and directing readers to a headline from a Huffington Post story. The story headline, however, was also incorrect and did not put quotes around should.

Silverman was critiqued for that double down. Hemant Mehta, an influential atheist blogger at Patheos, wrote that a mistake like this “sheds doubt on the whole idea that atheists are the ones who are being honest with you.”

Although Silverman said in an e-mail to CNN that he believes “Ms. Palin would stand by what we have quoted her as saying,” he said “all future quotes will be exactly as spoken.”

A spokeswoman for Palin failed to respond to CNN’s request for a comment and has not contacted American Atheists about the mistake.

Although Palin’s billboard is getting the most attention, it was one of seven ads going up around the Dallas and Austin, Texas, area. Also featured were: former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, the Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor at the First Baptist Church in Dallas, and Benedict XVI, now the pope emeritus.

Santorum is condemned for when he told an Iowa crowd last November that, “our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law,” while Gingrich is criticized for a remark he made at a CNN debate on October 18, 2011, in Las Vegas. “How can I trust you with power if you don't pray,” Gingrich posited.

Virginia Davis, spokeswoman for Santorum, thanked American Atheists for the publicity.

“At a time when many are trying to remove God from the public square, the senator is appreciative of someone helping him very publicly express his strong belief that we are one nation under God,” Davis wrote in an e-mail to CNN.

The billboards cost the group $25,000 and will be up for the rest of the month.

American Atheists is used to controversy around their billboards.

Last March, the group targeted Muslims and Jews with billboards that called God a "myth" in both Arabic and Hebrew and the same group posted a billboard around the holiday season in 2010 that read, “You KNOW it's a Myth. This Season, Celebrate REASON.”

Both these billboard campaigns generated resistance and praise from the communities around them.

Silverman, who has been criticized for this brand of atheism, has long defended the tactic, saying confrontation is meant to “grow the cause and benefit the country.”

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Politics • Sarah Palin

soundoff (2,069 Responses)
  1. Doc Vestibule

    @Live4Him
    I hope you now recognize that the Supreme Court of the United States did NOT legally declare secular humanism a religion.
    Rather, one Justice put their personal opinion in a footnote.
    "Obiter Dictum" pronouncement have no legal standing whatsoever. They cannot be called upon as legal precendents in court and are not to be construed as the official positions of the Supreme Court as a body.

    March 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • Sciene

      Hey Doc you might of made the list of L4H funny stuff the creationist come up with.

      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/08/belief-blogs-morning-speed-read-for-friday-february-08-2013/#comments

      March 5, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • Doobs

      My favorite part of L4H's post:

      "Well, its a new week so it's time for a new topic to be discussed. This week, we'll be discussing radiometric dating. "

      Like we are waiting breathlessly for it to toss out more pearls of "wisdom".

      March 5, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • scienec

      Hey Doobs

      L4H is at it again above..

      Paece

      March 5, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Doc Vestibule : I hope you now recognize that the Supreme Court of the United States did NOT legally declare secular humanism a religion.

      They didn't legally DECLARE it a religion, but it was RECOGNIZED as such in the footnotes.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • midwest rail

      And that recognition carries no legal weight at all – none.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      L4H and I had a lengthy discussion about various dating methods, with a special focus on Ice Cores.
      We reached an impasse early on when L4H would not acknowledge that the antarctic seasons provide easily interpretable ice/snow strata that can be read as accurately as tree rings for detemining age.
      When we got onto the topic of radiometric decay rates, I seem to recall that L4H would not admit that said decay rates are constant and predictable.
      L4H also will not agree that the speed of light is constant.

      The basis of the arguments, at least as I understood it, is that it is impossible to know because we haven't observed radioactive isotopes for billions of years and therefore cannot say anything reliable about decay rates. Also, we cannot assert that light has a constant speed becuase we've never travelled outside the solar system to be able to directly observe how it works. We can't rely on layers of snow to determine age becuase we weren't there watching the snow fall through the seasons for hundreds of thousands of years.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      NO.
      The Supreme Court as a Body gave no such recognition.
      An individual judge OPINED in a footnote.
      That is what "obiter dictum" is all about.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Salero21

      Live4Him = Chad

      March 5, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • lol??

      Just a deluded justice tryin' to make the history books. Above those religions and all.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:20 pm |
    • End Religion

      not sure about Lie4It = Chad. Chad argues OEC, L4 argues YEC. Wait... there I go again assuming honest passion about their arguments. From their history we know they're never honest, so I suppose there is the chance they could well be one grossly fraudulent person.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:22 pm |
    • .

      Which brings me back to the original thing I said: no such thing as a secular religion. Pfft.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
  2. lol??

    Any gubmints or churches ever successfully reformed themselves??

    March 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • clarity

      Well let's see the only "church" left in the S&G neighborhood was Lot and his daughters and look how they behaved right after the big event. So you either have to start believing in humanity, imperfect as it is, or you have to keep searching for older and older mythology that tries to present a "clean" slate. Good luck with that.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • Austin.

      Maybe not.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
  3. Thoth

    @Live

    You wrote:

    The issue you raised was the 'all [state-religions] were phased out'. And When were they phased out? Per WASP, by 1868. So, again, we're talking about the founding fathers living to ~1868 and being actively involved in the government. My posit is that they were long dead by then. Why do you think they were active in the government at this time?

    Most all were phased out by 1800. I don't speak for WASP, so stop trying to combine posts. Regardless, it was outlawed by the founders in the BOR's. Period. When they were very much alive.

    Also, I don't find anything to support your claim that the key founders supported state establishments. Not Jefferson, Madison, Franklin....even Adams, a strong Xtian signed off (as President) on the Treaty of Tripoli. oooops. Perhaps you are ignoring the fact that there was over a decade between the Dec of Ind, and the signing of the current US Const i tution. Point being things change as people began to realize the truly negative effects of recognizing religion at the state or fed level.

    Again, just for kicks, once the states signed off on the BOR's, they nullified their establishment clauses regardless of when they formally removed them from their books. id est quod id est........

    March 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : Most all were phased out by 1800.

      We've discussed this until we're blue in the face. Time to move on.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Time to move on when caught up in you deceit again. Bad enough being a troll but a liar and coward also.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • JMEF

      Normally do not quote mine but....
      "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
      Thomas Jefferson, hard to see how he would back any state/colony religion.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • Sceine

      JMEF for the list of L4H and schooling .

      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/08/belief-blogs-morning-speed-read-for-friday-february-08-2013/#comments

      March 5, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
  4. Rocket

    I'd rather be condemned by atheist, than be condemned by God. This athiest group will only waste time and money putting up these billboards as in the past. God will always prevail

    March 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Alias

      You will be condemned by every god except the one you worship.
      How sure are you that you have the right one?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:44 pm |
    • fintastic

      Such a bold statement...... can you back it up with evidence? can you show proof that your god exists?

      March 5, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
  5. Live4Him

    @Akira : Public schools paid for by public taxes have no place for religion. If you want your kids educated in religion, home school them, or send them to religious schools.

    Our taxes are used to pay for these public schools. The feds dole out that money to the schools based upon the number of kids in each school. If a person decides to home school / religious school their child(ren), should these funds be provided to the home school / religious school? Why or why not.

    March 5, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No. If you choose to educate your kids, you still pay taxes for public schools. That's because taxes pay for things that contribute to the public good. Just because you don't drive a car doesn't mean you don't have to help pay for roads. Who paid for YOUR education?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Now watch how long Lie4ever will argue before it decides it's "time to move on" or that someone is "on a tangent."

      Dishonest to the bone.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Science

      Please udated your ignore list thanks.

      Dover Trial Transcripts will answer that good read

      Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.

      With source.

      http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

      March 5, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      I object to funding wars for oil, Liethroughyourteeth. Should I have to pay any taxes for the support of them? Why or why not?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Science

      Oops update

      March 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      We've been having that debate here in Canada recently.
      Catholic Schools are the only private schools that receive government funding (for some reason) and that money is being taken away from them.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      And the people that decide to have zero children should not have to have their taxes pay for education? I hope you have decided to remain childless, one of you is too many.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:45 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son : If you choose to educate your kids, you still pay taxes for public schools. That's because taxes pay for things that contribute to the public good.

      That doesn't address the issue I raised, which was should that funding follow the child regardless of which school the child goes to? Why or why not?

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son : Who paid for YOUR education?

      I thought the general consensus was that I never went to college? 🙂 But that said, I paid for my college courses by working a full time job.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:51 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      That was incredibly dishonest on the second part. You knew you were talking about public middle/high schools, then you switch to college? Tell me, was that just a joke, or did you really think that you made some kind of point with that?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:57 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Putting the law aside, there are three main reasons we don’t want to support religious schools with tax dollars:

      1) If you fun religious schools you create the potential for an environment in which in a given community only one religious option may realistically exist which will not meet all needs and may in fact be offensive to the child who needs to attend.

      2) You create a legal nightmare in which you start to debate which schools have “approved” religions and which have views which are contrary to the public good (religions that promote overthrowing the government, racial bias etc).
      3) Religions tend to stifle scientific thought in areas that conflict with their dogma.

      If religious run schools were willing to provide an alternative secular curriculum within their schools there might be room for discussion, but very few of these groups are willing to do this.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Yet another lie, it was my understanding that TTTPS was at the top of the do not reply list, please post list for our edification. I will be disappointed if I am not included.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Doc Vestibule : We've been having that debate here in Canada recently. Catholic Schools are the only private schools that receive government funding (for some reason) and that money is being taken away from them.

      So, what's your opinion on this issue. Should the money follow the child regardless of which school the student attends?

      March 5, 2013 at 2:14 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Awww am I on the ignore list again? That just goes to show, don't call a liar out for being a liar, or they'll ignore you out of self-righteous indignation.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:16 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @Science : Please udated your ignore list thanks.

      Why? I'm not ignoring your 'Appeal to Authority' posts. There is just nothing to discuss about them. Now, if YOU take a position, supporting it with facts, I'll address your points. But, I'm not going to go to the links you provide and debate the points the article raises and never get a response from the author. It is a waste of my valuable time.

      @hawaiiguest : That was incredibly dishonest on the second part.

      Ad hominem – Ignored.

      @Saraswati : 1) If you [fund] religious schools you create the potential for an environment in which in a given community only one religious option may realistically exist which will not meet all needs and may in fact be offensive to the child who needs to attend.

      You've ignored the public school option – Why couldn't the child attend a public school?

      @Saraswati : 2) You create a legal nightmare in which you start to debate which schools have “approved” religions

      You don't have to approve a given school. Rather, the government can (and some states do) require standardized test scores each year. So, the government is not in the business of approving any specific school – only the learning requirements.

      @Saraswati : 3) Religions tend to stifle scientific thought in areas that conflict with their dogma.

      An hominem. Home schooled students tend to do better in standardized tests than public school students – including in the scientific areas.

      @Saraswati : If religious run schools were willing to provide an alternative secular curriculum

      Now you're advocating the government be in the business of 'approving' specific schools.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Live

      Get over yourself. I explained exactly how you were dishonest, but just like with your dinosaur soft tissue argument, you conveniently ignore that part and go straight to self-righteous indignation. Are you so incapable of actually defending anything you say to where you need to find anything to feel persecuted about so you can avoid it?

      March 5, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      I don't believe that tax money can be distributed on an individual basis, whether for education or anything else.
      We elect officials in part so they can establish standards for public works.
      It just isn't feasible to administer any type of social service on an individual basis.
      If a citizen choses not to partake in said public service, that is their perogative – but it is not the government's job to provide individualized alternatives to the existing infrastructures and dole out tax money to private citizens.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:43 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @L4H: “You've ignored the public school option – Why couldn't the child attend a public school?”

      In a community in which the child was a religious minority and other children all attended local religious schools, the public school would likely have already become the catch-all for underperforming kids who couldn’t get into private schools (we see that elsewhere already). I’m not promoting public school only education, btw, and am hugely in favor of options (private, magnet and charter school), but only if they guarantee to keep quality secular education available in all districts.

      @L4H: “You don't have to approve a given school. Rather, the government can (and some states do) require standardized test scores each year. So, the government is not in the business of approving any specific school – only the learning requirements.”

      If you are happy giving money to schools that promote the overthrow of the government of preach racist ideas there’s not much I can do.

      @L4H: “ Home schooled students tend to do better in standardized tests than public school students – including in the scientific areas.”

      Home schooled children do better because of the self-selectivity of the group and the individualized attention. In religious situations, however, even when the kids understand a wide variety of scientific data they tend not to understand basic concepts that conflict with their beliefs, such as evolution.

      @L4H: “Now you're advocating the government be in the business of 'approving' specific schools.”

      Not approval of all curriculum, but qualification as providing an appropriate secular option. If the schools are to receive tax dollars and potentially have the possibility of monopolizing a local district (see above) they would have to prove that they could provide a curriculum to children that would not teach religious views as facts. The rest of the curriculum would fall under only as much restriction as currently exists in each region.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
    • Cherries

      Akira's statement was in defense of Autin's assertion that the public schools should teach religion. Taking a quote out of context in a thread is somewhat dishonest debate. I'm sure Akira if fully aware WHY religion isn't taught in school, which is the point she made, so your whole argument at her expense is dishonest as hell. But I think you already know that.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Cherries
      I believe that Comprative Religion should be an elective course.
      It is important for developing minds to be exposed to as many beliefs as possible so they can make their own decisions.
      Informed consent is predicated on free access to information.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:25 pm |
    • Austin.

      I think that God should be involved in scientific theory. As far as any further doctrine is concerned if there is a section in history that talks about anything where Christianity went wrong, mis evil history, crusades, that instead of teaching the downfall of idolatrous Christianity, that the doctrine of satanic deception be taught along with the peaceful commands of the new testament. My education went in to full detail of idolatrous war mongering salvation selling Christianity, never giving any respect to the new testament doctrine. This is slander. This is satanic deception and the deceiving of young adults. Shame on this type of education. No one does this to anything but Christianity, this evil hobby. My education was so biased against Christianity it isn't even funny. It was no where near neutral.

      This is just the fulfillment of revelation prophecy. But despite the ungodly world, Christianity should be taught in school regardless of who it offends. It offends the sinful flesh, as it should. It offends the prince of this world, the devil who deceives the world.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, quelle surprise! Lie Again must be related to Chad. Did you GO TO A PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MIDDLE SCHOOL, and HIGH SCHOOL, Lie all the Time? If so, WHO PAID FOR YOUR EDUCATION?

      Moron.

      March 5, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So Austin thinks that all the kids who go to public schools and whose parents pay taxes should be taught Christian dogma as fact?

      I'd ask if you are really that stupid, but apparently, you are.

      Why should Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist children be taught dogma in the public school? Why should public schools, which are funded by taxpayers, teach religious belief as fact?

      Do you not grasp the fact that we have separation of church and state? That the state cannot favor one religion over another?

      You are daft.

      March 5, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
    • Austin.

      No I didn't say as fact.

      March 5, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Austin.

      Public education is opinionated in its own sort of way. My consciouss tells me there is something wrong with it when I ponder the reality of the resurrection. How to convey this to non believers is almost impossible.
      Everyone needs God and savior. What do you do? Act like a coward? Be ashamed of the savior because the world is lost?

      Say well " we should just let the Hindus and Muslims.. Go to hell so we don't offend them at school? "

      Sounds like something the devil has inspired. That and the fact that this run down society needs se.x education because children's parents are such failures , that now a discreet child has his mind defiled by a whorish fornicating folk.

      March 5, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, please. You and Lie have much in common.

      If you are talking about including religious beliefs in science classes, you are nuts. There isn't enough time in the day to teach REAL science as it is. If you are talking about comparative religion classes in which Christianity is studied along with all other major religious belief systems, then say so.

      March 5, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're a joke, Austin.

      I have nothing more to say to you on any subject. Go fvck yourself.

      March 5, 2013 at 5:27 pm |
    • JWT

      No on needs your version of a god Austin. They never have and never will. Thus there is no need to put such stuff in the public education system. Comparative religion has a place there but no more. If you want to teach your god – do it in church where it belongs.

      March 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • fintastic

      @austin.........."Austin. No I didn't say as fact"

      You dam sure did... you stated your beliefs about god to be "truth" ................... again, truth requires evidence... you have presented ZERO evidence... not one bit...... you are lying through your teeth again..
      '

      March 6, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
  6. Darth AnViL

    I have it on good authority that the "misquote" was done quite purposely.

    .....and that the outcome was very accurately predicted welllllllll in advance...

    .....and – the result achieved was intentional – and very successful.

    i approve.

    March 5, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • ME II

      What "authority" would that be?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • End Religion

      Extra free marketing in followup stories.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
  7. ME II

    @Live4Him,
    "And yet [the founding fathers] supported state religions. Care to reconcile your opinion with this fact?"

    Did the founding fathers "support" state religions?
    I thought Jefferson and Madison, at least, were opposed to it. Did other actually support state religions?

    March 5, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : I thought Jefferson and Madison, at least, were opposed to it. Did other actually support state religions?

      We've discussed this until we're blue in the face. Time to move on.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Time to move on." Why, because you can't answer it? Since when do you decide it's "time to move on"?

      Oh, gee, I forgot. I'm on the Famous Lie4ever Ignore List.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      Time to move on. You lying piece of crap, where did you address the point, nowhere? Just because someone comes from a colony that has a dominant religion does not mean that individual supports that religion. Probably time for you to leave anyway, your shift is over, time for Topher to take the jester role!!!

      March 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Gopher abides.

      March 5, 2013 at 4:34 pm |
  8. Keith

    It is important to remember how important it is to have your children brainwashed by age twelve, If not they probably will not buy your Bronze Age myths as the "Truth"

    March 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Fact is that we live in a culture of instant, global communication.
      It is becoming increasingly difficult to insulate kids from the reality of moral relativism.
      Parents can condemn pagans, heretics and apostates all they want, but chances are the kids will interact with people of different faiths from different cultures and learn that they're not inherently evil and/or inferior.
      Sociological evolution is leading us away from religion. Not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily divisive.
      In the 21st century we have numerous examples of irreligious governments running successful societies, like Ja/pan, Switzerland and my home, Canada.
      Some of our elected officials may be religious, but we expect them to act as Humanists, not religionists.
      Ultimately, to survive we must reject the tribalist mentality fostered by religions.
      If only Cochrane would hurry up and invent Warp Drive so the Vulcans can make First Contact! Then we can do away with money, hunger and racism. And also get it on with green skinned women in go-go boots.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • Austin

      Mary had Jesus at what age , 14-15. What does this mean about children and faith, and maturity?

      March 5, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • Religion is

      Superstition!

      No normal kid over the age of 12 could possibly accept all that bible babble as true. Yo really do have to get 'em younger.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • Austin

      Doc?

      Christians aren't humanistic?

      March 5, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Austin
      It means that back when the average life span was 40 or so years, infant mortality was far more pervasive, and having lots of kids meant having more hands to work the fields, it was desireable to start squiting out crotch critters as soon as possible.
      The kind of extended childhood enjoyed by 1st world people today is a recent invention.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • Science

      Doc

      How true, funny close.

      Peace

      March 5, 2013 at 12:49 pm |
    • Austin

      Ris, especially true if they only got input at public school up until that age. The moral question revolves the reality of the resurrection. It sounds like you would raise your kids to go to hell and deny its reality.

      That is insane. You are responsible for deceiving you kids and pushing them into that place.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Topher

      It doesn't matter if they are "brainwashed" by the age of 12. We are losing our kids at a rate of 75 percent when they leave home. I can't remember the percentage, but a lot of these return to the church in their 30s. These are terrible numbers, though, and we need to figure out how to change them.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • Pete

      "but a lot of these return to the church in their 30s. These are terrible numbers, though, and we need to figure out how to change them."

      That's a lie.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Austin

      The Holy Spirit is least inhibited by an innocent and trusting, uncalloused , child. An adolescent has hormonal and social pressures , many other distractions.

      The truth is the reason. Evil hits a man harder than a boy . Its the same as molding a seedling into a straight tree, pruning it to encourage bigger fruit. Cutting off the wrong branches at an early age, allows proper healing, less permanent damage or wounding.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Truth Prevails

      "Mary had Jesus at what age , 14-15. What does this mean about children and faith, and maturity?"

      Absolutely nothing!!!! She was not pregnant by choice. What it says to the average person is that your god used an innocent child for his own perverse satisfaction. In the real world, your god would be in jail!

      March 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Austin
      You're missing the point here.
      We are selfish creatures by nature, yet our survival depends on cooperation. In order to balance these two conflicting instincts, mankind has had to develop rules that allow room for both.
      These rules are not the same for all communities – hence we've had so many different types of religion and government throughout history.
      Religion binds communities together by giving a common frame of reference. Shared fears (like divine retribution), hopes (like going to heaven) and rituals allow the instinct for self preservation to extend beyond one's self and immediate family.

      Moral relativism is a truism.
      Take cannibalism as an extreme example.
      Our culture has a very strong cannibalism taboo, but it cannot be "human nature" to feel repulsed by it as virtually every branch of the human species has praticed it at some point in their development.
      The Aztecs believed in transubstantiation. They consumed their human sacrifices in the belief that the dead literally became a part of the God to whom they were given.
      Binerwurs in India ate the sick amongst them to please Kali.
      The Karankawa, an indigenous Texan tribe, ritualistically consumed their enemies to gain their strength.
      The Wari, The Kuru, Fore, Caribs, Fijians, Popayans, Serengipeans, are all fairly modern examples (within the last 500 years).
      Indeed, Christians from the 1st Crusade consumed the fallen Arabs at Maarat.
      Just be thankful that the modern form is limited to wafers and wine!

      March 5, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Topher

      Pete

      What is a lie?

      March 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Truth Prevails

      "These are terrible numbers, though, and we need to figure out how to change them."

      We could tell you but the truth of the matter might be too much for you to handle!

      March 5, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • Topher

      It's a lie that we need to reverse these numbers?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Frank

      " I can't remember the percentage, but a lot of these return to the church in their 30s. These are terrible numbers, though, and we need to figure out how to change them."

      The news was not all bad: 35% of dropouts said they had resumed attending church regularly by age 30. I wouldn't call 35% returning "a lot" of those returning.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • Topher

      Frank

      "The news was not all bad: 35% of dropouts said they had resumed attending church regularly by age 30. I wouldn't call 35% returning "a lot" of those returning."

      I'm thinking the number was higher than that, but fair enough. I'd say 35 percent is a terrible number. In fact, I'd rather we decrease the number of those leaving in the first place.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Science

      Hey Topher how about your fairy in the sky is .

      Peace

      March 5, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Topher

      Science

      I'm agnostic when it comes to fairies.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • lol??

      The "1st world people" better watch it.

      "Mar 10:31 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first."

      March 5, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      Children of Christians are never brainwashed, they are brainstained. The early application of brainstain used to last all the way to their deathbed, but ever since the poor and downtrodden were given access to education and information it's getting harder and harder to make the stain stick.

      The only deceipt lies at the heart of the bitter adults who are so afraid of accepting that what they were taught as children about a fiery torture God are total fabrications meant to control an ignorant populace. They will not admit to themselves they and their parents and their grandparents could be wrong because they have too much invested in it and it would be too painful to abandon their comforting legacy of lies. Thankfully it will not be their choice as their children refuse to be stained by their parents misinformation and lies about the world, and they will be abandoned like some old forgotten unused phone booth.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Maybe you could stop lying to them. Stop telling them that you know things you don't know. Stop telling them the earth is 6000 years old. Stop telling them that religion is based on facts when it is not.

      The reason they're leaving is because they can see right through you. You deceive them and they feel betrayed. Why should they go to a place where people tell them things that are false?

      If you stopped pretending that you have facts and acknowledged that what you have is belief and faith, you might have a shot.

      When you lie about things like the age of the earth and how it came to be, you are at fault for your church's demise.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm |
    • WASP

      @CHRIS-topher: i say just the opposite.
      we should bulldoze all temples,churches,mosques, etc etc etc and put the land to a good use; instead of wasting it with some worthless religious building.
      that would solve a lot of problems right there.

      as far as 35% going back to church, give it time and the more your god of the gaps hides the more people will realize believeing in a dead beat father-figure in the sky as nothing more than fantasy as it should be.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Frank

      "I'm thinking the number was higher than that, but fair enough. I'd say 35 percent is a terrible number. In fact, I'd rather we decrease the number of those leaving in the first place."

      They are leaving because the bible isn't true. They can see how Christianity corrupts the heart, it fills you with intolerance and hate toward others. Some of the biggest hate groups in this country that is tearing apart the fabric of our society consists of Christians!

      March 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      No wonder the church is so against contraception and abortion. They're losing to many people and need to renew their tithings.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • lol??

      The kids are just trying to survive after you replaced your "dead beat father-figure in the sky" with the reality of the one in D.C.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Most people now believe that hom0s3xuals should be able to marry and adopt children. They no longer fall for the nonsensical charge you guys levy about it being an "abomination."

      They're not going to suddenly return to churches where such hatred is being promulgated.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Topher

      Frank

      "They are leaving because the bible isn't true."

      That's your opinion.

      "They can see how Christianity corrupts the heart, it fills you with intolerance and hate toward others"

      What am I intolerant of? And whom do I hate?

      "Some of the biggest hate groups in this country that is tearing apart the fabric of our society consists of Christians!"

      You mean like the people who want to "bulldoze" churches? I have no doubt there are "Christian" hate groups. But those people aren't following the teachings of God.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Akira

      Public schools paid for by public taxes have no place for religion.
      If you want your kids educated in religion, home school them, or send them to religious schools.
      I have no quarrel with that.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "such people aren't following the teachings of god."

      So only YOUR kind of church is doing so?

      Few people with any level of education and brains is going to believe the earth is 6000-10,000 years old or that dinosaurs co-existed with men.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Akira, I was about to say that educating kids in a religious environment is against the interests of society, but perhaps it's not. Kids are canny and resilient, and recovery from a religious upbringing can bring about valuable personality traits.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:23 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Edit: are going to.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:24 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Topher
      Do you believe that non-christians are all bound for eternal torment?
      That sense of superiority (often masquerading as pity) from most Christians is a form of intolerance.
      "If you don't believe what I believe, you'll be punished". Making God the judge/jury/torturer allows Christians to depersonalize said intolerance, but that's just rationalization.

      And there are plenty of Christian hate and/or terrorist groups.
      There's the Manmasi National Christian Army and the National Liberation Front of Tripura, who force Hindus to convert at gun point and are known to encourage the murder of Hindu children.
      Those people are simply following Saint Augustine's doctrine of 'cognite intrare' – or 'lead them in' which justifies and encourages torture, vandalism, forced conversions and using violence to convert others in the name of Christianity.
      How about The Army of God and other groups who kill doctors in the U.S. ?
      What about white supremacist Christian terrorist groups like the Aryan Nations, Aryan Republican Army, Phineas Priesthood, and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord?
      Each one of them is perfectly self-assured in their righteousness, just like every other denomination of Christianity.

      Who are you to say who is the True Scotsman?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What's funny is that in my hometown, most of the girls who got pregnant were from fundie families. They married young and most of 'em are now divorced. Those who were from the Mennonite community were the worst–one of them had at least 2 abortions before she turned 21.

      One girl who got pregnant before marriage was so shunned by her parents, even after she got married and had the baby, that it was years before they reconciled.

      So much for forgiveness and the value of religious inculcation.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @TTTOO,

      That's an interesting question, regarding what might make for a better citizen in adulthood, and one I doubt we can settle. But even if there were a benefit it seems the larger societal dangers of raising a substantial number of children in a narrow or unscientific religion would outweigh the benefits.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Topher

      Akira

      "Public schools paid for by public taxes have no place for religion."

      I agree. I wouldn't want my children being taught religion by someone who didn't believe or was of another faith. I do, think, however, that public school kids could benefit from learning some of the principles taught in the Bible.

      "If you want your kids educated in religion, home school them, or send them to religious schools."

      If I'm ever blessed with children, homeschooling is the way to go for us.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Tom Tom
      My mother in law wanted to lie to her family about all sorts of things to try and make me seem like a "proper" kinda guy.
      Thankfully, my partner backed me up and wouldn't allow her Mom to say that we're married, Catholic and had our kid baptized.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Akira

      TTTOO, children are great bs detectors, I find.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Frank

      "You mean like the people who want to "bulldoze" churches? I have no doubt there are "Christian" hate groups. But those people aren't following the teachings of God."

      Christian hate groups include: Family Research Council,The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), NARTH, the Traditional Values Coalition, Abiding Truth Ministries of Springfield, Mass.; the Chalcedon Foundation of Vallecito, Calif.; Faithful Word Baptist Church of Tempe, Ariz.; and the Traditional Values Coalition of Anaheim, Calif.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:35 pm |
    • Austin. Calling on ER

      @doc vestibule

      Religion might bind people together as a secondary effect, but my reading of the bible, and experience with spiritual revelation, indicates that the truth establishes a binding communion with a living loving God not for religious reasons bt for spiritual and eternal survival. Also, my reading of the bible gives me no desire to consume human flesh, or wine.

      I take the bible literally ,and while the new testament called for war, the nt calls for pease and suffering, until Christ returns when everyone will know, it won't be a secret. Wars are about money and government, not Jesus. I am a non conformist, and I hate idolalatrous Christianity.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • Austin.

      Sorry ER, You evaded me on a lower thread. Hop you ate having a great day.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm |
    • Topher

      Doc Vestibule

      " Do you believe that non-christians are all bound for eternal torment?"

      I believe anyone who does not have the forgiveness of their sins found only through the work of Jesus Christ will be given what they have earned for themselves.

      " That sense of superiority (often masquerading as pity) from most Christians is a form of intolerance."

      I disagree. Having that knowledge doesn't make be better (though you could say it makes me better off) so it's not intolerance.

      "If you don't believe what I believe, you'll be punished".

      I'm not your judge. God is.

      "Making God the judge/jury/torturer allows Christians to depersonalize said intolerance, but that's just rationalization."

      See above answer. You make it sound like I hate people who aren't Christians or want to do them harm. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      "And there are plenty of Christian hate and/or terrorist groups."

      Yep. I already agreed to this.

      "There's the Manmasi National Christian Army and the National Liberation Front of Tripura, who force Hindus to convert at gun point and are known to encourage the murder of Hindu children."

      See? Right there you can tell they aren't following what Christ said. You can't force anyone to believe. The person must repent and trust. If you are forced at gunpoint, you don't actually do those things.

      "Those people are simply following Saint Augustine's doctrine of 'cognite intrare' – or 'lead them in' which justifies and encourages torture, vandalism, forced conversions and using violence to convert others in the name of Christianity."

      I've never heard of 'cognite intrare' but this is exactly my point. It doesn't matter what Saint Augustine said to do. As a Christian you should only be following what God said.

      "How about The Army of God and other groups who kill doctors in the U.S. ?"

      Jesus said in John 16, "Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me." See? Even Jesus said these people aren't His followers.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      It really is sad to see Topher not even see his own intolerance and close minded bigotry.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Mass Debater

      "children are great bs detectors, I find."

      It's true, however many religious parents don't take kindly to their kid's calling them out on their bullshlt and try to beat the detector out of them all while proclaiming the child who questions is "evil" and so condone their violent abuse by saying telling another lie to themselves of "Well HeII will hurt more and be hotter than my leather belt accross your backside! Don't you dare take my invisible magic man in the sky's name in vain!"...

      March 5, 2013 at 2:00 pm |
    • sam stone

      "What am I intolerant of?"

      You want to deny gays their right to marry because you feel what they are doing is immoral.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:34 pm |
    • sam stone

      Topher: Perhaps they are leaving your church because they don't find it relevant to them.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "Topher: Perhaps they are leaving your church because they don't find it relevant to them."

      Possible. In fact, I'm sure that some feel that way. But I'm betting it has a lot more to do with puberty.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • sam stone

      "I believe anyone who does not have the forgiveness of their sins found only through the work of Jesus Christ will be given what they have earned for themselves."

      I believe the god that you describe is a manipulative pr1ck who can only get people to worship him through threats of eternal torture

      he creates people man knowing they are going to "sin", so he is either glorified through his forgiveness or glorified through his punishment.

      basically, people are just pawns in his own self-glorification scheme

      March 5, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • sam stone

      with puberty? as in rebellion?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • sam stone

      by the way, where is this "evidence" for not only god, but the god of the bible you say you possess?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "with puberty? as in rebellion?"

      As in when they start to notice the opposite se.x. Not only does that stuff rule a teenager's mind, they don't like it when the Bible says not to give in to the sins of the flesh. So of course you also add in the natural rebellion of the teenager, then they don't want to go to church just because their parents say so. This goes on and on and when they move out, they can play by their own rules, so church is out. Plus some go off to college and are inundated with secular texts and teachers who rail against Christianity and call believers names. It all adds up.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:13 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam

      I also think the church has done a poor job overall in telling — not only teenagers, but the whole congregation — not just THAT we should believe the Bible, but WHY we should believe it.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam

      We also have a youth-group problem that really needs to be addressed. Just go to YouTube and watch some of these videos. Too many "youth pastors" are playing games and having kids eat peanut butter off their toes or from their arm pits instead of preaching the Gospel.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • sam stone

      "As in when they start to notice the opposite se.x. Not only does that stuff rule a teenager's mind, they don't like it when the Bible says not to give in to the sins of the flesh."

      Why should they like it? Why should they believe it?

      "So of course you also add in the natural rebellion of the teenager, then they don't want to go to church just because their parents say so"

      Or, because it is not relevant to them,

      "Plus some go off to college and are inundated with secular texts and teachers who rail against Christianity and call believers names. It all adds up."

      As opposed to churches which inundate these kids with religious texts, and imply that non-believers are headed to hell?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:32 pm |
    • sam stone

      Why would I want to do that?

      Regarding the youth, perhaps what got their attention in years past is obsolete in the time of instant access to information.

      Good riddance

      March 5, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "Why should they like it? Why should they believe it?"

      Because the God they proclaim to love (or did proclaim) says that's what's good for them. And it is.

      "Or, because it is not relevant to them,"

      They certainly might feel that way. But of course I'd argue that how is where you'll spend eternity NOT relevant?

      "As opposed to churches which inundate these kids with religious texts, and imply that non-believers are headed to hell?"

      Not really comparable. Church is voluntary based on your beliefs. Now-a-days you really have to go to college to get any kind of good job. When you go church, you should expect to hear about God. When you go to Accounting 101 you don't expect to hear about how ignorant you are to believe in God.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "Regarding the youth, perhaps what got their attention in years past is obsolete in the time of instant access to information."

      Such as?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • sam stone

      "I also think the church has done a poor job overall in telling — not only teenagers, but the whole congregation — not just THAT we should believe the Bible, but WHY we should believe it."

      Perhaps it is due to their NOT being any good reason to believe it

      March 5, 2013 at 3:45 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Such ax?

      the internet

      March 5, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • sam stone

      "They certainly might feel that way. But of course I'd argue that how is where you'll spend eternity NOT relevant?"

      Because they do not accept the supposed authority of the bible?

      Because they were dragged to church as children and now see what an unmitigated pile of dung it is?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "Perhaps it is due to their NOT being any good reason to believe it"

      Of course you know I disagree with that.

      And just to let you know, I have to go off to work in a few ... I'm not running away. But I've got a few left to continue the conversation.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:49 pm |
    • sam stone

      Both church and college are voluntary.

      Also, my degree is in accounting, and I did not hear in Accounting 101, or any accounting class for that matter, anything about god, either pro or con.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Topher. Accounting requires logic, reason, and education. Or do you believe that the acceptable answer to accounts missing funds, or not balancing is "an invisible sky man being it and it moves in mysterious ways (except when we claim to know those ways)" and that all accounting problems are only solved by prayer?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:52 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Of course you know I disagree with that"

      Of course. Apparentl, the youth at your church does not.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      Again, check out YouTube. There all kinds of this stuff available online. There's one in which a university president is speaking to a class and telling them that if it were up to her, she'd take every professing Christian and throw them out of the university. Talk about your bias, bigotry and hatred.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "Of course. Apparentl, the youth at your church does not."

      I'm certain the youth at my church are fairly representative of youth at most churches. Some are saved and hold fast to their faith. Others are only there because their parents make them.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • sam stone

      do you have a link for that?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:57 pm |
    • Timmy

      I took several accounting classes in college, and not once in any of the classes was god ever mentioned, and the teacher certainly never claimed that people who believe in god are stupid. Why do you just make stuff up?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • sam stone

      "I'm certain the youth at my church are fairly representative of youth at most churches. Some are saved and hold fast to their faith. Others are only there because their parents make them."

      which segment is growing?

      March 5, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • sam stone

      i suppose that both sides can be biased. the fact remains that you wish to deny SOME "sinners" their civil rights because you feel they are doing immoral acts

      March 5, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "i suppose that both sides can be biased. the fact remains that you wish to deny SOME "sinners" their civil rights because you feel they are doing immoral acts"

      Well ... yeah. If what they are doing is immoral, why should I endorse it?

      And as far as the video, I'll try to find it real quick, but I don't have much time. Remind me tomorrow if I don't get it now.

      March 5, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      Yeah, I'm not seeing it either ... on the first page, anyway. It made the news and I've seen it online, so I know it exists.

      C'mon, dude. Why are you insinuating I'm lying? I've not ever given you a reason to think I'm a liar. I'd like an apology.

      March 5, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam

      Here's one I found ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wn_9IcrF1I

      Gotta get going, though. Have a good day.

      March 5, 2013 at 4:22 pm |
    • midwest rail

      The only problem with the video is that the professor says nothing of the kind.

      March 5, 2013 at 4:27 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Gopher abides.

      March 5, 2013 at 4:35 pm |
  9. Thoth

    @Live4Him

    You wrote:"If they were concerned about 'corrupting influence', then why have state-religions at all?"

    ....well, if you move up a little bit in history, not long after the signing of the BOR, 8 states created legislation (which was later repealed for obvious reasons) PREVENTING members of clergy from holding public office BECAUSE they were concerned about religious influence and corruption.... seems the pendulum swings both ways.

    March 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Live4Him : If they were concerned about 'corrupting influence', then why have state-religions at all?
      @Thoth : if you move up a little bit in history, not long after the signing of the BOR, 8 states created legislation ... PREVENTING members of clergy from holding public office

      Just answer the question, without going off on a tangent.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • Thoth

      @Live – what's wrong? Do you not like someone doing the same thing you do?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Define "tangent," Lie4ever. Once we've agreed upon the definitions, we can debate.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • JMEF

      L4h
      Oh getting snarky. That you of all people demand that someone answer a question without going off in a tangent, when you can never answer a question honestly. BTW, how are we to know if we are on your stupid list if you do not update same?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Yeah, JMEF, now Lie is announcing that it's "time to move on" because it doesn't want to answer MEII's questions.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
  10. Doc Vestibule

    The U.S.A. is a nation founded by the self-righteous. Though the term most often used in conjunction with the frontier settlers is "pilgrim", the proper term is "puritan". Those ships that landed at Plymouth Rock carried a tribe of people disillusioned with what they saw as the moral degeneration of their homeland. Convinced of their righteousness and confident in their role as God's messengers, they sought to impose their will on a new land and it's peoples under the guise of bringing elightenment. The mentality was hardly new, being the same as that of the crusades. Holding an entire race of people at musket point and condeming their cultures from a fiery pulpit, the arrogant, confrontational and technologically superior invaders saw no hypocrisy in killing those who refused conversion.
    Once those pesky pagans had been both diminished in numbers and relocated, America lapsed into a century and a half of insular navel gazing. Ignoring international politics, the nation's methods of rationalization became widely accepted and formalized. While paying lip service to the lofty ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Const.itution, the pervasive mentality was obviously contrary to the "self evident truth that all men are created equal". White, Christian land owners may have been equals in at least an abstract, moralistic context but a slave based economy can hardly be considered egalitarian. The eventual abolition of slavery in a legal sense did very little to help the former slaves. Though denied the right to whip them thar ne.groes with impunity, the social elite were firmly established, milky white, “god fearing” and totally unwilling to alter the status quo in any meaningful way. No one save for the Mayflower descendents could realistically aspire to affluence or power.
    Some argue that this dichotomy still exists.

    March 5, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • Austin

      I agree with this completely. I hate idolatrous american christianity. These people started acting like killer Pharisees.

      Idolatrous religion is cultish mental deception. I think it is satanic ally inspired.

      I hated religion, including Christianity, until I received a spiritual calling. The Holy spirit is a sanctifying spirit that bears the truth of Gods word n a persons heart. Sin is a daily battle. So is standing up in the face of a demented culture standing alone if necessary.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • clarity

      The dangerous splintering, confusion and contradiction began long before your "idolatrous american christianity", Austin.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • lol??

      dates, clarey??

      March 5, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
    • Sea Salt

      I Thought I hated Christianty. Then I realealized I didn't know what it was. There is not word for how I really feel about Christianty. Soul sucking evil comes close.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • clarity

      BF for da BS lol?? (Before Paul)

      March 5, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • clarity

      BP for da BS lol?? (Before Paul)

      March 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • clarity

      Of course the Abrahamic religions are BS forward and backward from that "BP" time. I was just debunking Austin's idea that Xtianity went sour upon arrival in the U.S.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    • lol??

      I think it was cool that Paul talked Peter into giving up his dreams about bein' the first pope.

      "2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

      March 5, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • lol??

      Poor Peter, ever since he was a lad of 10 and received his calling of being a pope. Then that nasty Paul came along.

      "Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

      March 5, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • Christianity is a form of SEVERE mental illness

      "until I received a spiritual calling"
      .
      Was that on your home phone or cell phone?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Austin.

      No it's like a spiritual receiver, spiritual sight and discernment.

      The HolynSpirit is responsible for bearing the truth within a person, through the word, or with the creation.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:10 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Austin

      Why do you feel the need to pathetically preach on every article, sometimes going into a thread and posting something completely unrelated? Are you really that insecure in your own beliefs where you feel that need?

      March 5, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • Austin.

      Hawaii guest, look at the question ahead of mIne or the whole thread.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Austin

      You start off agreeing with the original post, then you go off into a tangent about the "Holy Spirit", which is not only merely assertion, but also completely irrelevant to the original post. Hence, preaching irrelevancies. You do this constatnly, and you ignore every challenge on what you assert to be true in favor of more assertions and preaching.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:36 pm |
    • fintastic

      One more time just for ignorant austin........... "truth" requires evidence. Stop calling your opinion "truth" when you can't back it up with evidence.

      March 5, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • Austin.

      Hawaii, but the relevent aspect to me is in the lead post, He links white dominance to Christianity, and it is similar to the hitler Christian idea, which is a form of slander planned out by Satan. He takes someone who twists the doctrine into a dominance God right, an evil deception and pride. This is the absence of love and compassion. I see a need to defend the authentic word and ministry of the holy spirit, and testify that the Holy Spirit is revealing Himself in spirit and truth, and that the resurrection power of God is alive, and not just a book. that is the living Word of god. He came clothed in a robe dipped in blood and they called His name the Word if God.

      March 5, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      "He links white dominance to Christianity, and it is similar to the hitler Christian idea, which is a form of slander planned out by Satan. He takes someone who twists the doctrine into a dominance God right, an evil deception and pride."

      No – I point out that the Puritan settlers were white and devoutly Christian. That isn't slander – it is truth.
      You can go ahead and say they weren't True Scotsmen.
      That is precisely the reason why the Puritans left England – to escape all those Anglicans who weren't True Scotsmen.

      Smallpox Blanket, anyone?

      March 5, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
  11. Thoth

    @Live..... umm ok. No I do not agree that my original post has been proven false by your side show. What I believe has been proven is the absurd level you go to in attempting to reconstruct the intentions of others, including folks like the founders.

    Here, let me give example of your MO.

    L4H: " The issue we're addressing isn't the ratification, but the founding fathers – who died before the events mentioned in this issue."

    How were they dead before the ratification of the cons t i tution? Most were around even for the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli which explicitly states that the Union was not founded on Christian principles.

    My post stands true. In general the founders were against religious influence, hence the reason they established a secular government which specifically forbid religious requirements for public office. It (Const i tution) is also THE law of the land, and overrides any state law – which is why the states began to phase out their establishment clauses after agreeing to the BOR's.

    You clearly have a knack for recontextualizing what people post, and seem to think YOUR interpretation is the only correct one. Strangley, most of the other posters seem to agree that you have not proven anything 'false' other than your own as.sumptions.....but you know what they say about those.....

    March 5, 2013 at 11:42 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : How were they dead before the ratification of the cons t i tution?

      Nice spin. Lets review the debate.

      Thoth : And all were phased out after states ratified the current const i tution, and the BOR.
      WASP : Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, and the remaining requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868.
      Live4Him : " The issue we're addressing isn't the ratification, but the founding fathers – who died before the events mentioned in this issue."

      The issue you raised was the 'all [state-religions] were phased out'. And When were they phased out? Per WASP, by 1868. So, again, we're talking about the founding fathers living to ~1868 and being actively involved in the government. My posit is that they were long dead by then. Why do you think they were active in the government at this time?

      @Thoth : My post stands true. In general the founders were against religious influence

      And yet they supported state religions. Care to reconcile your opinion with this fact?

      March 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • Science

      and how old is the Earth L4H enough said

      A picture

      March 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • .

      Please present evidence that the founding fathers as a body supported state sanctioned religions, Liver.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • JMEF

      As L4H completes another circle and ready start off again. The reason the DOI uses the word Creator is that it can be applied to any belief system and/or any of the various religious cults.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • WASP

      @HIM: why was religion involved in early american history, yet not today?
      why were africans not allowed to sit in the front of the bus, why today?

      because things change for the better; religion segregates and isolates people, for there tobe a union of states EVERYONE MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY, thus religion can not be allowed to have an active role in these united states of america.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • WASP

      @HIM: who created you? did your god fart and there you were, or did two humans have some fun and oops there you were?

      i vote for the two humans; guess what that makes them your CREATORS.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • WASP

      @troll4him: here is a good question; seeing george washington and others fought for this country to exsist, then went about writing the declaration of independence alond with the bill of rights don't you think, just for an instance that if they wanted a religion ran government like the one they had just finished fighting against that they

      WOULD HAVE WRITTEN IT IN ONE OF THOSE FRACKING DOC UMENTS!.
      don't know just an idea...........

      March 5, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
  12. kevobx

    How come no man dares to mention the name Satan, it is because they worship him. Satan is a spirit, what manner are you. Do you tests the spirits? Grace and truth. *John 4:23 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. *Luke 4:12-14 And Jesus answering him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season. And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galiee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. *John 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. *John 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. *Micah 2:11-12 If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of wine and of strong drink; he shall even be the prophet of this people. I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; *Psalm 77:15 Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah.

    March 5, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ever seen him? Talked to him? Know anyone who has?

      Satan doesn't exist.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • End Religion

      How's it hanging this morning, ya crazy bastard?

      March 5, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • Science

      TTPS

      It IS L4H maybe. (satan if there was one)

      Paece

      March 5, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • fintastic

      @kev............ Satan? you mean that guy with the red suit, horns and the pitchfork?

      March 5, 2013 at 11:51 am |
    • Bootyfunk

      satan = boogeyman

      seriously, grow up.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Austin

      Kevobx, I had a spiritual revelation involving a dream where a demonic spirit sang to me and showed me a dead cat, that was at my house for one day, and I woke up, and it was dead.

      The Devil, and demons, demonic attacks on the mind, demonic deception, and the accuser of the brethren , are real.

      He is risen.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:39 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Austin may be suffering from schizophrenia. He needs treatment.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    • End Religion

      Is anybody else enjoying Austin's slowly evolving demon cat dreams? Some newer parts creeping in, some other parts falling to the side....

      March 5, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I decided to try that out, kevbox. I spoke the name Satan just now without any particular feelings about it. I asked one of my informaticians to do likewise. He had no difficulty and only expressed the expected curiosity about it. I had a Betta fish I called Satan. It was solid red. Lived a fairly normal life for a pet fish. I conclude that the name Satan can be used and spoken without fear.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Austin

      Er, Baseless comment. What has changed or been added ?

      March 5, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • End Religion

      Austin, obviously you want to fix the lie so why would I help you understand what has changed? Lies are so common for you, you can't keep it all straight.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • Austin. Calling on ER

      What has been changed, or added to support your accusation? That my dream has evolved? A

      March 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • fintastic

      Nothing has changed.... you're still a nut-job

      March 5, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
  13. Thoth

    @Live – falsified? What have you proven false. A government can be made up of secular members that do not influence policy based on religious ideology.....sort of like what the founder did...which you continue to ignore.

    I would never propose a federal religion. Neither did the founders; for good reason.

    March 5, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • .

      Not to mention that you didn't have your point proven false; L4H quoted two statements that directly support each other...lol.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • lol??

      The gubmint made religion obsolete by usurping. The pwogwessives won zip. Now you know why yer worse than broke and are slaves and wretched sinners without any hope.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:16 am |
    • .

      Lollsabout, the government was founded without religion for a reason. It isn't a new ting, you moron, but your idiocy started the day you were born. Learn how to spell. Your illiteracy shows with every one of your posts. Moron.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : What have you proven false.

      Lets review our previous debate.

      Thoth : [The founding fathers] were in general against religion influencing government.
      Live4Him : So, why did ALMOST ALL of the original 13 state governments have a state religion in their laws?
      Thoth : My point ... is that ... the founders were in favor of a secular federal govt.
      WASP : By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion.
      Live4Him : First you state that they were 'against religion influencing government' and now you're switching your position to 'in favor of a secular federal govt'. It seems you want to redefine your position once it has been falsified. However, lets continue down this track for awhile. Since each of these state governments had different religions (Catholic, Protestant, Quaker, etc.), how would you propose that these founding fathers define a federal religion that would agreed with all of them?

      Your original stated postulate was that the founding fathers were against religion influencing government – which would include state and local governments. So, I falsified that premise by pointing out the fact that these same founders supported their individual state-supported religion. You seemed to acknowledge that fact by switching your posit with your next post. So, I then pointed out the fact that it is almost impossible to reconcile multiple religious views into a single cohesive federal view.

      @Thoth : I would never propose a federal religion. Neither did the founders; for good reason.

      So, we agree that the good reason is the impossiblity of the task.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • ME II

      "Your original stated postulate was that the founding fathers were against religion influencing government – which would include state and local governments."

      The "founding fathers" were only dealing with the federal government. It was a confederation initial and then the United "States". States right's was a major theme of the process.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • .

      Somebody kill this lying bitch already. I've never seen a person who make such leaps in debate ever. Dishonest twat.

      The founding fathers meant they didn't want religion in the government, which is EXACTLY why the Constitution makes no mention of God. What is so hard to grasp about that fact??? The founding fathers didn't found the colonies, they founded the COUNTRY, stupid.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • ME II

      @.,
      Threats are uncalled for.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : The "founding fathers" were only dealing with the federal government.

      The supporting premises for such a conclusion would be:
      1) The states were not likewise founded when USA was founded, and
      2) The founding fathers had no influence in their respective state governments

      Care to support your conclusion with the facts?

      March 5, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Thoth

      @Live – Wow.....

      1) No we do not agree on the reason for rejecting an establishment clause – you are presuming, and are wrong.
      2) Once again, and for the last time, it is entirely possilbe to have a secular governing body that does not use their pesonal ideology about religion to influence policy – as was the case with the drafting and ratification of the US Const.

      btw – you were wrong – 4 colony/states had NO establishment clause in 1776. And all were phased out after states ratified the current const i tution, and the BOR. Furthermore, this, along with your attempt at making connections that simply don't exist, are just more sidebar tactics to avoid debating what I originally posted. It is not my opinion, but fact that the fed specifically addressed and debated an establishment clause. They voted against it. All states ratified it. End of story. Add all the white noise you wish.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • .

      I didn't threaten anyone. It was a fervent wish.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • The Demon Deacon

      L4H
      Do you understand the concept of deism, very popular among the founders at the time of the consti.tution?

      March 5, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      I'm just saying that when we talk of the "founding fathers" we are generally talking about the founding of the nation and those who formed it, not the individual states, and yes the states had a presence prior to the USA, although not as states of the Union, nor with their own consti.tutions. And while they limited ties to religion for the federal government they left state governments to make their own decisions.
      The separation of church and state, I think, was later extended to states via the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendmment.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:16 am |
    • ME II

      @.,
      Wishful thinking is hardly a logical argument, nor helpful in a discussion.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : Once again, and for the last time, it is entirely possilbe to have a secular governing body that does not use their pesonal ideology about religion to influence policy

      We agree on this point.

      @Thoth : you were wrong – 4 colony/states had NO establishment clause in 1776.

      How was I wrong? I stated that almost all the original 13 states supported a given religion. So, how is this different from what you're saying here?

      @Thoth : And all were phased out after states ratified the current const i tution, and the BOR.

      Ummmm.. And blacks were defined as 3/4 of a person after the ratification too. And Obama was elected to the presidential office after the ratification too. The issue we're addressing isn't the ratification, but the founding fathers – who died before the events mentioned in this issue.

      @Thoth : to avoid debating what I originally posted. It is not my opinion, but fact that the fed specifically addressed and debated an establishment clause.

      Here is what you stated originally: Thoth (March 5, 2013 at 9:23 am): [The founding fathers] were in general against religion influencing government.

      Note, there is nothing about a specific level of government. There is also nothing about an establishment clause. So, are you admitting that your original conclusion has been falsified and you want to restate your conclusion? If not, then don't attempt to restate your position. Defend your original conclusion – without any qualifications.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • clarity

      People like TwistItBendItReshapeItLie4ItandBeGullible4Him are always trying to make the Mayflower Compact, DOI or pre-Constitutional law more pertinent to our laws today than the Constitution & its Amendments. Thankfully, the wall of separation seems to be holding up for now even though it has always been under attack.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • clarity

      You did not falsify anything, Lie4Him; you were both speaking a bit to generally at first for anything to be deemed absolutely true or false.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : we talk of the "founding fathers" we are generally talking about the founding of the nation and those who formed it, not the individual states

      Maybe you should define your terms before you use them. Most people recognize that the founding fathers played multiple roles – firstly in their state governments and subsequently in the federal government.

      @ME II : And while they limited ties to religion for the federal government they left state governments to make their own decisions.

      So, lets address the WHY. How would you propose to define a federal religion that would not conflict with the various state religions at that time?

      @ME II : The separation of church and state, I think, was later extended to states via the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendmment. ... Wishful thinking is hardly a logical argument, nor helpful in a discussion.

      Agreed.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "The separation of church and state, I think, was later extended to states via the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendmment. ... Wishful thinking is hardly a logical argument, nor helpful in a discussion."

      I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but this is a blatant misquote and misrepresentation of what I said. You are combining to separate posts about to separate comments in to what appears to be one.
      This is inaccurate, misleading, deceptive.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • clarity

      AllKindsOfCrap4Him: "So, lets address the WHY. How would you propose to define a federal religion that would not conflict with the various state religions at that time?"

      Who gives a crap then or now? L4H makes it sound like each state experienced its own form of Xianity all cuddly and peaceful during the founding. Part of the reason key people like Madison was fervently for separation of church and state was that he was sick of Christian infighting WITHIN his (and Jefferson's) home state at the time. Quakers had been persecuted terribly in Massachusetts. L4H lives in a dream world away from the reality of today and times past.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:41 am |
    • JMEF

      L4H
      So in your world the founding fathers got together to influence government at different levels, lets say a town council or municipal government, a states legislature and then got around to creating a nation by the union of colonies/states. Your view is so dishonest.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:43 am |
    • clarity

      typo – was fervently should be were fervently

      March 5, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lie4ever is author of the phrase: When did you stop beating your wife?

      March 5, 2013 at 11:44 am |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      " Most people recognize that the founding fathers played multiple roles – firstly in their state governments and subsequently in the federal government."

      The founding fathers did play multiple roles, however, "most people" also recognize that when talking about "the founding fathers' they are talking about them in relation to the founding of the nation.
      When talking about their other roles it is often qualified, for example, "After Independence, Jefferson returned to Virginia and was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates for Albemarle County. ... He also wanted to disestablish the Anglican church in Virginia, but this was not done until 1786, while he was in France as US Minister." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson)

      "So, lets address the WHY. How would you propose to define a federal religion that would not conflict with the various state religions at that time?"

      Not sure that was the point in question, however, I think it is generally understood that many of them were concerned about the corrupting influence both had on each other.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:46 am |
    • WASP

      @him: NICE CHERRY-PICKING THERE TROLL.
      how about posting the rest of that statement where it said that once they were part of the union those RIDICULOUS LAWS were removed from the books.

      try harder troll.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Liar is just as odious as Chad/Rachel.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • clarity

      Heck – even the other James Madison (1st Episcopal bishop of Virginia – cousin to and roughly same age as the father of the Constitution) was evidently a supporter of separation of church and state.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And now the liar runs off just as it did when it was attempting to lie about the business of spheres/circles.

      What a limp dick.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Live4Him

      @ME II : I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but this is a blatant misquote and misrepresentation of what I said. You are combining to separate posts about to separate comments in to what appears to be one.
      This is inaccurate, misleading, deceptive.

      I'm sorry, but I thought you were adding an addendum. So, lets go back to what you originally stated:

      @ME II : The separation of church and state, I think, was later extended to states via the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendmment

      Why did you add the 'I think' in your statement? Are you rendering an opinion without any supporting premises?
      Second, to what were you posting "Wishful thinking is hardly a logical argument, nor helpful in a discussion". Why would it be 'not helpful' in some cases, but in this case it is 'helpful'?

      March 5, 2013 at 12:00 pm |
    • clarity

      Spheres and circles, Tom? Maybe there needs to be a BB "Celebrity" deathmatch between TwistIt4Him's circles and John's triangles.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "I think" is a qualifier meaning, 'it is my understanding that...'

      "Why would it be 'not helpful' in some cases, but in this case it is 'helpful'?
      Since you are intent on misunderstanding and misrepresenting this, it is because "wishful" thinking is not helpful, whereas thinking can often be helpful.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Live4Him

      Live4Him : So, lets address the WHY. How would you propose to define a federal religion that would not conflict with the various state religions at that time?
      @ME II : Not sure that was the point in question, however, I think it is generally understood that many of them were concerned about the corrupting influence both had on each other.

      If they were concerned about 'corrupting influence', then why have state-religions at all?

      March 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • clarity

      AllKindsOfCrap4Him: "If they were concerned about 'corrupting influence', then why have state-religions at all?"

      Who gives a crap? L4H makes it sound like each state experienced its own form of Xianity all cuddly and peaceful during the founding. Part of the reason key people like Madison was fervently for separation of church and state was that he was sick of Christian infighting WITHIN his (and Jefferson's) home state at the time. Quakers had been persecuted terribly in Massachusetts. L4H lives in a dream world away from the reality of today and times past.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Lie4ever: IF they did anything of the kind, it was likely because zealots like you bored them to tears and they wanted to shut you up.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "If they were concerned about 'corrupting influence', then why have state-religions at all?"
      In some cases (see quote on Jefferson above), they didn't want state religions but were dealing with "establishments" carried over from colonial governments, e.g. Anglican church or charter based state religions like the Mass. Bay Colony

      "...whereby our said people, inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably, and civilly governed, as their good life and orderly conversation, may win and incite the natives of country, to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Savior of mankind, and the Christian faith,..."
      (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/organic/1629-cmb2.htm)

      March 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • ME II

      @Live4Him,
      "...That no Person or Persons, inhabiting in this Province or Territories, who shall confess and acknowledge One almighty God, the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the World; and profess him or themselves obliged to live quietly under the Civil Government, shall be in any Case molested or prejudiced,...."
      ('Charter of Privileges Granted by William Penn, esq. to the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania and Territories, October 28, 1701' , http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa07.asp )

      March 5, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
  14. lol??

    Science keeps bringin' the Sky Fairy to the land. Maybe she already spun out and crashed.

    March 5, 2013 at 9:37 am |
    • clarity

      Your wish of delusion, idiot. What is pretty evident is that John of Patmos was a substance abuser – one would have to have been high as a kite to come up with that mess called Revelation.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:50 am |
    • Austin

      I think he might worship science, Excessive devotion?

      March 5, 2013 at 9:53 am |
    • Austin

      Clarity, Are you ready for the white horse? Secular religion is ran by Satan, and then persecuted by Satan. That doesn't sound fair. Does it?

      March 5, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • clarity

      No Austin I'm not into mythology. If I was and had time, I'd go find a Dungeons and Dragons group.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:01 am |
    • .

      No such thing as a secular religion. Moron.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:02 am |
    • fintastic

      ..... and............. no such thing as satan...

      March 5, 2013 at 10:06 am |
    • lol??

      When you gonna close down the prisons, fintasty fish??

      March 5, 2013 at 10:19 am |
    • Live4Him

      @. : No such thing as a secular religion.

      So, why has the US Supreme Court recognized Secular Humanism as a religion?

      March 5, 2013 at 10:19 am |
    • clarity

      @L4H: Secular Humanism (many prefer just Humanism with a capital "H") is a form of irreligion. Secularism is not a religion at all.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • Science

      Maybe they have a fairy too,L4H

      March 5, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • End Religion

      The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or Secular Humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes."
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

      March 5, 2013 at 10:31 am |
    • Really-O?

      @Live4Him – "So, why has the US Supreme Court recognized Secular Humanism as a religion?"

      The U.S. Supreme Court has stated no such thing, you dishonest ninny.

      "The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment."

      http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/98-5485a.txt

      March 5, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Same sh!t, different day–Lie4ever lies, lies, and lies again. And then, like Chad/Rachel, it runs off and hides, only to come back again with the same crap. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • .

      The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488).

      March 5, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I've been reading through the case of TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
      367 U.S. 488
      TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
      APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
      No. 373.
      Argued April 24, 1961.
      Decided June 19, 1961.

      I don't see where secular humanism is declared a religion.
      "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can const.itutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can const.itutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."

      "We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating in the conduct of Government than merely to forbid an `established church.'. . . We renew our conviction that `we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.'"

      "The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or inst.itutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between church and State.'"

      March 5, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • Live4Him

      Live4Him – "So, why has the US Supreme Court recognized Secular Humanism as a religion?"
      @Really-O? : The U.S. Supreme Court has stated no such thing

      http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488

      Torcaso v. Watkins Footnote 11 states:
      [ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Live4Him
      That footnote is what is known in legalese as "obiter dictum," or "said in passing."
      Such statements are personal opinions of the justice – they are not necessary to the final result and have no legal force.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
  15. Thoth

    All religions, and their collective gods/goddesses are born of human conjecture. Laws should be based on common fairness, freedom and reality. While I do not believe in any god as defined by humans, AA imo is not doing the godless any favors by continually provoking believers – who do still hold a majority in this country. My fear is that AA's tactics will put religious moderates on the defensive, and mobilize another religious movement like in the 1950's when they pushed 'god' to contrast America against the 'godless, communist Soviet Union'. Rather than spending funds provoking, why not target youths the same way religious folks do – building community centers, youth programs, etc...

    March 5, 2013 at 9:18 am |
    • Austin

      To shelter children from God?

      March 5, 2013 at 9:28 am |
    • Truth Prevails

      Austin: Children should be raised free of religion and allowed to form their own opinions of it. All children (including you) are born without a belief...so that means you too were born an Atheist, your parents and those who you are exposed to are the ones who teach you, it is not a natural occurrence.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:35 am |
    • Thoth

      @Austin – if you believe in an omnipotent god, then how could anyone be sheltered from it?

      To answer your question, no. I teach my own children about the many different concepts that have been conjured up through human history and let them decide what to believe. I have no issue with an objective approach.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:38 am |
    • lol??

      TP, you're such a bully Wegodian. Who made you boss??

      March 5, 2013 at 9:39 am |
    • Austin

      He is risen.

      90 percent of people who aren't saved by age 12 never get saved by the blood. This is a clear indicator of how important it is that children be given information, thorough information.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • midwest rail

      @ Austin – reference ?

      March 5, 2013 at 9:42 am |
    • Truth Prevails

      lol: Bully for speaking the truth??? Come to the 21st century and discover reality.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:42 am |
    • lol??

      It's antichrist through and through............."Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

      Tyrants use this for their doctrines. Stolen wisdom.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:43 am |
    • Austin

      If you have ever had the experience of seeing how children act and soak up the vacation bible school and see them in Sunday school, you would see a creative and innocent faith at its most beautiful stage. One of the best things in life is watching a child trust God. They have abilities that adults don't have. And then seeing the way the spirit develops and protects the child's person is also priceless

      March 5, 2013 at 9:47 am |
    • Truth Prevails

      Austin: If it can't be taught as fact in schools then children should not be taught it. Maybe if you left the shack you reside in and got out a little more, you'd see how awesome the world is without god and the horror story book you hold so dear. Things called libraries exist and they are full of books that are not out dated and contain actual evidence and facts...visit one and maybe go back to school and take a science class.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • Jimmy

      Austin
      Children often have invisible friends, or believe that there are monsters under their beds. You can also get them to believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and loads of other mythical beings. The "ability" that they have, but adults don't is to be able to believe in fantasy.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • sam stone

      90 percent of people who aren't saved by age 12 never get saved by the blood. This is a clear indicator of how important it is that children be given information, thorough information."

      translation: indoctrinate them early, and turn off their thouoght processes

      March 5, 2013 at 9:58 am |
    • lol??

      Libraries burn. Science is sayin' man is almost a half mil years old. Where are they?? Same place as the Library of Alexandria?? God preserves His Word. I laugh at the egotists that are always sayin' History will judge! BBBbWWwwwaaaaahahahaha

      March 5, 2013 at 10:05 am |
    • Austin

      Truth prevails, I was a biochem major.
      You can deprive your children communion with God and hand cuff them to your spiritual death for eternity, and the broad road that leads to destruction if you think that's hip. But your children didn't deserve it.

      We trust in God in an evil world. We are not teaching them to put their faith I an adult education, to make their knowledge God. We are Giving them truth as children because it's the loving thing to do, that they might walk in fellowship with God and be protected from this dark world with the living spirit of salvation. Salvation and the seal of the spirit is a power and has an other worldly value, eternal value.

      Depriving your children is sick and wicked. Sad.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:05 am |
    • Thoth

      @Austin – BioChem major? I call BS. ORU doesn't have a BioChem program 😉

      March 5, 2013 at 10:12 am |
    • meifumado

      @ the nuts who brainwash their children.

      Indoctrinating children could be considered child abuse.
      You are mentally abusing them, stop now.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:12 am |
    • Truth Prevails

      Austin: First off, I don't give a rats ass what your education is, the fact that you believe without evidence in and of itself speaks little for you. Second, no child should be raised with a belief in god. It is not fair to raise them to believe in a god that demands idolization and if they don't accept it, they fear being tortured for eternity.
      You fail to grasp that all children are born without belief and unless it can be taught as fact in the public school system, it should be dismissed as the fallacy it is,
      What about the children who don't share your god???
      Thankfully opinions like your opinion stand no ground in the real world.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:12 am |
    • .

      Since lollsabout cannot stand knowledge and technology and wishes all libraries to burn, lollsabout needs to get off the computer, throw away all comforts that technology has given her, move into a cave, and wait for God to provide for her. Bwahahahahaha. Moron. Since she is clearly anti-government, she needs to declare to the world she is an anarchist, and see how long she survives. Bwahahahahaha ha. Since lollsabout thinks a theocracy is favorable, she needs to move to Iran and see how long her head stays on top of her neck. Bwahahahahaha. Moron.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • fintastic

      @Austin..... You are giving them lies. "Truth" requires evidence.... you have none.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • Austin

      When I went through my evolution classes in college, I started rejecting my faith and my family for their beliefs.

      God sustained my faith with supernatural power. As a man, not a child, God reinforced my faith with His sovereign genius witness of the Holy Spirit. And it was my childhood upbringing that gave me the chance to struggle.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • Austin

      M
      When I went through my evolution classes in college, I started rejecting my faith and my family for their beliefs.

      God sustained my faith with supernatural power. As a man, not a child, God reinforced my faith with His sovereign genius witness of the Holy Spirit. And it was my childhood upbringing that gave me the chance to struggle.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • lol??

      Like Cain and his garden, TP looks at children as vegetables that will flower all by their lonesome. That's naturalism at its core and how you get vegetable bwains. Evolutionism approved.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • Austin

      @ truth, I do have evidence and personal data. In the real world, there are options so that people don't have to settle for a public education that isn't good enough because of the s.exually idolatrous and grossly immoral public filthy minded God hating reptilian propaganda machine.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • Austin

      Lol, Good call. Ya that's a good analogy for raising veggies, I mean children.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:31 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Herpetology helps you get to the Truth of things, Austin?

      March 5, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • Austin

      I am sorry for using the word reptilian.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Austin, what kind of stupid are you? Where's your evidence that anyone in the public schools teaches children to hate god? To idolize s3xuality?

      You're pathetic.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • clarity

      @idiot lol?? "God preserves His Word". LOL. well he didn't do a very good job of it. Because of "His Word", conflicted as it is, Xianity splintered like a forest hit by a large asteroid. Too embarrassed that the gospels looked too much like earlier pagan stories, all several early Christian apologists could come up with was that the devil have committed 'plagiarism in anticipation' – he wrote the fake stories before the gospels. wink wink.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:41 am |
    • clarity

      " all several early Christian a" (strike the "all" – that was typo; Justin Martyr was in the group of "several")

      March 5, 2013 at 10:47 am |
    • clarity

      Goodness – I will get some coffee after this – but this is better:

      several early Christian apologists could only come up with . . .

      March 5, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • Austin

      Tom Tom tps, dude, I went to 3 different universities as I over around the country. Wether it was sociology, evolutionary biology, geology,anthropology, mid evil civ, All these various teachers enjoyed their attempts to discredit certain biblical ideas or principals.

      Much of college was neutral, but much of it I would call satanic indoctrination. S.eual idolatry is devotion to immorality. And our schools are devoted to fornication. What fourth grader ca get married? So why are they showing how to put on condoms? Because of the se.xually educated and groping neighbor who's momis a crack whor.re.

      This is devoted to the worst case scenario. Children don't need to be thinking about this stuff in grade school. Is not the only idolatrous issue inflicted upon kids.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:51 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not only are you stupid, Austin, but you're a fvcking, fvcking liar. NO ONE is showing 4th graders how to put on con doms, you lying azzhole.

      You just keep digging, though. You're so far in over your head that anyone reading your sh!t can tell you're one dum b ass.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You went to 3 universities why? Because you flunked out of two of them. Moron, you think s#x education shouldn't begin until what? Senior high school? You're an idiot. Kids in middle school get pregnant, and here's a goddam news flash for you: nobody has to be married to get pregnant.

      You are so damn stupid you don't even realize that because of increased s3x education in this country, the birth rate among unmarried girls has DROPPED to an ALL-TIME LOW. So has the abortion rate, you nincompoop.

      Get yourself a brain. You're so stupid you stink of it.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:03 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's PRINCIPLES, you stupid little sh!t. You never got a degree, did you? It shows.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Austin

      Tom Tom, I'm sorry, I remember being in four

      March 5, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you don't, you lying little piece of excrement. You don't remember ANYTHING of the kind. You are lying.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Fallacy Spotting 101

      Posts by 'Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son' show multiple instances of the ad hominem fallacy.

      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

      March 5, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Austin

      Thanks I'm glad someone noticed.

      I still think very highly of Tom, you are very intelligent and sincere yourself.

      In fourth or fifth, and sixth grade, they separated th boys and girls and had s,ex Ed, and took questions. I remember a banana and do you think they didn't teach safe se.x? As a male, it made me aroused just thinking about it, it left me se?xually charged and around 400 kids who were of course foolishly joking around. Ok for me, i remember feeling temped by desire.

      I won't. Sendd my kids to public school until tenth grade. They get a private Christian education. And they don't get s.ex Ed, they get proverbs, and bible class.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Looky there. Austin runs off again when he can't back up his claims.

      Big shocker!

      March 5, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You said 4th grade, Austin. Now you back pedal because you know you can't prove what you claimed. No one in public school s3x education classes is showing bananas and con doms to 8 and 9 year-olds. You lie.

      You talk about your kids-you're not likely to ever have any. You're not married. I doubt you have the nuts to even ask anyone on a date.

      Why can't you address what I posted about the rate of teenage pregnancies and abortion dropping to their lowest levels when public schools took on the task of doing what parents like you won't or can't do? Girls get pregnant at the age of 11. Do you think you're going to prevent that by pretending that s3x doesn't occur until after marriage? If so, you lack the brains to educate anyone.

      I notice you didn't refute my assertion that you flunked out of at least two of the universities you attended.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:37 pm |
    • Austin

      It was fifth and sixth.

      I don't know what you are so offended by. I agree with you about middle school pregnancies.

      I didn't flunk out of college. I just broke up with my girlfriend who was a millionaire in Boston, because she was not taking her son to church and she wanted a child with me and I wasn't going to risk my child with her because of her worldly commitment.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Ahahhahhah! Your millionaire girlfriend! OMG, too funny.

      You idiot, if middle school pregnancies occur, when do you think you're going to start educating kids about preventing it? They go to middle school IN SIXTH GRADE.

      When are you going to address the FACT that pregnancy and abortion rates have DROPPED since s3x education became common in public schools, Austin?

      You wonder why people have no time for you nuts. You are so dishonest you stink of it.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
    • Austin.

      I haven't been dishonest about anything. We don't have middle school here, we have junior high. 7-8 th and grade school k-6. I think for you public situation where there is horrible parenting you are stuck with the situation you speak of, And by all means I congratulate the se.x education for dropping the middle school pregnancy and abortion rate.

      That is not the place for my kids. My ex girlfriend didn't think so either and she isn't in to the bible at all.

      March 5, 2013 at 1:59 pm |
    • lol??

      "Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

      March 5, 2013 at 2:22 pm |
  16. Live4Him

    @Dave Muscato : because American Atheists holds itself “to the highest standards of accuracy,”

    The highest standard of accuracy would not distort the message given by Palin. Her posit was based upon what the founding fathers would do, not what our current secular America should be doing. Before you claim a high standard, demonstrate such standard.

    March 5, 2013 at 9:15 am |
    • Science

      Not the fairy in the sky, it has no standards.

      Paece

      March 5, 2013 at 9:21 am |
    • Science

      Oop dame thumb did it again

      Peace

      March 5, 2013 at 9:22 am |
    • Thoth

      and before you make claims about what the founders would do perhaps you should 1) consider what they DID do, and 2) read some of the floor debates from the mid 1780's where you will find that while most all subscribed to some diety, they were in general against religion influencing government.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:23 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : read some of the floor debates from the mid 1780's where you will find that while most all subscribed to some diety, they were in general against religion influencing government.

      So, why did ALMOST ALL of the original 13 state governments have a state religion in their laws?

      March 5, 2013 at 9:28 am |
    • Science

      L$H good standards the fairy in the sky provives aye ???

      Roman Catholic Church Se-x Abuse Cases

      http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church_se-x_abuse_cases/index.html

      Take dash out of se-x if copy and paste

      Peace

      March 5, 2013 at 9:31 am |
    • Thoth

      @Live – I would have to verify your claim. I know several of the New England states did – however that was prior to the establishment of the Union. My point, which you ignored and switched to something else, is that contrary to your claim, the founders were in favor of a secular federal govt. The Const it ution specifically forbids any religious litmus test.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:34 am |
    • WASP

      @him: "So, why did ALMOST ALL of the original 13 state governments have a state religion in their laws?"

      you are such a liar. i don't know what religious BS site you found your information, but this is the FULL STORY.
      GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

      "By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. Below are excerpts from colonial era founding docu.ments citing these religious references.

      Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, and the remaining requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868. New Hampshire and North Carolina removed the nullified religious references from their state const.itutions in 1875 and 1877 respectively."

      THEY MAY HAVE STARTED WITH THAT RELIGIOUS BS; HOWEVER THEY BECAME SECULAR JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE UNION.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • clarity

      Because Gullible4Him, they were able to get away with it more then – the federal wall of separation ideal was too new to instantly be adopted everywhere – it has taken time. The more time goes by the further the wall of separation is appropriately applied through civil law. Just look at the man who was the key framer for the 1st Amendment and Constitution. While the Constitution and 1st Amendment were being adopted, Madison was used to the tradition of employing chaplains at public expense for the House of Representatives and Senate. But later, after his presidency, he came to oppose those practices and wrote that they violated the separation of church and state and the principles of religious freedom. (Library of Congress – James Madison Papers – Detached memorandum, ca. 1823.) Of course Madison also vetoed two bills that he believed would violate the separation of church and state.

      Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

      The Civil Govt, tho' bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.

      (James Madison – from letters to Edward Livingston and Robert Walsh)

      March 5, 2013 at 9:45 am |
    • Live4Him

      @Thoth : [The founding fathers] were in general against religion influencing government.
      @Thoth : My point ... is that ... the founders were in favor of a secular federal govt.

      First you state that they were 'against religion influencing government' and now you're switching your position to 'in favor of a secular federal govt'. It seems you want to redefine your position once it has been falsified.

      However, lets continue down this track for awhile. Since each of these state governments had different religions (Catholic, Protestant, Quaker, etc.), how would you propose that these founding fathers define a federal religion that would agreed with all of them?

      March 5, 2013 at 9:47 am |
    • clarity

      And Gullbile4Him – neither of the statements of Thoth have been falsified.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:55 am |
    • .

      Liver, do you nOT know what a secular federal gov't means? Without religion. Against religion influencing gov't = in favor of a secular gov't. You lose. Moron.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • Live4Him

      Live4Him : "So, why did ALMOST ALL of the original 13 state governments have a state religion in their laws?"
      @WASP : By the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion.

      So you're calling me out for claiming 'almost all' instead of 'all'? Sorry!

      @WASP : Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850

      How many of the founding fathers do you think were alive in 1850 and influencing the government?

      March 5, 2013 at 9:59 am |
    • midwest rail

      How long did we have a national religion ? What was it ? Where is it specified in the Const_itution ?

      March 5, 2013 at 10:02 am |
    • clarity

      Gullible4Him: [ @WASP : Most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850

      How many of the founding fathers do you think were alive in 1850 and influencing the government? ]

      Who gives a shit? Most of it was removed before that, dolt.

      The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

      Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

      (John Adams – from A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788])

      March 5, 2013 at 10:06 am |
    • clarity

      (ooh – finally, I think I made the list – it's about damned time :))

      March 5, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • Scienec

      clairity

      It is fun to be on the list.

      Paece

      L4H standards fits a creationist

      March 5, 2013 at 10:19 am |
    • sam stone

      what the founding fathers would do? like owning slaves? do you wish to get back to that holy standard, live4him?

      March 5, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      It's a hoot being on the Famous Lie4everabouteverything Ignore List! You know the fop is reading every word and mad as hell because it can't respond to any of it.

      So funny.

      March 5, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
  17. End Religion

    Just watching this again. Awesome debate!

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg&w=640&h=360]

    March 5, 2013 at 9:15 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I remember this debate. While Sam Harris said more things that I agree with, Craig came out as the more polished debater. This is to be expected given his training. In Sam Harris's favor, ultimately philosophy loses out to reality.

      March 5, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • End Religion

      Yeah, just as a court room is not necessarily for justice but for who can argue law the best, a debate may most often be "won" by the best orator and not the best or most evidenciary arguments.

      March 5, 2013 at 11:14 am |
  18. lol??

    Fairy Land, 6 mi ahead, turn left here........ put put put....Fairy Land 4 mi ahead, turn left here.......put put put....Fairy Land 2 mi ahead.........put put put....WE here!! Now bend over for a big kiss.

    March 5, 2013 at 9:12 am |
    • .

      Glad you've finally admitted it. You'll be much more healthy mentally.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:24 am |
  19. Joe from CT, not Lieberman

    How is it possible to misquote someone who changes her own words every 140 characters?

    March 5, 2013 at 8:21 am |
  20. lol??

    Science is known for some big coverups. Look at the case of the serial killer doctor Joseph Michael Swango .

    March 5, 2013 at 8:20 am |
    • Science

      lol??

      Lucy Goosey

      March 5, 2013 at 8:24 am |
    • .

      And the BTK serial killer was a elder in his church, lollsaround. So? Idiot.

      March 5, 2013 at 8:30 am |
    • lol??

      Just another A&A working undercover and you naturally cheer.

      March 5, 2013 at 8:37 am |
    • midwest rail

      Nice try lol?? – no true Scotsman, eh ?

      March 5, 2013 at 8:39 am |
    • Science

      No fairy in the sky required/needed lol??

      Researchers Describe First 'Functional HIV Cure' in an Infant

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130304105656.htm

      Peace

      March 5, 2013 at 8:50 am |
    • lol??

      Your debate "rules" rule out deceit?? No wonder you're lost. Bigot.

      March 5, 2013 at 8:51 am |
    • midwest rail

      When looking for deceit in any argument here, one needs only to look for any of your posts.

      March 5, 2013 at 8:53 am |
    • Science

      Humanity will move forward without the fairy in the sky lol??

      Paece

      March 5, 2013 at 8:56 am |
    • Science

      oops dame thumb Peace

      March 5, 2013 at 8:57 am |
    • lol??

      But not straight.

      March 5, 2013 at 8:58 am |
    • clarity

      Straight smacks of a preconceived endpoint (best achieved for animals like lol?? with blinders on). In this case the endpoint is an outdated delusion. There are all kinds of bridges to nowhere.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:04 am |
    • .

      Just another Goddie binding, torturing, and killing and lollsabout cheers.

      March 5, 2013 at 9:29 am |
    • fintastic

      LOL?? = ignore = pathetic troll

      March 5, 2013 at 10:25 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.