home
RSS
When Christians become a 'hated minority'
Evangelical Christians say they are the new victims of intolerance - they're persecuted for condemning homosexuality.
May 5th, 2013
06:00 AM ET

When Christians become a 'hated minority'

By John Blake, CNN

(CNN) - When Peter Sprigg speaks publicly about his opposition to homosexuality, something odd often happens.

During his speeches, people raise their hands to challenge his assertions that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but no Christians speak out to defend him.

“But after it is over, they will come over to talk to me and whisper in my ear, ‘I agree with everything you said,’" says Sprigg, a spokesman for The Family Research Council, a powerful, conservative Christian lobbying group.

We’ve heard of the “down-low” gay person who keeps his or her sexual identity secret for fear of public scorn. But Sprigg and other evangelicals say changing attitudes toward homosexuality have created a new victim: closeted Christians who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality but will not say so publicly for fear of being labeled a hateful bigot.

As proof, Sprigg points to the backlash that ESPN commentator Chris Broussard sparked recently. Broussard was called a bigot and a purveyor of hate speech when he said an NBA player who had come out as gay was living in “open rebellion to God.” Broussard said the player, Jason Collins, was “living in unrepentant sin” because the Bible condemns homosexuality.

“In the current culture, it takes more courage for someone like Chris Broussard to speak out than for someone like Jason Collins to come out,” says Sprigg, a former pastor. “The media will hail someone who comes out of the closet as gay, but someone who simply expresses their personal religious views about homosexual conduct is attacked.”

When is disagreement hate?

Bryan Litfin, a theology professor at Moody Bible Institute in Illinois, says Christians should be able to publicly say that God designed sex to take place within a marriage between a man and a woman.

“That isn’t so outrageous,” Litfin says. “Nobody is expressing hate toward homosexuals by saying that. Since when is disagreement the same as hate?”

But quoting the Bible doesn't inoculate anyone from becoming a bigot or hater, some scholars say. There's a point at which a Christian's opposition to homosexuality can become bigotry, and even hate speech, they say.

Crossing such a line has happened many times in history.

A literal reading of the Bible was used to justify all sorts of hatred: slavery, the subjugation of women and anti-Semitism, scholars and pastors say.

“Truly damaging speech cannot be excused just because it expresses genuine religious belief,” says Mark D. Jordan, author of “Recruiting Young Love: How Christians Talk about Homosexuality.”

“Some religious beliefs, sincerely held, are detestable. They cannot be spoken without disrupting social peace,” says Jordan, a professor at the John Danforth Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University in St. Louis.

The point where religious speech becomes hate speech is difficult to define, though, scholars and activists say.

The Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama is a nonprofit civil rights group that combats and monitors hate groups. Three years ago, it designated the Family Research Council, the group that Sprigg represents, as a hate group - a characterization the group stridently rejects.

Mark Potok,  a center spokesman, says there’s no shared definition of what constitutes hate speech.

“There is no legal meaning. It’s just a phrase,” Potok says. “Hate speech is in the ear of the beholder.”

'One of the most hated minorities?'

Intolerance may be difficult to define, but some evangelicals say they have become victims of intolerance because of their reverence for the Bible.

The conservative media culture is filled with stories about evangelicals being labeled as “extremists” for their belief that homosexuality is a sin.

Their sense of persecution goes beyond their stance on homosexuality. There are stories circulating of evangelical students being suspended for opposing homosexuality, a teacher fired for giving a Bible to a curious student, and the rise of anti-Christian bigotry.

A blogger at The American Dream asked in one essay:

“Are evangelical Christians rapidly becoming one of the most hated minorities in America?”

The reluctance of evangelicals to speak out against homosexuality is often cited as proof they are being forced into the closet.

Joe Carter, editor for The Gospel Coalition, an online evangelical magazine, wrote a blog post entitled “Debatable: Is the Christian Church a ‘Hate Group’?" He warned that young people will abandon “orthodox” Christian churches that teach that homosexuality is a sin for fear of being called haters.

“Faux civility, embarrassment, prudishness and a fear of expressing an unpopular opinion has caused many Christians to refrain from explaining how homosexual conduct destroys lives,” Carter wrote.

Some Christians fear that opposing homosexuality could cause them to lose their jobs and “haunt them forever,” Carter says.

“It’s easier to just go along,” says Carter, who is also author of “How to Argue Like Jesus.” “You don’t want to be lumped in with the bigots. That’s a powerful word."

Edward Johnson, a communication professor at Campbell University in North Carolina, says we are now living in a "postmodern" era where everything is relative and there is no universally accepted truth. It's an environment in which anyone who says "this is right" and "that is wrong" is labeled intolerant, he says.

There was a time when a person could publicly say homosexuality was wrong and people could consider the statement without anger, he says. Today, people have reverted to an intellectual tribalism where they are only willing to consider the perspective of their own tribe.

“They are incapable of comprehending that someone may have a view different than theirs,” Johnson says. “For them anyone who dares to question the dogma of the tribe can only be doing so out of hatred.”

Sprigg, from the Family Research Council, says his condemnation of homosexual conduct does not spring from intolerance but a desire to protect gays from harmful conduct, he says.

Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the council, wrote in a council pamphlet that homosexual men are more likely to engage in child sexual abuse than are straight men. He also wrote that gay men are also afflicted with a higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases and mental illness as well.

Sprigg says he does not believe homosexuality is a choice and that “personal testimonies" and "clinical experience” show that some people “can and do change from gay to straight.”

“Maybe we need to do a better job of showing that we are motivated by Christian love,” Sprigg says. “Love is wanting the best for someone, and acting to bring that about.”

'That's a lie'

Potok, from the Southern Poverty Law Center, has little use for the love Sprigg talks about.

He calls it hatred, and his voice rose in anger when he talked about the claims by Sprigg and other Christian groups that gay men are more predisposed to molest children and that homosexual behavior is inherently harmful.

He says the Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t designate the Family Research Group a hate group because they view homosexuality as a sin or oppose same-sex marriage, Potok says. There are plenty of Christian groups who hold those beliefs but are not hate groups, he says.

A group becomes a hate group when it attacks and maligns an entire class of people for their “immutable characteristics,” Potok says. The Family Research Council spreads known falsehoods about gays and lesbians, he says, such as the contention that gay men are predisposed to abuse children.

“That’s a lie,” Potok says. “These guys are engaging in straight-up defamation of a very large group of people. There are not many things much worse than you can say in America about somebody than they are a child molester.”

Potok scoffed at Spriggs’ claim that the council and other evangelical anti-gay groups are victims of intolerance.

“That’s whining on the part of people who spend their days and nights attacking gay people and then some people criticize them and they don’t like it,” he says. “That’s pathetic. It reminds me of slave owners complaining that people are saying ugly things about them.”

What the Bible says

What about the popular evangelical claim, “We don’t hate the sinner, just the sin” – is that seen as intolerance or hate speech when it comes to homosexuality?

There are those who say you can’t hate the sin and love the sinner because being gay or lesbian is defined by one’s sexual behavior; it’s who someone is.

“Most people who identify as gay and lesbian would say that this is not an action I’m choosing to do; this is who I am,” says Timothy Beal, author of “The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book.”

Beal, a religion professor at Case Western University in Ohio, says it should be difficult for any Christian to unequivocally declare that the Bible opposes homosexuality because the Bible doesn’t take a single position on the topic. It's an assertion that many scholars and mainline Protestant pastors would agree with.

Some people cite Old Testament scriptures as condemning homosexuality, such as  Leviticus 18:22 - “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” But other Christians counter by saying they are not bound by the Old Testament.

There are those who also cite New Testament scriptures like Romans 1:26-27 - “… Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men. …”

Beal, however, says Jesus said little about sex. And the Apostle Paul, who wrote Romans, was probably referring to male prostitution and men having sexual relations with boys, a practice in the Greco-Roman world.

“Paul does not understand genetics and sexual orientation the way we understand it now as something much more than a choice,” says Beal.

Some evangelicals say Christians can’t change their view of biblical truth just because times change. But some scholars reply:

Sure you can. Christians do it all the time.

Denying a woman’s ability to preach in church was justified by scriptures like 1 Timothy 2:11-12 - “… I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” But many churches have abandoned that teaching - and some scholars say a woman preached the first Christian sermon, when Mary Magdalene proclaimed that Jesus had risen.

Slaveholders in 19th century America justified slavery through a literal reading of the Bible, quoting Titus 2:9-10 – “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything. …” And anti-Semitism was justified by the claims that Jews killed Jesus, such as Matthew 27: 25-26 - “Let his blood be on us and on our children.”

Litfin, from Moody Bible Institute, acknowledged that the Bible once sanctioned slavery, but he said that practice was a “cultural expression” that changed over time. Evangelicals who oppose same-sex marriage by citing the Bible are on more solid ground, he says.

“Marriage is a universal and timeless institution that God set up for maximum human flourishing. He set it up in the first book of the Bible with the story of Adam and Eve. It is consistent throughout the whole Bible. … Marriage is in a different category than those cultural things.”

Public jousts over the Bible's stance on homosexuality rarely change people’s minds. What changes is when people get to know gay and lesbian people as friends and hear their story, says Beal, author of “The Rise and Fall of the Bible.”

“If you open up to that other person genuinely, you basically come to a point where you have to sacrifice them to your ideology or crack open your ideology to make a hospitable place for them,” Beal says.

One Christian pastor who is gay says the uproar over the ESPN commentator’s comments can actually be good,  because debates help settle moral disputes.

“What appears to us as antiquated and prejudicial now was once a disputed issue that required debate,” says the Rev. Richard McCarty, a minister in the United Church of Christ and a religious studies professor at Mercyhurst University in Pennsylvania.

Until the debate over homosexuality is settled - if it ever is - there may be plenty of evangelical Christians who feel as if they are now being forced to stay in the closet.

Carter, the evangelical blogger, says he foresees a day when any church that preaches against homosexuality will be marginalized. Just as many churches now accept divorce, they will accept sexual practices once considered sinful.

“It’s getting to the point,” he says, “where churches are not going to say that any sexual activity is wrong.”

- CNN Writer

Filed under: Belief • Bible • Christianity • Church • Church and state • Culture wars • Protest • Sex • Sexuality • Sports

soundoff (10,982 Responses)
  1. derp

    This is priceless.

    A hundred pages of jesustards whining about being a "hated minority."

    You are 70% of the population, 95% of the federal judges, 100% of all American presidents, and 90% of the house and senate.

    You are an annoying whining collection of wrinkly old white scrotum heads, who are just used to getting everything your way all the time.

    Adios christards, your day in the sun is coming to an end.

    May 9, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Chad

      Why do you hate Christians so much?

      May 9, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • derp

      I don't hate christards.

      I just think they are stupid.

      Truthfully, I actually pity them a little.

      And they sometimes humor me. making light of them can be very fun.

      People on this message board like HeavenSent, Vic, Austin and the other babbling bible quoting jesustards make me laugh.

      I see no difference between christards and the nutters who chase sasquatch around, believe they have been visited by aliens, or jews, muslims and scientologists.

      You are all delusional whackadoos.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • Questions from the crowd

      I'm mystified by two things...

      1.) Derp, if you see a person as pitiable, unfortunate, or slow in their thinking why should that amuse you or inspire you to torment them? It seems you should be inspired to help. Otherwise it's just bullying.

      2.) I find it really hard to believe that 70% of America thinks the bible is literal. I am wondering what people actually mean they believe when they say they believe, it may not mean what you think it means.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • sam stone

      we do not hate christians. we just do not like pompous fvcks like you, or gopher, or cat-dreamer austin. why is that so hard to see?

      May 9, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Bill

      I only dislike Christians who act like Chad.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • sam stone

      Why do christians feel they need to legislate their beliefs?

      May 9, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      derp
      Why do you have a problem with Scrotum Head...he's my cousin and a pretty nice guy.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • Heaven's Tent

      –Why do you hate Christians so much? Love the Christians, hate the christ. You know. Because you always say love the sinner, hate the sin when you tell us believing in physics is stupid.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • Tom Truthteller

      Why are you so intolerant of Christians? You're assertion about federal judges is nearly the opposite of the facts, by the way. Should we label people like you anti-Christian-tards? That would perpetuate an awful word used in the past for people with mental challenges, so that might be a bad idea. It does say a lot about the person you must be though.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • sam stone

      Don't forget Austin, who looks like he has just switched drugs, from booze to jeebus, or Gopher, who lives up to his nickname and runs and hides when his silly opinions get challenged.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:30 pm |
    • Chad

      Everyone attempts to legislate their beliefs.

      Liberals attempt to legislate their beliefs
      Conservatives attempt to legislate their beliefs
      Atheists attempt to legislate their beliefs
      Christians attempt to legislate their beliefs

      Everyone attempts to legislate their beliefs.

      A. Why do you feel that only Christians should not be allowed to lobby their government to enact legislation in line with their belief system?
      B. You claim not to hate Christians, but when then is communicating your negative viewpoint of Christians so important to you?
      C. Do you feel it is impossible for a rational, intelligent person to embrace Christianity?

      May 9, 2013 at 12:32 pm |
    • sam stone

      how are atheists attempting to legislate their beliefs?

      May 9, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • sam stone

      "You claim not to hate Christians, but when then is communicating your negative viewpoint of Christians so important to you?"

      I am not communicating my negative view of christians. i am communicating my negative view of blowhards like you

      "Do you feel it is impossible for a rational, intelligent person to embrace Christianity?"

      Not at all.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:40 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      The difference between christians legislating beliefs vs. atheists legislating their beliefs is pretty simple. When a christian tries to create a law that doesn't allow two people of the same se.x, who aren't christian (or are for that matter) to get married, that's a problem. When a christian tries to legislate that a woman can't decide to abort a fetus, that's a problem. An atheist (who incidentally is also liberal, because lets keep in mind atheists can't legislate for atheists beliefs because that doesn't make sense) is all about legislating to keep government out of the individuals lives.

      Now tell me, which do you think is right? For the government to enact the laws of one group over all groups, or for the government to enact laws to protect one group from another?

      "A. Why do you feel that only Christians should not be allowed to lobby their government to enact legislation in line with their belief system?" - They should be allowed, but that doesn't make it right and it's not persecution in anyway to disagree with them and point out that even though they are allowed to exercise their lobbying right, they are still wrong

      "C. Do you feel it is impossible for a rational, intelligent person to embrace Christianity?" - No, it's perfectly possible for a rational and intelligent person to embrace christianity, but in order to do so they must turn off a bit of their rationality to do so. For instance, it's irrational to accept something purely on faith without any hard evidence.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • Science

      The sign in the picture above chad is wrong !

      May 9, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Why do you feel that only Christians should not be allowed to lobby their government to enact legislation in line with their belief system?"

      Where did I say that christians should not be allowed to lobby? Are you interjecting more of that "poor, persecuted christian" bullspit?

      May 9, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      A) While everyone attempts to legislate what they believe, or think, to be good laws, they don't all attempt to legislate their faith. One's faith should not be the primary reason for enacting a law, in the US anyway, where freedom of religion is fundamental to our society.

      c) Not at all, as long as the Bible is not taken literally.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • Chad

      @sam stone "how are atheists attempting to legislate their beliefs?"

      =>every time the American Atheists, or ACLU, or American Humanists take cases to court, they are attempting to influence legislation based on their belief.

      and no, "that's not possible, atheists dont have a belief, they have a lack of a belief" is not a response.. Atheists do not believe in god(s), that is their belief.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • @chad

      @Chad
      Denying a delusional claim is not a belief.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:48 pm |
    • lol??

      wuf wuf yapyap yapity yip yip

      May 9, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "they don't all attempt to legislate their faith. One's faith should not be the primary reason for enacting a law, in the US anyway, where freedom of religion is fundamental to our society."
      @Chad "utter and complete nonsense.
      I have a belief system
      you have a belief system (lacking a belief in God is a belief system)

      you dont get to say "oh.. Chad, you cant attempt to legislate your belief system because that you believe in the God of Israel"
      that would be the very definition of a violation of religious freedom.

      =====
      @ME II "Not at all, as long as the Bible is not taken literally."
      @Chad "taking the bible literally means that one takes it to mean precisely what the author intended it to mean. That could be literal, or metaphorical.

      So, if someone believes the bible to be 100% true, in the context that the original author intended it to be read, you consider them irrational?

      May 9, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • Bill

      When Atheists try to pass laws that say Christians can't get married then you will have an argument. Passing laws that keep you from forcing everyone else in the country to act like a Christian is actually a good thing.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • @chad

      @Chad
      and no, "that's not possible, atheists dont have a belief, they have a lack of a belief" is not a response..

      Yes it is. Stomping your feet about it isn't going to change that fact.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Every time I determine taht Chad couldn't be any more dumb, he proves me wrong.

      Of course atheists have beliefs--about all sorts of things--they just lack a belief in any gods. And yes, if 100% of our presidents believed in unicorns and that the country was best run by people who worship unicorns and think about how they would polish their horns and clean their hooves, then I would expect the non-unicorn-believers to take issue with some of the decisions of that government so rife with unicorn belief.

      But thanks, Chad, I much prefer this sort of inane post to the one where you accurately described the foundation of god belief as fear. That was a correct sentiment, and not the sort of thing you should be saying, here. This is what we expect from you. Thanks for getting back on track!

      May 9, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • Chad

      "Denying a delusional claim is not a belief."

      or course it is..

      Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (there are no gods) to be true

      May 9, 2013 at 12:53 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @Chad,

      LOL!!!! You make words mean their opposite both when interpreting the bible (predestination scriptures) and when explaining how to read the bible (literal means not-literal.....sometimes).

      Very, very nice, Chad, keep up the excellent work!

      May 9, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Chad
      That doesn't violate freedom of religion.You are getting dumber by the day.
      Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion.
      Very simply, that means leave your bible outside of the legislation chamber. It doesn't violate religious freedom..it protects it.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:57 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Why does this forum continue to treat Chad as a peer?

      Chad posting as "Rachel" –

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/richard-dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/comment-page-10/#comments
      Starting ~September 9, 2012 at 7:24 pm
      Busted – September 9, 2012 at 8:13 pm

      Must any more be said?

      May 9, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Bill

      Have there been any laws put forth to ban Christianity? No? Then o.k. no one is trying to legislate any atheist beliefs into law. Trying to keep you from telling everyone else how to live their lives isn't forcing our beliefs on you, it is stopping you from forcing your beliefs on everyone else.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Saraswati

      There is an enormous difference between legislation that increases freedoms and that which decreases freedoms. A freedom should only be restricted if in hinders others freedoms (as a freedom to murder would) of if there is scientific evidence that that freedom decreases societal wellbeing (as a freedom to polute would) without providing benefits to outweigh these harms. These descisions must be made independent of merely religious belief but, where possible, preserve the freedom to practice religion to the fullest extent that it doesn't interfere with others' freedoms or cause societal harms.

      The problem arises when some religious folk want to restrict freedoms of others based purely on religious grounds. We cannot tolerate that unless we are willing to live in a stiffled theocracy similar to Saudi Arabia. We need all the freedoms we can maintain to grow and adapt as a people. Many religions, unfortunately, skew the education of their members to the extent that they are incapable of viewing their religion in its social context, and therefore do not, and cannot, understand the societal benefit of the freedomd to grow and change and learn as a society.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      A lack of belief does not create a belief system nor does it enforce a persons reasoning on why they vote the way they do. Atheists have lots of beliefs, they belong to all sorts of communities that do form their opinions, but being atheist is not one of them. It's only the religious who try to legislate strictly by their faith. For instance, there's no such thing as an Atheocracy

      May 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • lol??

      yapity yapity yip yop yowee atrf bark bark

      May 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad "So, if someone believes the bible to be 100% true, in the context that the original author intended it to be read, you consider them irrational?"

      When the scientific evidence shows that the biblical text is inaccurate – yes.
      The scientific evidence shows that the biblical text is inaccurate for creation of the universe, origin of life, origin of species, etc.
      Our scientific knowledge shows that the biblical text is almost certainly inaccurate for the stories of Lot, Noah, Jonah, etc.; certainly there is no evidence for them happening and they contradict what we know.
      So why believe 100% in texts that are inaccurate or unverifiable?

      May 9, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
    • @chad

      @Chad

      Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (there are no gods) to be true

      I am not proposing or presenting a premise for anything. You (Christians) claim god is real, and we (atheists) deny that claim. That's it Chad, it doesn't need to get any more complicated than that.

      Why is this so hard for you to understand!?

      May 9, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • Bill

      Yeah, but Chad will just claim the author didn't mean for those passages to be taken literally. They are metaphor, but the other parts are literal, and Chad is the one who gets to decide what is a metaphor and what should be taken literally. In this way the bible can never be wrong because all the crazy parts that are clearly wrong weren't meant to be taken literally, according to Chad.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O,

      It goes against normal human behavior to ignore the attempts at conversational initiation by anyone. Doing so in a real world environment is usually an act of cruelty and most people react with normal social skills to engage those who have reached out. Look at how people even communicate with faith, lol?? and other nuts. It's very hard to ignore people, even those behaving like children. And historically for good reason...doing so to real children leaves them devoid of knowledge and social skills at best, and dead in many environments. Children ask for attention and we, as humans, are programmed to give it to them.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Hamburger Jones

      Sir, I feel that I must respectfully disagree with you about scrotum heads. Plenty of scrotum heads are affiliated with religions other than Christianity. This country has suffered greatly from scrotum heads in business, the military, and politics, and we are forced to watch them on television and in the movies as well. I am pretty sure that the Boston Bombers were scrotum heads, for example. So the next time a representative of the Scrotum Head Foundation knocks on your door, give generously so that we can wipe this out in our lifetimes. God bless you.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "lacking a belief in God is a belief system"

      As you said, "utter and complete nonsense."

      ======
      "you dont get to say 'oh.. Chad, you cant attempt to legislate your belief system because that you believe in the God of Israel'
      that would be the very definition of a violation of religious freedom."

      Fortunately, I didn't say that. I said, "One's faith should not be the primary reason for enacting a law," This is based of the "secular purpose" portion of the Lemon Test (re: Lemon v Kurtzman).

      ======
      "taking the bible literally means that one takes it to mean precisely what the author intended it to mean. That could be literal, or metaphorical."

      Ummm.... so taking it literally metaphorically?

      ======
      "So, if someone believes the bible to be 100% true, in the context that the original author intended it to be read, you consider them irrational?"

      Again, that's not what I said. There are things in the Bible that, if taken literally, are inaccurate descriptions of the world and if someone believes those things to be true in spite of their experiences and what the world shows, then yes they are being irrational.

      Whether the "author", whoever that may be, "intended" it to read literally or not, is a matter of interpretation.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Saraswati –

      I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on this point. Chad has no intention of engaging in honest debate – you know that. If you continue to interact with him, that is your choice; however, you shouldn't delude yourself – interaction with Chad is nothing more than mental masturbation...and it's not even pleasurable.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Dan

      I have a disbelief in Gods, the same as I have disbelief in Leprechauns. I do not "believe" Leprechauns don't exist, for I have no evidence one way or the other, I just disbelieve because of the lack of evidence.

      Chad wants to be dishonest and tell you that disbelief is the same as belief, but if it was we wouldn't have two different words, we would use the same word if it had the same meaning. A belief is something you have come to based on an active search where you you gather evidence and then make a hypothesis changing your view from one of neutral to positive "I believe in gravity after having studied the research that has been done and my personal experience with things falling on my head" which is different than "I disbelieve Leprechauns because there is no evidence one way or the other as to their existence."

      May 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • lol??

      sarah swat team dawg,

      You a gwowed up big litter killin' qweirdo doggie. That's a schmmarrt pouchie wwwwooooffff burper gggrrrrrr yip

      May 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Saraswati –

      Would you consider it "normal human behavior" to respond to lol??'s last post?

      May 9, 2013 at 1:19 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Reall-O,

      "I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on this point. Chad has no intention of engaging in honest debate – you know that. If you continue to interact with him, that is your choice; however, you shouldn't delude yourself – interaction with Chad is nothing more than mental masturbation...and it's not even pleasurable."

      Huh? I'm confused. I certainly don't think Chad is ever going to engage in honest debate – he's both and idiot and a manipulative liar. I'm just commenting on why it's hard to ignore people. I find it equally odd that people who've been around here a while talk to lionlylamb, lol??, faith and the anti-Hindu nut, but they do. It's like toddlers pulling on your pant leg for attention...apparently not as easy to ignore as you'd think.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
    • Chad

      @Cpt. Obvious "You make words mean their opposite both when interpreting the bible (predestination scriptures) and when explaining how to read the bible (literal means not-literal.....sometimes)."
      @Chad "A. You have an agenda for pushing your interpretation of certain biblical verses to fit your needs
      B. The reality is, there is much in the bible that is INTENDED to be metaphor.
      C. You dont understand predestination.

      =======
      @Richard Cranium "That doesn't violate freedom of religion"
      @Chad " denying a group the ability to push to enact legislation in line with their beliefs system, what ever that belief system is, is in DIRECT contravention of our democracy.
      Further, denying a religious organization the ability to lobby is a direct violation of the first amendment.

      ====
      @Richard Cranium "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion"
      Very simply, that means leave your bible outside of the legislation chamber. It doesn't violate religious freedom..it protects it."
      @Chad "no it doesnt 🙂
      it very simply prevents the government from setting up or establishing an official religion of the country.

      ======
      @Bill "Have there been any laws put forth to ban Christianity? No? Then o.k. no one is trying to legislate any atheist beliefs into law."
      @Chad ":-)
      obviously, that isnt the only activity that would consti tute atheist legislative activities. I could say just as easily "well, Christians havent tried to make Christianity the official state religion, so they arent legislating anything"

      The very existence of Atheist organizations such as American Atheists that have as their charter enacting/preventing legislation in line with their belief system proves my point.

      ===
      @Chuckles "A lack of belief does not create a belief system "
      @Chad "Oh, ok.. I have a lack of a belief that the God of Israel doesnt exist.
      So, I dont have a belief system!
      hey, that's easy 🙂

      every negative belief (or lack of a belief) can very easily be reframed as a positive belief, and vice-versa.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O,

      lol?? is a bit further over the edge than usual today, but if you look at thousands of other comments you'll see that people respond to him and faith all the time. I don't often, and it strikes me as a little odd, but at the same time I understand it. Ignoring people, especially when they comment to you, is in itself normally an anti-social behavior. But certainly today lol?? (and faith, too, for that matter) are even weirder than normal.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Saraswati –

      Thanks for the clarification – I understand. I still assert that the best way to deal with Chad is to ridicule him as he clearly sees any kind of engagement as validation (delusional, I know). I posit that we would swiftly extinguish Chad's posting fervor simply by ignoring him.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:25 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Wait a second, you think using a double negative will somehow fool me? Pathetic, really pathetic chad, I thought you were better than that.

      My lack of belief in the Loch Ness monster does not create a belief system your lack of disbelief (aka your belief) in god does create a belief system.

      Pretty simple. Nice try though kiddo.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad's frantic May 9, 2013 at 1:22 pm post indicates someone got under his skin. I hope it was me.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O,

      Akira just answered lol?? up at the top of this page. Would you consider that treating him like a peer? Why do you think she responded? I'm really not sure for certain, but to me it looks like how adults interact with children, except that the fact these aren't children makes these attempts frustrating.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Chad

      Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (there are no gods) to be true

      very basic logic..

      May 9, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ..."I hope it was I". ... friggin' English.
      .

      May 9, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
    • Bill

      Wrong Chad, the only thing that makes someone an atheist is a disbelief in gods, therefore the only way for an atheist to push their disbelief on to the public would be to try and ban religion. No one has done that. They do, however, try to stop religious folks from passing laws that would limit the freedoms of the US just because they think god doesn't like something. Again, this is a good thing.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:34 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Reall-O, I wouldn't hold on to outdated grammar rules any more than outdated religions. I don't personally feel like running around speaking PIE.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:37 pm |
    • sam stone

      "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (there are no gods) to be true"

      Not all athiests hold this belief. Many just do not see any reason to hold the opposite

      May 9, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Saraswati –

      The written word must be correct! As Churchill (attributed) said, "this is the kind of tedious nonsense up with which I will not put".

      Cheers

      May 9, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • Chad

      @Bill "the only thing that makes someone an atheist is a disbelief in gods, therefore the only way for an atheist to push their disbelief on to the public would be to try and ban religion"

      =>well, that's nonsense. Right?
      A continuing attempt by atheists to remove from all civil/public forums any mention of the God of Israel is certainly, by ANY definition, an attempt by athests to push their disbelief on the rest of us.

      I'm certainly NOT saying atheists shouldnt be allowed to try it, that's their right as citizens.
      however,
      I am saying that this transparent attempt on the part of atheists to cast their efforts as "protecting religious freedom", or "preventing Christians from legislating their beliefs", is utter nonsense.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
    • Dan

      "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (there are no gods) to be true"

      Disbelief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise (there are gods) to be false.

      I do not "believe" there are no Gods, I disbelieve there are any Gods. Having no evidence I am unable to come to a belief in something, however with the total lack of evidence I can disbelieve a statement is true. I am in a state of disbelief when it comes to God and it would take some evidence of anything super-natural to move me from disbelief into the belief catagory.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • Chad

      It used to mystify me, this attempt by atheists to continue to claim they dont have a belief system.

      Then, it became quite clear.

      If the atheist can make the case that they dont have a belief system, they can cast Christians as "legislating their beliefs" while atheists arent.

      Transparent maneuvering. The best thing to do is just illustrate that to the readers so that the plain fact that both sides are attempting to enact legislation in line with their belief system becomes clear, and atheists arent successful in making this nonsense case that they are "valiantly defending the country from the Christian rights theocratic efforts"..

      As always, the truth is the best remedy.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • Bill

      No Chad, it is simply an attempt to keep you from pushing your beliefs onto everyone else. It is in no way attempting to stop you from believing. If Christians could keep their beliefs out of politics then most atheists would never say anything.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • Joey

      Bill, just let it go Chad is clearly not smart enough to see the difference. I'm sure if Muslims were the main religion in the US he would begin to understand.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:53 pm |
    • Chad

      @Bill " it is simply an attempt to keep you from pushing your beliefs onto everyone else. "

      as I said: If the atheist can make the case that they dont have a belief system, they can cast Christians as "legislating their beliefs" while atheists arent.

      it's just maneuvering on your part..

      May 9, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad "As always, the truth is the best remedy."

      Except when it involves validity of biblical text.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @ChadPOE

      My agenda concerning the bible is that people recognize what they believe from its pages however stupid or ridiculous is theri belief concerning it.

      The bible provides no method whatsoever for determining what is meant to be considered as literal and figurative, and if a person says that they believe it literally, it's ridiculous to say that they mean they believe some of it metaphorically. That's just lying, liar. For example, the bible offers no hint about needing to read either of the two contradictory creation accounts as metaphor and this fact is evidenced by the number of devout believers who, in the past or present, believe it to be "literal." There's simply nothing in scripture to direct a beleiver without the aid of science, which is much better at defining the trajectory of the universe before we were here to discuss it.

      The bible puts forth both perspectives, free will and no free will. That you have to contort words and phrase into meaning the exact opposite of what they say in order to be comfortable with your beliefs is your problem, not the unbelievers. You understand predestination as much as you 'understand' anything in the bible--you believe whatever you wish, apriori of what the scripture states. Pridefully and arrogantly, you @ssert your own opinion OVER the physical, actual words of scripture. You are your own god, deciding what is and is not "true" regardless of what you know the scripture to state.

      Now Chad, continue to lie about this post and everything else you discuss. It makes me happy to see you lie as much as you do for the cause you have taken on. Liars for Jesus, anyone? But seriously, Chad, thank you for your incessant lying and twisting of the words of others and your "god." At least you're true to yourself-your real god.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Is not the proper criteria for "legislating beliefs" the Lemon Test?

      It consists of three prongs:
      The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
      The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
      The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman)

      Are Atheists attempting to violate the Lemon Test?

      May 9, 2013 at 2:01 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      The most flagrant liar I've ever encountered just said, "truth is the best remedy."

      Yes, Chad, yes, honesty...honesty. Please don't do it, Chad. Please continue in your continual lies for Jesus. Don't start being honest! Please!!

      May 9, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      How about NAMING them, Chad?

      What belief(s) are atheist trying to make legal or illegal?

      Seriusly. Name them. Cite the bill and the representatives putting it through Congress.

      Liar.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm |
    • Science

      To Chad

      ..NO ANGELS or PITCH FORKS the old pope KICKED them in OFF the TEAM last year !

      From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

      Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions

      By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN

      updated 10:56 AM EST, Fri November 23, 2012

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html?iref=allsearch

      All these years there are suppose to be angels.......................then poof go the angels according to the old pope;.......

      where are the morals there Chad.................or do you have any ?

      May 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II

      absolutely, see for example atheist attempts to repeal blue laws which have been held not to violate the lemon test.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @Obvious

      http://mnatheists.org/news-and-media/news/9-newsletter/568-minnesota-atheists-speaking-against-religious-based-blue-laws

      Blue Laws have been held not to violate the Lemon Test.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • O2C

      Smart like dumptruck is this one called Chad,
      he thinks reason and logic are merely a fad.
      The bible holds all his truths,
      and the tooth fairy, some of his tooths.
      Unicorns get him to church on time,
      where he learns more of his favorite nursery rhyme.
      Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall,
      and when cornered, he’ll retreat with his favorite ball.
      Cleaver and righteous he professes to be,
      but he’s more like a lying idiot… times thirty-three.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • Dan

      "If the atheist can make the case that they dont have a belief system, they can cast Christians as "legislating their beliefs" while atheists arent."

      If atheists legislated their beliefs like Christians do then we would be trying to force women who want to have children to watch 48 hrs of "Baby Bratz" before they can give birth. There would be laws putting "In No Gods do we trust!" on our money, there would be a brief moment of silence before each session of congress or the senate to reflect on Richard Dawkins. Everyone would be forced to place their hand on a very old copy of "Origin of the Species" before promising to tell the truth in court. We would have several months each year where you couldn't walk into a shopping mall without hearing over the loudspeakers Christopher Hitchens monologues and everyone would get drunk at the office atheism party. And on superbowl sunday you will get to hear the winning team thank the belief in no God's for their victory.

      Chad, you are a dishonest moron who hides your ignorance behind a smoke screen of verbal flatulence. You know as well as everyone else how disgustingly divisive your religion is and you have no excuses left. Your faith is hollow and you worship a false God.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
    • Ted Jones the crusader not for khrist

      Chad

      @Obvious

      http://mnatheists.org/news-and-media/news/9-newsletter/568-minnesota-atheists-speaking-against-religious-based-blue-laws

      Blue Laws have been held not to violate the Lemon Test.
      ...........
      Is that the best you got lol

      May 9, 2013 at 2:18 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Perfect example, Chad. Blue laws.

      Blue laws are an example of Christians attempting to get everyone to behave as they do. Although only a percentage of the population believes that stores and the like should be closed on Sundays, it wasn't good enough to let people decide whether to open their businesses or shop on those days. Christians wanted to force everyone to behave as if they were following their preferences.

      Repealing blue laws allows people to decide for themselves based on their own convictions. People who don't think it's right to open up shop or do business on Sundays don't have to do so, and those that want to do business or shop can do so. Then, the people decided. And guess what? Business thrives on Sundays, and people (christians, mostly) flocked to the stores in droves.

      To whatever degree "atheists" were involved, they were absolutely right to do so-as loyal citizens of the US concerned for the equity and welfare of ALL, not just the religious beliefs of some. (As turned out to be the case in practicality).

      May 9, 2013 at 2:19 pm |
    • Ted Jones the crusader not for khrist

      Chad

      I think what Dan is trying to get at is you lack integrity as a person and christian.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:21 pm |
    • Ted Jones the crusader not for khrist

      Ah yes the stores that close on Sundays....like Hobby Lobby. They are free to do that which I have no problem with. I am free not to give my business to Hobby Lobby. I can find what I need from surrounding compet ition. I have seen nothing special about their goods nor their prices.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
    • Ted Jones the crusader not for khrist

      A blue law is a type of law designed to enforce religious standards, particularly the observance of a day of worship or rest. In the US,>>>>>>>>>>> most blue laws have been repealed, declared unconsti tutional<<<<<<<<<<, or are unenforced; though prohibitions on the sale of alcoholic beverages or prohibitions of almost all commerce on Sundays are still enforced in many areas.
      ..........................................
      I guess Chad glossed over the obvious and the best he could come up with was drinking laws...lol

      May 9, 2013 at 2:32 pm |
    • Ted Jones the crusader not for khrist

      Well we are getting close to the end of this thread...soon Chad will run off like a co ckroach and reappear in another thread doing the same roach song and dance...then the lights come on and he will have scurry away

      May 9, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
    • Dan

      Some Christian communities (several I know of in Arkansas) have passed blue laws that prohibit privately owned businesses from selling completely legal alcohol on Sundays. Do you have any comparison for a law an atheist has proposed that would force their disbelief in Gods on other people the way this blue laws forces Christian views on alcohol and their day of worship on everyone else?

      If the Christian law says "paint your car red", then the atheist law would be "why do we care what color your car is?" not "you aren't allowed to paint your car" or "you must paint your car blue". Can you see the difference dishonest Chad?

      May 9, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • Cookie No No

      One thing I've noticed missing from this argument:
      A religion is a type of belief, but not all beliefs are religions.
      It is religion that is barred from invading our government, per the 1st Amend.
      Atheism is not mentioned at all. And it remains a lack of any positive conviction, a lack of any belief, in order to meet the requirements of the definition of the word "atheism". Atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of one.
      Chad is one of those idiots who thinks that atheism is a belief, as if that somehow made it wrong in the same way religious beliefs are wrong. It is a false equivalency and fallacious thinking. That's Chad for you.
      As a secular humanist, I have secular humanist beliefs, some of which are not shared by most other humanists.
      There are religious humanists, but then maybe that is too complicated for Chad. He is not a humanist. He hates people.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • Paul

      Dan, he is either to dumb to see the difference, or just doesn't want to admit that there is a difference.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:47 pm |
    • Chad

      @Cpt. Obvious "Blue laws are an example of Christians attempting to get everyone to behave as they do."

      @Chad "you are incorrect.
      The Supreme Court of the US has upheld blue laws, and held that they do not violate the "Lemon Test".

      You are of course free to lobby to change that, but SCOTUS has held that these are NOT "purely religious laws that have no secular benefit"

      May 9, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Oh noes! It looks like wikipedia has betrayed you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

      What are you going to do now?

      May 9, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      Way to miss Obvious's point, liar moron.

      You've been soundly beaten, dipsh!t. Atheists aren't attempting to make laws based on any belief system. Has it not occurred to you yet that your chosen example refuted your own claim?

      Keep it up, Chad. Great work, Poe!!!

      May 9, 2013 at 4:36 pm |
    • Chad

      @Dan "Do you have any comparison for a law an atheist has proposed that would force their disbelief in Gods"

      @Chad "Atheist initiated removal of the 10 commandments from court houses is an example of atheist attempting to enforce their disbelief on everyone.

      The teaching of "evolution", whilst specifically prohibiting the teaching of theistic evolution is another example.

      Atheist want to remove all mention of or acknowledgement of the God of Israel as real from all public forums.
      That is clearly enforcing your disbelief on everyone. You are forcing everyone else to behave in public as if God doesnt exist.

      Now, you are going to respond with "well, that's a GOOD thing. The God of Israel isnt real so He shouldnt be treated as if He is"
      that is your belief.
      And you are attempting to enforce that on everyone else.

      Do you think a rational, intelligent person can know that the God of Israel is real? The answer is always no.. And that is the root of your problem.

      Myself on the other hand, can believe that a rational, intelligent person can believe that the God of Israel is not real. I just know that they are deceived, but I recognize they arent delusional morons.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:39 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Removing the 10 commandments from the public forum is a way to remove one faith being favored over another in the public square. That in no way enforces disbelief. When you enter the public square you still allowed to believe in whatever you want, but removal of a certain religions code from the public square is the American way to give freedom of and FROM religion and not have to acknowledge that even though you maybe Hindu, if you enter a courthouse you still, for some reason, have to acknowledge the 10 commandments, one of which is that you have to believe there is only one god and its the one from the bible.

      Stop being an idiot, you're better than this.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad: "Atheist initiated removal of the 10 commandments from court houses is an example of atheist attempting to enforce their disbelief on everyone."

      That is not a proposed law initiated by an atheist, Chad. That is illumination of of where 1st Amendment protections for everyone were breached.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      PS teaching creationism in schools means that every kid has to get a bible and thats the only way to learn creationism. If we are going to be fair to all religions, either remove the ersatz science that teaches out of th ebible, or make every kid get a science textbook, a bible, a koran, the upanishads, maybe throw in a little shinto and native american myth etc....

      Teaching only one type of creationism (a.k.a. christian creationism) favors christianity above other religions and is precisely why others like myself would rather it be confined to the home and churches, where you are allowed to teach lies to each other all you want on your own, private dime.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • Chad

      Removing the 10 commandments from the public forum enforces your disbelief on the rest of the population.

      pretty basic..

      May 9, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chuckles – "Stop being an idiot, you're better than this."

      No, Chuckles, he's not.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:48 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      I just love it that Christians are this stupid.

      No, Chad, references to the Judeo-Christian god should be removed from the public square because they promote one religion over another one, not because me or somebody else doesn't believe in them. How ignorant. I would have absolutely no problem with a section within certain public squares dedicated to various philosophies and belief systems if several were represented without any one of them in prominence over the other. The problem is when only one religion is heralded in public and paid for by the government. That is strictly prohibited by the spirit of the law which does not allow for the government to advance any particular religious ideology over another.

      But seriously, keep up the fantastic work showing how the best reply a Christian can make is the one as stupid as you put forth. It's greatly appreciated.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:51 pm |
    • mama k

      Goodness, Chad, if you believe that, then you should also believe that the Constitution is insufficient on its own (in not mentioning God) and also thereby promotes disbelief. You are really sounding like someone in need of a theocracy somewhere.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:52 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      yes, all kinds of people do try to legislate what they believe is right and in the common good – including people that don't believe in God. There is nothing wrong with this – either by people who do, or don't believe in God.

      People who are unable to separate the dictates of their faith from const!tutionally guaranteed freedoms try to legislate their religious rules on others.

      (Thankfully) we live in a country founded on the principle that the state may not elevate one faith over another. Laws passed by historically Christian legislative majorities that are based solely on religious grounds need to be modified to equally respect all citizens. The 14th amendment is very clear on this topic.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:53 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Really-O?

      Fair enough, right as I wrote that I wanted to take it back 🙂

      @Chad
      That's not enforcing disbelief, how can you not understand this? Not allowing one specific religion to dominate the public square is neither discriminatory nor does it enforce disbelief, it just allows freedom of and from religion. Pretty simple.

      I bet you would be whistling a different tune if you had to swear on the koran instead of the bible and muslims were allowed to dominate the public square instead of christians.

      Stop being a nitwit, although as Really-O? pointed out, I guess you aren't better than this so thanks for living up to absurdly low expectations.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:55 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      No, Chad. Removing the 10 Cs is about the government not advocating ONE religion without advocating others and thereby promoting a religion when such is against the const!tution. It's not about "promoting disbelief," it's about following the law of the land.

      Why would you expect decent critical thinkers like atheists to be in favor of one religion having special privilege to operate outside of the law? Christians wouldn't want one religion to have special privilege to operate outside of the law unless it's their own religion because they're such hypocrites.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:57 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "That is not a proposed law initiated by an atheist, Chad. That is illumination of of where 1st Amendment protections for everyone were breached."

      =>bringing suit to make the display of the 10 commandments unlawful is equivalent to enacting legislation to do same.

      The Ten Commandments are currently displayed in the Supreme Court building itself. Obviously the people that put it there in the first place did NOT feel it violated the first amendment. A vociferous and litigious atheist minority has created a climate of religious intolerance in this country. The re-interpretation of the consti.tution evident in this court decision was a direct response to that.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "Atheist want to remove all mention of or acknowledgement of the God of Israel as real from all public forums.
      That is clearly enforcing your disbelief on everyone. You are forcing everyone else to behave in public as if God doesnt exist."

      If you want to keep the ten commandments – knock yourself out. Make sure there is an equally prominent display of the Hadith of Gabriel (perhaps Sharia as well) along with the four noble truths and the eightfold path and representations for every other belief held by the citizens of this country.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:01 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad, Why do you feel that posting the 10 commandments on public buildings is not counter to the 1st Amendment; they are clearly from the Abrahamic religions. How would you feel about Hindu scriptures displayed on public buildings?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:02 pm |
    • Richard Cranium

      Chad
      Would you be OK with someone putting up satanic things all over govt. buildings?
      You are such an a$$. Removing the 10 commandment from govt. buildings is necessary to insure equallity across all beliefs.

      Your beliefs are not the only ones. Your idea of what is acceptable is so contrary to what this country stands for, so absolutely un-american. I can't believe someone is so incredibly ridiculous.
      To think as a veteran I fought for your freedom sickens me. You clearly have no idea of what the freedoms in this country really means. I am going to start going around forcing govt offices to allow me to put up satanic sayings, just because by your reasoning, they belong there. I don't believe in any of that delusion like your silly religion, but if I am not allowed to put it up, you must take it down.

      Screw you Chad. Your religion has NO PLACE in any government or public area...if you fight that it is, you fight for me to put up satanic crap as well. good luck reconciling that with your one brain cell.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:03 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      since you are the one who brought up the 10 commandments, how many of those are enshrined in law.

      What is the total again? Three perhaps? Killing, lying, stealing?

      The rest are non-sequiter.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "The Ten Commandments are currently displayed in the Supreme Court building itself. "

      That was @mama K, not me, ME II, but she has a point. Also, the Ten Commandments, if I understand correctly, are represented in a frieze of "laws of history", including Confucius, Hammurabi, Mohammand, etc.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @Santa "Why do you feel that posting the 10 commandments on public buildings is not counter to the 1st :

      =>Because the first amendment prohibits
      – establishment of an official religion
      – free exercise of a religion

      posting the 10 commandments violates neither of those. That's why the people who originally put them there, did so.

      It has only in the past 20-40 years that a litigious, vociferous atheist minority has been somewhat successful in creating an atmosphere of religious intolerance in this country and has attempted to re-write by re-interpreting the first amendment.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:11 pm |
    • Chad

      @Richard Cranium "Would you be OK with someone putting up satanic things all over govt. buildings?"
      @Chad "no, we live in a Christian majority nation.

      your post is an excellent example of irrational anger.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • mama k

      Here we go with Chad's moving target topic. We start with a generalization about courthouses, and now we seem to be talking about some specific Supreme Court building. Which one? I remember one specifically from a state Supreme courthouse building back in 2003 I think it was.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      The first amendment, not only prohibits the a national religion but, because in can in effect do the same thing, it prohibits the endorsement of any particular religion.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad.
      They are clearly from the Abrahamic religions, so why do you think that is promoting one of them (and we know that is christianity).
      How would you feel about Hindu or any other religion's scriptures displayed on public buildings?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:16 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Hey Chad

      Can you explain to us how blue laws aren't christian by the way? Please, go on, tell me why no drinking on Sunday isn't a christian thing, but a universal secular thing that should be enforced....

      Chad, having never engaged in it myself, how does it feel to be rammed in the ass everyday by strangers from all over the nation?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "The Ten Commandments are currently displayed in the Supreme Court building itself. Obviously the people that put it there in the first place did NOT feel it violated the first amendment. A vociferous and litigious atheist minority has created a climate of religious intolerance in this country. The re-interpretation of the consti.tution evident in this court decision was a direct response to that."

      Hardly surprising behavior given the overwhelming legislative majority enjoyed by Christians throughout the history of the United States. I suspect they didn't even give a moment's consideration as to whether it was a violation of the first amendment and no one bothered to challenge them. James Madison thought that paying Army chaplains was a violation of the establishment clause, but he picked his battles, vetoing Congress establishing Anglican churches in Alexandria (then DC) instead.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad "no, we live in a Christian majority nation

      So, if Chad had his way, we'd all be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Fortunately we have the Constitution and First Amendment.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      What I meant to say was
      Chad.
      They are clearly from the Abrahamic religions, so why do you think that is not promoting one of them (and we know that christianity is really the intent).
      How would you feel about Hindu or any other religion's scriptures displayed on public buildings?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer

      I like your post because it shows that the real reason athests are against displaying the 10 commandments is your opposition of the God of Israel.

      Atheist activities in this realm have everything to do with opposing God and nothing to do with any attempt to enforce the consti tution as it was originally written.

      If you want to re-write the consti tution to make the US a "properly atheistic" nation as @TTTOO would say, you should be aboveboard about it.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:18 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Ass-kickings day in and day out...masochism, thy name is Chad.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad, we've all heard about the landmark rulings, but the fact is the 1st Amendment has always been under attack. I submit that every time someone pushes on the wall, it just highlights more ways that separation should have been implemented to begin with, and that these "pushes" against it are what bring about the changes that you don't care for. Even Madison in his own lifetime changed his mind about certain "gimme's" that didn't correctly follow the intent, such as his ultimate view that chaplains should not be provided for House and Senate out of taxpayer money.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Translation of the above post by Chad

      Alright guys, whip em out, and ladies strap em on .... now, have at me!

      May 9, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Colin

      Speaking of the Ten Comandments, the actual Biblical set is not the ones we are all familiar with. After receiving this familiar set of commandments from God, Moses descends from Mount Sinai only to find his people worshipping a golden calf. Moses’ anger “waxes hot” and he smashes the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments in a fit of rage. He later returns to the mountain and God orders him to “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” Unfortunately, it seems God’s memory was off that day, because the replacement tablets he gave Moses contained the following Ten Commandments:

      Thou shalt worship no other god.
      Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
      Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread .
      All that openeth the matrix are mine; and every firstling among thy cattle, whether ox or sheep, that is male. But the firstling of an as.s, thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then thou shalt break his neck.
      Thou shalt rest on the Sabbath.
      Thou shalt rest in earing time and in harvest.
      Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
      Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the Passover be left unto the morning.
      The first fruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
      Thou shalt not seethe (cook) a baby goat in its mother's milk.

      Both a beast that “opens the matrix” and a “firstling” are the firstborn offspring of a Jewish farm animal. If one believes Exodus, the Jews perambulated the Sinai Peninsula and the Negev for the rest of their forty years of wandering, lugging the Ark of the Covenant weighed down with stone tablets containing these timeless pearls of wisdom!
      Yet more evidence of the entirely human and, quite frankly, sloppy and unprofessional authorship of the Bible.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "I like your post because it shows that the real reason athests are against displaying the 10 commandments is your opposition of the God of Israel."

      How did you get that out of @Not GOPers post?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:23 pm |
    • Religions

      Chad
      Was on a delegation to Ontario, Canada. We visited the Legislature and was surprised to hear they started the session with a Muslim prayer and an Aboriginal prayer. I learned that they rotate prayers among the religions of their peoples, Christian, Islam, Native, Hindu, etc. Would you like to see this practice adopted to represent the freedom of religious belief in this nation in the congress?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:25 pm |
    • Chad

      @Santa

      =>this notion that by mentioning or acknowledging the God of Israel const.itutes "endorsement" and that violates the first amendment prohibition against establishment of an official state religion is transparent nonsense.

      That was NEVER the interpretation, as evidenced by scores of official US gov't docs over hundreds of years that explicitly mention God.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      "Removing the 10 commandments from the public forum enforces your disbelief on the rest of the population."

      And leaving them there, pushes your belief on everyone. You can't ask for anyone to respect your belief if you're not giving the same respect in return.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      I direct you to the words of James Madison (from his Detached Memoranda)

      http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

      "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

      In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. ....

      The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. ...

      Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."

      Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.

      The principle of 'de minimus' states that the law does not concern itself with trifles. The same applies to existing 10 commandments monuments. I have no particular objection to installations with historical significance (like the supreme court), but no new installations should be constructed in a governmental (and particularly legal) context.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:32 pm |
    • ME II

      ME II
      "mentioning or acknowledging the God of Israel"

      Ah, now we see the Madison chestnut trotted out.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad ""Removing the 10 commandments from the public forum enforces your disbelief on the rest of the population."
      @Truth Prevails 🙂 "And leaving them there, pushes your belief on everyone. "

      @Chad "no, it acknowledges the fact that we are a Christian majority nation who has ALWAYS acknowledged God as sovereign.

      Should you find this overly offensive, you are free to apply for a North Korean travel visa here: http://www.koreakonsult.com/visum-villkor_eng.html

      May 9, 2013 at 5:34 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      as mama k indicates, the establishment clause has been under attack since the bill of rights was signed. Please feel free to look at Madison's detached memoranda (linked above) to see just how unhappy he was about people trying to legislate religions concessions even while he was President.

      If there is ANYONE who understand the intent of the establishment clause, it is James Madison.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:35 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Chad: The following is a much more sensible set of commandments and they don't order idolization of a god.
      TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR A GLOBAL HUMANISM

      1- Proclaim the natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings, in all places and in all circumstances.

      2- Respect the life and property of others at all times.

      3- Practice tolerance and open-mindedness towards the choices and life styles of others.

      4- Share with those who are less fortunate and mutually assist those who are in need of help.

      5- Use neither lies, nor spiritual doctrine, nor temporal power to dominate and exploit others.

      6- Rely on reason, logic and science to understand the Universe and to solve life’s problems, avoiding superstitions, which numb the mind and are an obstacle to thinking for oneself.

      7- Conserve and improve the Earth’s natural environment – land, soil, water, air and space – as humankind’s common heritage.

      8- Resolve differences and conflicts cooperatively without resorting to violence or to wars.

      9- Organize public affairs according to individual freedom and responsibility, through political and economic democracy.

      10- Develop one’s intelligence and talents through education and effort, in order to reach fulfillment and happiness, for the betterment of humanity and of future generations.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Really-O?

      And the heat is on! Out come Chad's emoticons and ridiculous hyperbole ("you are free to apply for a North Korean travel visa"). What a rube!

      May 9, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      What makes you think that living in a nation that has a christian majority all of sudden makes it ok to push that religion even though one of the founding pillars of our nation is freedom of religion?

      Just because America has a majority of christians doesn't mean they get to slide on the rules, that's oppression kiddo in which case I'm sure you'd be happy to apply to live in a theocracy as soon as possible. I hear Iran is nice this time of year.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • Science

      Chad is it.............. chapter 6......... is your fav........from where chad ?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:38 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad
      "no, it acknowledges the fact that we are a Christian majority nation who has ALWAYS acknowledged God as sovereign."

      If you mean the the US has "ALWAYS acknowledged God as sovereign," please cite when the US has done so?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad: ""no, it acknowledges the fact that we are a Christian majority nation who has ALWAYS acknowledged God as sovereign. "

      Nope. Rubbish.

      And I thought I found you a good quasi-theocracy in Zambia, but even they *claim* there is no discrimination based on religion in their const</bitution. But they do throw gays in jail, so you might enjoy some hands-on experience there with that, Chad.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
    • Tarzan

      "Me raised by apes. Me Ape mommy never told me about religion."

      Chad "So you are an atheist?"

      "What you mean atheist?"

      Chad "Atheist means you don't believe in God"

      "What you mean God?"

      Chad "You know, the being that created the entire universe and all the stars"

      "What is being? What is Universe? What are stars?"

      Chad "Well, you see up there? all those dots of light? Those are stars which are huge balls of fire burning with a huge amount of energy, and the billions and billions of them make up the universe, including our which is the bright sun that brings us heat every day, and there is a great invisible ape or being in the sky that made it all for us."

      "Woe woe woe, hold on a second, so based on few words you tell me I now supposed to believe in an invisible parent in sky that I can neither see nor smell nor touch?"

      Chad: "Exactly."

      "Why?"

      Chad: "Becasuse the odds of it not being exactly as I said are to great to even consider, so just accept it."

      "That make no sense. What are odds that it IS exactly as you said?"

      Chad: "They are the odd's that everything happened by accident multiplied times "X" or infinity or God in this case, so anything times God is possible, which means thats the only possible solution."

      "But is not a really really low probability event multiplied times an even less probable integer equal an even more improbable probability?"

      Chad: "Yes, but not with God"

      "What is God again?"

      Chad: "He is the begining and the end, the alpha and the omega, he knows all things, created all things and is in all things, he is everywhere and nowhere, he is the exception to all rules, but don't break his rules or you will burn in fiery torment for eternity."

      "So you know it's a he then?"

      Chad: "Yes, God must be male."

      "Whats a male?"

      Chad: "You know, the dominant often larger protector of each species."

      "You mean the one with a penis?"

      Chad: "Well yes."

      "So you are positive that there is a galactic sized or maybe electron sized invisible spirit being wielding a cosmic penis that demands our eternal fealty and we must follow all his rules, and if we don't he will torment us for eternity?"

      Chad: "Excactly..."

      "Well i'm sorry Chad, but I disbelieve you. I'm not going to say i've researched and studied your invisible spirit enough to say I beleieve he doesn't exist, but you have provided me nothing of which to study, so it's not that I believe you are a liar, I just have no evidence that you aren't."

      May 9, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad.
      How would you feel about Hindu scriptures displayed on public buildings?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:40 pm |
    • Science

      Oops ..........forgot................the ICR.........Chad

      May 9, 2013 at 5:41 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer

      I have no doubt at all that people disagreed on the amendment.
      but
      the amendment we have is the result of that discussion and it's purpose is very clear. If you want something different, propose an amendment and stop trying to re-write the one we have.

      a very simple explanation:
      Freedom of religion:
      1. The First Amendment of the United States Const itution prevents the government from setting up or establishing an official religion of the country.
      2. American Citizens have the freedom to attend a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other house of worship of their choice. They can also choose to not be involved in any religion as well.

      Because of the First Amendment, we can practice our religion however we want to.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Doesn't work like that Chad. A majority means nothing in a secular country, one where the main document that pertains to all citizens requires that the church stays out of the government and the government stays out of the church. There's a reason Intelligent Design can't be legally taught in any public school in the USA or here in Canada for that matter, it is to hold up our freedom's of and from religion. Once again if you expect me to respect your belief then do take note that that respect is a two way street. Not everybody shares your belief, get over it!

      May 9, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      "it acknowledges the fact that we are a Christian majority nation who has ALWAYS acknowledged God as sovereign."

      You really colored outside the lines with that absurdity.

      Sure, the majority of US citizens are Christian but the United States does not and has never defined God as 'sovereign'.

      The Const!tuion begins "We the people" not "By the grace of God, almighty,"

      May 9, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • Religions

      Chad
      No answer, not surprising. Driving through the deep south you cannot help noticing the white crosses all along the roads. I wonder how long stars of David or the crescent and star would last before being torn down by some redneck Christian. Freedom of religion as long as it my Christian religion, right Chad?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:49 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad: ""no, it acknowledges the fact that we are a Christian majority nation who has ALWAYS acknowledged God as sovereign. "

      @mama k "Nope. Rubbish."

      @Chad "??
      you live in the US?

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are inst ituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,....

      May 9, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...ass-kicking...after ass-kicking...after ass-kicking. Hahahaha!

      May 9, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Blather

      Chad says stop trying to rewrite the one we have....and then rewrites it himself. Epic Fail.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:53 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      yet again you fail to understand the establishment clause. We went back and forth on this along time ago. The supreme court manages to understand it, yet you are clouded by the lies told by Christian apologists that it is only about creating a national religion.

      You don't have to believe me. Read Madison's detached memoranda. To Madison, the establishment clause was all about NOT placing ANY religion in a govermentally endorsed position of primacy over another religion.

      No doubt lots of people didn't agree with the first amendment. But it was ratified and it is THE law. I don't agree with lot's of things the goverment enacts, but the price of democracy is accepting what the democratically elected representatives enact.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
    • mama k

      That's no Constitution, Chad. Are we dealing with a Chad poe here?

      May 9, 2013 at 5:54 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      You're batting 000 today. You're much better off talking about the improbability of abiogenesis.

      The Declaration of Independence is not the law. Are you still worried about Canada invading? That's in the DOI too!

      May 9, 2013 at 5:56 pm |
    • Darrin

      "prevents the government from setting up or establishing an official religion of the country."

      "Because of the First Amendment, we can practice our religion however we want to. "

      Oh dishonest Chad. Notice in one sentance how you recognize the limits placed upon the government? That they were prevented from using government funds and government money and government property that is for all citizens to set up or establish any official religion. You seem to accept that, and then without blinking an eye you condone the placing of a specific religions ideology on display for all to see on a government building on government property that were paid for by all of our tax dollars, not just the Christians. This is EXACTLY what our founders were trying to prevent and it doesn't matter a wit that the SCOTUS ruled to allow it, THEY WERE WRONG and they have been before and will e again on many other issues. But we will continue to push for less partisan judges who will give a more fair reading of the constltution and do not inject their personal religious ideologies into their rulings.

      May 9, 2013 at 5:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      In case there are some who are not familiar with these bits of classic Chad blatherskite...enjoy!

      "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."

      "Every book that purports to accurately record history needs to be examined critically for internal consistency and for its accuracy in detail. The bible succeeds on all accounts."

      "The Genesis account stands alone amongst all creation stories of the time, a fact universally acknowledged...We are only know [sic] beginning to scientifically discover how accurate it is indeed."

      'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'

      May 9, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Religions

      Chad
      Even the DOI is a lie, should have read for the times....all men are created equal, the women have some catching up do and the slaves, probably going to have to have a war for that to work, even then, that they are endowed......

      May 9, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer "yet again you fail to understand the establishment clause."

      =>sorry, no.

      Whilst I admire the tenaciousness of your effort to rewrite the establishment clause, the fact of the matter is that it was consistently interpreted as not disallowing public display of or public acknowledgement of the God of Israel until just recently.

      The frequent mention of God on official govt docs and in govt buildings attests to that fact.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:08 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad ""Removing the 10 commandments from the public forum enforces your disbelief on the rest of the population."

      @Truth Prevails "And leaving them there, pushes your belief on everyone. "

      @Chad "no, it acknowledges the fact that we are a Christian majority nation who has ALWAYS acknowledged God as sovereign.

      @mama k "Nope. Rubbish."

      @Chad "?? you live in the US?
      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are inst ituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,....

      @mama k "That's no Const itution, Chad. Are we dealing with a Chad poe here?"

      @Chad " I think you lost track of the thread.. I never said the const.itution mentioned God..

      May 9, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Chuckles

      Listen y'all I can sum up everything chad has written so far

      He hates America and would rather see it as a christian theocracy but instead of saying that outright, he wants to blame the atheists from getting in the way of that.

      It's ok Chad, the good news is that there are moderate christians who understand that not having christian iconography in the public square is not endorsment of disbelief and thankfully your fringe element is still considered pretty silly.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:20 pm |
    • Chad

      @Darrin "Oh dishonest Chad. Notice in one sentance how you recognize the limits placed upon the government? That they were prevented from using government funds and government money and government property that is for all citizens to set up or establish any official religion. "

      @Chad "Attempting to equate acknowledgement of the God of Israel in official docs, by govt officials as part of their normal duties, and in public buildings with "establishment of a state religion" is a disingenuous ploy on the part of atheists.

      The establishment clause was NEVER interpreted that way, as innumerable examples of all of the above demonstrate.

      I dont mind at all if you want to try and re-write the const itution, what I do mind is the disingenuous ploy to accomplish the same thing by "correcting the interpretation of it".

      that is nonsense.."

      May 9, 2013 at 6:21 pm |
    • Religions

      Chad
      Why just the God of Israel? Sounds like the tyranny of the majority, why not put other religious symbols in the public buildings, all the religions that wish to display them?

      May 9, 2013 at 6:23 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad – "I never said . . . "

      And I'm saying, Chad, as "not a GOPer" indicated that the DOI has no bearing on our laws and government in the way that the Constitution does. Does that spell it out better?

      Remember these Madison quotes?

      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.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:25 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Darrin –

      Give up on this one. Chad is dishonest, a liar, and a buffoon, but you can never tell whether he is being disingenuous or profoundly obtuse. In the end, the difference is unimportant.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
    • Counterpoint

      Chad, you poor ignorant s l u t. Whilst I can agree that based on the past America had at one time excluded Christianity from the establishment clause, this in no way invalidates the intent. The fact that SCOTUS has upheld this for a long time will not prevent future SCOTUS's from recognizing this to be an error of judgement and will in fact change their stance as they did with Dred Scott v. Sanford (prohibition of slavery ruled unconstltutional because it deprived slaveowners of their property)
      or Plessy v. Ferguson (upheld a Louisiana apartheid law) which eventually was overturned nearly 60 years later with Brown v. Board of Education.

      So to conclude, the current ruling in Van Orden v. Perry is wrong, as Justice Stevens said in his dissent " the display transmits the message that Texas specifically endorses the Judeo-Christian values of the display and thus, the display violates the establishment clause."

      The fact that they are wrong shows that we still have a ways to go in fighting for our rights as citizens of the Uinited States of America.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:28 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad.
      How would you feel about Hindu scriptures displayed on public buildings? If as I presume you wouldn't want it, please explain why christianity should have its texts displayed on public buildings.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
    • Religions

      Chad
      Theodore Roosevelt fought against the tide to remove "In God We Trust" as a sacrilege but crap happens and he lost, too bad.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:29 pm |
    • Slave Owner to losers in Dred Scott v. Sanford

      I dont mind at all if you want to try and re-write the const itution, what I do mind is the disingenuous ploy to accomplish the same thing by "correcting the interpretation of it"...

      May 9, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad
      "no, it acknowledges the fact that we are a Christian majority nation who has ALWAYS acknowledged God as sovereign."

      1) "we are a Christian majority nation" implies the US. The DOI is not law in the US.
      2) The DOI does not state "God".
      3) The DOI does not state "God as sovereign".

      "The establishment clause was NEVER interpreted that way, as innumerable examples of all of the above demonstrate."

      While I suspect you are equivocating on the term "acknowledgment", as Madison stated in his memoranda, as @Not GOPer showed, Jefferson stated in his Danbury letter, and as the SCOTUS has upheld many times:

      "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 to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." – Justice Hugo Black (as quoted by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstiREMOVEtution)

      So in a effort to find a middle ground, while no laws can be passed preferring or endorsing one religion over another, the occasional mention of God or gods in official docu.ments is not illegal, e.g. Madison's de minimis. The difficulty is in determining when something is a simple mention and when it is an endorsement.

      The SCOTUS and other's have currently drawn the line somewhere between the frieze of "lawgivers of history" in the SCOTUS building and the construction of a monument to just the 10 commandments.

      Some may disagree with that line.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @In Santa we trust – "How would you feel about Hindu scriptures displayed on public buildings?"

      Chad addressed that issue in his May 9, 2013 at 5:14 pm reply to Richard Cranium. In that post Chad makes it clear that he favors the tyranny of the majority and that his protests against intolerance only apply when the "intolerance" is directed towards his personal flavor of religion. All in all, a very telling post.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @Religions "Why just the God of Israel? "

      @Chad "because this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real.

      NOTE: all 50 state consti tutions explicitly include reference to God.
      http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html"

      I dont mind at all if you want to try and re-write the const itution wtih a new amendment, what I do mind is the disingenuous ploy to accomplish the same thing by "correcting the interpretation of it".

      May 9, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • Darrin

      "The establishment clause was NEVER interpreted that way, as innumerable examples of all of the above demonstrate."

      Except by those who dissented like Justice Stevens who believes "the display transmits the message that Texas specifically endorses the Judeo-Christian values of the display and thus, the display violates the establishment clause."

      So it was NEVER interpreted that way, except when it was by at least four of the nine justices who dissented in this case.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "because this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real."

      Wow! Really?

      May 9, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
    • Chad

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

      @ME II "we are a Christian majority nation" implies the US. The DOI is not law in the US."
      @Chad "your 'A' does not require 'B'.

      @ME II "The DOI does not state "God"."
      @Chad "Creator"

      @ME II "The DOI does not state "God as sovereign".
      @Chad "to acknowledge that our rights from from God, is to state that God is sovereign.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:44 pm |
    • American Robot

      "NOTE: all 50 state consti tutions explicitly include reference to God."

      Noted. We will get to work removing them right away. Thank you for your input. Much like a proof reader finds misspellings, the removal of those references is to correct errors, not to inject any atheist ideology so your paranoid delusional chad brain can power down and go back to doing what it does best, collect dust.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:47 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Much of this is fun and games, but one thing should be clear to this forum – Chad is a bigot. There is no way to soft-pedal that fact.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:48 pm |
    • Religions

      Chad
      Well that is the biggest delusion that has come out of your mind. The reason the mainly "deist" and Christian founding fathers did not want your aszumption that the God of Israel is real any where in the DOI or consti.tution was they wanted to keep the religions out of government not part of it.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:50 pm |
    • ME II

      Chad
      "your 'A' does not require 'B'.

      To be the US does in fact require the law of the land which defines the USA, i.e. the Consti.tution, without it we are just 50 independent states.

      @ME II"The DOI does not state "God"."
      @Chad "Creator"

      Like I said, not "God". Creator cam mean many things, especially to a Deist.

      @ME II "The DOI does not state "God as sovereign".
      @Chad "to acknowledge that our rights from from God, is to state that God is sovereign.

      That's your interpretation.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      My creators are my parents. I didn't realize that you are like Athena and popped fully formed from god.....

      May 9, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "because this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real."

      If this is true, then how exactly do we enforce the first amendment, i.e. freedom of religion, when the first commandment says nearly the exact opposite.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:55 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "because this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real."

      How exactly does anyone work on the Sabbath?

      May 9, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "because this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real."

      Shouldn't we ban all religions except certain Christian ones?

      May 9, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • Religions

      Chad
      I find this truth to be self evident, that Chad is insane. If the founding fathers believed the god of Israel was real why would they use the term Creator. You do know many of them did not believe in a personal god that answered prayers and judged their conduct, you do know that?

      May 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm |
    • Darrin

      "because this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real."
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

      es·tab·lish·ment /iˈstabliSHmənt/Noun 1.The action of establishing something or being established.

      founded / verb 1.Establish or originate (a continuing instltution or organization), esp. by providing an endowment: "the monastery was founded in 1665".

      Maybe there is something wrong with Chads head or possibly his disctionary...

      May 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Apparently even Chad has a limit to how much abuse is tolerable Who'da thought?

      May 9, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • mama k

      The Deism of John Adams:

      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.

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

      May 9, 2013 at 7:11 pm |
    • Josh

      I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins.

      ~Samuel Adams

      May 9, 2013 at 7:14 pm |
    • mama k

      . . . and the beer just turned out so-so, Josh . . .

      May 9, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
    • Josh

      Rendering thanks to my Creator for my existence and station among His works, for my birth in a country enlightened by the Gospel and enjoying freedom, and for all His other kindnesses, to Him I resign myself, humbly confiding in His goodness and in His mercy through Jesus Christ for the events of eternity.
      ~John Dickinson

      May 9, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
    • Not a GOPer and nor do I play one on TV

      @Chad,

      " the fact of the matter is that it was consistently interpreted as not disallowing public display of or public acknowledgement of the God of Israel until just recently."

      The question is not one of "public display" or "public acknowledgement". If you want to put up a sign in your front yard that says "Jesus Saves" you, or any other private person is wholly ent!tled to do this.

      The question is one of official endorsement of one religion over another. The installation of the ten commandments in a court room or a government office of some kind is contrary to the establishment clause and is the way James Madison intended and understood it.

      That argument that "in the past, nobody complained" is entirely moot.

      May 9, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • mama k

      Theodore Roosevelt did not take the oath of office on a Bible in 1901.

      John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law.

      William Howard Taft, the only U.S. President to also hold the office of Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:

      I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe.

      As Deist Christians, the first five presidents including John Adams, James Madison & Thomas Jefferson were likely to have quite a different notion of God than the Christian God of today. Some Deist Christians may have followed Christ's teachings, but usually refuted the divinity of Christ.

      John Tyler, the 10th POTUS was a Deist Christian.

      Many believe Abraham Lincoln was a Deist.

      John Remsburg, in his book Six Historic Americans (1906), cites several of Lincoln's close associates:

      After his assassination Mrs. Lincoln said: "Mr. Lincoln had no hope and no faith in the usual acceptance of these words." His lifelong friend and executor, Judge David Davis, affirmed the same: "He had no faith in the Christian sense of the term." His biographer, Colonel Lamon, intimately acquainted with him in Illinois, and with him during all the years that he lived in Washington, says: "Never in all that time did he let fall from his lips or his pen an expression which remotely implied the slightest faith in Jesus as the son of God and the Savior of men."

      May 9, 2013 at 7:19 pm |
    • Josh

      I desire to bless and praise the name of God most high for appointing me my birth in a land of Gospel Light where the glorious tidings of a Savior and of pardon and salvation through Him have been continually sounding in mine ears.
      ~Robert Paine

      May 9, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
    • Josh

      I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. . . . that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are a revelation from God. . . . that God did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.
      ~Roger Sherman

      May 9, 2013 at 7:23 pm |
    • Really-O?

      "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't"

      Peter Paul

      May 9, 2013 at 7:25 pm |
    • mama k

      not a GOPer: "If you want to put up a sign in your front yard that says "Jesus Saves" you, or any other private person is wholly ent!tled to do this."

      And from what I've read on these blogs some blog posters have already austintatiously taken advantage of this liberty.

      May 9, 2013 at 7:27 pm |
    • mama k

      "Lettin' me know, easy come, easy go" –Bobby Sherman

      May 9, 2013 at 7:30 pm |
    • Josh

      The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation...
      ~John Adams

      May 9, 2013 at 7:30 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @mama k –

      Peace, love, and Bobby Sherman.

      Cheers

      May 9, 2013 at 7:31 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "If this is true, then how exactly do we enforce the first amendment, i.e. freedom of religion, when the first commandment says nearly the exact opposite."
      @Chad "the US is not, nor has it ever been, a theocracy. No one is required to be Christian.
      That doesnt mean that no gov't official is forbidden from publicly acknowledging and appealing to the God of Israel."

      ===
      @Chad "because this country was founded on the premise that the God of Israel is real."
      @ME II "How exactly does anyone work on the Sabbath?:
      @Chad "A. This country is not, nor has it ever been (even when it was 99% Christian) a theocracy
      B. Please do some reading on the Old Testament vs the New Testament

      ===
      @ME II "Shouldn't we ban all religions except certain Christian ones?"
      @Chad "pretty typical disingenuous atheist overreaction 🙂
      the US is not, nor has it ever been, a theocracy. No one is required to be Christian.
      That doesnt mean that no gov't official is forbidden from publicly acknowledging and appealing to the God of Israel."

      ====
      @Religions "If the founding fathers believed the god of Israel was real why would they use the term Creator."
      @Chad "you are REALLY, REALLY unplugged from the reason this country was first populated, and the nature of those people."

      ====
      @mama k
      not all of the founding fathers believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
      There is no "unanimous approval" requirement for legislation in our country, and there never has been.

      ====
      @GOPer "The question is one of official endorsement of one religion over another"
      @Chad "Pretty typical atheist nonsense.. "well, the minute you acknowledge God, then you are endorsing religion, that means you are establishing religion, so no public official is allowed to mention God!!!! ha ha!!"

      nonsense..
      that was NEVER the intent, we have 100's of years of consistent treatment on the part of our government with respect to publicly acknowledging the God of Israel to guide us. We dont have to guess. we know.

      May 9, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Josh –

      Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
      All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.

      May 9, 2013 at 7:33 pm |
    • mama k

      You do have to look at dates for when these key figures said things about their belief. The key framers grew up as Christians and several of them became more Deist later in life.

      May 9, 2013 at 7:38 pm |
    • Chad

      @mama k "You do have to look at dates for when these key figures said things about their belief. The key framers grew up as Christians and several of them became more Deist later in life."

      =>I think in some cases that is true. In most cases however, the utter distaste that many had for organized religion makes us (looking back on their writings) incorrectly perceive them as deist when in actuality they acknowledged the divinity of Jesus Christ.

      May 9, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
    • Kramer Rich

      really-o-go easy on that Heineken, ok?

      May 9, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad: "There is no "unanimous approval" requirement for legislation in our country, and there never has been."

      And I didn't say there was, Chad. I was simply noting that some of the key framers including the first five presidents grew up as Christians and became more Deistic later in life, and that one of the characteristics of Deism in that time was not recognizing the divinity of Christ, even if one followed Christ's teachings.

      May 9, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Chard lies: every time the American Atheists, or ACLU, or American Humanists take cases to court, they are attempting to influence legislation based on their belief."

      Do your stupidity and dishonesty know no bounds? The ACLU argues cases on behalf of people who want to be able to practice their religion, you moron.

      Look it up. Do you need someone to "walk you through it"?

      May 9, 2013 at 7:59 pm |
    • Chad

      http://www.christianpost.com/news/aclu-atheist-group-sue-ohio-school-district-over-jesus-portrait-89732/
      http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/17/aclu-atheist-teen-cheer-decision-to-remove-school-prayer-banner/
      http://www.wnd.com/2006/11/39106/ Court rules against ACLU, atheist on San Diego cross
      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/01/teen-atheists-aclu-led-fight-against-prayer-mural-to-cost-ri-city-at-least-173000/

      May 9, 2013 at 8:08 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Chard, your stupidity is increasing exponentially. Are you sure you don't have Alzheimer's?

      The ACLU does NOT represent only atheists and humanists, you moronic dolt. It argues for civil liberties for everyone. That's what the acronym stands for, dumbfuck. How do you even manage to tie your own shoes?

      May 9, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
    • Science

      And like chad he forgets the ID one.................

      Dover Trial Transcripts............................................. FACTS.

      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.

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

      They lost in 2005............still trying !

      May 9, 2013 at 8:18 pm |
    • Science

      oops ...............CIVIL ...............is suppose to be after the periods..............damn thumb

      May 9, 2013 at 8:21 pm |
    • Chad

      I never argued that
      – all the ACLU does is litigate against religion
      – all anti-religion litigation is by the ACLU

      however
      MOST of the anti-religion legislation is from the ACLU.

      May 9, 2013 at 8:22 pm |
    • The real Tom

      I love it when you back-pedal, Chard. It makes such a lovely breeze...

      May 9, 2013 at 8:38 pm |
    • mama k

      Given that we do have a Christian majority, I'm sure I'm not alone here in saying I personally know more Christians than other atheists. But I can also say I know more Christians who favor strict separation of church and state than I know other atheists.

      May 9, 2013 at 8:49 pm |
    • Saraswati

      This gem of Chad's has to be saved for future reference:

      "Removing the 10 commandments from the public forum enforces your disbelief on the rest of the population."

      By Chad's logic by not having the guiding principles of all other religions up we are enforcing disbelief in those gods on the population and he's good with hit. Such a charming guy he is when he's not busy defending slavery.

      May 9, 2013 at 8:51 pm |
    • The real Tom

      I swear he's getting worse.

      May 9, 2013 at 8:58 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @mama k, you aren't alone though I'd have to say my own position is quite different. If you count va.gue aquaintences and the people I volunteer with and my mail man I probably know more Christians than anything else, but in my family and work life non-believers, unitarians, Hindus, Buddhists and others would outweight Christians.. One of the reasons I come here is to be reminded of what more etremist Christians believe since I don't see it much these days (I did live in NC for several years and see it there). It's easy to forget these people are still out there when your own friends, family and coworkers tend to be from a different world. I do have an aunt who's a nun but she's much more open and educated than someone like Chad.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @real Tom,

      I can't tell if he's getting worse or if he was just better at hiding his real beliefs and emotions before. He's definitely losing his ability to pretend to be calm and rational while making snide insults with smiley faces. He pretty much just loses it these days.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:08 pm |
    • The real Tom

      He really does, Sara. The exchange I had with him last night was a prime example. I think midwest rail was also posting, and Chard was just ranting and raving, quoting scientists he claimed supported the idea that a god must have created the universe. He couldn't make his point, however, without adding his own comments, because not ONE of the people he quoted EVER mentioned God at all.

      He got really incensed when this was pointed out to him and started RE-POSTING the same quotes with snide little asides like "shh" and "mum's the word" as if that would make a difference. I really think he's coming unglued.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
    • Science

      Just my 2 cents on Chad ...........he might need a few lessons in geology and a ton in history/cultures ?

      And a Q Tip........for DNA swap !

      May 9, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad. From the ACLU site (w w w.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression)
      The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion. But because the ACLU is often better known for its work preventing the government from promoting and funding selected religious activities, it is sometimes wrongly assumed that the ACLU does not zealously defend the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith. The actions described below – over half of which were brought on behalf of self-identified Christians, with the remaining cases defending the rights of a wide range of minority faiths – reveal just how mistaken such assumptions are. (The list below includes examples from the past decade only.)

      So no anti-religious cases are from the ACLU.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:34 pm |
    • Chad

      @Saraswati "Such a charming guy he is when he's not busy defending slavery."

      =>wow.. you sure have gone off the deep end...

      May 9, 2013 at 10:12 pm |
    • The real Tom

      How adorable! Chard's projecting again. What a precocious little dork.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:15 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Chard, you really are not playing with a full deck these days. Better go update that Rolodex of yours, honey-bun.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @Santa "So no anti-religious cases are from the ACLU."

      =>oh my, that is funny, the ACLU doesnt litigate against religion 🙂

      May 9, 2013 at 10:16 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Oh, look! Emoticons! Chard's losing it again.

      Of course the ACLU doesn't litigate against religion unless religion is interfering with civil liberties. Did you imagine something else, Chardolicious?

      May 9, 2013 at 10:18 pm |
    • Chad is Rachel

      Rachel is Chad

      May 9, 2013 at 10:23 pm |
    • Rachel

      I love me Chad :-).

      May 9, 2013 at 10:24 pm |
    • Rachel

      Chad plays with our => too much.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:26 pm |
    • Josh

      @chad, you have some valid points , until late 20th century Christians were able to pray in schools, have the Ten Commandments displayed and mention God in the public arena. Unfortunately, due to the activism of atheists, Christians have lost this privilege and continue to be brow beaten by the atheists, almost as if their 'belief' system can hold sway over the rest of us who have to live with it, whether we like it or not.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:31 pm |
    • Merhalk

      Brow beaten only? Christianity deserves to have its ass severely whooped and handed to it on a platter, then buried alongside it in history.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
    • redzoa

      @Chad – Here's a few examples of the ACLU litigating "against" religion:

      http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

      Given your track record on science, the law, etc, it's not at all surprising that you'd erroneously confuse your miscomprehensions with the actual facts . . .

      May 9, 2013 at 10:41 pm |
    • redzoa

      @Josh – "until late 20th century Christians were able to pray in schools, have the Ten Commandments displayed and mention God in the public arena." Christians can still do all three. Here's where a little education/research would be useful rather than just blind acceptance and regurgitation of the martyr-complex talking points.

      1) Students can pray in school, they can lead prayer groups, and they can't be denied equal access to school facilities for prayer group activities. Schools simply cannot require students to attend or participate in school-led prayer.

      2) The Ten Commandments can be displayed in public venues in a variety of contexts. See e.g. Van Orden v. Perry (2005).

      3) Your "can't mention God in the public arena" was just too dumb to respond to . . .

      May 9, 2013 at 10:52 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Josh wrote: "until late 20th century Christians were able to pray in schools, have the Ten Commandments displayed and mention God in the public arena"

      Clearly some of these folks really are this ignorant. Part of me thinks this is a failure in education and that the realities should have been taught in middle and high school civics. But I had a grandfather who grew up a century ago in a poor country and never got passed sixth grade. He never would have been this unaware of how his own country functioned. At a certain point we just have to expect literate citizens to stay current and read on their own.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "every time the American Atheists, or ACLU, or American Humanists take cases to court, they are attempting to influence legislation based on their belief."

      @Chad "I never argued that
      – all the ACLU does is litigate against religion
      – all anti-religion litigation is by the ACLU
      however
      MOST of the anti-religion legislation is from the ACLU."

      @redzoa "Here's a few examples of the ACLU litigating "against" religion:
      http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

      @chad "hmm.. read above.
      are you sure you have the right thread?

      May 10, 2013 at 12:20 am |
    • Chad

      @Josh : "until late 20th century Christians were able to pray in schools, have the Ten Commandments displayed and mention God in the public arena"

      @saraswati "Clearly some of these folks really are this ignorant"

      @Chad "you dont consider what Josh said to be true?

      how old are you? You must be extremely young..

      let me tell you, that was indeed the case. I grew up reciting the pledge of allegiance and saying prayers at football games.

      May 10, 2013 at 12:23 am |
    • Chad

      BTW, nothing wrong with being young, I wouldnt mind being young again..

      but, it sounds like you sure werent around, and the US wasnt always like this.

      May 10, 2013 at 12:27 am |
    • biggles

      I hate xtards. I love sambo. I love FSM. Report sambo. She is a terrorist and deserves hell.

      May 10, 2013 at 4:58 am |
    • Religions

      Chad
      Had other things to do last night. My response to you reply7:33 PM.
      Me "If the founding fathers believed the god of Israel was real why would they use the term Creator?"
      "you are REALLY, REALLY, unplugged from the reason this country was first populated and the nature of those people."
      A typical Chad comment showing him to be the ignorant bigot that he is. You find it so easy to dismiss the people that first populated the country, the Aboriginals, that the oh so loving Christians proceeded to slaughter and ghettoize. You might also want to look at the history of your god of Israel followers of the time whose factions were discriminating against each other to the point of violence. Go ahead and use the ad hominem fallacy if you wish, but you seem to thrive on the derision you receive here, don't you?

      May 10, 2013 at 6:57 am |
    • Saraswati

      How cute, Chad did another of his little playing stupid turn arounds where he pretends the issue is about what people could do 50 years ago and not the obvious fact that people stll can do most of these things most of the time. The funny thing is that every time he pays stupid like this, thinking he's getting away with something, he just ends up genuinely looking that foolish for trying it. Itall goes back to his apparent assumption that he's way smarter than he is.

      May 10, 2013 at 7:04 am |
    • Saraswati

      Have you noticed, too, how he insults people even more often these days and has started to resort to all caps. The weirdest part is that he doesn't just plow on but actually has said repeatedly how much sounder his arguments are and demonstrates over and over that he really can't see all the times he's shown to be wrong. It's not the confirmation bias for his religion that's most troubling, but the confirmation bias regarding his own intelligence. He remembers any time he's right and sees none of the many, many times he's wrong. I don't know that I've ever seen anything quite like it before, but it appears to leave him thinking he's far brighter than he is and with the assumption everyone else is so dumb he can use infantile tricks ... and this same bias confirms for him that he's succeeded.

      May 10, 2013 at 7:20 am |
    • Religions

      Saraswati
      Not surprising that William Lane Craig is one of the Chad's heroes. That and the Christian apologetics sites that Chad gets his cut, paste and post "intelligence" from are what results in his dishonest debating (pontificating) style, just like his hero.

      May 10, 2013 at 7:35 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Religions, I'd like to believe Chad will have some insight one day, but sadly I suspect it may be an extreme psychological predisposition that's the problem. Even if he got over his Christian fanaticism he'd probably be a something else fanatic next. People like that need to feel certain, whatever the belief.

      May 10, 2013 at 9:14 am |
    • Chad

      @Saraswati

      I cant imagine how you feel you can make the case that the climate of religious intolerance in this country is vastly different than 50 years ago, and the impact that has had.

      It is simply unreal the "acceptance" climate that my children have to go to school with. Enforced acceptance of all religions, except Christianity. Papers on the peaceful nature of Islam and the Crusades. Organized, rabid efforts to remove all religious references in all school settings.

      That's the reality today.
      That was not the reality 50 years ago.
      That is inarguable.

      May 10, 2013 at 9:45 am |
    • Religions

      saraswati
      Yes, I concur better to leave him with his present delusion, would not want him to get frisky pining for his 72 virgins in another delusion!!

      May 10, 2013 at 9:49 am |

    • Josh, looks like it is a double whammy for this one.It is not only culturally unfamiliar but also lacks a basic understanding of history, one thing for sure, it can't blame its grandparents for not knowing US history.

      May 10, 2013 at 10:31 am |
    • Darrin

      That's the reality today.
      That was not the reality 50 years ago.
      That is inarguable.
      And thank goodness we don't live in the past.
      50 years ago we also had discrimination against blacks and women were kept at home in the kitchens and laundry and we had disgusting bigots like Joe McCarthy ruining good Americans lives with hate and exclusion and fear mongering. That is the world Chad would like to take us back to. I'm just glad he will never get the chance and will likely die of old age choking on his bitter hate and vitriol and unwarrented righteous indignation.

      May 10, 2013 at 1:03 pm |
    • Paul

      Chad blame the Supreme Court for taking down the 10 commandments from government buildings. It is their job to interpret the Const.itution, and they decided that they violate the first amendment. By the way, there are no atheists on the Court so you can't really blame them.

      May 10, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
  2. faith

    u r making big mistakes. learn something.

    America is called a xtian nation. all americans must be xtards. 100%.

    hitler believed in god. god exists

    May 9, 2013 at 10:26 am |
    • mama k

      Oh my. Listen dear, maybe you should at least try switching to a different brand of cheap wine. I know it's not going to stop your pigeon-brain from speckling the blog with your "musings", but who know, maybe it will come out a different way and not be as boring; and you might even notice that your room starts to take on a different scent.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      "America is called a xtian nation. all americans must be xtards. 100%."

      I fear that I would be remiss in my duties by not informing you that "xtard," or "Christard" if you spell it out, is not generally what Christians use to refer to themselves. It is a word made by combining "Christian" and "retard," in case you are interested in the etymology.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      And yet, the following statement is completely understandable: Most xtians are xtards.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • Heretic

      There has to be something seriously wrong in their heads to believe in that crap.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      obvious troll

      May 9, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • faith

      I had jello today.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:05 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Did you have it injected into your cranium, faith?

      May 9, 2013 at 8:19 pm |
    • biggles

      Hitler was a christian. All Nazis were Christians.

      May 10, 2013 at 2:44 am |
  3. faith

    sambo getting panicked

    May 9, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • fintastic

      No such thing as "god"

      May 9, 2013 at 10:23 am |
    • faith

      no god. amen. except 4 sambo

      May 9, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      No such thing as sambo.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      Sam Stone
      came home
      to his wife and family,
      after serving in the conflict oversea.
      And the time
      that he served
      had shattered all his nerves
      and left a bit of shrapnel in his knee.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:00 am |
    • Bill

      There's a hole in daddy's arm where all the money goes
      Jesus Christ died for nothing I suppose.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • HeavenStench

      There's a hole in daddy's head where his brains leaked out.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • biggles

      Sambo is god Jr.

      May 10, 2013 at 2:46 am |
  4. Heretic

    Christianity – Urban Dictionary

    "The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.."

    May 9, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • Angry goth girl

      Oh come off it. If Christianity was about zombies, blood drinking and throwing hate at half of humanity I'd have signed up decades ago.
      Call it what it is...old people and organ music.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • faith is dead

      Gothgirl, behold the awesomeness of the Holy Ghost People . . . of Doom.

      https://archive.org/details/HolyGhostPeople

      May 9, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
  5. Assumptions

    I remember the first time I met an atheist. He asked me if I believed in God and I said, "Yes very much so" and then he rattled off all this biblical stuff. I've never looked at the bible once.

    I always figured there was probably "something" you know..a greater spirit or "42" or whatever. Some higher power..who knows.

    I thought it was astonishing that he went straight for Christianity.

    Looking back on it, he wasn't asking me about my spirituality, he was asking me about his politics.

    May 9, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • ME II

      I have no idea what the details of your experience are, but in the US 79% of people identify as Christian. That's not a completely irrational assumption.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • ME II

      Sorry, 78.4%
      (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports)

      May 9, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • a person of the Name

      They may identify them selves as Christian but I wonder how many truly are....

      May 9, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • PaulB

      Perhaps he's Canadian? I think I saw a news article yesterday saying that their latest census has Christians there at only 2/3 and "nones" at almost 1/4.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:10 am |
    • ME II

      @a person of the Name
      "They may identify them selves as Christian but I wonder how many truly are...."

      If everyone had to meet everyone else's standards then there would likely be exactly 0 Christians, including Jesus.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • Emily Litella

      I don't understand why they say the non-religious people are nuns. Aren't nuns catholic so they represent one of the big religious groups. I keep hearing about how the nuns aren't spiritual, and they are trying to remove god from schools and governmental offices. I have never seen a nun do any such thing.

      Chevy Chase. " Excuse me , miss Litella...that's nones...N O N E S not nuns."

      Nevermind.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:17 am |
    • Topher

      a person of the Name

      "They may identify them selves as Christian but I wonder how many truly are...."

      I'd bet it's closer to 10 percent who are truly Bible-believing, born-again followers of Christ.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:25 am |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "I'd bet it's closer to 10 percent who are truly Bible-believing, born-again followers of Christ."

      Based on what exactly?

      May 9, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • HotAirAce

      And of course, Topher thinks he is one of the true members of the dead jew zombie death cult aka christianity even though he more closely resembles a lying, mentally ill delusional when he attempts to defend his insane but unsubstantiated beliefs.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:29 am |
    • Topher

      ME II

      "Based on what exactly?"

      Just a guess, but based on a lot of things. Jesus said there would be few who find the way. And based on denominations who want to change God's word to make it say what they want it to, thus misleading its followers. And then the same goes for individuals inside the church who want to change God's word. And how many people are really just "cultural Christians" ... meaning they aren't really involved in Christianity but because they grew up here that what they claim they are. Things like that.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Probably based on the same in depth analysis Topher does every time he types something. But it is interesting that even he thinks 90% of christians are dishonest. Interesting crowd he chooses to hang out with . . .

      May 9, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • LinCA

      @Topher and a person of the Name

      What makes you so fucking special that you think you get to pick who is, and who isn't in your cult?

      I'll let you in in a little secret. The fact that there are some 38,000 different christian denominations, cults and sects makes it impossible for a rational person to take your delusion as anything other than a delusion. If you can't even agree on some of the most basic shit of your fairy tale, how do you expect to convince anyone else? How do you expect to get someone, who does have the ability for rational thought, to buy into the obvious bullshit that passed for your religion if even you can't figure out what is, and what isn't part of it?

      I recommend that you get everyone to agree on a common definition of your affliction before you try to convince anyone else.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • ME II

      @Topher,
      "Just a guess,"

      Ah, I see. thanks.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:49 am |
    • sam stone

      Guesses is all Topher has. He has an opinion, but vainly tries to pass it off as fact

      May 9, 2013 at 10:57 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      "The fact that there are some 38,000 different christian denominations, cults and sects makes it impossible for a rational person to take your delusion as anything other than a delusion. "
      It's easy; the one Topher goes to is the only True Church. All others are deluded. Same thing ever denominationalist has to say. "At MY church, we follow God's ACTUAL teachings. Bull sacrifice at 3pm, followed by stoning of a disobedient child."

      May 9, 2013 at 10:57 am |
    • Russ

      @ LinCA: your argument works against you. the fact that there are widespread denominations would make one logically think that there would not be agreement upon the basics... and YET the very thing that MAKES one a Christian historically, biblically & even socially is adherence to those basic tenets.

      for example: while not holding equal authority to the Bible, the Apostle's Creed (which dates from roughly AD 180) states a wide array of central tenets held by all Christians... ACROSS ALL of those thousands of denominations. it's not simply belief in the resurrection & Jesus' divinity (though obviously necessary: Rom.10:9), but several complex ideas – including the Trinity. AND ALL of those groups agree on virtually EVERY point of the Apostles' Creed.

      As I said: your argument works against you. The diversity would seeming detract from unity – but instead it HIGHLIGHTS a set of basic doctrinal beliefs/commitments that are intrinsic to Christianity.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:59 am |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Massive Fail, Russ.

      The fact that there are so many sects and denominations highlights the reality that even adherents of the faith have no reliable mechanism to settle disputes over what is or is not part of the doctrine/faith. That's not only problematic, but the precise reason why there is NO FOUNDATION that can be declared as sure. Chemists and mathematicians settle their disputes over what is or is not part of the discipline by practical application; there are ZERO such applications that would prove or disprove the merit of a tenet of the "faith."

      God believers have no verifiable mechanism with which to determine the accuracy of any perspective or veiwpoint; therefore, all viewpoints are valid and anyone with any set of views can claim to be a christian. If there's no set way to determine what is or is not "christian" then there's no way to be certain about anything the faith puts forth as anything for any reason at any time.

      Chrisitanity is a farce.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • ME II

      @Russ,
      1) To which version of the Apostle's creed are you referring?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed#English_translations

      " it's not simply belief in the resurrection & Jesus' divinity (though obviously necessary: Rom.10:9), but several complex ideas – including the Trinity. AND ALL of those groups agree on virtually EVERY point of the Apostles' Creed."

      2) You many want to rethink your position.
      It thus says nothing explicitly about the divinity of either Jesus or of the Holy Spirit. This makes it acceptable to many Arians and Unitarians. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles'_Creed)

      May 9, 2013 at 11:11 am |
    • Russ

      @ Cpt Obvious: you make an unfounded as.sertion & then build off of it.

      1) while different denominations argue the *primary* basis for their belief, virtually EVERYONE traces their belief to the SOURCE doc.uments (i.e., the Bible).

      2) you claim there is no way to settle disputes so everything is relative... entirely dismissing entire fields of scholarly discipline which include atheists & theists alike. again, you have no basis for your claim.

      3) science itself is permeated with the same set of metaphysical concerns.

      a) science cannot address its own presuppositions & has no way of testing them.
      as some have said: "only what is provable is true/real" is a primary basis for naturalism (the widely assumed philosophy of most scientific disciplines). but that statement ITSELF is unprovable. it fails its own categories. it's self-refuting.

      b) science does not compete with metaphysics/faith – because it ASSUMES one.
      as is taught in most classrooms, science often presupposes 'methodological naturalism.' guess what that is? a philosophy. and it has competing philosophies. but to claim SCIENCE speaks to philosophy/metaphysics/religion is to FAIL to understand a basic distinction between the two fields.

      science cannot criticize something it presupposes. to do so is self-contradictory.
      science is a great tool – the discipline of human observation.
      putting ultimate faith in human observation is something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from science. that's scientism.

      as Nietzsche said: "it is STILL a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."
      to mock religion with science is to conflate physics & metaphysics. logic fail.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:19 am |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      No, Russ. I was absolutely correct. You have your semantic games and rhetorical gymnastics, but you have no VERIFIABLE methodology to resolve your differences over what the scripture means or what the full belief entails. Therefore, you only have what any philosophy has, arguments over meaning and intention, but no hard mechanism to bring certainty.

      Russ fails.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:28 am |
    • Russ

      @ ME II: your response would only make sense if the Apostles' Creed was not used against Arius by Christians. Yes, the Nicene Creed made those doctrines even more explicit, but so did the MUCH earlier source material (i.e., the Bible) in varied & thorough ways (Php.2:6-10; Jn.8:58f; Jn.10:29-30; Jn.1:1-14; Jn.20:28; Lk.5:20-21; etc.). Your argument would only make sense if there was no prior evidence for such beliefs... but it's clearly there both before & after. And again, the Apostles' Creed is STATES the Trinity.

      here's a larger list of such references:
      http://carm.org/bible-verses-show-jesus-divine

      May 9, 2013 at 11:30 am |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      And yes, Russ, all of our science and math could be wrong, but then we'd have to come up with a reasonable explanation why they work so well in application and with such consistency. When you die, if your heaven and god are exactly as you beleived, then you'll have your verification, then, but you have no verification, whatsoever (as science and math) of the accuracy of your "faith."

      May 9, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Saraswati

      I actually do find it annoying when people assume god believers are all Christian. Even in the US that's a presumptuous leap tp make. And then you see people who I guess must have grown up in Texas orsomething assuming all Christians are creationists. I've lived all around the US and even among some who call themselves Christian there are many who are really more Hindo leaning or more Unitarian. And where I live a huge proportion of the god believers aren't Christian at all. I've had god believing Pagan, Hindu, Jewish and other friemds.

      All that said, It seems kind of weird to me that anyone would remember their first time meeting an atheist. That's got to be one sheltered community and a severer lack of travel.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:31 am |
    • Madtown

      but several complex ideas – including the Trinity
      ---–
      The trinity is a creation of the human mind, not of God. Christianity still isn't universally true, or the only "correct" religion. If it was, all of humanity would need to have access to it. Otherwise, God has created humans equal to you and me, but denied them the one true way to salvation, which would not make God loving and just, as we're told he is.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:38 am |
    • mama k

      Russ: [ "science itself is permeated with the same set of metaphysical concerns.

      a) science cannot address its own presuppositions & has no way of testing them." ]

      From an agnostic point of view, can't all of that be reduced to simply "we don't know yet what we don't know yet"?

      Russ: "science does not compete with metaphysics/faith . ."

      I understand why you see science and metaphysics/faith as tightly woven through history, but to say they don't compete indicates to me that you're insinuating that science has not helped explain the unknown and re-shape some concepts regarding religious faith through the centuries.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:49 am |
    • ME II

      @Russ,
      "your response would only make sense if the Apostles' Creed was not used against Arius by Christians. Yes, the Nicene Creed made those doctrines even more explicit, but so did the MUCH earlier source material (i.e., the Bible) in varied & thorough ways (Php.2:6-10; Jn.8:58f; Jn.10:29-30; Jn.1:1-14; Jn.20:28; Lk.5:20-21; etc.)."

      Your argument seemed to imply that the Apostle's Creed was a common denominator for all "Christians" and specified Jesus' divinty and the Trinity. It seems that was not the case, as even you are referencing other sources to support the validity of the Nicene Creed, which actually came later.

      "Your argument would only make sense if there was no prior evidence for such beliefs... but it's clearly there both before & after."

      What argument? I'm just saying that your claim, common "Christian" root in the Apostle's Creed, seems inaccurate.

      "And again, the Apostles' Creed is STATES the Trinity."

      The why the need for "...settlement of the Christological issue of the nature of The Son and his relationship to God the Father," at the Council of Nicaea and the subsequent Nicene Creed?

      I'm not making a specific argument here, I'm just questioning the foundational nature of the Apostle's Creed in the aspect of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:52 am |
    • skytag

      "I always figured there was probably "something" you know..a greater spirit or "42" or whatever. Some higher power..who knows."

      Why would you "figure" this given that there is no evidence to suggest it's true?

      May 9, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • ME II

      @Saraswati,
      Good point.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:57 am |
    • @chad

      @Topher

      What proof can you offer that your denomination has not changed “the word of god”?

      May 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm |
    • skytag

      Russ: "the Apostle's Creed (which dates from roughly AD 180) states a wide array of central tenets held by all Christians..."

      Have you actually read the Apostle's Creed? It doesn't contain a "wide array" of anything. It contains a small number pretty basic Christian beliefs, as well as "I believe in ... the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints."

      In point of fact most Christian denominations don't believe in the holy catholic Church or "the communion of saints."

      May 9, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • faith

      "They may identify them selves as Christian but I wonder how many truly are...."

      u dont get to judge other ppls xtardianity – thats MY job. "Yea, verily, for God is not mopped."

      May 9, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • lol??

      Jesus is the only God that calls people dogs. They don't like it.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:44 pm |
    • ..

      Faith, then judge your other Christians and leave everyone else alone, you liar.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Cpt Obvious: your objections make it clear you are not hearing my critique.
      i'm not objecting to science. i love science. science is great.
      but you are conflating science with scientism – a faith.
      and ironically for you, as a result, your criticisms are self-refuting.

      it is not your science that i have a problem with – but the faith through which you read the science.
      your failure to see the difference is why you are confusedly arguing against all faiths – including your own.

      this will help...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k

      May 9, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Madtown: the Trinity is not a creation of the human mind. Just read John 14-16. Take Jesus' statements in light of Judaism's absolutely commitment to monotheism. What is he saying?

      May 9, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
    • Russ

      @ mama k: while science may explore & attempt to understand what can be known about the physical universe, it's a failure to understand the very definition of metaphysics to think that somehow leads into a "God of the gaps" scenario. for example, the argument is not based upon lack of physical knowledge, but the basis of existence itself (what undergirds the laws of physics themselves/why is there order/matter/etc.?).

      again, the only way that you presume those questions are merely material & physical in nature is if you *already assume* naturalism as your philosophical point of departure. but *THAT* decision is the entire debate. assuming nature is all there is – that is the metaphysical presupposition we are discussion. it's an UNFOUNDED, UNPROVABLE assertion. circular. and it's the basis for any such reading of the scientific data to preclude anything to the contrary.

      the real issue is not physics or physical nature, but the naturalism that underlies that particular interpretation of the scientific data (there is nothing beyond the physical, etc.).

      May 9, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      No, Russ. you're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

      I understand your persepctive whether it is flat-out wrong or whether you are twisting meanings and intentions, but you do not understand my perspective, and frankly you don't deserve to. At this point, i'm delighted that you so readily mistake your own interpretation of my words for what I actually said.

      Enjoy your continual game of twister.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Russ

      @ ME II: no, my argument was not that the Apostles' Creed is the singularly authoritative doc.ument in Christianity, but rather that it is evidence that from early on certain clear tenets (based upon Scripture) were the *shared, primary* convictions/beliefs of any & all Christians.

      it is not that the Apostles' Creed itself is the end all-be all. The Bible is God's Word. The Apostles' Creed simply functioned as a shorthand for early catechumens. The reason I appealed to the *later* Nicene Creed was to demonstrate that – in tandem with earlier clear Scriptural points – the Apostles' Creed fully intended to communicate what others were claiming it did not (i.e.., the Trinity, etc.).

      May 9, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Russ

      @ skytag: "catholic" (lower case C) does not mean "Roman Catholic" but simply universal.

      you clearly don't understand these terms. communion of saints means the fellowship of everyone made holy by what Christ did for us on the cross. seriously, just google the terms. the concepts are broader.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:18 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Russ, Do you have any evidence that the bible actually is your god's words? Why is your religious text any more valid than the texts of any other religion?

      May 9, 2013 at 1:20 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      There is exactly ZERO hard and verifiable evidence for the "supernatural."
      There is exactly ZERO hard and verifiable evidence for any "gods."
      There is exactly ZERO hard and verifiable evidence that any "worship" or "belief in gods" does anything that a comparable believe in some invisible force will not do to the current brain state.

      Christians like Russ pretend that it is logical to pursue and "study" these supposed "existences" even though there are ZERO reasons to think there might be cause for such pursuit and study. They act as if we unbelievers are not using due dilligence in that we do not pretend as they do and search for that which is, so far, completely invisible and irrelevant.

      Christards, if you want unbelievers to take you seriously, try answering the question of why we should concern ourselves with such invisible and undetectable things as you pretend are important. Your god is invisible, undetectable, and irrelevant.

      May 9, 2013 at 1:36 pm |
    • Larry

      Russ
      Science isn't something to worship, but it is something to have confidence in, because it has been proven to actually work. Science promotes gullibility? Only if you accept claims at face value, which is what religion usually does. Can people be duped by claims of a product being scientifically proven? Absolutely, but people can also be duped by claims of magic, or miracles. The rest of Lewis' critique of Darwin is outdated, to say the least. Only a real die-hard would use the old "take the human eye" argument when we have examples in nature of every stage in eye development up to, and beyond the eye. Should science be taken dogmatically? Of course not, but that goes for everything, including religion, correct?

      May 9, 2013 at 2:07 pm |
    • Larry

      Russ
      You could also subst.itute in the word "religion" for science in the last few sentences and still be bang on. Funny how Lewis didn't see any cause to be concerned over religion becoming the only way to understand the world. Maybe if he were living today...

      Well, he'd be an Anglican, and probably rejected by American Conservative Christians on that basis. I wonder what he would think about the political atmosphere here?

      May 9, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
    • Madtown

      Russ
      @ Madtown: the Trinity is not a creation of the human mind. Just read John 14-16
      -----
      Well, John 14-16 is a creation of the human mind! 🙂 The word "trinity" isn't in the bible. I don't believe the concept was fully developed until the 3rd/4th century. The fact that it was developed at all means it's a human concept.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:27 pm |
    • Paul

      Jesus was just a man, so anything he said or did is the invention of man as well.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Santa: there are many ways to approach your question, but the easiest & simplest is Jesus' resurrection. Everything else pales in comparison. Virtually all scholars of every stripe concede Jesus was a real historical figure. So the real question is: was he raised from the dead? if not, Christians are idiots. if so...

      again, NT Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God" is an excellent resource here.
      For God to enter time, live the life we couldn't, die the death we deserve, and conquer death... that speaks volumes. again, the whole question is summed up in Jesus. if He is who he claims he is, seeing how He reads Scripture makes it self-evident. If not, we're idiots.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Cpt Obvious: you continue to miss the point.

      1) you BEGIN by assuming the very things you are criticizing me for doing.
      naturalism ASSUMES the very sort of circular reasoning *at the outset* that you are mocking in religion in general.

      2) even now science has NO explanation for the origin of life. Stephen Hawking's book on the Grand Design was heavily criticized by scientists, atheist & theist alike. google it.

      your problem: we exist. we didn't make ourselves. what do we make of that? is science able to address that question – or at best can it only offer an infinite regress?
      NOTE WELL: the scientific community in general is much more humble about that question than you are being.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:49 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Larry: i was not saying science promotes gullibility. you misinterpreted what i was saying. i was dealing with the classic, overstated objection that *religion* does that.

      i see you are referencing the video... the 'irreducibly complex' argument still remains to be seen – but certainly the whole debate regarding mitochondria & the complexity of the cell itself (not even at the level of the eye, but cellular) has been central in that discussion.

      also worthy of note: Alvin Plantinga has pointed out that a purely naturalistic articulation of evolution is self-contradictory. if you are going to argue for evolution, naturalism's presuppositions are self-defeating.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

      May 9, 2013 at 2:54 pm |
    • Paul

      The fact that science can't yet explain how the universe began doesn't mean any god did it, and it certainly doesn't mean your god did it. It means that we don't know. It is the religious who claim to have answers when in reality they don't know what happened either.

      May 9, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Russ,
      There are several possibilities for the origin of life including hydrothermal. Inorganic material has been used to create organic material although that is not the way scientists believe it happened. Either way that doesn't prove that a god did it.

      May 9, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Russ

      @ madtown:
      1) when your presupposition is 'Christianity can't be real' or 'there is nothing supernatural', then it's merely a self-fulfilling prophecy. you've predetermined your conclusion. but that's bias, not facts.

      2) you "believe" it wasn't developed until later, despite CLEAR statements to the contrary... both IN Scripture itself (John 14-16, John 10:29-30, Acts 16:6-7, Php.2:6-10, Col.2:9; Mt.28:19; 2 Cor.13:14; Eph.4:4-7; Jude 20-21; etc.) AND in creeds PRIOR to Chalcedon & Nicaea. again, you are filtering out data directly contrary to your claims.

      May 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Larry: per your thoughts on religion...
      1) Religion (unlike scientism) is not claiming falsely to be something other than metaphysics.

      2) also, religion *is* susceptible to the same criticisms... and Lewis WAS adamantly warning about that in other places. so why did he become a Christian after being trained by & himself being one of the most skeptical atheists on the planet?

      “In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere — "Bibles laid open, millions of surprises," as Herbert says, "fine nets and stratagems." God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous.”
      -CS Lewis

      May 9, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Santa & Paul: you're not hearing the critique. you're both talking about mixing pre-existing materials, etc. but the primary question that science cannot answer (which Stephen Hawking tries desperately to answer & fails) is: how do you get material in the first place? how do you get something out of nothing? where did the something come from?

      here's one such secular publication panning Hawking's genius scientific mind failing basic philosophy...
      http://www.economist.com/node/16990802

      May 9, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      @Russ

      You're wrong yet again. Quite a pattern you've got going on, there. You're so wrong, so much of the time, you should get some help in finding out why you can't see things from another perspective than your own.

      Yep, we exist. That's obvious. Nope, I don't know why we exist or why there is something rather than nothing, though I do know that if there was nothing rather than something, nobody would wonder about it.

      Just because I don't know the answer to every single question doesn't mean that I'm using "circular reasoning." LOL!!! I'm merely being honest.

      As to the retarded answer that a big, invisible sky wizard did it with magic spells.....well, I'll leave that to morons and people like you. I'm fine with the mystery and honesty.

      Sorry about your being too stupid to understand anything other than what you've already decided must be true. See if you can get some help on that front.

      I don't have any problems admiting that we don't know many answers. In fact, I quite like that fact. Nope, we don't know how life originated; it's a mystery. Nope, we don't know if the universe "came from" some other existence or not; it's a mystery.

      May 9, 2013 at 3:07 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      russ, Irreducible complexity has been debunked many times – there are plenty of examples on the internet.

      May 9, 2013 at 3:11 pm |
    • Cpt. Obvious

      Where in the world do christards get the idea that jsut because we don't know every single possible thing imaginable with absolute certainty it must imply some invislbe and irrelevant sky wizard using magic spells????

      May 9, 2013 at 3:12 pm |
    • Paul

      Russ, you don't know any more about how the universe came to be than anyone else does. You should be honest and tell people you don't know instead of claiming god did it.

      May 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Obvious & Paul:

      1) the problem with your argument is the you do not have the 'humility' matching your supposed 'agnostic' position. you are not admitting you don't know, but *insisting* on the categories of other possibilities. that's the main problem with the classic "via negativa" argument. it's not merely saying "i don't know," but making a claim to omniscience that either we CAN'T know or at least – not by certain means. and to make such a claim *requires* knowing.

      2) do you not understand that naturalism is a philosophy & makes unfounded, metaphysical claims? i don't have a problem with science per se. i have a problem with naturalism – and *in particular* – conflating naturalism and science.

      May 9, 2013 at 3:59 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Paul: so what do you do with Alvin Plantinga's argument? he is not engaging the question of 'irreducible complexity' directly but rather the primary underlying contradiction between naturalism & evolution. The issue is not "can we find examples?" but rather "does this line of logic inherently debunk the presupposition of naturalism?"

      May 9, 2013 at 4:03 pm |
    • Science

      Go play with topher Russ ................you both are on this thread how funny .

      Thanks for the help !

      May 9, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Russ,

      "it's not merely saying "i don't know," but making a claim to omniscience that either we CAN'T know or at least – not by certain means. and to make such a claim *requires* knowing."

      You are comparing apples and oranges here. If I have a box with either a ball or a pumpkin in it and I say an observer across the room can't know what's in it I assume knowledge about the conditions of the room, box etc, but not about what is in the box. An agnostic does not generally make claims about all things...that would be a skeptic.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm |
    • Madtown

      Russ
      @ madtown:
      1) when your presupposition is 'Christianity can't be real' or 'there is nothing supernatural',
      ------–
      You're operating under presuppositions yourself. I've never said I believe there's "nothing supernatural". On the contrary, I believe there's a spiritual aspect to our existence, I believe in God, I just also know that religion is a creation of humanity, meant to try and explain things we have no explanation for. I'd be more open to believing "christianity is real" if it was available to all of humanity, which it is not. I don't think I'm special relative to any other human on earth, therefore I don't believe that the religion I was exposed to is the "correct" one. I believe all religions are equal in terms of their validity.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:12 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Russ

      What "categories" are Paul and the Captain insisting upon?

      Did you read Obvious's longer post above about not knowing the answers and being okay about that mystery and being honest about it? Do you seriously not see extreme humility in that perspective? Obvious is saying that he/she doesn't know, but that ignorance is not evidence of an "big, invisible sky wizard...using magic spellz (sic)."

      Which position is more arrogant?
      A: I don't know how life originated or why there is energy and matter because we don't have any evidence, or
      B: I know exactly how life originated and why there is energy and matter even though I have no proof whatsoever to believe as I do

      Are you serious? Really? How can you not see the extreme arrogance of your position versus the extreme humility of the atheist's? You can't be that stupid.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:20 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      @Russ
      After reading back through the thread it seems that you have a reading comprehension problem. Nobody ever said that the origin of the universe or life was unknowable. Several posts have merely pointed out that we don't know them currently, so it's stupid to act as if they are known.

      Certainly we might know what the origin of the universe and life are/is, but for a possible theory to be considered, it would have to be verifiable by some methodology or other. A bunch of people agreeing is not a valid methodology. A dead person isn't magically alive just because a bunch of people agree to believe she is alive. Verification is required.

      May 9, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Saraswati: you are making my point for me now.
      to preclude the possibility that Christianity is right while yet claiming to be an agnostic *necessarily* is self-contradictory.

      for your box analogy to work, one has to be *sure* such parameters preclude the possibility for something AS OF YET UNDEFINED ("no, i don't know how the universe could be made" BUT YET simultaneously claiming "no, it certainly COULDN'T be like that"). it's self-contradictory.

      furthermore, we're not just talking about physics, we're talking about metaphysical presuppositions. religion & theists readily admit having them. those who use science as a front for their underlying FAITH criticize the metaphysical while yet standing on their own metaphysical presuppositions. that's where your box analogy breaks down. it's not simply "under these given physical conditions..." but rather we are discussing the BASIS for those physical laws, etc. And the basis/supposed given will *necessarily* change how you read the data.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • Russ

      @ Madtown: if you believe in the spiritual (which is bigger than you, right?), on what basis do you also believe *you* can dictate terms to it/him/her? in other words, why do you preclude the possibility that God might choose to reveal him/her/itself through human means (entering history, in the person of Jesus, etc.)?

      May 9, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • Larry

      Russ
      Yet, people interpret religion to be something other than metaphysics, something actually based on physical reality.

      How do you know that he was one of the most skeptical atheists on the planet? He was raised religious and he became religious once again, with only a brief period in between when he claims that he was an atheist, yet I've never seen any of his arguments against God stemming from this period. His atheism sounds like a lot of hype to me, like Lee Strobel's.

      I read the Bible far more now than I use to as a believer. The more I read the more I'm convinced that I'm right about God. It's Christians, however, can't be too careful in their reading, and not just in science. Church history and scholarly work on the Bible has been the ruin of many faithful. Like hot dogs, once you learn how the Bible was created it's easy to lose your taste for it.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:34 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Russ, I think you misunderstand both the possition of most scientists and most agnostics of the type you describe. What we are always talking about is "given x conditions". All else, be it "belief" or "certainty" are just terms describing psychological states. Given the premises x, y and z I am quite certain that the chistian god doesn't exist (would conflict with my premises) but am not certain about other gods. To get the Christian god in you remove premise y and add p, q, r, s, and m. I would argue that the premises that must be dropped for people to accept the Christian god are premises they don't really want to drop and so work with an unballanced set of beliefs. I don't care that much on a theoretical level as I thin we can have a happy, fruitful society with some versions of the Christian god. But it's not self-contradicting you are just assuming people hold premises they do not.

      May 9, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
    • Chad

      Russ, I understand you deeply.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:29 pm |
  6. Science

    For all creationists and ID believers...............IT only takes minutes to figure IT out. No fairy in the sky needed !

    New Device Can Extract Human DNA With Full Genetic Data in Minutes

    May 6, 2013 — Take a swab of saliva from your mouth and within minutes your DNA could be ready for analysis and genome sequencing with the help of a new device.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506132100.htm

    And NO ANGELS then old pope KICKED them in OFF the TEAM last year !

    From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

    Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions

    By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN

    updated 10:56 AM EST, Fri November 23, 2012

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html?iref=allsearch

    May 8, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Report abuse | Reply

    Science

    And a tag along......from previous thread Bill ?

    Did you forget this one Bill................... about the angels ?

    And NO ANGELS then old pope KICKED them in OFF the TEAM last year !

    From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

    Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions

    By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN

    updated 10:56 AM EST, Fri November 23, 2012

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html?iref=allsearch

    May 8, 2013 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |

    Science

    All these years Bill and there are suppose to be angels.......................then poof go the angels according to the old pope;.......

    where are the morals there Bill ?

    May 8, 2013 at 5:38 pm | Report abuse |

    Science

    Or is that to simple for you Bill ?

    May 9, 2013 at 9:10 am |
  7. Eed

    I see CNN is losing people fast. No one to update these pages because they are too busy fapping over Arias pics.
    That is why having your own private office is so important to everyone. One-handed management style. Works great.

    May 9, 2013 at 9:08 am |
  8. Anna

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY9qx5OuKGY
    ,,

    May 9, 2013 at 9:01 am |
    • Science

      Nope............. not me lol??.............go get a Q tip !

      May 9, 2013 at 9:13 am |
  9. Jezeus

    From my perspective I see a symbol ( t ) and it means totally different things to totally different people. For some the idea of a cross is a reminder of cruelty, for others a reminder of family, and still others something different.

    What is important about that is the knowledge that our symbols are not translating well between people.

    As humans we all want to survive, we all want to be happy, we all want to be happy respected and liked. No one wants to be judged.

    So what do we do with that?

    May 9, 2013 at 8:48 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I'm sure Austin meant to say "According to my cult's beliefs, for which we have no factual basis, . . ."

      May 9, 2013 at 8:56 am |
    • Jezeus

      Yes Austin there are many people who choose not to be a part of your belief system. Are you willing to allow them that choice?

      May 9, 2013 at 8:57 am |
    • raiden

      Sin is fluid Austin, sin is whatever a holy man says it is....one minute it's wrong to kill, the next minute God wants you to destroy His enemies. And sometimes, for a cash payment, you can have all your sins vanish.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:01 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Bark, bark, bark. Howl! HOWL!!!!

      May 9, 2013 at 9:07 am |
    • raiden

      @ Austin

      Great! will he be signing copies of his book then? Where can I catch him? I sure hope he comes to my town!

      May 9, 2013 at 9:10 am |
    • Taarg

      Your Jesus was a criminal. A filthy criminal. He hated the Temple priests. He wanted to be in charge and get free food too.
      It worked until they caught him. He had been on the run for years. His own brother turned him in for the money.
      His own brother knew he was just a liar. Jesus deserved to die. He died for his own crimes. Fact.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:12 am |
  10. #moi

    I believe in love
    I believe in faith
    I believe in hope
    I believe in God

    I believe I am saved
    By his precious atonement on the cross
    I believe you can be saved
    If you believe in him

    I believe he loves us all
    Red, blue, green ,yellow,purple, straight and gay
    I believe you can be saved
    if you believe in him

    I believe in short term goals
    I believe in long term goals
    I believe there is life eternal
    I believe you can be saved
    If you believe in him

    I believe we are not perfect
    I believe we're all sinners
    I believe you can be saved
    If you repent and believe in him

    I believe you can hate
    I believe I can overcome hatred with God's love
    I believe you can be saved
    If you believe in him

    Christ is the messiah
    Who revealed himself to man
    I believe you can be saved
    If you believe in him 🙂 🙂 🙂

    May 9, 2013 at 8:27 am |
    • Whoop

      All you believe is wrong. You are insane. There is a cure. It is called 'disillusionment'. Get some ASAP. You sound like an idiot.

      May 9, 2013 at 8:30 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I believe you are mentally ill.

      May 9, 2013 at 8:31 am |
    • @chad

      I believe you are out of touch with reality

      May 9, 2013 at 8:33 am |
    • WASP

      @ACE: i second your opinion. XD

      May 9, 2013 at 8:35 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I bet there is an equally beautiful and equally (un)true poem that could be extracted from any number of fictional books such as the Harry Potter series.

      May 9, 2013 at 8:49 am |
    • Blue diamonds

      👍 👍

      May 9, 2013 at 8:58 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Again Austin, in your opinion. Unless you have factual, verifiable, objective and independent evidence, you are just barking at the moon.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:02 am |
    • derp

      "and i know this because a supernatural God reavealed His presence in a supernatural way"

      And I hang out with bigfoot and drink beer and play poker on weekends.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:19 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      austin
      Telling yourself it is 100% fact is part of your problem...Have you sought out professional help yet? Seriously.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:21 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      derp
      Watchout for bigfoot...he cheats...don't believe me...Just ask Nessy

      May 9, 2013 at 9:23 am |
    • Austin

      which "professional" is wiser and more capable than God. God allready established reality in my life. No professional can do anything to suppress God.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:33 am |
    • Truth Prevails :-)

      Once again Austin your personal experiences are not proof that the christian god exists. Your experiences pertain only to your life, not that of anyone else.

      May 9, 2013 at 9:52 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      "In western lands beneath the Sun
      The flowers may rise in Spring,
      The trees may bud, the waters run,
      The merry finches sing.
      Or there maybe 'tis cloudless night,
      And swaying branches bear
      The Elven-stars as jewels white
      Amid their branching hair.

      Though here at journey's end I lie
      In darkness buried deep,
      Beyond all towers strong and high,
      Beyond all mountains steep,
      Above all shadows rides the Sun
      And Stars for ever dwell:
      I will not say the Day is done,
      Nor bid the Stars farewell."
      JRR Tolkien

      May 9, 2013 at 10:10 am |
    • Larry

      Austin
      That would be the "God" that you imagine is wiser and more capable than any "professional". Without proof of his actual existence he's just as "real" as any created character given these features. People certainly have created some very fantastic characters out of their imagination, and in many ways God, with his omni-everything, is a very simple character to imagine into being. Can you blame people for treating God as imaginary then?

      May 9, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • fintastic

      @Austin.......... "which "professional" is wiser and more capable than God."

      That's an easy one to answer.....any 'professional" since there is no such thing as "god"........ sorry to disappoint you but that's reality.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • Frank Zappa

      "Why does it hurt when I pee?
      I don't want no doctor
      To stick no needle in me
      Why does it hurt when I pee?
      I got it from the toilet seat
      I got it from the toilet seat
      It jumped right up
      N grabbed my meat
      Got it from the toilet seat"

      May 9, 2013 at 10:35 am |
    • skytag

      Some people believe in ghosts, others believe they've been abducted by aliens. Some people believed David Koresh was a prophet of God. All you're doing when you talk like this is reinforcing your brainwashing. We both know you have no evidence to support anything you said.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:45 am |
    • skytag

      Austin, what actual evidence do you have that God exists? I would contend that you have simply decided to believe a comforting narrative because you like that narrative better than the alternatives.

      May 9, 2013 at 11:48 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      "There's a hole in Daddy's arm where all the money goes;
      Jesus Christ died for nothin,' I suppose." -John Prine

      May 9, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
  11. Science

    For all creationists and ID believers...............IT only takes minutes to figure IT out. No fairy in the sky needed !

    New Device Can Extract Human DNA With Full Genetic Data in Minutes

    May 6, 2013 — Take a swab of saliva from your mouth and within minutes your DNA could be ready for analysis and genome sequencing with the help of a new device.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130506132100.htm

    May 9, 2013 at 8:17 am |
  12. Whoop

    PAGE 100 BYOTCHES!!!!

    BOOYAAAAA!

    May 9, 2013 at 8:10 am |
  13. Dyslexic doG

    The Christian religion is nothing more than a pagan religion that caught on. It has its roots in other, older pagan religions that were common in the Mediterranean region before the supposed life of Jesus. There isn't a single original thing about it. Every tenant, and every story is borrowed from other religions. From the Garden of Eden, to the Great Flood, to the virgin birth, to the miracles, to the resurrection – all borrowed concepts from other religions.

    Mark wrote the first gospel several decades after the supposed life of Jesus – yet he is able to quote him, word for word? How is that? He never met him. And the other three gospels were copied from Mark. Whether Jesus was divine, or just a prophet, was an item of debate amongst early followers, and wasn't decided for good until the council of Nicea in the fourth century. It was put to a vote, and "divine" won by a narrow margin! A vote!

    Christianity is no different than astrology, fairy tales, and psychics. It's nothing but a conglomeration of myths, perpetuated by those craving money and power.

    May 9, 2013 at 6:54 am |
    • Vic

      [
      One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of the Son in his relationship to the Father; in particular, whether the Son had been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being, or created as the other creatures out of nothing.[13] St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to Illyria).[14] The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign, but this is highly debated by both sides.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
      ]

      May 9, 2013 at 9:27 am |
    • ME II

      The Biblical canon was the result of debate and research, reaching its final term for Catholics at the dogmatic definition of the Council of Trent in the 16th Century, when the Old Testament Canon was finalized in the Catholic Church as well.[3]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

      May 9, 2013 at 10:20 am |
    • HotAirAce

      But, but, but! The Babble is supposed to be the inerrant word of some god! How can mere men decide what it should say?

      May 9, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      "Christianity is no different than astrology, fairy tales, and psychics. It's nothing but a conglomeration of myths, perpetuated by those craving money and power."
      But it's inherently different from every previous religion in that it taught that ALL men were worthy, that not just your tribe or temple was valued by God, but you yourself had value. If you'd been raised in a different tradition, you wouldn't feel outraged by the failure of Christianity to be true to its own ideals. But America is great at least partly because of our religious tolerance, and if you sincerely believe that a church should rule this country, please leave.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:33 am |
    • Richard Cranium

      Vic
      "claims to have taken"
      "is said to have taken"
      "claimed to have"
      "Is highly debated by both sides."

      Excellent example of a non- argument. Solid stuff there...solid stuff.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:38 am |
  14. Dyslexic doG

    Christians need to know about Horus from 3000 BC (Jesus is a copy of Horus), or Attis from 1500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Attis), or Mithra from 1200BC (Jesus is a copy of Mithra), or Krishna from 900BC (Jesus is a copy of Krishna), or Dionysus from 500 BC (Jesus is a copy of Dionysus) .... or any of the DOZENS of other gods predating the bronze age book character Jesus who were born of a virgin on Dec 25, traveled as a teacher, had 12 disciples, performed miracles, was killed and lay dead for 3 days and was resurrected.

    Christianity is not even original! What a joke!

    May 9, 2013 at 6:53 am |
    • Jezeus

      The real question is why do these archetypes keep repeating.? (Jezeus aka Krishna aka Osiris aka Horus)

      "It all depends on how we look at things, and not how they are in themselves"
      -Carl Jung
      "If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool."
      -Carl Jung

      May 9, 2013 at 8:18 am |
    • raiden

      They keep popping up because humans are unoriginal.....they borrow heavily off one another....Sometimes we get improvements on an idea....sometimes we get mired further in a bad idea – "well if so many believe, there must be something to it"

      May 9, 2013 at 8:46 am |
    • Jezeus

      "The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong."
      Carl Jung

      "Man's task is to become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious".
      Carl Jung

      May 9, 2013 at 8:51 am |
    • Bible Clown©

      We kind of moved in on the Mithrans; they were Christianity's great ally for a long time. They worshiped the Son of God, born Dec 25, and pledged to join his army of light to defend heaven against the Dark One's army instead of going to heaven with their wives and families. Mithrans were soldiers and tough guys, and they decided early on that Jesus was Mithras' brother, here to save the rest of the world. Many Mithrans' wives were Christians, and Mithrans were protective of their wives, and so Christianity had a bodyguard while it grew up. But Mithras just wanted strongmen, and Christ wanted everyone, and soon Mithras was forgotten.

      May 9, 2013 at 10:40 am |
    • Science

      How did feathers evolve? – Carl Zimmer

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLgfGX1I5Y&feature=player_embedded

      May 15, 2013 at 8:31 pm |
  15. saggyroy

    I think it would be interesting to hook a Christian up to a lie detector, and ask them questions about the bible and god.

    May 9, 2013 at 6:01 am |
    • Dyslexic doG

      I'm sure a large number of Christians only believe to fit in. To stay part of the Christian club. Their common sense tells them it's all foolishness but they don't want to rock the boat.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:51 am |
    • Al

      Maybe they get a shock if they lie. Do you believe every word in the Bible? Yes. Bzzzzztt.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:51 am |
    • @chad

      It'd be even more interesting to priests/pastors/reverends up

      May 9, 2013 at 7:30 am |
  16. Anna

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY9qx5OuKGY
    ..

    May 9, 2013 at 5:36 am |
  17. Anna

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY9qx5OuKGY
    ,

    May 9, 2013 at 5:36 am |
  18. Anna

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY9qx5OuKGY
    .

    May 9, 2013 at 5:35 am |
  19. Several points.

    1.) God is a state of mind

    2.) The bible is not a science book it is a book of parables that is not meant to be taken litterally.

    3.) Hate, no matter what is not even close to okay in any universe.

    4.) You people are all (right and left alike) absolutely out of your minds and not thinking clearly in the slightest.

    May 9, 2013 at 5:26 am |
    • Bite the wax tadpole

      Fuck off and die, you pathetic parasite. No one needs your stunted opinions here.

      May 9, 2013 at 6:49 am |
    • Whoop

      'Several points." – easily refuted.
      1. No gods exist. A state of mind is just an illusion.
      2. The bible is worthless old tribal shamanism. There is no reason to read it as it is all nonsense.
      3. Hating hate is hateful, you hating hate hater. You are just overflowing with it.
      4. You speak of thinks you know nothing about. You are fail.
      There it is!

      May 9, 2013 at 8:26 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      But many do take their religious texts literally even when the fundamentals are disproven and much of it cannot be proven but defies logic and reason.

      May 9, 2013 at 12:41 pm |
  20. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    "Bryan Litfin, a theology professor at Moody Bible Institute in Illinois, says Christians should be able to publicly say that God designed sex to take place within a marriage between a man and a woman."

    Of course anyone can say that, even publicly, and with First Amendment protection. Derision is protected speech too. That should be the expected response.

    May 9, 2013 at 3:42 am |
    • Science

      And the bible so screwed up.................that Adam had to poke himself hard with his own bone to create Eve.

      May 9, 2013 at 3:52 am |
    • lol??

      Kill any litters lately, dogs?? wuf wuf

      May 9, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Except what these nuts mean by "say publicly" is "have a defined time at taxpayer expense to spread my supersti.tion to kids in public schools" and "Be allowed to say any ignorant or evil thing I want without anyone pointing out its flaws of moral issues."

      May 9, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Science

      NO ANGELS the old pope KICKED them in OFF the TEAM last year !

      From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

      Pope's book on Jesus challenges Christmas traditions

      By Laura Smith-Spark, CNN

      updated 10:56 AM EST, Fri November 23, 2012

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/22/world/europe/vatican-pope-jesus-book/index.html?iref=allsearch

      All these years there are suppose to be angels.......................then poof go the angels according to the old pope;.......

      where are the morals there ?

      May 9, 2013 at 1:21 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
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.