tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post2952273158196519466..comments2023-12-28T04:24:34.561-05:00Comments on Why I Hate Jesus: Too GoodMR. Xhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12384772889207036678noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-50439913010455735632009-10-09T15:00:49.626-04:002009-10-09T15:00:49.626-04:00Very astute, Tyler. You're right. Maybe we n...Very astute, Tyler. You're right. Maybe we need a different word for when it's justifiable. Never really thought about that before.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-73743266385483704822009-10-09T12:08:57.538-04:002009-10-09T12:08:57.538-04:00Leo: No, it's like saying a smoker can sue for...Leo: No, it's like saying a smoker can sue for discrimination because of a higher insurance rate.<br /><br />It's still discrimination, whether or not it's justifiable.Tylernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-18560137475873232742009-10-09T08:44:30.083-04:002009-10-09T08:44:30.083-04:00Imperial Iranian Air Force?Imperial Iranian Air Force?GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-69515818234789001052009-10-08T17:58:16.777-04:002009-10-08T17:58:16.777-04:00Only if you'll start with IIAFOnly if you'll start with IIAFLeonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-28678768764933996122009-10-08T15:26:02.822-04:002009-10-08T15:26:02.822-04:00Leo,
If you could preface your opinions with "...Leo,<br />If you could preface your opinions with "IANAL" we'd appreciate it.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-7193780366271577732009-10-08T14:50:08.444-04:002009-10-08T14:50:08.444-04:00No, it's like saying a smoker can sue for disc...No, it's like saying a smoker can sue for discrimination because of a higher insurance rate.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-9687328768775970522009-10-08T14:00:37.359-04:002009-10-08T14:00:37.359-04:00So, not qualifying for a discount means it wasn...So, not qualifying for a discount means it wasn't discrimination.<br /><br />That's like saying it's not assault if someone only cuts your finger off instead of your whole arm.<br /><br />You're a funny guy, Leo.Tylernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-7487909497040879762009-10-08T12:39:52.083-04:002009-10-08T12:39:52.083-04:00It isn't like those folks weren't offered ...It isn't like those folks weren't offered service at all. It was a DISCOUNT they were refused. That judge oughta have his head examined. It's the old "If you didn't bring enough for the whole class...." scenario. I'd be on board if they were refused equal service or something, but simply not qualifying for a discount? Gimme a break.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-52897018346778849002009-10-08T07:59:57.581-04:002009-10-08T07:59:57.581-04:00Thank you Sir Douglas. It's important to know...Thank you Sir Douglas. It's important to know about these types of things.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-87708570854055937152009-10-07T18:37:39.101-04:002009-10-07T18:37:39.101-04:00Earlier in this discussion there was some issue wi...Earlier in this discussion there was some issue with the fact of atheist being discriminated against. In most part it is simple to live as an atheist [or to hold any other belief] as long as you are not asked whether or not you go to church, believe in god and so on... but GCT made a point about running for office and other high profile jobs that may require you to disclose this information. I wanted to add a link to show atheist discrimination in action to better prove the point that it does exist and not only for people running for office. <br /><br /><a href="http://atheists.org/blog/2009/10/07/atheists-win-discrimination-lawsuit" rel="nofollow">\Atheist Discrimination Lawsuit</a><br /><br />I know that the point of this discussion has varied and shifted focus several times so I am simply trying to give some perspective on one aspect of subject matter that had been broached.Sir Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02097370841417667025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-37754302306422429542009-10-07T08:18:17.892-04:002009-10-07T08:18:17.892-04:00Leo,
"We're not discussing modern folks, ...Leo,<br />"We're not discussing modern folks, because there's someone with every possible opinion out there today. You were claiming that a large number of people thought this when the document was written, and I simply asked for evidence."<br /><br />Yes, and this "modern folk" provides the names that you asked for (i.e. the evidence that you asked for). I'm guessing that you didn't even bother looking at it. I sort of figured that you'd like it too, since it's a modern day person who is a Xian (you would probably say not a True Xian though) who also sees the Constitution as a godless document and is upset by it (probably a dominionist).GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-55401405420117952952009-10-06T16:26:42.590-04:002009-10-06T16:26:42.590-04:00We're not discussing modern folks, because the...We're not discussing modern folks, because there's someone with every possible opinion out there today. You were claiming that a large number of people thought this when the document was written, and I simply asked for evidence.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-26036422607967392132009-10-06T07:47:02.062-04:002009-10-06T07:47:02.062-04:00Leo,
You want names?
I think you'll like that...Leo,<br /><a href="http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.php" rel="nofollow">You want names?</a><br /><br />I think you'll like that page. It's a modern person arguing that the Constitution is anti-god. It should be right up your alley.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-84931711843652476322009-10-05T23:08:52.215-04:002009-10-05T23:08:52.215-04:00"Start about halfway down page 42"
Ah, ..."Start about halfway down page 42"<br /><br />Ah, I love references to "a writer" "a delegate" and other such specific citings. Did your own skeptical mind not throw up a red flag when there is not a single name mentioned in that claim?Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-78392077325831571072009-10-05T16:50:02.620-04:002009-10-05T16:50:02.620-04:00Leo "...but 'In Got We Trust' doesn&#...<b>Leo</b> <i>"...but 'In Got We Trust' doesn't apply in the same way?"</i><br />I'm sure that the Founding Fathers were quite worried about not being able to rally the troops to defend the country from the insidious threat of International Communism®.<br />The earlier motto was better anyway, and less divisive.<br /><br /><i>"Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all."</i><br />And on a side note, the Second Amendment makes gun ownership mandatory.Modusoperandihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04213914791604385761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-88616973493994313032009-10-05T11:52:08.501-04:002009-10-05T11:52:08.501-04:00Leo,
"TJ was one of the few non-Christian fou...Leo,<br />"TJ was one of the few non-Christian founding fathers..."<br /><br />Along with Madison, Franklin, Washington, Paine, etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />"However, he wasn't able to keep it this way because the rest of our founding fathers wouldn't allow it."<br /><br />Actually, it was more like they were afraid that the common people wouldn't accept it (they would be seen as elitists that didn't speak for the common person). Oh, the parallels with today!<br /><br />"So, "the day of our Lord" was ok because it was the convention of the time, but "In Got We Trust" doesn't apply in the same way?"<br /><br />Actually, it's not OK, but it doesn't support what you contend that it does. And, no "In Got (sic) We Trust" is not even close to being the same thing, and no, it's not all right.<br /><br />"I've heard the claim that the Constitution was "derided as an atheist document" many times. I haven't seen any actual quotes from the founding fathers saying this. Citation please."<br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=pClbgUWwrI0C&lpg=PA43&ots=Re4tteJM5-&dq=lenny%20flank%20constitution&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q=&f=false" rel="nofollow">Start about halfway down page 42</a><br /><br />Oh, and there's also the Treaty of Tripoli which specifically states that the US is 'in no way a Xian nation.'<br /><br />"By some definition of Christian maybe."<br /><br />I'm sure he's not Scottish either, right? Oh wait, you probably think he's not American.<br /><br />"However, I think it'd be easy to argue that his "church" was very anti-Christian in it's stance on our nation."<br /><br />How so?<br /><br />"Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all."<br /><br />Rubbish. Without freedom to worship or not as one pleases, then we don't actually have true freedom. This thought didn't come from Xianity, but from the Enlightenment philosophy that the founding fathers were, thankfully, very well versed in and enamored of.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-67586467592481863542009-10-05T11:12:40.227-04:002009-10-05T11:12:40.227-04:00TJ was one of the few non-Christian founding fathe...TJ was one of the few non-Christian founding fathers, so it's no surprise it wasn't in his first draft. However, he wasn't able to keep it this way because the rest of our founding fathers wouldn't allow it. <br /><br />So, "the day of our Lord" was ok because it was the convention of the time, but "In Got We Trust" doesn't apply in the same way?<br /><br /><br />I've heard the claim that the Constitution was "derided as an atheist document" many times. I haven't seen any actual quotes from the founding fathers saying this. Citation please.<br /><br />"Obama, who just so happens to be a Xian"<br /><br />By some definition of Christian maybe. However, I think it'd be easy to argue that his "church" was very anti-Christian in it's stance on our nation. I'm not surprised you voted for him.<br /><br />The only statements that make one "free from religion" as you put it are actually statements making one free from any state-appointed denomination. It's a safe bet that had it not been for the actions of Constantine, these statements would never have appeared. Unfortunately, they were needed, although the founding fathers had no idea how much the atheist agenda would twist them in order to claim they release one from acknowledging their creator at all.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-7319365371957352752009-10-05T07:18:59.413-04:002009-10-05T07:18:59.413-04:00Leo,
"So would you vote for a professed Musli...Leo,<br />"So would you vote for a professed Muslim to run our country? A Communist? A Pastor? If the answer to any of these is no then you are the pot calling the kettle black."<br /><br />I would if they were able to run the country, would run it in a secular way as is required by the Constitution, and I agreed with their policies. It has nothing to do with their beliefs. I voted for Obama, who just so happens to be a Xian, in case you didn't notice.<br /><br />"Interesting you didn't bring up the Declaration of Independence. Why is that?"<br /><br />Because, as Modus said, it's not a founding document of the US. It has no legal case here. Further, the founders added clauses to god in order to further the propaganda. It seems that TJ never even mentioned god in the first draft.<br /><br />"This is a nation founded by Christian men. Yes, there were some that were merely "deists" but the VAST majority were devout Christians."<br /><br />The vast majority of people in the nation were Xians, yes, just as they are the majority today, but so what? That has no bearing on what actually happened and how the laws of this secular nation are set up. Yes, some Xians tried to push for a Xian nation, but they ultimately lost the debate to the deists who argued for a secular nation. It is what prompted Xians at the time to deride the Constitution as an atheist document.<br /><br />Matt,<br />"Just for the record, even in the Constitution, the signature section is labeled with "...day of our Lord..." They acknowledged that even the day belonged to God."<br /><br />Which happens to be the ONLY reference to any sort of god and was the convention of the time in Xian communities for labelling the date. Big deal. It also plainly states that no religious test shall be required of anyone in a public capacity and enshrines our right to be free from religion in the very first amendment in the bill of rights. I'm still not seeing how Xianity is the basis of our nation. And, I'm wondering why the Xians of the time didn't seem to think so when they derided the Constitution as an atheist document.GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-60863993821875844892009-10-05T00:14:55.038-04:002009-10-05T00:14:55.038-04:00Leo: The Declaration isn't the legal foundatio...Leo: The Declaration isn't the legal foundation of the US. It was a propaganda document.<br /><br />Matt: It gets worse. They used <i>Arabic</i> numbers. Clearly, they were all secret Muslims.Modusoperandihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04213914791604385761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-89915116762376160802009-10-04T22:59:55.467-04:002009-10-04T22:59:55.467-04:00Just for the record, even in the Constitution, the...Just for the record, even in the Constitution, the signature section is labeled with "...day of our Lord..." They acknowledged that even the day belonged to God.Mattnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-13311382487214109162009-10-04T22:09:15.088-04:002009-10-04T22:09:15.088-04:00"Um, no, that's the very definition of di..."Um, no, that's the very definition of discrimination:"<br /><br />So would you vote for a professed Muslim to run our country? A Communist? A Pastor? If the answer to any of these is no then you are the pot calling the kettle black.<br /><br />"Show me where in the Constitution it says that. When you can't will you admit that you are wrong here?"<br /><br />Interesting you didn't bring up the Declaration of Independence. Why is that? It's because it does mention God and his gift of freedom. This is a nation founded by Christian men. Yes, there were some that were merely "deists" but the VAST majority were devout Christians.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-4022535491797967802009-10-04T17:35:55.623-04:002009-10-04T17:35:55.623-04:00BJ,
"you confuse "civil rights" wit...BJ,<br />"you confuse "civil rights" with "civil luxuries." i do hope that you stop using this because getting your people in office is not something intrinsically something that EVERYONE can get - therefore it is not a right."<br /><br />The ability to run on a level playing surface is a right actually. Do you really think that discrimination is OK? Do you hate all minorities or just those that don't agree with your religious beliefs?<br /><br />"secondarily - you also need to choose one or the other, either a righteous blog to gain rights for your beliefs or a simple blog that points out the so-called stupidity of another group - that is, because the two harm each other."<br /><br />I don't agree at all. I can point out why Xianity doesn't make sense while also asking others to use reason, logic, and rationality, and still have room to ask others not to be discriminatory and to strive for true equality. It's not an either/or proposition. (Stop concern trolling.)<br /><br />"you never saw MLK proclaiming on the corner that "white people are dumb, yall, look how they don't agree with us!" actually, if he did anything of the sort it would hurt his cause. so, how did the civil rights movement see it's goal? legal recourse and dang simple hard work and patience."<br /><br />I'm not saying Xians are stupid. I'm saying that Xianity is inconsistent and doesn't make logical sense and that it is an irrational belief system. Some Xians are stupid just as some atheists are. Some Xians are also brilliant as some atheists are. If you can't see the difference between criticizing beliefs vs. criticizing people, then I suggest you learn instead of taking everything as an insult.<br /><br />Secondly, it depends on what you mean by "patience." If those who worked for civil rights had been too patient, they would have sat back and not done anything, just as some people counseled. In fact, their actions were seen as rebellious and radical, and not patient at all. Further, let's not forget that freethinkers have always been on the forefront to help others gain their civil rights, while Xians for the most part have been dragged kicking and screaming into equality.<br /><br />"so when you consistently through out demoralizing "facts" that you perceive then it subverts your goals."<br /><br />I'm sorry that it's demoralizing to you that reality has a decidedly non-Xian bias, but I would question why you think your beliefs trump reality.<br /><br />"it's a simple case of 'wanting your cake and eating it too'... whatever the heck that means..."<br /><br />The saying means that you can't literally have a piece of cake in front of you if you've eaten it. I had wondered about that same saying for a long time, so a while ago I looked it up.<br /><br />"also, i apologize to you if i came off as angry - i really am not. i have been a little too unemotional actually and that is why my words have been so blunt."<br /><br />Thank you. Perhaps you can see things from my side as well, now. Bluntness is not the same as anger, as you may realize now. Don't assume that the atheist must be angry, even if the atheist is rather blunt.<br /><br />It is not the bluntness that made me think you were angry, but the accusations. Accusatory tones have that effect. I accept your declaration that you aren't angry and I say, "Let's move on."GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-27498872346917516652009-10-04T17:26:00.472-04:002009-10-04T17:26:00.472-04:00Leo,
"Aside from that, I know you think a wor...Leo,<br />"Aside from that, I know you think a world based completely on human logic and rationality would be perfect, but I doubt you'd really like it if you lived there."<br /><br />I should add that this is a straw man. No one is advocating a world purely bound by logic/reason a la some sort of Vulcan society from Star Trek. What I (and others) are advocating for is the use of logic and reason to inform our decisions in matters of philosophy and public policy to name just a few.<br /><br />"No, that is a choice."<br /><br />Um, no, that's the very definition of discrimination:<br /><br />"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"<br /><br />"The fact that she is an atheist tells me that she doesn't have this country's original goals as her personal goals, and therefore she is unqualified for the job."<br /><br />What you mean to say is that she doesn't share your moral code, so therefore you won't vote for her because you want to force your moral code on others. That, and you seem to be very confused about the history of this country and how/why it was founded.<br /><br />"Not ignoring it. It's a non-issue."<br /><br />It's a non-issue when your faith is foisted on others in contradiction to the first amendment? I'm sure you wouldn't be so blase about it if our currency had some homage to Allah.<br /><br />"Our country was founded with faith in God and in recognition that it is only by Him we have the right to our freedoms."<br /><br />Oh really? Show me where in the Constitution it says that. When you can't will you admit that you are wrong here? (I'm betting on no - that no amount of evidence, common sense, or anything else will sway you from your beliefs, which is what I was talking about above. It would be better if people could realize that their beliefs don't shape reality and act in accordance with reality instead of simply grabbing onto specific beliefs and asking the world to change to fit them.)GCThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09744295225958022872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-38308920977270000012009-10-04T14:32:19.483-04:002009-10-04T14:32:19.483-04:00GCT said, "Actually, it is discrimination whe...GCT said, "Actually, it is discrimination when people won't vote for an atheist simply because she is an atheist."<br /><br />No, that is a choice. The fact that she is an atheist tells me that she doesn't have this country's original goals as her personal goals, and therefore she is unqualified for the job.Same as if a Communist ran for president. I wouldn't vote for them because they were a communist. That's not discrimination against communists. It's choosing what I think it best, and America is based on everyone's right to do so. If atheists weren't allowed to vote, then you'd have a legitimate beef.<br /><br />GCT also said, "It is not enshrined in law, however, which is why I point out the other aspects, like your god on our currency, etc, which you so conveniently (for you) ignore."<br /><br />Not ignoring it. It's a non-issue. Our country was founded with faith in God and in recognition that it is only by Him we have the right to our freedoms. Not to acknowledge Him would be the crime.Leonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5246253500962288290.post-55460871409999533742009-10-04T13:05:38.148-04:002009-10-04T13:05:38.148-04:00Leo: It's amusing how you are so accepting of,...Leo: It's amusing how you are so accepting of, "Well, my child got screwed by rationality." <br /><br />It's not like I'd have any choice in the matter, and the fact that you would find such a situation amusing just goes to show how much of a contemptible prick you really are.<br /><br /><br />Leo: If this situation were real, you would not be so accepting.<br /><br />Again, no choice in the matter. On the same token, one wonders why you are so accepting of an allegedly all powerful, all loving god who would screw you and your child in such a way.Tylernoreply@blogger.com