Creepy O-cult video of the day: “Deliver us, Obama!” Updated
I didn’t think you could top those schoolchildren substituting Obama for Jesus in their public school praise hymn.
Now, thanks to Naked Emperor News and Breitbart TV, we have video of community organizers led by the “Gamaliel Foundation” praying to The One as they lobby for “social justice” and health care for all.
“HEAR OUR CRY, OBAMA!”
“DELIVER US, OBAMA!”
And no, this is not an Onion parody:
Update: Ed Morrissey asks if it’s just bad acoustics. Are they saying “Obama” or “Oh, God?”
Here’s a little background about the Gamaliel Foundation from its history statement:
History of the Movement: This type of community organizing began in Chicago in 1938. Saul Alinsky created the “Back of the Yards Community Council”. The organization operated in the shadow of Chicago’s stock yards. The community was beset with poverty, political corruption, gangs, disease, deteriorating housing and inadequate schools; but most of all it was beset with a sense of powerlessness. The organization successfully engaged people to change the conditions of the community. Its motto was, “We shall decide our own destiny.” And to a large extent and for some time, they did just that. Many organizations were created utilizing the model of the Back of the Yards Council. Unfortunately most of those organizations have dissolved, become stagnant, parochial and marginalized; have evolved into social service, advocacy, or economic development corporations; or have become the fiefdoms of political hacks. The original mission of empowerment and expansion of democracy has, all too frequently, been lost. To insure the promise of community organizing, the Gamaliel Foundation was born.
History of the Gamaliel Foundation: The Gamaliel Foundation was originally established in 1968 to support the Contract Buyers League, an African American organization fighting to protect homeowners on Chicago’s Westside who had been discriminated against by banks and saving and loan institutions. In l986, the Foundation was reorganized as an organizing institute providing resources to community leaders in the efforts to build and maintain powerful organizations in low income communities. The Gamaliel Foundation has grown from three to more than forty-five affiliates in seventeen states and in three provinces of South Africa.
And here’s the background on the Gamaliel/Obama connection from the foundation’s Gregory A. Galluzzo:
President elect Barack Obama has throughout his political career made repeated references to his time as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago. It is important that we all understand the connection between Barack and Gamaliel. In l980 Mary Gonzales and I created the United Neighborhood Organization of Chicago.
In l982 we decided that we needed some expertise from someone who had done faith based community organizing. A person who had worked as such an organizer in Illinois and in Pennsylvania approached me about joining our organizing team. His name was Jerry Kellman. Jerry helped Mary and myself become better organizers. While he was working for us, he connected with a group called the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) operating on the South Side in the South Suburbs of Chicago, and in Indiana. CCRC had been formed in response to the massive shut down of major industry and the resulting job loss and all of the concomitant social tragedies.
Jerry and I reached an understanding that we would support his work in the South Suburbs so that he could become director of his own project. It was Jerry Kellman who put an ad in the New York Times about an organizing position in the Chicago area. Barack responded; Jerry interviewed him and offered him a position. Barack accepted. Almost at this very time, Jerry propositioned an old friend of his to return to Chicago from Texas and work with him in this new organizing venture. His friend was Mike Kruglik. Mike and Jerry were the first mentors of Barack in organizing.
CCRC, which spanned communities in Northwest Indiana, the South Suburbs and parts of the City of Chicago proved to be unwieldy. Jerry and I decided to split it into three parts. Barack would work to found a new independent project in the South side of Chicago, Mike Kruglik would be the director of the South Suburban Action Conference and Jerry Kellman would develop organizing in Northwest Indiana. At that point Jerry asked me to become Barack’s consultant.
And at this time we were just creating the Gamaliel Foundation. I met with Barack on a regular basis as he incorporated the Developing Communities Project, as he moved the organization into action and as he developed the leadership structure for the organization. He would write beautiful and brilliant weekly reports about his work and the people he was engaging.
When Barack decided to go to Harvard Law School, he approached John McKnight, a professor at Northwestern and a Gamaliel Board member for a letter of recommendation. When Barack was leaving he made sure that Gamaliel was the formal consultant to the organization that he had created and to the staff that he had hired.
Barack has acknowledged publicly that he had been the director of a Gamaliel affiliate. He has supported Gamaliel throughout the years by conducting training both at the National Leadership Training events and at the African American Leadership Commission. He has also attended our public meetings.
We are honored and blessed by the connection between Barack and Gamaliel.
And here’s Stanley Kurtz last November on Gamaliel and Obama:
The same separatist, anti-American theology of liberation that was so boldly and bitterly proclaimed by Obama’s pastor is shared, if more quietly, by Obama’s Gamaliel colleagues. The operative word here is “quietly.” Gamaliel specializes in ideological stealth, and Obama, a master student of Gamaliel strategy, shows disturbing signs of being a sub rosa radical himself. Obama’s legislative tactics, as well as his persistent professions of non-ideological pragmatism, appear to be inspired by his radical mentors’ most sophisticated tactics. Not only has Obama studied, taught, and apparently absorbed stealth techniques from radical groups like Gamaliel and ACORN, but in his position as a board member of Chicago’s supposedly nonpartisan Woods Fund, he quietly funneled money to his radical allies — at the very moment he most needed their support to boost his political career. It’s high time for these shadowy, perhaps improper, ties to receive a dose of sunlight.
The connections are numerous. Gregory Galluzzo, Gamaliel’s co-founder and executive director, served as a trainer and mentor during Obama’s mid-1980s organizing days in Chicago. The Developing Communities Project, which first hired Obama, is part of the Gamaliel network. Obama became a consultant and eventually a trainer of community organizers for Gamaliel. (He also served as a trainer for ACORN.) And he has kept up his ties with Gamaliel during his time in the U.S. Senate.
The Gamaliel connection appears to supply a solution to the riddle of Obama’s mysterious political persona. On one hand, he likes to highlight his days as a community organizer — a profession with proudly radical roots in the teachings of Chicago’s Saul Alinsky, author of the highly influential text Rules for Radicals. Obama even goes so far as to make the community-organizer image a metaphor for his distinctive conception of elective office. On the other hand, Obama presents himself as a post-ideological, consensus-minded politician who favors pragmatic, common-sense solutions to the issues of the day. How can Obama be radical and post-radical at the same time? Perhaps by deploying Gamaliel techniques. Gamaliel organizers have discovered a way to fuse their Left-extremist political beliefs with a smooth, non-ideological surface of down-to-earth pragmatism: the substance of Jeremiah Wright with the appearance of Norman Vincent Peale. Could this be Obama’s secret?
***
Here’s the Gamaliel Foundation’s Jerry Kellman boasting about his mentoring days with Barack Obama — and gushing about Obama’s story-telling skills.
Well, he sure can tell stories.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama Chief of Staff: No More Compromise on Contraceptive Mandate
February 12, 2012 04:26 PM by Doug Powers
114 Comments
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
245 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
199 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
How to Make a Liberal Politician Stand Up Against Intrusive Government
February 6, 2012 04:28 PM by Doug Powers
95 Comments
Your Friday IRS regulation dump: Obamacare’s job-killing medical device tax
February 3, 2012 04:21 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
The SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Categories: Health care
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Betsys Page
» Cruising the WebPundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad joke
Well, ZA, my reasoning is that my opinion is the right one (otherwise, I’d have another one instead). I suspect that a universal human norm.
I’d say you short answer sounds about right. But as to the rest, that’s off-point to what I was asking about. My question was not about where people would agree, but about where they disagree as to what’s good common sense.
Again, it’s just an interesting philosophical question to kick about. Not a debate here, lol.
There’s your flaw.
It’s not saying that. It’s merely restricting Congress from weighing in on the issue.
Think about a judge that determines he doesn’t have jurisdiction in a murder case. His ruling shouldn’t be confused as a statement that murder is OK.
Not for me to judge, however, I wouldn’t continue to deny God’s grace, much longer, if I were you. Time is running out.
I know for a fact that I’m not insane. They gave me paperwork that said so when they released me.
purplepeep:
Pretty much. When a bunch of people get together that share some values in common those values then get called common sense (which is the word I used earlier).
As far as where people disagree, those are matters for debate in public policy. In those debates, however, it’s a poor argument to base your position only on religion in our country. After all, we are a secular nation. When people want to be taken seriously they make arguments that try to appeal to all Americans regardless of their religion.
I won’t be stupid. I never am.
corkie:
In your example, someone else will have jurisdiction because murder is not OK.
The 1st Amendmant seems pretty clear. No one has jurisdiction on determining peoples religion because it is not “right” to force religion on anyone. It is saying it’s OK to have different metaphysical beliefs by virtue of this.
That’s only because you’re a godless heathen.
I’d say the blame here is 50-50.
Who says that we are a secular nation? Was that a zeroangel decree?
Freedom of worship doesn’t equal secular.
Rogue:
Which god and how can you be so sure you got the right one? Furthermore, how do you know he cares what we believe and not how we conduct our lives?
corkie:
Our laws are secular.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular
John:
LOL.
Enough fun for one day. I’m out.
ZA, Good to see you back. Ask Kingfish or pure for my e-mail address.
Talk to you later.
And that is what the first amendment is saying about religion. Someone else other than Congress has jurisdiction.
Are you insane? The 1st Amendment IS clear, but it doesn’t state that no one has jurisdiction on determining peoples religion. It merely states that Congress doesn’t have the jurisdiction.
No. It’s not, and your instance doesn’t change the language of the 1st Amendment.
John:
Yah, I am about to leave too dude. We should really start that monster thread mailing list. TTYL.
The 1st Amendment specifically addressed religion. It granted citizens the right to religion without Congressional interference.
There’s nothing secular about that.
corkie:
Who?
You are being pedantic and absurd. Anyone can plainly see that on the one hand we are dealing with the idea that different metaphysical beliefs are OK and on the other hand they are not.
corkie:
This is nonsense. It addresses religion insofar as it says that basically our laws shouldn’t restrict anyone’s religion. It basically ensures all our laws will be secular.
It doesn’t state whom! It doesn’t have to.
No, no, no!
Dude, just because you grew up believing this as a universal truth doesn’t make it so.
I suggest you freaking read the 1st Amendment instead of reading into it.
No. It ensures our religious freedom. Think about it, the 1st Amendment to our Constitution ensures the citizens their freedom to worship. There’s nothing secular about that.
I submit Zero, that “secular law” is an oxymoron.
Think about it.
I find Chuck Schumer offensive, but I can’t expect to keep him from doing Sunday evening press conferences.
Some people find our laws offensive. But we don’t change them. With the exception of immigration law and laws broken by certain democrats.
Some people find uniforms worn by police officers offensive. But we don’t custom tailor their look to sooth the public.
Some people find dresses worn by women offensive. But we don’t kow tow to every ultra-feminist that comes along.
Some people find contact sports offensive. But our kids can play Pop Warner and HS football. Until liberals make even those sports go the way of dodge ball.
Some people find people who drink alcohol offensive. But prohibition was repealed.
Life can be tough. Nowhere is it written that anyone’s path must be smooth and flowing and meet their every expectation.
NJ-Aviator:
So, as I said earlier, would you be OK with a town mainly comprised of Muslims putting up their version of the Ten Commandments in their courthouse? Where does that leave the Christians in that town? The whole thing gets awfully messy.
We aren’t talking about disliking the way a police uniform looks or changing the channel when Schumer comes on. We are talking about a court of law.
Please understand this, I consider Christianity in the same boat as Islam. It’s true Christians are overall a good bit better, but my feelings on the list of commandments and what they represent is similiar.
I know I won’t convince you, but I hope to have at least conveyed my thoughts on this matter.
OK, I am going. Perhaps tommorow…
Then, once you had read my reply, and you didn’t like how your argument was shot to pieces, instead of admitting the truth, you change your tune…
It’s both laughable and sad at the same time:
1) You brought it up.
2) You pressed the issue a second time.
3) The historical truth blows your argument out of the water.
4) You pretend the historical truth doesn’t matter to make your point.
No matter whether it’s “Obama” or “Oh God”, I find it revolting to lard a prayer with socialist bromides.
zeroangel, I had a few minutes and I’ve looked back at what you claim is your point, i.e. that things have changed since the Founders wrote the Constitution, as though the current secularization/multiculturalism of this nation alters one wit what they wrote or believed. It does not. The Constitution is what it is. If you don’t like it, propose an amendment as is provided for in that document.
And please don’t bring up the SJC: just because the Supreme Court has handed down a decision doesn’t mean that it is the right one; consider the Dred Scott decision.
Also, I have to say it back at you: you totally missed my point with regards to the fact that slavery was not abolished outright with the founding of this nation. That or you’re deliberately discounting it.
Sorry I can’t muster a wittier response as some have made to you; there are more pressing matters on my mind than one adamant atheist – no offense, but you’re not the most important person out there at the moment.
But I do wish you peace.
Well said Wayfairing Stranger. I tire of his ramblings as well. nothing like distracting the point of the thread.
I have purposely stayed out of this fray, as Zero hijacks another thread. Sorry, Zero but you can’t blame this one on me. I stongly suggest that MM start a monster thread for anyone who wants to debate Zero, and the rest of the threads can stay a little better on topic. I don’t have time to wade through all this stuff!
This is not a new religion. It went on in Rome’s Empire too. Except in Rome, one got death for not praying to the One.
The oldest lie. “You can become as G-d.”
I’m with ya. I don’t suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
“It is said that 86% of the world’s people believe in God.. Why don’t we just tell the other 14% to be quiet and sit down?”
O/T
Norman Hsu-fly just awarded 24 years for his fundraising!
ITTRP:
Only in answer to your ridiculous examples and similiar points. Does it occur to you that if the Treaty of Tripoli means nothing then the same goes for your treaties.
Addressed. The historical fact that some of the founders were Christian means just about a smuch as the fact that some were Deists or otherwise: nothing. The founding documents are not in any way explicitly Christian (or any religion). What part of the Constitution MUST have been written by a Christian and cannot have been written by anyone else except a Christian? Wayfarer, see my argument to IITRP here. Also, remind me, what was your point again?
Happyscrapper:
Are you serious? Freedom of speach only should apply to some people? Obviously, you don’t mean this.
Wayfaring:
Actually, the fact that things in the present day are different from the 18th century does not change what the founders wrote or believed (obviously we can’t change the past and the founders aren’t around to argue with). However, how we apply or interpret the Constitution does change. For example, the 2nd amendment shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that all citizens should have access to basically any kind of weapon (I’ll bet some founders thought that idea was fine). No sane person believes a common citizen should own a nuke (for example).
Likewise, no sane person seriously thinks that a public school teacher should be allowed to proselytize in public school. That probably went on in the 18th century when more or less everyone in any one community shared the same faith. That isn’t the case today.
Fortunately, the founders were wise enough to anticipate this, and hence we have the Supreme Court.
traveler49:
Here’s an idea: next time you see my moniker; whether its me or someone replying to me; just skip over. That way you can just read the “on-topic” posts that agree with everything MM says and you can enjoy the echo chamber.
“It is said that 86% of the world’s people believe in God.. Why don’t we just tell the other 14% to be quiet and sit down?”
I was just quoting someone there. And of course they are entitled to freedom of speech. But sometimes, yes, I do wish people would sit down and be quiet. For instance, I am very upset that the radical faction of the athiests have succeeded in getting God out of our schools and have succeeded in allowing evil to enter them. Having God around certainly can’t hurt. But for some reason, athiests seem to think that it might. Why is that? So, yes…I want some of them to sit down and shut up. I don’t include you in that radical group, Zero. Somehow I don’t think you would go after our schools or our Pledge of Allegience, or our currency. But the Michael Newdow’s and Madeline O’Hares of this world have done immeasurable harm.
ITTRP:
ROTFLMAO! Are you serious, ITTRP?! That is your argument concerning the Christian god appearing in the Constitution? That’s is absolutely absurd for the reasons mentioned above. No wonder why you didn’t want to spell it out and wanted me to hunt it down. This is really a new low for you.
Happpy:
Children can pray anytime they want in school. The teachers just can’t lead them in prayer or prostelitize and for good reason. What if you had a Muslim teacher in your school district? The sword cuts both ways. You can’t favor one religion over another.
Happy:
I almost missed this! Of course, atheism = evil. Nice. I probably eat babies too.
I believe that by taking God out of our schools we have left a vacuum for evil to come in…and what is happening in our schools these days is evidence of that. That is not to say that athiesm=evil. Obviously, you can be a good person and be an athiest. But I do think that taking God out of schools has caused more problems than it was worth. As for having a muslim teacher…I wouldn’t have my child taught by a muslim…ever. I don’t believe in prostelitizing in school, just as I don’t believe in politicizing. Schools are for learning the basics…that’s it. The religion and politics, etc. should be left to the parents. However, I think the atheists have gone too far in forcing the Christians to say “Happy Holidays” instead of Merry Christmas, etc. Yet, Happy Hannakuh or Happy Kuwanza seems to be o.k. Maybe if Christians hadn’t been so blatantly discriminated against, I wouldn’t be so upset about the issue. Why can’t we all just grow up and accept each other and if someone wants to practice their religion without forcing it down someone’s throat, why not just let it go? Who is it hurting? And in the meantime, they need to stop trying to teach my little grandson how to put a condom on a cucumber and that it is o.k. to have two daddies.
This is wrong.
If laws are out of date, then they need to be amended – NOT interpreted differently.
corkie:
Sorry, no, you are wrong. We have a Supreme court to interpret laws.
Happy:
This is just false. I guess you missed the thread where Chappy posted links to public schools in his district with Christmas wishes right there on their calendar. Perhaps I’ll get to your other points tommorow.
Good night guys. See you in the morning.
I have to sign off for the night! I really wanted to continue the discussion, but I have been using my husband’s computer while mine is out of commission…and he needs it back. Good night all.
Zero – No, atheists aren’t evil. Just tedious, rude and take themselves waaaay too seriously.
Lose the persecuted atheist thing. It’s pathetic. I served as a missionary in a hostile culture, and have friends who are still there. Their lives are in danger. In addition to their ministry they provide healthcare, shelter and education for homeless street children.
What have you done to improve the planet other than try pi$$ good people off and pretend you are more intelligent than them?
So we should just get rid of the Legislative branch of our government.
We can simply pass one law, and then let the Supreme Court interpret the one law differently over time as things change.
2 Thimothy 3:13, KJV.
“But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.”
swede,
Congrats on the new grandchild!
Just watch out for leprechauns. I hear they cause colic.
No.
This is not what the Supreme Court is for.
This is what the amendment process is for.
corkie:
It’s plainly obvious to anyone that the courts (Supreme and otherwise) interpret laws. We do not need to amend the Constitution in order to say the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean citizens can have anti-aircraft weapons. Likewise, we do not need amendments to interpret what the “establishment clause” means. This doesn’t mean that we do not need the Legislative branch to make new laws. I expect that you will continue to argue this point despite it being as plain as day. Your sophistry is getting awfully tiresome.
swede:
Oh please. You honestly can’t tell me that you don’t notice the “log in your own eye?” Christians are quite capable of being rude, tedious, and so forth. Just because we aren’t living in a country where atheists, gays, or minorities get murdered doesn’t mean that bigotry doesn’t exist.
A tour in Iraq. I also donated to a charity for disabled vets last week. Oh and, I helped an old lady carry some heavy bags the other day. What have you done to improve scientific education in the US? Likely you actively seek to tear it down.
Leatherneck:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+20:10-14;&version=NIV;
Happy:
I said I would get back to you. It is completely false that anyone is forced to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas.” Try it out. Ask one of your grandkids to give it a shot in school. Also ask them to pray aloud during lunch. If anyone tries to stop them you can likely sue.
YES! Oh PLEASE YES! Of course, this is not what you folks really want. You want to be able to force your religion on us while basically non-religion or any other religion needs to keep quiet.
Actually, I think you have a very good point there.
Alright, Today I am writing the pols and asking them to pass a bill for
“UNIVERSAL MENTAL HEALTHCARE”.
Zero,
It’s not just “Lord”, it’s “our Lord”. And the date reference is to a specific event… the birth of our Lord. Lest you think it’s just a way of expressing a date, the signatory section of the Constitution refers to the dates of two births: the birth of our nation, and the birth of our Lord.
ITTRP:
You are a lunatic. Many of the founders were arguably not Christian and were Deists. Some did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Using a typical rendering of a date from that time period as evidence of religiosity holds about as much water as claiming that I am religious if I tell someone “bless you” when they sneeze (which I do often enough).
Anyone with even the slightest bit of sense can see right through this atrocious train wreck of thought that you call an argument.
So is yours.
You keep bringing up the Supreme Court, but you ignored what I wrote about the Dred Scott decision – an interpretation of law that any thinking person now would see as a misinterpretation of the Constitution (though not certain individual state laws). The 13th Amendment was passed to make what should have been understood unequivocal, not because the equality of all men (men in its original gender neutral definition) was not enshrined in the text of the Constitution. The same is true of the 19th Amendment.
BTW zeroangel, by whose definition is one considered to be one of the lunatics that you say you want to flush out? And why do you, in your arrogance, think that we need you to let us know who is or is not a supposed lunatic?
When I referred to you as an adamant atheist, the adjective wasn’t just a throwaway. As infuriating as I find your shopworn arguments (which I’ve heard from others in other places – not terribly original), I find more to pity than despise.
I do wish you peace. But I will not waste any more time on one who is adamant. You may consider that you’ve won the argument simply because I no longer choose to engage. If that makes you feel better, superior, whatever it is that you think you’re accomplishing with these debates, be my guest.
Wayfaring:
Corkie is trying to pretend that the courts don’t have the power to interpret laws. It sounds rather like Constitutionalist-Ron-Paul-style lunacy.
The Dred Scott decision was a long time ago and things like the 13th Amendment were nessecerary because stuff like the 3/5 of a person deal were in the Constitution.
How do I define the lunatics? Well, those that say dinosaurs and humans co-existed are a favorite. The ones that also seem to want to shove their religion in my face as much as a Jehovah’s witness are pretty annoying too. Practice or believe whatever you want as long as you aren’t trying to peddle it to my kids in public school or trying to shove it in my face in a courthouse (at least you can manage this). Why do I think I need to let you know my point of view? Umm, because I think these things are important? Why do you, in your arrogance, think you need to let me know anything on this forum?
My arugments are not orignal because they are so trivial and simple even a child can grasp them. The idea that every religion is equally falacious myths is such an elementry idea. Furthermore, there is no evidence!
I don’t need to feel as though I’ve won an argument with you because you stopped responding. I know that I will never change your mind. I will, however, reach some other readers that may or may not reply.
I haven’t seen anyone on these threads try to FORCE our religion on you. There are some evangelistic Christians who are pretty “in-your-face”. Personally, I don’t subscribe to that. But I do hope and pray for atheists, etc. to come to the truth, as I believe it. I wouldn’t be true to my very strong beliefs if I didn’t want everyone to be saved. But FORCE. No. Because you CAN’T force salvation on anyone. It is a gift from God and the truth needs to come from Him. We can just try to put the truth out there and hope some of it gets through. I think that you are extremely defensive about your atheism. What does this say? In my humble opinion (and I know you are going to be severely annoyed by this!), you are going through an inner stuggle with your disbelief. I will continue to pray for you.
happyscrapper:
There are people on this thread that want to shove it in my face at a freaking courthouse! There are pundits in our country that foster the idea that you can’t be a true moral or patriotic person without god! Hannity does this all the time (for example). Incidentally, his screeners never let me through when I tell, “I am an atheist, I never vote Democrat, a war vet, and I take issue with Hannity’s point.” Strangely, I do get on often enough on just about any other topic.
I can appreciate the fact that you think you are saving me. Can’t you understand the idea that your god sounds like a real jerk if he cares more about meta-physical beliefs rather than whether or not a person is a decent human being?
As for my “defensiveness” the same could be said to you. All I need do is make a point concerning atheism and it spawns all kinds of defensive replies from Christians like you.
I am not annoyed with your inane idea that I am having an inner struggle. I am more exasperated than anything else. My “inner struggle” was more or less over a long time ago.
Continue to pray all you wish. I have no doubt that there are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or otherwise that would also want to pray for me. Why not sacrifice a small animal as well? For all we know, either method is equally effective.
Wow! Statues at a courthouse! How horribly offensive! Yes, I see why you are so angry. The founders of this country had the audacity to refer to our country as endowed by The Creator. How dare they! And to put anything even remotely related to religion at a courthouse is beyond the pale. /sarc off. You are truly delusional to take such offense at something that is in every courthouse in the country, including the Supreme Court building in DC. Lots of luck with your anger management.
Happy:
Not statues, the Ten Commandments that start out telling me who the correct god is. Think about it, how happy would you be about Muslims putting up their version of the Ten Commandments? Are you seriously telling me that you would be OK with this?
I don’t mind the poetry in the Declaration ref. a “Creator.” It can just as easily be Spinoza’s god, or (since some founders were Unitarian’s or Deists) a Unitarian or Deist idea of “god.” This is not a big deal for me.
The Ten Commandments are absolutely not in every courthouse in the country. Where in the nine hells do you get this completely false idea?
Happy:
Also, you can keep on pretending to yourself that I need some kind of anger management. It’s false and ad hominem (while fun in the context of flames) is not a valid argument.
Yeah, the great debater that wants to “snort blow off hooker’s breasts in Vegas.”
Many Deists were privately religious — they labeled themselves as such to avoid discussing religious issues with lunatics.
No, I would not be O.K. with that. Because Islam is a cult, not a religion. And their “savior” is a disgusting violent pedophile. Our country was not founded on a cult. The courthouses used to have the ten commandments in them because they were the very foundation of the laws in this country. But atheists have succeeded in getting them taken out. Yeah, that really has made a difference in our country…right? What good does it do to take them out of the courthouses? I never could understand the irrational hatred atheists have toward anything religious. It is vitriolic and sad. Having the ten commandments posted in the courthouses hurt NO ONE, except the very touchy atheists who don’t want anyone to have the freedom to express their religious beliefs anywhere except church. Good luck with that.
Dave:
Please! That is absolutely not what I said. Anyone that goes back and reads that entire thread can see my point wrt legalization. Nice strawman though.
Of course they were. Dave can read the minds of the founders. Nevermind the fact that (for example) Jefferson tried to rewrite the Bible taking out all miracles.
Happy:
Yes, of course. Your religion is the right one. Evidence?
The Ten commandments are not the foundation of the laws in our country. No where are the first 3 codified into law. As for the remainder, they are common to all kinds of religions and non-religion. To try and pretend the idea that one shouldn’t murder or steal is a uniquely Christian idea is nonsense.
Furthermore, courthouses all over the country did not used to have the ten commandments in them. This is a recent development.
*Yawn* Yes, it’s impossible to understand why one might take issue with (for example) the ideas in the Old testemant or the notion that a person could burn in hell for eternity for having the “wrong” religion. Go figure.
Posting the secular humnaist declaration won’t hurt anyone either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Secular_Humanist_Declaration
I guess you’d be OK with that?
Happy:
Another nonsense strawman. Did you even read my earlier challenge to you to ask one of your grandkids to pray aloud at lunch in school? No one will try and stop them, and if they did, you can certainly sue.
Zero…One thing before I sign off. I don’t personally believe in a literal hell of fire and brimstone. I believe that “hell” will be eternal separation from God,our Creator. You will know you are eternally separated, and it won’t be pleasant, as it will be darkness and hopelessness. Now, I am tired of this same stuff, arguing over and over and never really getting anywhere. My proof is in my faith. You don’t have that, thus, we have nothing further to discuss. Over and out.
Happy:
Oh ok, you instead of burning and suffering for eternity my reward for being an Iraqi war veteran, a kind person who gives to charities, a decent father and husband, a patriot, and a good citizen is to endure “darkness and hopelessness” for eternity. After several trillion years (several hundreds of times more than the age of the universe) I will still be wallowing in “darkness and hopelessness” and that’s not even a fraction of the beginning of my torment (and it never will be). That sounds lovely.
Actually, it sounds positively ridiculous and rather evil. Is it any wonder that folks like me laugh at these notions?
PS. “Over and out” is improper radio procedure (as I have mentioned to you before). “Over” means you want to continue the conversation. “Out” means you are ending it.
Oh dear…I have been properly chasitized. I stand corrected!! One more thing, just as a reminder, (as I have mentioned to you before)I also believe in reincarnation. I believe you get more than one chance to find your way to Him. I truly believe He is a God of second chances. So no…a decent, honorable person such as yourself…I don’t believe will be lost this time. But I do believe you will need to live again in human form and atone for things AND accept that Christ is your savior, before you can return to your Source as a redeemed soul. Only when you have found that Truth, will you end your earth lives. OR, when God chooses to end the rebirths, it will be too late. And that can happen at any time. I would just as soon not take that chance. This could very possibly be your last chance. Who knows? And who also knows what you have done in the past…the very distant past? You may not have been so “decent” then.
OUT.
That’s crap. The courts shouldn’t infringe the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The same document which grants the courts their power grants the citizens this right. If it’s so crazy to include anti-aircraft weapons in the definition of Arms, then it should be easy to get such an amendment passed. (Btw, it’s currently legal for citizens to own anti-aircraft weapons – so your example is extra lame).
Likewise, the courts should enforce the 1st Amendment as written. That means it should merely be limiting Congress. If that notion is so crazy, then it should be easy to get an amendment passed.
Amendments don’t interpret. Amendments change.
Either way, you must agree that the 1st Commandment doesn’t conflict with the 1st Amendments. Because:
The 1st Amendment is merely preventing governments within the US (by any interpretation) from weighing in on a belief. In no way does this conflict with the belief itself.
And why do you insist on having it both ways? On one hand you insist that the US government is secular, yet on the other you insist that the US government (the Constitution) has decided that all religions are acceptable for worship. Well, which is it?
Happy:
This AFAIK is not Christian dogma. No doubt some of your fellow Christians might tell you your “religion” is some kind of strange offshoot sect or cult.
Anyhow, it sounds like you are backpedaling. Why should I have to have a second go at it? Furthermore, what do you base these ideas on? Your post is a rambling mess of nonsense that you are basically just making up as you go along. You are now picking and choosing ideas from Eastern (reincarnation) and Western (Christ) religions.
Furthermore, you are trotting out Pascal’s poor mangled wager that any first year philosophy student can easily tear apart. Do I have to show you how yet again?
Good morning corkie. Do you think we can get about twenty to thirty more posts out of this nonsense? Would you like to argue about nukes or certain types of anti-aircraft weapons being legal? Do you think I can state my case once again about the conflict between the 1st Amendment and the 1st Commandment?
How many posts do you think it will take up if I just lay out a series of questions since I’ve already made my case against your particular brand of written vomit?
Very possibly. If I thought that reincarnation was a religion. It isn’t. It is just a belief I have. But my religion is Christianity. I believe Jesus was the Son of God. And I am saved. Reincarnation is just a philosophy that helps me explain some of the unexplainable. It is not necessary to my religion. I don’t NEED it. I NEED my faith in God.
I am really tired of your nasty put-downs. I have tried not to reply in kind. But I’d just better stop now or I will tell you what I really think about your snide, “I’m smarter than you” remarks. Good day.
By the way, if I was Corkie, I wouldn’t dignify this vitriol with a response.
Corkie:
Why do you think there is any conflict at all here?
P.S. How Dare you ridicule my beliefs. Who the hell do you think you are? Jerk.
Happy:
…and it’s absolutely not Christian.
I am the nasty one? You are the one telling me that I am going to wallow in “hopelessness and darkness” FOREVER. That idea is EVIL, disgusting, and horribly nasty! How can you expect that I would not respond in the manner I do?
Go ahead. we both know who will come away from that conversation with “blood coming out of their eyes.”
Corkie can’t help himself. If I wanted to, I could probably drag corkie with me out to 11,000 posts and top monster thread.
Happy:
How dare you assert that I will wallow in darkness forever? How dare you claim that I have anger managment problems? How dare you ridicule MY lack of beliefs. This sword cuts both ways Happy. Get over it. Remember, it’s the Muslims that are experts at crying about being “offended.”
It’s certainly obvious that you don’t care about being right. If you did, then you’d make a coherent argument.
I’ll continue to prove you wrong it’s obvious that nobody else is reading. Then I’ll leave you to your monster thread fetish.
Corkie:
Do you honestly think anyone other than Ron Paul style loons are going to buy your Constitutionalist nonsense?
Corkie:
I’d bet money Happy is still here fuming mad and just praying her little heart out that I might notice the truth of the Bible.
Is that your real objective?
Did you even think about this question before you typed it?
I’m sure you can. It’s still stupid and wrong.
You made a lame case. You get no credit.
Zero…if this was a thread that was being commented on by the other people, rather than a mostly dead one, you would find out you have very few friends and many who would criticize your rudeness. I start out trying very hard to be civil too you. But you just can’t help yourself…you are rude, condescending and snarly. I have made a promise to myself in the past to ignore you. And this time, I broke that promise. It won’t happen again. And I know you always want to have the last word…so have at it.
I bet most liberals would finally see the light if the courts started shifting their “interpretations” towards conservative ideals. If this happened, I would welcome them. I don’t want to see judicial activism on either side of the spectrum. I hope you can respect that.
Corkie:
What do you think?
Does it occur to you that Ron Paul is insane?
If a person can’t recognize the very plain and obvious disconnect between two ideas about meta-physical beliefs does that make them crazy or just hopelessly adamant?
Does your opinion on this count one iota more than a sane person’s?
Hey Corkie…Let’s see if Zero can make a monster thread all by himself??? I am out of here…how about you?
Corkie:
Look, this is a fair point and we can end it here if you want. I really don’t think anything constructive will come from us arguing (it never has in the past). I respect your ideas on judicial activism. Mine are slightly different. I was pretty happy with SCOTUS’s decision on the DC gun ban thing (for example).
zeroangel,
Happy is right, and your attempts to play victim are pathetic.
If you don’t believe in hell, then you get no sympathy for being told you’re headed there. I wouldn’t be upset if someone told me that the tooth fairy hated me and wasn’t going to pay me for a lost tooth.
Agreed, but I’ll still help you with your monster thread if you want.
What ever happened with the last one? Did they change the numbers prior to the big 10k?
By the way, I know I argue an extreme fundamentalist position with respect to the Constitution. I’m much more fundie than most, but part of my argument is simply to shock those that have never been exposed to it. Many people have only ever heard that “the Constitution is a living, breathing document.”
Happy:
So what? Just because this is a conservative site and there are a great many religious people here that would recognize my rudeness and ignore yours doesn’t mean you weren’t rude and doesn’t mean you didn’t deserve to get blasted.
You start out trying to be civil? You started out quoting some stupid idea that 14% of people should shut up. Civil indeed! You then moved on to make the claim that atheists have allowed evil to enter schools!
You simply cannot recognize that you are the one being rude here. It’s amazing!
Corkie:
The problem is that tooth fairy believers don’t try and teach it in public schools, put it up in courtrooms, and indeed (in extreme cases) kill (Muslims), discriminate, or otherwise alienate those they think are going to hell.
As for monster thread, it appears that it is locked out. There is speculation that in some way monster thread caused the numbering problem since the numbering problem and the locking out of monster thread happened shortly after monster thread reached 10,000. There is no evidence though, it’s just speculation.
corkie:
Of all people, I can certainly respect the idea of shock value when trying to make a point. I don’t know how we ended up at each others throats, but I think it’s neigh time for a peace treaty between you and I.
found this “junk” on politico just minutes ago. So it seems it is not isolated. Who ever thought this up better have some nomex when he dies.
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Obama
Give us today all kinds of bread
and don’t be tripping when we sin
Our Kingdumb has come – no? more work will be done.
In the hood just like it is in heaven
Holy Michelle, Mother of Sacha pray for us whinners
Now until someone knocks us in the head with a 2×8. Amen
What was the mindset of our founders less than four months before they signed the Declaration of Independence?
The most recognized signature on the Declaration of Independence is that of John Hancock. Take a look at a document that he (and many others) signed less than four months earlier…
(Bolding is mine, capitalization emphasis is from the original text. Based on looking at the original document image, I believe that the Library of Congress transcript has one mistake…that the word they have as “bandage” is actually “bondage” in the original document. I have taken the liberty of using “bondage” in my transcript below…)
The Library of Congress Document Image
The Library of Congress Transcript
Then simply state your concern about such instances. Don’t pretend that the Christians on this site actually upset you with their comments.
corkie:
Fair enough. you are right in this sense. I do not need to pretend that Happy actually upsets me. I can merely point out that her line of thinking feeds these divisions that can lead to the instances that concern me.
ITTRP:
Are you still here? I am not discounting the fact that many founders were religious. It’s not my point. Whether they were Christians, Deists, Hindus, or otherwise makes no difference. The Constitution could have been written by any thinking person from that age from any of those religions. There is nothing overtly religious in the Constitution and that was almost certainly by design.
Corkie:
…an afterthought, pretending I am upset is a good tool for the shock value method that you seem to value. It’s a method I use to try and get through to Happy and others.
Not really. It’s not believable.
I think this is a much better approach.
corkie:
It’s actually worked to some extent in the past (though not with Happy).
corkie:
Do you want to nitpick over the time of day?
My clock says 2:59pm currently. Discuss.