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.

Trackbacks

1. The Snooper Report
2. piano lessons

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am, rooster said:

   POS demoncrat

2. #2
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:30 am, spaceycakes said:

   “Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country,” she said.

   Sooo, she’s stupid and illiterate.

3. #3
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:31 am, b-cat said:

   “I am sure the Founders never envisioned elected Representatives which would not have a grasp of the most basic concepts of the Constitution. It may be time for an amendment requiring members of Congress to take a basic proficiency test on at least the Bill of Rights.

   I think there should be a competency test for voters too. That would solve alot of our troubles right there.

4. #4
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am, walterc said:

   “Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country,” she said. “I’ve got to say that I think that the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn’t have input.”

   Unless they fly airplanes into buildings and cut peoples heads off. Then we have to be sensitive to their feelings.

   It’s not separation of church and state, it’s separation of churches that she disagrees with and state.

   You never hear a dhimmicrat politician disagree with CAIR.

5. #5
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:32 am, spaceycakes said:

   Diana DeGette seems eager to smother these precious freedoms…

   as well as any unborn life she deems unwanted.

6. #6
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:38 am, granite said:

   Oops.
   Meant to blockquote:

   “Congresswoman DeGette’s personal convictions, informed by her view of God, human dignity and personal liberty, inform her public actions. So do ours.”

   …informed by her view….

   As clear an example of 180-degree opposite, irreconcilably different and opposing worldviews as one will ever see.

   There.
   Looks better.
   Sorry for the double post.

7. #7
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:41 am, TooMuchTime said:

   “Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country,” she said.

   No, we don’t. That phrase was used by Ku Klux Klan member Hugo Black, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He used it to keep Catholics out of government discussion. You see, he was W.A.S.P. and didn’t want “Rome” making decisions in U.S. politics.

   So the whole idea of “separation of church and state” was to not limit Protestants, just Catholics.

   Only a typical liberal KKK member could come up with that twisted logic.

8. #8
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:43 am, zyzzyg said:

   From the linked article -

   “Note: An earlier version of this post misquoted Rep. DeGette as saying the bishops should not have input, but when in reality, she said they should. The post was updated at 6:00 p.m. to correct the quote. We regret the error.”

   Not sure what is going on, but the correction to the article has not been made.

   That being said, anyone who suggests that input from anyone is unwelcomed . . . well, is just plain wrong. We’re in this together, and though we might not agree, we should all have input.

   My hope is that Rep DeGette revises and expands her remarks, and that the Hill is more clear on it’s reporting.

9. #9
   On November 18th, 2009 at 10:46 am, verogolfer said:

   Separation of church and state? How about a separation of stupidity from politics.

10. #10
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:02 am, rocketman said:

    ***
    President George Washington was a strong Christian. He knew death was at his side most of his life. During the French and Indian war he was riding up and down the line of cannons directing their fire. After the battle he found a few bullet holes in his great coat–and one in his hat! A few inches closer and he would have been severely wounded our dead.
    ***
    Read one of his Thanksgiving Day speeches that he made when he was President. He thanked God many times in his speech. He did not want an official state religion like England or Iran have due to the abuses of other faiths. But he did not want a Godless America either.
    ***
    And about half of all Christians support “choice”–aka ABORTION. Don’t worry about separation of church and state–worry about what will happen when you run into separation of your soul from your body! Aka death and judgment day.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

11. #12
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:05 am, prendad said:

    I wonder what DeGette’s fellow Presbyterian’s think about her strong support of abortion???

12. #13
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:08 am, zeroangel said:

    But he did not want a Godless America either.

    Here we go again…

    GODLESS = BAD.

    *sigh*

    You guys think we can top monster thread?

13. #14
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:11 am, tre said:

    So, Christians are supposed to shut-up when talking about the legislative process.

    What about when she’s campainging, and asking for donations?

14. #15
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:15 am, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    “God less” isn’t usually good…

15. #16
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:16 am, fighterDC said:

    I bet the congresswoman has no problem with the Catholic Bishops sticking their nose in the immigration debate though, since I assume she also supports amnesty for illegal invaders.

    Personally, I think the Catholic church or any other church should not be involved in politics to the extent they are, on any issue.

16. #17
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:17 am, zeroangel said:

    Ed:

    Oh? Ayn Rand? Sagan? A sizeable portion of the NAS? I am sick and tired of the lie that being “godless” isnt’ a good thing. It’s slanderous and annoying. Stop please.

    As for this article, MM has updated to reflect that the quote was inaccurate. Where can we get DeGette remarks in full? I would like to see them in context.

17. #18
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:21 am, spaceycakes said:

    so, she didn’t say this?

    “Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country,” she said.

18. #19
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:22 am, John Deaux said:

    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:08 am, zeroangel said:

    You guys think we can top monster thread?

    Do you really think this conversation could ever evolve into another monster thread?

19. #20
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:28 am, zeroangel said:

    John D:

    Do you really think this conversation could ever evolve into another monster thread?

    Actually, I don’t really want to. The arguments are always the same, some people just never learn. I couldn’t let it slide though.

    In any case, I am interested in this article. Either MM and Perkins jumped the gun or DeGette is doing damage control and O’Brien is complicit in it. I would like to read DeGette’s remarks in full.

    I certainly think individuals should have a voice and if their voice is influenced by their faith that’s one thing; It’s quite another for a Church hierarchy to have such massive political power. It makes me uneasy, though it’s not illegal.

20. #21
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:35 am, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

    Ayn Rand had a good talent, having lived in Europe as they developed, of spotting the futility and cruelty in statism and totalitarianism, but she seemed to have had a rather cold and pessimistic world view.

21. #22
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am, RTater said:

    Linky for full context: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=9106854

    People, including Bishops can have input, it just won’t mean anything. The Dems will move forward with totalitarian medical control and preserve the fictional right to infanticide.

22. #23
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am, zeroangel said:

    Ed:

    but she seemed to have had a rather cold and pessimistic world view.

    So what? How about me? You care to tell me why I am likely not a good person or somehow deficient because I am an atheist?

    Lay it out. I am sick to death of this nonsense on this blog. If someone said that Jews are likely not good people that would rightly be recognized as anti-semetic, but for some reason, having a lack of religion is bad.

    I’m curious, which is worse, being a Muslim or being an atheist? How about Hindu or atheist?

    Why don’t you just recognize that this idea is slanderous?

23. #24
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:41 am, zeroangel said:

    RTater:

    I can’t access streaming content from here. Can you sum it up for me? Or better yet, give the quote in context?

24. #25
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am, RTater said:

    A stenographer, I ain’t, but here it goes:

    Interviewer: You said separation of Church and State, that sounds like you are saying they don’t have a seat at the table

    Degette: Catholic Bishops and all the other groups should have input, but in the end, what we need to do is have health care for 36 million Americans, and not take away rights that people have right now for reproductive care.

    So my interpretation of her remarks is that people can have any view and say anything they like, but she is still going to press for federal government-run medical control, and keeping abortion legal. She calls it reproductive care; I call it infanticide.

25. #26
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:57 am, granite said:

    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am, RTater said:

    …; I call it infanticide.

    Strictly speaking, it is feticide (?word?).

    Regardless, it is still homicide, since the fetus is human.

    There is the difference in worldview.

    The abortion supporters, for convenience and no-consequences pleasure, and to assuage perhaps a minute spark of guilty conscience; rationalize the “okayness” of abortion by claiming that the fetus is not human.

26. #27
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:57 am, zeroangel said:

    RTater:

    Sounds like she dodged the question.

    Short of a recording, I think I’ll have to hold off judging this one. Either way, it seems her remarks were taken too far.

27. #28
    On November 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm, zeroangel said:

    granite:

    Oh we, can do the abortion thing too. Let’s start at the end of the argument (which is also the beginning): does a fertilized egg have feelings, thoughts, dreams? Does it have a mind?

28. #29
    On November 18th, 2009 at 12:29 pm, J S Ragman said:

    “I call on President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Harry Reid to immediately repudiate this religious bigotry and reaffirm the Constitutional right of all Americans including people of faith to participate in this critical debate.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

29. #30
    On November 18th, 2009 at 12:38 pm, Dennis D said:

    She was misquoted and the correction has been noted at THEHILL.COM. She said they SHOULD have input.

30. #31
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm, corkie said:

    religious groups should have input on healthcare, but not the final say.

    Final say?

    Are those darned bishops vetoing Congressional votes again?

31. #32
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:08 pm, zorro said:

    The new, revised quote doesn’t make much sense given her retort that ”
    “Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country.”

    Agreed. Sounds like weasel speak to me.

    Rep. Dianne DeGette (D Colorado) do the right thing, resign today.

32. #33
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm, Ron said:

    The citizens of Colorado have an excellent opportunity next year to throw this ignoramus out on her butt. Religious and godless groups have equal standing in the square of public opinion. Churches have as much right to speak on moral issues affecting government policy as the secular, humanist, progressive groups this rep prefers.

33. #34
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:30 pm, RTater said:

    Actually, only those in the heavily Democrat Denver disctrict have an opportunity to fire her. They probably won’t. Degette won with 74% to 80% of the vote the last three times she won. That district has had Republicans as its representation for about five years since 1933. The Republicans didn’t even bother to run a candidate in 2006.

34. #35
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm, John Deaux said:

    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:28 am, zeroangel said:

    I certainly think individuals should have a voice and if their voice is influenced by their faith that’s one thing; It’s quite another for a Church hierarchy to have such massive political power. It makes me uneasy, though it’s not illegal.

    See, it’s a marketing problem. All of our churches need to reorganize as unions and then collective bargaining applies.

35. #36
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm, zeroangel said:

    JD:

    Heh. Good one.

36. #37
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:37 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    “Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country,” she said. “I’ve got to say that I think that the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn’t have input.”

    A separation of Rep. Dianne DeGette (D Colorado) from Congress would be nice. Molech seems to have helped form Congresswoman DeGette’s personal convictions, Molech she can serve.

37. #38
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, vickisoup said:

    We know what she meant from what she said. Her demanding semantical clarification can’t mask the ugliness of her hatred for people of faith who are unafraid to take a stand for life.

38. #39
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:44 pm, cheapseat said:

    the only person who can be denegrated with total p.c. immunity is a christian male. no wonder st nick (santa claus) is open season for the left.

39. #40
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:45 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    zeroangel, not that I advocate hi-jacking this thread but I think what you are forgetting is church congregations are made up of people, each of which has a right to voice their opinion. If a particular religious group speaks out about an issue, it is the individual voices of the congregation organized for a purpose. Athiests do this too and there is nothing wrong with it. It is all part of the process.

40. #41
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm, zeroangel said:

    SpeakEasy:

    If you reread carefully what I said, you will see that I understand that and said as much myself:

    I certainly think individuals should have a voice and if their voice is influenced by their faith that’s one thing; It’s quite another for a Church hierarchy to have such massive political power. It makes me uneasy, though it’s not illegal.

41. #42
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    I have always hated that “seperation of church and state’ BS, not just because it is a total fabrication (although it is) but because it supports the notion that religious people are somehow diminished. What are all the atheists afraid of when talking to religious people? We have been a Judeo-Christian majority in this country since its founding and it has served us well until now. We also have more problems now – anyone see a connection.

    I am not by the way, a true believer, I just don’t see what all the fuss is about. Given a choice between heavy influence by the church, as we have had since our founding, and heavy influence of the state, as in totalitarian governments historically, I would choose the Church. Your mileage may vary.

42. #43
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    Zero, I understand what you wrote, but the “Church hierarchy” you refer to is the voice of the individuals who support the church. Is it any different than any other PAC with regard to political power? So why only target the church affiliated groups? Either get rid of ALL lobbyists, or allow them all.

43. #44
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:56 pm, zeroangel said:

    SpeakEasy:

    What are all the atheists afraid of when talking to religious people?

    I am sorry, but it is not atheists that are afraid.

    http://www.nashvillefeed.com/culture/faith-in-god-smurfs-andor-david-hasselhoff/

    http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=11431023

    Theists freak out whenever atheists dare to put up billboards and basically do the same thing theists do: talk about their point of view. There was one recent case (if you want I can find the link) where an atheist billboard had to come down due to death threats.

    Given a choice between heavy influence by the church, as we have had since our founding, and heavy influence of the state, as in totalitarian governments historically, I would choose the Church.

    This is a false dichotomy.

44. #45
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pm, vickisoup said:

    So zeroangel: Are you OK with the environmentalists having such massive political power? Or the gay rights movement having such political power?

    Religion defined:
    something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

    The principles of environmentalism and gay activism guide their every movement. By definition, that’s religion.

45. #46
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:57 pm, zeroangel said:

    SpeakEasy:

    Is it any different than any other PAC with regard to political power?

    Well one difference is that secular organizations don’t back up their claims with eternal damnation. In any case, though, as I said, it’s not illegal.

46. #47
    On November 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pm, zeroangel said:

    vickisoup:

    You can twist the defintion of religion to suit your point, sure, it does not make it so.

    I don’t like the ultra-envirormental types and I don’t really like the most radical “activists” of any stripe. It’s still not illegal. Oh well…

47. #48
    On November 18th, 2009 at 2:06 pm, vickisoup said:

    I didn’t “twist” anything. I cut and paste it from the dictionary.
    Just because you don’t like the definition doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
    Religion is not “illegal” either, and “oh well” is a pretty cowardly exit from a discussion you started.
    Do you have something else to offer that may persuade others of your analysis?

48. #49
    On November 18th, 2009 at 2:12 pm, zeroangel said:

    vickisoup:

    You are equivocating. You are using one definition of “religion” when I am obviously referring to another.

    Religion is not “illegal” either

    I know, and I said as much.

    “oh well” is a pretty cowardly exit from a discussion you started.

    What the hell are you talking about? How many times do I have to repeat myself? I said I don’t like it, but it’s not illegal and not wrong. Personally, I really think people that (for example) gain massive amounts of political influence and wealth by fostering a myth and threatening people with eternal punishment should not be taken seriously. However, to try and legislate against this leads to thought crime, which IMHO, is a far worse thing. Therefore, I will tolerate this nonsense as much as I have to tolerate any other kind of radical idea.

    Do you have something else to offer that may persuade others of your analysis?

    Well, since you don’t even seem to understand what I am saying, why should I bother?

49. #50
    On November 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm, zeroangel said:

    vickisoup:

    Is it possible to be an evirormentalist or gay rights activist and be religious?

    Is it possible to be both Catholic and Jewish?

    This is why your defintion of religion is twisting things. You are talking about two different things.

50. #51
    On November 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    DeGette’s “New” quote as posted on The Hill….. makes no sense at all.

    Nor does an assertion that the Bishops should not have a final say. They don’t as they don’t vote on these bills.

    I’m not buying the “re-quote”. Sounds more like someone trying to squirm away from their own words.

51. #52
    On November 18th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, vickisoup said:

    zeroangel: Well, that was a quick trip to using personal attacks as an attempted distraction.
    Please note that it didn’t work.

52. #53
    On November 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, zeroangel said:

    vickisoup:

    Well, that was a quick trip to using personal attacks as an attempted distraction.

    You indicated that I was being cowardly when you didn’t even understand what I was saying, what did you expect? A fawning, courteous reply? You reap what you sow.

    Anyhow, if you care to address my points (rather than ignore them) here they are again:

    1) You clearly twisted the definition of religion by using two separate definitions of the same word.

    2) I don’t like the fact that Church Hierarchies gain massive political influence and wealth but I recognize that the alternative (thought crime) is worse.

    Do you understand now or are you going to continue to try and pretend to yourself that I am saying something that I clearly wasn’t?

53. #54
    On November 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm, vickisoup said:

    1) I did not twist the definition of religion. I cut and paste it from a dictionary.
    2) I agree with you on this point.

54. #55
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, zeroangel said:

    vickisoup:

    1) You used two separate definitions of the same word. It is called equivocation. You were absolutely twisting things by using equivocation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation.

    Obviously, I was using the common definition of religion referring to supernatural beliefs. As I pointed out: one could be a Catholic AND an environmentalist. One cannot be a Catholic AND Jewish.

    2) So you recognize now that I never said religion should be illegal? Good, thank you.

55. #56
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pm, zeroangel said:

    vickisoup:

    Here’s Webster:

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

    1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
    2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
    3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
    4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

    My defintion was #1, obviously. You were using #4.

    You were equivocating. Period.

56. #57
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:22 pm, vickisoup said:

    If I told you, zeroangel, that you’re not my “go-to” person on what to think or believe, would you argue with me about that, too?
    Or must everyone agree with you, lest they be cast as ignorant, equivocating, etc.?

57. #58
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pm, zeroangel said:

    vickisoup:

    You were objectively equivocating. This is not an opinion. Obviously, you were using two separate definitions of the same word. Do you even know what I mean by equivocation? Read the wiki for god’s sake.

    Again, you reap what you sow. If you call me a coward then you can expect that I will expose you when you say or do stupid things, in this case, objectively equivocating.

58. #59
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:28 pm, zeroangel said:

    vickisoup:

    You can disagree with me all you want but if you use stupid or weak arguments or equivocation to do so, expect that I will call you on it.

59. #60
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, emjem24 said:

    zyzzyg said:

    That being said, anyone who suggests that input from anyone is unwelcomed . . . well, is just plain wrong. We’re in this together, and though we might not agree, we should all have input.

    Really? Did your My Little Pony doll tell you to say that? Everybody has input? We’re all in this together? Since when?

    I don’t see any input when Congress shoves bad legislation like Cap and Tax and Health Care “Reform” down our throats for our “own good.” We’re definitely not all in this together when people protest undemocratic processes and then get marginalized for it.

    I’ve seen how little input or togetherness people in this country have. If we were truly in this together employers wouldn’t be discriminating against military spouses because, gasp!, they might pcs in 2-3 years.

    The loner in me laughs at wide-eyed optimists like you. Humans aren’t built for togetherness. Get a clue.

60. #61
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:40 pm, John Deaux said:

    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, zeroangel said:
    One cannot be a Catholic AND Jewish.

    Great. Now you’re going to piss off Jews for Jesus.

61. #62
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    Zero, I don’t see that as a false dichotomy- The choice is total freedom, including freedom of religion. The other is totalitarianism which is a black or white, one or the other distinction. Your “eternal damnation” comment is one I have trouble with as well but I don’t equivicate a religous group supporting a particular position as them sentencing you to the same. It certainly should not nullify the voices of their supporters who are voters.

    It seems to me by your initial comments, you were looking for a fight to push your particular point of view.

    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:17 am, zeroangel said:
    Ed:

    I am sick and tired of the lie that being “godless” isnt’ a good thing. It’s slanderous and annoying. Stop please.

    and
    

    Actually, I don’t really want to. The arguments are always the same, some people just never learn. I couldn’t let it slide though.

    The comment that seemed to set you off was that General Washington “did not want a Godless state also.” You equated that to be
    

    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:08 am, zeroangel said:
    But he did not want a Godless America either.
    Here we go again…

    GODLESS = BAD.

    I, being agnostic, read that to mean he did not want religion outlawed outright. See, not having a state sponsored religion is not the same thing as forcing people to choose a religion. I think it depends on your level of paranoia. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and call it a day. I appreciate your intent to engage in discussion without resorting to name calling. (no sarcasm was intended, sincerely)

62. #63
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pm, RTater said:

    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, zeroangel said:
    One cannot be a Catholic AND Jewish.

    Tell that to Edith Stein.

63. #64
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pm, zeroangel said:

    SpeakEasy:

    Zero, I don’t see that as a false dichotomy- The choice is total freedom, including freedom of religion. The other is totalitarianism which is a black or white, one or the other distinction.

    You said:

    Given a choice between heavy influence by the church, as we have had since our founding, and heavy influence of the state, as in totalitarian governments historically, I would choose the Church.

    That was wrong. You can absolutely have a capitalist, democratic state where there is freedom of religion but many people are just not religious at all (maybe even atheists).

    I have trouble with as well but I don’t equivicate a religous group supporting a particular position as them sentencing you to the same.

    I’m sorry, but the Catholic church condemns certain acts as sin. They absolutely do say that if you don’t follow certain rules you might end up in hell.

    It certainly should not nullify the voices of their supporters who are voters.

    I never said it should. I am merely saying that their methods are deplorable, but must be tolerated as I have spelled out.

    It seems to me by your initial comments, you were looking for a fight to push your particular point of view.

    Riiight… mean ‘ole me looking for a fight when I assert that I am not more apt to be evil.

    The truth is, we don’t know what Washington thought about it exactly and he isn’t here to ask. However, I made a safe assumption that someone might think Washington thought godlessness is bad. As it turns out, just two posts later, someone asserted exactly that.

    Incidentally, I am agnostic as well. I don’t KNOW, however I certainly don’t believe, and that’s why I am an atheist.

64. #65
    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:52 pm, zeroangel said:

    RTater:

    Tell that to Edith Stein.

    She converted, obviously she wasn’t both at the same time. Geeezzz… why do I even have to say these things?

65. #66
    On November 18th, 2009 at 4:05 pm, RTater said:

    Now that is a good question.

    (She stopped being Jewish?)

66. #67
    On November 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, zeroangel said:

    RTater:

    Well, if you call “Jewish” an ethnic identity and not a religion, but that’s twisting things too .

    Maybe I should have said, “you can’t be Catholic AND Muslim.”

    *sigh*

67. #68
    On November 18th, 2009 at 4:08 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Camille Paglia on atheist Richard Dawkins:
    

    On other matters, I was recently flicking my car radio dial and heard an affected British voice tinkling out on NPR. I assumed it was some fussy, gossipy opera expert fresh from London. To my astonishment, it was Richard Dawkins, the thrice-married emperor of contemporary atheists. I had never heard him speak, so it was a revelation. On science, Dawkins was spot on — lively and nimble. But on religion, his voice went “Psycho” weird (yes, Alfred Hitchcock) — as if he was channeling some old woman with whom he was in love-hate combat. I have no idea what ancient private dramas bubble beneath the surface there. As an atheist who respects and studies religion, I believe it is fair to ask what drives obsessive denigrators of religion. Neither extreme rationalism nor elite cynicism are adequate substitutes for faith, which fulfills a basic human need — which is why religion will continue to thrive in our war-torn world.

68. #69
    On November 18th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, zeroangel said:

    Dave:

    Oh Jesus. The “belief in belief” folks. Also known as the “I’m an atheist, but…”

    No points, just ad hominem in your quote. FAIL.

69. #70
    On November 18th, 2009 at 4:17 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    Zero, I guess what I meant was Christians believe in free will, the choice is yours. Not so much with Totalitarianism, the choice is theirs.

    As far as the Catholic church condemning you to hell, what does it matter to you if you do not believe in Hell? I don’t sweat it myself (pun fully intended).

70. #71
    On November 18th, 2009 at 4:29 pm, zeroangel said:

    SpeakEasy:

    Zero, I guess what I meant was Christians believe in free will, the choice is yours. Not so much with Totalitarianism, the choice is theirs.

    OK but that’s not really what it appeared you were saying.

    Given a choice between heavy influence by the church, as we have had since our founding, and heavy influence of the state, as in totalitarian governments historically, I would choose the Church.

    You seemed to be saying either we have to choose between having a Church with heavy influence, or having a totalitarian government. That is a false dichotomy, as I said.

    As far as the Catholic church condemning you to hell, what does it matter to you if you do not believe in Hell?

    First off, it’s pretty unethical IMHO. It’s a threat. They are telling people they should believe a certain way or they will suffer. Secondly, it’s demonizing and dehumanizing. Absolutely some fundamentalists from some religions (Muslims certainly) act on the idea by killing those that they think should go to hell.

71. #72
    On November 18th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    Zero, how can it be a threat if what they are threatening you with does not exist? And it is only dehumanizing or demonizing if you give a rat’s behind what they think. Can you see why this makes you seem overly contentious? Anyway, nice chatting with you but I have other things to get to. Best regards.

72. #73
    On November 18th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, zeroangel said:

    SpeakEasy:

    They aren’t threatening me in my first point, they are threatening their believers. In that sense, I call it unethical.

    Secondly, it doesn’t matter if I don’t care what fundamentalists think, some of them will still want to kill me because they believe I am going to hell. If you can’t see how this idea is dangerous, I can’t help you. It’s so obvious. Just look at the Jihadists!

    Take care.

73. #74
    On November 18th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    I’m not buying your statement about “being threatened with eternal damnation/punishment” by “religious” people. What do you care….you don’t believe in anything they say anyway, so why would you consider this a “threat.”

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;but FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 7

74. #75
    On November 18th, 2009 at 5:07 pm, zeroangel said:

    FirstSkirt:

    Just read all my posts before repeating a comment someone else already said and I already addressed. Jeeezzz…

75. #76
    On November 18th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, zeroangel said:

    FirstSkirt:

    …oh and as for calling me a fool:

    “I’m rubber and you are glue…”

    Honestly, grow up. If ad hominem is all you got that you really don’t have an argument do you?

76. #77
    On November 18th, 2009 at 5:16 pm, pabarge said:

    Look at one of the faces of evil

77. #78
    On November 18th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, zyzzyg said:

    On November 18th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, emjem24 said: #844121

    Really? Did your My Little Pony doll tell you to say that? Everybody has input? We’re all in this together? Since when?

    Yes, really. I don’t own a My Little Pony Doll, yet I appreciate your attempt at humor, though feeble.

    Yes, everyone has input. If you write or call your Representatives, you have provided your input. If you attend a townhall meeting and express your concerns to your Representatives, you have provided your input. When you vote, you have provided your input.

    Yes, we are all in this together, because we are one country, One Nation. You might want to familiarize yourself with a document that begins “We the People . . . ”

    I’ve seen how little input or togetherness people in this country have. If we were truly in this together employers wouldn’t be discriminating against military spouses because, gasp!, they might pcs in 2-3 years.

    I have seen how little input and togetherness people in this country have, too. Though, once an issue is voted on, that is it until the issue is voted on again. Nope, majority rule does not always smooth over every little thing, but that is how we do things.

    You are taking a tangent in talking about employers and personalizing the issue far beyond the topic of Rep DeGette’s comments. Maybe on another thread we can discuss how employers discriminate against military spouses, fat people, smokers, ugly people, short people, short fat ugly smokers, or any other subset of the population.

    I don’t see any input when Congress shoves bad legislation like Cap and Tax and Health Care “Reform” down our throats for our “own good.”

    Then unfortunately you did not watch much of the debate on the two issues you mentioned. Each recieved input from many Legislators, your and my Representatives, via amendments, conversations and deal making. A number of those Legislators insisted on changes to those bills because of input from their constintuents. And, that input was provided by writing, calling and townhall meetings.

    We’re definitely not all in this together when people protest undemocratic processes and then get marginalized for it.

    Actually, we are a Republic. You may not like the process, but it has been this way for over 200 years. If you feel marginalized, well those are your feelings. And because legislation does not go my way, I am not going to curl up into a ball on the floor.

    The loner in me laughs at wide-eyed optimists like you. Humans aren’t built for togetherness. Get a clue.

    Yeah, well I believe in the promise and opportunity that America offers. Heck, call me an optimist, that is no insult. I am really sorry that you can not see, or fail to accept, that humans can, and have, overcome their selfisness and do great things.

    My true hope is that you can see, and do not fail to accept, that America can and has overcome our collective selfishness and do great things.

    There is a clue for you.

78. #79
    On November 18th, 2009 at 6:02 pm, Dave Turson said:

    About.com is a good site to learn more about atheism. For instance, the expert at the site takes note of the Zeros of the world with this:
    

    Because atheists are so often seen critiquing religion, it’s common for religious theists to wonder what atheists really think about religion and why. The truth is complex, however, because there is no single atheistic opinion about religion. Atheists’ critical stance with regards to religion is more a product of cultural trends in the West than of anything internal to atheism itself, which is only the absence of belief in gods. Atheists have a wide variety of opinions about religion.

79. #80
    On November 18th, 2009 at 6:23 pm, Elm Creek Smith said:

    God doesn’t care if you don’t believe in Him. He believes in you.

    I read that somewhere. Personally, as long as there is no human sacrifice or perversity with children involved, you can believe or not believe what you like.

    Getting back on target, the “government” and “politicians” are not our friends. It and they should be our servants. Unfortunately, “they” don’t care what we think.

    ECS

80. #81
    On November 18th, 2009 at 6:36 pm, zeroangel said:

    Dave:

    What is your point? I agree with that quote. Read more from that guy on about.com and I guarntee you won’t like what he has to say. I read a great deal of stuff from that about.com topic (atheism) and I like quite a lot of it.

81. #82
    On November 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pm, Dave Turson said:

    zeroangel said:
    Dave:

    What is your point?

    As an atheist who respects and studies religion, I believe it is fair to ask what drives obsessive denigrators of religion. Neither extreme rationalism nor elite cynicism are adequate substitutes for faith, which fulfills a basic human need — which is why religion will continue to thrive in our war-torn world.—Camille Paglia

82. #83
    On November 18th, 2009 at 6:45 pm, zeroangel said:

    Dave:

    Again like I said:

    No points, just ad hominem in your quote. FAIL.

    Do you even understand what I am saying?

83. #84
    On November 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Yes, I understand.

    Honestly! Imagine you were raised in a different religion or (better yet) no religion at all. Imagine that Christianity is completely alien to you. How much sense does it make to worship a deity that sacrificed himself to himself to atone for the sin of an ancient man and woman eating an apple from a talking snake?! It’s absurd!—Zeroangel

84. #85
    On November 18th, 2009 at 7:20 pm, vickisoup said:

    Do you even understand what I am saying?

    Tsk Tsk Tsk.
    Still being rude, I see. If we don’t agree with you, it’s because we’re too thick-headed to comprehend your point, right?

    Life must be very frustrating for you, zeroangel, what with being a lonely little island of smart in a great big sea of such dummies.
    

85. #86
    On November 18th, 2009 at 8:00 pm, zeroangel said:

    Dave:

    Correct. It is absurd. Kudos to you for being able to use a search engine. I have never tried to hide the fact that I like Dawkins and I have even talked about posting there on this blog in the past. In that post I was attacking an idea.

    Neither you or Camille Paglia can defend this idea so you resort to ad honinem. Get it?

    vickisoup:

    Look, either you can admit that you were using two definitions (and therefore equivocating) or ignore it and bow out. The latter saves face, the former takes real intellectual honesty and courage. Your move.

86. #87
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:07 pm, Dave Turson said:

    On November 18th, 2009 at 8:00 pm, zeroangel said:
    Dave:

    Correct. It is absurd. Kudos to you for being able to use a search engine. I have never tried to hide the fact that I like Dawkins and I have even talked about posting there on this blog in the past. In that post I was attacking an idea.

    Neither you or Camille Paglia can defend this idea so you resort to ad honinem. Get it?

    Your brand of atheism is clearly shown by what you’ve posted at richarddawkins.net, so I posted a link. As for my religious beliefs, I’ll share this: Acts 17:22-32.

87. #88
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:19 pm, zeroangel said:

    Dave:

    My brand? Again, what is your point? You don’t like being offended? Would you rather I treat you like a child that can’t take criticism? Explain why I should treat your religion any better than Scientology.

88. #89
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:42 pm, Dave Turson said:

    …the human-mind is hard wired to look for “agency” and thus “require” a creator being. The problem is there are just countless world religions all equally based on nebulous (non-existent) “evidence” and all equally assured of their own veracity. That, among other things, is what leads me to conclude its all nonsense. The fact we want or need some kind of objective measure for morality doesn’t make it so. —Zeroangel

89. #90
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:48 pm, zeroangel said:

    Dave:

    Yes, again. Your religion is every bit as false as Scientology.

90. #91
    On November 18th, 2009 at 11:58 pm, emjem24 said:

    zyzzyg said:

    Yes, really. I don’t own a My Little Pony Doll, yet I appreciate your attempt at humor, though feeble.

    I’m surprised anything can penetrate your self-absorbed bubble.

    Yes, everyone has input. If you write or call your Representatives, you have provided your input. If you attend a townhall meeting and express your concerns to your Representatives, you have provided your input. When you vote, you have provided your input.

    Input is more than attending townhalls and voting. It’s taking into account the interests of the ENTIRE district, not just a segment. DeGette doesn’t get that and that was my point.

    Yes, we are all in this together, because we are one country, One Nation. You might want to familiarize yourself with a document that begins “We the People . . . ”

    Please don’t lecture me on the Constitution. I have a BA and Master’s degrees in history. However, the intentions of the founders and the circumstances of our Republic have CHANGED and you know it. We are a nation of multiple constituencies, identity groups, and agendas. This in-fighting is tearing the country apart and underscoring what’s really a nation divided, not united. Even the founders said that political parties would be the death of our Republic and they have been. Stop being naive.

    I’ve seen how little input or togetherness people in this country have. If we were truly in this together employers wouldn’t be discriminating against military spouses because, gasp!, they might pcs in 2-3 years.

    Perhaps, you should have put this in block quotes. I so like people using my own words like it’s part of their own text.

    I have seen how little input and togetherness people in this country have, too. Though, once an issue is voted on, that is it until the issue is voted on again. Nope, majority rule does not always smooth over every little thing, but that is how we do things.

    Thanks for explaining that. Perhaps, you too should be a constitutional lawyer like Obummer. Nothing is ever settled. That’s why the courts have their place.

    You are taking a tangent in talking about employers and personalizing the issue far beyond the topic of Rep DeGette’s comments. Maybe on another thread we can discuss how employers discriminate against military spouses, fat people, smokers, ugly people, short people, short fat ugly smokers, or any other subset of the population.

    I was making a larger point about the sheer ignorance of people like DeGette and you. There are many DISENFRANCHIZED people in this country who do not vote. Why is that? There are other modern societies with higher voter percentiles than ours. Including Iraq. The ugly truth is that disenfranchized people, INCLUDING military spouses, are underserved and marginalized DELIBERATELY. And when people are marginalized and disenfranchized they don’t feel invested in their country. And I’m not the only one who’s noticed.

    Then unfortunately you did not watch much of the debate on the two issues you mentioned. Each recieved input from many Legislators, your and my Representatives, via amendments, conversations and deal making. A number of those Legislators insisted on changes to those bills because of input from their constintuents. And, that input was provided by writing, calling and townhall meetings.

    Really? So Harrycare overall reflects the opinon of the American people AGAINST the Health Care Reform bill, right? What a joke. There is little reform and more than a little social engineering that doesn’t address the real issues. That doesn’t sound like our vaunted senators listening to the views of their constituents, just the left extreme of the Dem party.

    Actually, we are a Republic. You may not like the process, but it has been this way for over 200 years. If you feel marginalized, well those are your feelings. And because legislation does not go my way, I am not going to curl up into a ball on the floor.

    You don’t say. Dude, you’re lecturing an historian. Perhaps, you should quit while you’re ahead. I’m sorry you’d rather live in denial but that’s not my ATTITUDE. I live in REALITY. You want to talk up this administration and the beauty of majority rule all you want but if we were truly a REPUBLIC there would actually be some true REPRESENTATION not the special interest peddling that overrides the interests of the American people.

    Yeah, well I believe in the promise and opportunity that America offers. Heck, call me an optimist, that is no insult. I am really sorry that you can not see, or fail to accept, that humans can, and have, overcome their selfisness and do great things.

    You do that. We’re not talking selfishness. That’s only a small part of the bigger picture. Humans are reckless, egocentric, self-destructive, foolish creatures. We are talking the interests of the few who want socialized medicine and other special European freebies over the many more who don’t want it and definitely fear the effects such bad laws will have on their lives. I’m sorry YOU cannot see that.

    My true hope is that you can see, and do not fail to accept, that America can and has overcome our collective selfishness and do great things.

    There is no collective selfishness that is being discussed. You basically want freebies for the few so that you can say how empathetic you are. I’m not discussing that. I’m talking more about how our vaunted politicians don’t seem to be beholden to their employers, the American people. And we, the American people, are responsible for that.

    There is a clue for you.

    You need it more that I do. I live my life in reality, and live my life according to my own principles instead of the lies politicians tell me to get my vote. I find the truth on my own.

    All the drivel that you spouted makes me fear for not only the overall intelligence of the American voter but the future of our kids. No wonder our kids don’t trust adults if they’re full of the kind of BS you just gave me. I believe in the philosophy and ideas behind this country but not how they’ve been practiced. As a teacher, I’ve compared and contrasted the founding of this country with the ACTUAL practice of their principles and ideas. Then, I let my 8th graders decide. Some kids actually don’t like being talked down to like you just did with ME. Perhaps, you should keep THAT in mind.

91. #92
    On November 19th, 2009 at 12:07 am, emjem24 said:

    zeroangel said:
    Dave:

    Yes, again. Your religion is every bit as false as Scientology.

    Sigh… why must every freaking discussion devolve into a frantic chat about religion? No wonder I walked away from my parents urging me to attend church as a teenager. You’re both wooing each other like my parents (especially my father) tried to woo me to go to church. It’s all a bit sickening.

    Zero:

    If you think Dave’s religion is every bit as false as Scientology (a phoney comparison), then why isn’t your interpretation any less false? It’s quite interesting that nothing should guide the human heart and intellect more than base needs instead of something higher than ourselves. I’m down with that. I don’t mind it.

    I wish atheists would get over themselves just as much as they tell those evil “fundamentalists” to jump a cliff. Maybe I’ll go to hell for saying this, but since God has better things to do I think he won’t mind.

92. #93
    On November 19th, 2009 at 12:15 am, WarEagle82 said:

    A constitutional literacy test to hold office! What a concept. I imagine virtually no one in office over the past 20 years would pass the test.

    Okay, maybe John Bolton and Condi Rice, but that is all…

93. #94
    On November 19th, 2009 at 12:28 am, Dave Turson said:

    On November 19th, 2009 at 12:07 am, emjem24 said:

    You’re both wooing each other like my parents (especially my father) tried to woo me to go to church. It’s all a bit sickening.

    No wooing from me. I was done.

94. #95
    On November 19th, 2009 at 12:39 am, WarEagle82 said:

    Discussing religion with ZA is probably as painful as discussing Monica with Hilary…

95. #96
    On November 19th, 2009 at 1:22 am, PKAmmoTroop said:

    Diana DeGette’s seat was once held by Pat Schroeder. Proof positive that stupid is contagious.

96. #97
    On November 19th, 2009 at 1:24 am, PKAmmoTroop said:

    I wish atheists would get over themselves just as much as they tell those evil “fundamentalists” to jump a cliff. Maybe I’ll go to hell for saying this, but since God has better things to do I think he won’t mind.

    God made evangelical atheists for several reason: to give us pause to count our blessings and to truly appreciate the meaning of the word ‘hypocrisy’

97. #98
    On November 19th, 2009 at 8:39 am, zeroangel said:

    Emjem24:

    Sigh… why must every freaking discussion devolve into a frantic chat about religion?

    In case you haven’t noticed, the topic is deeply involved with religion. No one is wooing anyone, I am just pointing out the obvious. We both know that you aren’t very religious. Are you honestly telling me that the claim that Jesus Christ was the son of god, walked on water, and healed sick people is not every bit as fantastical as the idea that alien souls inhabit our bodies?

    Why is my comparison phoney? What is false about my interpretation? I don’t believe in Yahweh anymore than I believe in Xenu or Zeus, why is that so hard to grasp?

    It’s quite interesting that nothing should guide the human heart and intellect more than base needs instead of something higher than ourselves.

    You need to get past this. You are pretending to yourself that the higher functions of the human brain are somehow separate from our base instincts. They are managed by different parts of the brain but they are all the same mind brought on by evolution. I don’t need something “higher” than myself to know that it’s a better life to get a good job and have a nice family than it is to descend into drugs and sex (for example).

    I wish atheists would get over themselves just as much as they tell those evil “fundamentalists” to jump a cliff.

    Sorry, we’ve been quiet for way too long. It’s about time we started speaking up.

    Maybe I’ll go to hell for saying this, but since God has better things to do I think he won’t mind.

    Any god that sends you to hell for this isn’t worthy of being worshipped. He would be a horribly cruel monster.

    PKAmmoTroop:

    God made evangelical atheists for several reason: to give us pause to count our blessings and to truly appreciate the meaning of the word ‘hypocrisy’

    In what way are we hypocritical? I am not preaching any doctrine, nor am I commanding any obiendance to abstract rules, nor am I threatening anyone with hellfire. What I say is nothing like a religion. God made me this way, huh? Tell me then, what sense does it make that I should be punished in anyway for being the way I am made?

98. #99
    On November 19th, 2009 at 9:35 am, Roland said:

    I don’t need something “higher” than myself to know that it’s a better life to get a good job and have a nice family than it is to descend into drugs and sex (for example).

    You don’t. But that 80% of the population that grows up with big time screwed up parents, if they are lucky, and who have suffered terrible tragedies and/or emotionally scarring humiliations before they are 15, and who have much lower IQ’s than you have and have much less ability to communicate their thoughts and ideas and feelings through language than you have, and who feel lost and hopeless and stupid and humiliated and helpless all of the time just might be happier, better adjusted people if they can go somewhere where people like them can listen to someone smarter and wiser and who they see as more trustworthy than most other people who can instruct them in obvious rules they can live by which can make their lives better.

    Suffering people of damaged self-esteem will always seriously outnumber us superior enlightened types, ZA. Be tolerant. Count your blessings.

    And concentrate on converting the 20% of the global population that is being instructed by the minions of the war cult.

    And concentrate on converting the endless millions of supposedly ‘intelligent’ and ‘enlightened’ people who get their instruction from crackpot leftist professor types who though they claim to be nonbelievers actually inform all of their thinking with a default to collectivist fanaticism.

    Those kinds of people are far more dangerous than the anti-evolution loons.

    Thank Jesus for that. Seriously. The Christian nuts would be every bit as dangerous as the Muslim ones if their founder had been an epileptic mass murderer like Muhammed.

99. #100
    On November 19th, 2009 at 9:43 am, zeroangel said:

    Roland:

    What are you saying? That I should give some deference to some religions because they might be helpful despite not being true? I could do that, but then I would be lying to others and myself. Not only that, but it can lead to problems concerning scientific education and views on certain kinds of scientific research. Sorry, I have to disagree with you.

    As for the far-lefties, I wage that crusade on other blogs where I often disagree with them. In this thread Dave was fond of linking my quotes on Dawkins’ site. Need I link examples there? I think you will take me at my word.

    OK, BBL.