Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, (original, huh?) airs on Tuesdays at 10:PM and Saturdays at 8:PM, Eastern time on RainbowRadio.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Religious Conservatism creates atheists...

Should I say, "big surprise" or "who knew"?

LOL

Thank you to my good friend Conchobhar for hooking me up with an article that, to paraphase his own words, "gave me a chuckle" (and some serious philosophical validation) and should give a certain Right-Wing, Conservative Religious commenter here "heartburn."

(Though I actually doubt it, since that particular person is always right, on every topic, regardless of the evidence. That's why Conservatism and Religion are such attractive philosophies: They mean never having to admit you're wrong!)

Anyway, here it is: http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/manhattan_diary/conservative-christians-creating-next-generation-of-atheists-and-agnostics-160940985.html

Great read!

168 comments:

  1. I've noticed that life is so good in the Soviet Union. Let's hear some glory stories that make atheism such the good choice. Instead of bringing stories of how bad our system is, how about you bring some stories of how good your way is. I would hate to think that the best atheism can do is to attract those who refuse to be held accountable to moral/ethical standards and choose instead to use a 'class curve' to decide what is moral/ethical, with those standards constantly changing.

    Do people actually choose atheism first? Or is it always the second choice when they get tired of the other way? Because if it isn't the first choice by anyone, then what do you have to attract people to it other than they get turned off by religion? It would sure seem to me that if you can't attract people to your system without begging them, then perhaps your system isn't the best either.

    Consider the great quote by Albert Einstein: "Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here are a few related stories from my own back yard:
    http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jul/18/hamilton-county-gop-not-likely-join-condemnation-r/?breakingnews

    And:
    http://www.newschannel9.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_1386.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Do people actually choose atheism first?"

    The very question betrays a lack of thought. Everyone is born an atheist. Religious notions are subsequently imparted to them (or not). There's no atheist "system"; no orthodoxy, no Church of Atheism. Atheists appear in every group, across all political, social, and other lines. I can't even imagine who conjured up the fantasy of atheists "begging" others to become atheists.

    The Soviet Union made of "atheism" an orthodoxy imposed by the state. Its rulers, in this respect, were more akin to the contemporary religious right in the U.S. than to most atheists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Careful there Class... Don't forget that Willam has a long establihsed dificulty in distinguishing traits you're "born with" from ones you "choose." ;)

      Personally, I have to wonder how that can think Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, etc... are also such terrible places - look at how they treat women, gays, atheists, infidels [those who disagree with them about religion], free-thinkers, etc... - and yet constantly make the case politically that we should be MORE LIKE THEM: More intoelrant, more violent, more Religious, less equal and less free.

      And one simply cannot argue that there is some symmetric equivalent of that in any part of mainstream American Liberalism [save for the most extreme and marginalized internet nut-cases] arguing that we abolish religion. Seperate Church and State? Aboslutely, but it is for the PRESERVTAION OF BOTH.

      Also... Countries like Denmark and Finland? Happiest places on Earth, with some of the highest quality of life. Also comepletely secular societies.

      Russia and China are miserable places to live for FAR MORE reasons that state mandated Atheism. And while that IS a part of it? Giving them RELIGION without giving them FREEDOM would not make their quality of life any better.

      Delete
    2. Eddie, there is no "separation of Church and State". The United States has not established any religion. But what we do have is a prohibition of our ability to freely exercise our own religion. So, if you're going to whine about a mythical "separation of Church and State" perhaps you should also whine about how our ability to freely exercise the observance of our personal religion is being restricted by misinterpretation of that mythical phrase. As you demand only HALF of that mythical phrase be enforced you're being a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

      "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

      Delete
    3. "But what we do have is a prohibition of our ability to freely exercise our own religion."

      Bullshit. Proove it. Teachers leading prayer in schools is a violation of every students rigth to belong to another religuon that that of the TAX-PAYER PAID authority figure. (And you never did answer my question about how you would feel about teacher-led prayer if the teacher was Muslim, Wiccan, Hinudu, etc...)

      Show me an example and we'll talk, but "Free excercise" for all requires that each person respect the Rights of others to practice (or not) as they fit. Freedom OF Religion REQUIRES Freedom FROM Religion - every religion you DON'T choose to belong to! That's self-evident.

      That you lot fail to grasp that very basic concept does not mean your being REPRESSED. You're only being prohibited from repressing others, after all!

      Also, where they HAVE been cases of Religious prohibition, I will have you know that the ACLU has fought and won numerous cases on behalf of the free excersise of Religion - including for many Conservative Christian denomonations. You may see the NEED for the ACLU to do this as part of the problem, but then it's you lot who keep putting biggots on the SCOTUS. IMHO we shouldn't even NEED the ACLU because the SCOTUS should BE the ACLU.

      The way I see it, anytime your radical agenda is curtailed, you cry "persecution."

      But it just ain't so, Joe.

      Delete
    4. " Freedom OF Religion REQUIRES Freedom FROM Religion - every religion you DON'T choose to belong to!"

      Yeah, that's like saying "freedom OF speech is freedom FROM speech". Just because I don't like the speech you made doesn't mean you don't have the right to it. So, when you can show me that every God being prayed to (including the god of wind, the god of bears, the god of trees, ect...) is a RELIGIOUS god then the teacher has a right to lead a prayer in school at any time. When the teacher is invoking a particular religion then you can make that claim, but not all prayers are religiously based.

      BTW, you never addressed the contention that you made about YOU being able to lead a prayer in school. If you follow your rules about "separation of Church and State", as you state they are, then you would be forbidden from doing that. Because being "in" school and "leading" the prayer you would be an "authority figure" to the kids (who don't seem to be able to distinguish the difference between being forced into a religion and simply praying). Being a teacher has no bearing on your rules as you invoke them.

      Delete
    5. "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
      --Thomas Jefferson (1802)

      "Eddie, there is no 'separation of Church and State'."
      --Some dumbass on the internet (today)

      These two quotations teach a valuable lesson for this thread. If some dumbass on the internet offers the latter, I (and Mr. Jefferson) can correct him. Speech countering speech. This, however, is not the case when it comes to religion. To wit:

      "Freedom OF Religion REQUIRES Freedom FROM Religion - every religion you DON'T choose to belong to!"
      --Eddie

      "Yeah, that's like saying 'freedom OF speech is freedom FROM speech'."

      Only in the fantasies of dumbasses. In the real world, when government endorses one sect's religious practices over every other, it's obviously a violation of the rights of that "every other." Which is, of course, why religion and government were separated in the first place. Your religious rights, in the U.S., are not some privilege to be magnanimously granted you by a majority that enjoys official preferential treatment. That, boys and girls, is what's called a "toleration" regime. It was explicitly rejected by the U.S. constitutional scheme, which was one of religious liberty, not of religious toleration. Toleration regimes existed in early America. Pennsylvania was one. Maryland (briefly) was another. It took a while in some cases, but these eventually faded into history, as religious liberty carried the day. Religious liberty, the separation of church and state, freedom of religion--however one states it, they all describe the same concept. Simply put, our religion is no business of the state. It's not the business of the state to endorse some faction's prayers or practices.

      Delete
    6. And it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote about "their Creator" and "Nature's God" while creating the Declaration of Independence. You do remember that silly little piece of paper, don't you? I realize it can't carry as much weight as a letter to a Church group. After-all, I'm just a silly little dumbass who can't seem to prioritize documents correctly. Let's see ... United States Declaration of Independence ... not very worthy of recognition of it's merits .... a personal letter to an association of Baptists ... should be national law. Yeah that's how we prioritize things around here.

      Thanks for helping me realize how you keep things in proper order, classicliberal. I should have known you would be the one to tell me the facts of how your kind operate.

      Delete
    7. Number one, William, "Nature's God," and "their Creator" are pretty generic terms, and do not, as you seem to be implying, necessarily refer to a personal God.
      Number two, the Declaration predates the founding of the United States, and gives the reasoning behind the break with England. It has no legal force, unfortunate as that might be. The Constitution rules. And that "personal letter" which so sticks in your craw was, as you well know (or should) an explication of the will of the Founders in putting that Wall of Separation into the Constitution, which does have legal force. You can deny that the Wall exists, but your denial is no more credible than your insistence (probably accompanied by a stamping of the foot) that teacher-led prayer is not indoctrination. So the fact is, that Classic Liberal is actually keeping things in proper order, and your last sentence is as stupid as it is rude. Nothing new there.

      Delete
    8. Do you really believe that? Are you really saying that "Nature's God" and "their Creator" isn't talking about the Christian God? Yet, you think a teacher leading a generic prayer is indoctrinating a specific religion? REALLY? My last sentence isn't being rude, it is being (apparently) factual.

      BTW, that "wall" was never put into the Constitution, though, was it?

      Let me pose this one to you. I'm sure you heard about the white buffalo that was born in Minnesota, recently. Did you know that the local Indian tribe (Lakota) thinks the white buffalo is a "spiritual symbol of sacred life and abundance"? What religion do you think they are expressing that spriritualism in? So, if a teacher leads a prayer using the white buffalo as the "higher power" that is being prayed to ... what religion is being indoctrinated?

      Delete
    9. "And it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote about 'their Creator' and 'Nature's God' while creating the Declaration of Independence."

      And you later write:

      "Are you really saying that 'Nature's God' and 'their Creator' isn't talking about the Christian God?"

      Jefferson was an Enlightenment rationalist and, like nearly all of the important founders, a deist, not a Christian. "Nature's god" is a deistic concept, derived from--broadly--the notion that a god created the world and established the natural laws by which it operated.

      "You do remember that silly little piece of paper, don't you? I realize it can't carry as much weight as a letter to a Church group."

      The matter on the table is that of religious liberty as canonized in the 1st Amendment. The letter is a statement of the founders' intent on that subject, whereas the DIO doesn't address that matter at all. The Constitution itself wasn't created until 11 years after the DOI; the Bill of Rights postdate it by 15 years. Idiot.

      "After-all, I'm just a silly little dumbass who can't seem to prioritize documents correctly."

      Can't seem to understand rudimentary logic, either. But you do flap your arms and blow a lot of smoke up everyone's asses.

      "BTW, that 'wall' was never put into the Constitution, though, was it?"

      Calling Thomas Jefferson a liar does absolutely nothing to help your case.

      Now, flap those arms and blow some more smoke...

      Delete
    10. "Jefferson was an Enlightenment rationalist and, like nearly all of the important founders, a deist, not a Christian. "Nature's god" is a deistic concept, derived from--broadly--the notion that a god created the world and established the natural laws by which it operated."

      You atheists are so inconsistent. Does that mean a teacher can lead a prayer in school if they are praying to "Nature's God"? Since there is no religion being indoctrinated by that god?


      "The letter is a statement of the founders' intent on that subject, whereas the DIO doesn't address that matter at all. "

      What is the "DIO"? And, you mean ONE founder, not all of them. Unless Jefferson included all the signatures of all the other founders on his personal letter to a church group. Did he do that? You are best to follow Conchobhar lead and just move on. Because your inconsistent standards for implementation of 'separation of church and state' are getting a bit tiresome. Not to mention hypocritical. How can you prevent a teacher from saying a prayer to a class when they are saying that prayer to a non-religious "Nature's God"?

      Delete
    11. "You atheists are so inconsistent. Does that mean a teacher can lead a prayer in school if they are praying to 'Nature's God'?"

      No. Nor did I ever suggest otherwise. Your comment, rather, is an exercise in non sequitur (look it up).

      "Since there is no religion being indoctrinated by that god?"

      It's no more the business of government to endorse Deism than it is to endorse Christianity.

      "And, you mean ONE founder, not all of them. Unless Jefferson included all the signatures of all the other founders on his personal letter to a church group."

      As usual, you're ranting about a subject about which you know absolutely nothing. Start here:
      http://classicliberal.tripod.com/radical/churchstate.html

      "You are best to follow Conchobhar lead and just move on. Because your inconsistent standards for implementation of 'separation of church and state' are getting a bit tiresome."

      Except you haven't managed to find any "inconsistencies" to wear you out. What's wearing you out is that you're trying to discuss a topic about which you know absolutely nothing (as usual).

      Delete
    12. "No. Nor did I ever suggest otherwise."

      So what religion is being implied that would allow the implication of the "separation of church and state" inference, as liberals claim is present? Maybe what you're saying is that no religion actually has to be implied, you just simply don't like "god" of any type being mentioned because it interferes with your atheistic demands within the government.
      And what does "Deism" have to do with it if no religion is being implied? Because if the lack of religion is acceptable to deny prayer, then the lack of religion, in the atheistic views, would and should be just as restricted. According to your bigoted views.

      Delete
  4. William: You're making a false quivalency. The article was less about "God" (as Einstien describes the concept) and more about RELIGION. Those are two different things, and ATHEISM, as you define it, is not the only alternative. I can reject Religion and still very much believe in [the idea of] God. I can also fail to have a positive belief in the existance of God, but also not possess a positive belief in the non-exsitance of God. Agnosticism, which is where I, as a scienctific-minded individual, place myself. You can't prove or disprove it, so fine: I accept the posibility but otherwise have not strong belief or disbelief either way.

    The other mistake you make is that the point of he article (and of mainstream Liberlaism, for that matter) is to support the Abolition of Religion. But, again, it's not. The argument is one for the seperation of Church and State. For treatign Religion as something which is sacred and highly PERSONAL and thus, we take mutual repsect for EVERYONE'S belief (or non-belief) and protect thatg as a matter of Principle. (Which is what FREEDOM, in general and the 1st Ammendment in particular is all about.) The POINT is that Religion needs to be disentangled from Politics. And that's not the RUSSIAN or CHINESE way. That's abolition. That's every bit as bad! But the mixing of Politics and Religion does make the Politican holier - it's simply drags religion down to the base level of politics, sullying it; diminishing it into nothing more that another cheap, jingoistic marketing device.

    Also you missuse Einstien's quote. Arging for the exsistance of God, or even PROVING (were that possible) the existance of God, would not automatically validate any particular Religion. You can disprove hundereds of demonstrably false claims in every religious text (and the Bible is our favorite, only because that's the one being forced on us by Politicans that people like you tend to vote for) but that doesn't disprove GOD. Likewise, proving GOD does not prove anything about the Bible. Also, it seems to me that Einstien is saying that humans like to "make shit up" to explain things that we do not yet understand. Hardly a wringing endorsement of religion, coming from a scientist.

    As for your questions about morality and atheism, etc... I will refer you to one of my favorite Conservative writers, the late Christopher Hitchens (and I'm paraphrasing):

    "In a purely secular society, men of good will would continue to do good deeds, whilst evil men would continue to delight in shirking their coivic duties. But to make a good man do evil things, first you must make him religious."

    This I believe, and have long believed. So much of the GOOD claimed to be to religions credit would happen regardless. Great philanthropists don't need the promise of eternal reward to want to help people, any more than I need the threat of Hellfire/damnation to NOT want to do nasty things to MY fellow man. To the extent that I am a good person, it is because that's what I WANT to be. If God, heaven and hell were all SCIENTIFICALLY DISPROVEN tomorrow? (Impossible, but IF...?) It wouldn't change ONE THING for me. I would continue to do as I believe is right.

    And if YOU believe that you would choose to act differently, were the promise of eternal reward or the threat of eternal damnation taken away?

    Then I ask if you're REALLY a moral person in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Eddie.

      And to William:
      I've often told you that you don't seem to understand what you read and quote. Well, you've struck again. Take a look at this:
      "That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."
      That says, pretty clearly if obliquely and politely, that those who purport to know the mind of God, and presume to speak for him, are charlatans. That would apply to Pope, Imam or pastor, and I would completely agree with Professor Einstein. I'm reminded of an exchange you and I had a couple of months or more ago, in which you told me that I knew "nothing about salvation," and I agreed. The difference between us, as I said, is that you harbor the delusion that you do.

      Reply

      Delete
    2. "I can reject Religion and still very much believe in [the idea of] God."

      That is quite true Eddie. Now, when a teacher leads a class in prayer what religion is being indoctrinated if the teacher "rejects Religion" but believes in the "idea of God"? How would the "separation of Church and State" apply in that instance? What religion is being "entangled"?
      I think you're doing a better job of arguing my case than I am. Keep up the good works.

      BTW, I would always prefer voting for someone who believes in the Bible than some pagan whose morals change according to the latest poll numbers. If you like voting for people whose morals change from week to week or year to year that is your prerogative. And, if you want to call me a bigot or the hundreds of other names you like to call people, who try to keep consistant morals, that also is your prerogative.

      "And if YOU believe that you would choose to act differently, were the promise of eternal reward or the threat of eternal damnation taken away?"

      I am a sinner. There is no doubt about that. I always have been and always will be. The promise I am given is because I believe in the saving grace of Jesus Christ. Not because I am good. No amount of good works guarantees your (or my) entry into Heaven. That isn't how it's done. Jesus Christ died on the Cross and shed His blood to pay for my sins. All I have to do is believe in Him. That's why there is only one unforgivable sin: non-belief.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, as you've said before, you need the Carrot & Stick Man in the Sky to keep you on the straight and narrow. Fine. Moving on.

      Delete
    4. You're being quite the bigot about a person's choice, aren't you? As much as you WHINE about me being one towards other's choices, you are no different. You're just another closed minded bigot. Next time you call me a bigot I'll hold that mirror up for you to use. So, it's best you just move on like you say. Maybe use this as a learning moment. That before you whine about my flaws you should address your own flaws. While I may be a bigot about a person's sexual choices, you are a bigot about a person's religious choices. I really don't know how I could not call you a hypocrite, at the same time, after all your calls for civility on matters of personal choices.

      Yes, it's best you keep moving on. I guess since you have no carrot or stick man in the sky you don't have to worry about being a hypocritical bigot. You'll merely justify your position, as you need, to account for your inconsistent moral standards. And you claim your way is SOOO much better.

      Delete
    5. Not at all. I'm attacking the bigotry implicit in your assumption of moral superiority, based on the mythology you embrace. You have, not for the first time, actually proved the point that you're trying to counter. When I was a boy, in a religious school, we were taught that Christianity transcended the Catacombs and became the dominant religion of Rome and, ultimately, the Western world, because of the example of their lives. The illustrative quote was, "See how these Christians love one another." The entire gist of the article in question, which you've failed to address as abysmally as you've failed to understand the Einstein quote you proffered, is that today's CHRISTIAN RIGHT (which is, as the bumper sticker says, neither) is giving exactly the opposite example, and young people are responding in a reasonable manner.

      I might also mention that, in a blog devoted to argument, a catechism recitation is less than impressive. You have every right to your beliefs, and to your expression of them. You do not have the right to expect those beliefs to be accepted as evidence or argument by others, or to have your expression of them unchallenged IN THIS FORUM. Rant on a street corner all you want, I'll get you a milk crate to stand on. Actually, no. You should be confined to 'free speech zones,' like the political protestors you so hate.

      To address your reply to Eddie, below, you've 'proven' nothing. If indoctrination is not the purpose of teacher-led prayer, why do you insist on it, rather than a 'moment of silence and reflection' to start the day? Your first sentence by the way, betrays your inherent ineptness. No god (lower case, as I instructed you before {Masters Degree in English Education}) belongs to a religion. Only people do. But what can I expect from a person who still doesn't understand, or accept, (in spite of his addiction to dictionaries) the vast difference between belief and knowledge, and who can write, "If you believe in religion you know this to be true."? (Delusions of Grandeur)

      And finally, William, we must address your proclivity for projection. You wrote to Eddie,
      "You're good at what you do best: name-calling. But, that is a typical trait of most liberals."
      Really? Go back to the beginning of your essays here, and take a look at the name calling, lies and demonization you've indulged in. You've castigated me more than once for referencing a conversation with my son, and (paraphrasing here) 'exposing him to the viciousness of a 'left-wing blog.' The only person who responded to him viciously was you. But of course, like your beloved Limbaugh, you blamed your failing on the evul libruls.

      But to end on a friendly note, thanks for your final sentence to Eddie, below. That's hilarious.

      Delete
    6. "If indoctrination is not the purpose of teacher-led prayer, why do you insist on it, rather than a 'moment of silence and reflection' to start the day?"

      Again, your lack of reading comprehension is leading you to that conclusion. I have NEVER said I insist or expect daily prayer in school. My references have always been 'isolated' cases.


      "Really? Go back to the beginning of your essays here, and take a look at the name calling, lies and demonization you've indulged in."

      Really? You mean I started name-calling just out of the blue and had no reason to do so in response to any? Maybe you have an example of me name-calling without it being a reply to prior name-calling. Because, yeah, I can name-call with the best of them, but I seldom (if ever) start out being the one to do it. Well, unless you consider being called a "liberal" name-calling.

      BTW, no comments on the "white buffalo" scenario? What religion is being followed and/or indoctrinated? I notice that classicliberal is avoiding that little scenario also. Go figure.

      Delete
    7. Talk about reading comprehension. Notice I included "demonization and lies" along with name calling. You demonized and denigrated liberals as a group, from your very first post, and have persisted in lying about what liberals believe and want.

      And don't bother to deny that you lie. You can't even carve a joke out of the truth, as your post to Eddie in "Please Comment" proves. Perhaps you believe, as does al Qaida, that it's permissible to lie to 'infidels.'

      Delete
    8. Do you even know what the subject is? Or is your seething blind hatred of me completely taken you over and you don't even care what the subject is as long as you can rant against me? My God, man, calm down and answer a couple simple questions as have been asked of you. Instead of ranting about your son and demons. Get over yourself. You aren't the only one here. This blog is world-wide it isn't just you and Eddie. People (ANYONE) can post here. If you can't handle a simple conversation, why do you even post?

      Delete
    9. William quote "I've noticed life is so good in the Soviet Union. Let's hear some glory stories that make atheism such a good choice."
      William, maybe you should do some research on religion in the Soviet Union. "Today, less than 20 years after the collapse of the officially atheistic Soviet Union, Russia has emerged as the most God-believing nation in Europe, more so than Roman Catholic Italy or protestant Britian."
      http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rogers/2011/0616/How-Russians-survived-militant-atheism-to-embrace-God
      So, you have to blame the S.U. problems on something other than atheism. Years ago I spent the summer behind the "Iron Curtain" and I never met a pheasant that did not have strong religious beliefs, not one. The State may have looted and closed their churches, confiscated all of their religious paraphernalia, and prohibited them from displaying any public sign of religious beliefs. But the State did not, could not, take their spirituality beliefs they held in their heart. It could not remove what they thought and believed. Every pheasant I met and stayed with, still held a strong belief in God and religion, mostly orthodox christian, and they passed down, and practiced these beliefs with their family members, in private. Just as the Bible instucts one to practice their faith in God. So again atheism was not the problem.

      William quote "Did you know that the local Indian tribe (Lakota) thinks the white buffalo is a "spiritual symbol of sacred life and abundance"? what religion do you think they are expressing that spiritualism? So if a teacher leads a prayer using the white buffalo as the "highter power" that is being prayed to. What religion is being indoctrinated?"

      That question is so silly, that is probably why no one responded to it. For one thing I seriously doubt you would ever find a teacher that would "lead a prayer using the white buffalo as the "higher power" that is being prayed to." I doubt you can find even an American Indian that considers the white buffalo as a "higher power". Many tribes consider the white buffalo as a sacred sign, omen, of CHANGE, for peace, purity, renewal of earths conditions. The prophecies that told of this omen (white buffalo) are believed to come from the "higher spirit", the buffalo it's self is not the higher spirit, but a gift from the higher spirt. A sign of what's to come.

      Not just the white buffalo but all rare white animals hold some signifiacant symbol for American Indians. Even dogs, white pups were considered sacred. White peacocks, wolves, crows, etc. each symbolizes a special meaning or connection to the "Great Spirit", they are not the Great Spirit. Many consider Mother Earth as the Great Spirit.

      So to answer your silly question, regarding your silly scenario, if a silly teacher lead such a silly prayer, I guess she would be indoctrinating spirituality charaterized by animism.

      Bronwyn

      Delete
    10. Sorry!! That should be peasant NOT pheasant. Oh, my! I don't know how to edit at this site and sorry the link didn't work either. Bronwyn

      Delete
    11. "So to answer your silly question, regarding your silly scenario, if a silly teacher lead such a silly prayer, I guess she would be indoctrinating spirituality charaterized by animism."

      Which would mean there is no actual RELIGION being prayed to or indoctrinated. Perhaps you would agree it isn't the physical number of times it would occur but rather the right to be able to do it that is important? It's kind of like the atheist's silly ideal that "God" should be removed from all government mention. There are so few of them, why even bother entertaining that silly thought?
      Yet, here we are arguing over their "right" to hold others captive with their silly demand that "God" be removed from the government. Then they have the nerve to be hypocritical about it and say that a teacher can't even say a prayer that isn't religious. That isn't just silly, it is downright stupid. Thanks for your assistance, Bronwyn.

      But I have to look at the source of the demands ... atheists. Nobody ever claimed they were the smartest bunch around. According to all definitions and accepted reasonings they are people who are disgruntled and upset with previous moralistic teachings and that is why they choose atheism.
      That would probably explain why atheists have the highest suicide rate in the US among believers and non-believers. I guess their ideals that not believing in a "God" aren't all they're cracked up to be. They claim to be happier without God, yet they kill themselves more than anyone else. I guess that's why people would rather choose God over no-God. They would rather have something to live for rather than not.


      But, at least they have the "right" to believe what they want and practice that belief as they please. Too bad they are so hypocritical that they don't allow others to practice what they believe as they please.


      Oh, BTW Bronwin, I hadn't realized that the Soviet Union had changed religions. I was still thinking the government still demanded and forced atheism upon it's people. So, my comment would be more directed at the older USSR than the newer Soviet Union. The point I was trying to make is that atheism isn't so great either, after hearing all the complaints about how they feel that life with God isn't so great. I guess I should have just mentioned the suicide rates among atheists v. religious people. That would have shown more directly that atheism isn't a viable alternative to religion. Well, at least not a safe one.

      Delete
    12. No public school teacher, in a public school, has any business indoctrinating, teaching, influencing, pushing, leading, conducting, their spirtuality, prayer or religion, on the students, period!

      Every priest and minister convicted of embezzlement, sexual assault and other deviant behavior, believed in God. Their moralistic teachings are pure hypocritical. So believing in God isn't always what it's cracked up to be, as you say.

      What's your proof that "atheists have the highest suicide rate in the US among believers and non-believers." a Conservative think tank article? I bet religious mass-suicides out number the atheists mass-suicides. Every victim of suicide that I knew on a personal basis believed in God, and it didn't stop them from making that fatal act. Nor did their belief in God help them out of that deep dark place (depression) they were in prior to the suicide. So believing in God isn't always all it's cracked up to be.

      Huh? "I hadn't realized that the Soviet Union had changed religions." I don't know what the hell you are talking about. There is no Soviet Union. Have you not heard about the demise of the USSR? There are a number of religions in Russia, the largest being Russian Orthodox.

      Like I said in my first post you need to do some research.
      Bronwyn

      Delete
    13. "Which would mean there is no actual RELIGION being prayed to or indoctrinated."

      According to what definition? Be specific. And it's still a set of beliefs that people may not want their children to practice from, so it doesn't really matter if you label it a RELIGION or not.

      "There are so few of them, why even bother entertaining that silly thought?"

      William, circa 1960:"There's so few of them colored people, they can sit at the back of the bus and stay off the lunch counters."

      "Then they have the nerve to be hypocritical about it and say that a teacher can't even say a prayer that isn't religious."

      The only examples you've ever shown regarding "non-religious prayer" involves carburetors and plumbing, neither of which is likely to apply in a public school classroom. Even if the term isn't always an oxymoron (and it is), then it's irrelevant to leading children in prayer.

      "According to all definitions and accepted reasonings they are people who are disgruntled and upset with previous moralistic teachings and that is why they choose atheism."

      You have nothing to substantiate that.

      "That would probably explain why atheists have the highest suicide rate in the US among believers and non-believers."

      Probably not. People who are scared into not killing themselves by thoughts of hell would explain the disparity, and it's hard to argue that they're thrilled with life.

      "They would rather have something to live for rather than not."

      You don't consider your family, job and interests things to live for? That's very sad. Does your wife know you feel that way?

      "Too bad they are so hypocritical that they don't allow others to practice what they believe as they please."

      You can practice whatever you like, just don't push it on other people's children.

      "The point I was trying to make is that atheism isn't so great either, after hearing all the complaints about how they feel that life with God isn't so great."

      Very few things are great when they're forced upon people. That goes for Christianity as well.

      Delete
    14. "No public school teacher, in a public school, has any business indoctrinating, teaching, influencing, pushing, leading, conducting, their spirtuality, prayer or religion, on the students, period!"

      No teacher has any business "teaching". That has got to be a classic among classics. So, I am to assume that means no teaching of atheism or any of its meanings too? Besides, if no "religion" is being indoctrinated why is it illegal ... or in your world unacceptable?

      Delete
    15. "William, circa 1960:"There's so few of them colored people, they can sitat the back of the busand stay off the lunch counters." "

      That's just your racism creaping out of your atheistic views.


      "The only examples you've ever shown regarding "non-religious prayer"involves carburetorsand plumbing, neither of which is likely toapplyin apublic school classroom."

      Not true. Indian observances are non-religious and that has been accepted and acknowledged by many of your co-horts.


      "Probablynot."

      Why don't you fully explain why atheists commit suicide more than any other group in America (the world). If you're so sure of your position, bring proof of it and explain your position. Otherwise (as Eddie often says) shut the hell up.


      "You can practice whatever you like, just don't push it on other people's children."

      Nothing is being "pushed" if there is no religion involved.


      "Very few thingsare great when they're forced upon people."

      Yeah. So STOP doing it!! People of moral character don't approve of what you're doing to our nation. Perhaps atheists (nations highest suicude group) likes what it is doing, but others do NOT.

      Delete
    16. "That's just your racism creaping out of your atheistic views."

      No, that's your logic in action. People have rights regardless of percentages, so quit harping on minority and majority statuses as if they had any bearing on anything.

      "Not true. Indian observances are non-religious and that has been accepted and acknowledged by many of your co-horts."

      Who accepted that, and where? I notice you didn't provide any definition of "religious" to support your usage.

      "Why don't you fully explain why atheists commit suicide more than any other group in America (the world). If you're so sure of your position, bring proof of it and explain your position. Otherwise (as Eddie often says) shut the hell up."

      I provided a possible explanation, if you can read. It's not my job to counter your assumptions, I simply pointed out that they weren't logically sound.

      "Nothing is being "pushed" if there is no religion involved."

      It is religion. You have yet to show how your prototypical teacher in a classroom is doing anything other than pushing his personal beliefs onto others. And leading children to believe in anything supernatural is inappropriate, "religion" or not (as if there's an actual difference).

      "So STOP doing it!! People of moral character don't approve of what you're doing to our nation."

      Really? Where's the super-majority drive to have prayer in public schools? Most Christians know it's inappropriate, because they know they wouldn't want their children indoctrinated into someone else's faith. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I read somewhere. Have you heard that saying before?

      Nobody's forcing atheism onto anyone. There are no problems that can be traced back to anything like a lack of school prayer. If people can't maintain their faith through their families and churches, then it's obviously a problem with the religion and not anyone else.

      Delete
    17. I'm sure even you knew what I meant by that statement, that teachers in a public school should not be teaching the students to practice their (the teachers) spirituality, prayer or religion. How very dishonest of you to take it out of context. Is that something your religion condones? Is that what you consider good moral character, constantly distorting what someone has said?

      A good teacher can "teach" accurately define what atheism, religion, and faith are without persuading a student to practice one over the other.

      Delete
    18. "No teacher has any business "teaching". That has got to be a classic among classics."

      The actual quote:"No public school teacher, in a public school, has any business indoctrinating, teaching, influencing, pushing, leading, conducting, their spirtuality, prayer or religion, on the students, period!"

      Yes, the same clown who talks about the supposed stupidity of atheists can only read half a sentence before his attention span shorts out on him. Classic, indeed.

      Delete
    19. Yeah, I know what you meant, Bronwyn. I just took advantage of a humor moment. Which apparently, Brabantio can't seem to fathom.

      But the difference between what you are talking about and and I'm talking about is "teaching" and "leading" prayer. It has been established that "prayer" is not exclusively religious. Therefor, the "separation of church and state" limitations should not apply if a teacher is not "teaching" prayer, but merely "leading" a prayer. Since no religion is ALWAYS being summoned by any given prayer. I fully understand that religion IS incorporated into some prayers, but not ALL. As I have demonstrated over and over. Including with my "silly" analogy. But the atheistic view is no prayer is allowed, even the non-religious type. Which goes way beyond their demands for SOCAS.

      Brabantio: "There are no problems that can be traced back to anything like a lack of school prayer."

      Yes there is. The higher than any other groups suicide rate taht atheists have. Maybe you don't consider that a "problem" in religion, but you certainly whined enough about it in the article about the gay guy who committed suicide because he was teased about it. Are you running a double standard here? It sure looks that way.

      Delete
    20. "It has been established that "prayer" is not exclusively religious."

      No, it hasn't, especially when in the context of a teacher leading children in prayer.

      "Since no religion is ALWAYS being summoned by any given prayer."

      I don't think religions are "summoned", exactly. If someone is leading children in prayer, however, that person is teaching children that there is some supernatural force which can be called upon. This is undeniable, which is why you keep ducking the point.

      "The higher than any other groups suicide rate taht atheists have."

      Prayer in public school is widely avoided, but 80% of people still believe in God? It doesn't sound like it has anything to do with people becoming atheists. If you and your church can't get children to stay in the faith, then that's nobody else's fault.

      "Maybe you don't consider that a "problem" in religion, but you certainly whined enough about it in the article about the gay guy who committed suicide because he was teased about it."

      Are you saying that Christians taunt and torment atheists to the point of suicide? I'm not sure what else you would be basing your comparison on.

      Delete
    21. " If you and your church can't get children to stay in the faith, then that's nobody else's fault."

      We have no problem keeping people in our faith. The only ones who leave are the ones who don't want to follow organized rules and morality. Hence they go to atheism and become a stat for suicide rates.


      "If someone is leading children in prayer, however, that person is teaching children that there is some supernatural force which can be called upon."

      But, your complaint is "religion" being indoctrinated. Are you now changing your whine to something different? Classicliberal and Conchobhar have both said "their Creator" and "Nature's God" are NOT religious in their use. Are you saying they are wrong and only your are right? Or are you saying that even non-religious prayer must be forbidden? Which, of course, would be you forcing your beliefs onto others. Something YOU say should NOT be happening.

      Delete
    22. "We have no problem keeping people in our faith."

      So why are you concerned about children becoming atheists due to a lack of school prayer?

      "But, your complaint is "religion" being indoctrinated. Are you now changing your whine to something different?"

      No, because the principle is the same whether you call it "religion" or not. The vast majority of the indoctrination would involve Christianity, but any teacher pushing their beliefs onto children is unacceptable. I don't see where I've been inconsistent in that position.

      "Classicliberal and Conchobhar have both said "their Creator" and "Nature's God" are NOT religious in their use."

      That's a lie. Deism was cited, which is quite certainly a faith.

      "Or are you saying that even non-religious prayer must be forbidden?"

      Anything that counts as "non-religious prayer" would be a "joke". If some auto shop teacher wants to call on the god of carburetors, then that's going to get a laugh. If that teacher is serious, and is really telling students that there is such an entity, then that's religious prayer.

      "Which, of course, would be you forcing your beliefs onto others."

      No, it wouldn't. Telling other people not to push their beliefs isn't the same as forcing my (lack of) beliefs onto anyone. People can believe what they want, they just can't use their authority to tell other people's children that it's the truth.

      Delete
    23. "That's a lie. Deism was cited, which is quite certainly a faith."

      But, NOT a religion. Your demands are that religion has no place in public schools. Deism is NOT a religion.


      "If some auto shop teacher wants to call on the god of carburetors, then that's going to get a laugh."

      Why are you still talking about carburetors? I take it when you stepped in the middle of this conversation you missed the "white buffalo" situation. I suspect you missed quite a lot and have no idea what is being discussed. Typical of your behavior. Please don't kill yourself over it though. Even though atheists kill themselves more than any other group in America. Must be a great religion (system) you follow there, if more of you commit suicide than any other group of people.


      "No, because the principle is the same whether you call it "religion" or not."

      Yes, you are. Killing and murder are the same "principle" (someone ends up dead) but the are completely different legally. Get your facts straight before coming into this discussion. Leading a non-religious prayer would be legal and that would continue to let you whine about religious prayer being illegal. BIG difference ... even if you aren't able to fathom it.


      "Telling other people not to push their beliefs isn't the same as forcing my (lack of) beliefs onto anyone."

      Yes it is the same. If any teacher says or implies there is no god then that is forcing your beliefs onto the innocent child. Which is forbidden according to your ever-changing standards.

      Delete
    24. "But, NOT a religion. Your demands are that religion has no place in public schools. Deism is NOT a religion."

      By what definition would it not be a religion? Again, be specific. Also explain what difference it would make. If someone doesn't want a belief in any god to be taught to their children, then people should respect that.

      "Why are you still talking about carburetors? I take it when you stepped in the middle of this conversation you missed the "white buffalo" situation."

      You brought up the god of carburetors to demonstrate "non-religious prayer". Are you admitting that argument was not valid? Native Americans were and are religious, anyway, whether their beliefs match the structure of Catholicism or any organized religion.

      "Please don't kill yourself over it though."

      Don't worry, I value my life and those involved in it without any supernatural beliefs. The same obviously can't be said for you, since you define "something to live for" as strictly a matter of faith.

      "Killing and murder are the same "principle" (someone ends up dead) but the are completely different legally."

      No, they aren't. You're talking about a factor or an aspect of a situation, not the principle of what always makes one wrong and the other not necessarily so.

      "Leading a non-religious prayer would be legal and that would continue to let you whine about religious prayer being illegal."

      And I'm still waiting for an example of how any teacher leading any prayer in class would be "non-religious". Praying to a white buffalo dictates that there is some supernatural aspect to the buffalo. That is religious.

      "If any teacher says or implies there is no god then that is forcing your beliefs onto the innocent child. Which is forbidden according to your ever-changing standards."

      The lack of any mention of a god does not imply that there is no god. It's a secular environment. Do you complain that your doctor doesn't pray for a child when you go for a visit? Do doctors, dentists, whoever else all push atheism onto the public by "implying" that there's no god?

      Delete
    25. "By what definition would it not be a religion?"

      What definition do you want to use? Since you'll be denying the use of any definition anyway, I'll let you choose. Check to make sure atheism doesn't apply to that same definition before you bring it, though.

      "No, they aren't. You're talking about a factor or an aspect of a situation, not the principle of what always makes one wrong and the other not necessarily so."

      Hmmm. That would mean atheism would be illegal to mention in school by a teacher. And, any mention that there is no god or purposefully excluding god from schools by the authorities wouild be illegal also, by your ever-changing standards. Since religion isn't the aspect you are concerned about, but rather the teacher implying there is or is not a god. And, if the teacher is forced to NOT mention god at any time, that would logically imply there is no god. Thus forcing your belief system onto the children and causing excess harm.

      Delete
    26. "What definition do you want to use? Since you'll be denying the use of any definition anyway, I'll let you choose. Check to make sure atheism doesn't apply to that same definition before you bring it, though."

      I've provided a definition, and I explained why your "atheism is a religion" argument was faulty. Again, by what definition would deism not be a religion? And why should people be ignored if they don't want ANY matter of faith pushed onto their children?

      "That would mean atheism would be illegal to mention in school by a teacher."

      Could you possibly explain the logic that led you to that conclusion? That seems rather random. And nobody's talking about the "mention" of anything, as you well know.

      "Since religion isn't the aspect you are concerned about, but rather the teacher implying there is or is not a god."

      Do you expect god to be invoked in environments that are normally secular, yes or no?

      Delete
    27. "Could you possibly explain the logic that led you to that conclusion?"

      Did you stop reading after the quote you used? Try to finish reading what is written before you reply. It would make things much easier.


      "Do you expect god to be invoked in environments that are normally secular, yes or no?"

      Which god?

      Delete
    28. "Did you stop reading after the quote you used?"

      No, there's nothing to explain your reasoning. You only go further with it instead.

      "Which god?"

      You tell me, since you're the one who says that the lack of any mention thereof implies there is none. Did you not know what you were referring to?

      Delete
    29. "Their Creator" is the god I want to use. What religion is being indoctrinated by use of that god?

      Delete
    30. ""Their Creator" is the god I want to use."

      Fine, do you expect "their creator" to be invoked during your average trip to the dentist? By some guy filing your taxes, or the woman at the DMV? Why or why not?

      Delete
    31. "Their Creator" is invoked during the writing of the Declaration of Independance. Would that count? Since classicliberal says that private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group is way more relevant than the DIC, then the DIC must have very little importance and therefor would be considered "average". So, yes, I could expect "Their Creator" to be invoked by anyone at any time. What religion is "Their Creator" indoctrinating?

      Delete
    32. ""Their Creator" is invoked during the writing of the Declaration of Independance. Would that count?"

      Of course not. I didn't ask if you thought it was possible for someone to invoke "their creator", I asked if you would expect it as a matter of course. Why or why not?

      Delete
    33. I answered your question with this: "So, yes, I could expect "Their Creator" to be invoked by anyone at any time. What religion is "Their Creator" indoctrinating?".

      Are you going to answer? What religion is being indoctrinated by using "Their Creator"?

      Delete
    34. I read your answer, and I told you I wasn't asking whether it was POSSIBLE or not. I don't care about "could". I'm asking if you expect any god to be invoked in secular environments. The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with that. Any specificity of religion has no possible bearing on your answer.

      You can't demand me to answer a question while blatantly dodging mine. Do you expect "their creator" to be invoked in secular environments, yes or no?

      Delete
    35. I said YES, I expect "Their Creator" to be invoked by anyone at anytime in a secular environment. It's use has been demonstrated as used in the same environment and there is no reason it would not be used at any other time.
      So, what religion is being indoctrinated by it's use?

      Delete
    36. So, if you take your child to the doctor, and he doesn't invoke "their creator" during the visit, you're surprised? You're upset that he would imply that there is no god? That's what you're telling me here.

      Delete
    37. No, I'm telling you the answer to your question. Now, are you going to answer mine? Or, are you going to continue to move the goal-posts (something you think is wrong in honest conversation)?

      Delete
    38. I'm not moving the goalposts. You said the failure to pray in public school implies that there is no god. Now, I'm demonstrating how that's nonsense, since school is a secular environment. Nobody should expect a teacher to be leading prayer, any more than you would expect some random person to engage in a religious act while doing their job.

      So, if you aren't shocked by a doctor "implying" that there's no god by not invoking him during a visit, then there was no such implication at all. Since you confirm that by saying "no" in the post above, your argument is null and void.

      Delete
    39. Yes, you are moving the goalposts. How is a doctor office the same setting as a school? But, I take it you are admitting that "Their Creator" is not religious in nature since you insist on moving the goalposts in order to justify your position. Stick with the current setting and the current discussion. AND ... answer my question.

      Delete
    40. "How is a doctor office the same setting as a school?"

      How is it different, for the purposes of this conversation?

      "But, I take it you are admitting that "Their Creator" is not religious in nature since you insist on moving the goalposts in order to justify your position."

      What are you talking about? You said that phrase meant the government was telling people that there is a god. And you used it as your choice for your reference to god above. But it's supposed to be non-religious? It doesn't have anything to do with the points I'm making here anyway, but you're not making much sense.

      I'm also still waiting to hear why people who don't want their children to be exposed to religious beliefs in school shouldn't have those wishes respected. It seems like it's because; A)the vast majority of indoctrination would be Christian, and B)you're a Christian. Feel free to clarify your position on that.

      Delete
    41. I take it you're not going to answer the question at hand? Go figure. That wasn't going to be hard to predict.

      Delete
    42. How is it the "question at hand", when it has nothing to do with what I've said or the point of contention I'm making with YOUR argument? Did you grasp the emphasis there? When you feel like throwing out some unrelated, irrelevant question, then that's "the topic" all of a sudden. Meanwhile, I'm talking about something YOU said.

      So, you don't deny that school is a secular environment, and you have no respect for anyone who doesn't want their children exposed to teacher's personal beliefs in that secular environment. Noted, and without an iota of surprise.

      Delete
    43. "How is it the "question at hand", when it has nothing to do with what I've said or the point of contention I'm making with YOUR argument?"

      Actually, you jumped into this discussion as I was asking that question. Now, you're changing the subject? Go figure. That doesn't come as any big surprise either.

      Delete
    44. "Actually, you jumped into this discussion as I was asking that question."

      Actually, your post at 8:08 a.m., which is what I originally responded to, did not include the "question at hand". You might be thinking of the post at 8:12 a.m., which is BELOW this section of the thread. Or did you think that your post at 12:30 p.m. went through before my post at 10:27 a.m.? That's when you first mentioned "their creator" in this section of the thread. Of course, you admitted that had to do with two other posters, not me, so that undermines any assertion that I had to address it in the first place.

      You're just wrong all over the place, simply put.

      Delete
    45. William, it's people like you that give religion a bad name. Your moral high ground leaves something to be disired. You are not interested in having an honest conversation. You constantly twist, distort, deni and lie. And much of what you post does not make any sense. So it is pointless to waist time with you. But I will leave you with this, clear back to the 1960s (when the first studies were done) Alaska and Montana had the highest rates of suicide in the U.S. and they still do, followed by other western states. They are also Republican, Conservative leaning states, and the majority of the citizens are religious, always have been, with the largest number being Christian.
      http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
      There are many things that lead to suicide, unemployment, alcohol, etc. the least of which is atheism. There are also many studies that have shown Utah to have the highest rate of depression and it is a very religious state.

      No one is preventing students from having a private silent prayer in school. But if you want a teacher to lead them in prayer enroll them in a religious school of your choice.

      Your notion that atheists have nothing to live for, or that they live for nothing, believe in nothing, is ridiculous. Atheists have families, homes and business, too. Most live happy, productive, law-abiding, moral lives. They simply don't have "god" as a muse.

      Delete
    46. "Your moral high ground leaves something to be disired."

      Bronwyn, every article Eddie does, now, seems to have an aim at upsetting me. Look at how this one starts: " ... and should give a certain Right-Wing, Conservative Religious commenter here "heartburn."
      (Though I actually doubt it, since that particular person is always right, on every topic, regardless of the evidence. ".

      In the "Did you hear" article: "Also... I seem to remeber a certain poster, ... ".
      In the "Wow" article: "Consinder the *ahem* profound nature of that post,"
      In the "Housekeeping" article: "Read the Dog Shit sites and you'll grow up to be like William ".
      In the "Delusions of grandeur" article: "Well, my "personal stalker," "

      I speak my OPINION. And this is what I get in return. I get ridiculed and defamed. You want me to be 'more like you', and are upset that I am a free thinker with my own opinion? Tell you what, why don't you bring some of those "lies" you say I make. What have I twisted/distorted that hadn't been twisted/distorted before I got to it? And my "moral high ground"? Why is a "moral standard" considered a bad thing? Just because I don't change my morals from day to day you think I am a terrible person? Well, what the hell do you want me to do? Change my mind on moral standards to fit what YOU want or what EDDIE wants? I'll bet you would love that, huh? Have everyone change their standards because YOU tell them to. Gosh, what a wonderful world this would be then ... everyone has the same standards as you. When you change your standards then everyone will just change theirs to follow along with you ... just because we would hate to upset you or others who think just like you.

      And your suicide rate complaint: Denmark and Finland (the happiest places on Earth according to Eddie) are ranked 35th and 19th (respectively) out of 107 countries listed for HIGHEST suicide rates. The United States beats out BOTH of the "happiest places on Earth".
      The 2 countries I listed as being examples of atheism, Russia and China are ranked 12th and 9th (respectively). (wikipedia list of countries by suicide rate)
      What does that tell you about atheism and the distortion of truth by posters?

      I know that no one prevents the student from praying. The problem is that there is no reason to keep teachers from leading a prayer if the students wish for them to do it. There is NO religion that the US demands we adhere to. All I'm saying is that anti-religious folk have taken this to an extreme using a personal letter to a church group to design law for our nation. While ignoring the obvious in documents that brought forth our nation. This nation IS a religious nation. WITH the freedom to worship as we please...except for some who are forbidden from worshipping as they please. Thanks to a private letter misinterpreted by a group of haters.

      Delete
    47. "I speak my OPINION. And this is what I get in return. I get ridiculed and defamed."

      Is your opinion supposed to be sacrosanct? When you say things like "This nation IS a religious nation", trying to justify religion being pushed onto those who may not want it, then you get ridiculed. If you don't like it, then quit being a pious, self-centered jackass. Other people matter besides you, and you get no respect until you figure that out.

      Your suicide claim ignores obvious factors such as climate, population density and average household income. So, it doesn't say anything about atheism at all.

      Delete
    48. "Is your opinion supposed to be sacrosanct?"

      Is yours? If not, then why are you so mad I offer mine? If so, then that explains why you're upset I offer mine.

      Delete
    49. Brabantio, I haven't looked up his Wiki reference yet, but you mentioned climate, as a factor. I almost took the time to point that out to Wm, too. But decided it's useless.

      He has his mind made up, that if we don't want teachers leading prayers in our public schools, that means we do want them indocrinating the students in atheism. [Wm quote "And if the teacher is forced to NOT mention god at any time, that would logically imply there is no god - thus forcing your beliefs onto an innocent child." unquote] I guess William never noticed, that I never once claimed to be an atheist in any of my posts. I'm not and I still do not want the teacher leading my child in any prayer.

      He obviously can't comprehend teaching the different beliefs without partaking in them, and without showing approval of one over the other. No one said that we want the teacher to "imply" or "say that there is no god" as Wm kept claiming we did.

      And he obviously doesn't know the real definition of the words prayer, religion and religious.

      He repeated over and over that atheists have a higher rate of suicide but gave nothing to back that up. And I asked him to back it up in my first post.

      Anyway, about climate and suicide. Decades ago, in high school, I did a thesis on suicide, I will brag that I got A/A on it, and a college professor borrowed it for one of his classes. At that time Sweden was listed as the country with the highest rate of suicides. But what stood out to me, at that time, was that ALL of the countries and states with the highest rate of suicide had cold, dark, long winters. And it has been proven since then, that sunshine does help alleviate depression.

      Also, military veterans have double the suicide rate of non-vets. I'm sure that the majority are not atheists.

      I personally know many people that were raised in religious families that were barely devoted, semi devoted, and very strictly devoted, that are now atheists, for many different reasons, but most of them claim, that it was the religion, that convinced that there is not God.

      Delete
    50. "Is yours? If not, then why are you so mad I offer mine? If so, then that explains why you're upset I offer mine."

      No, I just don't care for your arrogance. You think you're better than people who don't believe the same as you, and have the right to push your views onto the public. You definitely are not better than anyone, and you have no such right. If it comes off as anger that I let you know that in no uncertain terms, that's your problem, not mine.

      You criticize people's opinions all the time. Hell, you went off on a bender about atheists with basically no provocation. But when people point out the flaws in your arguments (over and over again, since you lack the maturity to accept responsibility for what you post), then you break out the kleenex. Nobody's going to feel sorry for you. Be more reasonable, and you'll be treated like a reasonable person. It's just that simple.

      Delete
    51. "He has his mind made up, that if we don't want teachers leading prayers in our public schools, that means we do want them indocrinating the students in atheism. "

      Bronwyn, This entire article is about how 'bad' Christianity is and how it drives people to atheism. Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't already have your mind made up too? I was born at night, but not last night. So I ain't falling for that one for a second.
      The atheists in this group (sorry to have implied you were one) are having NO problem denigrating religion (Christianity in particular). Am I not allowed to defend my position of support for Christianity or should I just let people talk bad about it and join your jambalaya without comment? It seems you don't like that I talk bad about atheism, yet you think some should be allowed to talk bad about Christianity and religion in general. Isn't that a bit ... you know ... hypocritical? You didn't skip reading the article and link, and just jump into the conversation at mid-point (like Brabantio) did you? If you did that, perhaps you should go back and read the link that was brought by Eddie. I disapproved of the insinuation that religion is so bad that people would rather choose atheism. Just like you (and others) don't approve of the insinuation I make that atheism has a larger suicide rate than other groups. BTW, I provided a reference to my statement immediately after citing stats on suicide rates. Suicide rates among atheists can be found with a simple google search by anyone who knows how to use a computer. I would assume that would include you, too.
      Also, the climate in Russia and China varies greatly from hot to cold. Sure there could be many "reasons" for someone to commit suicide, but the underlying link is that atheists do it at a higher percentage than others.

      I know the definition of 'prayer', 'religion' and 'religious'. That is why my "silly" story was important. You can't have a "religious" prayer if there is no "religion" involved. Whether it happens once a year or a thousand times a year is irrelevant. It that was relevant, then the small amount of gay people wanting to get "married" would make their demands mute, too.

      Delete
    52. "Hell, you went off on a bender about atheists with basically no provocation. "

      Hey, moron, what the hell is the title of this article? Did you read the link that Conchobhar provided for Eddie? No? Well, then, shut the hell up about things you have no clue about.
      Like how you continue to avoid answering: what religion is being indoctrinated when "Their Creator" is used? Still afraid to answer that one, huh? So, apparently, I am way better than you (at least), since I read the article and link provided and I am commenting on those. Of course someone who does NOT read the article or link provided would obviously think there is something else happening. But that someone would be a moron for not reading the article or link provided and then try to comment on the discussion about both.
      BTW, brabantio, disagreeing with my opinion does not qualify as pointing out "flaws" in my argument. It merely means you don't agree with them. Which would equate to; your arguments are full of flaws, too, since I don't agree with them. So, I'm not expecting anyone to feel sorry for me, I expect them to stop being hypocritical about opinions being brought. If you're going to whine about a right-winger bringing an opinion, then realize your extreme left-wing opinion is just as crazed.

      For a good example of a "flaw" in the left-wing argument that prayer is always religious, check out Conchobhar's refusal to explain how "Natures's God" and "Their Creator" are not referenced to a "personal god" yet he refuses to answer why "Nature's God" or "Their Creator" cannot be used in a prayer being lead by a teacher in school. If no religion is being invoked (indoctrinated is your term) then how can there be a violation of the SOCAS commands???

      Delete
    53. "This entire article is about how "bad" Christianity is and how it drives people to atheism."

      No it's not. It's about how certain Christians, Conservative Christians, "Christians who are bracingly righteous in their own beliefs and intolerant of all others." It also gives examples of the same behavior in other faiths Jews and Muslims. The point being, these days, "religion equals intolerance" and is disillusioning and alienating young people.

      No need to appologize. I'm not insulted when called an atheist.

      No body is stopping you from defending Christianity. No one. But you are not at all reasonable about why teacher lead prayer, should be left out of public schools.

      It does not matter what religion is being indoctrinated, or if as you claim no religion is being indoctrinated in a non-religious prayer. What and whom are you praying to? You are praying to something, or what is the point of the prayer? And you have no business leading strangers kids in such prayers. That in no way is advocating atheism or slamming Christianity. Leave the teaching of prayer to the parents.

      No it's not hypocritical. I am completely disillusioned by religions and so called Christianity. They are the first to justify wars, begrudge taking care of the needy, and I could go on and on. I find more atheists that live by the ways Jesus recommended than I do Christians.

      I believe in a creator God. I have no proof or even a reasonable argument to back my belief. It's just a gut feeling, I guess that's where faith comes in. But I haven't found a religion I can believe in and embrass. And I studied religions for many years. So I believe in a God, but I am not religious and I do not claim to be a Christian.

      Praying, calling yourself a Christian, belonging to a religion, does not automatically make a person moral or even honest. I have found most of those doing so hypocrites. Especially those that make a big point of it.

      Listing the countries by rate of suicides did not show any proof, what so ever, that atheists have a higher rate of suicide. And I did google it and the only claims to that are Conservative sites.

      Delete
    54. "Hey, moron, what the hell is the title of this article?"

      Does the article say that atheists are stupid? No? Then you went off on a bender. You felt some need to generalize and mock, instead of having a rational discussion. As Bronwyn pointed out, she never said she was an atheist, so there was absolutely nothing to provoke your reaction.

      "Like how you continue to avoid answering: what religion is being indoctrinated when "Their Creator" is used? Still afraid to answer that one, huh?"

      Any belief in anything supernatural should not be instilled into other people's children without consent (such as you would have in a PRIVATE school). Do you have an argument to the contrary?

      "BTW, brabantio, disagreeing with my opinion does not qualify as pointing out "flaws" in my argument."

      True, pointing out flaws in your argument is just that, though. For instance, when you base your argument on the idea that anyone expects children to be led in prayer in a public school, then demonstrating how you wouldn't expect that in other secular environments exposes the weakness of your position. It's not as if I'm saying "nuh-uh" and leaving it at that.

      "So, I'm not expecting anyone to feel sorry for me, I expect them to stop being hypocritical about opinions being brought."

      What's the hypocrisy? You criticize people's opinions too. And if you feel capable of trying to show how someone's reasoning is lacking, then you're free to do that.

      "If you're going to whine about a right-winger bringing an opinion, then realize your extreme left-wing opinion is just as crazed."

      Picking apart your argument is not whining about you having an opinion. For example, you have no basis for "extreme left-wing opinion". That's an empty assertion, since you haven't demonstrated any extreme views on my part. Further, you just violated the principle you laid down about "it merely means you don't agree with them". You disagreeing with my views don't automatically make them "extreme left-wing". You did imply that your views are "crazed" though, which is amusing. See what I did there? I analyzed and addressed what you wrote. No "whining" involved.

      "For a good example of a "flaw" in the left-wing argument that prayer is always religious, check out Conchobhar's refusal to explain how "Natures's God" and "Their Creator" are not referenced to a "personal god" yet he refuses to answer why "Nature's God" or "Their Creator" cannot be used in a prayer being lead by a teacher in school."

      You really need to edit that. His refusal to explain, yet he refuses to answer? And how does that influence the idea of prayer always being religious? You're not making your point clear at all. It's also been explained to you that the terms are Deist, which involves belief in a god. So that would be a religious prayer.

      Let's try this;you're defending a teacher leading prayer in a public classroom. Even if you came up with some type of prayer that wasn't religious, then it wouldn't fit the circumstances you're defending. If you want to talk about people refusing to address points, this is one you've dodged multiple times, and I'll give you another chance to redeem yourself.

      Delete
    55. "Bronwyn, This entire article is about how 'bad' Christianity is and how it drives people to atheism."

      That's absolutely false. Did you read it? For one thing, it starts off talking about 9/11. Those weren't Christians. Further, it makes it quite clear that it's about the hardening of conservative positions, not Christianity itself. Note the line:"Ask yourself, is there anywhere on earth right now where religious faith is actually brightening the lives of millions as it builds for a peaceful tomorrow?". In other words, that's what religion is supposed to do. That's not anti-Christian in the slightest.

      "The atheists in this group (sorry to have implied you were one) are having NO problem denigrating religion (Christianity in particular). Am I not allowed to defend my position of support for Christianity or should I just let people talk bad about it and join your jambalaya without comment?"

      Who's denigrating religion? You can't find a comment I've ever made that does such a thing, I know. You can also support your religion without attacking others or arguing for indoctrination.

      "You can't have a "religious" prayer if there is no "religion" involved."

      That's sort of true, just not the way you want it to be. Under "religious": "relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity". It doesn't have to be organized religion. The definition includes any supernatural beliefs. Under "religion": "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". So "personal set" would be anyone's beliefs anyway, obviously not something that could be named like "Catholicism" or whatever else. Anyone acting on their own religion is going to say a religious prayer, even if nobody else in the world follows that particular set of beliefs.

      Delete
    56. "This entire article is about how "bad" Christianity is and how it drives people to atheism."

      No it's not. It's about certain Christians, Conservative Christians, "Christians who are bracingly righteous in their own beliefs and intolerant of all others." It also gave examples of other religions doing this Jews and Muslims. The point being, these days, "religion equals intolerance" and is disillusioning and alienating young people.

      No need to appologize. I'm not insulted when called an atheist. Not at all.

      No one is stopping you from defending your Christianity. But you are being unreasonable about others wanting teacher lead prayers left out of the public schools.

      It doesn't matter what religion is being indocrinated or if no religion is being indocrinated in a non-religious prayer, as you say. To what or whom are you praying to? Something, or what is the purpose of the prayer? Regardless, you have no business leading a strangers child in such prayers. Leave the teaching of prayers to the parents. That is in no way advocating atheism or slamming Christianity.

      No it's not hypocritical. I am completely disillusioned with Christianity. They are the first to condone wars, begrudge helping the needy, I could go on and on. I find more atheists that live by the examples of Jesus than I do so called Christians.

      I believe in a creator God. I have no proof or a reasonable argument for that belief. Just a gut feeling, maybe that's where faith comes in. But I have not found a religion that I believe in or can embrace, and I studied religion for many years. I believe in a God, but I am not religious and I do not claim to be a Christian.

      Praying, calling yourself a Christian, belonging to a religion doesn't automatically make a person moral or even honest. I find most doing so hypoctites, especially those making a big point of it.

      Listing the countries by rate of suicides did not prove, in anyway, what so ever, that atheists have a higher rate of suicide. I did google it and the only claims to that are Conservative sites.

      Delete
    57. Eddie, you are in big trouble! My first post about twenty thirty minutes before this one, looked as if it posted perfectly, then right in front of my eyes the screen went black, when it lit up again my post was gone but Brabantios post was there and it wasn't there when I first posted. I had to start over grrrrrr

      Delete
    58. "Christians who are bracingly righteous in their own beliefs and intolerant of all others."

      And that isn't "bad" in what way?


      " The point being, these days, "religion equals intolerance" and is disillusioning and alienating young people."

      Would you agree that the "disillusioning" would be caused by the consistancy that religion brings to morality? It would seem to me that when someone decides that what they are doing is acceptable by their religion they will seek any alternative that 'allows' their inappropriate behavior (or intolerant, if you will). People will seek the easiest path to allow a behavior that they are told is unacceptable in almost all cases. Like water seeking the path of least resistance, so will people who are told their behavior is wrong. Is that "intolerant"? So be it. Sorry for being accountable for my bad behavior and accepting responsibility for it and the consequences of it.

      "Something, or what is the purpose of the prayer?"

      I've gone into this in detail in the "delusions" article (but that one is hard to access now). One example I gave is a teacher simply leading a prayer that the students excell and/or do well on a test that is given that day. There doesn't need to be a religious god invoked for the teacher to do this. I'll admit that it happens often, but the 'absolute' isn't present. However, for fear of all religion, the liberal mind-set is to restrict all prayer: religious and non-religious. The teacher could be invoking "Nature's God" (non-religious as expressed by Conchobhar) to achieve this prayer. Where is the "harm" caused to children by this?

      "begrudge helping the needy,"

      Actually, if your read the Book of Ruth it gives a good description of God's design to help the needy. And, it is fully functional and successful. So, that concern does not apply.

      Delete
    59. "what they are doing is acceptable by their religion"

      That should read "unacceptable".

      Delete
    60. "And that isn't "bad" in what way?"

      You said:"This entire article is about how "bad" Christianity is and how it drives people to atheism." Your use of "Christianity" is all-encompassing. Specifying elements of the faith that are extreme is not the same thing.

      "It would seem to me that when someone decides that what they are doing is acceptable by their religion they will seek any alternative that 'allows' their inappropriate behavior (or intolerant, if you will)."

      Is this your theory as to why people become atheists? If so, it's garbage, because people violate the Ten Commandments all the time while professing their religious beliefs.

      "One example I gave is a teacher simply leading a prayer that the students excell and/or do well on a test that is given that day. There doesn't need to be a religious god invoked for the teacher to do this."

      Of course there does. There's no such thing as a non-religious god. Any concept of a deity is religious by definition. I also don't think Conchobhar said anything about anything being non-religious, he merely disputed the type of higher power you were asserting.

      Delete
    61. "Of course there does. There's no such thing as a non-religious god. Any concept of a deity is religious by definition."

      If that is true, then what religion is being invoked (indoctrinated by your terms) by using "Their Creator" or "Nature's God"?
      What religion is being invoked (indoctrinated by your terms) by the Indian tribe praying to the White Buffalo?

      Delete
    62. Again, defining "religion": "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". Religions don't have to be named in order to exist. Any set of religious beliefs qualify, including a concept of "Nature's God" or prayer to the White Buffalo. Any belief in anything supernatural, which obviously includes petitioning something whose very existence is based entirely on faith or which has been given spiritual significance (like an animal), is religious. There is no possible way that any concept of god falls outside of those parameters.

      Delete
    63. " Any belief in anything supernatural, which obviously includes petitioning something whose very existence is based entirely on faith or which has been given spiritual significance (like an animal), is religious."

      In other words there isn't a religion being prayed to or indoctrinated as you claim is happening during a prayer? You just simply hate religious actions even though there is no religion to be indoctrinated? And you call me the intolerant one ... wow.
      But, as for your definition of "religion", it sure seems like atheism falls within each of those descriptions. Because you can't name a religion for the "attitudes, beliefs or practices" to correte "Nature's God" or "Their Creator" with, then there needs to be none to classify atheism as a religion.

      Delete
    64. "You just simply hate religious actions even though there is no religion to be indoctrinated? And you call me the intolerant one ... wow."

      No, it's just inappropriate for someone to teach other people's children that his or her personal beliefs are true. Do you really want to disagree with that? And it is religion, because "religion" doesn't have to be organized. Note the definition I provided, if it's not too inconvenient to your argument for you to handle.

      "But, as for your definition of "religion", it sure seems like atheism falls within each of those descriptions. Because you can't name a religion for the "attitudes, beliefs or practices" to correte "Nature's God" or "Their Creator" with, then there needs to be none to classify atheism as a religion."

      What sort of atheism fits the definition? A lack of belief is not a belief. Your second sentence is cryptic. There needs to be "none" of what? A name? Beliefs? Because the very term "Nature's God" dictates some sort of belief. Could you clarify your mess, please?

      Delete
    65. "And it is religion, because "religion" doesn't have to be organized."

      Which would make atheism a religion. Thanks for the clarification. Do you really want atheism indoctinated to our children in school?

      Atheists have a belief there is no god. Atheists have an attitude that god is non-existant and not needed. Atheists practice their belief that there is no god and express that belief when presented with an opportunity. There isn't an "organization" for atheists (that I know of), but they have that organized belief that there is no god with complete reasoning and perception. However, you said being organized isn't a requirement for the qualification of a religion. Which one of those is incorrect?

      Delete
    66. William, there you go again, distorting what some one has said, and claiming to know what they feel. "You just simply hate religious actions even though there is no religion indoctrinated? And you call me the intolerant one....wow."

      How do you explain the many Christians that do not want public school teachers leading their children in prayer? And the non-religious prayers, as you call them, are still a ritual, that many Christians would consider paganism or sacrilegious.

      Why take the chance of offending anyone? Leave the prayers in the home and places of worship. Or private schools. You claim to be a Christian, then you should be offended by your child being lead in a prayer to anyone other than the creator God. Even Jesus instructed, many times, for his followers not to pray to him - not to worship him- but to worship only his father - God. Rev.22:9 "do not whorship me, worship God for my father is greater than I." I know many religions break that rule and pray to Mary, Saints, and Jesus, but the Bible clearly states to pray to God only, through Jesus. And many Christians would be offended if their child was lead in any other type of prayer.

      William "Atheists have a belief there is no god. Atheists have an attitude that god is non-existatn and not needed."

      Guess what William? "The plains Indians beliefs (sic) there are no gods. The sun is refered to as Father Sun....like an ancestor. There is no worship....we give thanks to all of the Creator's (Great Spirit) creations.........." by Bear Woman (Cree)

      BTW, you are clueless to how many American Indians you are offending by implying that they would pray to the white buffalo. They do not worship the white buffalo. There is no worship!! They give thanks to all of the CREATOR'S (Great Spirit) creations....

      The white buffalo being a sacred animal, a GIFT from the Great Spirit. Many believe the white buffalo to be a gift from Father Sun.

      "Indians hold Grandmother Earth sacred." "The white buffalo is a sign for the change that is to come" "A restoring of Grandmother Earth" "a time to ask all nations all people to go their sacred places or sacred spaces to pray." Quotes from different Indian elders, regarding the "sign" the white buffalo.

      The white buffalo is a sign, a omen, a gift, he is considered sacred. He is not prayed to. He is not worshiped. There is no worship!

      "So, if a teacher leads a prayer using the white buffalo as the "higher power" that is being prayed to...what religion is being indoctrinated?"

      That is offensive to many Indians, to even imply that would take place. And many Christians would consider it paganism or sacrilegious and be offended by their child being any part of it.

      Delete
    67. "Which would make atheism a religion."

      Organization isn't the key factor there. It's belief vs. lack of belief.

      "Atheists have a belief there is no god."

      As I've explained to you before, we're not talking about anyone pushing the belief that there is no god, we're talking about the lack of influence altogether. Another point you've ignored is that "religion" is meaningless by your usage. If everyone is religious, then there's no alternative. It doesn't distinguish one behavior from another. And even though some people are more militant than others and say that they believe that there is no god, it doesn't really work the same way as a religion. Because you can deny all of science if you choose, saying that God creates the illusion of it to test faith, or whatever reasoning you like. But if there was actually evidence of a higher power, such as being addressed by a deity, then an atheist can't exactly rationalize that away. The affirmative aspect of your faith doesn't flip over to a skeptical viewpoint at all. Further, you don't have to have faith to believe in nothing, because accepting what your eyes see and ears hear is the default. Beyond that, you have to imagine supernatural beings and explanations. I don't have to tell myself "such-and-such is true" like you do, because objective reality determines that for everyone already.

      "Which one of those is incorrect?"

      How do you "practice" a belief that there is no god? By NOT praying? NOT going to church? Is one atheist more devout than another by not going to church twice a week instead of just once? See what I mean about things not flipping over to atheism? It's an entirely different dynamic. The same goes for "organized belief that there is no god". I don't confer with anyone else to see if we're on the same page. I simply don't believe in any god or spirituality. It's not complicated. It's not as if I have to study or learn tenets of a faith. There are organizations for atheists, of course, but they don't have anything to do with dictating beliefs, the way religious organizations do.

      Your argument is ridiculous, overall. I'll repeat the key point: there's no indoctrination simply from the lack of religion in school. The way things should be, you should have no damn clue what beliefs your children's teachers have from how they behave in the classroom. They could be Christians or Satanists for all you know, because they keep their beliefs to themselves. The same goes if they're positive atheists. If someone really wants to say "I BELIEVE there is no god", that's up to them (I think it's ridiculous, personally), but it's not their job to tell children that there is NO god any more than it's a teacher's job to say there IS one. The secular environment should remain secular, so that everyone, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or whatever else experiences no influence against what they believe. It should be equal for everyone.

      Now, you seem to disagree, because this is a "religious nation". And therefore everyone who doesn't agree with you can just suck it up and deal with being pressured to pray by their teachers and peers in public classrooms. Because using majority status and/or educational authority to teach your faith to other people's children is consistent with the notion of religious freedom, right? Minority status or otherwise disapproving parents don't have the right to control the religious influences their children are exposed to, but you don't care about those people. If I'm misrepresenting you, feel free to explain how.

      Delete
    68. "That is offensive to many Indians, to even imply that would take place. And many Christians would consider it paganism or sacrilegious and be offended by their child being any part of it."

      Exactly, this is one of the key points William has been desperate to avoid. Even if any of his points about supposed "non-religious prayer" were to make the slightest bit of sense, HE still wouldn't want his grandkids to come home instilled with those beliefs. He's asked "which religion" like a skipped record, but it's beyond obvious why pushing any beliefs onto other people's children is unacceptable, regardless of any names or outlandish definition of religion he feels a need to establish.

      Delete
    69. Bronwyn, you are right. I was being very rude to Brabantio for that comment about "hate".

      "Why take the chance of offending anyone?"

      That's right. Why take the chance of offending anyone. What would that mean when God is NOT included in a class and it may offend the many Christians that are present? Or do THEY not matter as much as others? Do the few have more rights than the many? Or do they all have equal rights?

      "Guess what William? "The plains Indians beliefs (sic) there are no gods. The sun is refered to as Father Sun....like an ancestor. There is no worship....we give thanks to all of the Creator's (Great Spirit) creations.........." by Bear Woman (Cree) "

      That goes against EVERYTHING Brabantio is saying is fact about religion and religious acts. Who is right in this case? You or him?

      Delete
    70. "Why take the chance of offending anyone. What would that mean when God is NOT included in a class and it may offend the many Christians that are present?"

      That goes the same for Muslims, Jewish, Hindus, etc. Are you going to have the teacher lead prayers for everyone? Anyone who's offended by their faith not being sanctioned in a secular environment is an idiot, and nobody should give those concerns any consideration at all.

      "Do the few have more rights than the many?"

      Who has "more" rights, and how?

      "That goes against EVERYTHING Brabantio is saying is fact about religion and religious acts."

      No, it doesn't. I have no idea what you imagine you're talking about there, and I doubt you do either.

      Delete
    71. "Bronwyn, you are right. I was being very rude to Brabantio for that comment about "hate"."

      Thank you for that. It would be nice to see more of that, or for you to avoid the need for such comments in the first place.

      Delete
    72. I should clarify, that I was speaking in general about American Indians, not those that have accepted and practice Christianity and other faiths, as many have.

      Delete
    73. "No, it doesn't. I have no idea what you imagine you're talking about there, and I doubt you do either."

      Talking out of both sides of your mouth, now? Because you just got done saying:

      "There's no such thing as a non-religious god. Any concept of a deity is religious by definition."
      AND
      "Any belief in anything supernatural, which obviously includes petitioning something whose very existence is based entirely on faith or which has been given spiritual significance (like an animal), is religious."

      Explain how those Indians can pray to a supernatural being and it isn't a religious god? Because YOU say that is impossible to happen.

      Delete
    74. "Any belief in anything supernatural, which obviously includes petitioning something whose very existence is based entirely on faith or which has been given spiritual significance (like an animal), is religious."

      "Explain how those Indians can pray to a supernatural being and it isn't a religious god? Because YOU say that is impossible to happen"

      Well, just like Brabantio said, "they are petioining something given a spiritual significance." (in the case of the Indians they are giving thanks) they do not consider it to be to a god.

      Think of everything as a spirit. You are a spirit (a force) but you are not a god.

      The "Greater Spirit" (force) is out there, but not one certain thing, or particular being, has been labeled as the "Greater Spirit" and requiring human worship.

      Like the God of Chrisitanity and other religions do, such as Jehovah, Allah, three of the many chinese gods Fuk, Luk, Sau, or the 330 million gods in Hinduism, that all have names and are recognized as indeviduals, to pray to and to be worshiped by humans.

      Instead of twisting what Brabantio has said, except the fact that it all boils down to pushing ones beliefs, whether you call it religion, faith, spiritual, god or non-whatever, onto a strangers child, in a public school, and that is not exceptable. I'm sure you wouldn't want a teacher leading a prayer in witch craft to your child. Well, many atheists would consider your's, mine, and many others beliefs equal to witch craft. I know I wouldn't want my child lead in a prayer, according to your version of Christianity, and I believe in God.

      If you want your child to be lead in prayer while at school put them in a private school.

      At this point I'm not sure if you are deliberately being difficult or you really are that confused. Sorry if I have confused you even more.

      Delete
    75. "Explain how those Indians can pray to a supernatural being and it isn't a religious god?"

      Bronwyn's description quite clearly fit the definition of "religious" that I provided. Can you explain how it doesn't? I've heard your assertion, but you can't seem to substantiate it.

      I also await your answers to "are you going to have the teacher lead prayers for everyone?" and "who has more rights and how?", as well as the previous post of mine which you didn't feel comfortable handling at all. If you have a legitimate argument, you should be able to defend it.

      Delete
    76. "Instead of twisting what Brabantio has said, except the fact that it all boils down to pushing ones beliefs, whether you call it religion, faith, spiritual, god or non-whatever, onto a strangers child, in a public school, and that is not exceptable."

      That is why I have a concern over atheism being indoctrinated in my public schools. I fully understand your concern over any religion or a faith of any type being taught to your (or any) child. However, there are two shoes that fit in this concern. Atheism has no place in the public school either. By denying the ability to mention God in a normal setting (Easter, Christmas, Yom Kippur, Ramadan, Obon, ect ...) then that is indoctrinating innocent religious children into a belief that their parents would not want them indoctrinated into.
      You can't have it both ways. If you want religion/faith taken out of public schools, then you must take them ALL out. That includes atheism. If you're going to allow atheism be indoctrinated in public schools then you must allow all of the other faiths. I'm not trying to be deliberately difficult, I'm trying to be fair to all concerned. Not just one small group of people. If you're going to have these kind of rules, those rules MUST cover ALL, not just the ones that a small group decides.

      "I know I wouldn't want my child lead in a prayer, according to your version of Christianity, and I believe in God."

      That would indicate you wouldn't want your child indoctrinated into paganism either, correct? Would you want your child indoctrinated into atheism by the public school they attend? Or would you prefer to teach them religion and faith on your own?

      "Instead of twisting what Brabantio has said"

      I have not twisted what he said. I caught him in an inconsistency and he can't account for it. On one hand he says ALL prayer is religious in nature, on the other hand he accepts your description of American Indians praying to a being that isn't religious in nature. That is AFTER he refused to accept my description of American Indians who would pray to non-religious beings. (remember my "silly" story?) [ http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/07/religious-conservatism-creates-atheists.html?showComment=1343095854778#c2556544324277477150 ]. Now you bring an example of American Indians perform non-religious prayer to their 'higher power' and he accepts that as non-religious using "they are petioining something given a spiritual significance." as the reasoning. Well, my prayers are ALL to something of "spiritual significance" too. Only he calls mine religious and the American Indians non-religious. That is either hypocritical or he has an issue with WHO tells him those "silly" stories about religion/prayer. It sounds like he doesn't like who tells the story, and picks and chooses which version he will agree with. Either way, Brabantio has been exposed as a hypocrite towards religion and prayer and gods.
      You thought it was me who was arguing just for the sake of argument, apparently it is Brabantio who is acting that way. My "silly" story and yours are based on identical situations but he chooses to accept yours and deny mine. This is after we had a 300 post discussion (in another thread) basically on the exact same issue where he absolutely refused to accept ANY type of prayer could be non-religious, then he accepts your description of non-religious prayer after one post by saying "they are petioining something given a spiritual significance.". And you call me the intolerant one? I knew what he was doing and tried many ways to get him to accept what he admits (now) is fact. Even to the point of making you tired of the discussion. Thinking I am twisting what Brabantio is saying, when it turns out I am merely working from the different angles to get him to admit what you got him to admit in one paragraph. BTW using the same group of people he absolutely refused to accept as an example previously.

      Delete
    77. " I don't confer with anyone else to see if we're on the same page. I simply don't believe in any god or spirituality."

      Brabantio, you are pushing your religion onto children in public schools by forcing the removal of God from all situations at public schools. What message do you think that is sending to children in public schools?

      Delete
    78. William, instead of retyping your quotes I want to address, I'm going to number your paragraphs. 1. no comment. 2. In order to indoctrinate a student or push atheism on a child, the teacher would have to criticize the students religion, tell them it's wrong, and what's right in their eyes about athiesm. That is not being done, or the teacher should be fired. Atheism is not being taught in public schools.

      Eliminating prayer in school is not teaching atheism. Simply put, the teaching of religion is being left up to the parents, period. As it should be. Your idea of proper prayer or proper explanation or belief in God or the right religion is different from mine. Your child should learn about prayer and God, from their teachers in Sunday School, Bible study, church, and from you. Not their public school teacher!

      It is your place to explain to your child why they are not taught about worshiping your God in school. That it's out of respect to you, they are not being taught something that would offend you. I repeat not teaching or mentioning God, ANY GOD, Is not teaching atheism. Public schools are not indoctrinating atheism. It is rediculous for you to keep saying that.
      3. no comment. 4.I prefer they are not lead in prayer while attending public school.
      I want them to be taught exactly what atheism is, as well as what Christianity is, and to look into all religions, and decide what is or isn't right for them.

      5.no comment. 6. Brabantio nor I ever said that the Indians thanking the "Great Spirit" is not religious. Not once. I said they are not praying to a god. You seem to think anything godless is atheism. The act is religious, but is not to a god, but it is not atheism either, because they are thanking a "Great Spirit" a creator of all creatures. Something atheism does not believe in.

      You have distorted it to Brabanito saying it is not religious. In fact if you go back you will see he does say the Indians are religious. I have never said it is not religious. I said they are not praying to a god! So to say that he is calling your prayers religious and the American Indians non-religious. Is a flat out lie.

      "My "silly" story and yours are based on identicle situations but he chooses to accept yours and not mine." Our stories are absolutely not identicle. ARE YOU FOR REAL? You kept saying the Indians are praying to the white buffalo. And refering to the white buffalo as the higher power. How many times did I tell you they do not pray to the white buffalo?

      BTW, the quote by Bear Woman, was taken from her letter to a reporter, that wrote an article on the white buffalo in SD. Bear Woman, wrote to politely correct the reporter, and to inform her that she was unintentionally offending Indians, by writing that Indians worship and pray to the white buffalo, and thank God for sending the white buffalo. Just as you were with your implications.

      I continued to try and have a reasonable discussion with you, regarding this topic, after declaring further discussion on this matter, with you, was pointless. I only proved myself correct in that assumption. The more I write the more confused you get. Or you are intentionally being ridiculous.

      "Brabantio, you are pushing your religion onto children in public schools by forcing the removal of God from all situations at public schools. What message do think that is sending to children in public schools."

      Um, how about the message that they should ask their parents and spiritual leaders about God? Not their public school teacher.

      Why are you implying that public school teachers, will have more influence over your children than you will, or your minister, priest, Rabi or any spiritual, religious leader would have. Something is wrong with your faith if you think the public school teacher carries more weight with your child than you do.

      Delete
    79. "2. In order to indoctrinate a student or push atheism on a child, the teacher would have to criticize the students religion, tell them it's wrong, and what's right in their eyes about athiesm."

      According to Brabantio and Eddie, a teacher merely 'leading a prayer' is indoctrination. Perhaps we need to get a more standard interpretation of "indoctrination" and use it honestly. Instead of using it irregularily. What part of 'leading a prayer in school' is "criticizing" another (any other) religion?

      "BTW, the quote by Bear Woman, was taken from her letter to a reporter, that wrote an article on the white buffalo in SD."

      The white buffalo I am refering to was in Minnesota. I gave full credit to the article and correctly described what was happening. If I shorten the description down later on, sorry about that. I get tired of writing the same thing over and over again to get someone to accept facts as they are presented. Brabantio had NO problem accepting your facts as presented but carried on a 300-post argument disagreeing with mine. No difference between our stories as I originally presented it.

      Delete
    80. And they are right. But you can't very well lead a prayer in atheism, now can you? So you would have to explain what it is and why it makes more sense than believing in God or what ever. However, a few more posts by you and I might be calling myself an atheist. preferably. :>)

      And I think you are right about it being Minnesota, not SD, my mistake. But there were quite a few articles put out by non-Indians that didn't quite have the right concept. The one Bear Woman responded to only being one of them.

      And again, Brabantio didn't change what he was accepting, we both were saying it was a religious act. I just informed you that it was a religious act but not to a god. You think that god has to be involved for it to be religious. And that if god is not involved it is atheism. You are wrong about that. See, I get tired of repeating the same thing too.

      You repeatedly asked "what religion is it?" or "what religion is being indoctrinated if they are praying to a white buffalo?" How about a nondenominational religion? Would that appease you? A ritual or a belief can be religious, without belonging to any certain religion.

      Delete
    81. "Brabantio, you are pushing your religion onto children in public schools by forcing the removal of God from all situations at public schools. What message do you think that is sending to children in public schools?"

      I don't have a religion. I accept objective reality. If that counts as a religion, yet again, then the word "religion" has no meaning. The message would be that not everyone believes the same thing, and we should all respect that enough not to push our beliefs onto others.

      Delete
    82. "If you want religion/faith taken out of public schools, then you must take them ALL out. That includes atheism. If you're going to allow atheism be indoctrinated in public schools then you must allow all of the other faiths."

      That couldn't make less sense if you tried. You are referring to the lack of religion as "atheism", then saying we should take atheism out of the schools. You can't take an absence of something away while you take all the religions out at the same time. If you really think you're making a rational demand, describe the environment you think is free of all religions and explain how it's different from your concept of atheism being indoctrinated. You can't do it, I can tell you right now.

      "Brabantio had NO problem accepting your facts as presented but carried on a 300-post argument disagreeing with mine."

      I did no such thing, because the details don't matter. I've said this multiple times. Whatever you're talking about involves spirituality, which is religious. Any god is religious. Any "great spirit" is religious. Anything you could possibly be talking about where people are recognizing a conceptual being or spirit as being existent is religious. You can stomp your feet for another three hundred posts here, but that will not change.

      Delete
    83. "I don't have a religion."

      Yes, you do. M/W says you do.
      "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

      Delete
    84. "And they are right. But you can't very well lead a prayer in atheism, now can you? "

      Why can't they? There is no god necessary to pray to. As proven by your (and mine) examples of the Indian tribes that pray to non-gods. I think you're mistaken to believe that atheists don't (or can't) pray, they may not believe in god (or any gods) but they certainly can "make a request in a humble manner" (M/W #1). It could be as simple a prayer as: "I wish that William guy would stop posting, he is such an idiot and ruins our liberal based blog with his pretentious attitude.". But, they certainly can pray.

      Delete
    85. Well, because atheists would not have anything or anyone to petition in a prayer. Not gods, spirits, higher powers, or witches, animals, objects, or anything, nothing at all! So what would be the purpose?

      You and I did NOT prove that prayers are made to nothing! Just that they do not have to be made to a god.

      You do not want atheism or paganism indoctrinated onto your child, Well, your creator God of the Bilble would be appalled, at you condoning your child being lead in ANY prayer directed at anything other than him. Read your Bible.

      Poor William, you've had your ass handed to you every which way but Sunday, maybe you should pray to the comprehension god!?!

      Delete
    86. BTW, William, one of the definitions of wish, is - a petition. You can't petition to nothing.

      Delete
    87. "Poor William, you've had your ass handed to you every which way but Sunday, maybe you should pray to the comprehension god!?!"

      Actually, no I haven't. I've proven my point (that prayer does not have to be based in religion and the SOCAS does not apply as has been demanded by radical liberals) all thanks to you, classicliberal and Chonchobhar. That must be the part that irks you to no end ... that YOU were one of those who helped ME prove my point.

      BTW, I don't have a "comprehension god". The God I believe in is appalled with no one (there is NO unforgivable sin unless you don't believe), so I really don't know what you were talking about in your attempted slap at Christianity. I have read my Bible and do read my Bible. Maybe you'd like to start a Bible study now that you've given up on your "prayer is always religious" mandate? Perhaps one day there will be a liberal smart enough to do as you say, but that sure hasn't happened here.


      "BTW, William, one of the definitions of wish, is - a petition. You can't petition to nothing."

      Yeah? But, if you were being honest in this discussion, perhaps you wouldn't have said that. What are ALL the other definitions of "wish"? Looks like you turn out to be another typical dishonest liberal poster who can't even hold an honest discussion with a stupid right-winger. Too bad, you were fun while you lasted.

      Delete
    88. ""4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

      Which would be that a god is possible, but I don't happen to believe in one? And that the collective understanding of the world and people is what one should use in order to base opinions and policies on? That doesn't require faith at all, much less "ardor". You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.

      Delete
    89. "Actually, no I haven't. I've proven my point (that prayer does not have to be based in religion and the SOCAS does not apply as has been demanded by radical liberals) all thanks to you, classicliberal and Chonchobhar."

      You've proven no such thing. All you do is keep making the assertion while ignoring the very meaning of "religion" and "religious".

      Where's your explanation of how a school can avoid all religions, including "atheism"? I believe your conspicuous silence on that is an admission that your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Feel free to try to prove me wrong, though.

      Delete
    90. My "conspicuous silence" is caused by your hypocritical view that you admitted that prayer does not have to be religious, then deny you said that, after whining about prayer being ONLY religious.


      "Feel free to try to prove me wrong, though."

      Done ... over and over and over again. Now, go outside and play with children your own age and leave adult conversation to adults who can.

      Delete
    91. Oh-Le Sigh- see how you are William? Now you've gone and confused the words appalled and unforgivable. I said appalled I never mentioned unforgivable.

      appalled: 1.dreadful and shocking 2. very bad: causing dismay.

      "The God I believe in is appalled with no one (there is NO unforgivable sin unless you do not believe.)"

      WRONG! Unforgivable sin -
      Mark 3:22-30 ......but he who blasphemes against the Holly Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation;

      Matthew 12:31-32 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men, Anyone who speaks a word against the son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this age or in the age to come."

      "So I really don't know what you were talking about in your attempted slap at Christianity."

      Oh, that, I only left you one scripture, but there are MANY more, of Jesus directing Christians to only pray to God, to only worship God, I'm sure you can't comprehend the meaning of that either. Or you wouldn't condone your child being lead in non-religious (your term), non-god, generic prayers in school.

      Praying to anyone or anything but God, is putting that something before God and is a sin for a Christian.

      And in your above post regarding atheists praying "make a request in a humble manner." "It could be a simple prayer as in I wish................"

      There again, you confused a figure of speech with prayer. I wish this or I wish that is just stating a want, not really expecting any force to make it happen. A figure of speech. If you were serious and put that wish out there expecting it to be heard and expecting a result, you would be petitioning to something. And atheists don't do that.

      Have you ever heard of a teacher leading the students in an atheist prayer? You are being ridiculous.

      Not listing all of the definitions for "wish" (want,desire, to petition) does not change the fact it means to petition, I was not being dishonest.

      "..now that you've given up on your "prayer is always religious" mandate." Um, liar, I have never given up on that. Prayer is a religious act. I've said it over and over.

      You are still confusing the words religious and religion, considering you don't know the difference, I'll pass on your Bible study offer, but I recommend you find one.

      Delete
    92. " I said appalled I never mentioned unforgivable.

      appalled: 1.dreadful and shocking 2. very bad: causing dismay."

      Thanks for proving me right. Those verses did just that. And, I didn't know you know how God "feels". When you get done talking with Him, let me know what He thinks about gun control. Oh, and while you're at it, ask Him about His plan to help the needy (that you are so confused about). I tried helping you out, but you might have ignored that help.

      "There again, you confused a figure of speech with prayer. I wish this or I wish that is just stating a want, not really expecting any force to make it happen."

      Yes, I know that. But that is where Brabantio (and you) get confused. You don't have to be praying to a "god" to "petition" anything. Oh BTW, "petition" is in the 'prayer' definition too. Go figure.


      " I'll pass on your Bible study offer, but I recommend you find one."

      Found one and use it daily. You should visit TTB.ORG. Very good site with lots of help for those who need it (me included).

      Delete
    93. You poor delusional soul. I'll pray for you. yeah, I'll pray to the white buffalo for you. I'll be the only Indian that does, but I'll do it, just for you.

      All joking aside, I feel sorry for you.

      Delete
    94. I'd rather be "delusional" and saved, than "delusional" and unsaved. Thanks for your prayers (indoctrination as Brabantio and Eddie call it).

      Delete
    95. "My "conspicuous silence" is caused by your hypocritical view that you admitted that prayer does not have to be religious, then deny you said that, after whining about prayer being ONLY religious."

      I admitted no such thing, especially considering the scenario you've been defending. It wouldn't have anything to do with your demand that all religions "including atheism" be removed, anyway. If that made sense, then you could demonstrate how. But you can't, for some unfathomable reason.

      "Done ... over and over and over again."

      That's a lie. You haven't explained how you can remove all religions "including atheism". You haven't even tried once.

      "You don't have to be praying to a "god" to "petition" anything."

      So in your scenario, a teacher is leading students in a prayer hoping for a certain result. Who the hell are they talking to?

      "I'd rather be "delusional" and saved, than "delusional" and unsaved. Thanks for your prayers (indoctrination as Brabantio and Eddie call it)."

      Personal, private prayer isn't indoctrination, and nobody ever said it was. You're lying again.

      Delete
    96. "Thanks for proving me right. Those versus did just that and, I didn't know you know how God "feels."

      Those versus proved you wrong! You said there is no unforgivable sin. (Commandment 9. thou shalt not lie)

      You can not read the Bible and not know how God "feels". It clearly states what makes God rejoice, what angers God, and what grieves God.

      "When you get done talking to him let me know what he thinks about gun control."

      He let you know that in the several scriptures as well as in the 10 commandments. Commandment 6, Thou shalt not kill

      And guess what number 1 is? Thou shalt put no other god before me. (such as allowing your child to pray to anyone else)

      "Oh, and while your at it ask him about his plan to help the needy (that you are so confused about)"

      I'm not confused. I know about his LONG RANGE plans, for the needy, as well as those he had Jesus instruct Christians on, on how to take care of the needy in the HERE AND NOW!

      Par.5. That was the point to let you know that prayer and wishing are both petitioning (which atheist don't). And it is you that has twisted what every one has said.

      Next Bible study find the scriptures on "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamer, and EVIL SPEAKING be put away from you, with all malice.

      Delete
    97. "So in your scenario, a teacher is leading students in a prayer hoping for a certain result. Who the hell are they talking to?"

      Whoever the kids believe in. Each believe in something different and they can believe the prayer is from whoever they believe in, including those who believe in nothing (like you). That keeps it generic and legally within the parameters of the supposed SOCAS.

      "That's a lie. You haven't explained how you can remove all religions "including atheism". You haven't even tried once."

      Hmmm, that's because that wasn't the parameter you were talking about. But, good way of changing the subject and taking it out of context. Normal method of yours when you are beaten in an honest discussion ... resort to dishonesty.
      "Where's your explanation of how a school can avoid all religions, including "atheism"?" is what you asked and I answered to. Now you change the question and whine about an incorrect answer? Again ... hmmmm.


      "Those versus proved you wrong! You said there is no unforgivable sin."

      Those passages proved I was right. You cannot be saved if you do not believe. God surely won't drag you into Heaven if you don't want to go. Perhaps a good article to read is this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/05/18/contradictions-the-unforgivable-sin It includes each of your passages plus a couple more. Do you really want to argue this point?

      Delete
    98. Good lord, stop lying!! You said "there is NO unforgivable sin unless you don't believe."

      Those scriptures prove you wrong. Blasphmey is an unforgivable sin.

      Those scriptures weren't about not believing.

      Now you are confused about the words blasphmey and believing,(not believing)

      You can believe and commit blasphemy. Blasphmey is a sin (an unforgivable sin). You have stated that you "believe" and are a sinner. See how that works?

      MW/Blasphemy: The act of insullting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for god or sacred enity.

      Volcabulary Dictionary/Blasphemy:3. straying from acceptable beliefs and values.

      You can believe in God and "insult" "show contempt" and "stray from acceptable beliefs" Such as taking part in a prayer that is directed to another god or being. As you are condoning school prayers to be. That would be insulting the Christian God - blasphemous.

      No need to argue. You said "there is NO unforgivable sin if you believe." I proved you wrong. Rather, the scriptures proved you wrong.

      Delete
    99. "Those scriptures weren't about not believing."

      Yes, they were (are).

      "No need to argue. You said "there is NO unforgivable sin if you believe." I proved you wrong. Rather, the scriptures proved you wrong."

      No, they didn't.

      Delete
    100. Ask your preacher if you continue to disagree.

      Delete
    101. Bronwyn, you're starting to sound like a Brabantio clone; deny when you're wrong and justify it with dishonesty. Is that the way you want to do this? At least tell me so I know what (who) I'm dealing with.

      Delete
    102. "Whoever the kids believe in."

      Oh, so you are talking about religious prayer, after spending however much time twisting yourself in knots claiming that there was some other option. Apparently you knew all along that you were making an irrelevant, diversionary argument.

      "Each believe in something different and they can believe the prayer is from whoever they believe in, including those who believe in nothing (like you)."

      If you don't believe in anything, then you don't pray. What do you mean the prayer is "from" whoever they believe in? Prayer would be "to" a spiritual entity. And how do you imagine a teacher wording a prayer to fit everyone? It's a little strange not to have a reference to who you're praying to. Even if you made sense of that (and you won't try to do so, I expect), your premise is still that every child is praying, when some children don't, and some parents don't teach them to do so. That's not appropriate.

      "Hmmm, that's because that wasn't the parameter you were talking about."

      Another lie. Here's the context:"Where's your explanation of how a school can avoid all religions, including "atheism"? I believe your conspicuous silence on that is an admission that your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Feel free to try to prove me wrong, though." Then you said you had proven me wrong, "over and over and over again".

      ""Where's your explanation of how a school can avoid all religions, including "atheism"?" is what you asked and I answered to."

      You never explained it. As I said, you can't.

      Delete
    103. "Oh, so you are talking about religious prayer, after spending however much time twisting yourself in knots claiming that there was some other option."

      The kid can be an atheist (like you) and still petition for a better score on a test. I've already given an example of how that can work.

      "If you don't believe in anything, then you don't pray."

      You're kidding, right? You mean to say you've never wished for anything your entire life as an atheist? BTW, wish and pray share the same meaning (petition).

      "Then you said you had proven me wrong, "over and over and over again"."

      And that is true. I have done that ... over and over. How many more times must I do it before you quit making a fool of yourself?

      Who let you inside? Now get back outside and play with children your own age.

      Delete
    104. "The kid can be an atheist (like you) and still petition for a better score on a test. I've already given an example of how that can work."

      Who would the kid be petitioning?

      "You mean to say you've never wished for anything your entire life as an atheist?"

      While all the other children are praying, an atheist isn't going to be praying. Is it a teacher leading children in prayer, or "individual wishing time"?

      "And that is true. I have done that ... over and over."

      Then link to where you explained how, specifically, you can remove all religions "including atheism" from a school environment. Otherwise you're lying, yet again.

      Delete
    105. "Bronwyn, you're starting to sound lik a Brabantio clone:"

      Why THANK YOU, dumb ass, that's the nicest thing you have ever posted. Even if you didn't mean for it to be.

      "deny when you're wrong and justify it with dishonesty"

      Classic case of projection from Willy.

      Delete
    106. "Why THANK YOU, dumb ass, "

      That doesn't sound very Christian of you. Maybe you're more like Brabantio than you want to admit.



      "Is it a teacher leading children in prayer, or "individual wishing time"?"

      They have the same meaning in that instance, so it doesn't matter what you call it.

      Delete
    107. "That doesn't sound very Christian of you."

      From the same person who said:"Hey, moron, what the hell is the title of this article?"

      "They have the same meaning in that instance, so it doesn't matter what you call it."

      No, it's not a question of the name, it's about the actual act you're talking about. Are you still talking about a teacher leading students in prayer, or is the teacher just telling students to take some time to themselves? These are separate concepts.

      Delete
    108. I never claimed to be a Christian, not once.

      William, after many posts of us telling you that one can not pray without petitioning something, on 7/27 at 10:30 pm, you posted a ridiculous scenario about how antheists could pray without making a petition to anything "make a request in a humble manner" by making a "wish". I didn't bother to inform you that a request is a petition too, but I did inform you that the word wish meant to petition.

      7/28 12:30 am, I posted "BTW, William one definition of wish, is - to petition. You can't petition to nothing."

      This is your response to that very post.

      7/28 7:44 am, "Yeah? But, if you were being honest in this discussion, perhaps you wouldn't have said that. What are ALL the other definitions of "wish"? Looks like you turn out to be another typical dishonest liberal poster who can't even hold an honest discussion with a stupid right-winger. Too bad, you were fun while you lasted."

      For some crazy reason you accuse me of being dishonest for telling you the definition of wish is petition. And for not listing "ALL" the "other definitions of wish" as if that would have changed anything. But you let me have it!

      Since then, after you calling me dishonest, you have posted to Brabantio
      7/29 7:44 "BTW, wish and pray share the same meaning (petition)."

      7/29 11:19 "They have the same meaning in that instance, so it doesn't matter what you call it."

      That was your reply to Brabantio's question "Is it a teacher leading children in prayer, or "individual wishing time"?"

      So it's not dishonest when you make that claim (after I informed you of it) but I was being dishonest when I informed YOU what wish meant? There is something very wrong with you.

      Delete
    109. Also, Wm, you posted on 7/28 11:49 "Oh BTW, "petition" is in the "prayer" definition too, go figure."

      You said that, like you are informing us of something we didn't know, after several days and dozens of posts, of us trying to get that very fact through your head.

      Seriously, dude, get some help.

      Delete
    110. William: "deny when you're wrong and justify it with dishonesty"

      Bronwyn: "Classic case of projection from Willy."

      That, along with an hysterical hatred of liberals, is all Willie's got.

      Delete
    111. "I never claimed to be a Christian, not once."

      Of course not. You're very disillusioned with Christianity. But you claim to be able to interpret the Bible. Why wouldn't you be disillusioned with Christianity, they have moral standards that need to be met and if you don't have the gumption to follow those moral standards of course you would seek another standard that is easier to achieve.

      Delete
    112. You said: "BTW, William one definition of wish, is - to petition. You can't petition to nothing."

      I said: "Yeah? But, if you were being honest in this discussion, perhaps you wouldn't have said that."

      Why can't you petition to nothing? What rule says that? What law implies that? You (or anyone else) can petition to nothing if they want. You were wrong (you lied) and I pointed it out. Now, you whine because I pointed out you were wrong (you lied)? Like Conchobhar ... whine ... whine ... whine .... want some cheese to go with that?

      Delete
    113. That sentence did make me giggle a bit though. How would anyone deny when they are wrong honestly? ;>)

      He has twisted himself around so many times, that he is now telling us, what we started out telling him. That teachers can not lead prayers in school without petitioning something or someone. At least in his last few posts, he hasn't insisted on us naming what religion that religious act would be.

      I got a kick out him claiming his God would never be appalled at anyone. (guess he never heard about the big flood where God wiped out nearly all of the earths population, leaving just a few of his favorites) And that I don't know how "God feels" (Whoops, I forgot to list favoritism and the "he is a jealous God", two more feelings we know he has) but my favorite was him stating that there is no unforgivable sin. When I prove to him there absolutely is an unforgivable sin. And list the scriptures that clearly state that. He insisted I proved HIM right.

      The topic of this thread was about self rightous, intolerant, Conservative Christians, disillutioning and alienating others away from Christianity. William doesn't help their case against that accusation. Of course he claimed that statement was bashing Christianity.

      Delete
    114. William, you are a liar, your 7/28 7:44 AM, post, I quoted from, had nothing in it but my post you quoted - "BTW, william, one definition of wish, is - to petition. You can't petition to nothing."

      Then you post accusing me of being dishonest, ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD WISH.

      That is ALL that is in that post! Go back and look at it. Now, you are lying about that. You are ridiculous and very dishonest.

      Many non-Christians are very familiar with the Bible. Now again, you are insinuating that if someone isn't Christian they are immoral. There are many people claiming to be Christians, going to church, preaching etc. that are very immoral. Calling your self Christian does not make one a Christian.

      Also, I never claimed to be able to interpret the Bible, never. I simply listed scriptures that clearly, in simple to understand words, contridicted what you were saying.

      Your comparing me to Brabantio and Conchobhar may be insulting to them, but it is very much a compliment to me. I only wish I was as sharp as they are. If only that were your goal, it might not be pointless to try and have a discussion with you.

      Delete
    115. "Why can't you petition to nothing? What rule says that? What law implies that? You (or anyone else) can petition to nothing if they want. You were wrong (you lied) and I pointed it out. Now, you whine because I pointed out you were wrong (you lied)?"

      There's nothing in the definition of the word that allows for it to be "to nothing". The entire idea is trying to get a result. Either you petition a person or a higher power for some sort of help. If you petition nothing, then you can't get any result, or even expect to.

      You wonder why your opinions are mocked when you base them off of concepts like atheist prayer. Do you wonder why you can't take pills with a glass of dry water as well?

      Delete
    116. William quote just now 7/29 at 9:06 PM

      "I said: "yeah? But, if you were being honest in this discussion, perhaps you wouldn't have said that."

      Liar, you said: "Yeah? But, if you were being honest in this discussion, perhaps you wouldn't have said that. What are ALL the other definitions of "wish"?

      Delete
    117. "The topic of this thread was about self rightous, intolerant, Conservative Christians, disillutioning and alienating others away from Christianity. "

      No, this article is about why RELIGIOUS conservatives creating atheists. As pointed out to me earlier after I said the same thing you just said. In fact, it may have been you who corrected me (maybe not).

      "Then you post accusing me of being dishonest, ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD WISH. "

      No, I posted about you being dishonest about there not being a way to petition to nothing. End of that sentence, then I go off on to something else.

      "Now again, you are insinuating that if someone isn't Christian they are immoral."

      No, I am insinuating that the morals aren't as consistent.

      "Calling your self Christian does not make one a Christian."

      Oh, believe me, I know that fact.

      "Also, I never claimed to be able to interpret the Bible, never. I simply listed scriptures that clearly, in simple to understand words, contridicted what you were saying."

      You are saying how I should interpret those passages. I am saying they support what I say is true. And, I brought a link to a site that backs up what I say. Did you go to that site?



      "Either you petition a person or a higher power for some sort of help. "

      So, if I were to say: "I just wish you would stop posting." or if I was to say: "I just pray you would stop posting" ... who am I petitioning to? What God am I petitioning to? You make the claims that ALL prayers and ALL wishes must be to someone, well step up to the plate and tell me WHO that someone is.
      You've fallen on your face making claims that ALL prayers are religiously connected and that ALL higher powers are gods of some type. Yet, you can't make the simplest of connections to one when asked to.

      Delete
    118. wm said: "No, this article is about RELIGIOUS conservatives creating atheists."

      You are right, William,(glad we got that through to you, when you were corrected, as you say.) including Christians, I was channeling the article's paragraphs regarding the Christians and the "young people leaving the church in droves" as well as in other religions. Thus the articles title - 'Conservative Christians creating next generation of athiest and agnostics'

      Don't forget "agonstics"

      And again you claim to have said the same thing I did, when you absolutely did not say the same thing I said.

      But regarding you, this is what I was referring to -

      Wm post 7/26 8:11 AM - "Bronwyn, this entire article is about how "bad" Christianity is and how it drives people to atheism."

      Brabantio post: 7/26 10:27 - "That's absolutely false."

      Bronwyn post: 7/26 10:40 - "No it's not. It's about certain Christians, Conservative Christians, "Christians who are bracingly righteous in their own beliefs and intolerant of others." It also gave examples of other religions doing this Jews and Muslims. The point being, these days, "religion equals intolerance" and is disillutioning and allienating young people."

      Wm posted 7/26 11:00 AM - (first quoted my post) "Christians who are bracingly righteous in their beliefs and intolerant of all others." (then stated) "And that isn't "bad" in what way?"

      Completely missing the point that you claimed the article was bashing Christianity, when the negativity wasn't aimed at Chrisitanity, but certain Christians and their attitude.

      Delete
    119. Wm posted - "No, I posted about you being dishonest about there not being a way to petition about nothing. End of sentence, then I go off on to something else."

      Well, you didn't start a new paragraph. And, your scenario about how to petition to nothing was to "wish". So I pointed out that "wish" means to petition.

      Wm said - "You are saying how I should interpret those passages. I am saying they support what I say is true."

      Only you can't or didn't state one single word or words from those passages - Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32 that says blasphmey against the Holy Spirit, is NOT an unforgiveable sin.

      You just kept repeating that I proved YOU right.


      Wm said - "So, if I were to say. "I just wish you would stop posting." or if I was to say. "I just pray you would stop posting"......who am I petitioning to?"

      No one! Those are just figure of speech. You are not being serious about getting a result. I already explained that to you on 7/28 11:35 AM. Then read your 7/28 11:49 AM, convoluted reply to my post claiming you knew that.

      Delete
    120. "So, if I were to say: "I just wish you would stop posting." or if I was to say: "I just pray you would stop posting" ... who am I petitioning to? What God am I petitioning to?"

      If you meant it literally, not as a figure of speech, then you would be petitioning your god. How could you possibly be confused about that? Do you really not have any concept of who you pray to, while claiming to understand the Bible? An atheist, of course, has no higher power to petition, and therefore can't pray.

      And, for yet another time (which you will surely ignore, as always), even if you could claim that there was some non-religious application of "prayer", it could not possibly have any relevance to a child stuck in a public school classroom while a teacher leads everyone in prayer. That child is not communicating with some human authority figure asking for a better grade on a test yet to be taken or something, right? Or do you imagine it going something like "Everyone will now bow their heads and repeat after me, unless you're atheist, in which case I've written the vice-principal's number on the board..."?

      I honestly wish ("to have a desire for (as something unattainable)"-merriam-webster.com) that I was joking when asking you that, but your concept of teacher-led prayer is becoming increasingly intangible. It seems like you're ardently defending something that you can't even explain.

      Delete
    121. William said: "So, if I were to say. "I just wish you would stop posting." or if I was to say. "I just pray you would stop posting"......who am I petitioning to?"

      Bronwyn said: No one! Those are just figure of speech. You are not being serious about getting a result.
      Brabantio said: If you meant it literally, not as a figure of speech, then you would be petitioning your god.


      Which one of you KNOW my intention for the statement? Hmmm, neither of you do, so you cannot give an answer.

      Maybe you've heard this one before: Star light, star bright, first star I see tonight, wish I may, wish I might, please grant the wish I wish tonight.

      Which God is that directed to? What Higher Power is being petitioned? Are stars Gods? Are they Higher Powers? And, yet, here we have a prayer or petition or wish (whatever you want to call it) directed to a non-god. A non-religious non-god at that. I wonder if a teacher would be allowed to lead the class with that prayer/petition/wish?


      "Only you can't or didn't state one single word or words from those passages - Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:31-32 that says blasphmey against the Holy Spirit, is NOT an unforgiveable sin."

      Don't forget John 3:15-16 "That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

      The other passages? Actually, they say blaspheme against the Holy Spirit IS unforgivable, but they say blaspheme against Jesus Christ (who was alive at that time) is forgivable. Why don't you give me the meaning of "blaspheme" and "Holy Spirit" and we can discuss further what you think those passages mean. Did you read the link I provided?

      If you do not believe in God, then how can He forgive you? If you find it in your heart to change and to believe, then He will forgive you. That is why Jesus shed His blood and died on the Cross and rose again for ... to pay for our sins. However, you must believe in Him for Him to forgive you. Just like Ephesian 2:8-9 says: "For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast".
      You are saved through faith BY grace. You must have faith in order for the grace of God to work.

      Maybe that is the "Religious conservatism" part that creates so many atheists? It must be just so demanding and evil of One to simply expect a little faith.

      Delete
    122. "I honestly wish ("to have a desire for (as something unattainable)"-merriam-webster.com) that I was joking when asking you that, but your concept of teacher-led prayer is becoming increasingly intangible. "

      And which God are you wishing/praying ("wish: to request in the form of a wish" - merriam-webster.com also: "pray: to make a request in a humble manner" - merriam-webster.com) ? Are you wishing/praying to a God? No? Well, isn't that what I've said all along ... that no god is necessary to pray to?
      And let's not forget what YOU said about wish's: "If you meant it literally, not as a figure of speech, then you would be petitioning your god.". So, what god are you petitioning? YOU said wishing is "petitioning your god", which god are you petitioning? Wait, maybe you mean only sometimes are you petitioning a god, other times you aren't. Is that what you mean?

      Delete
    123. "Which one of you KNOW my intention for the statement? Hmmm, neither of you do, so you cannot give an answer."

      Which is why I allowed for both possibilities. But you don't seem to be disputing what I said, so it's unclear why it didn't qualify as an answer.

      "Maybe you've heard this one before: Star light, star bright, first star I see tonight, wish I may, wish I might, please grant the wish I wish tonight."

      Why would that be non-religious just because a god isn't mentioned? If someone really thinks they can get what they want by talking to a star, that's still religious anyway. Check the dictionary. Usually that's recited just as a poem, especially during daylight hours (as it would be during a public school class). You didn't think of that, of course.

      "And which God are you wishing/praying ("wish: to request in the form of a wish" - merriam-webster.com also: "pray: to make a request in a humble manner" - merriam-webster.com) ?"

      None. You're using a different definition than I specified. "Wish" doesn't always mean "pray".

      "So, what god are you petitioning? YOU said wishing is "petitioning your god", which god are you petitioning? Wait, maybe you mean only sometimes are you petitioning a god, other times you aren't. Is that what you mean?"

      Again, I'm not petitioning a god. I never said "wishing" is petitioning a god. I made it quite clear that my usage of "wish" was not religious.

      Now, can you please explain how anything you're saying here has any relevance to teacher-led prayer in a public school classroom? It really shouldn't be this difficult for you.

      Delete
    124. William, why did you ask me, immidiately after your "wish" in place of prayer petition scenario, "What are ALL the other definitions of "wish"?

      The the New Testement states that you can ONLY be saved if you except Christ as the son of God and believe in him as your savior. One can only be saved if they believe. If they believe and ask all sins will be forgiven. EXCEPT blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and continual willful sin after becoming a believer.

      It was Jesus speaking in those scriptures, he was talking to the scribes when he warned them of the unforgivable sin. He was already talking to "believers" and warned them of the unforgivable sin. He had to be talking to "believers" to say "therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven......" (as you said you have to believe to beforgiven) "But the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven"
      Jesus: Mark 3:28-29 "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; be he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation."

      Jesus: Luke 12:10 "And anyone who speaks a word against the son of man, it will be forgiven him, (speaking of himself) but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven."

      Also, John 5:16 "If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and he will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that."

      So there is unforgivable sin. The Book of Hebrew has many scriptures regarding willful sin after becoming a believer not being forgiven.

      Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin willfully after we have recieved the knnowledge of the truth, there no longer remins a sacrifice for sins."

      Don't forget Jesus warns that on judgement day, there will be believers bragging about what great Christians they were (are) and he, Jesus, will say "I never knew you, get away for me" Matthew 7:21-23

      Of course in Christian belief, you have to believe in God and his son Jesus to be forgiven, to gain eternal life, etc. William, I never once argued that with you, But you can believe and still commit an unforgivable sin. The scriptures you list do not change that. I did give you the meaning of blasphemy the very first time I mentioned it. And the Holy Spirit is God's active force. Jesus recieved it when he was baptised.

      No thanks on the offer to further discuss those passages. That is not the purpose of Eddie's site, or the topic, and we have already spent way too much time on it.

      Delete
    125. William: "Are stars Gods? Are they Higher Powers?"

      There are faiths that consider stars gods and godesses, named them and pray to them.

      Ancient Mayans would literally converse with stars. They intregrated both religious and mathematical equations to predict cosmic phenomena.

      Anyone can pick anything as their deity, name it, and call it a god or whatever. Praying to it would be religious but does not have to have the name of a certain religion.

      Why is that impossible for you to comprehend, William?

      Delete
  5. "Bullshit. Proove it. Teachers leading prayer in schools is a violation of every students rigth to belong to another religuon that that of the TAX-PAYER PAID authority figure."

    Proven by using your atheist friends description of what religion any given God belongs to. Thanks to classicliberal I have proven that a teacher leading a prayer in school to "Nature's God" would NOT be indoctrinating (as you say) kids into any religion. And thanks to Conchobhar I've proven that if a teacher leads a prayer inferring the "Creator" there is no religion being indoctrinated (as you call it).

    You got a different choice of whines that support your supposed 'separation of church and state' since you have blown your own argument apart with your own statements? I think you should stick to calling me names. You're good at what you do best: name-calling. But, that is a typical trait of most liberals. Especially when they've been had as easily as I've done you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another non-response response, William. Now it's time for you to declare victory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you deny you said the "Creator" is not religious? Do you now deny you said this: "Number one, William, "Nature's God," and "their Creator" are pretty generic terms, and do not, as you seem to be implying, necessarily refer to a personal God." ? Because I read that as you saying that the "Creator" is not a religious term and could be used by a teacher while leading a prayer in school. Are you now going to change your stance?

      Delete
    2. No, I'm not changing my stance. But your reading of that is wildly off the mark. What a shock.
      And your arguments about what is and what is not religious, from marriage to prayer, are absurd, and not worth my time (or Brabantio's, but that's up to him) .

      Delete
    3. William: "Do you deny you said the "Creator" is not religious?"

      Show me where I SAID, "The Creator is not religious." Cut and paste the EXACT quote.

      You keep saying that you've used CL and me to 'prove' your points. No, you haven't. All you've ever proven on this site is that you hate liberals, you'll say anything to oppose them, (as Bronwyn has pointed out, you're on both sides of the 'wish/petition' red herring, using it one way against Brabantio, and contradicting that argument against her) logic and facts be damned, and you project your most terrifying fantasies ( and your own character flaws) onto them.

      I have to say, though, that you are a never ending source of amusement, especially when you do a victory dance after an argument in which Eddie, CL, Brabs (and now Bronwyn) flays the skin off you. This one, " Now, go outside and play with children your own age and leave adult conversation to adults who can." really tickled me, as I've often suppressed the desire to tell you to go back to the kids' table and eat your Jello, as the adults wanted to talk. But nothing tops your statement that selectively quoting and twisting one of Bronwyn's statements totally out of context was, how did you put it? Something about 'seeing an opportunity for humor,' or some such words. "Media tweak," maybe? Hilarious.

      Delete
    4. I've already done that. Are you saying there can be a religion without a personal God? Would that be like atheism? What religion would there be that had no personal God? If you can't provide evidence of a religion that has no personal god then what the heck are you talking about when you said "Their Creator" and "Nature's God" do not refer to personal gods if you didn't mean they weren't religious?


      "But nothing tops your statement that selectively quoting and twisting one of Bronwyn's statements totally out of context was, how did you put it?"

      Whine ... whine ... whine ... Need some cheese?

      Delete
    5. Whoops, I spoke too soon. Now he is back to insisting on someone giving a "religious act" a religious denomination. As if all religious acts have to be performed by a named religion. He never responded when I sugested non-denominational.

      Delete
    6. Bronwyn, you seem to be the smart one of the bunch. What religion is meant by "personal god" when mentioning "Nature's God" or "Their Creator"? There is a god for "non-denominational"? What god is that? Wait, maybe you mean the Christian God: Jesus Christ? But, then those phrases wouldn't be non-religious, would they?

      Delete
    7. Jaysus! You must be very dizzy by now spinning circles like you are. Asked and answered. Go back to your 7/27 1:13 AM post "Explain how those Indians can pray to a supernatural being and it isn't a religious god?"

      A "personal god" would be whatever diety one has chosen to be their god. "Spiritualism" and "religious" doesn't have to be a named religion.

      "There is a god for "non-denominational"? I never said there was or wasn't. You kept asking "what religion?" I suggested "non-denominational." Many non-denominational churches worship the same God you do, idiot. You've gone from ridiculous to pathetic.

      "Wait, maybe you mean the Christian God: Jesus Christ? But, then those phrases wouldn't be non-religious, would they?" That doesn't even make any sense. I seriously doubt you even know what the hell you are talking about. Give it a rest.

      Jesus Christ isn't a God. He is a Lord. The son of God. "The Lord Jesus Christ" "The Lord's Prayer"

      Delete
    8. That should read Jesus Christ Isn't God.

      Jesus said he sits at the right hand of God. Jesus said his father was greater than he was, not to worship him, but to worship his father. To ask the father of all things through him. Jesus said his father sent him. God said he sent his only begotten son.

      The Lord Jesus Christ

      Delete
    9. That's funny. Someone who is "disillusioned with Christianity" is telling me what God says.

      Delete
    10. That is funny, that you think only a Christian can read the Bible. I took it right from the Bible. Anyone else, can read it from the Bible, too.

      William, you seldom make any sense. I know many people that can read the Bible, that are disillusioned with Christianity and Christians. There are atheists, many scholars, that know the Bible frontwards and backwards, that can interpret the entire thing, quote scriptures on any topic, and they are not "believers".

      In fact, just maybe their disillutionment comes from them witnessing the majority of Christians not following the scriptures. Condoning wars, not concerned with the enviroment or the needy, judging others without removing the rafter from their own eye. The inconsistency of their behavior, picking and choosing which scriptures to follow.

      This is really funny! This word salad below and it's conclusion.

      Wm: "Would you agree that the "disillusioning" would be caused by the consistancy(sic) that religion brings to morality? It would seem to me that when someone decides that what they are doing is acceptable by their religion they will seek any alternative that 'allows' their inappropriate behavior (or intolerant, if you will). People will seek the easiest path to allow a behavior that they are told is unacceptable in almost all cases. Like water seeking the path of least resistance, so will people who are told their behavior is wrong. Is that "intolerant"? So be it. Sorry for being accountable for bad behavior and accepting responsibility for it and the consequences of it."

      Being accountable how? Accepting responsiblility how? What consequences?

      Wm: "The God I believe in is appalled with no one (There is NO unforgivable sin unless you don't believe), so I really don't know what you were talking about in your attempted slap at Christianity."

      According to you a "believer" can be the biggest ass-hole in the world, commit any sin, and all is forgiven and he is guaranteed eternal life.

      Wm: "The God I believe in is appalled with no one (there is NO unforgivable sin unless you don't believe), so I really don't know what you were talking about in your attempted slap at Christianity."

      That sounds like Christianity is the path of least resistance.

      According to you, there is NO sin too big for You to commit, as long as you claim you are a Christian and believe in God. Wow, I can see why you chose Christianity.

      Delete
    11. I swear I thought I fixed that responsibility.

      Delete
  7. "Jesus Christ isn't a God."

    Oookay, so much for being the 'smart one of the bunch'.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now, this is priceless:

    William "quoting" me:
    "But nothing tops your statement that selectively quoting and twisting one of Bronwyn's statements totally out of context was, how did you put it?"
    And then laying me out with the devastating,
    "Whine ... whine ... whine ... Need some cheese?"


    I'll pass on the cheese, thanks anyway, Willie. It tends to make me choke when I'm laughing. You have a real problem distinguishing whining from laughter, you know.

    And, aina machan dhoul, Willie, when you're going to selectively quote me, try not to do in a sentence in which I point out your proclivity for that particular rank dishonesty. The idiocy is just too transparent. Here is what I actually said, in full:

    "But nothing tops your statement that selectively quoting and twisting one of Bronwyn's statements totally out of context was, how did you put it? Something about 'seeing an opportunity for humor,' or some such words. "Media tweak," maybe? Hilarious."

    But, hey, you've topped that topless statement, so it's all good. I'm really enjoying watching Bronwyn dribble you up and down the court, and I'll presume to speak for Brabantio as well as myself, in thanking her or her overgenerous words, above. Praise from the praiseworthy, a great gift

    ReplyDelete
  9. In fairness to William, I would like to clarify part of my 7/30 11:44 Am post. First I quoted Wm:"Wait, maybe you mean the Christian God: Jesus Christ? But, then those phrases wouldn't be non-religious, would they?" Me: "That doesn't even make any sense. I seriously doubt you even know what the hell you are talking about. Give it a rest."

    This is the entire post I was replying to - William 7/30 8:55 Am-
    Wm: "Bronwyn, you seem to be the smart one of the bunch. What religion is meant by "personal god" when mentioning "Natures's God" or "Their Creator"? There is a god for "non-denominational"? What god is that? Wait, maybe you mean the Christian God: Jesus Christ? But, then those phrases wouldn't be non-religious would they?"

    Me: "That doesn't even make any sense. I seriously doubt you even know what the hell you are talking about. Give it a rest."

    I said that because, it didn't make any sense for William to be asking me that. Our posts started out with several of us trying to explain to him, that any teacher lead prayer, would be a religious act, regardless what it was called, or how it was phrased, or to whatever, or whomever, the prayer would be made to, it was a religious act, that might offend someone with different beliefs.

    So then William was relentless in pinning us down to naming a religion that it would be offending. Totally missing the point. But in his mind if we couldn't give the religious act a name of a religion, no one was being offended.

    He then twisted our "failure" to give the prayer a name of a religion, to us admitting it was not a religious act.

    Now, in his post I replied to, it looks as if he wants me to admit, that those phrases are being addressed to his Christian God, Jesus Christ. And admitting they would be a religious performance. That, after all his senarios (and using those phrases) trying to prove a teacher lead prayer could be done without it being to a Christian God, offending no one, with other beliefs.

    It was his going full circle about why teachers should lead prayers in school, to his claim it could be done without offending anyone, to now admitting that every one of those phrases are to a Christian God, or some god, and religious.

    That is why I said that last part of his post didn't make sense. And why I said "I seriously doubt you even know what the hell you are talking about. Give it a rest."

    My: "Jesus Christ isn't God." Was an after thought. I realize many people and apparently William, believe Jesus and God are one being.

    IMHO, they are seperate, but one in unity, a amalgamation of sorts. Jesus: John 14:6 "no one comes to the Father but through me."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Jesus: John 14:6 "no one comes to the Father but through me."

      In John 14:9, Jesus says: "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

      I think that is the version you find acceptable. I can get any version of that verse that you want, just let me know which version you prefer. They all say the same thing, though, IMHO.

      I don't understand why you would stop reading John at the verse you did, when Jesus says who He is just 3 versus later. Aren't you the one whining about me being illogical in my presentation of facts and quotes? What do you call what you just did (by excluding John 14:9)?

      Delete
    2. I didn't think it necessary,

      John 14:7 "If you men had known me, you would have known my Father also; from this moment on you know him and have seen him." (14:8-"Phillip said to him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." (14:9 - Jesus said to him: "Have I been with you men so long a time, and yet, Phillip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say. 'Show us the Father? (14:10 Do you not believe that I am in UNION with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works. (14:11 - Believe me that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me; otherwise, believe on account of the works themselves.

      And 14:12 Most truly I say to you, He that exercises faith in me. that one also will do the works that I do; and he will do works greater than these, because I AM GOING MY WAY TO THE FATHER. (14:13 Also, whatever it is tht you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that THE FATHER may be glorified in CONNECTION with the SON.

      (I emphasized with caps)

      Now, what exactly is your complaint? And why would that one scripture, that one verse, change my mind about them being two beings in unity? considering the versuses that followed. THAT YOU LEFT OFF!!!

      Very interesting that YOU left out 7,8, 10-13 to quote you "I don't understand why you would stop reading John at the verse you, did when Jesus says who He is just 3 versus later."

      And that he did, Dumb Ass, that he did, as well as those that followed, to back why I said IMHO they are two in unity. You can believe whatever you want. But to imply that I am being the one that is "illogical in my presentation of facts and quotes." Is hysterical. Keep em coming.

      Do you really think that I need YOU to "get any version of that verse" for me? Why did you list 9 and not the one before or immediately after?

      I especially like---

      "The things I say to you men I do not speak of my OWN originality; but the Father who reamains in union with me is doing his works."

      Don't you? Why did you leave that off?

      Now, what would you call what I just did?

      Delete
    3. "And that he did, Dumb Ass, that he did, as well as those that followed, to back why I said IMHO they are two in unity."

      Your quotes didn't say "unity", they said "union". Is there a difference between the words? I think so. Those versus continued to support what IMHO is true: that Jesus IS God. He said so and I believe Him.

      "Now, what would you call what I just did?"

      Continueing to bring versus that support my stance: that Jesus IS God. Thank you, very much.

      Delete
    4. "But to imply that I am being the one that is "illogical in my presentation of facts and quotes." Is hysterical. Keep em coming."

      Let's see: you bring facts and quotes that say "union". Then you say those facts and quotes said "unity". Yeah, I would say that is very "illogical" ... and quite "hysterical". Post another time and I'll keep more coming. You're too easy.

      Unity: the quality or state of not being multiple ...
      Union: an act or instance of uniting or joining two or more things into one ...

      Difference in words? A little, but just because you used a different word to describe your exact quote doesn't seem to change anything. Looks to me like both mean Jesus IS God.

      Delete
    5. I called you Dumb Ass for insinuating that I was being dishonest by "stopping at John 14:6." Your last two posts cracked me up, thank you. Now I will just call you stupid.

      William: "Let's see: you bring facts and quotes that say "union". Then you say those facts and quotes said "unity". Yeah, I would say that is very "illogical" ...and quite "hysterical". Post another time and I'll keep more coming. You're too easy."

      What in the hell are you talking about? I NEVER said "those facts and quotes said "unity". NEVER! Show me where I said "those facts and quotes said "unity". YOU LIE!

      In my first post I said "IMHO, they are seperate, but one in unity, a amalgamation of sorts."

      In my second post I said "And that they did, Dumb Ass, that they did, as well as (in, should be here) those that followed, to back why I said IMHO they are two in unity."

      MW Unity: 2a. a condition of harmony: ACCORD b: continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action) 3b. the quality or state of being made one:UNIFICATION

      synonyms of unity: agreement, harmony, accord, unison, UNION, concord, combination, agreement, attachement, bond

      MW Union: 1a. an act or instance of UNITING or forming two or more things into one: as (1) the formation of a single political unit from two or more seperate and independent units (2): a uniting in marraiage also. Union the act of uniting or the state of being united.

      Union synonyms: amalgamation, agreement, harmony, UNITY, accord, unison, concord, marriage, matrimony, wedlock, bond, a combination, blending, unification.

      So, William, in a marraige union the two literally become one person? I did not know that.

      If God was literally the same peron as Jesus Christ why didn't he use his real name YHWH? That is the actual name of God in both the old and New Testemants. Why is his name Jesus Christ on earth and YHWH in heaven. There is dispute among scholars on the pronunciation of YHWH, Jehovah or Yahweh, but there is no dispute that it is used nearly 7,000 times as God's actual name, in the oldest translations of the Bible. So why wouldn't he use it while on earth when he was adamant about that being his name? (I know most translations have replaced YHWH's name with the titles God and Father) but doesn't change the fact that in the oldest scriptures he refers to himself by his own name YHWH nearly 7,000 times. So why would he change it to Jesus Christ while on earth?

      Where does he say "while I was on earth and hung on the cross" or "when I went to earth" or "I came to earth to die on the cross" no he says "he sent his only begotten son"

      Jesus said "I am going to my Father" "to sit at the right hand side of my Father"

      So you see, it is still MHO that they are two seperate beings in unity or harmony. Your Opinion can be whatever you want.

      I wasn't angry at your opinion, like you are mine, I was angry because you insinuated that I was being deliberatly dishonest.

      Delete
    6. I won't even use the word "union" there are many versions that translate those scriptures as "the Father is in me and I am in the Father"

      At 'Biblos' http://bible.cc/john/14-10.htm there is a whole page of different translations replacing "in union" with "the Father in me" "me in the Father"

      Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible -

      "that I am in the father" and the father is me; phrases which are expressive of the sameness of nature in the Father and the Son; of the Son's perfect equality with the Father, since the Son is as much in the Father as the Father is in the Son; and also of the personal distinction there is between them for nothing with a propriety can be said to be in itself. The Father must be distinct from the Son who is in him and the Son must be distinct from the Father, in whom he is, the Father and Son, though of one and the same nature, can not be one, and the same person.

      And I IMHO agree with that.

      Delete
    7. "I NEVER said "those facts and quotes said "unity". NEVER! Show me where I said "those facts and quotes said "unity". YOU LIE!"

      Ummm. in the quote of yours that I used. Did you say this: "And why would that one scripture, that one verse, change my mind about them being two beings in unity?" and this: "And that he did, Dumb Ass, that he did, as well as those that followed, to back why I said IMHO they are two in unity."? Because I took it directly from your post. You said Jesus and God were in UNITY, the quotes you brought said They were in UNION. Different words with a bit differing meanings.

      Delete
    8. What you have done, William, is give a perfect example of why there should not be teacher lead prayers in school. You are very offended by my opinion that God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son are two seperate beings.

      You wouldn't want a teacher to lead a pray that might, (even if unintentional) indocrinate your child into believing that God and Jesus are two seperate beings, now, would you?

      Guess we can call it a wrap!

      Delete
    9. Sorry, I started my post when your last one wasn't posted yet, and let mine sit too long before posting it.

      Yes, yes, I did say that. And I stand by it. IMO they are in unity. And the scriptures saying they are in union only strengthens that opinion.

      But you quoted me as saying "those facts and quotes said "unity". I never said that.

      William: "Then you say those facts and quotes said "unity"."

      I never said that.

      Maybe I'm being presumptuos but I bet everyone that reads your posts today does a real belly laugh.

      Delete
    10. And what you have done is give a perfect example of not knowing what you're talking about. WE are talking religion, there is NO doubt about that. And, yes, when you are misleading then I will correct you. The difference is that prayer is NOT indoctrination and prayer is NOT always religious. You can deny that all you want, but the FACTS have been shown to be just that. You even brought examples that support that. Yet, you continue to whine about something completely different than what is being discussed. That seems to be the methodology of most every liberal here. That's fine, I've gotten used to it and expect that. Like the name-calling, I consider it to be a badge of honor. I know whoever I am discussing with is beaten when he (she) resorts to name-calling. That's one of the first signs of losing an argument.

      As for your use of "unity". The versus you brought OBVIOUSLY used "union", you changed that to "unity". Whether that's what you believe or not is inconsequential. The fact remains you changed the word being discussed without any mention until it was pointed out to you.

      Just like I've already said concerning what this article is about, those who leave religion usually do so to find justification for the lives they lead. Since they can't bear having their desires be considered wrong, they choose another path where their lifestyles are acceptable. Which would explain your "disillusionment".
      I'm not judging your decision, just commenting on it in direct relationship with Eddie's article that he brought. Religious conservatism doesn't create atheists, people who want justification for their lifestyles choose atheism for it's lack of discipline and moral standards/consistency.

      Delete
    11. Are you out of your f-ing mind?

      William: "As for your use of "unity". The versus you brought OBVIOUSLY used "union", you changed that to "unity".

      That is a lie! I never "brought" a verse with "union" in it and changed it to "unity."

      I typed the verses exactly like I found them. The verses said Union and I typed Union, not once did I change that to unity.

      I said in my opinion they are in unity.

      Delete