Boots and Sabers - The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Not Your Normal Wedding Intro | Home | Wireless Power

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Column Fail

Mark Peterson, the lefty Saturday columnist for the West Bend Daily News, attempted to write an ironic column, but just came off looking like an ill-informed anti-Christian bigot. Hey… it happens…

(69) Comments

Posted by Owen at 1730 hrs

Culture + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin
Tags: culture, wisconsin, politics

you obviously didn’t get the irony.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2009 at 1803 hrs

I’d like to hear his definition of “fundamentalist.”

Posted by hsgbdmama on July 25, 2009 at 1844 hrs

Owen(or someone)please explain this deal with your library.I live in Kenosha and am going “Huh”.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2009 at 1929 hrs

I’m glad he’s smiling in that picture - because he won’t be in 100 years….
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2009 at 2037 hrs

What’s up with that comment, Bill? You know so much about Peterson that you know he’s going to HELL?

Is Peterson quoting the Bible accurately or is he not quoting the Bible accurately? Just because the Bible has some demonstrably goofy passages in it doesn’t mean that it isn’t, on the whole, the word of God and a pretty good guide for how to live one’s life. And it doesn’t disqualify the person who points out the nutty passages from practicing his Christian faith.

“Judge not lest ye be judged,” Bozo!

Or, as Rodney Dangerfield said to Judge Smails in Caddyshack—“Who made you Pope of this dump?”
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 25, 2009 at 2240 hrs

What do you expect from a professor of philosophy?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 0234 hrs

Ditto to what RO said. By the definition of the Crusaders, many of the verses cited by Mr. Peterson would be inappropriate reading for young adults. I especially love that verse in Ezekiel about the guys who were hung like donkeys. Mr. Peterson didn’t even bother to include the next verse, which talks about young women fondling their own breasts. How dare our daughters be taught about such self-pleasuring!

To label Peterson’s column as anti-Christian is just inflammatory, unsupported hyperbole that our fine host occasionally indulges the wacko contingency with. Really, it’s just lazy analysis. All Peterson’s doing is pointing out that the Bible reads like cheap porn in a number of spots, especially in the Old Testament. Some Christians get touchy about that because it’s considerably harder to defend than “love thy neighbor” and all that good stuff.

Admittedly, Peterson’s number 12 misreads the context (“hate” in the Hebrew sense simply meant to love your family less than Christ, not to actually hate them). But there’s no spinning “lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys.”

In any case, let’s hope that they keep the real Bibles in the adult section of the library and only put the cleaned up kiddie Bibles in the YA section. The last thing we need is a couple of impressionable teenage girls reading Genesis 19 and going home to daddy with a cheap bottle of vodka, a case of Coke, and a six-pack of Bud Light Lime.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 26, 2009 at 0249 hrs

Atheists and the like LOVE to take Bible passages out of context. Since many Christians haven’t bothered to read their own “roadmap for life”, they have a little difficulty rebutting. I’ve read it. I don’t need to rebut this guy. I know what it says, I know what it means to me. Peterson and a couple posters here would do well to spend a little time not only reading it, but contemplating it as well. Might be life-changing.
Posted by Steve on July 26, 2009 at 0340 hrs

In a February 2 column, Rocky Mountain News editorial page editor Vincent Carroll mentioned an op-ed by Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute about out-of-wedlock birth rates among Hispanic women without identifying the Institute as a conservative think tank.
Posted by world health organization on July 26, 2009 at 0642 hrs

Hey, WHO….one column out of thousands that don’t identify a Leftist source? Yeah…there’s a shock.
Posted by Steve on July 26, 2009 at 0704 hrs

Nearly everything he wrote is wrong because there is no precedent that adult books are constutionally protected in a childrens section.

Do taxpayers actually have to pay him to impose his views on other people?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 0744 hrs

Steve: “Atheists and the like LOVE to take Bible passages out of context” And the Maziarka’s are taking passages out of context of the young adult books. Score’s even.

Anon: is your brain that feeble that a published column becomes an imposition on what you actually think?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 0827 hrs

Yes, you are a lemming. If you have to advertise it, it probably ain’t so. Let your actions speak.
Posted by Steve on July 26, 2009 at 0839 hrs

N.A.T. -

Your personal attack simply compliments the fact that trying to defend adult books in children’s section has no legal precedent.

Maybe you’re not a lemming but you’re initials pronounced describe you quite accurately. .
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 1042 hrs

I still don’t get it… Nobody, as far as I know is asking for any books to be burned. Just that the book be moved to the adult section. For crying out loud, could this guy be any more outrageous?

This is a common sense thing. The book is about a topic that most people don’t want their children reading about. Would it be okay to put Harlequin novels, next to “The Cat in the Hat” ? Didn’t think so. Move the book. The constitution has absolutely no measure protecting adult content in children’s sections of library’s… Luckily the founding fathers were smart enough to leave that up to individual communities to decide. The unfortunate reality is that so many people think that our children should be sexualized as soon as possible….

It’s really quite sad.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 2132 hrs

Well, whether you like the Bible/Koran or not, it’s certainly the kind of thing that isn’t approptiate for young people without adult supervision. If those really were in the young adult section, they should be moved.

But yeah, pretty dumb article. There are way funnier passages in the bible he could have used.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 26, 2009 at 2158 hrs

Jesus -

I disagree that we should allow adult books in a children section because you don’t like or believe the Bible.

Could you descibe the type of person that wants adult books in a childrens section?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 0700 hrs

The WB Library policy states that it will uphold community standards. I believe we need to test that and let the community decide what is obscene.

I also think parents should be allowed to reconsent to a library card and be informed that if their child gets a library card they may come in contact with obscene materials. A sticker should be placed on the library card if the parent give permission to the child to check out or read obscene materials. If there is no sticker they will not be allowed (by the parent) to read or check out obscene materials.

I agree with soup sandwich:
What do you expect from a professor of philosophy
He just likes to hear himself talk. bla bla bla
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 0827 hrs

Anon,
Your questions doesn’t make sense. Could you rephrase? I just said that I think it’s reasonable for books like the bible or other books depicting religious, sexual or violent issues to be in the adult section, not the teen section. I’m not saying young adults shouldn’t read it or that it should be banned, I’m just saying that I wouldn’t want my kids reading a book like the bible if I wasn’t there to help them put it into context.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 0956 hrs

Jesus -

It appears you are saying that the adult books should stay in the children’s section if the Bible is in the children’s section because you think there the same. Is that your point?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1034 hrs

I think I clearly said the opposite. I said that books with questionable content, including the bible, should not be in the children’s section.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1127 hrs

Jesus -

Then you’re saying that you don’t want anything that teaches immorality or morality in the children’s section. I am a bit surprised because I did not consider you a neutral person. I guess I thought of you as being hostile to religion and traditional America.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1356 hrs

I am hostile to religion, but I’m not a hypocrite, so if I don’t want what I view as a immoral and degrading book in the kids section, I have to allow you to think the same thing about some different book.

Also, I am hotile to ridiculous and misleading terms like “traditional America.” Wow. Like, what do you even think that means?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1407 hrs

Jesus -

America always has been traditionally religious while many unreligious people immigrated here also lived much the same way as the religious people do. Simply, America’s tradition is Christian, which you oppose and even mock.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1426 hrs

Almost everyone on the planet was religious during the founding period. They were still burning people at the stake for Chrisake. But the guys that defined this country were comparrably secular. Notice the constitution never mentions god (except for that customary “year of our lord” crap). Notice the 1st Amendment. Notice that Jefferson edited all the supernatural stuff out of his bible.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1614 hrs

Jesus -

I think the point I was leading to is that someone like you, without any moral foundation, can still know and agree with others that adult books don’t belong in a childrens section at the library.

That is what makes America great. People of different backgrounds coming together to do what’s right.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 27, 2009 at 1941 hrs

I’m a person “without a moral foundation”? You, sir, are extremely ignorant. You have no idea what morals are if you think you need to believe in hallucinations and fairy tales to have them. There is no correlation between morality and religiousness. I’d argue that if you determine what’s right or wrong by what you read in some old, perverted, horror-story book, you have a much weaker moral foundation than I do.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1031 hrs

I am calling UWWC and firing off an e-mail. Peterson can not get off that easy.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1258 hrs

Jesus -

You have to do something about that temper of yours, but I’m glad we’re on the same side of this debate.

Kelly - could you share the response once you get it?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1452 hrs

What indication did I give that made you think I lost my temper?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1455 hrs

If I get a response I will certainly share it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1459 hrs

Anon: If America’s tradition is Christian, that tradition certainly does not date back to our founders. In fact, Jefferson explicitly rejected that “tradition”

“the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion
“

(Article 11, ‘Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,’ 1796-1797)

But let’s be somewhat objective here. The bible in no way is an examples of moral living in modern age. For example, the bible actually instructs that raping prisioners of war is acceptable:

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her .... Thou shalt go in unto her.

Deuteronomy 21:11-13

So please tell me because I’m also curious, why do you believe that we get our morals from the bible?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1751 hrs

Super: You might want to read Jefferson’s autobiography.

Second, please don’t take the Bible and use the Old Testament out of context. It’s really unbecoming and shows you know nothing of Christianity.
Posted by Steve on July 28, 2009 at 1850 hrs

Steve, here’s your teaching moment.

I thought the old testament was part of the bible and I also was under the impression that the old testament was recognized by christianity. It seems to me that Christians bring up the ten commandments an awful lot. But as we both know, these commandments are contained also stated in Duetoronomy 10:4. So help me out and explain why the 10 commandments are relevant to present day morals but later passages in the same book are not?

“You might want to read Jefferson’s autobiography”

Any particular part of the Jefferson’s Autobiography that you would like to direct my attention? Generally, when you cite something you should provide a pin point cite, so your reader can see what you reference.

But If we are still talking about whether Jefferson Autobiography supports the notion that the U.S. is a Christian nation, I submit that it does not:

Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination
.

(Review and Reform of the Law, 4th par.)

In other words, Jefferson expressly recognized that the attempt to declare the United States a christian nation, was rejected. To provide protection for all faiths as well as the faithless.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 28, 2009 at 1931 hrs

I’m not going to argue either with you because you are a know-it-all. I’ve read the Bible, I’m reading Jefferson and I do understand it.
Posted by Steve on July 28, 2009 at 1952 hrs

Super ID is either ignorant, uninformed, misinformed or deliberately deceptive. Nearly every founder of this nation was Christian and intended for the nation to be founded and governed by Christian principals. An activist court and the revision of history only recently changed it by the far left. Here are just a couple quotes from some founders:

“It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly implore His protection and favor”

George Washington

“Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the governor of the Universe.”

James Madison

“The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the work of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next.”

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

John Jay
Co-founder of the Federalist Papers; First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Anyone that has made even a slight effort in knowing the history of this nation could only conclude that it was founded on Christian principals by nearly all Christian men and women.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0636 hrs

Let’s me add that Jefferson and Madison enacted the death penalty for bigamy and polygamy and Jefferson proposed castration for sodomy.

I highly doubt they would have wanted adult books in the children’s section of the library.

Please continue to use our founders as examples.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0643 hrs

Indeed our country was founded on faith. This is why Mr. Peterson’s article is so insulting. Not only does he use Bible passages as a lame attempt to make his point, all the while forgetting that this country was founded on Christian principles. Doing such he probably insulted at least half of Washington County. The same County is which is serves.

I wonder where Mr. Peterson thinks we got our laws from? Thin air perhaps or maybe a big bang.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 0701 hrs

Anon:

This Country was built on the anvil of compromise. I have never disputed that many of the founders were Christian. But the fact that they rejected declaring this nation a christian country despite their own personal beliefs is proof that they intended to form a secular nation and not a Christian nation. But you don’t have to take my word for it, take Jefferson’s—he was there.

As I quoted in my previous post, Jefferson noted that there was a proposal to include the phrase “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” into the first amendment. But as Jefferson explained, this was rejected by a great majority as “proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination”

So tell me, how is exactly is this nation founded on Christian principles when “a great majority” of the founders explicitly rejected declaring this nation a Christian nation?

Kelly:

You’ve got a few non-sequiturs going on there.

Whether our country was founded on faith has no relation to whether quoting the bible is insulting.

“I wonder where Mr. Peterson thinks we got our laws from?”

I don’t know the guy but I suspect that he would think we get our laws from congress in addition to state and local governments.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 29, 2009 at 2202 hrs

Super ID -

I’m trying to follow your line of reasoning that seems to say that because you think this is a secular nation, we should allow adult books in a childrens section. Is that correct?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0611 hrs

It’s blasphemy for one. The fact that the author of the article does not acknowledge our Founding Fathers Christian heritage. He is in effect insulting Christians.

Where did Congress, state and local government get their laws? Gee, would that be the Constitution? Have you read the Constitution? It has many many references to God as do many of our monuments in Washington. The Ten Commandments and our laws are pretty darn close.

Do we have respect for other religions..yes we do, but our Founding Fathers were Christian.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0743 hrs

Kelly, our Constitution doesn’t make a single reference to God unless you count the common phrase “...in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.”

And the only reference to religion, well, that would be the first amendment.

Read it for yourself, it’s right here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0824 hrs

NYTexan -

While the terms “God” or “Christian” are not explicit in the constitution, there is nothing in the constitution that isn’t derived from Christian principals.

Do you think adult books should be in a childrens section in the library?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0836 hrs

While the terms “God” or “Christian” are not explicit in the constitution, there is nothing in the constitution that isn’t derived from Christian principals.

If you want to go down that route, very few Christian principles aren’t derived from the same earlier myths that shaped Judaism and Islam.

Do I think adult books should be in the children’s section of the library? Honestly, I don’t really care about this issue. I think my son is smart enough to find a book whether it’s in one room or another, and frankly I’d be thrilled just knowing that he’s going to a library.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 0849 hrs

“Where did Congress, state and local government get their laws? Gee, would that be the Constitution? Have you read the Constitution? It has many many references to God as do many of our monuments in Washington. The Ten Commandments and our laws are pretty darn close.”
Kelly,

Holy shit, really? Go read it again. It has exactly 3 references to religion/god. First, the customary “year of our lord” crap at the end. Second, the 1st Amendment, which declares that government will be noncognizant of religion. Third, a prohibition of religious tests for public office in Article 6. The constitution is about as irreligious as a document could possibly be in 1787. Remember, most of the world was still religious at the time, but these were really really smart guys.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1039 hrs

Anon, I love you quote miners. To your credit, you didn’t make any of these ones up (Well, I didn’t check the Jay ones because he was obviously a Christian and I don’t know anyone that would deny that). The other two beg the question, “so what?”

The Madison quote was pulled from his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assesments (1785). Here’s a link to the whole thing for anyone that isn’t a mindless quote-miner: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison _m&r_1785.html

He is clearly arguing AGAINST government supported religion and saying that government support of religion corrupted it and that government involvement in religion violated a people’s civil and natural rights.

The Washington one is from a Thanksgiving address. Washington was, as far as the founders go, pretty religious too. He was basically a “theistic rationalist.” He also said this to a bunch of Jews though:

“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.”

And when he spoke to Native Americans, he used the term “Great Spirit.”

Washington was a politician and he knew his audience.

I noticed you didn’t include any thomas Paine quotes. How convenient for you. Anyone that claims “the founders” as a group were Christian, or non-Christian, is fooling themselves. The Constitution was a compromise between a bunch of guys with different beliefs. I’ve read just about everything there is to read about these guys and basically it breaks down like this:

Non-Christian Deists: Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen

Unitarians or “theistic rationalists” (as some say): Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe

Orthodox Christians: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot and John Witherspoon

But regardless of their faiths, most these guys, or at least their compramise, clearly meant to separate church from state. They certainly didn’t embrace Christian teachings. It’s in the documents; it’s all over their correspondence.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1116 hrs

Unlike many liberals, I can admit to my error. However, one must admit that the Founding Fathers did base the Constitution and thus our laws on their values, which were at that time based on Christianity. Thomas Jefferson was not jewish or islamic, he was a Christian.

There are great similarities between the 10 Commandments and our laws.

Hmmm you don’t care what kids read? That’s telling…and scary. So porn should be open to all children? Because your child won’t read it makes it okay for children who are not supervised to read it? Geez, we even has laws to cover that. My kids won’t read the crap either, but unlike you…I’m concerned for the child who does not have a parent active in his/her life.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1210 hrs

Kelly -

T. Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence and all but a few of the signers of the constitution were Christians.

The goverment was set up to prevent one Christian Religion from having dominance over the other. That was the great debate of the time. Not if it should be secular.

The result was issues could be agreed upon in congress by a majority and not by one religion or another. The congress never agreed that this is a secular nation.

The library debate raises a lot of topics but most people don’t want adult books in a childrens section even if they say they don’t care.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1225 hrs

Kelly,
2 of the 10 Commandments are present in our laws (no killing or stealing). Maybe the one about bearing false witness could be extrapolated into libel/slander. The rest of that shit is just nonsense. You’re totally free here in the U.S. of A to covet thy neighbor’s wife or worship a golden cow. Period. It’s also important to know that prohibitions on killing and stealin are in basically every religious/moral code, including the ones created before Christianity. And Thomas Jefferson rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ. I think most denominations would consider him to not be a Christian. Isn’t accepting the divinity of Jesus the main thing that defines a person as a Christian?

Anon,
That WASN’T the debate at the time. At least not the only one. I’d reccommend that you check out the first couple drafts of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Originally, they DID suggest that the establishment clause only bar an official state religion, but 3 different versions with such language were rejected for the obviosly broader language that was ultimately used.

Hope this helps.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1314 hrs

Kelly, I didn’t say that I don’t care what my kid reads. I simply don’t need someone making that decision by deciding where books are shelved, as if that’s actually a deterrent—if an eight-year-old kid wants to thumb a copy of the Joy of Sex or whatever you find objectionable, all he has to do is go to a bookstore. Or click a mouse. Or, as I used to do as a kid growing up in a college town, go dumpster diving at the end of each semester for all the porn mags the college kids threw away before their parents came to town. (True story: My brother, when he was nine, once went up and down the street selling salvaged copies of Playboy and Hustler for a buck each to the neighborhood kids. My parents had to scold him publicly; privately they were quite proud of his entrepreneurial efforts.)

That said, I don’t live in Wisconsin and I don’t know the details of your library issue, which is why I’m hesitant to say much about it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1319 hrs

Thou Shalt Not Murder
Thous Shalt Not Commit Adultery. While not a law it does apply to divorce which does take place in court.
Thou Shalt Not Steal
Thou Shalt Not Give False Testimony (We should fear and love God so that we do not scheme to get our neighbor’s
inheritance or house, or get it in a way which only appears right, but help and be of
service to him in keeping it.) Don’t lie….we are not allowed to lie under oath..so help me God.

The commandments tell us not to lie, steal, cheat, kill. I think that pretty much sums up most of our laws that are on teh books. You can deny it all you want, but it still is true. Our country was founded using the values and religion of our Founding Fathers. Our Founding Fathers believed in God.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1326 hrs

Just because you say it, doesn’t make it true. It is not against the law to lie in like 99% of situations where a person might lie. It is absolutely not against he law to cheat on your wife, and it is clearly not against the law to get a divorce. You got 2 out of 10. That’s it. And those 2 prohibitions (kiling and stealing) are evident in EVERY society, not just Christian ones. The Christians do NOT have a monopoly on the idea that it’s wrong to kill. They were actually pretty later to that game.

And I notice you didn’t even address any of the crazy ones where “God” get’s all jealous. I’ll admit that most of the founding fathers believed in a higher power of some sort, but most of the key ones were definately not Christian in the conventional sense (see my post above if you want the break down).

I also noticed you didn’t even address Jefferson, a guy that cut the supernatural stuff out of his bible and said on many occasions that he rejected the notion that Jesus was anything more than a philosopher, and certainly not the son of god. But regardless of what they believed, just read the F-ing constitution. It’s OBVIOUS that they tried to keep religion out of it.

Hope this helps.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1343 hrs

Jesus said - “That WASN’T the debate at the time.”

It was the dominant debate at the time because being freed from England also meant being freed from the Church of England. All European governments had a state religion but here we had 13 colony religions that did not want to be dominated by each other

The only resolution was to form the government in a way that the 13 (Christian) religions could come together to agree on the issues. Even then, there were fistfights in congress over contentious issues but they always were resolved.

That is why the constitution makes it clear that the government has no power over religion. It had nothing to do with your atheist ambitions for a secular state.

Besides, we already agreed that adult books don’t belong in a childrens section.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1351 hrs

It had nothing to do with your atheist ambitions for a secular state.

Anon, two questions.

First, do you believe only atheists want a secular state?

Second, if a state based on religious principles is preferable to one based on secular principles, does that apply to all religions? In other words, are you cool with, for example, Saudi Arabia enforcing a version of Sunni law? Or India having different laws for citizens of different religions?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1404 hrs

JIJARWM - I addressed the commandments I see the apply to todays laws. You can not lie under oath and you can also be hauled away for falsifying documents. While cheating on your spouse is not a law, it can end up in court and court is law. So my stance stands.

Just because you say it isn’t so, does not make your correct.

How about all the other Founding Fathers other than Jefferson. I never saw you address that. I know you have a hard time admitting that the Commandments and the law and the values of our Founding Fathers are very similar. They are very similar and all are worth while even in today’s day and age.

You are right. Jesus was not the “son of god”. He is the son of God. True dat!

Sure they kept religion out of it, but that doesn’t mean it was not based on their morals, values and religion.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1447 hrs

Kelly,

If the Constitution or other US Law is simialr to the 10 Commandments it’s because both were invented by men. Just like any other legal system ever created, they incorporate many of the same principles. The 10 Commandments actually have MORE differences though, due to all that “I’m jealous of golden cows” crap.

As to the founding fathers besides Jefferson, perhaps you should read a little closer. I said this:

Non-Christian Deists: Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen

Unitarians or “theistic rationalists” (as some say): Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe

Orthodox Christians: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot and John Witherspoon

I’m not going to throw some random quotes at you to prove all of these. You have to read a LOT of what they wrote to figure it out. But this really is the breakdown. And it’s actually very clear once you open your mind a little.

“You are right. Jesus was not the “son of god”. He is the son of God. True dat!”

This doesn’t make an ounce of sense. But if you don’t believe that Jefferson rejected Jesus’s divinity (and it’s really quite shocking that you don’t), here’s just one (of TONS) of examples:

“To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.”

See, Jefferson’s idea of Christianity was WAY different than yours.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1518 hrs

NYTexan -

The US is based on Christian principals since its inception, even before it was the US. I think it’s success speaks for itself and distinguishes it from any other country. There is no comparison between the Muslim countries you used and the US.

Many atheists prefer to live by Christian principals, so no I do not think all atheists want a state that excludes or oppresses Christianity. However, communism is a secular government created by atheists. History shows that it killed (100 million +) more people then all the wars in history combined even though it only started in the 20th century. It is terribly oppressive of religion and its people and it appears that we could be heading that way when Obama says things like “the US is no longer a Christian nation”.

I have a gut feeling you really do not want adult books in a children’s section of the library.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1530 hrs

Many atheists prefer to live by Christian principals

Thank you for possibly the funniest thing ever written on this blog.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1602 hrs

NYTexan said “Thank you for possibly the funniest thing ever written on this blog.”

Grow up.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1616 hrs

“Many atheists prefer to live by Christian principals"It may be funny, but it’s true.

I also think that you do not want adutl books in the childrens section.

Question: Jesus- would you or would you not read sexually explicit books to children in public. If so, let me know when your reading is.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 1708 hrs

I already said on this very thread I don’t think questionable, adult material, like porn or the bible, shouldn’t be in the childrens section.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2009 at 2100 hrs

Jesus- Curious as to what you think “porn” is?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 02, 2009 at 1146 hrs

You are? That strikes me as absurd. If you don’t know what porn is, I would suggest doing a google search of the word.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2009 at 1234 hrs

Jesus- Your attempt at sarcasim “failed”...you need to
re-read the question. Here, I’ll help you out and re-post it:

Jesus- Curious as to what you think “porn” is?

...“you think”.

Now I will wait for your answer.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2009 at 1253 hrs

Videos or magazines showing images of people naked and often fucking.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2009 at 1743 hrs

JIJARWM -So, just images?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2009 at 1819 hrs

Good God, what’s wrong with you? If you want to know what porn is, look it up. My guess is that you know it’s sort of a subjective thing as to when something fits under the “porn” umbrella. The point is that the vast majority of us can agree that there is a certain point at which we don’t want our children consuming media. We may disagree about what that point is, but I think there are certain things we’d all put on the adult shelves. Stuff that’s really sexy, violent or mindcontrolly would fit there in my opinion. It’s not all “porn” but you’re very stupid if you’re missing the point by as much as you appear to be.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 03, 2009 at 2349 hrs

Just trying to understand what your perception of porn is. Your first response was about images and I am trying to clarify.

JIJARWM quote:
Videos or magazines showing images of people naked and ...

In your own comment you say; “...there is a certain point at which we don’t want our children consuming media.” I’m trying to find our from you what your “certain point” is. I know what my certain point is and its these books in question. What is yours?

Typical liberal name calling. BTW…it gets you no where and shows your true colors.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2009 at 1408 hrs

How does what I say have anything to do with what’s typical of you liberals, you idiot?

I think I’ve been pretty clear about what I think should stay off the kiddie shelves. Clearer than you anyway. I used the word “porn” as one end of the spectrum—the thing we can [almost] all agree teens shouldn’t have access to without parent approval/supervision. I would add to thviolent material, and mindcontrolly/religious stuff. There may be place for this stuff, but the parents should have some say in when kids get to it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2009 at 1510 hrs

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Column Fail

Show all recent comments

September 2010
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30