published Tuesday, September 25th, 2012

The Complaint

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

172
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
blackwater48 said...

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Doesn't mean everyone has to believe what YOU believe.

Freedom of religion means EVERYONE has the right to worship God.

It also means everyone has the right to NOT worship God.

Republicans don't get it.

September 25, 2012 at 1:40 a.m.
canarysong said...

This will be too good to miss....... ;-)

September 25, 2012 at 2:29 a.m.
ricardo said...

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....

Wikipedia: In two landmark decisions, Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the US Supreme Court established what is now the current prohibition on state-sponsored prayer in schools. While the Engel decision held that the promulgation of an official state-school prayer stood in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause (thus overruling the New York Courts’ decisions), Abington held that Bible readings and other (state) school-sponsored religious activities were prohibited.[5] Following these two cases came the Court's decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), a ruling that established the Lemon test for religious activities within schools. The Lemon test states that in order to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment any practice sponsored within state run schools (or other public, state sponsored activities) must adhere to the following three criteria:[6]

  1. Have a secular purpose;
  2. Must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and
  3. Must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.
September 25, 2012 at 4:08 a.m.
rolando said...

This one will solve all your problems; apply now! Don't wait! Available until 1/20/13!:

http://www.obamacardgold.com/

sarc=OFF

September 25, 2012 at 4:21 a.m.
fairmon said...

What harm has been done in the history of the U.S. by having prayers at public functions? When was anyone forced to practice a particular religion or forced to accept the beliefs of a particular religion? There is a difference in being asked to respect the practicing of a religion by others and being required to accept a religion as your own. The constitution assures freedom of having a religion imposed or designated as the national religion, as the kings had done in England, not freedom from allowing others to practice or publicly acknowledge their religion.

September 25, 2012 at 5:18 a.m.
fairmon said...

Is it true the DNC refused to allow local churches in Charlotte to hand out welcome baskets to delegates that contained samples of local candies, maps, transportation options and other helpful information about the city such as church locations, hospitals and emergency resources? The baskets did not contain literature about abortion beliefs etc. but the DNC said the churches beliefs were in conflict with their party platform so no thanks to the welcome. So much for free speech if any religious reference is included.

September 25, 2012 at 5:33 a.m.
dougmusn said...

harp3339: The problem is not the public acknowledgement of religion (e.g. the famous Norman Rockwell painting of a mother and family praying over dinner at a diner). The problem is the implicit imprimatur given when a religious declaration accompanies a state sanctioned event, be it a high school football game or whatever.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if you would have no heartburn when the loudspeakers intoned before a game: "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet--Alu Akhbar"

September 25, 2012 at 5:39 a.m.
EaTn said...

The best way to encourage others to join your faith is to live the faith you believe. Christianity was never intended to be forced on others.

I don't want my pastor teaching science and I don't want a science teacher instructing religion.(ditto for politicians).

When one's intellect outgrows their religion, it's probably time to question if they have either.

September 25, 2012 at 5:41 a.m.
ricardo said...

Prayers don't win football games, touchdowns do.

September 25, 2012 at 6:34 a.m.
MTJohn said...

harp3339 said..."When was anyone forced to practice a particular religion or forced to accept the beliefs of a particular religion? There is a difference in being asked to respect the practicing of a religion by others and being required to accept a religion as your own."

Harp - in four sentences, you neatly wrapped yourself into a pretzel.

There is a difference in being asked to respect the practicing of a religion by others and being required to accept a religion as your own. Although it might not force a person to accept particular beliefs, public prayer forces those of other traditions to practice a particular religion.

In this country, everyone is free to publicly practice their own religion. But, there is a critical difference between individuals and organizations doing so on their own time and their own dime and public officials doing so on public time and at public expense.

September 25, 2012 at 6:34 a.m.
dude_abides said...

ricardo said... Prayers don't win football games, touchdowns do.

And sometimes "referees."

September 25, 2012 at 7:09 a.m.
dude_abides said...

harp, since you seem to know what happened in Charlotte, did they allow any groups to hand out literature of any kind? Wonder what would happen if you started handing out leaflets of any nature at the mall, or pasting them to customer windshields in front of mall security? Did they ask permission, or just show up on the street like Lee Harvey Oswald?

September 25, 2012 at 7:22 a.m.
degage said...

Clay has run out of ideas, this subject has been run into the ground many times and he just can't remember. He is pretty young for dementia. All the athiest will be delighted, the rest of us might just ignore you, you aren't worth our time for a second or third or hundreth time.

September 25, 2012 at 7:36 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

If separation of church and state is a Bible doctrine (Moses and Aaron, Jesus and Pilate, etc.), is it thereby unconstitutional? :)

The cartoon mentions John 3:16:
God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whoever trusts in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Can such love--"He gave his only-begotten Son"-- be matched elsewhere? Can such an offer, such a promise--"shall not perish, but have everlasting life" be matched even by GOP and Democrats combined? If not, then I urge you to check it out and pursue it.

Of course, is it true? Check that out as well. Read at least enough of the Bible to see what it's saying (the "Gospel of John" is a good start). Other books (for me to recommend books is like a drunkard recommending vintages, but)--"The Reasons for God" by Tim Keller, who started a church in Manhattan that now has several thousand people, is a modern well-written case for trusting Jesus Christ; "The Challenge of Jesus" by N. T. Wright; "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis... Do the alternatives to following Jesus offer love: God becoming a man and dying for us and rising up alive?--do they offer equal love or equal power if true? And are they true?

Then once Jesus Christ, King of kings (=Jesus inaugurated, President of presidents) gets around to politics, which is not where He started but is indeed within the scope of His interests, what does He want, what does He prefer? Christians have offered various answers; my faithful readers here will know mine in brief: He's rather libertarian. (Search "Jesus is libertarian Lohr" for a bit more detail.) His Kingdom is like a big tree which houses various birds. Muslim and atheistic kingdoms are like jackboots crushing dissent.

And on

September 25, 2012 at 7:37 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Atheists don't "crush" dissent, Andrew. And atheists are not the only group that wants the state to stay neutral on religion. It seems that only the majority group in this area (Evangelicals) disagree with keeping government and schools from practicing an official religion. Two reasons: a) the majority falsely thinks that because they are the majority they can use taxpayer money to advance their beliefs and b) they truly believe that if you are not a member of their particular sect, you should be and therefore this is all for your own good. If you are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Pagan, Shinto, you are simply wrong and need to convert.

September 25, 2012 at 7:47 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Oh My God and Mrs. Jesus! Mitt Romney has jumped into the Packers/Seahawks blown call fray! You can tell Wisconsin is a battleground state! Mitt is sucking up for votes in Green Bay! Obama better get in there.

September 25, 2012 at 7:49 a.m.
Easy123 said...

EaTn,

"When one's intellect outgrows their religion, it's probably time to question if they have either."

You have just stated the true aim of religion. "Don't think too much about it, just believe it.". Once one's intellect outgrows their religion, they are finally thinking for themselves.

The view you and many Christian's hold is one of blind faith and willful ignorance. Neither are virtuous and both are equally dishonest. I'll take intellect over wishful thinking any day.

September 25, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “What harm has been done in the history of the U.S. by having prayers at public functions? When was anyone forced to practice a particular religion or forced to accept the beliefs of a particular religion?"

A public function sponsored by taxpayer dollars belongs to everyone, Harp3339. And in America this includes a very diverse group of people when it comes to religion.

When someone seizes the microphone so to speak at a public function sponsored by taxpayer dollars to practice or express tenets of their personal religion they are: 1. Publically dishonoring a principle that this country was founded upon, and 2. Publically demonstrating their disrespect for those citizens who may not share the tenets of their religion.

September 25, 2012 at 8:32 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Is it true the DNC refused to allow local churches in Charlotte to hand out welcome baskets"

Fox News is the source of that story, and there indeed is more to it than what you have read.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/09/07/fox-news-pretends-dnc-rejected-gift-baskets-because-they-were-from-christians

September 25, 2012 at 9 a.m.
fairmon said...

I think it was dougmusn that said....

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if you would have no heartburn when the loudspeakers intoned before a game: "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet--Alu Akhbar"

It wouldn't give me heartburn if the leaders of the event held that belief. I do have the option of not attending but I can go to a church and not believe what they say or participate in their worship. I really don't accept that what is said or another persons non-threatening behavior is a problem. I think you have to read the history of how the king of England endorsed and forced a specific religion on those living there to understand what the founders were addressing. It is a long way from being imprisoned, fined or punished for practicing a religion other than a state sanctioned one and the current attitude of you can't say or do that in my presence, I am so sensitive if offends me or I don't have that belief therefore I don't want you doing that when I am around you.

I don't recall the words separation of church and state in the constitution but they were used in a supreme court ruling and have been used since to be more extreme than anticipated. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion are all critical to having the liberty intended by the constitution.

September 25, 2012 at 9:05 a.m.
alprova said...

Andrew, what key did you sing your post in?

September 25, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.
alprova said...

IKeithlu wrote: "they truly believe that if you are not a member of their particular sect, you should be and therefore this is all for your own good. If you are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Pagan, Shinto, you are simply wrong and need to convert."

You left out Andrew's favorite pet peeve of late.

He don't like Mormons either.

September 25, 2012 at 9:08 a.m.
MTJohn said...

AndrewLohr said..."If separation of church and state is a Bible doctrine (Moses and Aaron, Jesus and Pilate, etc.), is it thereby unconstitutional? :)"

Andrew - if we were to organize our country according to Biblical principles, we would be a leaderless state and we would all share everything in common - think about Israel under the judges; think about the purpose for the temple tax; think about all of the Biblical directives regarding our responsibilities for widows, orphans and strangers; think about Jesus' commandment to the rich young man, to sell everything and give it to the poor; and, think about John 3:16. Jesus' life was one of sacrifice and His sacrifice enables us to live - to live, not for ourselves (as libertarians would do), but to live for each other.

September 25, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
JustOneWoman said...

But, but but.....didn't my preacher say the constitution was the made up of the ten commandments?!? Didn't my preacher tell me that it was the nazi's that took christ out of our government. Therefore anyone not wanting this evangelical religion must be a nazi. I have heard it all. Liars for Jesus are everywhere. One has to wonder if the push for this specific religion wont be the downfall of that specific religion. Was that the purpose? If your religion needs to solicit, why? Because the contradictions and lies wont stand without a sales job. And then when, and if (a big if), this specific religion gets put on the government pedastal, it will get torn down and demolished because it just can't take the real scrutiny. Then government will decide on what religion should be the national religion. After all, wasn't it the people that wanted religion in their government? Wonder which religion CAN take the scrutiny. My My, that appears to be the plan all along, doesn't it? Separation of church and state is there for the protection of all, none, and any religion. The dominionists have fooled many of these blinded by faith that are too afraid to question in fear of god's wrath. And these will be their own religion's un-doing.

from the article......"This is exactly what Klein has been hoping for. The Vietnam veteran, who says Muslims have “no choice but to hunt Jews and Christians down, torture us and murder us,” has been pushing Coptic Christians to join his anti-Muslim crusade for years. A hard-line Christian nationalist who conducts paramilitary trainings with Christian groups across the country, he believes that Copts have a divine destiny to “save” America from the twin evils of secularism and Islam."

http://www.salon.com/2012/09/14/steve_kleins_anti_muslim_crusade/

This man tried to start a holy war. And those with their guns and bibles support him because they know no better. I am well aware that there are muslim extremeists, but I see much more violence and hate from these christian extremists. In fact, I think the two extremists groups have much more in common with each other than they do with most people on this planet. They both hate for love. Maybe we could send them both to Mars and let them fight it out.

But alas, these guys will have to read the bible, study it's history, and know when lies are being told. That is not going to happen around here for the majority of these liars for jesus fools.

September 25, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
fairmon said...

alprova said....

Fox News is the source of that story, and there indeed is more to it than what you have read.

Thanks. I didn't know the source and reading your source which also is not from the DNC but another biased opinion comparing the church group to terrorist tells me the truth is probably somewhere in between the two articles. The DNC has the right to reject any group or individual for good reason or no reason as long as it is not in violation of the civil rights act. I accept the democrats platform that they support pro-choice over pro-life and the other party platform is opposite. That is not and will not be a part of why I vote or don't vote for a candidate. The court has ruled and to even discuss it or have it as an issue is silly until the court changes the ruling which is not likely to happen until the country is debt free and cash plush in about 360-400 years from now then who knows. That is an estimate of how long it would take paying one million dollars a day which I think was the payment rate used.

September 25, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

What world does Bennett live in that he feels so threatened by religion? This reoccurring theme, prompted over and over again by unknown triggers, seems to suggest some kind of psychosis.

I wonder if he rushes to his drawing board to regurgitate another one of these cartoons every time he leaves his cave and sees a fish decal on the bumper of a car.

September 25, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
mymy said...

41 Days to Go!

It is still the economy/jobs/foreign policy/direction of country and National Security here and abroad.

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock

Keeping my eye on current events of Obozo Comedy Tour! It's the UN today!

September 25, 2012 at 9:53 a.m.
Salsa said...

Just as I thought. No Paul Smith misogyny cartoon.

September 25, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Thanks God for this forum. Southpaws can spew their enlightenment and intellect. You guys are the best. Us knuckle-draggers will just muddle on. Thanks so much.

September 25, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

AndrewLohr said: “Christians have offered various answers; my faithful readers here will know mine in brief: He's rather libertarian. (Search "Jesus is libertarian Lohr" for a bit more detail.)”

This “libertarian Jesus” sounds like a very interesting fellow, Andrew. In many ways, he appears to be advocating the opposite of what the biblical Jesus has advocated. For example, in the Book of Matthew, the biblical Jesus commanded his followers to “love thy neighbor;” whereas, your “libertarian Jesus” appears to be urging his followers to “hate thy neighbor.”

September 25, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "the biblical Jesus commanded his followers to “love thy neighbor;” whereas, your “libertarian Jesus” appears to be urging his followers to “hate thy neighbor.”

mountainlaurel,

I think you just proved that you have no idea what a libertarian is. Some people believe forced "charity" at the hand of government is no substitute for family, friends and church. Just because they see a different vehicle for compassion than you do does not mean they hate. It just means that you do not understand their beliefs.

September 25, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.

The guy on the right really needs a sign declaring the end of the world unless they get the prayers in schools and other public functions they demand.

I know, Christians have always, always, wanted to portray themselves as martyrs and persecuted victims, because that's how they feel they can justify almost anything. It's less true than they ever want to admit though.

September 25, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said..."mountainlaurel,I think you just proved that you have no idea what a libertarian is."

brp - I understand what a libertarian is, and, I agree that "forced charity" is no substitute for family, friend and church. In its original incarnation, personal responsibility is interdependent with personal freedom. However, the libertarian concept has been co-opted by Any Rand's selfish notions. She didn't really advocate freedom - she advocated license.

That said, please explain why, if charity is the responsibility of family, friends and church, why do so many people in this country live in poverty? When will those who profess that Jesus is a libertarian step up to the plate and end poverty in this country?

September 25, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.
timbo said...

What do you know? I agree with Harry Austin and Clay Bennett about something on the same day.

I feel really icky.

September 25, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
conservative said...

This fear that Liberals have of an effort to establish a national religion is highly irrational to put it mildly. Congress is forbidden by the First Amendment to establish a religion and I am confident that there has been no attempt to do so by any one in the history of our nation. As a Christian, I am strongly opposed to a national religion for I am certain that it would not be Christianity. There are just too many practicing atheists for that to happen for now. However, one day in God's time, Christ will return and set set up his kingdom and he will rule the earth with a rod of iron and he will rule with righteous justice.

September 25, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Bulbous: How would you have any clue what Christains feel?

September 25, 2012 at 10:51 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said..."As a Christian, I am strongly opposed to a national religion for I am certain that it would not be Christianity."

Conservative - I agree with you, although perhaps for slightly different reasons. As an American, I am opposed to a national religion because I think it is bad government. And, as a Christian, I think it would be bad theology.

Now, if you and I, as Christians, agree that it would be inappropriate to establish a national religion, do we also agree that: 1) it would be inappropriate to post the 10 Commandments in court houses; 2) corporate prayer does not belong in public school classrooms; 3) it is wrong to celebrate Christ's birth on public property and at public expense; and, 4) "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance is either meaningless phrase or blasphemy?

September 25, 2012 at 11:04 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "if charity is the responsibility of family, friends and church, why do so many people in this country live in poverty?"

For one thing, I think the ability of FF&C to be the primary source of support has been severely curtailed because the government has taken on much of the responsibility and has confiscated much of the wealth from FF&C that would otherwise be funneled towards charity. Most families, not under our definition of poverty have to have two incomes just to take care of their own needs.

If government has already become the primary source of charity in this country, and I think that is a fair statement, how can you hold FF&C responsible for not eliminating poverty? The idea that poverty can be eliminated by the government does not hold water in my mind. When I have visited Western European countries I saw plenty of homeless people. At a popular restaurant in Frankfurt there were people getting leftovers from the tables at the service door in back. I don’t know if that practice is still legal in Germany. It has been stopped in this country.

September 25, 2012 at 11:05 a.m.
mtngrl said...

BRP said:
"Some people believe forced "charity" at the hand of government is no substitute for family, friends and church."

Why would it be a substitute? Just because the government has safety nets does not mean family, friends and church cannot still do anything they want to to help out. This is not an either/or situation, we have both and have had for a while now.

September 25, 2012 at 11:06 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

There are just too many practicing atheists...

And you would know this how?

September 25, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said.....

Jesus commanded his followers to “love thy neighbor;” whereas, your “libertarian Jesus” appears to be urging his followers to “hate thy neighbor.”

I guess I am not a christian since I neither love nor hate my neighbors. I am charitable and I do contribute liberally to a lot of worthy charities that feed and cloth the hungry, those that are at a disadvantage for various reasons. I do not and will not give to those cathedral building preacher worshipers that do very little if anything other than for those in the church. I resent the politicians that think they have a right and obligation to confiscate from me to distribute as they see fit rather than allowing me to give more. It would be more efficient and more effective if the government identified qualifying charities and allowed a tax REDUCTION, not a deduction, up to 20% of taxes owed. The cost for governments to collect and distribute is ridiculous and inefficient.

It doesn't cost anyone anything for people that want to pray or shout Allah and Muhammad where tax payer money may be used to help have a public event. It would be useless to debate your following statement which in my opinion is over shooting the intent and grabbing the microphone is hardly what happens...

When someone seizes the microphone so to speak at a public function sponsored by taxpayer dollars to practice or express tenets of their personal religion they are: 1. Publicly dishonoring a principle that this country was founded upon, NOT and 2. Publicly demonstrating their disrespect for those citizens who may not share the tenets of their religion...NOT

September 25, 2012 at 11:08 a.m.
MTJohn said...

brp - ff&c had plenty of opportunity to be the primary support long before Johnson initiated his idea of the great society and, thus, long before the government had confiscated all of that wealth. If ff&c had stepped to the plate, there would have been no need to establish any of our public social services programs in the first place.

September 25, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “I think you just proved that you have no idea what a libertarian is.”

Since my post was in reference to AndrewLohr’s statements about the philosophy of this interesting “Libertarian Jesus,” I don’t think it’s reasonable for you to draw such a conclusion, BigRidgePatriot. But maybe you don’t read AndrewLohr's posts or maybe you aren't familiar with the teachings of the biblical Jesus.

September 25, 2012 at 11:10 a.m.
delmar said...

Still think we should tax all the churches, temples, mosques, etc. Just think about how many more tanks and planes and soldiers we could buy with that money!

A national religion? If that ever happens we will be screwed.

conservative said... "However, one day in God's time, Christ will return and set set up his kingdom and he will rule the earth with a rod of iron and he will rule with righteous justice."

And you know this how?

September 25, 2012 at 11:13 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "ff&c had plenty of opportunity to be the primary support long before Johnson initiated his idea of the great society and, thus, long before the government had confiscated all of that wealth. If ff&c had stepped to the plate, there would have been no need to establish any of our public social services programs in the first place."

If it was necessary to establish government social services to eliminate poverty then why are you accepting the government's failure to eliminate poverty as proof that it is the solution to the shortcomings of FF&C to be able to deal with the problem?

When you accept the government’s failure you are also accepting the government’s immoral practice of confiscating property from citizens to perpetuate the failure. There is so much wrong with the current “cure” that it is worse than the disease. The government will never admit its failure and change course. It will only demand more and more money from the taxpaying citizens until it kills the host.

September 25, 2012 at 11:58 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mtngrl said... “Why would it be a substitute? Just because the government has safety nets does not mean family, friends and church cannot still do anything they want to to help out. This is not an either/or situation, we have both and have had for a while now.”

I don’t think it is a substitute. The government is on a path to replacing FF&C. As the government involvement grows poverty does not go down, it grows. Maybe you can point to some short term benefits of a particular government social problem, but over the long term the inefficiency that grows in the bureaucracy defeats those gains. Now we have a very socially active government that has not even demonstrated the discipline to execute a budget for several years. How can you trust this crowd with your children’s future?

September 25, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

It seems almost comical that everyone is interpreting the first amendment in precisely the way that supports their belief, whether they are for public prayer in schools and government institutions or against it. The same goes for the second amendment. Everyone interprets it in exactly the way that suits their belief about guns. And they all say that the framers CLEARLY meant it to read exactly the way they themselves are interpreting it. That's funny. The only thing that's really clear about those two amendments is that they're as clear as MUD - at least with regard to life in 21st century America.

Maybe the people living at the time had no problem understanding what was meant by their wording, but whatever they intended, we today cannot relate to it in the same way. There was not nearly the vast diversity of cultures and religious beliefs then that we have today, nor did the simple term "right to bear arms" in the second amendment have the same meaning then that it has for us today. Our society has changed so much and in so many profound ways that our forefathers could never have imagined. It's time for a second bill of rights, wherein the first and second amendments are reconsidered and expressed in a way that we all can understand.

But I seriously doubt that will ever happen. There are too many strict Constitutionalists among us who think the Constitution is as sacred and divinely inspired as the Christians think their Bible to be. And our government is so gridlocked, we could never come to an agreement on what those revised rights should be. Nevertheless, we need a new vision for which direction our country is headed. Maybe what direction we go from here is something that only a revolution or a complete economic collapse will force us to take.

September 25, 2012 at 12:05 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "But maybe you don’t read AndrewLohr's posts or maybe you aren't familiar with the teachings of the biblical Jesus."

I certainly did miss the post(s) that support your notion that a libertarian anybody is motivated by hate.

September 25, 2012 at 12:07 p.m.
conservative said...

At your request delmar :

It is written - Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, “I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill.” I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery” (Ps. 2:5-9).

There are many other verses pertaining to the second coming of Christ (we have a historical and Biblical record of the first), and here are some - Matt. 19:28; 23:39; 24:3-25:46; Mark 13:24-37; Luke 12:35-48; 17:22-37; 18:8; 21:25-28; Acts 1:10-11; 15:16-18; Rom. 11:25-27; 1 Cor. 11:26; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2 Peter 3:3-4; Jude 14-15; Rev. 1:7-8; 2:25-28; 16:15; 19:11-21; 22:20.

September 25, 2012 at 12:08 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Rickyroo: thanks for clearing that up.

September 25, 2012 at 12:11 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Rickaroo said... “Maybe the people living at the time had no problem understanding what was meant by their wording, but whatever they intended, we today cannot relate to it in the same way. There was not nearly the vast diversity of cultures and religious beliefs then that we have today, nor did the simple term "right to bear arms" in the second amendment have the same meaning then that it has for us today. Our society has changed so much and in so many profound ways that our forefathers could never have imagined. It's time for a second bill of rights, wherein the first and second amendments are reconsidered and expressed in a way that we all can understand. “

It is not hard to understand the founder’s intent. Many people just do not agree with their intent and have attempted to reinterpret it to suit their needs. They work very hard to share their new interpretation and cloud the original intent so they can accomplish their political goals. If you ignore the noise of the dissenters the message is quite clear.

September 25, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

"Harp3339 said: “It doesn't cost anyone anything for people that want to pray or should Allah and Muhammad where tax payer money may be used to help have a public event.”

Public events should bring people together not alienate people, Harp3339. Unlike the mindless self-serving politicians and divisive "civic leaders" that we see today, our Nation's early founders understood this need. Of course, our Nation's original founders were wise leaders who were interested in building a great nation – not destroying one.

Harp3339 said: “It would be useless to debate your following statement which in my opinion is over shooting the intent and grabbing the microphone is hardly what happens.”

I don’t think it is overshooting, Harp3339. I’ve seen it too many times at public events – grandstanding is grandstanding. As adults, most of us understand that a public function sponsored by taxpayer dollars is not the place to express tenets of our personal religion. In doing so, we would be dishonoring one of our Nation’s important principles, and showing disrespect for those who do not share our personal religious beliefs.

September 25, 2012 at 12:18 p.m.
EaTn said...

delmar said... "Still think we should tax all the churches, temples, mosques, etc. Just think about how many more tanks and planes and soldiers we could buy with that money!"

I'm not sure why a country that believes in separation of church and state still allows contributions to religious organizations as charitable deductions and why their property is normally non-taxable. If we are sincere about our faith, we shouldn't depend on the govt to support it.

September 25, 2012 at 12:18 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: "I certainly did miss the post(s) that support your notion that a libertarian anybody is motivated by hate."

It was when Andrew opened his mouth and stated in his post that “Muslim and atheistic kingdoms are like jackboots crushing dissent” that I noted his hate fangs and forked tongue”.

September 25, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Re: John 3:16...

Most Christians think of that verse as the very foundation of their belief: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life." Interesting. But think about it.

If God, who is omniscient and omnipotent, "gave his only begotten son" as a sacrifice so that we might be "saved" from ourselves and our sinful nature and so that we might see how profound and great his "love" for us is, then he actually knew all along - being omniscient and all - how his so-called divine plan was going to work out. In other words, he knew, without a doubt, that he would be getting his son back after his short time here on earth and after going through the preposterous ritual of his feigned death (God and Jesus both knew that his "death" was only for show). So I ask you, Christians....where was the sacrifice on God's part? If he knew all along that he would be getting his son back, what did God really sacrifice?

Actually, any parent who loses a child in premature death has truly sacrificed and felt far greater pain and heartache than God could have suffered, because they know that they must live the rest of their lives without their beloved child. And even the most devout Christian, who believes in heaven and being reunited with loved ones after death, still has serious doubts from time to time as to whether or not they truly will go to heaven and be reunited. God, on the other hand, had no doubts whatsoever about getting his son back. Indeed, he never really lost him. He had the luxury of knowing, because he's omniscient after all, and it was his "divine plan" in the first place!

So the entire foundation of Christianity is actually a sham. God sacrificed nothing. Supposedly he's ensconced on his throne right now, with his "sacrificial lamb," Jesus, sitting happily by his side. Or they are one and the same – whatever. So where was the sacrifice? He could have "saved" us in an infinite number of ways that didn't involve such a sick, sadistic, little game. Makes no sense. But then, most Christians don't make much sense either.

September 25, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

And why should anyone believe that the Bible is true? Why do you believe it is true? What evidence do you have to prove the authenticity of the Bible? Name another 2,000 year old book that you believe to be inerrant.

"There are many other verses pertaining to the second coming of Christ (we have a historical and Biblical record of the first)"

Biblical? Sure. Historical? Not so much. You can't come up with a first hand account of Jesus Christ anywhere in any historical record. The authors of the New Testament never met the infamous "Jesus". Neither did any of the ancient historians like Josephus, Tacitus, and others. It's all third and fourth, fifth hand accounts of events that happened and people that lived centuries earlier.

Heck, there are several historical inaccuracies surrounding Jesus "birth".

September 25, 2012 at 12:45 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Rickyroo: Again, thanks for clearing that up. Amazing that in 2000+ years no one has thought of that. You're truly gifted, Roo.

September 25, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

JackTroll,

Just goes to show how gullible and shallow you (self-proclaimed) "knuckle-draggers" really are.

You're truly inept, Jack_Troll.

September 25, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Easy: That's pure conjecture on your part. Bwahahaha

September 25, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
canarysong said...

Harp3339 said "I don't recall the words separation of church and state in the constitution". ~ Thomas Jefferson used the phrase in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury in 1802 to clarify the intent of the First Amendment. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Courts have ruled that Jefferson's writings represent authoritative declarations and may be used as evidence in constitutional disputes.

September 25, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
conservative said...

Notice that in the loontoonist's mind the wearing of apparel referencing a verse of Scripture or a cross is forcing a Christian belief on others. However, there are scores of beliefs, value statements, political statements etc appearing on tee shirts worn by people every day, but has or will the loontoonist note or imply these as forcing beliefs, views etc on others? Not a chance. He will claim free speech and hope those siding with him here won't see the hypocrisy.

September 25, 2012 at 1:18 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

conservative: ^^^^whaddaya expect? He was an art major for cryin out loud.

September 25, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.
degage said...

Thought I'd check in to see if anything has changed. All of you have not disappointed me. Athiest ,same ole same ole and the christians same ole same ole. Atheist haven't change the christians mind and the christains haven't changed the athiest minds.

Seems if all of you quit beating up on each other Clay would come up with something fresh instead of the same ole same ole.

September 25, 2012 at 1:37 p.m.
cactus said...

Why doesn't God come out of hiding and settle these disputes?

September 25, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

de-gage: Because the atheist think the anti-christian stuff is cool. Soooo avant.

September 25, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Talk about your War on Women >>>Pres Obama "enables the abuse of women around the world" by not standing up to Islamic regimes, shariah.

September 25, 2012 at 2 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

I have never encountered anyone who was as quick as you to display his heathenism, his anti-Christ views and gross ignorance of Scripture as yourself. Do you act like a heathen and an anti-Christ to everyone you personally know under your real name?

You have claimed to have read the Bible many times and to have attended Bible college as well. However, you are habitually wrong about Scripture that even a causual reader of Scripture would be acquainted with.

Your latest - "The authors of the New Testament never met the infamous "Jesus".", is such an egregious as well as blasphemous statement. The Apostle Peter, who was with Jesus during his ministry here on earth wrote the New Testament epistles 1st and 2nd Peter!

September 25, 2012 at 2:01 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

*mountainlaurel said... "It was when Andrew opened his mouth and stated in his post that “Muslim and atheistic kingdoms are like jackboots crushing dissent” that I noted his hate fangs and forked tongue”. *

At the risk of being labeled a "hater" myself, can you site an example of a “Muslim (or) atheistic kingdom" that has not been guilty of violent oppression of dissent? I can think of a few that fit the description. Heck, even the US government has been guilty of violent oppression of dissent.

September 25, 2012 at 2:20 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"I have never encountered anyone who was as quick as you to display his heathenism, his anti-Christ views and gross ignorance of Scripture as yourself."

Not a heathen. Not particularly anti-christ. Not ignorant of Scripture either. 0/3.

"Do you act like a heathen and an anti-Christ to everyone you personally know under your real name?"

I can't act like something that I am not.

"You have claimed to have read the Bible many times and to have attended Bible college as well."

And?

"However, you are habitually wrong about Scripture that even a causual reader of Scripture would be acquainted with."

Show me where I was wrong about any criticism or use of Scripture that I have presented.

"Your latest - "The authors of the New Testament never met the infamous "Jesus".", is such an egregious as well as blasphemous statement."

My statement doesn't qualify as egregious or blasphemous.

"The Apostle Peter, who was with Jesus during his ministry here on earth wrote the New Testament epistles 1st and 2nd Peter!"

Most Bible scholars do not believe that "Peter" wrote either of the books you mentioned. If you did any in-depth study AT ALL, you would know that.

Would you like to try again?

September 25, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
conservative said...

Then easy doubles down on his ignorance with this - "Most Bible scholars do not believe that "Peter" wrote either of the books you mentioned"

The evidence is clear to Christian scholars that the Apostle Peter wrote 1st and 2nd Peter.The 1st and most obvious proof are the first words of Peter in 1st Peter -"Peter, an Apostle Of Jesus Christ..." Only the most devout atheist, heathen and anti-Christ would even try to fool others with that lie.

September 25, 2012 at 3:09 p.m.
timbo said...

I have advice for both sides:

For the religious set, show a little empathy for none believers if you want it for yourself. This idea that you are being put upon is ridiculous. Religion still dominates socially. Resist the need for this constant government proselytizing. Show a little restraint.

For you non-religious...Don't be ridiculous in your opposition of everything religious in the public realm. Religion is an important part of our culture in both influence and politics. I don't think it hurts to respect the majority's wishes in giving a harmless prayer before a ball game or commission meeting. When you make these silly points and law suits you cheapen your argument when there is a real abuse by the religious side.

Now is this really worth all this fights from either side? Why don't you both chill out?

September 25, 2012 at 3:23 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

"The authors of the New Testament never met the infamous "Jesus"."

Furthermore, the Apostle John, another disciple of Jesus and who was with Jesus during his earthly ministry wrote 5 of the New Testament books. They are - the Gospel of John, 1st,2nd, and 3rd John and the book of Revealation. John was the author of these epistles, 4 even carried his name!

Only the hardest atheist, heathen and anti-Christ could deny this.

September 25, 2012 at 3:25 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

timbo said... "Now is this really worth all this fights from either side? Why don't you both chill out?"

Some good advice.

September 25, 2012 at 3:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Most Bible scholars believe that neither disciple, John and Peter, wrote the books that you mentioned. Anyone that has done in-depth study on the Bible knows this. Your ignorance of Scripture is all too apparent.

Would you like to try one more time?

September 25, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

For EASY, DUDE_, BLACKWATER, BULBOUS, RICKYROO, IKEITHLU, et al.....Here's a story guaranteed to please France could very well become the next nation to legalize same-sex marriage, but lawmakers have reportedly gone a step further with a proposal that could ban the use of the words "mother" and "father."

The Telegraph cites the draft law as specifying that "marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender," and also states that all references to "mothers and fathers" in the nation's civil code will be swapped for the non-gender-specific "parents." In addition, the law would also give equal adoption rights to same-sex couples, the publication notes.

The use of Mother and Father is verboten. Nice, huh?

September 25, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.
MTJohn said...

BigRidgePatriot said..."If it was necessary to establish government social services to eliminate poverty then why are you accepting the government's failure to eliminate poverty as proof that it is the solution to the shortcomings of FF&C to be able to deal with the problem?"

I'm not. I am advocating that we do need a system that serves the disenfranchised. You have suggested that the system ought to be provided by ff&c but you have also offered excuses for why that hasn't worked. I'm suggesting that we have failed to eliminate poverty in this country because we do not care and, therefore, lack the commitment necessary to be concerned about those less fortunate than ourselves.

September 25, 2012 at 3:51 p.m.
MTJohn said...

cactus said..."Why doesn't God come out of hiding and settle these disputes?"

Would you recognize God if God did that?

September 25, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

I understand that your duty as an atheist,a heathen and an anti-Christ is to deceive and lie. My duty is to show you as such.

September 25, 2012 at 3:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

You have yet to show my deception or that I am a liar. You are failing at your self-proclaimed "duty". Don't worry, I'll wait.

However, it is, apparently, your duty to be ignorant; of your own holy book no less. You have that duty down to an art form.

:-)

September 25, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

One MORE reason for you lefties to vote for The Organizer: Madonna offered a profanity-laced endorsement of President Obama at her concert Monday night, which involved the singer stripping down to her underwear to reveal the president's name written on her body.

“You all better vote for f---ing Obama okay,” she told the crowd at Washington's Verizon center.

Nice, huh?

September 25, 2012 at 4:13 p.m.
conservative said...

I have and you have as well.

September 25, 2012 at 4:15 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

MTJohn said... "I'm not. I am advocating that we do need a system that serves the disenfranchised. You have suggested that the system ought to be provided by ff&c but you have also offered excuses for why that hasn't worked."

Actually, I am willing to accept a blended solution but I think we are overemphasizing the government side to the detriment of the private solutions. The public solutions have become way too accessible.

I personally know several people who are/were pulling in a government check and DO NOT NEED IT. One guy pulls in Social Security Disability but continues to work for cash doing some pretty heavy HVAC work. Another is a single mother who has plenty of family support but is taking housing and food stamp assistance that she does not really need. She is living with a couple of roommates and is quite able to take care of herself considering her low expenses. I suppose she would be considered as "living in poverty" by government standards but her situation looks quite comfortable to me. In this case, the government has replaced most or all of the family support. Not because it was necessary, but because social workers PUSHED the benefits when she was identified as an unwed mother in the hospital. Another was a guy that got laid off and rode the entire unemployment insurance train until the extended benefits gave out. In the meantime he puttered around the house, watched a lot of TV and drank a great deal of beer. It was becoming quite a source of tension between him and his wife. After the benefits ran out he went to look for work and was employed in less than two weeks.

I suppose my perception is colored. If I knew someone who was pulling down a government check that actually needed it maybe I would not be so damn skeptical.

September 25, 2012 at 4:16 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Still waiting...

September 25, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
miraweb said...

Jack - You're shocked by . . . Madonna?

What rock have you been hiding under for 30 years?

September 25, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Conny, I understand that your duty as a fanatical religious extremist is to deceive and lie. My duty is to show you as such.

Conny, your arrogant vanity is a disgrace to "tru-christians", and every aspect of the theologies they employ.

That you actually believe that the creator of everything that has or ever will be in existence, looks like an elderly bearded white dude is just plain silly... and beyond vain.

The fact that you actually believe "him" to be a slave to human emotions, involved in your one little insignificant daily life on this one little insignificant rock, and servant to your every little emotional hissy-fit.. is.. well... just ridiculous.

Let me ask you this, since you're such an expert on who goes to hell and who does not.

Christianity has been around for roughly 2000 years.. well, I guess if you count the old-T, 4000ish years.

Humans in their current form (socially developed terraformers that use spoken language) have been around for waaaaaaay longer. Did everyone that lived and died during the tens and tens of thousands of years before "christianity" became popular just go straight to hell?

I mean, when in fact did we develop this eternal soul that needs to get rewarded or punished after death?

Do miscarried babies go straight to hell?

Do young soldiers from other cultures, fighting for causes they don't understand go to hell?

Do children and adults from other cultures who have never heard of your version of God go to hell?

Does anyone that you disagree with go to hell?

Is it really true that only those allowed into heaven are befitting by your standards? (as you interpret them from the Christian Bible)

If so, is it not an unfortunate fate for the other 999999999.9% of humanity that has either never heard of your version of God, already has one of their own, or sees no evidence of this divine-uberinvolved-emotional entity that you describe?

Are you man enough to attempt answers regarding these questions?

September 25, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Seems like pretty self-evident stuff to me..

September 25, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.
timbo said...

JonRoss...Squeals?.....Religious facists like you give conservatism a bad name. You are delusional and just as bad as those you criticize.

Nobody is more conservative than I am. The problem with you is that you want to use the tyranny of religion just like the libs want to use the tyranny of government. It doesn't matter which controls the outcome is the same.

I don't have a dog in the abortion fight, but a true conservative would never want the government to control what is inside someone else's body. Your views are extreme and not based on any fact. You religious fanatics will ruin the conservative and Tea Party movements with your rants. You make us all look bad.

September 25, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
mtngrl said...

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over

Emo Philips

September 25, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
miraweb said...

I am fairly convinced that the "whine and cheese" (or, 'whine and Jesus', if you prefer) flavor of religion that Bill O'Reilly and his colleagues promote every year doesn't reflect any substantial reality in the nation.

Is there any real religion that promotes a founding doctrine of "oh, look at poor me!" as the golden road to serenity or heaven or peace with the neighbors?

Seriously? Even one?

September 25, 2012 at 4:53 p.m.
miraweb said...

I am watching that race, TQQ - though it took a bad turn for her opponent today when a video surfaced of Brown's senior staffers making Indian war whoops and tomahawk chops at a rally.

Oh, the trouble that YouTube causes . . .

September 25, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
miraweb said...

And, sadly, that entire analysis is based entirely old data.

Funny how much difference insulting half the country can make. Romney's newest target: teachers.

Not many of those around, eh?

September 25, 2012 at 5:11 p.m.
carlB said...

harp3339 said... Is it true the DNC refused to allow local churches in Charlotte ---- So much for free speech if any religious reference is included.

Reply: harp3339, I did not go to the DNC in Charlotte to learn about religion

September 25, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Another Obama lie:

Obama Promises To Lower Health Insurance Premiums by $2,500 Per Year (In his first term)

Health care premiums have gone up 18% since Obama took over.

September 25, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
miraweb said...

Except the local station has now identified the officials that were in the video:

Scott Brown's Deputy Chief of Staff Greg Casey

Constituent Service Counsel Jack Richard

State Director Jerry McDermott

Special Assistant Jennifer Franks

GOP operative Brad Garnett

Yeah, that looks really good . . . I can see, though, how you could mistake them for drunken sophomores.

http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/Sen-Scott-Brown-staffers-caught-on-video-chanting-Indian-war-whoops-making-tomahawk-chops/-/9848766/16727976/-/tj3yi5z/-/index.html

September 25, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Madonna strips for Obama, offers profanity-laced endorsement

Another reason not to vote Obama.

September 25, 2012 at 5:50 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Mira: Who said anything about being shocked? What a stupid comment.

September 25, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Say all you want about Rush, but he nailed it in this one paragraph.

"Everybody should have the same outcome. That's what's fair. Nobody should have any advantages over anybody else, nobody should have any greater opportunity than anybody else, and if somebody does, we gotta penalize 'em. We gotta raise their taxes if they have more money. If they're smarter than other kids in a class, we gotta slow them down so that they don't humiliate the dumber kids in the class, rather than try to speed up the education of the slower kids. No, no. Bring everybody down to the mediocre level. That's what liberalism is. Shrink everything to mediocrity. That's the best and fastest way you get to equal. Because greatness is rare".

September 25, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.
dude_abides said...

QUOQUE NOT THE SHARPEST TU_ IN THE SHED

Looks like miraweb stomped a mudhole in your Depends clad a$$! Racism on parade. Disgusting display that would not happen if it weren't part of who they (Brown campaign) really are.
TSKing MAO

September 25, 2012 at 6:28 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Jack_Dennis said... For EASY, DUDE_, BLACKWATER, BULBOUS, RICKYROO, IKEITHLU, et al.....Here's a story... (blah,blah)

The use of Mother and Father is verboten. Nice, huh?

I love it when Jack_'s inner Nazi shines through.

September 25, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

MigraineWeb: Is this the wonderful Elizabeth Warren you so proudly love and adore?

"Warren also helped write a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for LTV Steel in the 1990s, assisting the former industrial conglomerate in its fight against a congressional requirement that it pay millions of dollars into a fund for its retired coal miners’ health care.

Her advocacy on behalf of a large corporation, opposing a mandate to pay for the health benefits of blue-collar retirees and their families, would seem to undercut her image as a middle-class champion, the central message of the Democrat’s Senate campaign against Brown, the Republican".

Not only that, I also heard she's an Indian giver...although only to the tune of 1/32.

http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N40/wire1.html

September 25, 2012 at 6:37 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Canarysong shared with Harp3339: "Thomas Jefferson used the phrase in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury in 1802 to clarify the intent of the First Amendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Courts have ruled that Jefferson's writings represent authoritative declarations and may be used as evidence in constitutional disputes.

Hey, Canarysong. . . It’s great to see that beautiful avatar of yours on this forum once again. Hope things have been well with you. . . Your thoughtful input has been missed.

September 25, 2012 at 6:44 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

I never cease to laugh here when I see our more conservative posters quote selected verses from the Bible.

When any talk of the Affordable Care Act or universal health coverage is mentioned they go apoplectic with righteous anger.

They disregard the teachings of Jesus regarding their responsibilities to the poor and unfortunate in favor of the teachings of Rush Limbaugh.

It would be interesting to hear how some of the good christian conservatives square the circle of ignoring their deities directives.

Could it be they worship Mammon more than they care to admit?

September 25, 2012 at 7:04 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"In Wisconsin, high school athletes are complaining about not getting enough to eat each day, due to the skimpy new school lunch menu mandated by the United States Department of Agriculture and First Lady Michelle Obama".

"Some are throwing away their vegetables while others are adapting to the rules by becoming industrious. In New Bedford, Massachusetts, students have created a black market - for chocolate syrup. The kiddie capitalists are smuggling in bottles of it and selling it by the squeeze, according to SouthCoastToday.com.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2012/09/23/complaints_mount_against_michelle_obamas_new_lunch_menu

September 25, 2012 at 7:08 p.m.
MTJohn said...

TJohn said... "Actually, I am willing to accept a blended solution but I think we are overemphasizing the government side to the detriment of the private solutions. The public solutions have become way too accessible."

I can accept a blended solution, too. And, I would agree that our current system could/should be improved. I don't doubt that there is fraud and abuse in our current system. But, I think that the hyperbole regarding fraud, "welfare queens", "culture of dependency", etc. etc. is grossly overstated. I also suspect (can't prove) that for programs that use a third party (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), there is more fraud by providers than by recipients.

I understand your concern regarding the two examples you cited but I would want more information before drawing a final conclusion.

September 25, 2012 at 7:08 p.m.
MTJohn said...

TOES02800 said..."Say all you want about Rush, but he nailed it in this one paragraph.

"Everybody should have the same outcome. That's what's fair. Nobody should have any advantages over anybody else, nobody should have any greater opportunity than anybody else, and if somebody does, we gotta penalize 'em"

I agree with Rush. But, I don't think he is serious about penalizing folks who have had the greater opportunities. If he is, when will he start advocating the imprisonment of most of Romney's financial support?

September 25, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Interestingly, though, the revolt over feta cheese and vegetables might not come to Sidwell Friends, the elite private school the Obama kids attend in Washington, D.C."

"According to the school's website, pepperoni pizza is on the menu today ".

Aren't THEY special?! It's a shame that the royal family's kids get pepperoni pizza while the peons of their kingdom get crap. HAIL OBAMA!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/revolt-over-school-lunches_653039.html

September 25, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
dude_abides said...

I apologize and will, from this time forward, try to comport myself with a little more decorum when noting that you have been made to look smug and stupid by someone more graceful and capable than yu_.

September 25, 2012 at 7:15 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

MTjohn: If that's the case, you must include Obama's financial supporters as well.

September 25, 2012 at 7:17 p.m.
conservative said...

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:35 ESV

This is a public forum. Posting that Scripture verse is NOT establishing a religion either by Congress, or by the great state of Tennessee, nor is it a violation of the Constitution.

Will anyone be willing to sue claiming a violation of the First Amendment?

September 25, 2012 at 7:18 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

By the way, read it again, you read it wrong. He said the liberals want to penalize them, not him.

September 25, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot said: “At the risk of being labeled a "hater" myself, can you site an example of a “Muslim (or) atheistic kingdom" that has not been guilty of violent oppression of dissent?”

I don't think you're a hater, BRP. But I do think you may have double standards in regard to this violence/religion issue. Apparently, this is a common problem in America:

“ . . . Are those who carry out acts of violence in the name of a religion true followers of that religion, or not? A new survey from Public Religion Research Institute, and a new joint report by PRRI and the Brookings Institution, reveals that Americans literally apply a double standard when answering this question, depending on whether the perpetrator is Christian or Muslim.

More than 8-in-10 (83 percent) Americans say that those who commit violence in the name of Christianity are not truly Christian. On the other hand, less than half (48 percent) of Americans extend this same principle to Muslims and say that those who commit violence in the name of Islam are not truly Muslim.

. . . This double standard gap is, not surprisingly, most pronounced among those who self-identify as Christian, but different Christian groups employ stronger double standards than others. For example, among white evangelical Protestants, the gap is a staggering 47 percentage points. . .

The double standard gap for other Christian groups is also large but significantly lower than the gap among white evangelical Protestants: 27 points each for Catholics and white mainline Protestants, and 23 points for black Protestants.

Non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans-a composite group that includes Muslims along with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and other minority religions-has the most consistent approach to these questions, with a double standard gap of only 14 points.

The double standard gap also differs by political party affiliation. The double standard gap is 45 points for both Republicans and Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement, nearly double the size of the gap among Independents (25 points) and Democrats (23 points)."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/figuring-faith/post/the-american-double-standard-on-religious-violence/2011/09/10/gIQAvClYHK_blog.html

September 25, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Mary J. Christ sangeth:

I am the wife of the bread of life,

and I can get you into Heaven.

My book was lost (what a holycost),

and my bread I do not leaven.

September 25, 2012 at 7:39 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "Now we are hearing that Obamist sycophant Hairy Reid is saying that Romney has sullied the face of Mormonism. You Progressives/Obamists/Democrats/Liberals are filthy intolerant beasts."

You're sizing up every non-conservative based on some words uttered by Harry Reid?

Grow up.

September 25, 2012 at 8:28 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "I have and you have as well."

With all due respect, basing your entire argument on Biblical scripture is a very poor way to substantiate any claim.

Back up what is written in the Bible with credible evidence.

Blind faith is fine and dandy, but it's not much of an argument.

September 25, 2012 at 8:34 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Health care premiums have gone up 18% since Obama took over."

That is true, but the man never promised that the savings would come immediately. ObamaCare is not yet fully in force yet.

The premium decreases will likely start when most of the healthy folks are mandated to purchase health care insurance.

September 25, 2012 at 8:44 p.m.
ricardo said...

Health care premiums have been going up for years before Obama took over. That's why we needed reform.

September 25, 2012 at 9 p.m.
carlB said...

We cannot forget, there was a time when the "Churches" maintained the control of the people and setting up the conditions which governed them kept them dependent on the church for their well being and guidance. The Religious groups and the Churches did not give up their hold on the people easily and even now they still want to control of the government, moving the conditions "backward" for more control of the "people."

September 25, 2012 at 9:09 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "timbo you make no sense at all and you are not a conservative in any sense of the word."

Dissension in the ranks, eh? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

"There is no connection between "wanting to control someone else's body" and the government forcing someone to pay for another person to have an abortion."

What a load of crap. The Gov't has gone out of their way for decades to make sure that no taxpayer funds are used to pay for so much as one abortion.

Anti-abortionists have been claiming that crap for years, and there is not a shred of truth to it.

It is indeed about controlling women's reproductive organs, and nothing else.

"That is the convuluted logic of a sick and pathetic Obamist."

You're the one who is totally pathetic, and one who never demonstrates one iota of logic.

September 25, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.
carlB said...

TOES02800 said... By the way, read it again, you read it wrong. He said the liberals want to penalize them, not him.

TOES02800, you continue to keep trying very hard to prove too many of the made up negatives and calling them lies. There are differences between a statement of wanting to accomplish an objective and the deliberate made up lies. It is amazing how easy the Republicans think that they can turn the voters against the President by jumping on and negatively attacking his every word on such a narrow mindedness approach in their personal attack against President Obama.

September 25, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama (Bristol, Va., June 5): "In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year. And we’ll do it by investing in disease prevention, not just disease management; by investing in a paperless health care system to reduce administrative costs; and by covering every single American and making sure that they can take their health care with them if they lose their job. … And we won’t do all this twenty years from now, or ten years from now. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as president of the United States".

Wrong again alpo. I seen it on video as well.

September 25, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Wow carl, you just described the democratic party and the liberal media perfectly. You liberals have never attacked Romney in such a way? I guess you're fine with calling Romney a murderer. Such a one way road you liberals travel.

September 25, 2012 at 9:48 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama needs a history lesson. As he speaks at the U.N.:

“With the advance of Union forces, it brought a new day — that all persons held as slaves would thenceforth be forever free,” Mr. Obama said.

Actually, the Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in 10 Southern states who were, at the time, mostly beyond the control of the federal government. And the document didn’t free an estimated 500,000 slaves in four slave-holding border states — Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware — that were loyal to the Union. Slavery was ended in those states by various state and federal actions later on.

Read more: Obama garbles U.S. history in human trafficking speech - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/25/obama-garbles-us-history-human-trafficking-speech/#ixzz27XKHlMiB Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

September 25, 2012 at 9:53 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama Gaffe:

Obama without a teleprompter is a horrific sight indeed.

September 25, 2012 at 9:56 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

carlB: Are you smoking peyote?

September 25, 2012 at 9:58 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES, ObamaCare was indeed passed during his first term in office. The pledge fulfillments are coming to pass as we type.

I'm certainly saving much more than $2,500 per year in health care insurance premiums.

I'm paying $970 a month to cover my wife and I, where I was paying a premimum of $1,300 a month when we were covered by the last private policy that we had. That's $3,960 a year that I am saving, and it's all thanks to ObamaCare.

Granted, our situation is not typical. We were both previously uninsurable under the system of health care that is currently undergoing reform, but make no mistake, people all across the land, such as myself, are being helped as a result of the Affordable Health Care Act, by the PCIP plan, and we are indeed saving money on our health care costs.

Hang in there and your reward will come too, even if you don't want it.

September 25, 2012 at 10:17 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Right now I pay $124.00 a month for Blue cross Blue shield through my place of employment ($32.00 a week). I'll guarantee you it'll go up after more of the Obama plan to quash private health insurance unfolds.

So after my employer forces us on the Obamacare plan (which is inevitable), and I'm forced to pay $970 a month, then I should consider myself lucky? You'll get it relatively cheaper, but I'll be forced to pay significantly higher premiums and co-pays.

May sound fair to you, but not me.

September 25, 2012 at 10:34 p.m.
carlB said...

TOES02800 said... Wow carl, you just described the democratic party and the liberal media perfectly

Reply;

I made it very clear that it was the Republicans and the other biased opponents of President Obama that have "nothing to run on" except making up misleading information,and lies to "try," Yes, to "try" and convince voters that President Obama has been a complete failure during his first term. This tactic has and is failing because the voters do not want to make their life's decisions on the proven lies of the Republiucans.

September 25, 2012 at 10:42 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800: “With the advance of Union forces, it brought a new day — that all persons held as slaves would thenceforth be forever free,”

You and the Washington Post need to get a grip on reality.

The President made that statement in the context that the advance of the Union Forces was the spark that led to the end of slavery.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not come along until after three years of the Civil War had already transpired. Regardless of which states were exempted from it, slavery was indeed ended as a result of the Civil War, and the end of slavery began with the advance of the Union Forces.

September 25, 2012 at 10:43 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama's not running on his record. He's running on negative campaigning designed to smear Romney.

The "Bin Laden's dead" and the "GM's alive" thing is nothing to base a reelection off of. It's all about bashing Romney. Obama is the one who has nothing to run on.

September 25, 2012 at 10:55 p.m.
carlB said...

Jack_Dennis said... carlB: Are you smoking peyote?

Reply: Jack_Dennis, I am not smoking anything, nor am I "inhaling" the stink that is being fed by the biased opponents of President Obama.

September 25, 2012 at 11:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Toes,

Obama has a lot to run on. You just mentioned two very significant things he has done during his first term.

Here are some more:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/06/1128093/-President-Obama-s-Accomplishments-So-Far

It is Mitt Romney/Republicans that are using a negative campaign designed to smear Obama. Romney's entire campaign is based on attacking Obama no matter what he says or does.

Romney is the one who has nothing to run on. Literally, NOTHING.

September 25, 2012 at 11:04 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Hey Jack: Could it be...perhaps...KarlB?

September 25, 2012 at 11:12 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Not a single negative ad or smear tactic from the reelect Obama crew. What was I thinking?

September 25, 2012 at 11:15 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Toes: Karl, haha. could be.

These lefties are almost comical. Obama running a clean campaign. Wow.

September 25, 2012 at 11:23 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

You lefties are the biggest threat to our country since the replacement refs.

September 25, 2012 at 11:25 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Right now I pay $124.00 a month for Blue cross Blue shield through my place of employment ($32.00 a week)."

Sounds like a deal to me.

"I'll guarantee you it'll go up after more of the Obama plan to quash private health insurance unfolds."

This is what I can't understand about people like yourself. ObamaCare is plan to that hands over the entire nation to the insurers by mandating that everyone be covered by health care insurance, and you claim that Obama is "quashing private insurance."

How do you logically arrive at such an illogical conclusion?

"So after my employer forces us on the Obamacare plan (which is inevitable), and I'm forced to pay $970 a month, then I should consider myself lucky?"

With the exception of three years during my entire adult life, I have always paid for 100% of my health care insurance coverage. Your situation is not comparable to that of mine.

Read the plan. There is no reason for any employer to shelve their benefit offerings, because it is to their advantage to provide health care insurance to their employees. Unless an employer has the desire to do away with a boatload of tax deductions, they'll keep on offering those benefits.

If, and I stress the word "if"...your employer were to terminate your health care insurance, and you are forced to seek coverage on your own, you're not likely to pay anything close to what I do.

Oh...and there will always be other employers out there who do provide health care coverage.

By January 1, 2014, health care insurance exchanges will be in place, with all kinds of choices open and available to those who do not have employer sponsored health insurance. PCIP exchanges already exist in 33 states. For those residents in the states that are vowing to not create those health care insurances exchanges, they HHS is going to step up to the plate and policies will be available through them.

You can relax, for ObamaCare is not the end of employer sponsored health insurance, at least not for employers who bother to look into the tax advantages that will be offered to them if they keep offering health care benefits. Any employer who dumps those benefits, would be cutting of their noses to spite their face.

"You'll get it relatively cheaper, but I'll be forced to pay significantly higher premiums and co-pays."

Yeah...and Mount St. Helens might erupt again.

"May sound fair to you, but not me."

Read the plan. Don't react and start that wing-flapping based on misinformation and lies that you read on right-wing websites. Go to the source to get the facts.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf

September 25, 2012 at 11:45 p.m.

Only an over-sensitive momma's-boy would consider a person's religious(?) attire (though hideous or obnoxious) as an attempt to force one's beliefs on someone else. Or to establish a state denomination. Pretty sure tacky was not what Jefferson had in his cross-hairs when he penned his Baptist letter. Another false dichotomy and misdiagnosis. Another wasted opportunity for constructive dialogue about important issues. Another Clay cartoon.

September 25, 2012 at 11:58 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES 02800 wrote: "Obama's not running on his record."

Uh...yeah he is. I guess you were doing something else during the three nights of the DNC Convention.

"He's running on negative campaigning designed to smear Romney."

Mitt Romney is doing a great job of smearing himself. He needs no assistance from the President.

"The "Bin Laden's dead" and the "GM's alive" thing is nothing to base a reelection off of."

No?

"It's all about bashing Romney."

There's more of that wonderful logic that you are becoming famous for.

"Obama is the one who has nothing to run on."

I'm sorry, but that's not what the polls are saying. Mitt Romney isn't even treading water in the swing states anymore.

September 26, 2012 at midnight
MTJohn said...

TOES02800 said..."MTjohn: If that's the case, you must include Obama's financial supporters as well."

Perhaps some of them. But, there isn't anything like Crossroads GPS working in support of the President and we can't even find out who is funding that group.

September 26, 2012 at midnight
Easy123 said...

wwwtw,

I don't think Clay's cartoon is about religious attire. You might want to think a little harder.

September 26, 2012 at 12:01 a.m.
MTJohn said...

conservative said..."Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. John 6:35 ESV

This is a public forum. Posting that Scripture verse is NOT establishing a religion either by Congress, or by the great state of Tennessee, nor is it a violation of the Constitution.

Will anyone be willing to sue claiming a violation of the First Amendment?"

A couple of critical differences, Conservative. This is a public forum, but it is not a forum funded at tax payer expense. And, you were not a public employee drawing a public salary when you made that post ... or, if you are a public employee and made that post while drawing a public salary, you should be disciplined - not for the content of the post, but for the misuse of a government computer.

September 26, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.

I wonder if the litigants will be filing claims for the costs they no doubt incurred by seeking psychiatric care to treat the extreme emotional distress they experienced by having to listening to a few seconds of someone asking for God's blessings on legislative deliberations or for the safety of football players. Mainting freedom of speech and of religious practice requires thicker skin and greater tolerance than the left seems to be able to muster. Too bad for freedom.

September 26, 2012 at 12:22 a.m.

Easy: It's a weak attempt at IRONY (look it up) to highlight the religious guy's hypocrisy in using the phrase "forcing your beliefs on me." The clothes are the DEVICE (look it up) to illustrate his hypocrisy. Go ahead and look up "hypocrisy" too.

September 26, 2012 at 12:32 a.m.
Easy123 said...

wwwtw,

The clothes aren't LITERALLY the device though. That is what you are failing to understand. Bennett isn't considering a persons' religious attire an attempt to force someones belief on another as you have stated. It's called INNUENDO (look it up).

Your original post and this, most recent, post are not congruent. Look up the word "discrepancy". Then look up the word "inconsistency".

Go ahead and look up "dense" while you're at it.

September 26, 2012 at 1:17 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

mountainlaurel said... "More than 8-in-10 (83 percent) Americans say that those who commit violence in the name of Christianity are not truly Christian. On the other hand, less than half (48 percent) of Americans extend this same principle to Muslims and say that those who commit violence in the name of Islam are not truly Muslim."

This is not surprising because this is what we have learned or have been taught by what we see in the news. It would be more interesting if you compared the first opinion of Christians on Christians to a similar poll done on Muslims concerning Muslims. Do you think 83% of Muslims would say that Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam are not Muslims?

September 26, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot asked: “Do you think 83% of Muslims would say that Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam are not Muslims?

Since the poll included the opinions of American Muslims, I don't understand your comment here, BigRidgePatriot. As to your "percentage" question, I think you may have forgotten how the various Muslim communities condemned the cowardly acts of 9/11:

“In a Joint Statement by American Muslim Alliance, American Muslim Council, Association of Muslim Scientists and Engineers, Association of Muslim Social Scientists, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Medical Association of North America, Islamic Circle of North America, Islamic Society of North America, Ministry of Imam W. Deen Mohammed, Muslim American Society and Muslim Public Affairs Council, stated:"

"American Muslims utterly condemn the vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."

September 26, 2012 at 10:14 a.m.
canarysong said...

Mountainlaurel said, "Your thoughtful input has been missed." Thanks! I appreciate that very much! I've missed 'some' of you guys, too. Things have been great, but I realized that hanging around here was making it very difficult for me to get things done. If I can learn to exercise restraint maybe I can pop in now and then. Good to see that my favorite people are still around.....

I think that Timbo made some important points that ALL of us would do well to give some thought to. I'm not sure that I agree with him on the issue of public prayer, but he's brought up a good point that will have me giving some real thought to my stand.... Always a good thing :-)

September 26, 2012 at 6:59 p.m.
canarysong said...

TOES, like alprova, I'm already saving a significant amount on my insurance premium since the ACA went into its first stage of implementation..... And my college-age son is able to be covered on his parents' plan. These changes make a real difference in real people's lives.

And that's 'President' Obama, not "Mr.", whether you like it or not......

September 26, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.
Leaf said...

TOES, I watched that Obama gaffe you posted. I thought the Prez was about to say, "47 percent of Americans see themselves as victims" or something terrible like that. But instead he said, "um. . .breathalyzer . . I mean inhalator" referring to those things asthmatics use. So, he couldn't think of the word you call something. I do that all the time. Don't you? Seriously, you're grasping at straws, son.

September 27, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.