My mailbox today contained something very amusing, if it weren’t so evil: someone sent me a copy of this 128 page, glossy rag titled “America, Return to God”, from Great Commission Center International. It’s a wretched but expensive looking thing, full of articles from such lying luminaries as David Barton, D. James Kennedy, James Dobson, and Tim LaHaye, all advocating an American Theocracy. I learned that the passion of Dobson’s heart is to deny homosexuals the right to marry, Barton urges us all to vote Biblically, LaHaye thinks God will not bless us as long as pornography is legal.
Whoever sent it to me, thank you very much. It’s a reminder of the idiocy I will fight to my dying day. Oh, and may you stew in ineffectual ignorance until your dying day, and may you then pass on into oblivion blissfully, confident of an eternal award, unaware of the darkness before you. As you live with your eyes closed, you should end the same way.
Everyone else, follow the link above to the “ARTG Movement,” and order your own copy. It’s free! Bleed the bastards dry!
I ordered my copy. I can’t wait…creative mischief will be had, to be sure.
Done – I ordered three. Will enjoy reading and then using the prop up the crooked desk.
I will cherish this book as I did with my copy of God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists.
And by “cherish” I mean “draw amusingly pornographic pictures in the margins in.”
I need to check my P.O. box to see whether I received one of those fliers. Since I’m on the mailing list of Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, I get plenty of fascinating junk like that. Dobson, LaHaye, and Kennedy are tireless purveyors of their special version of fact-free truthiness. I shouldn’t read it, because I know it rots my brain, but I can’t help it.
Last month I wrote up some stuff on D. James Kennedy (who lists his degrees as A.B., M.Div., D.Sac.Lit., Ph.D., Litt.D., D.Sac.Theol., D. Humane Let., so you know he must be a true scholar). If you’re curious, it’s called Preaching down. I included some links concerning his slandering of Sir Julian Huxley and an example of his pedantically brow-beating style. Gosh, but that man pretends to know a lot!
Just asked for 100. I assume they are recyclable?
Cathy, you devil! I did too, but I wanted to be the first with bragging rights!
How are you pansies going to bleed them dry 1 copy at a time? Take your cajones back out of the jar and re-order dozens!
Bless you Seed for removing the tornado, No South Carolinian Doctors have signed the new list yet at DI. May you have a safe trip tomorrow PZ. And I only ordered two ARGT books, I feel embarressed.
But if I order they will know where I live!
Maybe I could order them to my inlaws.
I saw something absolutely stunning.
The painting done in 300 AD(how do they know that?)of ancient African’s battling a T Rex. Evidence of man and dinosaur coexisting.
This degree of ignorance is simply beyond me.
While this is an ridiculous as it gets, it just shows the dismal status of science in today’s world, where the most basic scientific method(e.g. carbon dating)is not valid unless theologically correct.
BTW,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/books/review/07wolfe.html
NYT book review
Keeping the Faith at Arm’s Length
An odd sentence on the the ARTG page, “God is being driven out of her government, society, classrooms and public lives!”
At least they seem to support the Gaia hypothesis. :)
Take Care –
ZC
see it @ http://www.gcciusa.org/English/ARTG.htm
I saw that same magazine today in the principal’s office of the school I work at. I wept for the future…
daenku32, that’s why whenever I want to order literature from someone who I don’t want to have my own name, I do it as one of my cats. If they’re being data-mined, all of my cats are tracking as really strong right-wingers, based on the literature they send away for, and the mailing lists they’re on.
Good luck to those organizations on getting any donations out of them, though.
Hey man, theocracy worked wonders for Iran. Wonders.
Once, I sent an application to the Discovery Institute on behalf of one of my cats. I was trying to get them to support numerology on the grounds that operator theory was, after all, just a theory. I was kind of busy at the time, and I thought that my cat was on more of a mental par with their other research fellows than I am anyway.
They never wrote back.
The perfect antidote? National Day of Slayer
Wonderful stuff! In the page on ‘The Neo-Pagan Drift’, there is a table of strained biblical analogies between Israel and the USA. My favourite is no.7: “Theirs [Israel of the Old Testament] was a nation of theocracy – God was their ruler. Theirs [the USA] is a nation of democracy, and they acknowledge God in their Constitution.”
Yep: theocracy = democracy. It’s obvious – except to all you pinko-liberal-atheist-eco-homosexualists*, of course!
* Read: “people capable of rational thought”. ‘Homosexualist’ borrowed with thanks from Little Britain.
Oh, and is no-one else jealous that PZ got his copy without having to ask? I have to buy my own toilet paper!
They never wrote back.,
They probably realized they were intellectually outclassed.
The Republican National Committee was rather actively courting one of my cats for a while there, though. I suspect it was her demographics that interested them; they probably don’t get lots of self-described black females writing them for literature.
Harry Wang, whoever that is, ordered 4 to be delivered to my house.
I’ll be ordering a few using the name and address of a fictional TV character, as truthful and honest an act as any of those toxic clowns have ever committed.
PZ, you wouldn’t know a theocracy if one came up to you, bit you on the butt and said “Hi! I’m a theocracy!” America is much further away from a theocracy today than it was 200 years ago. You bellow about ignorance. Why not look into the sayings and writings of the Founding Fathers and other prominent early Americans sometime (and not just Jefferson and Paine).
And it’s interesting that you would use this organizations offer to hurt them financially. “Bleed the bastards dry!” indeed! You are a hate-filled lunatic who should be stripped of any and all academic awards and accomplishments. You don’t deserve any of them.
And no, I didn’t send you or sign you up for that mailing, in case you’re wondering.
I’m having a hard time making the leap from “Some founding fathers were Christian” to “America was nearly a theocracy” — particularly when so many of them were vehement about this whole separation of church and state.
And this overt religiosity is new to the last 50 years — it was a reaction to communism since, evidently, Americans didn’t think that the whole free-market thing could stand on its own. Nope, “We won’t shoot you for speaking up, and you can do pretty much whatever you want” wasn’t good enough I guess.
I would, instead, encourage you to read the bulk of American literature produced from the end of the Puritans to the start of the Cold War. It’s pretty much a great big orgy of godlessness, isn’t it now?
America is much closer to becoming a theocracy now than it ever was, what with these million dollar megachurches throwing their weight behind candidates and shoving the public discourse around. They are encouraging people to vote away their freedoms in favor of a Ted Haggard (TM) endorsed government.
And it’s interesting that you would use this organizations offer to hurt them financially. “Bleed the bastards dry!” indeed! You are a hate-filled lunatic who should be stripped of any and all academic awards and accomplishments. You don’t deserve any of them.
Poor widdle baby Jason. Rough day today?
Go cuddle up with Rush or Ann. I’ll bet you feel better.
I’ve got 10 points of instantly redeemable street cred for the first person to photoshop a hate-filled lunatic version of PZ. I want to see horns and hellfire and baby-eating.
Yeah, that’s the ticket. Hell, if you keep saying it, it might even become true!
When did those “sayings” acquire recoginzed legal force? I must have missed the memo.
Seriously, Jason, who gives a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers believed?
I see that you’re showing us what a good Christian you are, again.
The painting done in 300 AD(how do they know that?)of ancient African’s battling a T Rex. Evidence of man and dinosaur coexisting.
Man, you can’t just tell us that and not provide a link! Where’s the link?! ;)
I also had to wonder recently after seeing the Dead Sea Scrolls, if man and dinosaurs co-existed, why haven’t we ever found scrolls made of dino leather? I mean, that’d make one helluva scroll, right?
Ha! Check out their project proposal page:
http://www.gcciusa.org/English/ARTG/pdf/ProjectProposal.pdf
The number of copies printed is set in stone: 500k, with 450k spoken for and 50k stored for requests. They’ve already been paid for, too, so you’re bleeding no one dry. I guess that makes you the ones stewing in ineffectual ignorance (with emphasis on the ineffectual part).
I guess if you really wanted to, you all could play vigilante censors and snatch up as many of those 50k books as you can so that no one who wants to can read them.
And it looks like they probably specifically selected you to receive this book, PZ:
Scientists: Scientists in selected specialties 22,017
Bit of a stretch to call you an “American leader,” though.
Dustin:
Come on, now. You can’t go confusing guys like Jason with things like “facts” and “objective reality”.
The number of copies printed is set in stone: 500k, with 450k spoken for and 50k stored for requests. They’ve already been paid for, too, so you’re bleeding no one dry.
Except for the postage. And that’s copies they can’t give to people like you, who might help them.
I guess that makes you the ones stewing in ineffectual ignorance
Ooh! Alliteration, just like William Safire! Shows us you went to college!
(with emphasis on the ineffectual part).
If it’s so ineffectual, then why are you still so upset, Jason?
I guess if you really wanted to, you all could play vigilante censors and snatch up as many of those 50k books as you can so that no one who wants to can read them.
We have your permission? Thanks!
And it looks like they probably specifically selected you to receive this book, PZ:
Scientists: Scientists in selected specialties 22,017
Bit of a stretch to call you an “American leader,” though.
Oooh, why are you so ANGRY, Jason? You sound so hate-filled! And judging from your website, you’re really obsessing on PZ and Panda’s Thumb. What’s up, some mean liberal female boss? No girlfriend? Got laid off? Can’t lose weight? You can share with us, please!
Selected lies from responses:
particularly when so many of them were vehement about this whole separation of church and state.
No, actually, they weren’t. “This whole separation of church and state” thing originated in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. If “so many of them” wanted this so-called “separation of church and state,” then why did it take until 1947 for that concept to become a part of law. And why did it only become a part of law via a court decision? Laws in this country are passed by legislatures, not courts.
America is much closer to becoming a theocracy now than it ever was, what with these million dollar megachurches throwing their weight behind candidates and shoving the public discourse around.
Oh, please… This is mindless conspiracy drivel with no basis in fact and reality.
Poor widdle baby Jason. Rough day today? Go cuddle up with Rush or Ann. I’ll bet you feel better.
How… immature. Anyway, it seems PZ is the one having the rough day. And I actually don’t ever listen to Rush and quite infrequently read Ann Coulter’s column. But you just keep swallowing what PZ, DU, Barry Lynn or whatever left-wing pinhead you get your marching orders from feeds you, m’kay?
Yeah, that’s the ticket. Hell, if you keep saying it, it might even become true!
Ironic. That’s what runs through my mind whenever some boob like you or PZ caterwauls about “THEOCRACY!!! THEOCRACY!!! THEY’RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY, HA HA!!! THEY’RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY, HO HO HEE HEE!!!”
When did those “sayings” acquire recoginzed legal force? I must have missed the memo.
Just as I missed the memo that this book PZ received acquired recognized legal force. And the memo that anything the people featured within wrote or said acquired recognized legal force, too.
But that theocracy’s a-comin’! No doubt about it! Chicken Little Myers said so!
Seriously, Jason, who gives a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers believed?
You do, but only when it suits your purposes. When it doesn’t, then you just flippantly and dishonestly say, “Who gives a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers believed?”
I see that you’re showing us what a good Christian you are, again.
Care to show me how I’m not being “a good Christian?”
Well, I for one don’t think God will bless America until America bans flash tornados. If you order a copy of that book and replace every instance of perceived social ill in its glossy pages with the word “flash tornado”, I think the book would have some value.
Come on, now. You can’t go confusing guys like Jason with things like “facts” and “objective reality”.
When those things actually appear in your posts, let me know, okay? Until then, try to give your “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” theories a rest.
Remind me again… what was the demographic that made up the bulk of the Republican party? Think about that for a while… I’m sure it will come to you eventually.
Right… see, we have this thing we like to call The Constitution. It was written by The Founding Fathers. It is the job of those courts to make sure that the laws passed by the legislature are in accordance with The Constitution. That’s why (1) the courts made that descision and (2) I can say that the founding fathers were so in favor of this separation of church and state thing.
I’m glad I could clear that up for you.
Jason, Jason Jason. You still sound so angry. I do worry about you.
What’s the matter? You seem so UPSET by PZ and Panda’s Thumb and all those terrible liberals. Are they ruining your life? Keeping you from getting laid? Stuck in that deadend job at Initrode? Or just frustrated that there are all these awful people, homos, probably, who just refuse to agree with you, no matter how aggressive you get? Isn’t being all full of Jesus supposed to make you happier than this? Why so hysterical and hate-filled? We’re here to help. Please, share with us. We hate to see you spending your life feeling like this.
Except for the postage.
Which was anticipated and figured into the cost per book, genius. Check out the bottom line (literally!):
http://www.gcciusa.org/English/ARTG/pdf/ProjectProposal.pdf
“Cost includes production, printing, handling, postage, mailing list purchasing etc.”
See that? POSTAGE. Thanks for showing your ignorance.
And that’s copies they can’t give to people like you, who might help them.
So you enjoy playing the vigilante censor – something you would wholeheartedly condemn if a conservative were doing it.
Ooh! Alliteration, just like William Safire! Shows us you went to college!
Just holding up a mirror so you can see those pointing fingers of yours pointing back at yourselves.
If it’s so ineffectual, then why are you still so upset, Jason?
Upset? Nah. Amused by your displays of impotence and ignorance while you fumble about in your bigotry and intolerance? Hell, yeah!
We have your permission? Thanks!
I knew you’d have no problem with it. Censoring (vigilante or otherwise) is another one of those things that liberals say they hate except when they themselves do it.
Oooh, why are you so ANGRY, Jason? You sound so hate-filled!
Alliteration. I guess you went to college, too, eh?
And judging from your website, you’re really obsessing on PZ and Panda’s Thumb.
Yeah, 3 posts about PZ on the main page with 1 actually agreeing with him. Oooh, I’m really obsessing!
What’s up, some mean liberal female boss? No girlfriend? Got laid off? Can’t lose weight? You can share with us, please!
I just enjoy smacking the living daylights (figuratively speaking, of course) out of buffoons like yourself and PZ who have the intellectual level of spoiled children.
I just enjoy smacking the living daylights (figuratively speaking, of course) out of buffoons like yourself and PZ who have the intellectual level of spoiled children.
Now, Jason, I don’t understand, that’s not a very Christian sentiment! So hate filled. You mustn’t attack liberals for failings you yourself have.
Now, it seems to me that you’re, what, one of those heavy duty Evangelical types, who are doing God’s work, right? Now you claim you guys don’t want a theocracy, right, but really, all you’ve done to disprove this, or, really, to disprove anything here is just to ridicule people. Now, since us wicked liberals DO think you guys want a theocracy, and you claim it’s not true, why don’t you give us an reasoned argument as to why you don’t want one? Why a theocracy would be a bad idea? Since God wants you to convert all the evil ‘spoiled’ liberal atheists to good, conservative Christians, incidentally just like YOU are, wouldn’t that be a more effective way to make converts? And won’t God look more kindly on you if you don’t just act all ANGRY and ABUSIVE? You know, you’ll never make converts that way.
Please. We’re all ears. Just quit being so angry all the time. God doesn’t like a hater.
Remind me again… what was the demographic that made up the bulk of the Republican party? Think about that for a while… I’m sure it will come to you eventually.
And what demographic makes up the bulk of the Democratic party? Atheists and agnostics? No… Muslims? No… Buddhists? No… Oh, that’s right. It’s Christians! Imagine that…
Right… see, we have this thing we like to call The Constitution. It was written by The Founding Fathers. It is the job of those courts to make sure that the laws passed by the legislature are in accordance with The Constitution. That’s why (1) the courts made that descision and (2) I can say that the founding fathers were so in favor of this separation of church and state thing.
The “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the Constitution. Nothing even like it is found there. No “wall.” No mention of said “wall” being “high and impregnable.” Nothing.
And it’s odd how people who supposedly were so much in favor of this “wall” had no problem with – among many other things – opening legislative sessions with prayer, holding worship services in government buildings and authorizing the printing of Bibles by congressional order.
The “separation of church and state” is found nowhere in the Constitution. Nothing even like it is found there. No “wall.” No mention of said “wall” being “high and impregnable.” Nothing.
Now, see, Jason, when you say out of one corner of your mouth that of course Christians don’t want a theocracy, and out of the other that there’s no separation of church and state, that’s one of those things that makes us liberals think you’re not sincere. I mean, if you didn’t want a theocracy, would you aggressively tell us there’s nothing in the constitution against it? It’s that kind of thing that keeps you coming here, making no converts, getting laughed at, and getting yourself all angry. Not good.
Now, I have a good feeling about you, Jason, and I know you’re not hypocritical. So why don’t you tell us all about your support for a secular state. ‘Cause, that is, like, how you feel about it, right?
Now, Jason, I don’t understand, that’s not a very Christian sentiment!
According to whom? I’ll admit that my vernacular certainly isn’t biblical. It’s more modern, but I’d like to see you actually show me how I’ve not been Christian.
So hate filled.
I assure you that I am not motivated by hate. I gave that up when I gave up being a liberal.
You mustn’t attack liberals for failings you yourself have.
Again, according to whom? And why is it okay for you to attack me and those like me for failings that you yourselves have? Is that just another one-way street for liberals?
Now, it seems to me that you’re, what, one of those heavy duty Evangelical types, who are doing God’s work, right? Now you claim you guys don’t want a theocracy, right, but really, all you’ve done to disprove this, or, really, to disprove anything here is just to ridicule people.
I’ve done more than that, but even if I didn’t, at least I still would’ve done more to disprove the idea than you have done to prove it.
Now, since us wicked liberals DO think you guys want a theocracy, and you claim it’s not true, why don’t you give us an reasoned argument as to why you don’t want one?
A ***human-led*** theocracy is not a good idea. Ever. I and almost all of those who you think want a theocracy don’t want any such thing. President Bush is not our “high priest.” The only theocracy we want and look forward to is the TRUE theocracy led by God and God alone. This theocracy will not come about in this age by any human means and anyone who tries to establish it before its time is a charlatan and a fool.
Why a theocracy would be a bad idea? Since God wants you to convert all the evil ‘spoiled’ liberal atheists to good, conservative Christians, incidentally just like YOU are, wouldn’t that be a more effective way to make converts?
No. If you knew ANYTHING about what Christians are taught by Jesus, you’d know that forcing people to covert is not what He wants us to do. Matthew 10:14 – “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.”
And won’t God look more kindly on you if you don’t just act all ANGRY and ABUSIVE? You know, you’ll never make converts that way.
Please. We’re all ears. Just quit being so angry all the time.
As I said, I’m not motivated by hate or anger towards you. Continually saying that I am will not make it so.
God doesn’t like a hater.
Depends on what’s being hated. Does God like people who hate sin? Yep. Does God like people who hate lies (esp. lies about Him)? Certainly.
Now, Jason, while I’m very glad to hear you’re apparently not angry, like all us liberals, I can’t help but feel that your, well, I don’t know, exceedingly snide and, oh, wrathful tone here, is kind of making a mockery of your own words:
“I admit that I often can be impulsive, cynical and sarcastic, but these are not borne out of hatred. I’m trying to soften my personality through prayer, practice and thinking about things more before I say or write them.”
Now, Jason, lots of people are going to assume that this ‘impulsive, cynical and sarcastic’ routine constitutes being angry and, well, hate-filled. Since you’ve figured out with such certainty everything God wants, it seems to me you’d be in an ideal position to present your ideas better. I mean, how are us liberals ever going to become more like you?
Something tells me Jason is in dire need of a good blow job.
Now, see, Jason, when you say out of one corner of your mouth that of course Christians don’t want a theocracy, and out of the other that there’s no separation of church and state, that’s one of those things that makes us liberals think you’re not sincere. I mean, if you didn’t want a theocracy, would you aggressively tell us there’s nothing in the constitution against it?
Nice twisting and lying, George. No, I never said that there was nothing in the Constitution against a theocracy. I said that the so-called “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution in and of itself IS what prevents this country from becoming a theocracy. The Constitution created a system of government that is known as a representative republic where we elect senators and representatives to the two congressional houses in order to enact legislation without continually having the entire population vote on each bill that comes up. It also created three branches of the government – executive, legislative and judicial – that act as checks and balances for each other. In order for someone to enact a theocracy, the Constitution would have to be completely and utterly trashed.
I have seen Wang, speaking at a Mission’s conference, years ago. He didn’t impress me then, and I was on his side. Now… Yikes!
From his page, “Ambush Alert”, page 3:
“4. Today’s Society
Today’s most dreadful decease” (sic) “is not AIDS but atheism—-the destruction of both body and soul.”
http://www.gcciusa.org/English/ARTG/pdf/AmbushAlert.pdf
What’s odd is that you can’t understand two very simple things:
1) The wall exists so that our government doesn’t establish a religion, or make policy based off of a particular religion, since that would undermine the whole freedom of religion thing, too. Alright, so that isn’t in the Constitution, it’s in the Bill of Rights, but that’s the motivation. I suppose next, you’ll be telling me that we shouldn’t have these laws against insider trading, since that isn’t explicitly spelled out in the Constitution either.
2) There’s a difference between having a prayer meeting, and legislating based off Duteronomy. They had no problem with having a religion of their own, they had a problem with enacting policy based off of that religion.
Ahh, so Christians make up the bulk of both parties (and here I was being generous and only forcing you to concede that they control one party). What was that you were saying about the idea that churches threw their political clout around? That it wasn’t based in reality? Tee-hee.
Now, Jason, lots of people are going to assume that this ‘impulsive, cynical and sarcastic’ routine constitutes being angry and, well, hate-filled.
“Lots of people” will also see that it’s not borne of anger and hate. “Lots of people” will actually read beyond the words themselves and see no anger or hate. See, I don’t say or write things like “Bleed the bastards dry!”
Since you’ve figured out with such certainty everything God wants,
I don’t do that either – making up lies out of whole cloth about people as a cheap, intellectually dishonest and childish way to have talking points.
it seems to me you’d be in an ideal position to present your ideas better. I mean, how are us liberals ever going to become more like you?
You won’t if you don’t face up to your lies, mistakes, hate and ignorance. Here’s a start: admit you were wrong about “bleeding the bastards dry” through postage costs. It’s such a small thing to admit, but it might instigate a landslide.
Jason said: …and authorizing the printing of Bibles by congressional order.
I’m not sure, because you’re not giving citations, but I think that might be the Continental Congress you’re talking about. And I think they didn’t have enough paper, so they authorized the importation of Bibles from other countries. And…
Despite the affirmative vote, the margin of one vote led Congress to table the matter, and no final action was taken.
I’m not saying they didn’t like Bibles or whatever, because I don’t know, but I thought you might like getting some of your facts straight. Cheers!
The wall exists so that our government doesn’t establish a religion, or make policy based off of a particular religion, since that would undermine the whole freedom of religion thing, too. Alright, so that isn’t in the Constitution, it’s in the Bill of Rights, but that’s the motivation.
Why did you need a 1947 judicial ruling establishing this “wall” when the Constitution already had an amendment preventing the establishment of religion? The fact is that the 1947 ruling was made in order to trump the First Amendment and create a false dichotomy that goes well beyond the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
There’s a difference between having a prayer meeting, and legislating based off Duteronomy.
Yes, there is, and no one of any consequence is favoring the latter. (There’s those nuts who want to force South Carolina or whatever to secede and create a theocracy there, but that’s as likely to happen as it is for PZ here to say something nice about Christians.)
They had no problem with having a religion of their own, they had a problem with enacting policy based off of that religion.
Seems to me that authorizing the printing of Bibles would be enacting policy based on their religion…
Of course, since this 1947 ruling, there’d be no way that many of the things the Founding Fathers and other early American lawmakers did would be allowed. Imagine what would happen if a future president would open up the Treasury Building to Christian worship services as Jefferson did.
Ahh, so Christians make up the bulk of both parties (and here I was being generous and only forcing you to concede that they control one party). What was that you were saying about the idea that churches threw their political clout around? That it wasn’t based in reality?
Nice save attempt. Nothing that either of us has posted about what religion makes up the majority of the populace proves anything about mega-churches having any political clout. In fact, these mega-churches are under far more scrutiny than dinky little country churches when it comes to politics since they are televised nationwide. Pastor Bob of the 50-member Brickabrak Church in Yahoo County, USA, might get away with telling his congregation who to vote for, but someone like D. James Kennedy or that guy who has his congregation do that Bible oath before each sermon wouldn’t.
I admit we won’t bleed the bastards dry through postage costs (unless, I suppose, we ordered many thousand copies to remote places around the world). Now, do you or do you not support a secular state?
Goodness, Jason, so *are* you actually “praying, practicing, and thinking” about things? Is this the ‘softened’ form of your personality? If so, I’d hate to see what the unaltered ‘hard’ form is like. Either that, or the prayer just isn’t working? Either way, I can’t see what the big deal is about this whole Christianity thing you seem to be so fond of, Jason. I just can’t see tangible results here. But thank goodness you’re not angry, huh?
Now, do you or do you not support a secular state?
I support our secular form of government, yes. To be honest, though, I would support any form of government that does not supercede God’s commands – in other words, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
What I do not support is this absurd idea of divorcing anything remotely religious from society (which is really what people mean when they talk about the “separation of church and state”) and hiding behind the “You’re establishing a religion/theocracy!” line. Our secular form of government allows people of any and all religions (or lack thereof) to petition the government to enact laws that they think are right according to their beliefs, but it does not allow people to force other people to follow their religion (which would be the goal of a theocracy).
The wall has to be there to prevent the establishment of religion, and that’s why the court ruled that way. I can’t make it any more plain than that.
The majority of Americans are Christians, but churches do not have political clout, and Mega-churches in particular, which set up large broadcasts and have large amounts of money at their disposal for spreading a political message and funding religious policy centers also do not have political clout, or seek to gain it. That makes perfect sense to me now! This is not a pipe.
But, hey, just so that we know you aren’t some kind of shithead troll, why don’t you voice your support for a secular state?
Goodness, Jason, so *are* you actually “praying, practicing, and thinking” about things? Is this the ‘softened’ form of your personality? If so, I’d hate to see what the unaltered ‘hard’ form is like. Either that, or the prayer just isn’t working? Either way, I can’t see what the big deal is about this whole Christianity thing you seem to be so fond of, Jason. I just can’t see tangible results here. But thank goodness you’re not angry, huh?
You didn’t know me when I was an atheist, George. You wouldn’t have liked me then. Well, actually, maybe you would’ve liked me, because I was a lot like PZ. My point is that when I was an atheist, I really was motivated by anger and hate and you would’ve clearly seen it. You wouldn’t have had to play the silly games you’re playing now to try to concoct anger and hate where there is none.
Well, I’m sure that that is what actually runs through your mind. We all know how meaningful that is, though, given your rather “free-form”, to put it diplomatically, relationship with reality.
It seems that you learned your mad argumentative “skillz” at the elementary school playground. Do you really think that we can’t recognize these “I know you are, but what am I” rhetorical tactics of yours for what they are?
Sure, because we’re the mindless sycophants here, not you, right?
I challenge you to find a comment transmitted in any medium stored anywhere on this or any other planet in which I clamed to give a flying fuck what the Founding Fathers believed on any subject, or to admit that you’re a self-serving liar.
Failure to perform one of these two actions will result in the total revocation of whatever tiny shreds remain of your credibility.
What, you think that being a baselessly self-righteous, willfully ignorant, shamelessly dishonest, cluelessly hypocritical, unapologetically judgemental little asshat is a Christian virtue? You think that’s what God called you to do here? Care to support that with a Bible quote or two?
The fact that you truly, honestly believe that you’ve ever done anything, here or (I can only imagine) elsewhere, but insult your intellectual betters and gleefully lie about absolutely everything in existence (or even worse, credulously repeat lies that other people far more intelligent than you have told you) makes you a feckless jackass. The fact that you expect us to take you seriously in spite of that would be specacularly hilarious if it weren’t so fucking pathetic.
“It seems to me you’d be in an ideal position to present your ideas better. I mean, how are us liberals ever going to become more like you?”
You won’t if you don’t face up to your lies, mistakes, hate and ignorance. Here’s a start: admit you were wrong about “bleeding the bastards dry” through postage costs. It’s such a small thing to admit, but it might instigate a landslide.
Good, good, you’re finally giving me tangible advice — that’s what we need. But it’s not really enough. For example, I’ve been a liberal Democrat for 25+ years, pretty much all my adult life. Do I need to change that, too? Does god accept liberals, Jason? Or do I pretty much have to follow the whole Baptist Republican package?
You didn’t know me when I was an atheist, George. You wouldn’t have liked me then. Well, actually, maybe you would’ve liked me, because I was a lot like PZ. My point is that when I was an atheist, I really was motivated by anger and hate and you would’ve clearly seen it. You wouldn’t have had to play the silly games you’re playing now to try to concoct anger and hate where there is none.
Hmm. So is the prayer working, Jason? Or are you not trying all that hard? You still seem awfully cynical and sarcastic. And was your awful personality caused by being an atheist, or was your atheism caused by you being an awful person? Which direction did the cause and effect go? And did you become a much more wonderful person merely by becoming a Baptist? I mean, is it possible for me to become as good a person as you without the actual Christianity thing, or is the whole package necessary?
The wall has to be there to prevent the establishment of religion
The First Amendment was already there. The “wall” from the 1947 ruling went beyond what the Founders intended the First Amendment to entail.
The majority of Americans are Christians, but churches do not have political clout, and Mega-churches in particular, which set up large broadcasts and have large amounts of money at their disposal for spreading a political message and funding religious policy centers also do not have political clout, or seek to gain it.
Pastors and churches are prevented by law from endorsing a political candidate or party. Now, they all can certainly deal with issues which have – at least in part – a political nature, of course. Pastors can speak out about crime, abortion, homosexuality, the “separation of church and state,” etc. They can even speak about historical political issues: the government, the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, etc.
But as far as having influence with politicians, that is something that everyone has the right to do. Certainly by their notoriety, they individually will have more influence than, say, you or I, but I don’t see this influence being more pervasive on one side or the other. The right has Dobson and Graham, but the left has Sharpton and Jackson.
Alright, I guess I can see why you’re having so much trouble with that simple of a concept. I mean, you seem to live in a world where you can have a state that’s secular and religious at the same time, where enacting policy based on religious beliefs doesn’t interefere with the freedom of religion, where droves of people adhere to churches, but those churches are simultaneously berift of political power, and where you are trying your dearest not to be an obnoxious pissant, but manage to do that anyway. You have moved beyond such novel concepts as “consistency” and “reason”, and I’m sure Constitutional Law falls into one or both of those.
This is great stuff. Jason, I couldn’t help but notice the redundancy in your Bloger profile, where you list seven interests:
Christianity
the Bible
apologetics
politics
music (most kinds)
science fiction
fantasy
Claiming the first two negates the need for including the last two.
That aside, I’m always curious when I encounter someone who is plainly in possession of a reasonably facile intellect who nonetheless subscribes to ideas that are nothing short of insane. To wit:
“I would support any form of government that does not supercede God’s commands…
Share with me how you have come to believe not only that the wrathful and petty Judeo-Christian deity of your understanding exists, but that you are tuned in to its wants and needs for humanity. Were you brainwashed as a very young and defenseless child, or did you reach out to religion for relief following some titanically guilt-inducing event later on? The reason I ask is because not once have I met someone of sound mind who was raised in a god-free environment, criticaly and skeptically examined all of the available data from both church propagandists and scientists, and concluded on the basis of this scholarly undertaking that the apocalyptic and supernatural events in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy offer the best explanation for how humanity arose and thrived on Earth.
As eager as you are to note how stupid PZ and other liberals are (you can’t seem to go more than a handful of sentences on your blahg without saying as much), you can surely buttress your claims regarding your god with objective evidence available to the rest of us. So have at it.
Consider this a quibble if you like.
You wrote, “Why did you need a 1947 judicial ruling establishing this “wall” when the Constitution already had an amendment preventing the establishment of religion? The fact is that the 1947 ruling was made in order to trump the First Amendment and create a false dichotomy that goes well beyond the intentions of the Founding Fathers.”
It would be one thing to claim that the supreme court case in 1947 was wrongly decided– that the justices who issued the ruling misinterpreted the language of the first amendment, perhaps (incidentally) in accord with their own personal beliefs. But the claim above goes well beyond that: you assert that the purpose of the ruling was not, as is normally the case, to interpret the constitution, but deliberately to revise it. That’s a very weighty claim. What evidence, then, do you have, that those sitting justices were deliberately attempting to enshrine a secularist hegemony, rather than just ruling one way and getting it wrong? Fair enough if you have evidence, but in the absence of such I’d tend to conclude that there’s a opposite-wing conspiracy theory lurking in your worldview, too.
In a similar vein, you write, “The “wall” from the 1947 ruling went beyond what the Founders intended the First Amendment to entail.”
I guess I wonder, what, pray tell, did they intend the First Amendment to entail? The precise clause in the first amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” An awful lot, it seems, depends on how widely you intepret the word ‘establishment’ in that clause. The relevant ruling (to which you have adverted several times) proceeds as follows:
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion [and so on] … In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State’.” Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing Tp
I’m open to suggestions as to how one might differ from the above, but it seems quite clear to me that (1) it’s not transparent just what the establishment clause is supposed to mean in actual cases, (2) Jefferson’s letter, containing as it does specific reference to the amendment and a description of its intent, seems like a reasonable authority to go on, prima facie and therefore (3) the presiding justices were, ostensibly, deciding in good faith. If there is some other document or set of documents that supercedes Jefferson’s writing and gives the real, authoritative intent of the first amendment, again, I’ll gladly consider the evidence. But your aforementioned statement that the supreme court deliberately intended to “trump” the constitution and “create” a false dichotomy seems highly dubious, and distinctive of right’s favorite bogeyman-myth, of the liberal activist judges.
I hate seeing myths perpetuated for their own sake, though, so I would, again, welcome all the evidence you’ve got.
As I understand it, from England.
The US constitution SEPARATES church & state.
No objection to xtianity (or any other rligion, or lack of it)
BUT – no official one-version-only state religion.
This is NOT anti-religion.
Here, we do it differently.
We have an “official” church.
But, it isn’t compulsory.
We have known atheists as Crown ministers and MP’s.
And muslims and jews.
We may even have a couple of bhuddists somewhere ….
If peole like “jason” really think that the US is not heading towards theocracy/Gilead, perhaps he should get out more.
It certainly looks scary from here …..
Steady on now pharyngula: bleed the ‘bastards’ dry? After all, along with Ammonites, Moabites, eunuchs and those who have had their members crushed, we bastards cannot be allowed into an association of the Lord, even to the number of a generation which I quite forget. Christians can help it, bastards can’t and are natural atheist allies.
I think I sort of understand what Jason is trying to say.
He thinks that the only true Theocracy is one led by God, and therefore will be blooming obvious, what with a deity bossing people about in the open.
Therefore, any such “Theocracy” that PZ et al are worried about, wont be a real Theocracy, therefore nobody is actually trying to produce a real theocracy nowadays, since a proper god led one is not scheduled for just now.
Of course this misses the point completely.
The wall has to be there to prevent the establishment of religion, and that’s why the court ruled that way. I can’t make it any more plain than that.
Or, as Supreme Court Justice Jackson said very nicely in his opinion in Everson v. Board Of Education, 1947:
Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting opinion, Everson v. Board Of Education, 1947.
-Jason
-Jason
(Note: I’m considering the above quotes together because there is a conceptual continuity to them; I’m perfectly aware that they aren’t in chronological order). Specific examples, please? Around the time of the country’s founding, regular Church attendance was about 10% of the population. Deism was common and socially accepted. “Great Awekenings,” or sudden surges in popular religiosity were rare and noteworthy; the three commonly accepted in history are in the 1730s-1740s, the 1820s-1830s, and the 1880s-1900s. Note the conspicuous lack of revolutionary or “200 years ago” in those periods. The phrase “wall of separation between church and state” was not a concept that originated with Jefferson. The wording did, but the concept did not: it was a paraphrasing of the 1st amendment’s establishment clause, which is indeed in the constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli, whose English version was ratified UNANIMOUSLY by the United States legislature without debate or comment, reads, in the 11th article, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
-Jason
Indeed; PZ should be ashamed of himself, the worthless, god-hating sinner, for not responding to differing religious opinions in the Biblically approved fashion: storming their homes, raping their daughters, and slaughtering the rest of their families, relatives, neighbors, and pets (see Deuteronomy, Joshua, and probably others; I can produce specific verses if the nitpickers demand them). What is morality coming to in this country?!
In all seriousness, the fact that progressives are choosing to use this organization’s attempt to hawk its to the gullible and paranoid against it, rather than employing violence, intimidation, or attempting to prohibit them from publishing, is laudable.
Right, like they aren’t going to do a second printing if they think they’re selling out of these. They believe (or rationalize) that they’re commanded by God to spread his word to the utmost of their ability. Unless, of course, you agree with a straightforward, non-retrodictive interpretation of Jesus’ moral advice as depicted in the gospels that these self-righteous would-be priest-kings have more in common with the people Jesus threw out of the temple, and the people who crucified him, rather than actually following his teachings…
Now, I AM concerned that this scheme may simply result in them fleecing gullible believers out of yet more money that should be going to pay for said believers’ children’s college educations or such, in order to finance a second printing. While anyone foolish enough to throw money at these social vampires arguably deserves what they get, their children should not have to suffer for the stupidity of their parents. Hence, I’m not convinced this is a good idea…
-Jason
See above. Also note that this isn’t “vigilante censorship.”
-Jason
I suppose you think that’s terribly clever. You sound like a constipated sixth-grader with an ego problem, FFS.
-Jason
See above.
Am I to understand from this that you don’t believe that the facts he describes are logically connected with a trend toward theocracy?
Am I to understand from this that you don’t believe that the dramatically increasing political power of wealthy, aggressively evangelistic megachurches with a stated aim of bringing the US law in accord with ‘God’s Law’ is logically connected to “A political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)” and “The belief in government by divine guidance?”
….
Stand in front of a mirror. If you can read the above with a straight face on your first try, come back and resume arguing.
-Jason
There is merit in that charge, or would be coming from someone who hadn’t been shooting his mouth off the way you have since this conversation started. Kettle looks black today.
-Jason
Interesting fallacy hybrid. So this would be what, an “Ad Herringnem” attack? So much for immutable kinds…
-Jason
I take it we haven’t read our Niemoller, have we…
Please take a good, unbiased, objective look at the track record of religious governments and tell me that these concerns are unfounded, if you can.
No one claimed that the sayings of the founding fathers acquired legal force, though Jason appears to be conflating his spurious allegations about their personal beliefs with their intentions for the government. However, no one claimed anything said here acquired legal force, period. And even if they had, it would be irrelevant to the main point of this debate. With all the red herrings you’re throwing around, Jason, all you need is a few dozen loaves and you can feed a multitude without miracles. Give me a break.
-Jason
Strange how despite all the ridicule you heap on him and his associates you have yet to make any points of substance against any statements he has actually made or positions he has actually taken.
-Jason
As disconcerting a fact as this is, the troll, for once, has a point. As stated, anyway; I imagine what the person quoted without attribution (notice how good I’ve been about that here?) was was trying to articulate was that A) the personal opinions of the founding fathers should not be conflated with their intentions for the fledgling American government, and B) that the fact that they are founding fathers does not automatically make them correct. Admittedly, these same criticisms could be leveled against some arguments that have been made on the progressive side of this debate, here and elsewhere, and this is a tendency that should be curbed.
As for you criticizing him for being flippant, again, see Matthew 7:3-6 below.
If you insist…
Proverbs 16:18 “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
Matthew 6:5 “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.”
Matthew 7:1-6 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. / For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. / And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? / Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? / Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. / Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”
Consider yourself “rended.” More in a minute.
This is a pretty immature thread, so I’m not sure why I’m bothering, but…
Jason:
I agree with a few of your points. Yeah, these guys would be losing their minds if one of the right-wing bandwagon blogs urged people to “bleed the bastards dry” by ordering hundreds of copies of some science publication or something. I also agree that there’s a lot of shrillness on display.
But you’re totally wrong about the motivation. It’s not hate. It’s fear.
When we look at religion, what we see is a lynch mob.
Yes, there are calm and relatively rational religious folk. I know a few, and they don’t bother me at all. But that’s not what I see when I look around at the world as a whole. What I see is seething fundamentalist hate: the Danish cartoon riots, 9/11, the Bushies beating the war drum, the Iranian president and Bush both talking about God and nuclear weapons, the martial fundamentalism of the South and it’s crusade against any kind of cultural novelty, etc… The last six years or so have seen a stunning global orgy of mindless fundamentalist hate.
It’s scary because there are so many of them. Billions and billions of them.
Think about how you’d feel if there were billions and billions of copies of PZ Myers and some of the posters to this thread running around instead of the… oh… maybe .5% of the population that they actually make up. Imagine that you, as a Christian, are part of a 1% minority. 99% of the population thinks you are wrong, and a good 5% or so of that 99% would like you imprisoned or dead.
I also suspect you’re wrong about your own motivations as an atheist. When you’re an atheist, this makes you part of a tiny hated minority. Tiny hated minorities are fearful, and fear breeds hate. So you had a lot of hate… that suddenly vanished when you left your tiny minority and joined the dominant group. Imagine that.
I suspect that if there were billions and billions of PZ Myerses running around you’d jump back over the fence and become an atheist again. You’d feel at peace again, I suspect. It feels good to be part of the big club, doesn’t it?
Tell me… would you have been a Christian in Pagan Rome? Would you have felt at peace, or would you have been full of fear and hate? If you believed yourself to be right, would you have stuck with it despite the negative emotions and marginalization you had to endure?
I don’t make a huge deal about being an atheist because it doesn’t say much about what you *do* believe, only about what you don’t. Being part of a 1% minority isn’t pleasant, but I stick with it. I stick with it because I’ve never been a joiner. The truth has always been more important to me than feeling safe, secure, or belonging. I know I’d feel safer and perhaps more at peace with religion, but I just can’t get over the fact that it’s irrational and that there are better alternatives.
I also get a lot of value out of the truth. There are things that I am thinking and doing now that I could not think or do if I held flawed premesis or irrational beliefs about the nature of reality. The truth is powerful because when you have it and you act on it, things work. When you act on myths, fables, or lies, things do not work.
If all you want to do is to wait for God to bring about some mystical kingdom, that’s fine. You can sit around and wait for the flying saucers to come all you want as long as you stay out of my way while doing so. But when I look around I get the distinct feeling that a large number of your brethren are not so tolerant or moderate or willing to wait. I also get the distinct impression that their leaders are not willing to wait for the kingdom either. They want their power now, regardless of whether it comes from God. I suspect that many of them are in on the old secret of priestcraft: that the priests are God and that the kingdom means their rule.
-Jason
That’s it. Jason, this corner. George, that corner. Think about what you’ve done. And no dessert for either of you!
-Jason
See my comments under “Second printing” and the biblical verses above.
-Jason
I think conservatives have frankly used up their “right to complain” coupons in perpetuity, but I suppose the troll has a point here. Perhaps a better statement of motivation for our efforts would be “keep them flushing their money (literally, in the case of people buying these for toilet paper) on these rather than spending it on something more dangerous,” though I don’t know that this could reasonable be expected to work.
However, the implicit analogy between this and legally prohibiting works from being printed and disseminated (or ripping them off store shelves and burning them) is dishonest and inaccurate.
-Jason
I doubt very much that he went to college; he sounds like the kids who used to try to pick arguments with me in 8th grade Algebra.
-Jason
-Jason
See Matthew 7:3-5 above.
Fortunate that somebody has.
-Jason
Translation: you enjoy goading people you can’t compete with in an honest or serious manner until they lose patience with your Evil Clownery. See “8th grade algebra” above, and Matthew 7:3-5 in my previous post..
-Jason
True. And irrelevant. Blazingly, self-evidently irrelevant to a single argument anyone has made. You’re getting desperate, aren’t you…
-Jason
No. The phrasing used is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Article IV (I believe) also prohibits religious tests for public office.
Incidentally, the phrase “Holy Trinity” appears nowhere in the Bible. Neither does the word “rapture.” Yet the concepts these phrases are used to describe do, and it would take a fool or a liar to claim that the lack of those specific wordings proves the concepts they refer to are against (or unconnected with) Christian doctrine.
-Jason
References, please? The only one of those I remember being of any relevance to the founding fathers is the first, which was a suggestion of Deist Benjamin Franklin to break a deadlock in one of the constitutional convention meetings and which was greeted unenthusiastically.
-Jason
Done.
-Jason
-Jason
Make up your mind (see also above).
-Jason
Fair enough, though I don’t think that’s less than a blatant twisting of what anyone here has actually argued.
Yes, you’ve done more than that. You’ve also made a moderate ass of yourself, had fun goading people you can’t match in an intellectual fair fight, and put the average middle school class-clown/bully to shame.
-Jason
Then what’s with all the “return to God,” “get God back in government,” and “there’s no wall of separation” crap from the wingnuts?
-Jason
You’ve been saying all along that you don’t want a theocracy, without this qualifier. Make up your mind.
Finally, something we agree on. So why aren’t you standing with us against these charlatans and fools?
Although…aren’t you risking hellfire with that bit?
-Jason
Says the boy who’s amusing himself pointing out motes real and imagined in other commenters’ eyes. Do you get your bible quotes from a “quote of the day” calendar or something?
-Jason
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks endlessly about supposed liberal bias/paranoia/censorship like a duck…
-Jason
Yes, you tend to be more flippant than determined, yet expect to be taken seriously. You are consummately smug, arrogant, and patronizing, yet you complain when people respond in kind. You’re a cowardly bully no matter how slick you try to make yourself, kiddo.
-Jason
I think that board in your eye just became a log. For your ideology in general, a redwood tree (keep in mind you’ve willingly thrown your lot in with the same people responsible for the Swift Boat Vets).
And yes, you have done that, as quotes I’m not going to waste space reposting unless you push the matter show.
-Jason
We won’t if we do, you mean. Where mistakes have been made I’ve done my best to elucidate them. Where you’ve made mistakes you’ve essentially responded with “I know you are, but what am I?” And you’ve been an obnoxious little prick in every sense of the word. Not that some people haven’t responded to you in kind, granted…
-Jason
Provide a reference to this ruling. The only court rulings relating to the separation of church and state I’m familiar with have served to clarify and reaffirm it, rather than creating it.
The people we’re arguing against are much closer to the latter than the former, including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and their ilk. Would you argue that they aren’t of any consequence?
Depends on the purpose, but if it really happened the way you say, it was unconstitutional and it’s unfortunate that no one called them on it. So what?
-Jason
Somehow I doubt you’re telling the whole story, or even more than vague truth. Jefferson was hardly supportive of Christianity, and otherwise the same thing I said above applies.
Surely someone who has less of a rock to roll uphill can provide specific references to examples of these leaders endorsing Bush and the Republican Party.
-Jason
That sounds like the position of most liberal theists, and flies in the face of most of the rest of what you’ve said. If that’s the case, then why are you arguing with us in the first place?
-Jason
See “duck” above. Speaking as an atheist, I find you deeply obnoxious on several levels, but anger and hate certainly aren’t my motives for responding at length to your claims…
-Jason
I thought the wall was from Jefferson. Again, make up your minds, FFS.
Return America to God?
I wasn’t aware we were still under warranty.
Meh. This place has descended into blithering nonsense (once again). Nothing new. I’ve got better things to do than endlessly respond to your closed-minded prattle and debunked skeptical canards (e.g. the Founding Fathers and almost everyone else in early America being deists). If you’re too dense to actually research what sites like Internet Infidels and the like are shovelling, there’s no point in me trying to do it for you.
Hmmm. Note that when Jason posts frequently into a thread, it descends “into blithering nonsense.” Interesting correlation, that. Reading through the thread, too, suggests that it is more than a correlation: participation by Jason is causal.
Go away now, Jason.
See, it’s not a ‘theocracy’ until they put a gun to your head and make you dress up like a little school girl and get a colonoscopy from a cross-dressing midget. Oh, and all this is forced by U.S. Congress, specifically. The President is still allowed to make executive order for this.
Until then, we are still living within intentions of founding fathers and the Constitution..
(note sarcasm)
While not exactly a collector of curses, I note them as they come along. I had thought the yiddish curses, well worn and occasionally subtle, were the best but this, PZ, is a beaut!
… may you stew in ineffectual ignorance until your dying day, and may you then pass on into oblivion blissfully, confident of an eternal award, unaware of the darkness before you. As you live with your eyes closed, you should end the same way.
The painting done in 300 AD(how do they know that?)of ancient African’s battling a T Rex.
It’s signed and dated by the artist. Right next to the “Printed in China” sticker.
. I’ve got better things to do than endlessly respond to your closed-minded prattle and debunked skeptical canards
oh yeah? by the amount of time you’ve spent here, it really doesn’t seem that way.
Apparently I missed the part of the Bible delineating democratic processes. Could someone give me a chapter and verse to give me a start?
“We praise the Lord that the book AMERICA, RETURN TO GOD has been published and has also mailed out to 450,000 leaders of America of all levels (federal, state and local) and all professions (political, educational, business, church, media etc.)”
I guess PZ sort of counts as an educational leader. And 450,000 copies (if true)? That’s insane, but I guess we knew that already.
I’d order one of these silly and dangerous items, but I don’t have an extra address to use …
Ah, the classic boilerplate response when wingnut trolls get backed into a corner with too many questions that they don’t want to answer: “I’VE POSTED 20 INSULTING POSTS HERE, BUT NOW I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN TALK TO A BUNCH OF IDIOTS LIKE YOU”. [Stomp off in huff here]
Pity, too — Jason never did tell me whether god lets liberals into heaven. How will we find out now? ;-)
This is when I hit the wonderful little link that my Greasemonkey script provides. I click it with a song in my heart, specifically “Birdhouse in Your Soul” by They Might Be Giants: After killing Jason off and countless screaming Argonauts. . . .
Actually, it takes very little time to spout unsupported assertions, compared to making a logical argument supported by evidence.
It would be of some interest to see someone try to construct such an argument in favor of the proposition that the founders of the USA were actually adherents of the peculiar complex of ignorance, belligerence and intolerance that goes by the modern name of “fundamentalism”, or were supporters of elevating the theology of one particular sect of one particular religion to the status of law, as our modern-day political preachers seem intent on doing.
I don’t think I’ll hold my breath in anticipation, though.
Jason: “Now go away, or we shall taunt you a second time! thhhhbbbptt!”
Blake: Does that mean PZ is the Blue Bird of Friendliness? He IS something of a beacon in the night…although perhaps that’s a poor analogy, as the beacon in question led people to their doom, and many wingnuts would be comfortable portraying PZ in that fashion. Fashion! Turn to the left!
Ahem. I’m better now. Anyway, thanks to all for really making my morning with this thread. I needed this excellent diversion and stimulation. Bonus points to Blake for using an excellent band to tweak that goon. Goon! We are the Goon Squad and we’re coming to town! Beep beep!
(uh-oh…Jason was right…they really ARE Coming to Take me Away…ha ha!)
Way more atheists than that, many sitting in pews a couple times a month.
What a waste of time this Jason is. He is involved in a belief that reduces humanity to robots that can only be controlled by threats of punishment and hopes of reward (which are both entirely fictious)and then gets upset when people capable of thought point it out to him. Anti-humanists like Jason really seem to struggle with the idea that humans themselves are capable of moral and ethical behviour without supernatural overtones. When your morality does not come from your head and heart but instead is “revealed” to you by others that cannot be questioned, then you are easily duped and controlled and your morality is false. Chriatianity is of no value to those that find morals in humanity and in empathy, it is only uselful for those deluded people that think they cannot control their “bad” thoughts without being threatened. They are sad people.
Dead on. I’ve long noticed that some of the worst, most intolerant and belligerent Christians are the ones who were ‘bad people’ earlier in their lives (criminals, drug addicts, violent, whatever) and who only crawled out of that condition by a rigid adherence to Christianity. They’re usually very literal minded, and they think that anyone who isn’t a Christian must be just as wicked a person as they were before they found Jesus. They can’t wrap their brains around the idea of people who maintain standards of morals and ethics without fear of a punitive God, nor do they realize their brand of religion makes no sense to anyone who’s never been a scumbag.
Also, these kind of ‘recovered lowlife’ type Christians are usually rigid rightwing Republicans. I think the thing is they can’t trust themselves to make the right choices, so they assume no one else can be trusted either, esp. not people who’ve never made the same religious & political choices they have.
All the best Christians I’ve known were people who grew up with it in a gentle, nondysfunctional way, and who don’t use it to prop up fragile self-esteem. People who found Jesus later in life as a way out of going down the drain are usually fairly hard to take.
Jason:
Our little Jason obviously never learned that the only common denominator in all of his failed relationships is him.
The comments on this thread have provided me with the most glorious boost I’ve had since getting off the happy pills, especially the references to “National Day of Slayer” (10,000 thanks, Todd!) and TMBG’s “Birdhouse in Your Soul.”
And I really must get that killfile. I hate having to scroll past ill-reasoned cranky-ass Jeebus-waving screeds to get to the funny stuff. (Thought the anti-IR-CA-JW rebuttals provide some damn fine comedy.)
So who else is now planning a National Day of Slayer party?
I noticed Jason’s blog gets very few comments–maybe we should all drop by for a spell.
I noticed Jason’s blog gets very few comments–maybe we should all drop by for a spell.
He’s a cranky, pompous rightwing Christian nobody. There’s about 3 million blogs just like it. He does not distinguish himself in any way.
-Jason
Judging by the quality of your attempts to debate us you should be right at home, then.
-Jason
You do realize that your attempt at saving face and ego by affecting walking off in a “dignified” manner, while secretly (you think) fleeing with your tail between your legs, is completely transparent, right?
Just checking. My points stand until you attempt to address any of them.
George-
Could I print and frame that post on belligerent and intolearant Christians? I’ve never read a more accurate assessment of the “reformed scumbag” religious nuts I’ve known through my life. All Christian, all Republican, all insufferable. Unfortunately, I haven’t yet replied with the appropriate snark when they (invariably) say, “If I hadn’t found Jesus, I’d be dead now.” Though I did once manage to say under my breath, “A shame, the world lost some good fertilizer.” If a person needs the fear of god to be a decent, moral, ethical person, then in truth they are none of those.
I wish I had as good a memory for facts as some of you people. Its damn hard to fight back consistently when all you remember is “Some person said some thing about some passage, which says something that contradicts you…” lol
But seriously, to add my two cents to this. The most effective solution imho to morons who want to give away thousands of copies of gibberish would be to give the delivery address as the local city dump and order about 10,000 of them. ;) I am sure the people making natural gas from the decay of old paper would find much greater use out of this junk than anyone else on the planet.
“People who found Jesus later in life as a way out of going down the drain are usually fairly hard to take.”
Hmmm… didn’t Dubya find god after Laura threatened to leave him over his drinking? Very interesting….
Lots of people need to visit this site:
http://www.theocracywatch.com
I’ve ordered a free ARTG for a ficticious neighbor, but GDBIA is $8 plus shipping – too much for scratchy toilet paper. It does occur to me that Jason is basically doing the same “bleed the bastards dry” thing with the readers here, causing them to waste time with on a deranged winger with diarrhea of the fingers.
I came into work this morning and wandered into my lab before it was teim to head off to clinic. What do you think I saw? A copy of this pamphlet lying on my technician’s desk. It was not as a joke.
You see, I’ve known for a long time that my technician is a holy roller. It never mattered much to me, but recently he’s been getting a bit more demonstrative about his religion, wearing T-shirts, leaving literature about, etc.
This is why I almost never discuss religion in my lab, although I have gone on anti-ID rants before, and I suspect it disconcerted my tech.
In any case, a brief perusal of the pamphlet reveals it to be a highly target-rich environment. (My particular favorite is an article attributing falling SAT scores and a variety of other societal woes, complete with charts to show “correlation”–“correlation does not equal causation” fallacy, anyone?–to our turning our back on God. Perhaps The Pooflinger needs a copy. ;-)
This magic spell should bring Jason back:
AN SANCT LOR NOX HUR KAL DES YLEM VAS QUAS
Then noxious winds will envelop Jason and hailstones will rain down on him before he flees again with his arguments in disarray…
America, Return to God!
Burn the witches, stone the gays,
Unsparingly apply the rod
Of discipline to wayward ways…
God’s Other Chosen People