The Appeal Of Religion

I don’t think you understand the idea of church/state separation.

I don’t think you understand the idea of church/state separation.

And no, the mere mention of a religious quote does not set off my atheist alarm.It’s when moral issues are legislated using a book of fairy tales as justification that I have a problem.

And no, the mere mention of a religious quote does not set off my atheist alarm.It’s when moral issues are legislated using a book of fairy tales as justification that I have a problem.

There was a discussion on a post that Elvis did seemed to be using ‘church / state separation as removing any discussion of or reference to religion from politics. If Elvis or someone else wants to clarify that, they can. That’s why I’m asking.

There was a discussion on a post that Elvis did seemed to be using ‘church / state separation as removing any discussion of or reference to religion from politics. If Elvis or someone else wants to clarify that, they can. That’s why I’m asking.

I don’t think you understand what ‘a book of fairy tales’ is.

I don’t think you understand what ‘a book of fairy tales’ is.

no, it doesn’t offend me because it’s a SPEECH, not a policy decision!If someone said in a speech that the invisible pink unicorn wants all humans to live in peace, would that offend you?How about if the same person made policy that people under 5’4″ couldn’t have children because the invisible pink unicorn wouldn’t approve?do you get the difference, Lee??

no, it doesn’t offend me because it’s a SPEECH, not a policy decision!If someone said in a speech that the invisible pink unicorn wants all humans to live in peace, would that offend you?How about if the same person made policy that people under 5’4″ couldn’t have children because the invisible pink unicorn wouldn’t approve?do you get the difference, Lee??

Should I be more comfy because someone uses the Bible or religion to promote peace rather than violence? Should I be complacent if it’s teachings continue to infect every level of our government, but hey, it’s being used to do what I consider good?And what does Wicca say about peace over violence? Druidism? Zoroastrianism? Can we begin to offer their teachings in school? Can we base our laws on their dogma, too? Or do we continue to base everything on the Big Three? Obama said that it is God’s vision to live in peace. To which God was he referring?Get it yet? Religion does not belong in government. No matter how peacefully you interpret it and no matter how gently you try to apply it’s principles to law, there will always be a bunch of nutbags that read the same passages and come away with a less than rosy interpretation of it’s teachings.

Should I be more comfy because someone uses the Bible or religion to promote peace rather than violence? Should I be complacent if it’s teachings continue to infect every level of our government, but hey, it’s being used to do what I consider good?And what does Wicca say about peace over violence? Druidism? Zoroastrianism? Can we begin to offer their teachings in school? Can we base our laws on their dogma, too? Or do we continue to base everything on the Big Three? Obama said that it is God’s vision to live in peace. To which God was he referring?Get it yet? Religion does not belong in government. No matter how peacefully you interpret it and no matter how gently you try to apply it’s principles to law, there will always be a bunch of nutbags that read the same passages and come away with a less than rosy interpretation of it’s teachings.

I am a huge supporter of seperation of church but no his comments don’t bother me. I think he was simply pointing out that all these different religions seek the same thing, peace.

I am a huge supporter of seperation of church but no his comments don’t bother me. I think he was simply pointing out that all these different religions seek the same thing, peace.

Lee, you just appear to be purposely stirring the pot there – and I can’t figure why, exactly.The President’s attempt to show commonality amongst the different religions in a speech has nothing to do with separation of church and state.And, what ceu said.

Lee, you just appear to be purposely stirring the pot there – and I can’t figure why, exactly.The President’s attempt to show commonality amongst the different religions in a speech has nothing to do with separation of church and state.And, what ceu said.

“If (our President) said in a speech that the invisible pink unicorn wants all humans to live in peace, would that offend you?”Yes, it would.

“If (our President) said in a speech that the invisible pink unicorn wants all humans to live in peace, would that offend you?”Yes, it would.

Why would that offend you Lee?

Why would that offend you Lee?

Yes, it would.I have no idea why promoting peace would offend anyone, but whatever…must ask, tho, what happened to tolerance?

Yes, it would.I have no idea why promoting peace would offend anyone, but whatever…must ask, tho, what happened to tolerance?

This is the only sentence that bothers me:”We know that is God’s vision.”He should have said that people of the religions he listed know it is their God’s vision.Instead of embracing everybody’s faith, he only locked out all the OTHER faiths by picking 3.

This is the only sentence that bothers me:”We know that is God’s vision.”He should have said that people of the religions he listed know it is their God’s vision.Instead of embracing everybody’s faith, he only locked out all the OTHER faiths by picking 3.

Whether you like it or not, Obama was tapping the common Human yearning for peace and linking it (for those who wish to) to the will/work/vision of God for the Earth. For those who (wish to) feel supported in their work by something Bigger than themselves, it hits the very heart of faith. Let us cultivate serious tolerance of what sustains many diverse expressions of what humans Value and learn from one another.

Whether you like it or not, Obama was tapping the common Human yearning for peace and linking it (for those who wish to) to the will/work/vision of God for the Earth. For those who (wish to) feel supported in their work by something Bigger than themselves, it hits the very heart of faith. Let us cultivate serious tolerance of what sustains many diverse expressions of what humans Value and learn from one another.

“What President Obama here appeals to here is the reasons that billions of people worldwide practice some form of religion; the positive, hopeful message that resonates with people.”Wow, you frame the question with this, stating that The Big Three are, “… The positive hopeful message that resonates…”Then in the comments, when someone presents what is essentialy the FSM argument for Separation, you are offended?”Yes, it would.”You’ve successfully illustrated that only a certain pre-approved range of Lee Stranahan belief sets are acceptable in politics all the while criticizing those who would exclude all belief sets. Where can we find a complete list of acceptable religions?

“What President Obama here appeals to here is the reasons that billions of people worldwide practice some form of religion; the positive, hopeful message that resonates with people.”Wow, you frame the question with this, stating that The Big Three are, “… The positive hopeful message that resonates…”Then in the comments, when someone presents what is essentialy the FSM argument for Separation, you are offended?”Yes, it would.”You’ve successfully illustrated that only a certain pre-approved range of Lee Stranahan belief sets are acceptable in politics all the while criticizing those who would exclude all belief sets. Where can we find a complete list of acceptable religions?

Like Nick, I absolutely don’t think a president should be saying, “We know that is God’s vision.” The rest of the religious content of that paragraph is injected rhetorically, and doesn’t bother me in the least, as it is absolutely not an endorsement of any particular religion.Remember the whole should-Rick-Warren-be-delivering-an-invocation debate? Do you know which side of that debate I was on? I was on the we-shouldn’t-be-having-prayer-at-this-state-function-in-the-first-place side of the debate.PS: Obama says “we know God’s vision,” but I’m pretty sure one of the recent religious threads contained many claims that it is impossible to know the mind of God. What gives? And why is it okay for apologists to selectively quote the kind parts of the holy books, and “a distortion” when a non-believer quotes the juicier bits?

Like Nick, I absolutely don’t think a president should be saying, “We know that is God’s vision.” The rest of the religious content of that paragraph is injected rhetorically, and doesn’t bother me in the least, as it is absolutely not an endorsement of any particular religion.Remember the whole should-Rick-Warren-be-delivering-an-invocation debate? Do you know which side of that debate I was on? I was on the we-shouldn’t-be-having-prayer-at-this-state-function-in-the-first-place side of the debate.PS: Obama says “we know God’s vision,” but I’m pretty sure one of the recent religious threads contained many claims that it is impossible to know the mind of God. What gives? And why is it okay for apologists to selectively quote the kind parts of the holy books, and “a distortion” when a non-believer quotes the juicier bits?

Lee:You seem to be fine “asking questions,” but not so hot on the “listening to responses.”I’m amazed at the thoughtful, nuanced and detailed responses you’ve gotten from so many people in the thread below, detailing precisely their position.I’m equally amazed at your seemingly willful disregard for them. It is astonishing, in fact, how measured and well-thought so many of the commenters are in their thoughts, as compared to the organization and presentation of the thoughts you are putting out, as the blogger.Now, as to religious speech by politicians- YES, it makes me nervous, even when being used “for good,” because it sets dangerous precedent.We’re dealing with, I will repeat again, a series of “neighbors” who believe in Sharia, theocratic law. If you are going to have a lingua franca with such types, maybe all they can understand is religious speech. I find that to be a sad thing. Perhaps, on Obama’s level, it may be a necessary evil.The difference lies, I think, with the emphasis on either “necessary” or “evil.”

Lee:You seem to be fine “asking questions,” but not so hot on the “listening to responses.”I’m amazed at the thoughtful, nuanced and detailed responses you’ve gotten from so many people in the thread below, detailing precisely their position.I’m equally amazed at your seemingly willful disregard for them. It is astonishing, in fact, how measured and well-thought so many of the commenters are in their thoughts, as compared to the organization and presentation of the thoughts you are putting out, as the blogger.Now, as to religious speech by politicians- YES, it makes me nervous, even when being used “for good,” because it sets dangerous precedent.We’re dealing with, I will repeat again, a series of “neighbors” who believe in Sharia, theocratic law. If you are going to have a lingua franca with such types, maybe all they can understand is religious speech. I find that to be a sad thing. Perhaps, on Obama’s level, it may be a necessary evil.The difference lies, I think, with the emphasis on either “necessary” or “evil.”

Many of the violent people are driven by their interpretation of religion, or use it as a tool to recruit people to their violent cause. For President Obama to remind people that religions are mainly about peace was both smart and proper.But if “God’s vision” starts making it into the legislation, I’d have a real problem with that.

Many of the violent people are driven by their interpretation of religion, or use it as a tool to recruit people to their violent cause. For President Obama to remind people that religions are mainly about peace was both smart and proper.But if “God’s vision” starts making it into the legislation, I’d have a real problem with that.

Kyle and Nick hit on the phrase in Obama’s speech that I thought stood out….although I think it’s entirely consistent with Barack Obama’s speeches in the past. He’s a believer.I’m reading and listening and trying to not comment / argue too much. Trying, ya know.If the President said ‘invisible pink’ whatevers, it would offend me because it means he’s insane. I know that some of you want to pretend that it’s exactly the same as all religions view but it’s not.

Kyle and Nick hit on the phrase in Obama’s speech that I thought stood out….although I think it’s entirely consistent with Barack Obama’s speeches in the past. He’s a believer.I’m reading and listening and trying to not comment / argue too much. Trying, ya know.If the President said ‘invisible pink’ whatevers, it would offend me because it means he’s insane. I know that some of you want to pretend that it’s exactly the same as all religions view but it’s not.

Aww, all we get is a, “Nuh-uh!!!”????

Aww, all we get is a, “Nuh-uh!!!”????

What does God have to say about the Constitution?Also, as far as progressive anger at religion, try reading the history of the Crusades.Sir Steven Runciman’s three books, 1) The First Crusade, 2) The Kingdom of Jerusalem, and 3) The Kingdom of Acre, are a good place to start.Page 237 of “The First Crusade.”"They were the only Moslems in Jerusalem to save their lives. The Crusaders, maddened by so great a victory after such suffering, rushed through the streets and into the houses and mosques KILLING ALL THAT THEY MET, men, women and children alike. All that afternoon and all through the night the massacre continued.Tancred’s banner was no protection to the refuges in the Mosque of al-Aqsa. Early next morning a band of Crusaders forced an entry into the mosque and SLEW everyone. When Raymond of Aguilers later that mornng went to visit the temple area he had to PICK HIS WAY THROUGH THE CORPSES AND BLOOD THAT REACHED UP TO HIS KNEES.The Jews of Jerusalem fled in a body to their chief synagogue. But they were held to have aided the Moslems; and no mercy was shown to them. The BUILDING WAS SET ON FIRE AND THEY WERE ALL BURNT WITHIN.The massacre at Jerusalem profoundly impressed ALL THE WORLD.

What does God have to say about the Constitution?Also, as far as progressive anger at religion, try reading the history of the Crusades.Sir Steven Runciman’s three books, 1) The First Crusade, 2) The Kingdom of Jerusalem, and 3) The Kingdom of Acre, are a good place to start.Page 237 of “The First Crusade.”"They were the only Moslems in Jerusalem to save their lives. The Crusaders, maddened by so great a victory after such suffering, rushed through the streets and into the houses and mosques KILLING ALL THAT THEY MET, men, women and children alike. All that afternoon and all through the night the massacre continued.Tancred’s banner was no protection to the refuges in the Mosque of al-Aqsa. Early next morning a band of Crusaders forced an entry into the mosque and SLEW everyone. When Raymond of Aguilers later that mornng went to visit the temple area he had to PICK HIS WAY THROUGH THE CORPSES AND BLOOD THAT REACHED UP TO HIS KNEES.The Jews of Jerusalem fled in a body to their chief synagogue. But they were held to have aided the Moslems; and no mercy was shown to them. The BUILDING WAS SET ON FIRE AND THEY WERE ALL BURNT WITHIN.The massacre at Jerusalem profoundly impressed ALL THE WORLD.

Even though I’m an agnostic, I’m always amazed at how downright hostile some atheists are towards religion in general. I’ve encountered several who act offended by the very existence of people who are religious. Okay, I don’t buy into their either, but unless there are actively pushing laws to foist their views on others, can’t we all just get along?

Even though I’m an agnostic, I’m always amazed at how downright hostile some atheists are towards religion in general. I’ve encountered several who act offended by the very existence of people who are religious. Okay, I don’t buy into their either, but unless there are actively pushing laws to foist their views on others, can’t we all just get along?

“We know that is God’s vision.”- Well, maybe we do, maybe we don’t; seems a little presumptious.Since the speech was more apirational than policy-setting, the religeous references don’t bother me at all.”I don’t think you understand what ‘a book of fairy tales’ is.”Speaking for myself, I believe I do know.

“We know that is God’s vision.”- Well, maybe we do, maybe we don’t; seems a little presumptious.Since the speech was more apirational than policy-setting, the religeous references don’t bother me at all.”I don’t think you understand what ‘a book of fairy tales’ is.”Speaking for myself, I believe I do know.

Lee,”If the President said ‘invisible pink’ whatevers, it would offend me because it means he’s insane. I know that some of you want to pretend that it’s exactly the same as all religions view but it’s not.”What if he was embracing scientology? Where do you draw the line?

Lee,”If the President said ‘invisible pink’ whatevers, it would offend me because it means he’s insane. I know that some of you want to pretend that it’s exactly the same as all religions view but it’s not.”What if he was embracing scientology? Where do you draw the line?

A Book of Fairy TalesChapter 1 – Eve and the Talking SerpentChapter 2 – Lot Protects a Stranger by Allowing Sodimites to Rape His Virgin DaughtersChapter 3 – Out of Egypt: Locusts and Boils and Death Oh My!Chapter 4 – Rules to Live By: #1 & #2 LOVE ME!!!Chatper 5, 6, 7, 8 – Matt, Mark, Luke, and John Tell the Story of Jesus “El Saviorrrrrrrr” Christ (but the details are different in each chapter)Chapter 9 – The Four HorsemenChapter 10 – The RaptureChapter 11 – The 144,000Yes Lee, that sounds like a book of fairy tales.

A Book of Fairy TalesChapter 1 – Eve and the Talking SerpentChapter 2 – Lot Protects a Stranger by Allowing Sodimites to Rape His Virgin DaughtersChapter 3 – Out of Egypt: Locusts and Boils and Death Oh My!Chapter 4 – Rules to Live By: #1 & #2 LOVE ME!!!Chatper 5, 6, 7, 8 – Matt, Mark, Luke, and John Tell the Story of Jesus “El Saviorrrrrrrr” Christ (but the details are different in each chapter)Chapter 9 – The Four HorsemenChapter 10 – The RaptureChapter 11 – The 144,000Yes Lee, that sounds like a book of fairy tales.

Unless religious war speech is countered with religious peace speech, the people who need to hear it will find it easy to dismiss.

Choosing specific passages from the literature of the “Big Three” is an unfortunate, practical necessity. After we accomplish peace among them, we can tackle the task of pacifying all those crazed Wiccan extremists.

Unless religious war speech is countered with religious peace speech, the people who need to hear it will find it easy to dismiss.

Choosing specific passages from the literature of the “Big Three” is an unfortunate, practical necessity. After we accomplish peace among them, we can tackle the task of pacifying all those crazed Wiccan extremists.

My problem, Lee, is that you want to arbitrarily declare what is and what isn’t a valid belief.What if the president said he had been abducted by UFOs or that the ghost of his grandfather had spoken to him? Many people have made these claims, so they’re not as unlikely as the claim of an invisible pink unicorn. Are you willing to condescendingly dismiss these beliefs as well? Or do these claims also merit religion’s wall of respect?/me can ask questions, too!

My problem, Lee, is that you want to arbitrarily declare what is and what isn’t a valid belief.What if the president said he had been abducted by UFOs or that the ghost of his grandfather had spoken to him? Many people have made these claims, so they’re not as unlikely as the claim of an invisible pink unicorn. Are you willing to condescendingly dismiss these beliefs as well? Or do these claims also merit religion’s wall of respect?/me can ask questions, too!

Many people have made these claims, so they’re not as unlikely to be used in a speech as the claim of an invisible pink unicorn.

For clarity’s sake, I mean that you’d be more likely to hear someone claim either of those two than to claim they believe in an invisible pink unicorn. I was not implying a relation between number of proselytes and the validity of unfounded belief.

Many people have made these claims, so they’re not as unlikely to be used in a speech as the claim of an invisible pink unicorn.

For clarity’s sake, I mean that you’d be more likely to hear someone claim either of those two than to claim they believe in an invisible pink unicorn. I was not implying a relation between number of proselytes and the validity of unfounded belief.

If the President said ‘invisible pink’ whatevers, it would offend me because it means he’s insane. I know that some of you want to pretend that it’s exactly the same as all religions view but it’s not.

It is not EXACTLY the same since there has not been a centuries-long tradition of Unicorn worship.But Lee, you must understand that operationally, it IS the same. There is precisely as much evidence for magical unicorns as there is for a universal, monotheistic demiurge.There’s actually MORE evidence, since we know there are horses.If your argument is that X amount of the world’s population does not agree with this, that is true, but immaterial. At a certain point in time, all of assembled humanity believed the sun to revolve around the earth. None of that collective belief changed the reality of the matter.What you seem to engage in frequently is called argumentum ad populum, which is one of the first logical fallacies they teach you to avoid in formal debate.

If the President said ‘invisible pink’ whatevers, it would offend me because it means he’s insane. I know that some of you want to pretend that it’s exactly the same as all religions view but it’s not.

It is not EXACTLY the same since there has not been a centuries-long tradition of Unicorn worship.But Lee, you must understand that operationally, it IS the same. There is precisely as much evidence for magical unicorns as there is for a universal, monotheistic demiurge.There’s actually MORE evidence, since we know there are horses.If your argument is that X amount of the world’s population does not agree with this, that is true, but immaterial. At a certain point in time, all of assembled humanity believed the sun to revolve around the earth. None of that collective belief changed the reality of the matter.What you seem to engage in frequently is called argumentum ad populum, which is one of the first logical fallacies they teach you to avoid in formal debate.

How the hell could a unicorn be both invisible and pink?This is my problem with religion. It’s so often self-contradictory.

How the hell could a unicorn be both invisible and pink?This is my problem with religion. It’s so often self-contradictory.

How the hell could a unicorn be both invisible and pink?

Many and varied are her mysteries, gil. Acceptance of her pinkness is an act of faith, and her followers find a kind of spiritual beauty reconciling the seeming contradiction of being no color at all and one specific color.There is more than just your strawman version of “Unicorn” or “invisible” at work here.You’re just as insensitive and intolerant as those venomous assholes who would call someone insane for believing in her, simply because they do not.SEE WHAT WE ARE SAYING, THERE, LEE?

How the hell could a unicorn be both invisible and pink?

Many and varied are her mysteries, gil. Acceptance of her pinkness is an act of faith, and her followers find a kind of spiritual beauty reconciling the seeming contradiction of being no color at all and one specific color.There is more than just your strawman version of “Unicorn” or “invisible” at work here.You’re just as insensitive and intolerant as those venomous assholes who would call someone insane for believing in her, simply because they do not.SEE WHAT WE ARE SAYING, THERE, LEE?

“What President Obama here appeals to here is the reasons that billions of people worldwide practice some form of religion; the positive, hopeful message that resonates with people.”I would have to disagree with the reasons why billions practice “religion” (as opposed to having faith, which is vastly different and another thread altogether). As the late Stephen Jay Gould so aptly put it(and I paraphrase since I can’t seem to find the exact essay right now!) – people need religion because the idea that there is no one “in charge” is terrifying. Humanity invents it’s deities as a de facto “celestial parent” imposing rules and regulations. Order out of chaos. And is, as SJG concluded “patently infantile”.Now whether you agree or not you have to admit, the whole patriarchal structure of The Big Three religions has done more to hamper hope and positive messages than the reverse. No, religion is not and never has been the answer to the world’s problems and has no business being in the business of running governments.

“What President Obama here appeals to here is the reasons that billions of people worldwide practice some form of religion; the positive, hopeful message that resonates with people.”I would have to disagree with the reasons why billions practice “religion” (as opposed to having faith, which is vastly different and another thread altogether). As the late Stephen Jay Gould so aptly put it(and I paraphrase since I can’t seem to find the exact essay right now!) – people need religion because the idea that there is no one “in charge” is terrifying. Humanity invents it’s deities as a de facto “celestial parent” imposing rules and regulations. Order out of chaos. And is, as SJG concluded “patently infantile”.Now whether you agree or not you have to admit, the whole patriarchal structure of The Big Three religions has done more to hamper hope and positive messages than the reverse. No, religion is not and never has been the answer to the world’s problems and has no business being in the business of running governments.

Also, when you say:

I don’t think you understand what ‘a book of fairy tales’ is.

You’re correct, but not in the direction you think. A book of Fairy Tales is something we read to children with the understanding that while the events and characters are fanciful, frightening and entertaining, there’s an implicit understanding that these are just re-told stories.And that while some of them may contain moral messages or bits of experiential wisdom (keep to the path, avoid fast talking strangers, etc.) they are not to be held as sacrosanct or containing magical powers by their reading or interpretation.Books of Fairy Tales are wonderful things, in that regard. I’m sure that whoever called the Bible such a thing would probably, in light of this, apologize to Fairy Tales for the unkind comparison.

Also, when you say:

I don’t think you understand what ‘a book of fairy tales’ is.

You’re correct, but not in the direction you think. A book of Fairy Tales is something we read to children with the understanding that while the events and characters are fanciful, frightening and entertaining, there’s an implicit understanding that these are just re-told stories.And that while some of them may contain moral messages or bits of experiential wisdom (keep to the path, avoid fast talking strangers, etc.) they are not to be held as sacrosanct or containing magical powers by their reading or interpretation.Books of Fairy Tales are wonderful things, in that regard. I’m sure that whoever called the Bible such a thing would probably, in light of this, apologize to Fairy Tales for the unkind comparison.

The whole premise of this thread, that separation of church/state might mean a President cannot refer to religion in a speech, is silly. This is the kind of premise I expect from redstate.

The whole premise of this thread, that separation of church/state might mean a President cannot refer to religion in a speech, is silly. This is the kind of premise I expect from redstate.

Lee, this really isn’t a dig at you. But I think you’d do well to read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority

Lee, this really isn’t a dig at you. But I think you’d do well to read this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority

Many good responses here, but a premise in a number of comments that is going unchallenged is the notion that it is somehow morally questionable to be openly opposed to particular ideas. Since when do supporters of particular belief systems get to place their ideas out of the reach of “reasonable” disagreement and challenge? Why does anyone grant these folks the power to concoct a social more to the effect that anyone who forthrightly disagrees with their preferred ideas is (as ceu and Susan have arrogantly declared above) “intolerant”?

They’re wrong. Opposition to specific ideas is not intolerance, because ideas are not people.

In point of fact, there are large numbers of us who think that Ideas A, B, and C are in fact bad ideas. Lee’s baseless favoritism toward major world religions has been noted–but exactly what is the justification for regarding open dissent from, or criticism of, any idea blameworthy?

Lee’s entire premise in the original post–his sneering contempt for “the antagonism and anger some progressives have toward religion”–is the basic problem here. He can’t handle the ordinary rough-and-tumble of intellectual debate as applied to his cherished myths. (And that’s what they are, whether he believes in them or not–alas, all too many atheists and agnostics “cherish” them in precisely this way, supporting protecting religion from normal skeptical critique.)

Sure, some progressives bear “antagonism and anger … toward religion”–for the same general reasons that many progressives hold antagonism and anger toward (for example) right-wing economic policy, the rhetoric of the “pro-life” movement, the Bush administration’s approach to civil liberties, and Proposition 8: all of the above are bad ideas that hurt people.

Rather than engaging the actual argument–whether religion as such has earned the respect you demand we provide it–defenders of religion typically just declare any open expression of disagreement with their own unfounded ideas to be per se intolerant and immoral. It’s childish and stupid, but privilege (here religious privilege, cousin to white, straight, and male privilege) typically is.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Many good responses here, but a premise in a number of comments that is going unchallenged is the notion that it is somehow morally questionable to be openly opposed to particular ideas. Since when do supporters of particular belief systems get to place their ideas out of the reach of “reasonable” disagreement and challenge? Why does anyone grant these folks the power to concoct a social more to the effect that anyone who forthrightly disagrees with their preferred ideas is (as ceu and Susan have arrogantly declared above) “intolerant”?

They’re wrong. Opposition to specific ideas is not intolerance, because ideas are not people.

In point of fact, there are large numbers of us who think that Ideas A, B, and C are in fact bad ideas. Lee’s baseless favoritism toward major world religions has been noted–but exactly what is the justification for regarding open dissent from, or criticism of, any idea blameworthy?

Lee’s entire premise in the original post–his sneering contempt for “the antagonism and anger some progressives have toward religion”–is the basic problem here. He can’t handle the ordinary rough-and-tumble of intellectual debate as applied to his cherished myths. (And that’s what they are, whether he believes in them or not–alas, all too many atheists and agnostics “cherish” them in precisely this way, supporting protecting religion from normal skeptical critique.)

Sure, some progressives bear “antagonism and anger … toward religion”–for the same general reasons that many progressives hold antagonism and anger toward (for example) right-wing economic policy, the rhetoric of the “pro-life” movement, the Bush administration’s approach to civil liberties, and Proposition 8: all of the above are bad ideas that hurt people.

Rather than engaging the actual argument–whether religion as such has earned the respect you demand we provide it–defenders of religion typically just declare any open expression of disagreement with their own unfounded ideas to be per se intolerant and immoral. It’s childish and stupid, but privilege (here religious privilege, cousin to white, straight, and male privilege) typically is.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

I am not a member of any organized religion and don’t even know what “God” is or if I believe in it. But, I did not find the President’s speech offensive and was not concerned about separation of church and state because it wasn’t about making policy decisions in this country and shoving them down my throat. Also, I agree with this commenter’s statement:”Unless religious war speech is countered with religious peace speech, the people who need to hear it will find it easy to dismiss.”

I am not a member of any organized religion and don’t even know what “God” is or if I believe in it. But, I did not find the President’s speech offensive and was not concerned about separation of church and state because it wasn’t about making policy decisions in this country and shoving them down my throat. Also, I agree with this commenter’s statement:”Unless religious war speech is countered with religious peace speech, the people who need to hear it will find it easy to dismiss.”

Upon further review of ceu‘s comments, I suspect that his/her accusation of intolerance appears to have been rhetorical–i.e., (s)he was trying to show that Lee’s out-of-hand dismissal of Invisible Pink Unicorn-ism (pbuh) is just as “intolerant” as any real-life atheist’s attitude toward a particular religion.

Presuming I’ve now got that right, my apologies, ceu.

Upon further review of ceu‘s comments, I suspect that his/her accusation of intolerance appears to have been rhetorical–i.e., (s)he was trying to show that Lee’s out-of-hand dismissal of Invisible Pink Unicorn-ism (pbuh) is just as “intolerant” as any real-life atheist’s attitude toward a particular religion.

Presuming I’ve now got that right, my apologies, ceu.

>>Does this violate your sense of church / state separation?Nope.>> Or – Is this the way you think an American President should be talking?Not really that either. I mean:I think the peace talk is right. I don’t really care if he brings religion into it or not. If that’s the metaphor he chooses to use, that’s ok.Where I would like church/state seperation to be a little more serious is in terms of program funding, in terms of state funded education (info _about_ religion is fine if it is inclusive of many religions, non-religions and points of view), gay marriage rights from state generated marriage licenses, and in terms of enforcement of tax law – where religious orgs that would like special tax status should steer clear of attempting to affect politics.That would be my two cents, speaking as both an atheist and staunch civil libs advocate.

The whole premise of this thread, that separation of church/state might mean a President cannot refer to religion in a speech, is silly. This is the kind of premise I expect from redstate.

That would be Lee, framing his debate.

And, as he expected, no one here was willing to lambaste Obama for using scriptural citations in his speech, although a few of us did disagree with his singling out of monotheism. No one’s exactly raising a ruckus over it, I should point out.

The distrust and mistrust of religion by my fellow Lefties has long been a thorn in the side of my conscience. Liberals can hardly be blamed for cultivating a strong hesitance regarding religious discourse in this country, especially given the “loud noises” from the Right that all too often set the tone and agenda for our nation’s religious discourse. The shadow cast by the sort of divisive, hateful religious understanding on which the media loves to glut (extremism of any stripe makes compelling television) cannot be denied. But neither can the responsibility of the Left, including both individuals of faith and their non-religious political allies, not to dismiss the powerful, compelling resources of religion in our collective push for justice and change. By failing to create a viable discursive space in which the religious convictions of liberals may be acknowledged as valid (e.g., not written off as a the stuff of “fairy-tales” by their fellow liberals), the American Left has effectively ceded the religious debate in this nation to those who shout the loudest, which, as their ilk remind us daily, most often have the least to say. More power to our President for his courage in acknowledging the importance religion, and particularly the commonalities and shared values between the Abrahamic faiths, plays in the world’s on-going struggle for peace.

What the President says in a largely-symbolic address has almost nothing to do with legal church-state separation.In fact, were we to apply some sort of limit on what the President can publicly say, we’d be violating the exact same amendment as the church-state one. HA!There is nothing constitutionally improper about a person’s religious views impacting how they view issues or write policy. However, when particular beliefs are written into law, then there are problems.There have been countless horrible things done in the name of religion, but we paint with a broad brush when we toss all who believe in something in with the most extreme examples. I think that’s part of what the President was talking about today when he compared and contrasted the muslim stereotype in America to the American stereotype in the Middle East.Religious people helped end slavery, were civil rights activists, plotted to kill Hitler, fought oppression under communist regimes, support legislation to combat global warming, and helped end apartheid.I am an ordained minister, and as liberal as the day is long. Please don’t lump my friends and me in with Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, and the like.

To tie all this in with another thread, it is clear that religion or not, President Obama’s kung fu is strong.

To tie all this in with another thread, it is clear that religion or not, President Obama’s kung fu is strong.

Garrett F: “… not to dismiss the powerful, compelling resources of religion in our collective push for justice and change.”Resources that are founded on some texts written thousands of years ago at a time when humans knew nothing about the world are going to help us push for change?If religion is to be involved in making change, it would be in the form of removing itself as the greatest obstruction to progress and change that has ever existed.

Garrett F: “… not to dismiss the powerful, compelling resources of religion in our collective push for justice and change.”Resources that are founded on some texts written thousands of years ago at a time when humans knew nothing about the world are going to help us push for change?If religion is to be involved in making change, it would be in the form of removing itself as the greatest obstruction to progress and change that has ever existed.

“By failing to create a viable discursive space in which the religious convictions of liberals may be acknowledged as valid (e.g., not written off as a the stuff of “fairy-tales” by their fellow liberals), I have no intention of validating anyone’s religious beliefs. If someone is offended because I think their faith is silly, they can rest assured that I’ll either roast in hell or reincarnate as a cockroach. Furthermore, if their belief requires my validation then their religious kung fu is not strong.We don’t need discursive space involving religious convictions, mine or yours or Lee’s or Goddamnkyle’s. We are Americans and liberals first when it comes to politics – or at least should be. I don’t need to be aware of your anyone’s religious preference any more than I need to know whether they prefer Pepsi or Coke. The bottom line is working together on issues where we share a common perspective.the American Left has effectively ceded the religious debate in this nation to those who shout the loudest, which, as their ilk remind us daily, most often have the least to say.”It’s not up to me, as an atheist, to reclaim Christianity from its fundamentalists. That is the job of moderate-liberal Christians, or more broadly the religious Left of which non-believers are by definition not a part. It would be anathema (pun intended) to me to actively encourage liberal religious views when I also reject them.And frankly, no matter what, it will always be the blowhards that dominate airwaves.

“By failing to create a viable discursive space in which the religious convictions of liberals may be acknowledged as valid (e.g., not written off as a the stuff of “fairy-tales” by their fellow liberals), I have no intention of validating anyone’s religious beliefs. If someone is offended because I think their faith is silly, they can rest assured that I’ll either roast in hell or reincarnate as a cockroach. Furthermore, if their belief requires my validation then their religious kung fu is not strong.We don’t need discursive space involving religious convictions, mine or yours or Lee’s or Goddamnkyle’s. We are Americans and liberals first when it comes to politics – or at least should be. I don’t need to be aware of your anyone’s religious preference any more than I need to know whether they prefer Pepsi or Coke. The bottom line is working together on issues where we share a common perspective.the American Left has effectively ceded the religious debate in this nation to those who shout the loudest, which, as their ilk remind us daily, most often have the least to say.”It’s not up to me, as an atheist, to reclaim Christianity from its fundamentalists. That is the job of moderate-liberal Christians, or more broadly the religious Left of which non-believers are by definition not a part. It would be anathema (pun intended) to me to actively encourage liberal religious views when I also reject them.And frankly, no matter what, it will always be the blowhards that dominate airwaves.

I am offended that you are disrespecting my Invisible Pink Unicorn. We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want. I believe in the IPU.If my IPU offends you than you are a hypocrite.Fuck you you intolerant fuckwit.

I am offended that you are disrespecting my Invisible Pink Unicorn. We all have the freedom to believe whatever we want. I believe in the IPU.If my IPU offends you than you are a hypocrite.Fuck you you intolerant fuckwit.

Gottverdammt Klaus, I am absolutely impressed with your ability to form and frame your rational perspective.Seriously, you are scary-brilliant. Good show.

Gottverdammt Klaus, I am absolutely impressed with your ability to form and frame your rational perspective.Seriously, you are scary-brilliant. Good show.

“Religious people helped end slavery, were civil rights activists, plotted to kill Hitler, fought oppression under communist regimes, support legislation to combat global warming, and helped end apartheid.”Religious people also promoted slavery (hell, the Bible only ever endorses it), fougt against civil rights, fought communist regimes that had liberated people from oppressive official state churches, deny global warming and defended apartheid. This line of argument gets us nowhere.Curious that murder is acceptable, though. My those Commandments are flexible… It’s okay to kill Hitler because in your interpretation, he was evil. Dr. Tiller’s murderer thought the same way. THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Who would Jesus murder?

“Religious people helped end slavery, were civil rights activists, plotted to kill Hitler, fought oppression under communist regimes, support legislation to combat global warming, and helped end apartheid.”Religious people also promoted slavery (hell, the Bible only ever endorses it), fougt against civil rights, fought communist regimes that had liberated people from oppressive official state churches, deny global warming and defended apartheid. This line of argument gets us nowhere.Curious that murder is acceptable, though. My those Commandments are flexible… It’s okay to kill Hitler because in your interpretation, he was evil. Dr. Tiller’s murderer thought the same way. THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Who would Jesus murder?

Git,I thought you believed in the Spaghetti monster. Now I’m confused.

Git,I thought you believed in the Spaghetti monster. Now I’m confused.

Joshdobbin – many thanks, you’re no slouch yourself!

Joshdobbin – many thanks, you’re no slouch yourself!

What has happened regarding the perception of religion in this country can be laid directly at the feet of the Christianists. In their zeal to demand their faith be front and center in policy matters, in their finger pointing and moralizing, and in their cries of persecution every time they are told they cannot dictate to the entire country… in all of these ways they have marginalized themselves. The result of their screeching is that more people now lump anyone of faith, no matter how unassuming many may be about it, into that same demographic of crazy, unhinged and pushy religious nutjob.I think that is what lefties on both sides of the equation need to consider.

What has happened regarding the perception of religion in this country can be laid directly at the feet of the Christianists. In their zeal to demand their faith be front and center in policy matters, in their finger pointing and moralizing, and in their cries of persecution every time they are told they cannot dictate to the entire country… in all of these ways they have marginalized themselves. The result of their screeching is that more people now lump anyone of faith, no matter how unassuming many may be about it, into that same demographic of crazy, unhinged and pushy religious nutjob.I think that is what lefties on both sides of the equation need to consider.

Really, I’m just listening…

Really, I’m just listening…

Extremists have been politicizing religious message to justify violence. The speech today brings the religious message back to where it was meant to be: that is a message of hope and peace. This is a message that most humans can appreciate. Outlining the similarities between the religions weakens the extremist’s ability to us that message for themselves. The extremists have already linked religion and politics and used it for their violent ends. The speech today separated the extremists’ politics from their religion.I am an agnostic. I was not offended by his use of religion today. Not acknowledging the role religion plays in the geopolitical landscape would demonstrate political naiveté. Our president is too smart for that.The pink invisible unicorn example is just silliness. Being religious is not akin to being ignorant. Some people may need religion as a crutch to maintain their justification for being nice to each other. Maybe they are religious because it is a habit. We are not encouraged as a society to challenge ourselves spiritually. Most people think more about ‘getting ahead’ than they do about religion or the direction/meaning of their spiritually.If a Christian never challenges themselves as a Christian they may never look up and see some of the hypocrisy of the Christian dogma. The main message of the new testament is to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’. It is hard work to defy the talking points and the ready packaged belief system the right delivers on a platter and follow this tenant. Christians who are not hypocrites make for great liberals.

Extremists have been politicizing religious message to justify violence. The speech today brings the religious message back to where it was meant to be: that is a message of hope and peace. This is a message that most humans can appreciate. Outlining the similarities between the religions weakens the extremist’s ability to us that message for themselves. The extremists have already linked religion and politics and used it for their violent ends. The speech today separated the extremists’ politics from their religion.I am an agnostic. I was not offended by his use of religion today. Not acknowledging the role religion plays in the geopolitical landscape would demonstrate political naiveté. Our president is too smart for that.The pink invisible unicorn example is just silliness. Being religious is not akin to being ignorant. Some people may need religion as a crutch to maintain their justification for being nice to each other. Maybe they are religious because it is a habit. We are not encouraged as a society to challenge ourselves spiritually. Most people think more about ‘getting ahead’ than they do about religion or the direction/meaning of their spiritually.If a Christian never challenges themselves as a Christian they may never look up and see some of the hypocrisy of the Christian dogma. The main message of the new testament is to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’. It is hard work to defy the talking points and the ready packaged belief system the right delivers on a platter and follow this tenant. Christians who are not hypocrites make for great liberals.

Get involved in the debate, then, Lee. You are doing nothing more than trolling if you want to instigate an argument then fail to offer any retorts to what I believe have been well-reasoned responses.Here are some questions to get you started!What if the president said he had been abducted by UFOs or that the ghost of his grandfather had spoken to him? Many people have made these claims, so they’re not as unlikely as the claim of an invisible pink unicorn. Are you willing to condescendingly dismiss these beliefs as well? Or do these claims also merit religion’s wall of respect?

Get involved in the debate, then, Lee. You are doing nothing more than trolling if you want to instigate an argument then fail to offer any retorts to what I believe have been well-reasoned responses.Here are some questions to get you started!What if the president said he had been abducted by UFOs or that the ghost of his grandfather had spoken to him? Many people have made these claims, so they’re not as unlikely as the claim of an invisible pink unicorn. Are you willing to condescendingly dismiss these beliefs as well? Or do these claims also merit religion’s wall of respect?

By definition, I’m not trolling since I blog here.I’m doing what I said – I’m laying out questions but not trying to insert myself too much in comments. I’m not trying to debate, either.There have actually been a wide variety of opinions expressed by a bunch of people.I think that the topic of the relationship between religion and politics is extremely timely….

By definition, I’m not trolling since I blog here.I’m doing what I said – I’m laying out questions but not trying to insert myself too much in comments. I’m not trying to debate, either.There have actually been a wide variety of opinions expressed by a bunch of people.I think that the topic of the relationship between religion and politics is extremely timely….

I think what the president said was proper considering the audience who he was speaking to. Is it something I would say? No, but Im not the president speaking directly to the Muslim world.During Obama’s inaugeration he mentioned “non-believers” This was proper for his audience (the american people) because 34% of the country is now athiest.Speeches also have very little to do with policy.

I think what the president said was proper considering the audience who he was speaking to. Is it something I would say? No, but Im not the president speaking directly to the Muslim world.During Obama’s inaugeration he mentioned “non-believers” This was proper for his audience (the american people) because 34% of the country is now athiest.Speeches also have very little to do with policy.

Does this violate your sense of church / state separation?

Most definitely, yes. Besides the fact that every last one of those quotes was completely taken out of its context, and thus, useless.If he wanted to insult Jews, he just did it by quoting Jesus, whom the Muslims revere as a prophet. Better to leave religious verses out of it. Besides, I thought this speech was supposed to be a declaration of war on all Islamic countries who refuse to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior. What the hell is going on here?!?

Does this violate your sense of church / state separation?

Most definitely, yes. Besides the fact that every last one of those quotes was completely taken out of its context, and thus, useless.If he wanted to insult Jews, he just did it by quoting Jesus, whom the Muslims revere as a prophet. Better to leave religious verses out of it. Besides, I thought this speech was supposed to be a declaration of war on all Islamic countries who refuse to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and savior. What the hell is going on here?!?

By definition, I’m not trolling since I blog here.

Does it matter, with respect to the idea of “trolling” if the action occurs above or below the “comments” link?I would say that your stance seems to resemble the practice of “concern-trolling,” when you speak of the problems with “liberals.”But also, that, upon seeing/hearing Obama’s speech, it seemed that the big take-away you had from it (or felt compelled to post about) was to try to frame a Tim Russert-like “gotcha!” by taking one paragraph out of dozens and using it to foment what you had to assume would be an argument. Which is odd, since you seem to be genuine in your admiration of the idea of expressing differences without rancor or snideness.Yet, on this issue, you seem to feel that it is OK to treat one side with that selfsame snideness and rancor that you claim to disavow.It is like a kind of argumentative moebius strip; I’m not certain you’re aware that is how it comes across.

By definition, I’m not trolling since I blog here.

Does it matter, with respect to the idea of “trolling” if the action occurs above or below the “comments” link?I would say that your stance seems to resemble the practice of “concern-trolling,” when you speak of the problems with “liberals.”But also, that, upon seeing/hearing Obama’s speech, it seemed that the big take-away you had from it (or felt compelled to post about) was to try to frame a Tim Russert-like “gotcha!” by taking one paragraph out of dozens and using it to foment what you had to assume would be an argument. Which is odd, since you seem to be genuine in your admiration of the idea of expressing differences without rancor or snideness.Yet, on this issue, you seem to feel that it is OK to treat one side with that selfsame snideness and rancor that you claim to disavow.It is like a kind of argumentative moebius strip; I’m not certain you’re aware that is how it comes across.

Imaginista,It’s a selective sample, but from the comments in the recent religion threads here or for that matter on other online forums I participate in, no one is lumping the religious liberals with the fundamentalists. We can make that distinction based on actions. “By their fruits shall ye know them” (Matt 5:13).I understand that many people are motivated to do great things by religion, but to expect an audience as diverse as the American people to swallow assorted anc contrdictory dogmas is a bit much.Whether your faith tells you to outlaw abortion or to give charity to the poor, it’s still policy by religious diktat no matter how benign. Now, other reasons for supporting or opposing this or that cause may of course apply – the varied rational arguments we marshal to explain why welfare is right, why war is counterproductive etc… thus Occam’s Razor tells us to drop the mystical and theological reasons and focus on the material, because it’s the only common ground we know we have.We agree that religion and state power must remain separate. In Christopher Hitchens’ over-used line, “Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!”I may not have been as clear as I’d like above, so I’ll try an example. If Obama tells me I should support welfare because Jesus said so, I’d point out that as an atheist I don’t care what Jesus has to say. If, on the other hand, he contended that welfare helps people get an education, lift them from poverty and spare them from lives of crime, etc then I’ll be all ears, and I’ll agree.I respectfully contend we just don’t need to bring religion up at all in terms of policy.

Imaginista,It’s a selective sample, but from the comments in the recent religion threads here or for that matter on other online forums I participate in, no one is lumping the religious liberals with the fundamentalists. We can make that distinction based on actions. “By their fruits shall ye know them” (Matt 5:13).I understand that many people are motivated to do great things by religion, but to expect an audience as diverse as the American people to swallow assorted anc contrdictory dogmas is a bit much.Whether your faith tells you to outlaw abortion or to give charity to the poor, it’s still policy by religious diktat no matter how benign. Now, other reasons for supporting or opposing this or that cause may of course apply – the varied rational arguments we marshal to explain why welfare is right, why war is counterproductive etc… thus Occam’s Razor tells us to drop the mystical and theological reasons and focus on the material, because it’s the only common ground we know we have.We agree that religion and state power must remain separate. In Christopher Hitchens’ over-used line, “Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!”I may not have been as clear as I’d like above, so I’ll try an example. If Obama tells me I should support welfare because Jesus said so, I’d point out that as an atheist I don’t care what Jesus has to say. If, on the other hand, he contended that welfare helps people get an education, lift them from poverty and spare them from lives of crime, etc then I’ll be all ears, and I’ll agree.I respectfully contend we just don’t need to bring religion up at all in terms of policy.

Gottverdammt Klaus ,I think a skilled politician should use whatever vehicle necessary to deliver his message to his constituents. If some people can only understand that the policy is good b/c ‘Jesus told me’ so then I think he should use it. Some will understand it best if he provides solid reasoning. One delivery method does not negate the validity other.You seem to expect that everyone will be an expert at self examination and logic problems. If you are not able to renounce religion and accept scientific fact then you are not worth being a part of the system. American values that you describe, and that I agree with, run congruent with many religious values. Why not deliver the message under the umbrella of religious values if that is a message your target audience is already predisposed to accept.Religious values do shape policy.

Gottverdammt Klaus ,I think a skilled politician should use whatever vehicle necessary to deliver his message to his constituents. If some people can only understand that the policy is good b/c ‘Jesus told me’ so then I think he should use it. Some will understand it best if he provides solid reasoning. One delivery method does not negate the validity other.You seem to expect that everyone will be an expert at self examination and logic problems. If you are not able to renounce religion and accept scientific fact then you are not worth being a part of the system. American values that you describe, and that I agree with, run congruent with many religious values. Why not deliver the message under the umbrella of religious values if that is a message your target audience is already predisposed to accept.Religious values do shape policy.

well, wait one sec, winicott. your initial argument is that religious values can be the best way to explain things to constituents, and then you suddenly switched to religious values shaping policy, which are two very different arguments.

well, wait one sec, winicott. your initial argument is that religious values can be the best way to explain things to constituents, and then you suddenly switched to religious values shaping policy, which are two very different arguments.

Josh – my position doesn’t resemble concern trolling in the least….concern trollIn an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally.To be a concern troll, I’d have not actually be a progressive but instead pretending to be one. Let’s be clear – is that what you’re saying?

Josh – my position doesn’t resemble concern trolling in the least….concern trollIn an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally.To be a concern troll, I’d have not actually be a progressive but instead pretending to be one. Let’s be clear – is that what you’re saying?

fe atI don’t think so.There was a religious component to O’s upbringing. It may be safe to say that the values instilled in him by his grandmother and other family members stemmed from that family’s exposure to religion. In that way religious values influence policy.Let us say the religious values in this case were Muslim. There are humanistic components that are the same in Christianity and other beliefs. One could repackage Muslim values, retain their core meaning and message, and have it be delivered in the form of a Christian fable, or one of the 10 commandments or what ever. The end is the same. People would digest the core message through their subjective reality and support the policy.If my idea is flawed let me know. I am willing to try to understand your idea.

fe atI don’t think so.There was a religious component to O’s upbringing. It may be safe to say that the values instilled in him by his grandmother and other family members stemmed from that family’s exposure to religion. In that way religious values influence policy.Let us say the religious values in this case were Muslim. There are humanistic components that are the same in Christianity and other beliefs. One could repackage Muslim values, retain their core meaning and message, and have it be delivered in the form of a Christian fable, or one of the 10 commandments or what ever. The end is the same. People would digest the core message through their subjective reality and support the policy.If my idea is flawed let me know. I am willing to try to understand your idea.

winicott: it wasn’t that I had a separate idea, it was that you seemed to argue on behalf of two different ideas: 1, that religion is a good way to explain things to constituents and 2, that religion shapes policy. While not contradictory, these seemed totally different to me.Thanks for clarifying your argument.

winicott: it wasn’t that I had a separate idea, it was that you seemed to argue on behalf of two different ideas: 1, that religion is a good way to explain things to constituents and 2, that religion shapes policy. While not contradictory, these seemed totally different to me.Thanks for clarifying your argument.

Gottverdammt Klaus @ 4:44 PM:

Curious that murder is acceptable, though. My those Commandments are flexible… It’s okay to kill Hitler because in your interpretation, he was evil. Dr. Tiller’s murderer thought the same way. THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Who would Jesus murder?

Why, nonbelievers, of course:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

– Jesus, in Luke 19:27

Never mind von Stauffenberg; that verse works much better for Scott Roeder, presuming that he can make a theologically sound (heh) case that Dr. Tiller “would not let [Jesus] reign over” him. And in Roeder’s own mind, I’m sure he can.

Gottverdammt Klaus @ 4:44 PM:

Curious that murder is acceptable, though. My those Commandments are flexible… It’s okay to kill Hitler because in your interpretation, he was evil. Dr. Tiller’s murderer thought the same way. THIS IS THE PROBLEM! Who would Jesus murder?

Why, nonbelievers, of course:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

– Jesus, in Luke 19:27

Never mind von Stauffenberg; that verse works much better for Scott Roeder, presuming that he can make a theologically sound (heh) case that Dr. Tiller “would not let [Jesus] reign over” him. And in Roeder’s own mind, I’m sure he can.

Fe atGottverdammt Klaus indicates’I respectfully contend we just don’t need to bring religion up at all in terms of policy.’I think it is a mistake to think that good policy and religion need to stem from different places. Good policy does and can stem from religious values. Some noisy liberals seem to like to throw out all components of religion when it is really just a few extremists who make a mess of things. The left can further undermine the right by being more accepting of those who are religious by identifying the similarities in the core values. New Testament Jesus sounds like a democrat to me, turning water into wine and feeding the masses with the bread and fish trick. It would seem to me that Jesus would endorse a minimum standard of living.

Fe atGottverdammt Klaus indicates’I respectfully contend we just don’t need to bring religion up at all in terms of policy.’I think it is a mistake to think that good policy and religion need to stem from different places. Good policy does and can stem from religious values. Some noisy liberals seem to like to throw out all components of religion when it is really just a few extremists who make a mess of things. The left can further undermine the right by being more accepting of those who are religious by identifying the similarities in the core values. New Testament Jesus sounds like a democrat to me, turning water into wine and feeding the masses with the bread and fish trick. It would seem to me that Jesus would endorse a minimum standard of living.

WWJM bracelets for everyone!

WWJM bracelets for everyone!

Upon further review of ceu’s comments, I suspect that his/her accusation of intolerance appears to have been rhetorical–i.e., (s)he was trying to show that Lee’s out-of-hand dismissal of Invisible Pink Unicorn-ism (pbuh) is just as “intolerant” as any real-life atheist’s attitude toward a particular religion.Presuming I’ve now got that right, my apologies, ceu.Posted by: Rieux at June 4, 2009 2:47 PMexactly right, Rieux. My comments were rhetorical and, in part, a response to what Lee posted last night regarding those of us who didn’t particularly like what was perceived as condescesion towards us, by calling us intolerant, because we express our views on religion This is part of what we were told:What I’m always caught off guard by the pure venom that some people express, including having no compunctions about blatantly insulting people for believing in a ‘sky wizard’ or some other such straw man version of God or saying that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or dishonest. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it’s an attitude that is dogmatic, condescending and bullying. There’s no problem insulting US, but WE’RE intolerant if WE don’t want a discussion about religion where those who DO believe are always right and the rest of us are to be pitied for not having that fine human quality of faith. So…it was about the intolerance of those who still insist on bring the PRIVATE subject of religious belief into a political discussion. [and since people rarely apologize to me, I'll accept that with pleasure ]And he does it just to piss people off.I should not have used an invisible pink unicorn to make my point. I should have said:no, it doesn’t offend me because it’s a SPEECH, not a policy decision!If someone said in a speech that Zoroaster wants all humans to live in peace, would that offend you?How about if the same person made policy that people under 5’4″ couldn’t have children because Zoroaster wouldn’t approve?do you get the difference, Lee??pls note: I have no clue how Zoroaster feels about short people…

Upon further review of ceu’s comments, I suspect that his/her accusation of intolerance appears to have been rhetorical–i.e., (s)he was trying to show that Lee’s out-of-hand dismissal of Invisible Pink Unicorn-ism (pbuh) is just as “intolerant” as any real-life atheist’s attitude toward a particular religion.Presuming I’ve now got that right, my apologies, ceu.Posted by: Rieux at June 4, 2009 2:47 PMexactly right, Rieux. My comments were rhetorical and, in part, a response to what Lee posted last night regarding those of us who didn’t particularly like what was perceived as condescesion towards us, by calling us intolerant, because we express our views on religion This is part of what we were told:What I’m always caught off guard by the pure venom that some people express, including having no compunctions about blatantly insulting people for believing in a ‘sky wizard’ or some other such straw man version of God or saying that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or dishonest. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, it’s an attitude that is dogmatic, condescending and bullying. There’s no problem insulting US, but WE’RE intolerant if WE don’t want a discussion about religion where those who DO believe are always right and the rest of us are to be pitied for not having that fine human quality of faith. So…it was about the intolerance of those who still insist on bring the PRIVATE subject of religious belief into a political discussion. [and since people rarely apologize to me, I'll accept that with pleasure ]And he does it just to piss people off.I should not have used an invisible pink unicorn to make my point. I should have said:no, it doesn’t offend me because it’s a SPEECH, not a policy decision!If someone said in a speech that Zoroaster wants all humans to live in peace, would that offend you?How about if the same person made policy that people under 5’4″ couldn’t have children because Zoroaster wouldn’t approve?do you get the difference, Lee??pls note: I have no clue how Zoroaster feels about short people…

Go Stranahan!What a shit storm!@J: Thanks for the good links last night.

Go Stranahan!What a shit storm!@J: Thanks for the good links last night.

Lee, once again you’re misrepresenting your opponents. First you defend the actions of fundamentalist kooks that are, rightly, attacked in the aftermath of the shooting by saying something along the lines of “but *I’m* religious, and I don’t like dogma or creeds!”Now you’re telling us about the “antagonism and anger” directed towards religion and wondering why, oh why.What you’re missing is that the anger isn’t directed at religion qua religion. Your personal beliefs are your own. I have no anger nor antagonism towards you for believing what you do.Now, what you DO with/because of those beliefs CAN lead to anger and antagonism. Like the old line “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”, your right to believe what you please ends when you start to force those beliefs on a necessarily secular society. You can sincerely believe that the earth was created from nothing 6000 years ago by God, and I won’t have a problem with that – but if you apply political pressure to get that belief on my kid’s science curriculum, well, there’s going to be trouble.And you can believe that abortion is always wrong, and you’re entitled to that belief. But if you use violence (or encourage others to use violence) to try to scare women from freely exercising their legal rights, then yes, you can expect anger and antagonism in response.If you believe in a pink invisible unicorn, well, I’m not going to tell you not to. But if you say that gay people can’t get married because the unicorn says so, then I have a right and a civic duty to call that out as harmful and wrong.See the difference?As for the “using religious language to get a good message across to religious people” argument, that’s baloney. Our laws are – must be – secular. It doesn’t take a divine authority to tell us not to steal or kill – it’s important to the functioning of society that we don’t. THAT’S why all the major religions have those rules in common. They didn’t come from religion, religion took them from the reasonable needs of secular society. So what that means is that good policy is good policy, and is not – CAN not – be based on purely religious grounds. If a policy can’t be explained in non-religious terms, it’s not a good policy. And “peace” is a good policy.

Lee, once again you’re misrepresenting your opponents. First you defend the actions of fundamentalist kooks that are, rightly, attacked in the aftermath of the shooting by saying something along the lines of “but *I’m* religious, and I don’t like dogma or creeds!”Now you’re telling us about the “antagonism and anger” directed towards religion and wondering why, oh why.What you’re missing is that the anger isn’t directed at religion qua religion. Your personal beliefs are your own. I have no anger nor antagonism towards you for believing what you do.Now, what you DO with/because of those beliefs CAN lead to anger and antagonism. Like the old line “your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins”, your right to believe what you please ends when you start to force those beliefs on a necessarily secular society. You can sincerely believe that the earth was created from nothing 6000 years ago by God, and I won’t have a problem with that – but if you apply political pressure to get that belief on my kid’s science curriculum, well, there’s going to be trouble.And you can believe that abortion is always wrong, and you’re entitled to that belief. But if you use violence (or encourage others to use violence) to try to scare women from freely exercising their legal rights, then yes, you can expect anger and antagonism in response.If you believe in a pink invisible unicorn, well, I’m not going to tell you not to. But if you say that gay people can’t get married because the unicorn says so, then I have a right and a civic duty to call that out as harmful and wrong.See the difference?As for the “using religious language to get a good message across to religious people” argument, that’s baloney. Our laws are – must be – secular. It doesn’t take a divine authority to tell us not to steal or kill – it’s important to the functioning of society that we don’t. THAT’S why all the major religions have those rules in common. They didn’t come from religion, religion took them from the reasonable needs of secular society. So what that means is that good policy is good policy, and is not – CAN not – be based on purely religious grounds. If a policy can’t be explained in non-religious terms, it’s not a good policy. And “peace” is a good policy.

MZ – where did I ever ‘defend fundamentalist kooks’?

MZ – where did I ever ‘defend fundamentalist kooks’?

Lee, the fundamentalist kooks are the ones – the ONLY ones – under attack here. In your previous religion-themed posts, you lambasted “liberals” for deriding religion, and used your own creed-less beliefs as proof that religion is good. In fact, those of us who are “mad at religion” are mad at what fundamentalist kooks do, politically and otherwise, in the name of their religion, and I don’t think it’s unfair to hold that religion at least somewhat accountable (as I and others have explained at great length to you already in those previous threads).Your question here makes it sound like you really don’t understand what our problem is. Maybe you honestly don’t. Re-read what I wrote just up above there (at 7:01), and tell me what your issue is with what I said.

Lee, the fundamentalist kooks are the ones – the ONLY ones – under attack here. In your previous religion-themed posts, you lambasted “liberals” for deriding religion, and used your own creed-less beliefs as proof that religion is good. In fact, those of us who are “mad at religion” are mad at what fundamentalist kooks do, politically and otherwise, in the name of their religion, and I don’t think it’s unfair to hold that religion at least somewhat accountable (as I and others have explained at great length to you already in those previous threads).Your question here makes it sound like you really don’t understand what our problem is. Maybe you honestly don’t. Re-read what I wrote just up above there (at 7:01), and tell me what your issue is with what I said.

omg, lee – THAT’S what you took away from what MZ said??

omg, lee – THAT’S what you took away from what MZ said??

Lee, you are (and have been) simultaneously defending religion as off limits to (perceived) unkind criticism, even in the case of fundamentalist kooks, while insultingly dismissing the most widespread and historical interpretations of ‘god’ as a ‘straw man argument.’ How you are able to reconcile these two ideas in your mind is beyond my understanding.The other practice you are engaging in is zeroing in on single phrases in other people’s posts while ignoring the substance of the comment. MZ’s comment and your above reply is a great example of this tactic being employed.

Lee, you are (and have been) simultaneously defending religion as off limits to (perceived) unkind criticism, even in the case of fundamentalist kooks, while insultingly dismissing the most widespread and historical interpretations of ‘god’ as a ‘straw man argument.’ How you are able to reconcile these two ideas in your mind is beyond my understanding.The other practice you are engaging in is zeroing in on single phrases in other people’s posts while ignoring the substance of the comment. MZ’s comment and your above reply is a great example of this tactic being employed.

In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally.

Yes. This seems to describe your position when you attempt to have… I won’t call them discussions, but whatever it is you engage in when you finger point at “liberals” and tell them what “they” are doing wrong.I’d make a Passover “wicked son” reference here, but who would get it?Also, after the thought, time and effort that MZ put into responding to you in good faith, a one line contrarian response seems like a passive-aggressive move, ignoring all his points and effort, invalidating everything he (she?) said, to focus on a negative, thus steering the conversation to contention by elimination of every other aspect.Aaaaand, all of this because you’re supposedly so much in favor of the idea of uniting people by way of addressing their concerns and perspectives with respect and common ground before diplomatically addressing differences.You are not practicing what you seem to be a fan of someone else preaching.

In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally.

Yes. This seems to describe your position when you attempt to have… I won’t call them discussions, but whatever it is you engage in when you finger point at “liberals” and tell them what “they” are doing wrong.I’d make a Passover “wicked son” reference here, but who would get it?Also, after the thought, time and effort that MZ put into responding to you in good faith, a one line contrarian response seems like a passive-aggressive move, ignoring all his points and effort, invalidating everything he (she?) said, to focus on a negative, thus steering the conversation to contention by elimination of every other aspect.Aaaaand, all of this because you’re supposedly so much in favor of the idea of uniting people by way of addressing their concerns and perspectives with respect and common ground before diplomatically addressing differences.You are not practicing what you seem to be a fan of someone else preaching.

PPP -I believe in both the IPU and the FSM. I’ve believed in the IPU much, much longer, and, in fact, I really only believe in the IPU. I pretend to be a pastafarian because I like dressing as a pirate to help reduce global warming. I’m doing more to reduce global warming than the wrong wing is.

PPP -I believe in both the IPU and the FSM. I’ve believed in the IPU much, much longer, and, in fact, I really only believe in the IPU. I pretend to be a pastafarian because I like dressing as a pirate to help reduce global warming. I’m doing more to reduce global warming than the wrong wing is.

GodDAMN this was an awesome thread!Here’s something that occurred to me, somewhat off the topic of church v. state:By couching his words in that religious vernacular, wasn’t he in a way saying “the only way I can reach you, appeal to you, get your attention, is through religious ideology and dogma” ?He could have made the case for world peace without having to appeal to religious conviction. Instead, he pretty much just argued “your God says you’re not supposed to.”

GodDAMN this was an awesome thread!Here’s something that occurred to me, somewhat off the topic of church v. state:By couching his words in that religious vernacular, wasn’t he in a way saying “the only way I can reach you, appeal to you, get your attention, is through religious ideology and dogma” ?He could have made the case for world peace without having to appeal to religious conviction. Instead, he pretty much just argued “your God says you’re not supposed to.”

I’m anti-religion because I have common sense. Does it have to do with being a Progressive? That’s an interesting question. I do think a world without religion would surely be progress, so I guess the answer is yes.Obviously I don’t agree with President Obama using these words. But I am not naive and I think I understand why he did. I still have a hard time believing that President Obama IS religious. I mean, he seems like such a reasonable man. Obviously, in the age we live in, he HAD to prove to the voters that he was. We know we have progress far enough to elect an African American president….but not quite an atheist president?

I’m anti-religion because I have common sense. Does it have to do with being a Progressive? That’s an interesting question. I do think a world without religion would surely be progress, so I guess the answer is yes.Obviously I don’t agree with President Obama using these words. But I am not naive and I think I understand why he did. I still have a hard time believing that President Obama IS religious. I mean, he seems like such a reasonable man. Obviously, in the age we live in, he HAD to prove to the voters that he was. We know we have progress far enough to elect an African American president….but not quite an atheist president?

It must be some kind of religious mystery, but how can something be both “invisible” and “pink” at the same time?But I think Obama knocked it out of the park with the religious references. When Dubya talked about religion, it creeped me out because he seemed to truly, literally believe it like the fundamentalist simpleton he is.Obama impressed me as a man who could draw inspiration from the deep well of these three related faiths. He seems to understand that religion is a powerful force that can be harnessed to peace-making, not just to blood-lust and fanaticism.You’re not going to make religion disappear. What you CAN do, is USE religion to promote peace and unity, instead of war and division.If you don’t think that’s possible, then you don’t think that peace is possible. Because no matter how much you dislike religion, it’s not going away.I don’t think Obama has a simplistic faith. I think he has a deep, complex faith that inspires him to progressive public service and peace-making. Even if you don’t share that particular faith, you can at least appreciate the strength it obviously gives him.

It must be some kind of religious mystery, but how can something be both “invisible” and “pink” at the same time?But I think Obama knocked it out of the park with the religious references. When Dubya talked about religion, it creeped me out because he seemed to truly, literally believe it like the fundamentalist simpleton he is.Obama impressed me as a man who could draw inspiration from the deep well of these three related faiths. He seems to understand that religion is a powerful force that can be harnessed to peace-making, not just to blood-lust and fanaticism.You’re not going to make religion disappear. What you CAN do, is USE religion to promote peace and unity, instead of war and division.If you don’t think that’s possible, then you don’t think that peace is possible. Because no matter how much you dislike religion, it’s not going away.I don’t think Obama has a simplistic faith. I think he has a deep, complex faith that inspires him to progressive public service and peace-making. Even if you don’t share that particular faith, you can at least appreciate the strength it obviously gives him.

I’ve said it once, and I will say it again…There are some incredibly gifted contributors and writers on this blog — both above and below the by-lineAdded some great ammo to my arsenal from this thread!

I’ve said it once, and I will say it again…There are some incredibly gifted contributors and writers on this blog — both above and below the by-lineAdded some great ammo to my arsenal from this thread!

joshdobbin already answered this one so I’ll repeat what he said.

How the hell could a unicorn be both invisible and pink?

Many and varied are her mysteries, gil. Acceptance of her pinkness is an act of faith, and her followers find a kind of spiritual beauty reconciling the seeming contradiction of being no color at all and one specific color.Since she is invisible, it is an act of faith to believe that she is pink. Since she is invisible, it is an act of faith that she exists at all.The good news is that the invisible pink unicorn will neither save you (from what?), nor will she condemn you. The absolute worst thing she will ever do is laugh if you do something funny or stupid.She doesn’t do any of that smiting nonsense either. She just watches and offers advice if you ask nicely. All that we are surrounded by the IPU expects us to deal with it as best we can.

joshdobbin already answered this one so I’ll repeat what he said.

How the hell could a unicorn be both invisible and pink?

Many and varied are her mysteries, gil. Acceptance of her pinkness is an act of faith, and her followers find a kind of spiritual beauty reconciling the seeming contradiction of being no color at all and one specific color.Since she is invisible, it is an act of faith to believe that she is pink. Since she is invisible, it is an act of faith that she exists at all.The good news is that the invisible pink unicorn will neither save you (from what?), nor will she condemn you. The absolute worst thing she will ever do is laugh if you do something funny or stupid.She doesn’t do any of that smiting nonsense either. She just watches and offers advice if you ask nicely. All that we are surrounded by the IPU expects us to deal with it as best we can.

He was pandering to audience and unfortunately, Obama is often condescending, as he was here. But it’s okay, because he was equally condescending to his Christian American audience as he was to his Muslim Middle Eastern audience. Sounded just like any pastor on any Sunday or any imam on any Friday.I could do without it.

He was pandering to audience and unfortunately, Obama is often condescending, as he was here. But it’s okay, because he was equally condescending to his Christian American audience as he was to his Muslim Middle Eastern audience. Sounded just like any pastor on any Sunday or any imam on any Friday.I could do without it.

Hello Lee,First off, you were a bit snarky with your first commenter. I think they know what a book of fairy tails means, I just don’t think that you both agree with the fact that to him (or her) the bible is just that. It is this sort of snarkiness and superiority that religionists seem to have. Yeah, I said religionists.I would agree that your questions on whether or not Obama’s mention of religious stuff violates separation of C/S, is a question that imply’s that you either think atheists don’t get it, or you don’t yourself.It’s kinda obvious that it doesn’t cross the legal threshold (as bush did).Anyways Lee, I like your posts and love your stuff, (seriously, I’ve been reading this site for a while now and do love it: examples- posts on homeschooling, marijuana, man I can’t remember, but those two stick out: oh the Judge saying kids don’t need to be in jail for weed) but I begin to wonder if we are understanding each other on this religious sense.You are starting to sound like, and please Lee, forgive this analogy but it is kinda fitting, Rush Limbaugh and Buchanan saying that it is the white man who is being put down. Do you really feel like religious folks don’t have an entire network of support and that atheists are mean and nasty? Every atheist I know is nothing but kind hearted. Now, I know that you never said “The religious folks are being put down”, at least not in those words. It was certainly implied though.Put it like this: as long as you keep your God out of my life through policy, then I am all good with it. If you start preaching God to me in a biblical sense, I’d just stop reading and feel like I lost a good friend to the crazy, but hey, that’s life.In the end: I hope not to sound mean, but lately it seems like the blog is loosing some of its reality based characteristics.Maybe its just me because I don’t believe in any biblical version of anything.Truth be said: love the blog. Just all this religious stuff (no more gODDamn, now your questions on why atheists are so mean) kinda scares me. In my understanding of events, its always the religious ones that are crazy: read all crazy folk have some deep connection with ‘god’: Bush, Hitler, Popes, instigators of WWI, WWII, proponents of slavery, women haters, etc.. I guess many of us thought that there was a refuge from the god talk here, but maybe there isn’t.And maybe I am horribly wrong and out of place. All I can say is this: I enjoy spreading the love, not the hate so I truly hope that this message reaches you:Just cause I fear the religionists, does not make them bad or wrong. I actually really love and admire people who follow the tenets of their faith. I might not believe, but you have all the right to do what you want. I hope for growthful and truthing relationships between all of us, even if they can be difficult.Peace out Lee. Let your heart take you where it will, as you already know to do.

Hello Lee,First off, you were a bit snarky with your first commenter. I think they know what a book of fairy tails means, I just don’t think that you both agree with the fact that to him (or her) the bible is just that. It is this sort of snarkiness and superiority that religionists seem to have. Yeah, I said religionists.I would agree that your questions on whether or not Obama’s mention of religious stuff violates separation of C/S, is a question that imply’s that you either think atheists don’t get it, or you don’t yourself.It’s kinda obvious that it doesn’t cross the legal threshold (as bush did).Anyways Lee, I like your posts and love your stuff, (seriously, I’ve been reading this site for a while now and do love it: examples- posts on homeschooling, marijuana, man I can’t remember, but those two stick out: oh the Judge saying kids don’t need to be in jail for weed) but I begin to wonder if we are understanding each other on this religious sense.You are starting to sound like, and please Lee, forgive this analogy but it is kinda fitting, Rush Limbaugh and Buchanan saying that it is the white man who is being put down. Do you really feel like religious folks don’t have an entire network of support and that atheists are mean and nasty? Every atheist I know is nothing but kind hearted. Now, I know that you never said “The religious folks are being put down”, at least not in those words. It was certainly implied though.Put it like this: as long as you keep your God out of my life through policy, then I am all good with it. If you start preaching God to me in a biblical sense, I’d just stop reading and feel like I lost a good friend to the crazy, but hey, that’s life.In the end: I hope not to sound mean, but lately it seems like the blog is loosing some of its reality based characteristics.Maybe its just me because I don’t believe in any biblical version of anything.Truth be said: love the blog. Just all this religious stuff (no more gODDamn, now your questions on why atheists are so mean) kinda scares me. In my understanding of events, its always the religious ones that are crazy: read all crazy folk have some deep connection with ‘god’: Bush, Hitler, Popes, instigators of WWI, WWII, proponents of slavery, women haters, etc.. I guess many of us thought that there was a refuge from the god talk here, but maybe there isn’t.And maybe I am horribly wrong and out of place. All I can say is this: I enjoy spreading the love, not the hate so I truly hope that this message reaches you:Just cause I fear the religionists, does not make them bad or wrong. I actually really love and admire people who follow the tenets of their faith. I might not believe, but you have all the right to do what you want. I hope for growthful and truthing relationships between all of us, even if they can be difficult.Peace out Lee. Let your heart take you where it will, as you already know to do.

Oh, and as far as what Obama said, I think I love having an intelligent and insightful, as well as wise President.Wow!He does certainly use religion for peaceful endeavors, not blood waging war hate asshole talk.

Oh, and as far as what Obama said, I think I love having an intelligent and insightful, as well as wise President.Wow!He does certainly use religion for peaceful endeavors, not blood waging war hate asshole talk.

I was just wondering what Lee thought of the posts here since his last, but then I remembered that Lee’s not here to debate or get caught up in the back-and-forth.He’s just here to goad those he disagrees with into an argument by misrepresenting their position and then snipe from the sidelines.I’ve generally enjoyed Lee’s blog posts, but to be honest, the latest wave of religion-themed threads of his have left me not wanting to read anything of his any more.

I was just wondering what Lee thought of the posts here since his last, but then I remembered that Lee’s not here to debate or get caught up in the back-and-forth.He’s just here to goad those he disagrees with into an argument by misrepresenting their position and then snipe from the sidelines.I’ve generally enjoyed Lee’s blog posts, but to be honest, the latest wave of religion-themed threads of his have left me not wanting to read anything of his any more.

Wow. Lee. You sure did get a lot of folks pissed of by generalizing them into a hate group, then asking for comments from them, then ‘sniping’ them from the sideline and, where are you?I gotta say, I just read everyone’s comments:No one here has insulted you or engaged in any of the hate you mention. Point “those liberals” out for me.Now that I think of it, you were doing some name calling yourself.

Wow. Lee. You sure did get a lot of folks pissed of by generalizing them into a hate group, then asking for comments from them, then ‘sniping’ them from the sideline and, where are you?I gotta say, I just read everyone’s comments:No one here has insulted you or engaged in any of the hate you mention. Point “those liberals” out for me.Now that I think of it, you were doing some name calling yourself.

And to Bob and Lee.I would buy more stuff from the store if there was less tolerance of atheists here on your site.Also, I would buy more stuff from this site if it was less religious and had more gODDamn stuff in it.So? Which money fart would you all like to get money from?

And to Bob and Lee.I would buy more stuff from the store if there was less tolerance of atheists here on your site.Also, I would buy more stuff from this site if it was less religious and had more gODDamn stuff in it.So? Which money fart would you all like to get money from?