‘Trash the Constitution’: Atheist Billboard in TX Quotes JFK‘s ’Absolute‘ ’Separation of Church & State’ Speech
- Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:00am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
It’s been a while since non-believers have posted a billboard worth noting. But, alas, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a secularist group that works to advance the atheist agenda, has posted a new billboard in Lubbock, Texas, featuring President John F. Kennedy.
On July 5, just hours after the national celebrated Independence Day, the group proudly promoted the billboard in a blog post on its web site entitled, “Texans Faced With Secular Speed Bump.” The article describes the billboard as being 14 feet by 48 feet and says that it is located on the west side of Interstate 27.
Conveniently, this is near the Lubbock International Airport — guaranteeing that many eyes will be set upon the sign. The FFRF reports that the billboard, which reads, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” will be up for at least six months.
Image Credit: Freedom From Religion Foundation
The JFK quote invoked on the atheist sign comes from a speech that the deceased president made when he was a candidate in 1960. Kennedy, as the FFRF notes, was speaking to the Houston Ministerial Association when he uttered the controversial comments. Here is a longer portion of Kennedy’s famed speech on faith:
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
Earlier this year, former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum caught heat after saying that he almost “threw up” after hearing the Kennedy speech. But the FFRF’s co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor couldn’t disagree with Santorum more, as she calls Kennedy’s words “breathtaking.”
“We’ve gone from a nation where politicians once had to show reverence for the First Amendment principle of separation between state and church to one where they wear religion on their sleeves and think they have to trash the Constitution to get elected,” added FFRF co-president — and Gaylor’s husband — Dan Barker.
The billboard was made possible to the FFRF by a donation from one of its Houston-based members.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 589 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (266)
Jazzmanblue
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:45amI always find it interesting to see how the idea of “separation of church and state” is twisted to distort it’s intended purpose. The term does not exist in our Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Our Founding Fathers did not want to have the churches of the United States influenced or controlled by the government in the same way they were in England. The Church of England took its marching orders from the King, and if the Church and King disagreed on a point, the Church kept quiet. Much as things are now, the King did not acknowledge a person’s belief in God, and placed himself above all things.
Freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment was a guarantee of protection for all churches from government influence. In our current political environment, “the separation of Church and state” idea is being used to remove any religious influence from public life. This is a perversion of the Constitution and an attack on the civil liberties of all individuals with a religious affiliation.
If people truly consider themselves to be a member of a religion and choose to live their lives accordingly, the time is coming when you will be arrested and jailed for doing so. Our Founding Fathers had to stand for freedom of religion and other individual civil liberties by risking their lives and their sacred honor. We must be willing to do the same, or all of our freedoms, including our religious liberties, will perish.
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:33pmWhat‘s interesting to note is that the atheist’s like to tag the “separation of church and state” to Thomas Jefferson…Yet Jefferson used to allow and attend church services in the Capitol.
Report Post »BryanB
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:42pm@Jazzmanblue
Your absolutely correct.
Please remember this, these Atheist groups and organizations don’t care about the truth, they just want it there way………
Report Post »Thatsitivehadenough
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:47pmWhat? Communist Atheists TWISTING the facts! I’m shocked.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:22pmBRYANB:
Report Post »Then Obama is their Burger King?
colt1860
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:32pmThose who don’t learn history are bound to repeat it.
“The history of Christianity in the Soviet Union was not limited to repression and secularization. Soviet policy toward religion was based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, which made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religion. The state was committed to the destruction of religion, and destroyed churches, mosques and temples, ridiculed, harassed and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with atheistic propaganda, and generally promoted ‘scientific atheism’ as the truth that society should accept. Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population, in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:38pm“…Having lived under Communist rule in the former Soviet Russia, Mishin and his fellow Russians were literally freed by the fall of that regime that began with the overthrow of the Czar in 1917 by the Bolsheviks. What followed was an experiment in Communism that killed millions of Russians as a succession of dictators, starting with Lenin, sought to impose an economic and political system that simply does not work. Mishin enumerated the ways the path to the present effort to destroy capitalism and our political system has been laid in America. “First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather than the classics.” There are few that would argue that the American education system is not controlled by the National Education Association, a union, and the American Federation of Teachers, a union. Both have long supported the Democrat Party. Virtually every way one can measure the system reveals its failure to educate the millions passing through government schools. “Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different ‘branches and denominations’ were for the most part little more than Sunday circuses…””.
“Kitty Werthmann tells of her experience in Nazi Germany as a young girl. Her warning is clear and based on historical fact… let history not repeat itself.”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAvMHWhdEUU
Report Post »EddardinWinter
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 2:28pmOnly a Sith deals in absolutes….usually.
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 2:50pmWhat is atheism but a religion, they put their faith and trust in man, they base their morals on themselves. Look at our prison systems full of people that lived their lives based on their own moral judgments. I will look to Gods word for guidance every time, I cannot rely on my own judgment , sinful man that I am. The world is a violent place with many victims, man cannot be trusted on his own judgment , atheist remind me of Obama and taking charge for their actions, If they accept the fact that God does exist then they would be accountable for their actions.
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 2:57pmFrankly, ‘atheists’ wear religion on their sleeves, as well. So, six of one, a half a dozen of the other.
IMHBLO, everybody should grow a little skin. And let folks think what they will.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 3:13pmLet‘s try to understand the context of Kennedy’s election a bit more.
” I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. ”
He was the first Catholic to run for president in this country. For a reason I honestly don’t understand, Catholics were unpopular. Voters were not used to being under the leadership of anyone who was not protestant.
And so Kennedy, to win independents, had to seem like he was an American first, and a Catholic second, and would NOT put his own church‘s priorities over the protestant’s.
When Kennedy said, ” and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. ”
^
He was basically saying, “Hey, don‘t choose the other guy just cuz I’m catholic!”
My point is this;
Now, when Kennedy said this, was he saying he would try to do away with any sort of influence even remotely tainted by the foul light of Christianity in favor of a glorious secular society? No, not even close.
Report Post »Occupy_The_Blaze_FORWARD2012
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 3:40pmmost folks support the idea of separation of church and state…or rather most sensible, reasonable, rational folks support the idea. Like you connedserfatvies support the idea of separation of integrity and actions and the separation of brain and mouth. Just kidding. I’m totally sure Thurston and Lovey will trounce the President come november. haw!
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 4:33pmHow about another JFK quote:
Report Post »“I would rather my children be red than dead”
JFK
And so they are…
Drives Like Jehu
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 4:51pm“I believe in a God Who separates the saved from the lost absolutely.”
– Drives Like Jehu
Report Post »chalkdust
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 4:56pmThe term “separation of our church and state” is from Jefferson in a letter, written and published in a Massachusetts newspaper, to the Danberry Baptists. What he meant by this term is no influence of the Government by religion and the Government holding no influence over religion. This is also what the Kennedy quote means. It was never meant to hamper the free expression, public or private, of religion. The term has also been used in the Supreme Court at various times upholding and striking with different cases.
Report Post »It is extremely hostile to force religious beliefs to be practiced strictly in the home or church. This is a classic dictatorial position on religion. So, expression of religion on public land is not prohibited by the Constitution but influence from either Government or religion is.
Grubmeister
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 8:56pmKickingback,
I assume you are referring to the David Barton claim that on
December 4, 1800, Congress approved the use of the
Capitol building as a church building.
According to Chris Rodda, in “Liars for Jesus”:
Neither the Senate nor Thomas Jefferson had anything whatsoever
to do with this. The House of Representatives didn’t need or ask for the
approval of the Senate when the chaplains requested the use of the
House chamber for Sunday services. The House itself didn’t even vote
on it. The Speaker simply announced that the chaplains had proposed
to hold services in their chamber on Sundays, and the House got on
with the more important business of the day – deciding where the stenographers
should sit.17
Typical of religious right American history authors, David Barton
has no problem twisting a few other things to make them fit his lies.
To involve Jefferson in this story, and make it appear that he had
some sort of power to prevent these religious services, Barton not
only claims that this use of the House chamber needed the Senate’s
approval, but implies that Jefferson, as president of the Senate, had
the authority to approve this on behalf of the Senate. Barton also has
Jefferson already elected president on December 4, 1800. The election
of 1800, held on December 3, was, of course, a tie between Jefferson
and Aaron Burr.
‘continued in next post
Report Post »Grubmeister
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 8:58pm‘continued from above previous post
Jefferson was not elected until the House of
Representatives elected him in February 1801. And, obviously, even
if Jefferson had been the clear winner on December 3, he would not
have known this on December 4.
Chris Rodda “Liars for Jesus”
Like you, I can only rely on the honesty of any individual author. I will however, give more respect to authors who delve deeper into the details of history to find the truth.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:27pmCongress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of “humiliation, fasting, and prayer” were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by “covenant theology,” a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they “should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears.”…
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body’s first chaplain on July 9, 1776….
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:29pmOn October 1, 1777, after Jacob Duché, Congress’s first chaplain, defected to the British, Congress appointed joint chaplains: William White (1748-1836), Duché’s successor at Christ Church, Philadelphia, and George Duffield (1732-1790), pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. By appointing chaplains of different denominations, Congress expressed a revolutionary egalitarianism in religion and its desire to prevent any single denomination from monopolizing government patronage. This policy was followed by the first Congress under the Constitution which on April 15, 1789, adopted a joint resolution requiring that the practice be continued…
Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a “day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer” throughout the colonies. Congress urges its fellow citizens to “confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.“ Massachusetts ordered a ”suitable Number“ of these proclamations be printed so ”that each of the religious Assemblies in this Colony, may be furnished with a Copy of the same“ and added the motto ”God Save This People“ as a substitute for ”God Save the King.”
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:32pmOn May 2, 1778, General George Washington issued these orders to his troops at Valley Forge:
“The Commander-in-Chief directs that Divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o’clock, in each Brigade which has a Chaplain. Those Brigades which have none will attend the places of worship nearest to them. It is expected that officers of all ranks will, by their attendance, set an example for their men. While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian. The signal instances of Providential goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all good.”
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:37pm“It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House–a practice that continued until after the Civil War–were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.”
“In his diary, M. Cutler (1742-1823), a Federalist Congressman from Mass. and Congregational minister, notes that on Sunday, January 3, 1802, J.Leland preached a sermon on the text “Behold a greater than Solomon is here. Jefferson was present.” Jefferson attended this church service in Congress, just two days after issuing the Danbury Baptist letter. Leland, a celebrated Baptist minister, had moved from Orange County, Vir.”
Report Post »stage9
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 12:21pmJFK is who the atheist ascribes to? Who will they quote next? Barack Obama?
“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
“In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.” — John Quincy Adams (Sixth President of the United States; Diplomat; Secretary of State; U.S. Senator; US Representative)
“Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”9. — Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854
“The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”8 — Congress 1854
Report Post »TisOnlyMe
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 2:42pmJFK made a lot of quotes…
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life” – JFK
Notice the L‘s don’t use the ones they don’t like.
Report Post »Simple-James
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 8:36pmActually, the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence refers to separation of the two.
Here….
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Report Post »Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass
Posted on July 9, 2012 at 7:52amKickinback: The reason Thomas Jefferson is referenced is because he first used it in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. He wrote, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
While it is true it does not appear in the Constitution, which is the law in this country, even more notable is the absence of god, or the creator in the constitution.
Then there is the Treaty of Tripoli which states, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….”
There are plenty of other examples as well but the bottom line is that the while the founding fathers were deists, they also made it clear that the government was not based on nor should it endores one religion over another.
Report Post »Reality_Bites_You_on_the_Ass
Posted on July 9, 2012 at 8:02amRICKC34, You are quite mistaken. Allow me to enlighten you. Atheism is a religion like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby or abstinence is a sex position, or OFF is a TV channel, or bald is a hair color. Catching on now?
On the other hand, organized religion is like organized crime; it preys on peoples’ weaknesses, generates huge profits for its operators, and is almost impossible to eradicate. The mind of a fundamentalist is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you pour on it, the more it will contract.
Report Post »limitfree
Posted on July 9, 2012 at 3:43pmThey didn’t want powerful “majority” churchs controlling the government either. Remember, this nation was first founded by people who were fleeing from religious persecution in Europe. The sole purpose of the first amendment is to guarantee FREEDOM of religion to each and every INDIVIDUAL. In America, no religious leader has even the slightest legal power or civil authority over ANY American. No church can do anything more to me, or anyone else, than to excommunicate me as a member of their church.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on July 12, 2012 at 12:19amThe intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a National Denomination (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: “By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing.” Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut, from which we derive the term separation of Church and State he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.
Report Post »To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the truth and the facts of history
txdave22
Posted on July 13, 2012 at 7:17pmAMA Policies on GLBT Issues
General Policies:
H-65.992 Continued Support of Human Rights and Freedom. Our AMA continues (1) to support the dignity of the individual, human rights and the sanctity of human life, and (2) to oppose any discrimination based on an individual’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin or age and any other such reprehensible policies. (Sub. Res. 107, A-85; Modified by CLRPD Rep. 2, I-95; Reaffirmation A-00; Reaffirmation A-05; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07)
H-65.983 Nondiscrimination Policy. The AMA affirms that it has not been its policy now or in the past to discriminate with regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. (Res. 1, A-93; Reaffirmed: CCB Rep. 6, A-03; Modified: BOT Rep. 11, A-07)
H-65.990 Civil Rights Restoration. The AMA reaffirms its long-standing policy that there is no basis for the denial to any human being of equal rights, privileges, and responsibilities commensurate with his or her individual capabilities and ethical character because of an individual’s sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or transgender status, race, religion, disability, ethnic origin, national origin, or age. (BOT Rep. LL, I-86; Amended by Sunset Report, I-96; Modified: Res. 410, A-03)
Report Post »wrapture44
Posted on July 16, 2012 at 8:24pmObvious you have no idea how the constitution reads. You need to read and study the Establishment Clause and Free Enterprise Clause.
Report Post »All Pro
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:44amThere is NO separation of church and state in the US constitution. The first amendment didn’t force states to abandon their state religion. The articles of incorporation did.
Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Report Post »http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Constitution/
phillyatheist
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:44amthe gentleman listed in this article, Dan Barker, is a former Evangelical preacher, soul winner, and Christian song writer. anyone who comments on this or any Atheist article should really give his book “Godless” a read. if you actually want to know what Atheists believe and why they believe it, his perspective is quite unique. you might (gasp) actually learn something.
Report Post »Occupy_The_Blaze_FORWARD2012
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:27pmI don‘t think they’re interested in learning in these parts….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:45pmYou do realize PHILLY that Barker is not a particularly gifted debater in regards to atheism? There are others that are better. I am curious you keep refering to what atheists believe, but the specturm is very far and wide. There are many facets to atheists as some believ different things. To be blunt aheism is by its very definition an unprovable unknowable (by the scietific method) conclusion. Some atheists recognize this and others do not. Where do you stand? Let me clarify.
Dr. Mortimer Adler describes the difficulty in this manner: “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition – one that denies the existence of some thing – cannot be proved.”
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 2:08pm@ OCCUPY…..quite the unfair and inaccurate mischaracterization as I know many people of faith that have read many books and works by atheists regarding their beliefs and objections to theism. To denigrate the opposing view does little to make you seem smarter or more right. It does, however, expose an unobjective prejudice against people of faith by stereotyping a group as uninterested in the real discussions and issues before us. Please if you will since you are apparently acquainted with Dan Barker present what you believe is his most compelling argument against the existence of God in quick summary form as I am familiar with much of his writing. I will reply. Thank you ahead of time.
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 2:54pmIf it cannot be proved the can it be disproved, you can stay in your belief, I just wonder why so many atheist feel it is their obligation to attack another belief. Prove to me there is no GOD.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 3:13pm@ RICK…I’m not sure if you are speaking to me (it seems like you addressed my comment), but I am a very sincere Christian and was pointing to the fact that Atheism is actually an unknowable unprovable assertion. That is why the bus billboards read, “There probably is no god”. It is impossible to prove a negative existential proposition. Honest Atheists admit this, intellectually dishonest ones will not. It helps me discern who I am speaking with and if they are sincere enough to carry on a conversation about this topic and if they are open to consider my views based in logic and reason that serves as the foundation for my faith.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 4:47pm“To be blunt aheism is by its very definition an unprovable unknowable”
as is faith. the difference is in who is alleging the claim. if i claim that i can talk to a deity, you are perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of such a claim. it would be up to me to prove it to you. same with faith in a deity. the default position should be to be skeptical of such a claim until proof can be offered. since it has not, nor will likely ever be offered, i would state that Atheists have the most appropriate position on the matter.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 5:33pm“i would state that Atheists have the most appropriate position on the matter.”
LOL. Where‘s the atheists’ more than two thousand year old testaments claiming, throughout various generations, and many civilizations, that no God exists?
Since the beginning of mankind’s recorded history, the belief in some God has always existed, whether through idol or spiritual worship. The fact that no atheist can prove that an eye can evolve into one of the most detailed, complex, necessary, essential, systems of \ living body, without some type of system or engineering feat in place, proves to me that some intelligent entity must have constructed and given a purpose to that very same eye. For indeed, we made not ourselves, nor can we prove, that we made each other. Or, how can we prove that we evolved one from another, if indeed, we’re all the same? And to somehow believe, by some discovered skull, that we cam from some other being, how does that prove the same occurred for all species? To this day, no species can intermingle with another. Furthermore, How is it possible that I can lie to another man, but my conscious will never allow me to lie to myself? I may ignore, avoid, deny, but I cannot escape a guilty conscious. That proves to me that something else governs my mind and body, outside of my control. Go ahead, and declare your denial of a God, but dare not say that you stand in some superior position, for your reasoning is faulty and ridiculous at best.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 5:39pm@ PHILLY…the difference is that it is possible to prove an existential proposition in the affirmitive, it is never possible to prove the negative existential proposition. And we differ greatly on the “proof” aspect. Much evidence has been offered to make a reasonable deduction. What methods of knowledge/truth discovery do you use? I will assume the scientific method, but there are other reliable, practical and accpeted methods of which truth/knowledge are discovered. This will be important for the purpose of further discussion and presentation of evidence. The evidence then builds a case that leads one to make a deduction based upon reason (beyond reasonable doubt) as to the conclusion that evidence supports.
I would also state that your assumption that the atheist holds the more reasonable position is not accurate because it is based upon your assertion that proof (in the form of evidence) has not been offered. Evidence is available and present for the existence of God specifically the Christian understanding as revealed in the person of Jesus. Ultimately, we would have to investigate this claim together to see who is right, but this is difficult given the format of this forum. Thank you for your earlier response.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 5:47pm@ PHILLY…BTW faith is provable as it relies on the positive existential proposition that God exists. The evidence is what we would need to lQQk at together. Faith is not a blind faith, it is a reasonable belief based upon the case of evidence before us and I would love to touch on some of it with you if interested. Faith defined does not mean a guess or feeling, but a reasonable confidence in the trustworthiness of the evidence of something or someone. In its purest form those who hold to a form of scietism by their belief have a faith as well. The belief that we should only believe what can be scietifically proven is in fact a statement of faith as the statement itself cannot be scientifically proven. Not to mention this is an impractical and unlivable statement that is not practiced in its purest form by anyone as all exercise faith in some things, eg a fathful spouse, a physician, a parent, and on and on….
Report Post »Lotus4115
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 6:00pmGo here and listen to Dan’s story…
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpHGVXRfDyM&feature=relmfu
Grubmeister
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:18pmHippo (there were so many to choose from),
As for your assertion that atheism is unproveable, I would agree with you…but only in the terms under which you defined it. I would call yours a straw man argument except that it is to a limited scope technically true. There are “some” who define atheism as people who believe god does not exist. You’re right, you can’t prove something does not exist somewhere (I‘m sure you’re fully aware of Russell’s teapot).
Many, including myself, define atheism differently. In their mind, they disbelieve in a god because the existence of he/she/it has not been demonstrated or experienced. This form of atheism is completely logical and entirely consistent. To the individual atheist, as long as those two conditions are met, It is bulletproof to arguments that god exists.
Since we’ve gotten that out of the way, I’d like to ask that you be more specific in the future when referring to “atheists”. It would improve communication and just make us all immeasureably happy to know you are referring to positive atheism. Lumping us all together may please the peanut gallery but the loyal opposition finds it annoying and dishonest.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:35pm@ GRUB…thank you for your response. My purpose was not to lump anyone, but actually the opposite. To see where PHILLY defined his own beliefs. I simply used those parameters to help elucidate what I meant and clarify the point I was trying to arirve at. Nowas for your statement that positive atheism is bulletproof to the existence of God in the parameters set forth is simply not accurate and obviously is at the heart of the ongoing debate. As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and has many philosophical problems. One of the most glaring is its inability to account for our own existence. I am not referring to evolution as this is not the problem, but rather
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:36pm@ GRUB…What caused the universe to come into existence? Meaning something had to bring it into existence. I will let you respond before addressing the matter further as a courtesy to let you pick the avenue you desire to discuss that you feel is your strongest argument.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:40pm@ GRUB…BTW I apologize if I unecessarily offended you with my earlier comment. I think it was the heat of the day that left me impatient. Forgive me.
Report Post »hazmat_factor
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 4:38pm@OTBF2012
You seem quite intelligent, or maybe just over educated. Whichever, your arrogant attitude floweth over. Live your life the way you feel led to live it, just quit trying to force me to live the way you think I should.
You don’t believe in God, so you probably don’t believe in satan either. I‘m sure that he’s quite happy bout that. After all, that’s part of the plan……………………………….Moron
Report Post »hi
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:41amWhy don’t they put the billboard in Michigan where the Muslims try to uphold Shariah Law? Why are atheists so afraid of Christians when they really need to fear Shariah!!?
Report Post »Winedude
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:16pmPossibly because there are more Christians. The evangelicals cause as much fear as anything the Muslims might produce.
Report Post »M13
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:23pmWhining about Christians now whinedude? Does it ever get old?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:31pmHere’s HI again with her red-herring tactics…
“Ignore the fact I’m trying to impose my religion on others…just look at what that .06% of the population is doing!”
Muslims do not have the power to change laws. Muslims are not the ones in control of one-half of our duopoly. Muslims are not the ones demanding their religious laws be posted in schools. Muslims are not the ones demanding their creation myths be taught in schools. Muslims are not the ones organizing boycotts against stores for hiring homosexuals or passing laws that enforce their religious mores on the rest of the population.
You and the rest of your bigoted ilk keep calling atheists cowards for not challenging .06% of the population and actually challenging the majority faith, the faith that has the power to enforce their religion through law. Yet, when your faith is challenged, you immediately want to hide behind Muslims.
And you call us the cowards.
Report Post »girlnurse
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:03pmHey BRUCEP. If there is such a separation of church and state…then WHY did your hero’s wife Moochelle O. jus tell us the church is the BEST place to talk about politics??? And WHY is the state of Arizona all up in that mans business because he wants to worship God at his house WITHOUT taking a tax exemption?? U see its NOT us Christians that are in your business…its the athiests and gubment that wont get out of OUR BUSINESS. Lookie what your precious John Napolitano is doing….he/she is jus dying to get into our churches. Its ALL about CONTROL my friend. Knock knock, “we’re from the gubment and we are here to “protect you” “there is much danger out there-a terrorist in every corner” The ONLY danger we have is wolves in sheeps clothing. I will give you credit at least you are honest about who you are.
You leave us alone and we’ll leave YOU alone…
http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0829.shtm
Report Post »http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/20120418-napolitano-meeting-jewish-community-leaders.shtm
huskerman723
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:04pmWhy don’t they go after the muslims? Because the enemy of their enemy is their friend. They don’t really care about religion or they would be going after Reverend Wright, who brings politics into all of his “sermons”. They care about destroying fundamental America. They want the Soviet Union except they think they are smarter than the Politburo and can actually pull it off.
When the Berlin Wall came down this is where the people who were pulling the strings in East Berlin went….to the environmental causes and this anti religious BS. They think they can defeat capitalism by attacking what the rest of us hold dear, a strategy the military employs. And what we hold dear is our individual rights to worship who we want and our rights to pursue happiness in whatever legal way we can.
Report Post »hi
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:40pmBruce
Report Post »Christians aren’t doing any of the items you listed. I don‘t want to force my religion on Anyone just as I don’t want Shariah Law forced on me.
The scary thing is Shariah Law is sneaking its way into the courts which is horrendous.
Christianity has already been taken out of the schools. For example no Christmas celebrations are allowed. It is called Winter break. Easter is called Spring Break. As far as evolution goes I only want scientific arguments against it ALLOWED in school. Atheists do not want any scientific arguments against it whatsoever. Atheists will not even admit that evolution is a theory! You always say it is a fact.
The are no Christians making laws forcing Christianity on others.
No one boycotts hiring of gays. Jesus loves everyone. We are all sinners and one sin isn’tworse than the next.
Read about Shariah Law entering the courts.
SLOWBIDEN
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 3:34pm@ Bruce P… Muslims demand you believe in what they believe or you should die. That is according to their kuran. Educate yourself before posting.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 6:09pmHI — apparently, lying is a sin…unless you are lying for Christ?
Evolution is a theory — backed up by facts. EVERY evolutionist will admit to that. You are misrepresenting and therefore lying. Therefore a sinner…like the homosexuals you hate so much. You are going to burn in Hell, just like them. Because you are nothing but a liar.
Creationism however has no scientific facts to back it up. Nothing that can pass peer review in any SCIENTIFIC journal. Now, you will whine and lie and say there is an atheist conspiracy against evidence for Creationism. You have to use lies and logical fallacies in order to defend your position.
But it is not about teaching science. That is an outright lie on the part of the Creationist. They want GENESIS taught in schools.
“No one boycotts hiring of gays.” That is complete BS — and you know it. Have you ever heard of the American Family Associate and One Million Moms? Of course you have. But you lie and say no one boycotts the hiring of gays.
Jesus may love everyone. But Christians sure as hell don’t.
You say Christians are not forcing their religion into laws. Again, you are nothing but a liar. Your justification against homosexual marriage — or homosexuals even living a life is “because the Bible says so, it should be law!”
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 6:25pmGIRLNURSE — I could care less if someone talks about politics in church. What a person does in church is their own business. It is when religion attempts to use government force or government persecutes religion that there is a problem.
“And WHY is the state of Arizona all up in that mans business because he wants to worship God at his house WITHOUT taking a tax exemption”
Why don’t you ask the CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN governor of Arizona why that is happening.
As for Janet Napolitano — there is nothing wrong with government working with religious groups, especially when it comes to security matters. The problem is when government shows favoritism, persecution or when religion attempts to use the power of government to enforce its tenants.
As for “my” Janet Napolitano — I am not a liberal nor a Democrat. Try actual thought instead of just rehearsing stereotypes.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 6:27pmSLOWBIDEN — I am not worried about .06% of the population. They have no power to enforce their views upon others.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 8:25pm@ BRUCE P….if I may add to the conversation….When you say there is no scietific evidence for creation I have to point out your fallacy. We all possess the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpretted. When scientists begin with the assumption there is no god then they interpret it one way conversly for those who believe in God interpret it another way. However, the evidence could be easily used to point to a creator especially with some more recent revelations in the field of de novo universe. Evolution is not a theory backed up by facts it is an explanation of the evidence. That is how the scientific method works and when the evidence can no longer be explained by that current theory it must be modified or changed all together as evolution has undergone many many modifications since its inception. I would ask what other methods do you use to discover truth? There are other recognized and accepted methods. If you state that you believe the scientific method should be used to discover all truth you have just made a statement of faith because that statement cannot be proved by the scientific method, it is a philosophical statement.
Report Post »With regard to your comment about laws, you do realize every law is someone’s forced morality on the rest of scoiety. If same sex marriage is allowed the majority of Americans would have a morality imposed on them they are not in favor of according to most recent polls I am aware. Cont….
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 8:32pm@ BRUCE P….I would say if any imposition of morality exists it would be the institution of homosexual marriage in our country as it would the first time in human history that actually allowed, recognized and sanctioned marriage between the same sex. For thousands of years the institution of marriage has existed between a man and a woman with very deep and ancient roots in religion. Why must homosexuals have marriage? Take civil unions which will afford legal and financial protections. But in this case I would argue it is the secular that is imposing upon the religous.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 8:53pm“Evolution is not a theory backed up by facts it is an explanation of the evidence.”
Semantics.
“That is how the scientific method works and when the evidence can no longer be explained by that current theory it must be modified or changed all together as evolution has undergone many many modifications since its inception.”
Completely right.
And that highlights the differences between evolution and Genesis-based creationism. Evolution is molded to fit the evidence. If evidence is found that challenges our current theories, we re-write the theories to fit the evidence. However, Genesis-based creationism is a theory is search of evidence, it must ignore, dismiss and reinterpret evidence in order to fit the theory.
Therefore, going back to my earlier statement, there is no evidence that supports Genesis-based creationism. Or, if we are going to be a stickler about semantics, Genesis-based creationism does not fit the evidence.
“If same sex marriage is allowed the majority of Americans would have a morality imposed on them they are not in favor…”
Nonsense. That morality is not imposed on them. If they do not like same-sex marriage, they will not have to marry someone of the same sex. It will not be forced on them. Just like other things in our society you may have morals against. If you don’t like it, don’t participate. But don’t deny that right to others.
By the way, a majority supports it now… http://tinyurl.com/3zbopz3
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:11pm@ BRUCE P….symantics? I think that is a dodge with all due respect. You cannot say Evolution is backed up by facts, it is an explanation of the evidence. If it was backed up by facts then it would never need to be changed or modified when a better explanation of the evidence is elucidated. And your insistance on referring to Genesis based creationsim is a bit disingenuous if I may because what you fail to take into account is that Genesis is not written in a scientific style with details based in science, it is a metaphorically styled writing meant to convey ideas and concepts easily understood by men. So your assertion that it is somehow not backed by science is inaccurate when referring to the Genesis account because it is undeniably written in a metaphoric style as is Revelation. So when you dismiss the evidence as being all in favor of evolution you are dismissing bodies of evidence with nothing more than subjective opinion not grounded in objective reasons or evidence. To do so we would have to evaluate many ares of evidence, which is difficult in this forum. Continue to the next post for the homosexual response. Thanks.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:13pmGIRLNURSE — I did some checking into your claims and as I suspected, full of more lies.
” And WHY is the state of Arizona all up in that mans business because he wants to worship God at his house WITHOUT taking a tax exemption?”
It has nothing to do with him being Christian, as Salman and his lying supporters (including the Blaze) are trying to cast it. He is not in trouble for holding mere Bible studies. He is running afoul the law because not only did he erected a 4,200 sq ft. building on his property too close to the property line, built he did not build it up to code, conducting worship for 40 people in an unsafe structure. Neighbors have complained of noise and traffic. His right to worship does not also give him the right to endanger others, not harm the peace and property of others.
The court has agreed he has the right to worship as he chooses. “noting in a Jan. 4, 2010 ruling: “The state is not saying the Salmans can’t run a church or have worship services at the location. But the state is saying that if they do so, they must do it properly and in accord with fire and zoning codes.”
Yet he refuses to compromise or fix the problem. He continues to LIE, his supporters (including the Blaze) LIE, spinning it as the government persecuting Christians.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 9:27pm@ BRUCE P…. Nonsense. That morality is not imposed on them. If they do not like same-sex marriage, they will not have to marry someone of the same sex. It will not be forced on them. Just like other things in our society you may have morals against. If you don’t like it, don’t participate. But don’t deny that right to others.
Your assertion that simply not participating is the solution, if I may, is a completely false assertion as all we be forced to recognize these marriages by law regardless of convictions such as the controversy that exists in the health care law now and the Catholic church and its employees. This institution is so basic to our civilization that to suggest it would have no effect on its countrymen because they do not themselves participate in a same-sex marriage is obtuse in nature. You still fail to address the imposition on religion as marriage itself is a religous institution from ancient times. Why marriage and not civil unions and where does this right come from if I may ask? Thanks in advance for your reply.
PS…I will accept your information about the majority of Americans being OK with same sex marriage. However, I would be interested where and how that poll was designed. How the questions were asked and what/how the sample was chosen. I like to evaluate these things rather than just swallow statistics whole as they are easily manipulated to produce desired results. But that is a different debate.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 1:59am“it would the first time in human history that actually allowed”
So what? It wouldn’t be the first time, either in the modern or ancient era. Even other countries have it now. It was practiced, thought not common, in Rome. But again, so what if it were the first time. That something is happening for the first time is not a reason to disallow it. When America won its independence, it was the first time in almost 2000 years men could rule themselves; was it a bad idea or should it have been disallowed simply because it was the first time it happened in twenty centuries?
“For thousands of years the institution of marriage has existed between a man and a woman with very deep and ancient roots in religion.”
That is simply not true at all. Marriage had little to nothing to do with religion up until the last couple of millennia. Often it was a social matter or a contract between two parties, no religious involvement whatsoever. Sure, it may be blessed by a priest of some sort but marriage did not originate from within religion.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 9:19am@ BRUCE P…I hate to sound argumentative but you are simply in error when you assert marriage was not rooted and originated in religous meanings. You stated your opinion but it is not base din fact please provide objective (this is a key) information supporting your claim please. You wont find it because it does not exist. Yes, it also served social purposes, but its original intent was religously based. And until recent times (I know other countries recently have permitted same sex marriages) never in the history of man has same sex marriages been recognized and sanctioned by a society. Of course, homosexuality is not new and has been practiced throughout history, but we are talking about the institution of marriage, not homosexuality. Again, why not civil unions? Why force this upon a religous institution in the realm of marriage?
Report Post »Thornyrose13
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 9:51amOnly so much money that these organizations have, so they are going to choose where they get the “most bang for the buck”. But your idea is not a bad one. Who knows, perhaps such a billboard will appear somewhere up there in the not so distant future?
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 4:40pmSLEEZY HIPPO — let me say first off, I enjoy discussing this with you. It is a pleasure to have debate, however vehement, with rational and reasonable people. Thank you.
Here are some starters on the history of marriage…
http://tinyurl.com/5ue67g9
http://tinyurl.com/ykjhpu
Also…if same-sex marriage were legalized, those religious institutions who object would not be forced to perform wedding ceremonies. However, as it is now, those who do not object (I am an ordained reverend) cannot perform them, or at least, they do not have the weight of law. Even a “civil union.”
Report Post »Look4DBigPicture
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 4:55pm@HI
Atheists DON’T fear Christians, which explains why they are so blatant with their contempt. Because Christians strive to be peaceful and understanding, they post no threat and are easy to bully.
Muslims, on the other hand, will decapitate them in a heartbeat, so they cower to them like the scared little morons.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 8:10pm@ BRUCE P…I too appreciate your engagement of this topic without personal attacks that so often accompany areas that can stir so much emotion in both viewpoints. I have read the two sources you listed. While of course I think we would both agree that marriage proceeds much in the way of reliable human records, I think it is not an unfair statement to say that either source did not repudiate the assertion of the religious roots of the marriage contract. For me it is quite simple (probably because I am a simple person), The husband wife relationship (and the procreation of humanity – children) is the most basic relational unit to all societies, if we lQQk to the oldest religions known they all possess marriage ceremonies recognized within those faiths. Even the imagery of marriage is used to describe spiritual realities. Whether discussing hinduism or judaism (two of the oldest religions) or pagan religions before them we see marriage ceremonies involved in religious ceremonies no matter how bizarre they seem they were still religious. Since this constitutes some of our earliest known writings then I believe stating the deep religious roots of marriage is a fair statement. However, I do not want to belabor the point (which I fear I have already done). When you say that religious institutions that object to same sex marraige would not be forced to perform wedding ceremonies I am not so confident that would remain the case in the future. Cont.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 8:16pm@ BRUCE P…I am not as confident as you in the direction of our society given the political corectness of discrimination that places of faith would not be penalized in various ways for objecting to perform such a ceremony in the form of losing tax exempt status or other ways of penalizing. Although this could be dancing on the edge of the slippery slope fallacy I feel that recent history has bore out the very real potential for such an erosion into religious conscience as is the case with the new health care law and the Catholic church (I am not Catholic BTW). Thanks for the discussion, I fear this story will soon disappear off the board, but it was certainly a nice exchange of thoughts.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 8:53pmSLEAZY HIPPO — “if we lQQk to the oldest religions known they all possess marriage ceremonies recognized within those faiths…”
That is true. However, I think this is a case of correlation not cause. All activities sought the blessing of gods and spirits through religious rites, not just marriage but childbirth, farming, war, business ventures and so forth. It does not mean any single one of them have their origins in religion, just as it doesn’t mean marriage does either.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 9:09pm“I am not as confident as you in the direction of our society given the political corectness of discrimination that places of faith would not be penalized in various ways for objecting to perform such a ceremony in the form of losing tax exempt status or other ways of penalizing.”
I do not think it is something we will face in America. I know other countries have had to deal with this in some respects (such as the Church of Denmark) but in those cases, these nations have either state-run churches (again, Church of Denmark) or does not have the stringent protections of religious freedoms that America does.
However, this is not to say it is not something we shouldn’t be vigilant against. People should not be forced to perform religious duties they find morally wrong. Notice…I was very careful about my wording there.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 9, 2012 at 12:27pm@ BRUCE P…thanks agian for your time in responding, I don‘t know if you’ll even get this, but I would simply say we will agree to disagree on the religious meaning and heritage of marriage and that is OK. While I agree that it may not necessarily be causal, I’m not sure that changes the ultimate ties and heritage marriage has in religious context in this country. But once again thank you for your insights and time. Hopefully, we are both more sharpened as a result of our interaction and I lQQk forward to future discussions here on the BLAZE…….
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on July 12, 2012 at 12:32amBruce,
How dare you come to this comment section and waste people’s time by spreading your lies and fallacies, and promoting doubt when, in the end, you have to admit that you are a complete and total ignoramus. And you don’t think you have an ego? It takes a level of arrogance and hubris that I can’t even fathom to perpetrate the masquerade you’ve put on. And then, on top of that, the audacity to challenge and mock those who DO KNOW.
I mean the logical failures, the obvious ignorance of Christian theology, the rant against the sky bully, and let us not forget the multiple examples of argumentum ad nauseum— it was all so utterly insane, Bruce. I’ve rarely seen a comedic send up of atheist irrationality so spot on as the one you have shown us.
Actually, you’re completely wrong about the negative affects of homosexuality upon Christians. It affected the Catholic Adoption Services of Massachussetts. They were forced to close down or give babies to homosexuals against their beliefs. It affected a baker in Iowa who didn’t want to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, so he and his business were threatened. It affected the Episcopal Wedding facility in New Jersey that didn’t want to host a gay receptions, so they were bullied and threatened. See here a pattern here, Brucie??
These examples don’t even begin to scratch the surface.
Report Post »http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/the-price-of-prop-8
Aix_sponsa
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 1:03pm“Bruce,
How dare you come to this comment section and waste people’s time by spreading your lies and fallacies, and promoting doubt when, in the end, you have to admit that you are a complete and total ignoramus. And you don’t think you have an ego? It takes a level of arrogance and hubris that I can’t even fathom to perpetrate the masquerade you’ve put on. And then, on top of that, the audacity to challenge and mock those who DO KNOW.
I mean the logical failures, the obvious ignorance of Christian theology, the rant against the sky bully, and let us not forget the multiple examples of argumentum ad nauseum— it was all so utterly insane, Bruce. I’ve rarely seen a comedic send up of atheist irrationality so spot on as the one you have shown us.
Actually, you’re completely wrong about the negative affects of homosexuality upon Christians. It affected the Catholic Adoption Services of Massachussetts. They were forced to close down or give babies to homosexuals against their beliefs. It affected a baker in Iowa who didn’t want to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, so he and his business were threatened. It affected the Episcopal Wedding facility in New Jersey that didn’t want to host a gay receptions, so they were bullied and threatened. See here a pattern here, Brucie??
These examples don’t even begin to scratch the surface.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/the-price-of-prop-8”
Please, tell me this is satire. A business was thre
Report Post »IslandAtheist
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:18amThey’re just going to shoot him again.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:27amHmmm ….I wonder who “they ..are..?
Wasn’t Lee Harvey Oswald a Atheist… ?
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:47amMore Atheists refusing to take words for what they mean.
Report Post »Of COURSE Kennedy would say church and state should remain absolutely separate.
But he DIDN’T say BELIEF and state should be absolutely separate.
You atheists cherry-pick a quote and try to make it say something it was never intended to mean.
Which is also how you read Scripture (when you do), and even the Constitution in many cases.
In this case, however, even us believers agree with you AND JFK. No religious institution should have any administrative influence on govt and vice versa (yes, JFK meant the vice versa too–stop trying to use govt to force ANYTHING on churches!).
What you CAN’T get away with, though, is to try to use JFK against himself and somehow claim that no religious BELIEF system should have any influence in the White House or elsewhere in govt. That would be antithetical to the constitution.
DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:18pmMaybe if we found all these lonely atheists a girlfriend they’d leave us alone.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 2:37pmThe real context of this quote that everyone seems to be missing is that one big question mark for people was the fact that JFK was poised to be the first Catholic president and many people were concerned about his Catholic beliefs shaping his policy in this country when most were protestant. He said this to calm the political fears of those questioning his intentions. Context is everything people. He was fighting for his political life. To that point, this concept was foreign.
JFK
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again — not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.
Here is the whole speech…
Report Post »http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html
momrules
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:07amThe FFRF not only hate God, they hate America. They are working to destroy this country and are working in tandem with other socialists in these efforts.
They file so many lawsuits that they keep towns in court or blackmail them with threats of lengthy court cases the towns can’t financially afford to win. Yet the FFRF never runs out of money. They are a well funded, militaristic army of the ungodly.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:41amthey hate America? just like the “Patriots” who are talking about secession? they love America so much that they want to leave it. but it’s the Atheists who hate America. ok, gotcha.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 3:20pmSecessionists love the IDEA of America, our constitution and what we stand for. However, they believe the tree of liberty is too corrupt to save, so they would rather find a new plot of land and plant a seed there.
But I believe there is plenty of hope for the tree to shake off this disease of progressivism and return to health.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 4:49pmso you don’t love America, you just love the idea of America. thanks for clarifying. if you don’t mind me playing along, whose idea of America should we be following? yours? Rush and Glenn’s? conservatives only? sounds like you want things your way or you will take your ball and go home. very mature thought process you got there.
Report Post »binge_thinker
Posted on July 12, 2012 at 12:35amThis is hardly a surprise. Many of these fringe, anti-religious groups are strictly aligned with the Dem party. Theyare the party of speech codes, thought crimes laws, political speech restrictions, the Fascist Doctrine, Card Check, the DISCLOSE Act and all the rest so it makes sense.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:04amYeah when I think of person with high moral standards to give me advice..
When it comes to our country and my faith…I think of adulterers like JFK and Slick Willy.
If our founding fathers thought our political structure shouldn’t show any signs of God.
They would have modeled our country after ‘China’.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 2:22amDon’t forget adulterers like Jefferson, Adams, Harding, Roosevelt and Eisenhower.
Report Post »TexasHide
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:02amWhy do the people at the FFRF spend all their money and time fighting a God they don’t believe in? Kinda pointless and weird. What are they scared of? Fear will cause people to act like this. They all suffer from Theophobia. Poor atheists, kinda feel sorry for them. Their fear will be their answer!
Report Post »JGraham III
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:39amI don’t feel sorry one iota! Supposedly these atheists are all intelligent. If you don’t believe me just ask one of them. They are so damn smart they can hardly contain their arrogance. So when all washes out in the end and the Lord has to sit in judgement over these fools; not a one of them will be able to say “gee! I never heard of you”. Romans 1 has it all down in simple language, so simple even an atheist can understand. God says they are without excuse. I for one don’t see much profit in wasting my time trying to convince a smarty-pants atheist he’s wrong when there are millions of people lost and hurting who are interested in knowing more about God. The FFRF’s money and “intellect” rot with them.
Report Post »dgonzalez01
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:53amIf we didn’t have the Judeo Christian influence we would never have had this country. The value that no man is greater than another goes by the way side. If there is no higher power and we are all secular then why should be follow another man’s laws. What gives one group of men the right to create laws that govern the rest?
Report Post »jeanr
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:13pmMaybe we see ourselves as part of a society. I am pretty secular but I still treat others with respect, dignity, and compassion. And I don’t need to think some invisible man in the sky is going to be royally angry with me if I stray from my values. People who use the argument that people need God looking over them to keep them in line really worry me. It implies that they would love to go all medieval on others if they weren’t being watched.
Report Post »Winedude
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:18pm“The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine.”
– John Adams
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever
from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with
blood for centuries.¬”
–James Madison
“Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologie¬s.”
- Thomas Jefferson
“The Christian God is a being of terrific character — cruel, vindictive¬,
capricious¬, and unjust.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
Report Post »- James Madison
girlnurse
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:38pm“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
–The Writings of Thomas Jefferson
“Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. … Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us.”
–History of the United States of America, John Hancock
“Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped”. Benjamen Franklin
“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.”
–America’s Providential History, James Madison
“I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.
Report Post »Roger Sherman
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 2:41pm@ GIRLNURSE…good job with the quotes…unfortunately WINEDUDE doesn’t know or care to know the context of the quotes he listed. Context is everything. Except when it does not furhter your agenda.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 3:23pmI’m normally a calm guy. But there are moment‘s I said I’d punch my little sister if she kept annoying me. Does that automatically make me a woman beater?
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:48amWe have gone from a generation of people and leaders who respected the First Amendment of freedom of worship to one now where the government is persecuting those of faith who dare to stand for what is right, just and moral; thus the current campaigns by Obama to force social justice down our throat.
These Atheists have the right, for now, for freely stating their insanity of oppinions, as I have for declaring them to be insane in these oppinions. Let there contempt, hubris and disgrace be set forth for all to see and understand and may God have mercy on them in the time of their Judgment that all must face.
Report Post »jonathanfarrar
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:43am“We’ve gone from a nation where politicians once had to show reverence for the First Amendment principle of separation between state and church to one where they wear religion on their sleeves and think they have to trash the Constitution to get elected,” added FFRF co-president — and Gaylor’s husband — Dan Barker.
Interesting, considering how Obama is almost literally wiping his butt with the constitution…
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:02amWhat a horribly misleading headline Blaze.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:20amWhat a horribly misleading “billboard” ..!
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:45amSAWBUCK – what’s misleading about the billboard? did JFK not say that?
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 2:22pmPHILLY
~~~I believe in an America where the separation of
church and state is absolute-~~~
JFK 9-12-1960
________________________________________________
Two excerpts of JFK’S inaugural address Jan 20,1961…….
~~~The belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity
of the state, but from the hand of God.~~~~
~~~Let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing
and His help, but knowing that here on earth
God’s work must truly be our own.~~~~
________________________________________________
Did JFK had a change of heart… from when he was on the
campaign-trail…Trying to get ELECTED. To four months latter
when he took the oath of office to the presidency .?
No..
In …JFK’S famous “Separation of church and state” speech .
he was campaigning to be the first [Catholic President ]
He was trying to squelch concerns .
That the POPE would NOT be “running” The highest office in the land.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:43am.
Report Post »I keep trying to tell ya’ll Texas Sucks. The Goat Ropers over here are spineless, or like they say “All Hat and No Cattle”……..
Baddoggy
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:59amMonkey you POS…Its the other people who keep moving here to escape the other States that are screwing it up. They bring in their BS thinking like yours! I would like to start a new sport…Monkey roping.
Report Post »TexasHide
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:11amBaddoggy is right. We get the heathens who move in and vomit their non-since on our Republic. Don’t be surprised when one of those good ole boys out of Lubbock sets that billboard on fire. Watch it will happen. Sounds like Texans need to start cleaning house.
Report Post »LordGav1n
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 6:18pmYou must be thinking of the hippies in Austin. You won’t see anyone with more pride in their state than a Texan.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:42amUh…how about putting up the one he said “Do not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?”
Report Post »But as for this speech, this is more like what the Dems do – use carefully chosen words and gently twist them – sounds good on the surface if you don’t research, scrutinize much. They took advantage of people’s human nature to not do that most of the time. It works very well. I was around in those days and what he was trying to combat were all those that were upset that he was Catholic and afraid he would make decisions according to what the pope said, etc. I do think we need to be very careful about religion in our candidates though – to avoid people like Muslims, who are really out to destroy and take us over. (No, Mormons aren’t out to do that and they ae patriotic.)
But they cleverly used that situation to inject their liberal ideiology, indoctrination message.
Also want to mention don’t worry about this billboard. Waste of money and effort. I live in Texas and believe me, no one wants to go to Lubbock usually – unless they have to – to go to the college there – Texas Tech, where our son went. That is not a liberal college, a great many are “real” Christians. However, we should counter anyways and get billboards out with the truth about Obama – lies, etc.
Need to do that all over the country.
momrules
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:56amI agree Mom. I was in high school during the Kennedy years and I remember the fears that Kennedy would run America via the Pope. I also agree about the Muslims. We cannot trust them to hold the highest office in the land, even one born and raised in America.
On a side note, our son also graduated from Texas Tech. A fine school.
Report Post »JGraham III
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:23amFor all the braggadocio the FFRF displays, I find it ironic to say the least and terribly hypocritical at best how they tirelessly spend time and money persecuting Christians by driving them from the public forum all under the straw-man agrument of “separation of church and state”. Any person with half a brain can see that the FFRF is committing the very crime they accuse the mom and pop restaurants who allow discounts for church bulletins or towns who display bible verses on welcome signs or any other innocuous thing that hints at Christianity. The truth is the FFRF has cut the second part of the First Amendment out, the part that states “Congress shall make no law….preventing the free exercise thereof” of religion. Their myriad lawsuits are denying the free exercise of Christianity in the public arena, all the while promoting their own godless religion called humanism. I live to see the day that a class action lawsuit or a Christian with deep pockets will coundersue the FFRF for restraining trade or for denying Constitutionally guaranteed rights to citizens. May it take all their money in the process in order to repay the untold damage the FFRF has committed. Rest assured at least at some time in the (hopefully) not too distant future, the participants in this godless group will have the opportunity to meet the Lord and “splain” away why they didn’t believe Him. Should be fun to watch.
Report Post »AnimalsAsLeaders
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:39am“…where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials”
JFK was smarter than i thought.
Report Post »Slipstick
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:34am“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish;”
Report Post »I wonder how Jack would feel about a Muslim America? That seems to be considered OK, nowadays…
jeanr
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:15pmSo, are the Christians jealous of the Muslims? Do you wish that Christians still had the fortitude to convert by the sword like they used to? You devout Christians sure do spend a lot of time talking about Muslims around here.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 1:35pmMohammad started the muslim cult as a business promotion. He invested his money in his brother-in-law’s carpet business and made a killing.
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:32am…
Report Post »I’ve never liked JFK. He only had a few good ideas, that were truly good for America. I admire him for those few good ideas, but his bad decisions and actions outweighed the good.
His personal life was questionable. I want a President who has extremely high morals.
mayihelpyou
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:27amFFRF is an organization of know-nothing hate filled pseudo-intellectuals with nothing better to do than force their intolerance on people and claim the other guy is doing it.
Report Post »phillyatheist
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 11:47amfunny, their leader, Mr. Barker, was one of you. he was a fundamental Christian preacher with a ministry and everything. he obviously has changed his mind, but keep in mind he was as devout as you could ever be. fortunately, he woke up.
Report Post »bizznizz1
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:25amWake up guys, Its all going to crash. Are you ready ???? http://www.fullmoonsurvival.com/. God Bless.
Report Post »Boola519
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:24amanyone else realize that directly since obama was placed in the presidency, that the worst degenerates have been publicly attacking America’s values and freedoms? obama has incited encouraged and approved not just the atheists but every other anti-American abnormal group out there like the communists, muslims, gays, black liberationists and illegals.
remember the good ol’ days, when all we had to worry about on our way to our jobs was $2 gas or PETA attacking our fur coats or the treehugger moron who’d scratch up our new SUV.
we’d like to see the anti-obama billboards make a comeback listing all of his LIES vs FACTS.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:47amMany of the same things happened during the Clinton Administration. The whackos came out of the woodwork well backed by the ACLU, and other such organizations.
Report Post »ripvanwinkle
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:19amI believe in an America, as JFK said, “where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”
What part of shall not impede “the free exercise of religion” doesn’t the FFRF understand?
Oh, I know – it’s the confusion of the word “of” with the word “from”. Sorts like comparing “Dreams of My Father” with “Dreams from my Father”. There is a big difference between freedom of religion with freedom from religion. On the “from” hand you have Tyranny ; on the “of” hand you have liberty.
It’s all about finding the right balance.
Report Post »jonathanfarrar
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:22amWheres the like button????
Report Post »Look4DBigPicture
Posted on July 8, 2012 at 4:58pmGreat post, Rip!
Report Post »jonathanfarrar
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:19amSilly Athiests and their “freedom from religion” stupidity. I can see it now, when the Islamists take over and require conversion to Islam or death, the “Athiests” will be FIRST in line to convert. They will become hypocrits in the blink of an eye. I don’t see any Athiest believing in the non existence of God strongly enough to be willing to die for that belief.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 12:32pmWhen the Islamists take over? You really believe that .06% of the population is going to take over the country.
What a pathetic, paranoid life you must lead.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 3:17pmPut it this way: Let‘s just hope he’s wrong.
Report Post »Boola519
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:16amthese ignorant people are twisting it and obviously do not realize JFK was trying to reassure the wealthy elite WASP & Jewish America that the Pope would not be telling him how to govern America.
Report Post »www.PoliticalTs.com
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:16amWe’ve gone from a nation where politicians once had to show reverence for the First Amendment principle of separation between state and church to one where they wear religion on their sleeves and think they have to trash the Constitution to get elected,” added FFRF co-president — and Gaylor’s husband — Dan Barker.
And the liberal psycho’s accuse us of rewriting history? This quote is such a fairy tale it make me want to throw up. If this is true, why did the first congress and every one since, start every session with an invocation from a religous minister, why did each house have, and still has a designated religous pastor, with a salary paid for by tax dollars, and why did the congress commision the first Bible in English in the United States,“for use in the schools”? Why would they so blatantly violate a Constitution they just ratified, fought and died for?
Report Post »Boola519
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:15amapparently the atheists cannot understand what JFK meant, or what jefferson meant by the same phrase. a Pope cannot tell a Catholic President what to do, and a muslim President cannot declare the nation will become muslim under sharia law. we are a free nation that worships whatever religion we want as we please including at schools and public meetings, and any group [like these atheists] cannot tell us otherwise. an atheist cannot declare America has to be religion-free.
Report Post »Z
Posted on July 7, 2012 at 10:10amGod Bless America. Only in America is freedom there to do stupid stuff like this.
Report Post »