<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/azcVs2XD3Sc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/azcVs2XD3Sc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I watched the video and thought who cares. I don't care if you or anyone is an atheist. And you shouldn't care if someone believes in God.
If you don't believe in God you are the minority it doesn't make you wrong or right but you are the minority and the video is not going to change other people's beliefs.
My problem with atheist or certain other minorities is when they try to change American traditions. Trying to sue for saying the Pledge or Hanging Christmas decorations.
I don't know you and maybe these topics don't bother you but I feel it is ridiculous to change the Pledge and not be able to have a Christmas tree in school( but they do allow Minorahs and Kwanzza decorations( a Racist holiday).
I personally have had many questions about religion over my lifetime. I took a great class about the religions of the world in college. And have questioned Christianity until recently. I started listening to Christian Rock and attending church inconsistently and have found that I have a better week and better outlook on life after I attend services. That is a good thing for me but not for everyone. So I respect your right for your lack of religion and hopefully you can respect people's right to believe.
If you don't believe in God you are the minority it doesn't make you wrong or right but you are the minority and the video is not going to change other people's beliefs.
My problem with atheist or certain other minorities is when they try to change American traditions. Trying to sue for saying the Pledge or Hanging Christmas decorations.
I don't know you and maybe these topics don't bother you but I feel it is ridiculous to change the Pledge and not be able to have a Christmas tree in school( but they do allow Minorahs and Kwanzza decorations( a Racist holiday).
I personally have had many questions about religion over my lifetime. I took a great class about the religions of the world in college. And have questioned Christianity until recently. I started listening to Christian Rock and attending church inconsistently and have found that I have a better week and better outlook on life after I attend services. That is a good thing for me but not for everyone. So I respect your right for your lack of religion and hopefully you can respect people's right to believe.
WSTREAK weighs in with: My problem with atheist or certain other minorities is when they try to change American traditions. Trying to sue for saying the Pledge or Hanging Christmas decorations.
B: Neither is changing an "American tradition", but rather, respecting the United States Constitution.
WS: But I feel it is ridiculous to change the Pledge...
B: The words, "Under God" were added to the longstanding Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. The good news is that as an American one is free to recite the Pledge in any manner which you choose and that you're not required to say it in a way to which you might object.
WS:.... and not be able to have a Christmas tree in school
B: A Christmas tree in public schools violates the United States Constitution.
WS:....( but they do allow Minorahs..)
B: No they do not - in public schools that is.
If you're aware of a public school within the USA that is displaying Menorahs, you should immediately contact the local ACLU and seek their assistance in correcting this constitutional violation. And when doing so, please keep us informed here of your progress.
B: Neither is changing an "American tradition", but rather, respecting the United States Constitution.
WS: But I feel it is ridiculous to change the Pledge...
B: The words, "Under God" were added to the longstanding Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. The good news is that as an American one is free to recite the Pledge in any manner which you choose and that you're not required to say it in a way to which you might object.
WS:.... and not be able to have a Christmas tree in school
B: A Christmas tree in public schools violates the United States Constitution.
WS:....( but they do allow Minorahs..)
B: No they do not - in public schools that is.
If you're aware of a public school within the USA that is displaying Menorahs, you should immediately contact the local ACLU and seek their assistance in correcting this constitutional violation. And when doing so, please keep us informed here of your progress.
Good post WS.
I've grown tired of the atheism vs theism debates and it looks like the same goes for most Rxers.
I'm a theist but I have no problem with atheists and have no desire to convert them.
A few years ago I adopted a policy of not giving advice unless asked. Interestingly enough, hardly anyone ever asks. Only thing I can conclude is that most people of all stripes are quite content with their lives.
I've grown tired of the atheism vs theism debates and it looks like the same goes for most Rxers.
I'm a theist but I have no problem with atheists and have no desire to convert them.
A few years ago I adopted a policy of not giving advice unless asked. Interestingly enough, hardly anyone ever asks. Only thing I can conclude is that most people of all stripes are quite content with their lives.
WS: They have Menorahs in the high school where I work during the holidays.
B: If you are as concerned as I am on this, I again suggest you contact the local ACLU for assistance in seeing this changed. Such displays are constitutionally inappropriate.
WS: They also decorate for Kwanzza.
B: I am unaware that Kwanzza is a religious holiday. If it is, then those decorations merit similar scrutiny.
WS: I respect the right of someone not to say "under God" but to try to sue over it is insane.
B: Those who have sued were not dealing with You. Rather, they were dealing with those who do NOT respect their right to recite the Pledge without the words "Under God".
B: If you are as concerned as I am on this, I again suggest you contact the local ACLU for assistance in seeing this changed. Such displays are constitutionally inappropriate.
WS: They also decorate for Kwanzza.
B: I am unaware that Kwanzza is a religious holiday. If it is, then those decorations merit similar scrutiny.
WS: I respect the right of someone not to say "under God" but to try to sue over it is insane.
B: Those who have sued were not dealing with You. Rather, they were dealing with those who do NOT respect their right to recite the Pledge without the words "Under God".
I think all of these Christmas decorations ahave always been a little ridiculous. I especially get tired of seeing crosses around every blantant sinners neck out there..My preacher eliminated all crosses from his church for that very reason...It's become a decoration instead of a real meaningful symbol..You don't have to have any of these material things displayed in public places to have to worship God. Nor should you..Religion is an individual choice...As for Christmas, I can easily get into the spirit without looking at a fake tree or another plastic manger scene displayed in a public place..
Finding a good pastor and a good church is more difficult than finding a needle in the proverbial haystack.
You need good judgment.
Many preachers will give you three points, a poem and a prayer, ask for a donation and send you on your way. They will preach God's love, God's goodness, God's grace, God's mercy and God's forgiveness. You will leave the service feeling warm and fuzzy, believing you can live your life anyway you please and God will still love and forgive you. Wrong! Dead wrong! You have just been deceived.
In Romans 16, the apostle Paul wrote, "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. "
YOU MUST FIND A BIBLE BELIEVING CHURCH AND A CAPABLE PASTOR WHO PREACHES THE TRUTH FROM THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE.
The message of Christianity is the message of salvation:
~ God is holy and He hates sin.
~ We are all sinners and are destined for a life of eternal hell and damnation.
~ Before we are judged by holy God, we must have a perfect remedy for our evil life.
~ That "perfect remedy" is the Lord Jesus Christ.
~ [/FONT]John 3:16 / "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]~ [/FONT]Act 16:31 ~ "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
Lastly, ask the Holy Spirit to help you in your quest to find the right church and a qualified pastor.
In may not happen right away, but if you continue in prayer you will not be disappointed.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT]
Normally they are totally unaware that there can be other (possibly better) ways to do anything. Inertia is the greatest force in the universe.........and you simply have to take a trip to an undeveloped country (or 'developing' country if you want to be politically correct) to see what I am talking about.
I as a kid used to think that having potholes on the roads was normal as everyone said 'it rains too much and messes them up', a trip to Panama (when I was 5 years old) quickly showed me that was totally wrong.
True wisdom begins and ends with a healthy fear of God.
No belief in God = no wisdom. The Bible is full of many such references and for good reason.
Sure you can be 'intelligent' or offer some good 'insight' on a subject or two, but generally (and there are always rare exceptions) people who don't believe in God tend to lack wisdom. A belief in God gives an individual a set of core set of principles they can draw on for just about every area of life.
As the great CK Chesterson put it, "He who does not believe in God will believe in anything."
Amen.
Look at the religious nuts who are driving the Gorebull Warming debate. Only the godless would invent a religion that believes too much Co2 might one day fry the planet. (Coincidently, the same nuts who once believed in "global cooling.") Only someone with little or not faith in a loving God could dream an asinine and totally barbaric concept like communism. Only the godless would believe in something so scientifically far-reaching and improbable as 'Darwinism' and only the godless (the Nazis) would use such a cult to justify massive (and inherently evil) social experiments on other human beings.
Please folks, be reasonable -- Judeo-Christian values keep society from exploding into anarchy. Without these values, there are no moral absolutes, and without moral absolutes there is no western civilization (life as atheists in the western hemisphere take it for granted).
Sorry atheists, do your research...every known 'good' moral standard was derived from Judeo-Christian values. .
It was Judeo-Christianity that redefined the role of SEX itself.
Just to give one example, ancient Greece defined the act of 'sex' between the 'penetrator' and the 'penetrated' - no boundaries. Women were to be treated as child bearers only and men were to drive their sexual pleasure from prepubescent children -- or Greek Gods (other men). In the Bible, there are countless of examples of men channeling their sexual energy in unhealthy, destructive ways -- with animals -- because without boundaries this is what stupid humans do.
Judeo-Christianity changed all of this. God established specific BOUNDARIES between the sexes themselves; BOUNDARIES between what we were allowed to worship and what we weren't ("you shall have no other Gods before me" etc.); BOUNDARIES with what was off limits sexually and what was not; BOUNDARIES between MAN and ANIMALS -- man shall have dominion over every creature on the Earth...and so on and so on...
Uncompromising moral ethical standards.
It was Judeo-Christianity that introduced the whole concept of 'adultery' and that sex outside of marriage defined as ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN was strictly verboten. Similarly, sex WITHIN the family outside of HUSBAND AND WIFE was also no-no. No more screwing your siblings, the dog, your mother, father...etc.
That's because in order to raise healthy, well adjusted person, the family MUST BE DE-SEXUALIZED!
Atheism has no foundation to derive such wisdom. After all, if apes are our evolutionary ancestors, then what could possibly be wrong with screwing one?
hno:
Folks, we shouldn't be surprised that the more European and American societies have strayed from traditional Judeo-Christian values, the more our cultures seem headed for the proverbial hell-in-the-hand-basket.
Foolish....so, soooo foolish. A wise atheist is an oxymoron. ("The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.")
ALL wisdom begins and ends with a faith in God -- THE God.
The framers of our country understood this; today's secular "progressives" (athiests) do not.hno:
No belief in God = no wisdom. The Bible is full of many such references and for good reason.
Sure you can be 'intelligent' or offer some good 'insight' on a subject or two, but generally (and there are always rare exceptions) people who don't believe in God tend to lack wisdom. A belief in God gives an individual a set of core set of principles they can draw on for just about every area of life.
As the great CK Chesterson put it, "He who does not believe in God will believe in anything."
Amen.
Look at the religious nuts who are driving the Gorebull Warming debate. Only the godless would invent a religion that believes too much Co2 might one day fry the planet. (Coincidently, the same nuts who once believed in "global cooling.") Only someone with little or not faith in a loving God could dream an asinine and totally barbaric concept like communism. Only the godless would believe in something so scientifically far-reaching and improbable as 'Darwinism' and only the godless (the Nazis) would use such a cult to justify massive (and inherently evil) social experiments on other human beings.
Please folks, be reasonable -- Judeo-Christian values keep society from exploding into anarchy. Without these values, there are no moral absolutes, and without moral absolutes there is no western civilization (life as atheists in the western hemisphere take it for granted).
Sorry atheists, do your research...every known 'good' moral standard was derived from Judeo-Christian values. .
It was Judeo-Christianity that redefined the role of SEX itself.
Just to give one example, ancient Greece defined the act of 'sex' between the 'penetrator' and the 'penetrated' - no boundaries. Women were to be treated as child bearers only and men were to drive their sexual pleasure from prepubescent children -- or Greek Gods (other men). In the Bible, there are countless of examples of men channeling their sexual energy in unhealthy, destructive ways -- with animals -- because without boundaries this is what stupid humans do.
Judeo-Christianity changed all of this. God established specific BOUNDARIES between the sexes themselves; BOUNDARIES between what we were allowed to worship and what we weren't ("you shall have no other Gods before me" etc.); BOUNDARIES with what was off limits sexually and what was not; BOUNDARIES between MAN and ANIMALS -- man shall have dominion over every creature on the Earth...and so on and so on...
Uncompromising moral ethical standards.
It was Judeo-Christianity that introduced the whole concept of 'adultery' and that sex outside of marriage defined as ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN was strictly verboten. Similarly, sex WITHIN the family outside of HUSBAND AND WIFE was also no-no. No more screwing your siblings, the dog, your mother, father...etc.
That's because in order to raise healthy, well adjusted person, the family MUST BE DE-SEXUALIZED!
Atheism has no foundation to derive such wisdom. After all, if apes are our evolutionary ancestors, then what could possibly be wrong with screwing one?
hno: Folks, we shouldn't be surprised that the more European and American societies have strayed from traditional Judeo-Christian values, the more our cultures seem headed for the proverbial hell-in-the-hand-basket.
Foolish....so, soooo foolish. A wise atheist is an oxymoron. ("The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.")
ALL wisdom begins and ends with a faith in God -- THE God.
The framers of our country understood this; today's secular "progressives" (athiests) do not.
hno:I believe this.
Proverbs 9:10 ~ "The fear of the Lord [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding."
winningstreak, great posts! I'd like to see someone point to one bit of 'good' the ALCU has done for this country. Along with NARAL, CAIR and PETA, the ALCU (Anti-Liberties Communist Union) is definitely one of the most toxic special interests in America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU threatens academy prayer lawsuit
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2008/06_26-19/PRI
By KEVIN ROBILLARD Staff Writer
Published June 26, 2008
The American Civil Liberties Union is pressuring the Naval Academy to end its 163-year tradition of lunchtime prayer.
uke1:
In a May letter to Vice Admiral Jeffrey L. Fowler, the academy's superintendent, ACLU officials asked the institution to end the prayers on behalf of nine unnamed midshipmen who said the prayer made them uncomfortable and violated the Constitution.
The prayer occurs before the midshipmen eat lunch, when one of the academy's eight chaplains leads the brigade in prayer. The anonymous midshipmen and the ACLU said those who don't clasp their hands, bow their heads, and recite the prayer inevitably stand out and feel pressure to participate.
But academy officials said they had no plans to end the practice.
"The academy does not intend to change its practice of offering midshipmen an opportunity for prayer or devotional thought during noon-meal announcements," the Naval Academy said in a prepared statement.
It also said the Navy would respond to the ACLU soon.
The ACLU said the academy's tradition is similar to a tradition at the Virginia Military Institute of offering prayers before dinner, which a federal appeals court ruled unconstitutional in 2003. It first asked the academy to end the practice after the appeals court ruling.
"The courts have been pretty hostile to any mandatory prayer," said Robert Destro, a law professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., who specializes in freedom of speech and religion.
He said any decision would depend heavily on the details of the prayer and the degree of coercion midshipmen felt, which of the prayer and the degree of coercion midshipmen felt, which is disputed.
A list of frequently asked questions about the prayer the academy distributed in September 2007 after midshipmen raised concerns through an anonymous feedback system expressed the academy's position in bold, italicized letters.
"The prayer is not mandatory or compulsory for midshipmen," the list said. "No midshipman is required to recite the prayer, bow his/her head, or participate in the prayer if they choose not to."
But a Navy ensign who recently graduated from the academy said the environment was one of "play along or stand out."
The ensign, who was a member of one of the two groups that approached the ACLU, asked to remain anonymous because she feared speaking out would harm her Naval career.
Her argument is echoed in the letter to Adm. Fowler, which was written by Deborah Jeon, the ACLU of Maryland's legal director.
"The situation is undeniably a coercive one for younger midshipmen who are implicitly pressured into prayer by the senior midshipmen around them, as well as the presence of a commissioned officer at the anchor," Ms. Jeon wrote.
The nine midshipmen who complained to the ACLU are a mix of upper- and under-classmen.
The ensign, an agnostic, said she and several other members of her company who didn't participate in the prayer began discussing the issue. One of them eventually brought the issue to the ACLU.
"I hope the prayer is abolished. It's certainly unconstitutional," the ensign said.
The list of questions about the prayer distributed by the academy didn't answer the midshipmen's concerns, Ms. Jeon said.
"They don't address the VMI ruling at all," she said. "Midshipmen who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution are troubled."
Mr. Destro said the less formal the prayer is, the better the chance a court would decide it was legal.
"The more innocuous, the less prayerful it sounds, the safer the ground is," he said.
He also said the Naval Academy, as part of the military, may restrict freedom of speech and religion more than a state institution like Virginia Military Institute.
"There's no doubt the First Amendment applies differently to the military," Mr. Destro said.
But Ms. Jeon said that argument had been rejected by federal courts in the 1972 Anderson vs. Laird case in which the military academies were forced to abandon the practice of mandatory chapel services on Sunday.
The controversy over the prayer isn't the first one involving religion at the academy this year. In March, the New Mexico-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation asked the school to end the practice of dipping the American and academy flags when the color guard walks in front of the altar at the Naval Academy Chapel.
The tradition had existed since 1940, but Adm. Fowler ended the practice last October, only to reverse that decision when churchgoers complained in February.
At the time, Mikey Weinstein, the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said there was a "pervasive" Christian fundamentalist culture at the academy.
While no lawsuit has been filed over the prayer yet, Ms. Jeon said officials are considering it.
"There has been some reluctance in the past," she said. But this group "seem more determined," she said.
Mr. Destro, who said the issue will eventually go to trial if a plaintiff steps forward, wasn't surprised there had been no volunteers so far.
"If you were a mid, would you sue the Naval Academy?" he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The left is DESTROYING my country!!uke1:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU threatens academy prayer lawsuit
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi-bin/read/2008/06_26-19/PRI
By KEVIN ROBILLARD Staff Writer
Published June 26, 2008
The American Civil Liberties Union is pressuring the Naval Academy to end its 163-year tradition of lunchtime prayer.
uke1:In a May letter to Vice Admiral Jeffrey L. Fowler, the academy's superintendent, ACLU officials asked the institution to end the prayers on behalf of nine unnamed midshipmen who said the prayer made them uncomfortable and violated the Constitution.
The prayer occurs before the midshipmen eat lunch, when one of the academy's eight chaplains leads the brigade in prayer. The anonymous midshipmen and the ACLU said those who don't clasp their hands, bow their heads, and recite the prayer inevitably stand out and feel pressure to participate.
But academy officials said they had no plans to end the practice.
"The academy does not intend to change its practice of offering midshipmen an opportunity for prayer or devotional thought during noon-meal announcements," the Naval Academy said in a prepared statement.
It also said the Navy would respond to the ACLU soon.
The ACLU said the academy's tradition is similar to a tradition at the Virginia Military Institute of offering prayers before dinner, which a federal appeals court ruled unconstitutional in 2003. It first asked the academy to end the practice after the appeals court ruling.
"The courts have been pretty hostile to any mandatory prayer," said Robert Destro, a law professor at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., who specializes in freedom of speech and religion.
He said any decision would depend heavily on the details of the prayer and the degree of coercion midshipmen felt, which of the prayer and the degree of coercion midshipmen felt, which is disputed.
A list of frequently asked questions about the prayer the academy distributed in September 2007 after midshipmen raised concerns through an anonymous feedback system expressed the academy's position in bold, italicized letters.
"The prayer is not mandatory or compulsory for midshipmen," the list said. "No midshipman is required to recite the prayer, bow his/her head, or participate in the prayer if they choose not to."
But a Navy ensign who recently graduated from the academy said the environment was one of "play along or stand out."
The ensign, who was a member of one of the two groups that approached the ACLU, asked to remain anonymous because she feared speaking out would harm her Naval career.
Her argument is echoed in the letter to Adm. Fowler, which was written by Deborah Jeon, the ACLU of Maryland's legal director.
"The situation is undeniably a coercive one for younger midshipmen who are implicitly pressured into prayer by the senior midshipmen around them, as well as the presence of a commissioned officer at the anchor," Ms. Jeon wrote.
The nine midshipmen who complained to the ACLU are a mix of upper- and under-classmen.
The ensign, an agnostic, said she and several other members of her company who didn't participate in the prayer began discussing the issue. One of them eventually brought the issue to the ACLU.
"I hope the prayer is abolished. It's certainly unconstitutional," the ensign said.
The list of questions about the prayer distributed by the academy didn't answer the midshipmen's concerns, Ms. Jeon said.
"They don't address the VMI ruling at all," she said. "Midshipmen who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution are troubled."
Mr. Destro said the less formal the prayer is, the better the chance a court would decide it was legal.
"The more innocuous, the less prayerful it sounds, the safer the ground is," he said.
He also said the Naval Academy, as part of the military, may restrict freedom of speech and religion more than a state institution like Virginia Military Institute.
"There's no doubt the First Amendment applies differently to the military," Mr. Destro said.
But Ms. Jeon said that argument had been rejected by federal courts in the 1972 Anderson vs. Laird case in which the military academies were forced to abandon the practice of mandatory chapel services on Sunday.
The controversy over the prayer isn't the first one involving religion at the academy this year. In March, the New Mexico-based Military Religious Freedom Foundation asked the school to end the practice of dipping the American and academy flags when the color guard walks in front of the altar at the Naval Academy Chapel.
The tradition had existed since 1940, but Adm. Fowler ended the practice last October, only to reverse that decision when churchgoers complained in February.
At the time, Mikey Weinstein, the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said there was a "pervasive" Christian fundamentalist culture at the academy.
While no lawsuit has been filed over the prayer yet, Ms. Jeon said officials are considering it.
"There has been some reluctance in the past," she said. But this group "seem more determined," she said.
Mr. Destro, who said the issue will eventually go to trial if a plaintiff steps forward, wasn't surprised there had been no volunteers so far.
"If you were a mid, would you sue the Naval Academy?" he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The left is DESTROYING my country!!
uke1:Boohooohoo...I'm an atheist in the military surrounded by Christians and I feel "left out." Boohoohoo...I'm a homo in the military and I feel "left out"....
:cryingcry
Of course you know why Christians dominate the military. Because only Christians (again, with a few exceptions) understand the values this country was founded on and that they are worth protecting and preserving.
Christians understand and believe these values with every fiber of their being so much so that they are willing to DIE FOR THEM. Most atheists (secular "progressives") sneer at such patriotism and refuse to fight evil whenever and wherever it rears it's ugly head.
Instead, our lovable SPs advocate a more 'gentler' moral relativist "world citizen" view. After all, why define -- let alone, fight -- evil when life's meaning is nothing but bunch of random molecules? Life's too short -- gotta extract out of life what we can! Screw everyone else! It's all about ME ME ME ME!! :aktion033
So naturally, the atheist (SP) by his own nature will never understand the meaning of 'sacrifice' and 'honor' and 'courage'.
So folks, we should not be surprised why secular "progressives" do not understand the concept of freedom and why we fight. We should not be surprised that secular 'progressives' are "anti-war" -- as opposed to being ANTI-EVIL. And we should not be surprised that secular "progressives" pay only lip service to our Constitution, American culture and the values the United States of America was founded on. Nor should we be surprised their judges routinely and proudly shit on those values that made America the greatest nation on God's green Earth!
Have atheists (secular "progressives") ever bothered to actually READ the Constitution? Or did their "higher education" transform them into illiterates? :think2:
:cryingcry
Of course you know why Christians dominate the military. Because only Christians (again, with a few exceptions) understand the values this country was founded on and that they are worth protecting and preserving.
Christians understand and believe these values with every fiber of their being so much so that they are willing to DIE FOR THEM. Most atheists (secular "progressives") sneer at such patriotism and refuse to fight evil whenever and wherever it rears it's ugly head.
Instead, our lovable SPs advocate a more 'gentler' moral relativist "world citizen" view. After all, why define -- let alone, fight -- evil when life's meaning is nothing but bunch of random molecules? Life's too short -- gotta extract out of life what we can! Screw everyone else! It's all about ME ME ME ME!! :aktion033
So naturally, the atheist (SP) by his own nature will never understand the meaning of 'sacrifice' and 'honor' and 'courage'.
So folks, we should not be surprised why secular "progressives" do not understand the concept of freedom and why we fight. We should not be surprised that secular 'progressives' are "anti-war" -- as opposed to being ANTI-EVIL. And we should not be surprised that secular "progressives" pay only lip service to our Constitution, American culture and the values the United States of America was founded on. Nor should we be surprised their judges routinely and proudly shit on those values that made America the greatest nation on God's green Earth!
Have atheists (secular "progressives") ever bothered to actually READ the Constitution? Or did their "higher education" transform them into illiterates? :think2:
Joe, a personal question if I may...
What does your family situation look like? I'm talking wife/kids not parents/siblings.
Reason I ask is that you seem to have a lot of wisdom about how and why social conservatism is the way to go, but I'm wondering if you're putting it into practice.
If not, then I'd be wondering why getting that sorted is not a higher priority than hanging out here.
Reason all of the above is important IMO is that one's words carry more weight when they are matched by actions.
What does your family situation look like? I'm talking wife/kids not parents/siblings.
Reason I ask is that you seem to have a lot of wisdom about how and why social conservatism is the way to go, but I'm wondering if you're putting it into practice.
If not, then I'd be wondering why getting that sorted is not a higher priority than hanging out here.
Reason all of the above is important IMO is that one's words carry more weight when they are matched by actions.
I find that video to be inaccurate on a couple points.
1) Athiesm IS Dogmatic. Frankly the making of that video kinds of proves it. Secondly Many athiest want to "convert" others.
2) Athiest's often are Arrogant. It's funny in that "myth" it says it's not arrogant but "Intellectual Honesty"...to that I saw how friggen arrogant can you get.
On another note, I also find those (like Joe C) that say "No belief in God = no wisdom" to be ridiculous. Funny, Joe C and I are probably on the same page on 80% of our views, yet because I'm an Athiest I'd be labeled unwise.
I'm an athiest because in my view religion is a great big fairy tale. For the most part my views are personal, and I do NOT care what others want to believe. I also think religion can help instill values that are important.
My wife is a Catholic, and that how we raise our kids. I think it's a Fairy tale that can teach them some valuable lessons.
1) Athiesm IS Dogmatic. Frankly the making of that video kinds of proves it. Secondly Many athiest want to "convert" others.
2) Athiest's often are Arrogant. It's funny in that "myth" it says it's not arrogant but "Intellectual Honesty"...to that I saw how friggen arrogant can you get.
On another note, I also find those (like Joe C) that say "No belief in God = no wisdom" to be ridiculous. Funny, Joe C and I are probably on the same page on 80% of our views, yet because I'm an Athiest I'd be labeled unwise.
I'm an athiest because in my view religion is a great big fairy tale. For the most part my views are personal, and I do NOT care what others want to believe. I also think religion can help instill values that are important.
My wife is a Catholic, and that how we raise our kids. I think it's a Fairy tale that can teach them some valuable lessons.
You forgot Judeo-Christian values introduced a day to rest. Otherwise the 7 day work week might still be in effect.
Joe ive got to disagree on the idea about Greco-Roman values.
The true policy makers, and bridge builders of the day considered homosexuality a very effeminate way. Not necessarily because of the act, these homosexuals didn't have bearded men, but feminine younger boys.
However they considered them effeminate because they couldn't control their sexual urges. Their only passion was fornication.
I do agree that regardless of what real men said in the day the homosexuality was still rampant.
So what did Judeo-Christianity gives us then? The boundaries; However homos still walk the streets like they did then.
Furthermore western civilization is the combination of Greco-Roman & Judeo-Christian values coalescing and sometimes in conflict.
Belief in God is a FEELING. Either you have it or you don't. And during the course of life some people's beliefs change more than once.
Maybe it's true that Judaism and it's "One God" concept ushered morality into an amoral world.
But that has nothing to do with today. One can be a man of faith and still be an absolute prick. And another can be doubtful of a higher power and always do what is morally appropriate. I don't think an atheist is more likely to commit a crime, drive by a wounded cat in the road, or take a bad count from his bookie more than someone who believes in God.
Maybe it's true that Judaism and it's "One God" concept ushered morality into an amoral world.
But that has nothing to do with today. One can be a man of faith and still be an absolute prick. And another can be doubtful of a higher power and always do what is morally appropriate. I don't think an atheist is more likely to commit a crime, drive by a wounded cat in the road, or take a bad count from his bookie more than someone who believes in God.
