BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Bee
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:12 PM

Poor goats. Do they get a 'Most Sacrificed Animal in World History' spot in the Guiness Book of World Records?

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 06:01 PM

"I'm about to sacrifice a goat. Would you care to join me in the invocation to my Master?"

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 05:55 PM

Maybe if the sign said:Born Again... and Again.... and Again...

They couldn't say they were not warned.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Peace
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 05:33 PM

I have found that the vast majority of folks who knock on doors to talk with occupants about religion are understanding when I say I don't wish to discuss it. On a few occasions I have had to be brusque. They have understood that also.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 05:01 PM

Cyclone fence with razor wire on top surrounding a moat full of crododiles and piranhas with an inner ring of tank traps and land mines supplemented by a Romulan cloaking device works fairly for us. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:44 PM

Yeah, what do I know? :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:21 PM

LMAO, Bill! Those are excellent. I may have to print them out and put THEM on my door!

I agree with Riginslinger, I think it would just attract them if I put "Born Again" on the door, even though I do believe in reincarnation, they would take it the wrong way.:-)

I don't think I will get too many more when they see the Beware of Dog sign next to the new one. My daughter put those up on her gate and fence and has not been bothered since. Of course the four dogs at her house make more of a commotion than my one, but my one has a really menacing growl and bark.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:46 PM

out of the mouths of babes

Just a thought

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:56 AM

Speaking of belly buttons: I got into a discussion with a fundamentalist on that subject. I volunteered the thought that Adam and Eve did not have navels. He wanted to know why on earth I would think that.

I said, Look at the function of the belly button. It is simply the visible sign of the baby's womb existence- and Adam and Eve were not 'born'.

He said, I think God could see to it...

He is my brother. *G*

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:40 AM

If you are 'born again' do you have two belly buttons?

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM

How about "I Gave In a Past Life..."


A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:31 AM

Actually, I think a "BORN AGAIN" sign would attract multitudes and multitudes of non-thinking people. After all, it worked for George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: wysiwyg
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 08:27 AM

Kat, about that sign.... I think I have it-- if you believe in reincarnation, that would mean that you can honestly put a big ole sign on your door saying just these two words:

"Born Again!"

... and that ought to do it. If you make it big enough, they people won't even come up your walk but just pass by. Whew-- I thought for a minute I was going to have to start some new denomination to declare you saved for this sign-thing. Glad I slept on THAT one!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:56 PM

Well, hockey I can get religious about.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

(hi Bill)

Kat, I hate to tell you, but I really think that the attitudes coming to your door are going to be seriously encouraged in their "mission," not discouraged, by a sign as you describe. If anything, they will call in reinforcements.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:07 PM

But it's one way to claim #200

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:06 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~I feel like a bad example of a good example.

further, deponent sayeth not.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:42 PM

Peace, only over hockey, I am sure.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:33 PM

New sign on my door after an umpteenth knocking by proselytisers:

May YOUR god bless you and make you secure in your religion
so that you will not seek to harass me about mine.

In other words,

NO Solicitations
INCLUDING PEDDLERS OF RELIGION.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:12 PM

Works for me. The likelihood of either of us ever being in a room together or even wanting to I'm sure boggles your mind as much as it does mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:57 PM

Hm, lemme try this one on for size:

I don't give a shit what people believe DON'T in terms of religion. As long as they don't TALK to me about it.

Naw, it just doesn't work for me. I had hopes for it-- not that the anti-believers will ever be able to allow Lent to pass by and SHUT UP about it at the same time-- but then I realized that would effectviely leave out a huge part of a friendship I would not give up for anything-- BillD.

Just as one example, I wouldn't want BillD to ever shut up, towards me, about ANYthing.


But Peace-- here, just for you-- from now on, if you ever see me writing about any aspect of my faith: assume I am not addressing you, OK? :~) Talking, I may be, but not to you. Heck, I might not even know you're in the room, you know?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:50 PM

See, Peace, this is what I believe: blar, blar, blar...

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:35 PM

I don't give a shit what people believe in terms of religion. As long as they don't TALK to me about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 07:33 PM

Hey, I'm a God lovin' follower of Christ an', well, I ain't into seein' tax dollars go any churches 'cause either we, as a nation, respect the seperation of church and state, or we don't... The Founding Fathers certainly did and that is why they put the "establishment clause" in the consitution... Bad stuff happens when churches and governemnts hold hands and if history is a teacher then we should take notice...

Now back to the mud-slingin'...

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 06:53 PM

Now, don't go tossing terms 'thought processes' and 'evidence' and 'reason' and such like into the discussion -

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:49 AM

There is a perfectly rational non-faith statement embraced by many atheists that essentiaklly states that belief in God is unwarranted for lack of evidence, given that all systems provided as evidence can be more easily explained. Such explanations, for example can go from the bottom up by citing the known principles of adaptive evolution or the known mathematics of emergent systems and complexity which indicates that simple components and very few rules can generate, given enough iterations, systems of great complexity. This is an assertion of reasoning from evidence, not one of faith.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Bee
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:38 AM

"You may feel that way , Frank, but you and other members of the Church Of Secular Humanisn strongly believe there is no God and that is your faith statement. It is not a proven fact that God does not exist but you belive it." - PDQ

PDQ, some of us non-believers are really, strictly, truly, not holders to any religion, faith, belief in deity. You may be right about Frank, I don't know his exact views, but you would be wrong about me and most atheists-agnostics. In fact, there is a proper term for someone who strongly believes, without proof, that there are no gods, and that is an anti-theist.

I have no 'faith' there is no god. I don't know. I also have no 'faith' that there is a god. In fact, I have no faith at all, from which stems my lack of belief. No one has offered me any evidence that there is a deity. Some evidence has been offered me that there is no deity, but it has not been irrefutable evidence (or I have failed to understand it due to a lack of higher education in physics and maths).

That is not a faith statement. My thought processes do not include an ability to decide on god or not god by way of faith. So with not one iota of evidence for the existence of a deity, and some evidence against, I tend towards thinking deities are unlikely, not impossible. Should someone offer me good evidence that god/s exist, I would change my mind on the issue as matter of factly as I changed my mind on whether car airbags were safe, once I had read the statistical evidence.

It is very annoying to have someone else tell you what you think or believe, as if you didn't know yourself. Suppose I were to tell you that you don't really believe in your god, you're just saying that, and are really an atheist?

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: pdq
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:53 AM

"Atheism, btw, PDQ is the absence of religion, not a religion of itself."

You may feel that way , Frank, but you and other members of the Church Of Secular Humanisn strongly believe there is no God and that is your faith statement. It is not a proven fact that God does not exist but you belive it.

A believer will feel/say that God does exist, which is the more traditional faith statement. In both cases, neither the existance or absence of gods or a God hasbeen proven to scientific standards, but of these people believe.

[PDQ--you really need to close italics with the 2nd 'i']
a clone

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:20 AM

If they end up with a 5 to 4 decision against Annie, it will be the biggest (and maybe only) triumph of the GWB administation, and saddle the country with a disaster that will last for generations to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:43 PM

It will be of interest to me to see how the SC handles the case. We know that they seemed to become a bit more 'conservative' after the last appointments. What is crucial to America I think is whether or not the SC constructs an argument that is Constitutional law-based and not Bush-based. They may indeed rule against Annie. I think some of the back and forth on this thread is interesting also because people doing the arguing seem to want the Constitution respected, and IMO, it hasn't been for about five years now. The outcome of the case--depending on the SC ruling--may be one that determines whether the US indeed HAS a Constitution anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 07:32 PM

The major issue at hand here is Bush's attempt to give taxpayer money to faith-based initiatives. I believe that this is wrong as it violates the Separation of Church and State.
it has been shown that many such faith-based organizations discriminate against non-believers but this still isn't the issue. The issue is this, in order to protect a American's right to believe what they want without harming others, the Separation so wisely cited by Jefferson is the wall that protects our "limited representative democratic republic" from theocrats and political crooks. What Annie Laurie and Dan are doing is serving our Democracy in the most fundamental way, protecting both the right to worship or not as we choose.

Atheism, btw, PDQ is the absence of religion, not a religion of itself. This can be shown by the following logic. If the scientific method by major scientists throughout the world could show the existence of god(s), every sensible non-believer would change his/her mind.
I don't believe that many religions would be as magnanimous, however. I don't really like to label myself so the nearest acceptible term for me would be "freethinker". But as an American, I believe that it's my duty to support those who disagree with me and worship through their religion as long as it doesn't enter into the realm of Theocracy.

I find it hard to be mad a churches or synagogues or mosques, temples etc. although I won't attend them as a participant in their beliefs. However, anger has no place in relating to religion since it accomplishes nothing. I will protest at the machinations of the Robertsons, Falwells, Grahams, etc. who insist that they have the right to foist their beliefs on others. I know many people who are good folks who are religious and although I don't think their religion makes them good, I still respect where they are in their beliefs as people.

But the central issue here is extremely important. Roy Moore and others like him have no right to denegrate the meaning of the First Amendment by violating it and tearing down the Wall. America is what it is through diversity and tolerance and this above all is the most important value we have (aside from the nuts that want to take us to war).

I salute Annie Laurie and Dan and I'm one of them.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:34 PM

Actually, one of the things I really like to do is laugh until the tears squirt out of my eyes-- which is the reaction you cause me, Greg F. That is some mean trip you're on! :~)

Like, wow!

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:30 PM

I must have missed something Greg. What "dangerous gang of raving lunatics" are we talking about?

Political Fundagelicals.

Greg F has learned how to sing in as a member since he first posted that same crap at 9:09 this AM

Wanted to correct my unintentionally anonymous post & provide attribution.

Ah, Geez, RS, Our ~Susie's got a real bug up her a$$ now. That self-righteous, offended, snotty (dare I say holier than thou?) act is one of the things SHE likes to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:09 PM

RS, now you are really trying to make enemies and give offense.

The exchange between Greg F and I is from 'way upthread, where he accused me of refusing to stand up against right-wingers, if I recall correctly (I'm not going to go hunt for it right now but YOU can). He hasn't participated much in the discussion except to take shots at me-- it's one of the things he likes to do, as well as calling me by nicknames most assuredly NOT used by people who know me well and want to remain friends.

Pass Greg F the LSD, OK, I think he's running out.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 06:05 PM

"I must have missed something Greg. What "dangerous gang of raving lunatics" are we talking about?"




         Church goers?

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:59 PM

Oh, I'm glad to see Greg F has learned how to sing in as a member since he first posted that same crap at 9:09 this AM. I'm also glad he knows so much about what I do and don't do, in my life.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 05:12 PM

I must have missed something Greg. What "dangerous gang of raving lunatics" are we talking about?

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 04:56 PM

Now there's logic-- accusing me of refusing to do something I have not been asked to do

So you need to be ASKED to stand up against a dangerous gang of raving lunatics? Most sentient beings wouldn't need an invitation.

The most controlling crap I've seen, BTW, has come not from those RR folks but from Greg F!

Poor ~Suzie! Take a valium.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: GUEST,Guest FBITSC
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:54 PM

Love your sense of humoUr, frogprince.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Amos
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 01:52 PM

Can Iget autographs of the principals if I buy one?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: LilyFestre
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:49 AM

I have an old bible that is done all in comic book style....all black and white ink drawings...fascinated me when I was a child....still love it.

LQF

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:45 AM

"did they have lots of pictures?"
Oh, yes; we had to color inside the lines, and use only very specific shades of color. We didn't color the special edition Bibles that
Wesley mentioned, though; They had only archival photographs of the Biblical characters and events.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:33 AM

You can only find pictures in the "super deluxe true believers" edition - which I can sell you for only $500.00 plus S&H.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: GUEST,Guest FBITSC
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:29 AM

But did they have lots of pictures?

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:27 AM

Actually, it sounded like ridge plucker was implying, or assuming, that you get a seminary degree by reading only the Bible. That's not quite true; to get my M.Div, I had to read at least two or three other books. : )

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:46 AM

"There is 1 text book"

Actually I think it would be more correct to say that it's a collection of books bound together for convenience. And then again there were a bunch of books that were left out of the collection. A lot of politics was involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: frogprince
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:13 PM

"There is 1 text book"
   


Heeheeheeheehee............

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: SharonA
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:00 PM

I haven't read this whole thread but, just in case it hasn't been mentioned yet, the Freedom From Religion Foundation website is www.ffrf.org

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Peace
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 05:07 PM

"It gives government an excuse for not caring for those in need, and if the faith based charities are not performing, or not available in the location where needed, and the government sees no obligation to do more than fund churches, then people will suffer."

BINGO!

Good one, Bee.

Subject: RE: BS: Faith-based Initiative to Supreme Court
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Feb 07 - 04:01 PM

Pete - I disagree with a lot of what you have to say in your first paragraph but we're in complete agreement on your second. Seperation of church and state is the only way to go.