I'm not into the whole "praying" scene, Amy, though I do interchangeably use the words "hope" and "pray" - ex. "Let's pray for good weather this weekend."

One thing though: Have you ever SERIOUSLY considered what your life would be like if oil was $10 or $20 per gallon? Same question if electricity or natural gas were 3 to 4 times the price they are today. It's something that none of us have to worry about but that's not the case for the leaders of our nations, is it?

Side note: Just when we didn't think the personal attacks against Palin would get any worse, along comes the most vile one yet ... and from none other than a member of Canada's public broadcaster ... whose salary I'm forced to pay! Might we have a little international incident on our hands?!?

Here's my full take on it and all the links: http://pelalusa.blogspot.com/2008/09/heather-mallick-liberal-elitist-trash.html

Good night!

Your belief that anyone with any element of faith in their life is childish makes you appear naive toward human nature; your belief that they can simply be talked out of it (and in a sarcastic tone. at that) makes you surreal. (And really fuckin' mean.)

Here's a woman with whom you ought to find much agreement:

"American religiosity doesn't need to be explained; after all, throughout history, in every civilization, people have believed in the supernatural. What needs to be explained is European atheism...."

Laugh all you will, but there's been many occasions I've prayed to god for a chance to lay pipe.

Or.... Jeanne DuPrau has written a series of books for kids that takes place in a post apocalyptic world. The City of Ember is the first in the series (and will be released in October.) The third book is a prequel that takes place 50 years earlier, and involves in part, a charismatic, very religious, leader. The series is an enjoyable if somewhat obvious allegory of our current "end times" leadership.

It's all well and good to be religious. But the separation of Church and State is an important Western principle. Faith should be private.

From outside the USA, American politicians (like GWB) who mix their private religious views into their public duties sound every bit as nutty as the leaders of Islamic countries.

> Faith should be private.

Why? What if people think it's, like, an important part of their lives, adn the want to talk about it? If you think faith should be private, do you think sex should be private too? You want gays to keep it to themselves, right?

Besides, where's this "outside the USA" you speak of? And besides again... That kind of sounds like a little boy boy who gets embarrassed when Mom asks him to hold her purse at the mall...

An individuals faith should be whatever he or she wants it to be and shared whenever he or she wants to. When someone starts sharing their faith with me I'll listen if I'm in the mood or excuse myself if I'm not (which is most of the time.)

We make a big deal about being able to communicate what we want to others as a sign a maturity but somehow think that having to tell someone "no thanks" is some great inconvenience and a burden we should never have to bear.

Most readers of this blog probably accept the fact that men and women are different in their approach to dating and relationships, that this is dictated by evolution and it is futile and unhealthy to try to change this. We've all seen what happens to men when they try to act like women and vice-versa. There are procedures in place in dating that work within this framework. Women flirt, men pursue. Men ask women out. Women say no if they aren't interested. Men get to be men, women get to be women and relationships are formed (or not.) It works pretty well, I think.

Interesting how religious belief is not allowed the same quarter. Religious belief is to be ridiculed, derided and stamped out. It is a product of evolution that is bad, evil and of no practical use. It isn't considered OK in a human even though given the stated conditions it would have to be considered as part of the same evolutionary process that resulted in how men and women relate to one another. How about we look at it that way and apply the same techniques to it that we do to dating, and pretty much every other aspect of humanity that is considered a product of evolution. We let people be religious and we respect their beliefs just as we respect their right to act like the men or women they came to be. If they want to share their beliefs with us we can say, "no thank you and have a nice day." Ridiculing it works no better than ridiculing men for being men and women for being women.

Personally, I have no issue with public prayer, politicians who are religious, politicians who openly talk about their faith or anyone else who does so for that matter. I can simply say, no thank you. That their faith sometimes drives their policy is to be expected and isn't wrong. This is a great advantage of our system of government. As the diversity of faith (or lack of) in our country grows so does the manner in which it is represented in Congress. The natural give and take of lawmaking slowly crafts policy to take this diversity into consideration. I think it works pretty well.

Your belief that anyone with any element of faith in their life is childish makes you appear naive toward human nature;
Good point, Crid. Amy, those of us who hang around here frequently know that you aren't naive, but these posts taken out of context do create that appearance.

your belief that they can simply be talked out of it (and in a sarcastic tone. at that) makes you surreal. (And really fuckin' mean.)
I guess I've never thought that Amy was naive enough to believe that, although how seeds of doubt may be planted in any particular believer's case is hard to guess. I guess I've always thought of it as part of her effort to establish a brand for herself that included an element of bombast or outspokenness. The mean part doesn't bother me. In this case you could substitute "insensitive" for "mean" and a certain amount of insensitivity is a refreshing contrast in the current PC climate.

Laugh all you will, but there's been many occasions I've prayed to god for a chance to lay pipe.
Thanks, jerry. That's the best chuckle I've had here in awhile. It also makes me wonder if more ugly guys are atheists.

Look, there's a God-damned (pun intended) huge difference between her having faith and even expressing it (personally I think that should be kept private by any public office holder if only so it doesn't matter in an election) than there is in asking citizens to pray. No elected official has any fucking right to ask me to pray!

It does border on ordering but to take my paranoia down a notch and give someone who probably doesn't deserve it (because I'd bet dollars to doughnuts any public official who "asks" for prayer in a speech is dying to order it and knows damned well they can't), there is, just in the asking, that if you don't pray and pray for exactly what they ask you to whether you think what they want is wise or not, the implication that if you refuse, well, you aren't just fucking patriotic.

Crid, man, your posts are interesting but sometimes you can just be so damned naive. Your posts here act as if you don't even comprehend the notion of separation of church and state. Elected officials are not supposed to force their religion on us. That does mean no prayer in government school or opening congress, etc., etc., etc. And your comparision to sex -- which is much talked about in politics and has no prohibition to in our constitution -- is ludricous.

Look here's my rule of thumb that I offer to the unthinking: anywhere you think it would inappropriate for a public official to stand up and say a few words telling people there can't be a god and why, it is likewise inappropriate to offer prayers, hymns or sermons even if nondenomitional and couched in language such as god of your choice or god as you see him.

Even though I agreed with Jesse Ventura for saying religion is a crutch, I was just as mad at him for using his public office to do so. He had no right to do so.

And Palin, Bush, etc. also have no right to use their office to promote their religious beliefs. Are they entitled to those beliefs? Absolutely. Do they have to keep what church/temple they go to a secret? No, of course not. But to make a point of saying I'm such and such is a bit more than not keeping it secret but hinting we all should be whatever the fuck they are. They know damn well that being in a position of power carries the weight of implication when they say they are such and such as if it is the way everyone should be. They have no right to use their office to shove it the fuck down my throat.

And, yes, it makes me feel like a second-class outsider. Hell, according to George Senior, I'm not a citizen or shouldn't be. That isn't my paranoia. That's a statement he made. Point blank.

So excuse us non-believers for tending to get a bit defensive in the current political clime. We've every reason to be.

Oh, and frankly, I think Amy knows the difference about spouting her opinions here in her blog and doing so from city hall if she wound up on the city council.

Tell me Crid, suppose GWB was to pray publically to Thor, Aphrodite, or Marduk

Would you still be so stright faced when defending religon?

And Dale the only difference between athiests and belivers is that atheists belive in one less religion.

And FYI it was the religious types trying to stamp eachother out long before the atheist came along.

Listen up belivers, are you telling me you would have no problem with a POTUS who sacrificed goats to Anubis in a bid to ressurect a dead familly member?

Explain rationally who belief in Jesus isnt the same old shit with nothing more than a shiney new bow?

She says very clearly she will be doing her part. She was speaking to a group of religious people who do see prayer as useful. So, she told them to do what they feel is useful, and she would do her part in Washington. Once again, I don't see why you are aghast, except that you feel very uncomfotable when people profess to believe in God. Why, I'm not sure. It' doesn't affect you in any way. The only way it could possibly affect you is if religious people manage to overturn R v W, which most of us know is not going to happen and wouldn't matter if it did. If you were truly atheist, you wouldn't care that others have religion and you sure wouldn't spend your time mocking them. It would bother you no more than it bothers me that come people like sushi.

Atheists are as diety-controlled as religious people. Only you spend your time mocking them, instead of living your life. We know you have better things to do.

Why should faith be private? Because it has nothing to do with one's professional life, unless you are a priest. In what way are my religious beliefs relevant to my co-workers? To my customers? At best, they are irrelevant. More likely they would cause unnecessary friction. What I do in my free time is a different matter, but religion has no place at work.

This is even more important for politicians, whose words are guaranteed to be heard by people with vastly differing views.

> where's this "outside the USA"

At the risk of being flippant, that would be anyplace that's not inside the USA, which is most of the world. Watch world leaders on the news. The only ones who regularly mix religious references into their speeches are Islamic fundamentalists and US politicians.

If you mean my location, that would be Switzerland. The proportion of religious folks is pretty high here. And yet, no Swiss politician mixes his or her personal religion into official speeches.

>>I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.

This is not simply expressing standard political conviction in harmlessly religious terms (as Robert W. implies when he says: "I do interchangeably use the words "hope" and "pray"").

Palin is summoning a metaphysical justification for that natural gas pipeline!

So what would it take to change her mind once God has taken the trouble to speak to her on these matters? Another divine conversation?

Momof3 asks: "Once again, I don't see why you are aghast, except that you feel very uncomfotable when people profess to believe in God. Why, I'm not sure. It' doesn't affect you in any way."

You're asking why some of us are uncomfortable when a politician claims God is contacting her on public policy?

Are you kidding?

(Great comments Amy, bradley13 and T's Grammy).

I saw the Palin video on Youtube. She comes across as a complete nut. Thank you Sarah, for giving me that reason to vote for Obama!

Uh, Obama's played the God card too, JoJo. Hell, he thinks he's Jesus Christ.

Better to not vote at all, methinks.

All this kvetching about religion. You know, I find it hard to give a fuck. Her religion is not a threat to my life, freedom, well-being, or wealth.

If she tries to legislate her religion, she's gotta get it past Congress, and then the Supreme Court. And she's gotta do it before she gets term-limited out or voted out.

I'm far more worried about the schmuck who thinks that he knows better what to do with my money, has the support of the Congress to take it, and the Court won't be asked their opinion because there's no Constitutional question about the government's ability to seize assets for their benefit.

Someone wants to be a ninny and think that God gives a fuck about them? Fine. Call me when the Catholics start burning apostates at the stake.

Crid - the Constitution doesn't specifically state there must be a separation of sex and state. "Sex" as a topic isn't a belief system. People can have opinions and thoughts about sex. People can be hetero or homo. Lots of people think about sex all the time. But I don't know anyone in my life who goes around telling me I have to have it or not have it.

I do, however, have people in my life telling me to read the bible and follow god's way.

Religion is a very unique thing because of the power it has over people. Being very religious doens't just mean you have an opinion about something. It means you believe in something with all your soul. That is no doubt powerful and I get why people want to talk about it.

But I don't think that makes religion a relevant thing to government. Religion and government must be kept separate because we don't all believe in the same things. I don't find it offensive if someone says "I'm praying for you" but I find it offensive when the person running for president has such disregard for the foundation of this country and the values we're supposed to rally around.

Also I don't think Amy is trying to convince people not to believe in god. Do you really think she's that retarded? But in typical Amy fashion she rather scathingly pokes fun at religion and ultimately concludes it has no place in government.

>>If she tries to legislate her religion, she's gotta get it past Congress, and then the Supreme Court. And she's gotta do it before she gets term-limited out or voted out.

In other words, Brian, your preferred ninny doesn't matter? 'Cos the checks and balances will keep her in line - even if she is hearing voices?

Brilliant way to defend a candidate!

Way to read, Jody.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating probability.

Obama has a 100% chance of doing real damage to the nation and the world.

McCain/Palin has a less than 50% chance of same.

And if Palin is revealed to be a nutjob over the course of the next four years, she won't get the nod for the big chair anyhow.

Gretchen

I do, however, have people in my life telling me to read the bible and follow god's way.

If you are a non-believer, and your answer is anything other than "what makes you think God gives a fuck?", then you're doing it wrong.

"All this kvetching about religion. You know, I find it hard to give a fuck. Her religion is not a threat to my life, freedom, well-being, or wealth."

Someone who claims to know the will of god and to be doing his work is clearly not working for the people. She's working for god. Maybe god is for the people but I wouldn't know b/c I don't talk to Palin's god about pipelines.

You should care b/c a person who cannot separate religion from other parts of their lives (which is a lot of people, and I guess I understand how religion could weave throughout your life) are incapable of thinking secularly. Incapable of making decisions that aren't directly related to his or her beliefs in god.

This seems obvious and harmless but in practice it's wrong. As a country we're supposed to reject religious reasonings. A person who cannot explain his/her prolife stance w/o quoting the bible doesn't have a leg to stand on in the American government.

...at least that's how it's SUPPOSED to be. I bet Palin can't do it. Her reason for being prolife is definitely bible-based.

This seems obvious and harmless but in practice it's wrong. As a country we're supposed to reject religious reasonings. A person who cannot explain his/her prolife stance w/o quoting the bible doesn't have a leg to stand on in the American government.

What a load of shit.

This is like saying that as a country we're supposed to reject quantum mechanics.

Besides, if we're supposed to reject religious reasonings, why are there so many political debates about anthropogenic global warming?

Thanks brian. Brief and to the real point. I sometimes get confused why Amy fears a false god.

I'm still waiting for a rational explination for a belief in Jesus people.

Why is it no one has stepped up to defend their belief?

According to the tenets of your own fail failure to defend it is tantamout to blasphemy, your all going to hell

Give it a rest, luj. By definition, everyone's going to hell.

>>I sometimes get confused why Amy fears a false god.

What's this "fear"?

We're not trembling.
We're just twitching with impatience when the God botherers mouth at us "because God said so" as a political conversation stopper.

"This is like saying that as a country we're supposed to reject quantum mechanics."

Most people "believe" in science because it's been proven. It's tangible. It works. I know nothing about quantum mechanics. But I know that when I get in my car and push the key in (mine pushes in, it's awesome) my car will turn on. I know that when I flip the light switch the bulb will light up. I also know that our knowledge of science has saved the lives of people in my family. The same can't be said for prayer. That's why little kids are taken away from parents that refuse to get them life saving medical treatment - as a society, we basically all agree that medicine has a higher probability of saving the kid's life and prayer isn't going to work.

We agree. As a society. That's why what I said isn't a load of shit. We aren't in a country where our laws are based off of religious texts. Thank god for that...

Comparing one's "belief" in science to Palin's belief in religion is apples to, like, pizza. Not even the same food group.

Only if you belive in a Abrahamic religion and it turns out to be real

Personally I'd rather spend an eternity in Valhalla - endless number of blonde nordic amazons - thats my idea of heaven

"We're just twitching with impatience when the God botherers mouth at us "because God said so" as a political conversation stopper."

And Gov. Palin said this when?

Gretchen - If you think our laws aren't based off of religious texts, you haven't studied much.

Luj - Simple explanation: All organized religions with a "hell" concept believe that non-believers in their way are going to "hell". Since it is not possible to be a member of more than one such religion, then everyone must be hell-bound.

It's why I don't lose sleep at night over it.

Best response I ever made to a born-again who told me that I was going to hell because I didn't accept Jesus as my lord and saviour: "See you there."

He never spoke to me again. I liked it that way.

"And Gov. Palin said this when?"

She's telling us what god's will is. That is equivalent to "god said so."

"I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built"

But I know that when I get in my car and push the key in (mine pushes in, it's awesome) my car will turn on. I know that when I flip the light switch the bulb will light up.

You know nothing of the sort. You presume, nay have faith that when you push the key in that the car will turn on.

Your lack of understanding of the billions of quantum interactions that must occur at precisely the right time, in a specific order, is irrelevant. Your belief that it will work the same this time as it did last time makes your trust in the machine indistinguishable from faith.

Your belief that the power company will be providing electricity to your house at the precise moment you flip the switch is likewise an act of faith. That our power system is sufficiently robust that you might never have your faith tested is irrelevant.

And she said that to "force" an end to the discussion?

"Gretchen - If you think our laws aren't based off of religious texts, you haven't studied much."

And that's justification for it right now? What if she was quoting the Quaran or Torah or a book of Greek Mythology? Why can't we expect more of people - more critical thinking - than people who lived hundreds of years ago?

If you don't realize the hypocrisy of the people who came here for religious freedom and then outted and killed non-believers, you haven't done much thinking.

I just think that it's ok to recognize the inconsistency and try to come to conclusions as a society without introducing religious beliefs that all of America doesn't support. Unless we need to get rid of all the Jews and Muslims, etc. Oh and the Amys. Our country has evolved but Palin is taking us back to the history books.

I have a "God" given talent. Just kidding. I could say my parents gave me the talent; but, I don't know that either. People are amazed that I can start a motor they cannot. People are amazed that I can catch a walleye when they cannot. I just laugh and tell them I talk to the motors and to the fish - I feel a connection. Maybe brian can explain this to people but I think he did it well at 8:16 and earlier.

>>Your belief that the power company will be providing electricity to your house at the precise moment you flip the switch is likewise an act of faith.

Why so fatuous, brian?

It's an act of observation - objectively verifiable whether or not I believe in the electricity god.

Gretchen, you're working yourself into a lather OVER NOTHING.

Palin has NO HISTORY of forcing someone else to hold religious beliefs.

And if you think that governance guided by religious belief is a Bad Thing, then you have NO choices in this election.

If, however, you think that a VICE president who wears her faith on her sleeve is more dangerous than a socialist who hides his faith, you're going to have some serious problems in the future.

You know nothing of the sort. You presume, nay have faith that when you push the key in that the car will turn on. - brian

Brain faith, accoding to the bible, is something hoped for but not seen.

Given she has seen her car start before it not faith to presume it will stsrt again. And shoul it fail to start I'm sure gretchen will take the car to a mechanic and not to a santorian priest for an animal sacrifice in the hope that blood will appease the 'sprits of the auto'

Tressider:

It's an act of observation - objectively verifiable whether or not I believe in the electricity god.

Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

To the devout, the works of God are just as objectively verifiable. You can deride them as lunatics, but you would be wrong.

Just as wrong as those who derided Stephen Hawking as a lunatic for predicting radiation escaping from a black hole.

Religion doesn't magically turn people into killing machines. Atheist regimes actually have higher death tolls in the 20th century than religious ones do in all of recorded history.

In other words, atheism, like religion, is no guarantee of goodness. But religion is a safer bet.

>>If, however, you think that a VICE president who wears her faith on her sleeve is more dangerous than a socialist who hides his faith, you're going to have some serious problems in the future.

Looks like Obama is doing a horrible job of hiding anything from you and your X-ray vision, brian!

Apparently, his inner beliefs couldn't be more transparent to you!

And shoul it fail to start I'm sure gretchen will take the car to a mechanic and not to a santorian priest for an animal sacrifice in the hope that blood will appease the 'sprits of the auto'

And if you've ever worked on a car, you'd realize that in many cases you get about the same success rate from each.

"your trust in the machine indistinguishable from faith."

What? Wrong.

My "faith" that the light will turn on is based off historical observation and statistical probability and the fact it behooves the power company's bottom line to have their shit together. If my lights don't turn on I will probably check the circuit breaker. Then call the electric company. If they can't fix our power I am sure the city will have some things to say.

Faith in god is not measurable. If it were we'd all believe.

What will America say if god doesn't give them a pipeline? Are they going to write him letters and report him to the BBB and send emails to The Consumerist for being a bad business man?

>>Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke

Did Arthur C. Clarke never get a household electricity bill then, brian?

(You see, I have proof it's not magic!)

I'm not working into a lather. I'm just really, really, really bored.

"And if you think that governance guided by religious belief is a Bad Thing, then you have NO choices in this election."

I don't disagree. And I think it's immeasurably sad.

Apparently, his inner beliefs couldn't be more transparent to you!

Well it isn't really x-ray vision. It's just a cold analysis of what he says, versus what his sycophants in the media report about what he says. So perhaps not the best analogy on my part, he's not really hiding anything, but his supporters are suffering from "selective blindness".

For instance, the bit about "we'll let the market grow the economy, then tax the hell out of them and redistribute the money that way"

He tells the press that he's not going to raise taxes on anyone but the rich.

He's a commie. The sooner you and your buddies realize that, the better off you'll be. Communism has brought nothing but misery and suffering everywhere it's been applied. I don't wish my country to be the next place it hits.

Religion doesn't magically turn people into killing machines. Atheist regimes actually have higher death tolls in the 20th century than religious ones do in all of recorded history - brian

You keep saying thatbut never post ant verifiable figures to prove it

And religion is a crutch for people to weak to behave moraly on their own without threat of etenal damnation. And that is not neccessarily a bad thing, but the problem with a crutch it it becomes a club so easily

Gretchen:

I don't disagree. And I think it's immeasurably sad.

Yeah? Who's your choice then?

McCain, Palin, Barr, Obama are all God-fearing Christians. Biden is a Catholic.

And if you don't think that their religion enters into their decision-making, you're delusional.

Add to that the fact that McCain, Obama, and Biden are also members in good standing of the Church of Global Warming, and have all SAID that their policy decisions will be based upon the teachings of that church, and you really have no choices if you want a candidate untainted by religion.

Which means it comes down to a simple equation: socialism versus liberty.

And I vote liberty every time.

luj - (last post for today, I need to get some work done)

In the 20th century alone, Communism claimed somewhere between 100 and 150 million lives. And that's not counting the war dead from WWII.

Mao killed at least 40 million in just the "Great Leap Forward". Stalin killed 20 million in the Ukraine famine alone. Not to mention the millions murdered in Communist revolutions all over the world, and the others slaughtered by the USSR and China for failing to fall in line.

Religion, on the other hand, doesn't come anywhere near it. It's documented, you go find it, I don't have the time right now. The crusades come up at, if memory serves, under a million. All the various wars of Islamic expansion come up similarly small.

Some day people will simply accept the fact that the ideology of Communism is quite simply the greatest force for death, destruction, and dare I say evil that humanity has ever known.

Sorry wrong number above - Ukraine famine was 7 million.

>>McCain, Palin, Barr, Obama are all God-fearing Christians. Biden is a Catholic.

Brian, I don't give a shit if they all live in fear of French plumbing.

Just as long as they don't cite French plumbing as the authority for decisions affecting the country.

Jody - THEY ALL FUCKING DO.

So, who are you gonna vote for given that each and every one of the candidates on the ballot has said that God's will guides their decision making process?

"And if you don't think that their religion enters into their decision-making, you're delusional."

Dude. When did I bring up Obama, once, and say that he is different/better than Palin on the religious front? This is about something she said.

I don't like religion being the single guiding compass for the leader of our nation. If all four pres/vp candidates are incapable of thinking outside the religious box then I dislike all of them, equally, for it.

"teachings of that church,"

Out of curiosity, as an aside - you don't find any evidence gathered by the folks who think global warming is happening is legit? Either way I think it's good to be nice to our planet.

"Which means it comes down to a simple equation: socialism versus liberty."

I don't see "liberty" the same way I guess. I don't think it's liberty to have public policy made based off religious texts in which I not only don't believe but in which I find great fault. Someone who can't think about gay marriage objectively outside the bounds of religion isn't someone who should be making public policy on it.

I think the choices you give are actually: have all my rights or all my money taken away.

>>So, who are you gonna vote for given that each and every one of the candidates on the ballot has said that God's will guides their decision making process?

Brian,
It's simple.
You wait for them to say that bit above (tapping your watch, checking your email, totting up your monthly payments, plucking your eyebrows, phoning the abortion hotline - whatever).

Then you wait for them to explain themselves without a single effing reference to God.

Sorry but WW2 was a religious war - occultist christian on a god given mission to conquer the world and create a master race.

But even if you dont belive that the murder of the jews was religiously motivated

if you want to argue that individually athiest regimes have caused more death I would have to agree.

But with modren populations, warefare and weapons and more reliable body counts it is inevitable that modern and future societies will have higher death tolls than previous ones.

Taken collectivly however religion wins, even if you dont count the dead from thing lkie the flood and the ten plauges of eygpt

Something to think about here.

Alright, some religious people were told to pray for a pipeline right? Well, if it is useless without being harmful, then what does it matter? It isn't as if the suggestion was that prayer was all it would take.

Old saying: Call on God...but row away from the rocks.

Nobody was suggesting the one act of wishing for divine intervention on behalf of human beings was enough by itself to do the job.

A general might pray for the well being for his soldiers, but he pours over maps for days to do his part to ensure they get home alive.

Same thing, so what point to even being annoyed? You could replace the word "prayer" with "hope" and lose nothing from their discussion...but it would make my favorite lady of advice look just a little bit silly.

We can be reasonably confident that the speaker in this case, isn't just telling people to pray, and then waiting for something to happen, but rather will take action in pursuit of improving our general lot.

Too, we should consider the audience. If the figure in question had been at an American Atheists conference, I'm sure the speech would have gone differently, but in speaking to a body of people whose beliefs profoundly touch their daily lives, a call to prayer is just good political sense.

Wow...a politician tailoring their speech to their audience...whats next, will men start looking at scantily clad women who walk by? The horror.

Gretchen

Out of curiosity, as an aside - you don't find any evidence gathered by the folks who think global warming is happening is legit? Either way I think it's good to be nice to our planet.

No. Global Warming is the single greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon mankind. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the most arrogant theory ever crafted. The solar minimum we find ourselves in will bear this out, the warmists know it, which is why they are so hurriedly trying to get their beliefs cast in law - such as the redesignation of the polar bear as threatened.

You know why I disbelieve in their religion? Simple - their God (socialism). Thirty years ago, we were told that mankind's ways were destroying the planet, and we were headed for an ice age. And the only way to prevent it was to completely roll back the industrial revolution and become communists.

A few years later, when that was shown to be hooey, nobody recanted, they just went into hiding. Then, the VERY SAME PEOPLE come out with this "global warming", and of course, the solution is to dismantle the industrial state and go communist.

There's a colloquial definition of insanity that goes something like this: repeating the same sequence of actions and expecting a different outcome.

Someone who can't think about gay marriage objectively outside the bounds of religion isn't someone who should be making public policy on it.

That's rich, considering that marriage is a religious construct and all. In fact, the state has no business being involved in it at all.

I look at your argument, and do you know what I see? Someone who is fearful that the Holy Sacrament of Abortion will be taken away after the removal of Saint Roe.

I'm here to tell you that even if you had nine Clarence Thomases on the bench (A man can dream, can't he?), you would not see Roe overturned, even though it was improperly decided. And even if I'm wrong on that, all that would happen is the legality of abortion would fall to the states to decide legislatively.

"I look at your argument, and do you know what I see? Someone who is fearful that the Holy Sacrament of Abortion will be taken away after the removal of Saint Roe."

I think abortion is murder at the point of viability and doubt I could ever go through with an abortion no matter how early. It seems wrong. If some brilliant scientist discovered that a 2 week old clump of cells is sentient I'd have to seriously reconsider my ideas about whether abortion should remain legal. My personal "belief" that a clump of cells is not sentient isn't enough to make policy, though...luckily.

Marriage is a religious thing but I see the government's hand in that private part of our lives as having a small bit of good. It gives spouses special privileges and makes things a whole lot easier on families during untimely death.

It's protection that people of both sexes should have when two people are committed enough to create a pact, supported by the people of the country, which elevates the relationship above simply being roommates or fuck buddies (if my roommate has to be hospitalized I have no actual right to be there). Is there another word to use besides "marriage" (because it has religious connotations)? Maybe. Maybe we can create another set of laws where I can elect a good friend or my sister to "special person status" who gets those rights.

I think gay couples are just as entitled to the protections of straight couples. Now, whether the government should be involved at all is another argument entirely.

I’m praying for an atmospheric inversion after the world’s supply of marijuana is torched. Anything wrong with a pray like that?

I think abortion is murder at the point of viability and doubt I could ever go through with an abortion no matter how early. It seems wrong. If some brilliant scientist discovered that a 2 week old clump of cells is sentient I'd have to seriously reconsider my ideas about whether abortion should remain legal. My personal "belief" that a clump of cells is not sentient isn't enough to make policy, though...luckily
Why is it OK for some political hack (any schmuck you can think of Timur Lenk to Napoleon to Stalin to Mao to...) to start a war and send 20 year old sentient beings to their death?? Isn't that murder?

Now, I'm no fan of Gloria Steinem (in fact, I think she's beyond feminazism), and apparently she's no fan of Palin's (but I think Steinem is more full of it than Palin, simply because some of the stuff she says is ridiculous) :

Palin: wrong woman, wrong message

Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

By Gloria Steinem

September 4, 2008

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

(Flynne here. Biden has not much more experience re: foreign policy, either. Who's Steinem kidding with this one?)

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

(Flynne again. Obama and Biden are "campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children"?? First I heard of it.)

This could be huge.

Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women's Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.

(Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player! o_O)

Religion, on the other hand, doesn't come anywhere near it. It's documented, you go find it, I don't have the time right now. The crusades come up at, if memory serves, under a million. All the various wars of Islamic expansion come up similarly small.
You forgot Timur Lenk, the Turkish invasion of Europe, the conquest of the New World...so the numbers are pretty close, actually. Also, keep in mind the world's population pre-1900 was nowhere near the population of 1940 or 1970.

Cool. I'm gonna start praying to Satan.

The most worrisome part of her comments is her belief in manifest destiny and corporatism. It's her belief that building that pipeline is God's Will. God wants that pipeline, and needs that pipeline, and the people behind the pipeline are doing god's work.

Pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.

I think that that statement is pretty scary. What other things does she think is god's will? It really isn't an enormous stretch from imbuing a pipeline with God's will, to imbuing destruction of environment, destruction of other countries, and destruction of civil rights.

I have no problem with leaders who turn to the divine before going into battle. I have a real problem with leaders who think a pipeline is god's will or who leaders who think god speaks to them.

George Bush: "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq"

Amy, I hate it when you use this kind of shorthand:

"Yes, we are, when officials who are religious use their belief in goat slaughter or whatever to try to overturn Roe v. Wade and ban gay marriage, etc."

Arguing that someone leans one way on an issue solely because of their religion is a conversation-ender much in the same vein as calling someone racist. Personally, I'd love to see Roe v. Wade overturned - because I believe in federalism, not religion.

As for religion on display in this (or any) election - let's call it what it is: campaigning at best, pandering at worst. If you're waiting for a national candidate who declares himself a public atheist, you'll be waiting a long time.

"I think that that statement is pretty scary."

* I am so stealing from Crid here: "Yes, worry about that! Be scared! Say it again!"

"It really isn't an enormous stretch from imbuing a pipeline with God's will, to imbuing destruction of environment, destruction of other countries, and destruction of civil rights."

* Really? It isn't? Jerry, see above re: pandering.

> a brand for herself that
> included an element of bombast
> or outspokenness.

Yes, but once you know you're dealing with a posture instead of a position, you're no longer compelled to take that person's positions seriously. (See also: Anne Coulter, Maureen Dowd, and every politician who ever lived.)

> No elected official has
> any fucking right to ask
> me to pray!

Get over yourself. They can ask you for a blowjob if they want to... If you're such a neatly integrated personality with well-placed boundaries, you're not at risk anyway.

> Elected officials are not
> supposed to force their
> religion on us.

They never forced me to go to church. Stop being a pussy.

> That does mean no prayer in
> government school or opening
> congress, etc., etc., etc.

First of all, says who? Second of all, three etceteras is a lot for someone who's pretending to be all principled... There's no reason to preemptively claim rhetorical space when you know you're defended by explicit principles. I think you haven't thought or read about it much, you know you haven't thought or read about it much, and you think you're gonna need some wiggle room later.

> They know damn well that
> being in a position of power
> carries the weight of implication

Hitchens has this chat gave a couple times during the book tour for Contrarian, and it goes like this: Power is what you allow it to be. If you're so suggestible that you panic over someone's "implications", and that people you've never met can "shove it the fuck down your throat" just by expressing beliefs you don't share in particular contexts, then you're probably taking them too seriously.

> suppose GWB was to pray
> publically to Thor,
> Aphrodite, or Marduk [...]
> Would you still be so
> stright faced when
> defending religon?

If he was involved faiths of that sort, he wouldn't be GWB. And religion doesn't need my "defense." I think you guys are being naive in that you refuse to see the function religion performs in human hearts. And I think you enjoy being childishly snotty to vast numbers of people you aren't close to.

At this hour, these habits seem likely to cost Obama the election.

(Did I ever tell you about the time I bribed Amy to go to church?)

> are you telling me you would
> have no problem with a POTUS
> who sacrificed goats to Anubis

Call us when it happens, 'k, Loojster?

> Perfect example.

Snots, both-a ya.

> Atheists are as diety-controlled
> as religious people. Only you
> spend your time mocking them,
> instead of living your life.
> We know you have better
> things to do.

Word. (I'm starting to think M3 really exists.)

> Why should faith be private?
> Because it has nothing to
> do with one's professional
> life

First of all, says who? Second of all, who says we're only concerned with professional lives? Ask Edwards if Rielle Hunter has anything to do with his professional life. Ask Spitzer about his sex partners....

> At the risk of being flippant,

You're not being flippant, you're being naive.

> that would be anyplace that's
> not inside the USA, which is
> most of the world.

Have you been to anywhere else in the world?

> Watch world leaders on
> the news.

I'd thought not. Dude, the world is crawling with believers. The United States isn't freakish in its devotion, it's unique in its freedom of expression.

> that would be Switzerland.

Exemplar to the world in which respects? Remember Janet Jackson? What-have-you-done-for-me-lately? (Oo-wooow-ooh yeah!)

> You're asking why some of
> us are uncomfortable when
> a politician claims God is
> contacting her on public policy?

The argument only gets older... It never grows up.

I remember in '76 when Jimmy Carter sealed the nom. American journalists, lost in something common as dirt but completely removed from their experience, tracked down a famous scholar for some insight. They found him at a summer retreat in the mountains somewhere, and begged him for an explanation: "The Democratic candidate for President claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ!" And later, he told friends that on the day they'd arrived, it had been several weeks since he'd met anyone who didn't have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

(more...)

> "Sex" as a topic isn't
> a belief system.

Maybe not in your household, but it is in mine!

> I don't find it offensive
> if someone says "I'm praying
> for you" but I find it
> offensive when...

Y'know, there are certain stupid sayings that just deserve to die ugly deaths, because they encourage stupid thinking. I'm starting a new list for the election season. Let's review:

1. "_____ is a slap in the face to all _____."

If it's really a slap in the face, you won't have to tell anybody, OK? If Palin's nomination is a slap in the face to all women, or Schwartzenneger's budget is a slap to all taxpayers, or Obama's minister is a slap to all churchgoers, then people will know.

2. "This is the most important election in a generation!"

No comment needed.

3. "I find it offensive when...."

What sort of infantilized life have grown men and women had when they can walk around saying that without shame? Ninnies love saying that. Saturday Night Live has been on the air for thirty years without a joke because they know that thousands of people will watch it, just so they can talk about whether or not they were "offended" by it on Monday.

At the very least, it reduces political discussion to a trivial consumer judgment. You're tougher than that, and the politicians are smarter than that. Don't make it easy for them.

> I don't like religion being
> the single guiding compass

Are you seriously concerned that it is? I'm as worried about the teacher's unions, m'self....

> "Sex" as a topic isn't
> a belief system.

Maybe not in your household, but it is in mine!

Heh. Perish the thought! o_O

>>What sort of infantilized life have grown men and women had when they can walk around saying that without shame?

I have to use that, Crid. Because it describes my reaction to Palin's latest.

What sort of infantilized spiritual life have grown men and women had when they can walk around saying to the electorate that God spoke to them specifically about a natural gas pipeline without shame?

It's either hubris or stupidity. Or, I suppose, a demented pandering. It's also several notches up from the boilerplate claim of a "personal relationship with JC," which generally demands nothing more from the non-affiliated listener than a neutrally polite smile.

Oh for shit's sake, it demands nothing of you at all.

> You're asking why some of
> us are uncomfortable when
> a politician claims God is
> contacting her on public policy?

The argument only gets older... It never grows up.

I'm unfamiliar with why this is an old/immature argument...apparently like the Swiss, Canadian politicians don't often suggest that God supports their position. Maybe its just one of those cultural myths, but I get the impression there's a fairly large percentage of voters who believe, literally, in their religious texts. Isn't it possible they buy into the idea that some politicians have a white phone to god? Obviously if you believe in God, per those texts, that's a pretty powerful and unarguable position. Doesn't it promote non-think and is that really how you want your electorate?

Obviously whatever moral/ethical background you come from is going to guide your decision making process -- wouldn't it be more honest to cite your morals/ethics (however they came to be) as reasoning than suggesting you're divinely inspired in some way?

> Doesn't it promote non-think
> and is that really how you
> want your electorate?

You never ever get to choose when or if other people think. Ever. At all. Don't worry about it.

> whatever moral/ethical background
> you come from is going to guide
> your decision making process --

And mainline Christian thinking is a deeply vetted, harshly tested, tremendously popular school of thought that [A] has delivered as much decency and nobility to the world as any, being a pivotal component to American character and [B] is unlikely at this point to bring us any surprises.

You guys shouldn'y be such 'fraidy-cats....

(Boo!)

(Haha! Scaredja!)

brian you said you veiw marrige as a function of religion - I agree, unfortunaly there are all sorts of secual and governmental benifits that come with the religious ceremoy.

So if you will to get the gvernment to say that all hetero couples who get married have to fill out hunndereds of legal documents in order to get things like power of attornyee, rights of ownership, rights of survivor ship, and a whole host of other things then I will stop campagining for gay marraige, but until that day I say if straight couple get government incentives from marrige its illegal to deny gay couples

>>And mainline Christian thinking...is unlikely at this point to bring us any surprises.

Come now, Crid.

Palin's elevation has been a huge surprise. And it keeps delivering!

Some of us are quite reasonably wondering whether she'd lost a few marbles on the way to the podium with this talk of God dishing about a gas pipeline. It's odd, even by the usual standards of piety-tinged rhetoric.

I never suggested I got to choose whether people think. I'd just prefer if it wasn't discouraged.

Oh for shit's sake, it demands nothing of you at all.

Not even if that claim is the justification for sending people to war or making huge economic changes? What argument can you possibly make against a divine directive if you happen to disagree?

I haven't argued anything specific against mainline Christian thinking -- if the threat of going to Christian hell is all that's holding back chaos for most people, more power -- I just find the divine directive deception dishonest.

> Palin's elevation has been a
> huge surprise.

That's very Pauline of you.

> Not even if that claim is the
> justification for sending people to
> war or making huge economic changes?

(emphasis mine)

Emphasis mine because this is never worth worrying about until you guys kick it into the realm of sickly fantasy: "What if schoolteachers start leading hymns before math class? What if she tell us we should go to war on the basis of nothing but her bible? What if Bush starts killing goats in midnight ceremonies?"

Good people are often religious. You know this. Being silly little faux-naive dicks about it persuades no one.

but until that day I say if straight couple get government incentives from marrige its illegal to deny gay couples

When gay couples can provide new taxpayers without outside assistance, I'll consider your position.

Until then, fuck 'em.

Something occurs to me. All those bleating about religion here have no clue how our government works, or are getting all their info on same from Huffington Post or Daily Kos.

I mean, they really believe that the President sets the whole agenda and makes all the decisions. I'm sure there are 435 people on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that would be interested to hear that.

If the President says the Voice of God told him to drill for oil, and he can get Congress to go along with it, what does that say for your lovely representatives and senators?

Or hadn't you given that any thought?

>>What if Bush starts killing goats in midnight ceremonies?"

Problem is, Crid.

I don't get how your question (above) is a haha - c'mon - as if!! - sort of rhetorical statement.

While Palin revealing she has God's warm approval for a specific pipeline project in Alaska is considered business as usual?

The two scenarios are equally nutty. But one is true.

The question, Tressider, is why are you so threatened by it?

Do you believe that her assertion of God's blessing is a stepping stone to requiring you to be baptised?

Or perhaps her lack of Gotthassen makes you fear that she's going to force you to pray.

Or maybe since you don't like anyone to the right of Josef Stalin anyhow this is just a convenient bugaboo to keep you from having to actually THINK your way out of a situation.

Teensy weensie point of etiquette, brian?

Crid is the only one permitted to spell my surname incorrectly here. He's been doing it for years for some reason. (Feel free to pick your own mangled version, though!).

To answer, I am not afraid of her.

I am, though, bothered why you don't see that she sounds bonkers when she says God approves of the pipeline.

I don't think anyone really believes that brian. And Crid's right, it was a bit of a strawman to imply that was the only reason.

I'm surprised it doesn't bother you, even a little bit, that this seems to be the fall back sound bite to the people though. Dishonest and patronizing.

But I don't get to vote anyway...just watching the frothing on both sides with interest. I really hope you avoid the socialist pitfalls we're stuck in. Have you seen the slogan for our right winger? "Better off with Harper" like the lesser of 3 evils. Ug.

I'll continue to watch out for those poor defenseless goats...you never know what might happen if someone doesn't guard the barndoor. (Please don't make me put a smiley here!)

Jody, you're pressing too hard.

First of all, as was noted in here in the hours after her selection, the Anchorage paper is not to be trusted in measuring Palin.

Second, even if they are quoting her without scrambling the meaning or context, she's not necessarily calling for supernatural intervention. Most Christian (and other) faiths see prayer as something that delivers comfort and strength in the face of challenges.

And if you were a bright girl, you'd know that.

And what pisses me off is that you do know that. Or could figure it out swiftly if you ever actually spent close time with people who go to church.

But I think you, and Amy Alkon, and all the MSM lefties are too cowardly to do that. It would cost you the license to look down at people, and nothing means more to you.

Tresidder. Whatever.

The scenarios are not "equally nutty", and you know it.

Tresidder

I am, though, bothered why you don't see that she sounds bonkers when she says God approves of the pipeline.

(note - I apologize for the misspelling, it was unintentional - note corrected spelling above)

I'm not concerned about it because she doesn't sound bonkers to me. She's making an assumption that's not borne out by evidence, but it's not terribly crazy to me.

Now, Obama's claim that we can tax our way to prosperity, on the other paw, DOES scare me, not only because it's bonkers, but because it redounds to a horribly negative future for my bottom line.

Shorter: Palin's belief in God doesn't cost me a penny. Obama's belief in socialism could cost me everything I have.

One more swing at the metaphor before going to work:

Like Renault in the back room at Rick's, you guys have already pocketed your winnings. No one knows how much serenity and comity and decency have been delivered to the people in your daily life by religion. You certainly don't know, because you're too clumsy to talk about it with them without getting offense.

And they know that about you. So they don't bring it up, either.

Good people are often religious. You know this. Being silly little faux-naive dicks about it persuades no one.
-Crid
How does killing goats in the name of religion make you a bad person?

When gay couples can provide new taxpayers without outside assistance, I'll consider your position.

Until then, fuck 'em.
-brian
Barren, childless, & sexless coupels still get the benifits

I'm not concerned about it because she doesn't sound bonkers to me. She's making an assumption that's not borne out by evidence, but it's not terribly crazy to me
- brian

What really pisses me off about religious folk is their ability to rationalize everything - According to the bible god, or jesus if you arent a trinitarian, commanded everyone to give up their riches help the poor and needy.

But now he wants a pipe line, the profits of which will not be given to charity.

Since Palin knows gods will why havent he had any revelations into things like disease? war? a system of governemt that is immune to corruption?

Why is god so concerned with the mundane operations of a utility corperation and not the problem which plauge humanity?
Seriously brian, seriously. Your telling us you see noting odd with a woman who claims the kind and benevolent god who created the entire universe is taking his attention of the prayrs of sick and dying people the world over to focus on a
MOTHER FUCKING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT?!?!?!??!?!??!

Silver lining though - assine situation like this and the conversations they spark are how athiests are born

>>You certainly don't know, because you're too clumsy to talk about it with them without getting offense. And they know that about you. So they don't bring it up, either.

Lay off the nonsense pompous twittery, Crid.

I even have one particular Catholic friend who - so far from being cowed by my attitude - actively nags me and provokes me about my horrible lack of faith.

In short, I know some lovely god botherers, and some who are perfect shits. (My atheism doesn't seriously inhibit our conversation - though maybe it saves me from the boring bits? Who knows!)

At least Brian has finally admitted Palin's assumption about God's pipeline thinking may not be on entirely solid ground. Which is all the concession I'll ever get from him!

Anyway, I'll be watching to see if Palin lays off this kooky 'God-approves' drift in her speeches.

She'd be smart to tone it way down. Way, way, way, way down.

I agree with lujlp!!

(A miracle, a goddam miracle!!)

"Atheist regimes actually have higher death tolls in the 20th century than religious ones do in all of recorded history."

and

"Christian thinking is a deeply vetted, harshly tested, tremendously popular school of thought that [A] has delivered as much decency and nobility to the world as any, being a pivotal component to American character and [B] is unlikely at this point to bring us any surprises."

Both of these statements are true, but the fact remains that God is imaginary. Atheists can kill people, and Christians can be nice, but God doesn't care - he's just going to keep right on not existing, regardless of what people believe.

My dog approves of the pipeline - she gives it a 'woo-woo-woo!'

> She'd be smart to tone
> it way down.

You're a big girl- Ignore her.

Unless you find her company helpful, or something

The Constitution never said there must be separation of church and state. Ignorance has never been a virtue. That invention actually deliberately misquoted something one of the founders said. Here is what it says:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does anyone see the part which says, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."?

So, why the **** are you trying to prohibit the free exercise thereof? Wait, I got it. You guys are in the wrong country. Try Russia.

(whoops, I thought Jody was still talking about her friend, not Palin. The selection of PAlin will probably be made FOR her...)

(Hey Jody, are you registered to vote like a real American?)

>>(whoops, I thought Jody was still talking about her friend, not Palin. The selection of PAlin will probably be made FOR her...)

Ah, Crid. So that confusion explains your delicately snotty little comment previously!

With reference to the right to vote thingie - I think you know I'm not a real American?

So, why the **** are you trying to prohibit the free exercise thereof?
-irlandes

But were not irlanders, atheists are trying to inforce it. As an atheist I have a right to not live my life according to the dictates of some wack job who worships a deity that commanded mankind to mutilate their penis(seriously who would worship a guy that commands you to jab your penis with sharp rocks and rip part of it off?)

If belivers choose to live their lives a certian way I could care less, unfortunalty they dont choose to live and let live, they choose to enforce their belifs on others. See my coment earlier about how crutches become clubs

Incedentally what is the plural for penis?

Is it peni? penises? or is it like deer and penis is both a singular and a plural?

Talk about hysterical handwringers! "Maaaake the god thing stoooopppppp!!!!!!!! They're going to force us all to pray and tithe!!"

It's not bothering you or affecting your life. Quite whining and obsessing, and go try to figure out how to extend your lives a little more since you have nothing coming after it.

This country was founded by religious men, and last I heard, we don't stop anyone fom practising any religion they choose, or none.

Penises! :)

I agree that Palin sounds a little nutty. I'm not crazy about her, but her comments shouldn't be so shocking. This nation was founded as a christian nation. Our founding fathers worshiped God and often cited God and prayer.

So, it's certainly not the same as if she sacrificed a goat in the name of Allah or something. That's a stretch. She'd never get away with that. She'd be off the ticket in a heartbeat.

She's just a politician in a largely christian nation pandering to a christian audience. Not the first time it's happened. Yet, what seems to upset people the most is that she actually believes what she's saying.

It's not bothering you or affecting your life.

Tell that to gay people who cant get married, or to the famillies of the soilders who were harrased by the church group holding signs that said 'god hates fags'

Tell that to me whos taxes go to warehouse old people and the infrim who would have died yr ago if not for constant medical intervention becuase its gods will that natural death be fought at all costs.

You may think its nothing, but what happens if jehovas witnesses wind up in overnment and decide to outlaw blood transfuions?

> Tell that to me whos taxes go
> to warehouse old people
> and the infrim

Loojy, I don't care how many penises you're working with: That's a reach...

Besides, you'll be one of those old people one day, and you'll want a nice dry warehouse that serves shitty ice cream during TV time.

I'm probably too late with this point but I think there's a big difference between Palin believing God is on her side of things and praying for his assistance and following the strict doctrine God. I think many religious individuals pray to God for things to go their way. I would be much more unnerved if Palin told Americans that God had told her that there should be a pipeline ... if you seem what I mean.

Our founding fathers worshiped God and often cited God and prayer
-lovelysoul

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith, August, 6, 1816

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

Besides, you'll be one of those old people one day, and you'll want a nice dry warehouse that serves shitty ice cream during TV time.
-crid

The moment I am too old to wipe my own ass, decide what to watch on TV, move around on my own power - I'll kill myself.

What the point in living if someone else has to feed and clean you and rotate you often enough to prevent bed sores?

Charles,
You wrote: " I would be much more unnerved if Palin told Americans that God had told her that there should be a pipeline ... if you seem what I mean."

Maybe I am not quite reading you clearly?

Because Palin's quoted words - which strike some of us as peculiar to a worrying degree - were: "I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."

Which is pretty near to what you'd find unnerving, surely?

Well, "loojy" (I like that!), there were more founding fathers besides Jefferson. Just read the Declaration of Independence. You can't dispute that these were mostly religious men, though they believed in separation of church and state.

I can't tell whether Palin believes in that separation. That's what's scary. I'm trying not to buy into all these vicious attacks and photoshopped photos of her I'm getting. And I was glad that Amy addressed the book banning and showed that story to be false.

However, the reason people bought the idea that she would ban books is because it really seems plausible. She strikes me as the type who would...she just hasn't...yet.

Attention!

Attention!

It's SHOWTIME.

Please hold all my calls.

Ahhh... That was good.

She came through like a sister!

Cammy... She's my heroine!

However, the reason people bought the idea that she would ban books is because it really seems plausible. She strikes me as the type who would...she just hasn't...yet.

If Republicans are the ones that are into banning books, can you tell me why every single censorship bill in the past 40 years has been authored by a Democrat?

The reason Palin banning books sounds so wrong to me is because it's simply not something that Republicans do.

Obviously some here got the god gene and are simply programmed to believe in the supernatural. Just can't help it. Others are just engaging in Pascal's Wager. Hedging one's bets has always been popular.
When the last pope was ailing the Vatican called for 1 billion Catholics to pray for his return to health. Assuming they all did, it came to naught. All that prayer power wasted... it makes the pipeline prayer energy pale in comparison. Such silliness. I wonder what these fine folks would say about this. http://tinyurl.com/1qe

Wow, what a bigoted statement, momof3! That's one hell of a lot of presumptions about Atheists. Says a lot about you, frankly -- not me.

And wow what a lot of discounting as nothing what public officials do? What I found amusing as hell is all the ranting it isn't like a Muslim did it. Okay, so we're all agreed that this point in history Islam's a bigger threat (though speak for yourself; in America, Christianity is). What you don't fucking seem to get, if it's wrong for her to offer an Islamic prayer or sacrifice a goat, it's just as wrong to offer a Christian one. Hello? It doesn't suddenly not cross the line just because it's the majority religion.

Oh, and also why aren't the hypocrites who pray loudly in the public squares pissing off his followers as much as they supposedly did Christ who said to pray in your closets?

Just once, I'd like to run across the fucking believer who wasn't a fucking hypocrite. Of course, given your textbook that ain't fucking possible -- because it fucking contradicts itself at every Goddamn turn.

You all have really become fucking laughable. Does give me hope you will eventually be laughed out of office/power.

(And, yes, I did use the f-word enough times in this post, for the record.)

TG If you really believe that the Christians are a bigger threat than Islamists, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, you're delusional.

And if you think that the Democrats are any less religious than the Republicans, you're doubly delusional.

Offering an Islamic prayer would be just as wrong now as praising Hitler was in 1938. It's nothing short of lending aid and comfort to the enemy. THAT is why it is offensive where Christian/Catholic prayer is not. It wasn't Christians that flew planes into the twin towers, or blew up the Marines in Beirut, or bombed the USS Cole.

Look, what you're all forgetting about is all those people (Xtian and Jewish and Muslim, et al.) who have "prayed" for this, that and the other thing, and didn't get it. Supposedly god (and so we can assume, "Allah", as well, then) answers allprayers. Given that, sometimes the answer is NO. o_O

She strikes me as the type who would...she just hasn't...yet.

So, she's to be condemned for what she might do?

And, despite Barack Obama having no experience running anything, he's to be elected based upon what he says he wants to do?

Of the two, the only one who has actually been in a position to try to ban books is Palin. And she didn't.

Ok, Brian's comments, and yours, reassure me somewhat. She just makes me nervous - reminds me of the type of overzealous christian who does believe in legislating morality.

Still, we haven't had enough exposure to her yet to really know. She's only been governor for 2 years. I was just reading about the whole Troopergate thing too. It seems she is a black and white thinker. If she turns on you, she is...well, a pitbull in lipstick.

Not necessarily bad though. I loved the Paglia piece, and I think it was dead on about how vicious and personal the left can be.

Along with all the lies about Palin I was getting in my inbox, the other day, one of my lefty friends sent a photo of Cindy McCain with all these really mean comments about her "overly botoxed face" and how she looked like a "retired porn star".

And I realized that I hadn't received any of the same sort of personal attacks on Michelle Obama. None of my conservative friends do that. They'll send out criticisms of where they think someone stands...or Michelle for saying she's just now "proud of her country"...but they don't engage in the kind of "mustache and horn drawing" on somebody's face that lefties do. It's so childish!

I never really gave it much thought before the whole "Sadly, No" debacle here. And I agree with Paglia - it really is costing them credibility.

I was just reading about the whole Troopergate thing too.

The truth of what you know about this is highly source-dependent.

From what I have seen assembled by reliable sources, and not the smear merchants, she pushed to have this guy fired for tasering his step-son (although he claimed the kid wanted to prove how tough he was and asked for it), and boozing on the job. NOT because he was divorcing her sister.

Troopergate, like so many other leftist head-hunts, is not about truth, but about causing personal damage to the target of their ire through media assassination and innuendo.

Why the hell does every poitical scandal have to have gate on the end of it?

Because J-school grads tend to be morons, and they always fall back to form.

To wit: (reference Pauline Kael), they all hated Nixon, their careers were formed around Nixon, so everything Nixon did is the benchmark for evil.

Nixon's big scandal was the bugging of the Watergate hotel.

Journalists, being the simple creatures they are, decided that appending '-gate' to the end of a scandal was a clever way to link all scandal to Nixon - their benchmark of evil - thereby granting heft to both the scandal, and their reporting of it.

They don't bother going along party lines either, hence "Monicagate".

ALL scandals must be suffixed with '-gate' to show how important the media is. After all, they ended a war and took down a President.

World War 2...as a religious war.

That is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

First of all, Adolf Hitler was recorded as having favored Islam "The Mohammedams" as he called them, over christianity. Second of all, he himself was NOT an occultist, certain members of his party used Occultic images & beliefs to help shape the populous. Hitler himself was not known to be a believer. Third, the belief in a "super race" is a product of eugenics theory, which itself is related to the efforts to classify the races of man in various ways dating back well before Hitler's birth.

Fourth of all, the Facists of Italy were anything but a religious lot, and the Japanese quest for a Pacific empire had nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and everything to do with imperialistic aims.

And lets not even discuss the Russian side of things.

The murder of the Jews, at least nominally, was based on the myth that Germany had been "stabbed in the back" by its jewish population, (amongst others) and compelled Germany to surrender in WWI. The Jews have a long history of being european scapegoats, because they are a minority population in nations that often needed scapegoats...who better than a little understood minority that clearly is differentiated from the rest of the population?

Antisemitism does often have a relationship to Christianity, "christ killer" was a not uncommon epithet in eastern or western europe, much of this can be found sourced in new testament texts that do their best to absolve Pontius Pilate for the death of Christ...an understandable course of action given that at the time of their writing, Rome still ruled unquestioned in the west. Rather important to look like you're not blaming the government of 40 legions for that sort of thing you know. Makes it difficult to convert or even worship. But I digress...my point is that the link between antisemetic beliefs and religion, however close, is almost never the reason for the repression at a given moment, those things are hauled off the shelf, dusted off, and reused when a scapegoat is needed...be it for a plague, or a lost war.

There is one thing I will agree with lujlp on however, the tools of death used in the years before modernization, as well as the lack of significant population densities, guarantee that religious wars of past eras could not compare with modern wars of any cause, atheist or not. Lets face it, a Crusader's sword may look badass, but you can only swing it so fast, a machinegun though...you can mowdown thousands in no time atall.

However if we do take that into consideration...well we still don't do any favors for atheism in general. Lets face it, it wasn't mere accidents of heat of battle situations that caused all that death for Communism...it was deliberate policy moves that placed the ideology in place of a theology, but removed any sense of morality that might have hamstrung the goal of a communist state. Even Stalin's estimate was 10 million dead in the course of collectivization alone, we needn't discuss the horrors of Mao or Pol Pot, or the other Soviet policies that made gods out of governments, let alone modern day North Korea, which is little more than a giant labor camp.

Neither religion nor atheism is going to guarantee good character, honesty, morality, or human dignity...but if you think about probability for either...go with the former, not the latter.

(Side note: Much of the new world death was related to the lack of immunity amongst native populations to european diseases, war was marginal by comparison)

"God is imaginary"

Alright, lets say for a moment that this is true.

Well...the good samaritan was also an imaginary character.

That doesn't make for a reduced impact.

The plain simple fact that Atheists in general just can't wrap their heads around for whatever reason...is that something does nae have to exist, for it to have a powerful impact.

Often I have to wonder if they're just less imaginative than the general population...but that is a seperate debate.

The cold hard truth is that without the overarching moral law practiced and taught under the aegis of religion, from love thy neighbor to not bear false witness to thou shalt not kill, to the good samaritan...or even that imagined touch of the divine so often written of in praise of man's potential to do great works in our world...without that story of god, imaginary or otherwise, our world would be a very unpleasant place to live for all of us.

Not just those who labor under tyranical beliefs, such as the barbarism that is Islam, or the barbarism that is the story of Communism.

The story of god serves a purpose in guiding and instructing the hearts, or say rather, the conscience, of human beings, and when that story is railed against simply because as atheists often suggest, "it is imaginary", they also are inherently railing against the results of that story, in guiding the consciences of decent people.

I suppose you could say it is the law of unintended consequences. Good without God is a nice idea...but it didn't work to well for the Russians...or the Chinese...or the Cambodians...or the North Koreans...or the Vietnamese...or the ______ fill in the rest of the list, it would take to long for me.

Atheism might not make a person bad...but it does nothing to make them any GOOD either.

If anything, Robert, we have a greater imagination, not a lesser. We are more able to envision good for it's own sake.

Hell, it doesn't take much common sense at all to figure out that doing bad things has a bad effect on the world you live in and being good makes it a nicer place to live. If murder is discouraged by the society in which you live, you are less likely to be murdered.

And scientists not only envision possibilities that religion doesn't even conceive of, they actually go and find cures for disease, means to travel into space, etc. (nope don't feel like listing every single thing here, crid; how lazy of me)

And why are so many of us in creative fields such as the arts, then?

Besides, my mother always did accuse me of having a wild imagination. Frankly, she wasn't wrong about that.

That was ridiculous overgeneralization. I can allow there's good theists and they don't all lack imagination. Give us the same due. We're all only human. Frankly, whatever there is in one group, there also is in the other -- of both the bad and the good.

>>ALL scandals must be suffixed with '-gate' to show how important the media is. After all, they ended a war and took down a President.

Oddly enough, Brian, the suffix -gate has an alternative British history, that's unrelated to Watergate, but embraces a similar allusion to scandal.

"Billingsgate" is still in current, if rare, use & means coarsely abusive language, derived from the crude shouts famously heard at the old Billingsgate fish market- which was named for its site, literally at a gate in the old London wall. Around the same period, in the 18th century, there was an infamous family of rakes (rakes being a posh word for upper-class rotters). The family's reputation for appalling behavior generating colorful nicknames, all ending with the suffix- gate. Richard, the oldest & heir to the family title was "Hellgate" - he wasted the family fortune. Henry, the 2nd son, had a club foot - hence his nickname "Cripplegate," then there was Augustus, spendthrift son #3, called "Newgate" (after the famous London debtors' prison) and Caroline, the foul-mouthed daughter, known as "Billingsgate"!

(Merriam-Webster's brilliant Dictionary of Allusions acknowledges this way in which "gate" became associated with scandalous behavior - centuries before its current USA shorthand.)

You're welcome.

"I suppose you could say it is the law of unintended consequences. Good without God is a nice idea...but it didn't work to well for the Russians...or the Chinese...or the Cambodians...or the North Koreans...or the Vietnamese...or the ______ fill in the rest of the list, it would take to long for me."

You are listing the names of most countries, which used to be the colonies of Christian capitalist nations.

Are you telling me they would have been better off as slaves than their current independent status? They were the nationalists first and communists second. You would see a sign at a park in Beijing in the early 1900 which was frequented by the foreigners, "No dogs or Chinese". They have been humiliated for the 100 years. They were forced to become communists as their colonizers were the capitalists. To gain independence from the capitalist colonizers, they had to turn to Russia for AK47s.

Colonizers were all claimed to be nice Christians. No wonder why communists hated Christians.

And scientists not only envision possibilities that religion doesn't even conceive of, they actually go and find cures for disease, means to travel into space, etc.

This isn't really the direction you want to go.

Because at best, science is morally neutral.

Remember, it was science that gave us mustard gas and the atomic bomb.

Without religion, we'd still be wiping our asses on sand and throwing sticks at each other.

They were the nationalists first and communists second. You would see a sign at a park in Beijing in the early 1900 which was frequented by the foreigners, "No dogs or Chinese". They have been humiliated for the 100 years. They were forced to become communists as their colonizers were the capitalists. To gain independence from the capitalist colonizers, they had to turn to Russia for AK47s.

Nice try. But no cigar. They were Communists first and foremost.

And that sign on the bench? It was gone long before the Communist Party of China was a viable political force.

The Qing dynasty was overthrown in 1911 by a coalition of revolutionary groups. The Qing downfall ushered in a period of chaos ensued with different revolutionary groups battling each other and the provisional government for control.

The provisional government was run by the Kuomintang (Nationalists) under Sun Yat Sen. Sun was trying to unify China and pacify the various warlords and militant groups.

The Communist Party of China (CPC) was small in those days. In 1922, it had only 300 members. By 1925, it had grown to 1,500. The Kuomintang was considerably larger, boasting over 50,000 members in 1923.

The two parties worked together until 1927, when their differences became irreconcilable with Chiang Kai-Shek (leader of the Kuomintang) accusing the CPC of taking orders from Moscow.

The CPC and the Kuomintang from that point on were enemies and fought each other for control of the not-yet-unified China; a fight temporarily interrupted by the Japanese invasion and World War II.

After World War II (in which both the Nationalists and the Communists fought the Japanese invader as well as each other), the communists were victorious in taking over China. The Nationalists escaped and fled to Formosa (today's Taiwan).

The CPC was not fighting foreign overlords to liberate China. It was fighting fellow Chinese for control of the country.

Remember, it was science that gave us mustard gas and the atomic bomb.

And cures for polio, small pox, tuberculosis, etc. And it will be science that will cure cancer.

Science also gave us television, cell phones, powered flight, and an exponentially increasing food output from a shrinking farm base (take that, Malthus!).

Science is the search for our origins and our place in the universe. Also, for beefier tasting dog food and odor-masking cat litter.

"The CPC was not fighting foreign overlords to liberate China. It was fighting fellow Chinese for control of the country."

You are talking about China after 1945. I was talking about China in early 1900. Mao, Sun or Chiang, all of them were the nationalists first. That is why they cooperated initially to kick out the colonizers.

I am convinced that the imperial capitalist colonizers drove the colonies to become communists, like Vietnam, Cuba....

Chang - and yet no former colony of England ever went that way. I wonder why that is?

(Actually, I don't wonder at all, I know. But I doubt you do, so I'll leave it as a question for the student).

Conan - That wasn't my point. My point was that you cannot rely upon science to illuminate moral questions because science has no morality. Science simply IS.

Science can tell us precisely what happens when a bullet rips through a human's skull. Religion tells us why it's morally unacceptable to do it.

And absent religion, there is no way (save despotism) to have an enforceable moral code. English common law has its basis in the ten commandments. You can make every argument you like for how they are obvious and non-religious, but it doesn't fly.

Civilization as we presently perceive it would not exist but for religion and the threat of eternal judgment.

This is the primary reason why decrying religion as a useless set of myths is harmful overall. Expecting everyone to have the intellectual firepower to derive a moral code based upon libertarian principles is like expecting the Higgs Boson to just roll up and say "Here I am!"

Religion, and therefore God, serve as a surrogate to "Because I said so". Because there are those who, quite simply, do not fear any punishment that will befall them in this life. Only the believable threat of eternal punishment keeps them in line.

>>Only the believable threat of eternal punishment keeps them in line.

Cites, brian?

Cites?

CITES?????

What, am I supposed to go out and review the entirety of recorded history for your lazy English ass?

What the fuck do you think took Europe from a bunch of tribes bathing in their own shit to standing astride the world in 500 years?

History is replete with examples of people doing incredible things "for the glory of God(s)".

It's also replete with them behaving for fear of pissing said god(s) off.

Besides, how many people do you know who say "I'd kill you if it wasn't illegal". Same thing, only it applies to people who don't care about their corporeal existence.

>>What, am I supposed to go out and review the entirety of recorded history for your lazy English ass?

You could try getting a fucking sense of humor, brian!
Strewth!!!

You could try getting a fucking sense of humor, brian!

Do they make one that will do that? I've GOT to get me one of those.

People need to stop hyperventilating here.

First thing is to keep in mind precisely what is meant by the phrase "separation of church and state."

Let me quote from the US Constitution, Amendment One:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

That means Sarah Palin's voicing of religious sentiments doesn't even come close to violating the separation of church and state. However, demanding she stop doing violates the spirit of the rest of that amendment. You know, the freedom of speech part. It may come as a shock to some, but political candidates are allowed to enjoy that right just as much as anyone else.

Complaining about her use of religious imagery to a religious audience strongly suggests a profound lack of understanding of our most basic freedoms.

----

BTW -- some here have cited the track record of atheist regimes as evidence for the necessity of religious belief.

That is possible only by making a serious category mistake. This explains why.

And, just in case anyone is wondering, I am no friend of organized religion. Here's one example.

Amy:

Somewhat OT ...

I just spent about twenty minutes putting a comment together, only to have your anti-spam software drop kick it.

'twould have been nice not to lose all my work.

NOTE FROM AMY: Skipper, the procedure is to e-mail me. I saw your comment above by accident, and just rescued your post. But, I might not always notice it in my comments software, so please e-mail me if this happens again, with "COMMENTS SPAM" in the head.

Amy:

Cool -- thanks.

What should I not do in the future so as not to offend your spam filter? (if that is classified, I understand).

As someone who will be voting for Obama and loathes Palin and McCain, I have to agree that she has every right to invoke God (or Zeus or Jeff the god of biscuits) if she so chooses. Honestly, I was thrilled when she did it, because she made herself look more than a little silly in the process.

When it comes to choosing a candidate, I do want to know where people stand on religion. For truly religious people, their faith informs everything they do, and I prefer to know which way the wind blows.

Well, you must not like white people either then, because the "faith" that Obama followed for the last 20 years blamed whitey for everything that was bad in the world.

Unless Obama's renunciation of that faith is good enough for you.

But I'm not buying that someone can just turn on a dime and drop a religion that they've been a part of for 20 years. It's going to influence them until they rot.