Posted 4 months, 23 days ago in 
Loading ...
The Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers have really missed the point in regard to prayers or invocations before public meetings. That act is an acknowledgement that any decision making body (from a town council to the U.S. Congress) understands that there is a higher non-human authority that validates or rejects any laws or decisions made by them.
Everyone knows that if you violate a law of nature (even if that action is permitted by human law) the sentencing is swift and sure and there is no appeal. Examples: All drivers are very familiar with the natural law — two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, even if one had the right-of-way; a routine prescribed burn authorized by human law can get out of control very fast when the laws of nature are disregarded (i.e. the weather); buildings permitted in a flood plain or avalanche zone will eventually be damaged by an act of nature even if approved by a city council or county commission.
Even atheist groups acknowledge in their web-sites and publications that humankind co-exist with natural forces and natural laws that affect human lives and decisions, many of which are beyond human control. Furthermore, they encourage all humans to seek and find within themselves the inner conviction and strength to meet the demands and challenges of life (another way of saying meditation and prayer).
I fear that the WCA and Fs are being used by the ACLU (a group that has no principles) to further a political and financial agenda. Atheists wake up and stick up for your basic beliefs and do not be used by a group that has no human heart or soul.
Gary Parrott
Grand Junction
ACLU is using local atheists
Tags:
274 Responses to “ACLU is using local atheists”
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 4:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WCAF is not currently involved with, and has no connection to the ACLU.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ella,
Are you CURRENTLY the spokesperson for Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers? Are you saying that Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers has not in the past been affiliated with the ACLU? Are you saying that Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, as a group or through an attorney, do not plan future involvement with the ACLU?
Was your statement in post #1, a statement on behalf of and/or authorized by the Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If Mr. Parrott has any particular evidence that the ACLU is in fact behind the WCAF, I for one would like to see it.
I also wonder if this is the same “heartless” and “soulless” ACLU that has repeatedly defended Christians in their right to freedom of religion. Somehow, Christians never seem to remember that.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
I have a reliable source that allows me to confirm that no, the WCAF has no past or current connections with the ACLU, nor have they any plans for such.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Thank you for your information, however, my questions were directed to Ella. I think it important when a claim or an assertion is made on behalf of a particular group, we know whether those claims or assertions are authorized by the group in question. Who was it that authorized you to speak on behalf of Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers? At this moment all we have is an anonymous statement, and I am sure you can understand that goes to credibility as well as authenticity.
How’s your lawn coming? I hope you are over your stomach flu.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have one response to this letter:
Huh???
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Regardless of Ella’s source, my source says there is no connection between the two groups. And yes, you can consider this to be “on behalf of the WCAF.”
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This letter helped to remind me to write my several hundred dollar contribution to the ACLU.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 5:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just curious, but, why is “Ella” supposed to be some sort of official spokesperson in order to discuss a point raised in the original letter which offers no proof of any “alliance”. Usually “proof” is required of the accuser because “proving a negative”, ie. there is no connection, is nearly impossible.
As for the original letter, a bowl of spaghetti has more organization.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
OK, Scott, are you CURRENTLY the spokesperson for Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers? What are the names of the two groups (just for the record) that you state have no connection between them. And who authorized that statement? Are you saying that Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, as a group or through an attorney do not plan future involvement with the ACLU? At this moment, all we have is an anonymous statement, and I am sure you can understand that goes to credibility as well as authenticity. And, should we want to reference this statement in the future, I’m sure there are those on this site who would not accept an anonymous post as a credible source.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let’s look at this closer.
“The Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers have really missed the point in regard to prayers or invocations before public meetings.”
Possibly, but I’m guessing not.
“That act is an acknowledgement that any decision making body (from a town council to the U.S. Congress) understands that there is a higher non-human authority that validates or rejects any laws or decisions made by them.”
Not everyone accepts this. THAT is the point.
“Everyone knows that if you violate a law of nature (even if that action is permitted by human law) the sentencing is swift and sure and there is no appeal. Examples: All drivers are very familiar with the natural law — two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, even if one had the right-of-way; a routine prescribed burn authorized by human law can get out of control very fast when the laws of nature are disregarded (i.e. the weather); buildings permitted in a flood plain or avalanche zone will eventually be damaged by an act of nature even if approved by a city council or county commission.”
Apples and oranges. Praying at city council meetings is not a natural law. Are you sure its the atheists that have missed the point?
“Even atheist groups acknowledge in their web-sites and publications that humankind co-exist with natural forces and natural laws that affect human lives and decisions, many of which are beyond human control. Furthermore, they encourage all humans to seek and find within themselves the inner conviction and strength to meet the demands and challenges of life…”
Okay so far…
“(another way of saying meditation and prayer).”
There are other ways of meeting the demands of life. Some people pray, some people build plastic models.
“I fear that the WCA and Fs are being used by the ACLU (a group that has no principles) to further a political and financial agenda. Atheists wake up and stick up for your basic beliefs and do not be used by a group that has no human heart or soul.”
Already addressed. There is no connection between the two groups. You are aware that the ACLU has repeatedly defended Christians, aren’t you?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
What I am saying is that my source, within the WCAF, tells me that there is no connection between the WCAF and the ACLU, nor is any such connection planned. My source is not an official spokesperson for the WCAF, but is a member of that group.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “What I am saying is that my source, within the WCAF, tells me that there is no connection between the WCAF and the ACLU, nor is any such connection planned. My source is not an official spokesperson for the WCAF, but is a member of that group.”
As oneperson pointed out so eloquently, the burden of proof is always on those who make a positive assertion of the sort that we saw in the original letter. This basic concept of logic is apparently quite foreign and not understood by AP.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What remains is, of course, nothing but a statement by an anonymous source. There is no disclosure of who Ella is, who your source is or for that matter what your real name is? Now, Scott, I think you know how I feel about those who put pressure on other posters to reveal their real name, and that is not what I am doing. What I am doing is systematically exposing the original statement by Ella for what it is. A statement (not an opinion) by an anonymous and as far as we know, unauthorized individual, posted as a reply to the original letter. At present, it has no rebuttal value, and has no more credibility than a whisper in a crowded dark room.
Oneperson,
I wasn’t ignoring you. The answer to your question is that Ella did not give an opinion, she gave a statement of fact. If she does not speak for the group, she certainly sounded like she did. That was my question to her. Since she chose not to answer any of the questions, we are free to assume what we will.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
I can understand him asking for more defined sources from those of us who have responded to the letter, although I wish he had indicated that he requires the same from the letter writer.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Apparently, class does not know the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion. I think what he really meant to say was, how dare you question someone that is on my side. The answer to that question is easy, he who dares wins.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Keep in mind that all you have is a statement with absolutely no support in the original letter, yet you seem to be accepting it uncritically. This appears to be a double standard.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 6:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I believe you posed those questions to the original letter writer. You may have noticed that I did not presume to answer those questions for him. And yes, I think any question you have as to a statement of fact should be addressed by the letter writer, but it needs to work both ways, right?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You’re right, I did.
But you questioned Ella’s statement prior to that, and made no attempt to do the same to the letter writer. Your posts present the appearance of accepting the claim in the letter, while requiring a higher level of proof of those responding to it. If this is in error, I apologize, but I think you can see how it appears that way.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 7:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From the origingal letter: “I fear that the WCA and Fs are being used by the ACLU (a group that has no principles) to further a political and financial agenda.”
Eliminating the very weak attempt at admission of his not knowing, by beginning the statement with “I fear that”, one would like to see something to justify the gentleman’s remarks/and or “fears”. If not, then perhaps his entire letter is without foundation and needs to be disregarded in its entirety.
As far as AP’s remark of “The answer to that question is easy, he who dares wins” is pretty much an indication on his part that facts and truth do no matter. To put it more succinctly and crudely, and what AP’s contention is is “He/she who can throw the most BS wins.” One has to wonder if, many times he really knows what he is even saying.
ashhuggers post of “Huh!” is definitely from kindness.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 8:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I have reviewed your question to the original writer, and I have thoroughly read the original letter, and I see no statement of fact in the original letter. Mr. Parrot prefaced his remarks in regards to your question with the words I fear. That indicates that he was giving his interpretation and that is what we call an opinion. No doubt, the innuendo in his letter is an inference that the atheists may be connected with the ACLU, but he used a technique that by now, is so familiar to all of us on this site. That technique is used extensively by Mr. Laitres and Class of 52, and the technique is to infer something without actually stating it. There have been numerous complaints against Mr. Laitres and especially Class of 52 for using this technique and I am sure you are aware of that. However, the point is that I challenged a statement of fact, not an opinion and you challenged an opinion and not a statement of fact. I did not choose to defend the letter writer. I could not defend his opinion, because it was not my own. You chose to defend Ella’s statement of fact. In doing so, and by offering to substantiate her statement of fact with the same anonymous source, you accepted responsibility for that statement and it should be noted that the questions I ask first of Ella and then of you remain unanswered. Please recognize that it is not my responsibility to answer your questions, because I chose not to defend the original letter. Therefore there is no double standard, nor is there any reality to any claim that may be made that I need to answer yours or anyone elses questions in regards to someone elses opinion. Once again, those that use these techniques should realize that they are recognized and can be adopted by the other side. And this is a personal message to you Scott, I had no way of knowing that you would be the person who came to the defense of Ella, and I will admit that I made an issue of her post in anticipation of someone else taking the bait. When we reach a point where we can discuss a subject openly and honestly, without using such techniques, it will be of benefit to everyone. In the meantime, I watch, I read, I understand and I learn. And I respond in kind.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres,
I should have answered your post before I wrote to Scott. You made my point beautifully, right down to quoting the original letter writers “I fear”.
You sir, are intellectually dishonest, for all the reasons I listed in my answer to Scott. If you will quit playing your little games and discuss issues based on their merit, rather than using trickery and innuendo, or making unwarranted demands and inference of obligation to answer false charges where there is no obligation, then perhaps our discussions of issues may have some purpose. I have indicated before and I will again here for your benefit, that solutions and honest conclusions are impossible when the only object in mind is to spread propaganda, and to win at all costs. If your purpose in participating is to exhibit your cleverness, then just how well do you think you have done so far?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 8:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
I see what your saying. I think it’s splitting a pretty fine hair, but I concede the point.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP posts: “That technique is used extensively by Mr. Laitres and Class of 52, and the technique is to infer something without actually stating it.” While that is true, that I do preface that wording at times, it is not left to stand alone; i.e. an opinion not backed up by pertinent facts, or without a reasoning.
We do realize that while some on these boards have difficulty with reading comprehension, if not a clear understanding of words, even they should by now have come to the conclusion that what are important are the ideas and concepts expressed and that need to be addressed in any response. Some, who shall remain nameless, have difficulty in understanding that.
As to “complaints” I, for one, would like to know where such complaints are lodged or, as I suspect, they are mere whining amongst some cabal of posters on this forum. That, for all intent and purposes, does not carry much weight, at least with me. Rather, I am much more concerned with name-calling, and the uncivil as well as immature mentality it displays.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One again, Mr. Laitres has proven my point that he is intellectually dishonest. That sir, is not a name. It is an observation, and I claim the truth as an absolute defense. What pray tell is yours?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP responds with: “You sir, are intellectually dishonest, for all the reasons I listed in my answer to Scott”
One has to wonder if AP even understands the concept of “intellectual honesty” and, by way of explanation, he might wish to expound upon what he believes is required to be “intellectually honest”? Or, perhaps he may wish to provide us with his very own “designer definition” of the term, as he has already displayed that he has alread assembled a considerable of such terms.
While I never doubt that the gentleman believes what he writes, there is somehow always something missing. And that is quite frequently, and most unfortunately, a lack of knowledge and understanding of subject matter.
Certainly, the gentleman is erudite enough in stringing words but, and the question always is ‘Does he know what he is really stating when doing so?’
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Your graciousness in conceding the point lives up to my expectations. Your intellect is beyond question. Not too long ago, we were discussing values, and I must admit that my idea of your atheist values was entirely and completely wrong. If you were the model, there would be far less opposition, or at least far less misunderstanding. I salute you sir.
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, AP. I appreciate it.
(salutes back)
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 9:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Laitres,
And perhaps the gentleman does not wish to engage in your fools errand. And perhaps you are right that the gentleman has difficulty in understanding what you write. IE “as he has already displayed that he has alread assembled a considerable of such terms.”
Your entire post is nothing but an amateurish attempt at misdirection, innuendo and confusion. You did not address my question as to what your defense is, as expected. Let us both agree that such tactics are not useful, and as you can see they are no longer applicable. Will the madness never end?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just to support my claim that the ACLU has defended Christians in the past, I offer this link: http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
Heartless and soulless, huh?
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Laitres:AP posts: “That technique is used extensively by Mr. Laitres and Class of 52, and the technique is to infer something without actually stating it.” While that is true, that I do preface that wording at times, it is not left to stand alone; i.e. an opinion not backed up by pertinent facts, or without a reasoning.
We do realize that while some on these boards have difficulty with reading comprehension’
Not only with reading comprehension but with the English language. I do wish Mr. Laitres that AP would learn the difference between infer and imply since it would make it meuch easier to understand what he is driving at. One may infer a meaning from what someone else writes. One may imply something in his own writing. AP nearly always uses them exactly backwards thus confusing the issue.
He likewise still does not understand what is meant by the burden of proof. The letter writer canno make statements about a postulated role of the ACLU with the Atheists without providing us some proof, or prefacing his comments with the words: “In my opinion” in which case we would know that it is unsubstantiated opinion which together with a dollar might get you a cup of coffee. Scott and ella denied that was the case but they are not required to offer proof. It does not cut both ways as Scott seemed to imply. If I tell you that the invisible purple spaghetti monster controls your every thought, you may deny it but I am the one who must offer proof for my positive assertion (since you would be unable to prove a negative in any case).
Posted June 30th, 2008 at 10:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
J. Eugene Fox,
It is apparent that you believe that I am under some obligation to defend the original letter. I did not write the original letter. Even Bobbie from Delta caught the significance of the preface “I fear” in the original letter. You must realize that even if you can interpret this letter not to be an opinion, I am still under no obligation to defend it. Now that letter may be your subject of choice and that would be fine. But it wasn’t mine. My subject was the statement of fact written by Ella. There is no preface in her statement. There is not even the remotest attempt to make her statement an opinion. It is undeniably a statement of fact. I simply posed questions in regards to that statement of fact. In doing so, I was operating under the same rules that you constantly profess to be your own. and that was the point. You can continue to be in denial or pretend you are obtuse, but what you can’t do is legitimately defend the position you have taken. Scott realized that early on, and only stubbornness motivates you for a second bite of the apple. And unfortunately, malignant stubbornness is a malady that in incurable. Now, you have the floor. Indubitably you will use it to sustain my diagnosis.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 4:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have a novel idea - why don’t one of you people contact the ACLU in Denver and/or Washington, D.C. and simply ask whether they are involved in the issue here in Grand Junction/Mesa County?
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 6:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Anyone around here who considers him or herself a Christian is wasting their time. It would be better spent in the closet, praying as Jesus recommended!!!
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 6:44 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Why does the opinion offered in the letter not need to be supported just as much as a statement of fact? Can anyone toss out any old opinion and have it accepted as long as they are carefult to phrase it as an opinion?
If so, I disagree with that. The letter writer implied that the ACLU was behind the atheists/prayer issue. He phrased it as an opinion, but it is an accusation just the same and he offered nothing in the way of evidence.
It seems to me that a statement of fact is no less acceptable than an opinion in such a situation. In that case, then an opinion offered with no support can be countered with a statement with no support.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 7:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52: I must confess to not being nice as I was really, amusing myself with AP, using his own techniques against him. Apparently he does not at all like it. One, hitekredneck is also upset with my writing in the 3rd person. That is intentional on my part as it assists in keeping the conversation out of the personal sphere, and addressing ideas rather than the personality which, for the most part, is totally non-productive. If some will note, whenever something is posted, some people will begin addressing what they believe are inferences, innuendo, etc.
That does not bother me too much but, that is all too often because they cannot see the central point or supporting arguments, viewing disagreement as a personal attack, and thereby changing the subject to that of personalities. If they view disagreement, even fundamental ones, in that way, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. That, they have to work through themselves. It is sad really, as it does not allow any of the discussions beyond a very base level.
Above, you were “diagnosed” by AP, undoubtedly the gentleman must believe himself to be an expert in the field of psychology and psychoanalysis,able to determine what is your motivation and who and what you are. Such reminds me of former Senator Bill Frist who, being so good as a doctor (MD), that he could diagnose the patient Terry Schiavo just by watching a video tape of her lying in bed.
While we all do perform some “analysis”, some of us do attempt to base and restrict that analysis to what the other has posted, and usually following a protracted period and from multiple posts. It is only those who are either unfamiliar with subject matter, unable to separate the personal from the concepts or ideas that so quickly leap to conclusions about another. That is why, in so many even in this forum, that we see so much “name calling” and attempted denigration of others. To say that such is truly childish is a gross understatement.
Perhaps I should cease amusing myself with them but at times, even I do succumb to temptation. Something else to work on I guess.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 7:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My name is Anne Landman. I am the founder of Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers. We have no involvement with the ACLU, nor do we plan to be involved with them. That does not eliminate the possibility that we might seek their assistance at some point in the future should our local governments willfully persist in violating the law regarding the invocation, but at this point we are completely uninvolved with the ACLU and have no plans whatsoever to contact them.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
An opinion is nothing more than a conclusion. It may or may not be based on evidence, but it is uniquely the property and responsibility of the one who expresses it. To defend or not to defend, to support or not to support is solely within the dominion of the person expressing the opinion, or by transference to someone voicing agreement with that opinion. On the other hand, a statement of fact does not require a conclusion. It is raw data, and must always be based on evidence. Otherwise, it is nothing but a lie, and an attempt to pass fraudulent information. It is acceptable to challenge either an opinion or a statement in fact. If an opinion is proven to be based on incorrect information, it becomes an error in judgment. If a statement of fact is proven to be wrong, by virtue of being based on non-existent or an anonymous source, (actually one in the same), then it can be seen as nothing more than a lie. While it is perfectly acceptable for you to ask anyone to defend their opinion, it is more appropriately done by asking them to explain their opinion. Asking a third party to defend or explain an opinion that they have not expressed agreement with, is also acceptable, because it is a request. But to assert that there is some moral obligation to defend someone elses opinion or statement of fact, when that person has not expressed agreement with the opinion or statement in question is dishonest. As most often used in this forum, this assertion is nothing more than a diversionary tactic, based upon an assumption of which side of the issue a person is on. If misinformation is presented in an opinion, most people know to take it with a grain of salt. However, if misinformation is presented as a statement of fact, it can be presumed that the intent was to misinform. How many times have we all seen this forum reduced to a propaganda site, by those who don’t come right out and state a fact, but rather hide behind innuendo, and when challenged, they retort, nowhere in my writing did I say that you were stupid. Usually followed by; maybe this person would like to go back and show me where I said he was stupid, in an attempt to put their opponent on the defensive, and send them on a fools errand. Such bandying of words, when it is clear to everyone who read the original statement that it was the intent to call the person stupid, and that intent was based upon an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that a question was not answered. Over time, I have come to the conclusion that the primary purpose for some on this site is not the discussion of issues, but rather as a testing ground for their strategies of deception. It is impossible to hold a meaningful conversation with these individuals, and therefore I have adopted a policy of fighting fire with fire, in a continuing attempt to expose to the readers the intent of these individuals to reduce this forum to nothing more than their own private political propaganda instrument. To ignore these individuals is simply to enable them to post their propaganda unchallenged. Until such time that all readers learn to recognize and condemn these tactics, the only limit to these individuals propaganda campaign is their own sense of self restraint, and that does not appear promising at this time.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 9:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
A statement of fact does not become false simply because the original source is unknown. You may not accept it unquestioningly, but that lone factor has nothing to do with the truth or false nature of the statement.
I’m not quite sure what kind of proof would be possible in this particular case. You could be given a name, but that could be nothing more than a random name out of the phone book. The WCAF does not have a website, but even if it did, how could it demonstrate there is no connection between the ACLU and the WCAF? You are asking for proof of a negative, which is difficult at best and completely impossible in most cases.
You have an unsupported opinion that has been answered with two statements of fact. I don’t think you’re going to get any more than that.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Until now I always thought my daughter and her friend had monopolized the market on “self-righteousness”, I now know they simply hold second and third place titles.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
You should re-read post #10. Where in the world did you get the idea that I was trying to prove that the WCAF was connected with the ACLU? I was simply asking for a clarification of the statement and a source for the statement. Neither was I was defending the orignial letter writers opinion. That is up to him.
I will asume that you were not attempting to put words in my mouth or to cause a diversion. You’re drifting pilgrim.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
oneperson,
My congratulations to your Daughter and her friend. I am sure you could be much more specific than that.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“You should re-read post #10.”
Okay, here it is: “OK, Scott, are you CURRENTLY the spokesperson for Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers? What are the names of the two groups (just for the record) that you state have no connection between them. And who authorized that statement? Are you saying that Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, as a group or through an attorney do not plan future involvement with the ACLU? At this moment, all we have is an anonymous statement, and I am sure you can understand that goes to credibility as well as authenticity. And, should we want to reference this statement in the future, I’m sure there are those on this site who would not accept an anonymous post as a credible source.”
“Where in the world did you get the idea that I was trying to prove that the WCAF was connected with the ACLU?”
I didn’t say you were. But you were asking for verification of the statements made by Ella and myself, which referred to that connection. I was pointing out that no such verification is possible, since it is asking to prove a negative. You did ask me if such a connection was planned in Post #10.
“I was simply asking for a clarification of the statement and a source for the statement.”
You also asked me if such a connection was planned. This has been answered, but cannot be proven.
“Neither was I was defending the orignial letter writers opinion. That is up to him.”
Agreed, which he failed miserably at.
“I will asume that you were not attempting to put words in my mouth or to cause a diversion.”
No, just trying to show that no verification of the statements you were asking for verification on is possible, as it involves proving a negative. I know for a fact that no connection exists between the ACLU and the WCAF, but I cannot prove that such a connection does not exist. I cannot prove a negative. What kind of verification or clarification were you expecting?
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What I was trying to do Scott, was to verify the message and the messenger. I don’t care if there is a connection. But since there have been many statements previous to that post with regard to litigation on this subject, I was simply trying to find out if there were any plans, past, present, or future by the WCAF to involve the ACLU. The writer, Ella, placed themselves in a position of making a statement for that group. What better source, if that person was authorized to make the statement. Her use of the word currently begs the question, what of the past and what of the future? I never ask for proof. I was simply seeking an authentic source for the statement, and a clarification as to the extent and meaning of the statement. And like the original letter writer, Ella chose to decline comment. In other words, this would be a draw, except for the fact that you chose to answer for Ella. The fact that you did, therefore, did not answer my questions. Nor did it provide any other source than a user name. Now we can both continue to try to spin this, but what is the use. There is nothing to spin. We both know the difference between an opinion and a statement of fact, and we both asserted shat we think should be the rules concerning those. And that has given us both something to think about. And that is the only positive thing that I can see that has emerged from this whole discussion. But, perhaps that is enough. I do enjoy talking to you, and my mind remains open and malleable to your ideas. I realize the issues that we don’t agree on, provide a greater opportunity for conversation, but I also recognize that our relationship is based on something other than trying to force our opinions on each other. And that takes effort and a desire to understand, and I believe that is the essence of the value of this forum.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
How can you know that someone claiming to speak for the WCAF is in fact doing so? I could give you a name, but you have no way of checking to see if I gave you a random name out of the phone book. Ella and I have both told you out of personal knowledge that there is no connection as the letter writer implied. What kind of verification beyond that can anyone provide?
I’m not trying to be difficult, honestly. But it looks to me like you’re asking for something that no one can provide. I have given you my word that what I said is true. What else can I offer?
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, a while back, hugelburg wrote a letter stating that he was communicating with both groups, acting as an attorney in the process, and mentioned possible legal action.
Now, technically, if one is dumb enough to believe anything huggieburg says, there was/is no direct communication between the two groups, only through the middle (man)?
That help muddy the waters a little more for ya?
It’s a case of trying to deflect the attention away from reality in order to gain some type of advantage.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Your word is good enough for me. However, I did not particularly want your word. I did not particularly want you to be responsible for making that statement. That is the point you are missing. When I engaged Ella, Scott was the last person on my mind. I will predict in the future that the ACLU will be involved. To me, that is neither here nor there. But to someone that made the statement that would not happen, it could matter. I am not saying that is what you said, and I clearly understand what you said. I am simply telling you, my preference would have been for Ella to have answered my questions, just like you would have preferred if the original letter writer would have answered yours. What I distinctly did not set out to do or wish to do or have intent to do was to put Scott in a position of making a statement which later turned out to be untrue. Whether the ACLU will become involved with WCAF remains to be seen. I’m not saying it will happen and I’m not saying it won’t. I was simply trying to pin down the “currently” word. If you wish to take responsibility for what you said, not Ella, then your word is more than good enough for me, and I think that is what you are saying.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I’m pretty sure Bill Hugenberg never wrote that he was in contact with the ACLU. There are other organizations that have expressed interest in this situation, but to my knowledge, the ACLU is not one of them. You may be thinking of the FFRF.
AP,
I see what you’re saying, but even Ella simply said there was no currect connection. There may be in the future. I don’t know. But there isn’t now and there are now plans for such.
I realize you were asking Ella, but as I was in the position of having the answer to your question, I thought I’d help out. And yes, I take responsibility for what I said, as always.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It was in a printed letter Scott.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah, I know. I just don’t think it was the ACLU he was talking about. I could be wrong. Find the letter and prove it. You made the first claim, you have first burden of proof.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Yeah, I know. I just don’t think it was the ACLU he was talking about. I could be wrong. Find the letter and prove it. You made the first claim, you have first burden of proof.”
Scott, you don’t believe that is actually going to happen do you? WLJ takes great pride in never having documented anything he has ever written.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, no. Not at all. If I get time later this evening I might see if I can find it just to prove him wrong, but I don’t expect him to back up what he says. Why would he start now?
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let me see…
” Scott
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 2:23 pm PM This User Report this comment
Yeah, I know. I just don’t think it was the ACLU he was talking about. I could be wrong. Find the letter and prove it. You made the first claim, you have first burden of proof. ”
People and their lack of punctuation….
“Yeah, I know I just don’t think.
It was the ACLU he was talking about.
I could be wrong….”
Nuff said…
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 4:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot - Based on comment #38 is obvious to any reasonably intelligent layperson that you are a psychotic personality with delusional manifestations. But help is available - I understand the Indian Health Service provides excellent mental health care at no charge to any Native American who needs it.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
It would appear from your rant, that my post had a profound effect. Fortunately, I am not delusional enough to believe that it will trigger any alterations in conduct or behavior. To expect that would be truly delusional. But it was nice of you to confirm that my post got to you.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 7:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay folks, after reading and suffering through 55 posts, it is time to get back to the substance of the letter and its various implications.
“I fear that the WCA and Fs are being used by the ACLU (a group that has no principles) to further a political and financial agenda. Atheists wake up and stick up for your basic beliefs and do not be used by a group that has no human heart or soul.”
Having served on one of the boards of the ACLU (in one of the more active cities in that wonderful and politically ambiguous state of California) I can assure you that ACLU members do indeed have a LOT of principles. They do not ‘use’ anyone. Do you homework and conduct a little research and you will find quickly that the ACLU is reactionary organization and does not go out looking to stir things up. Rather, they are constantly being approached by all sorts of individuals and organizations that, for a variety of reasons, feel that their personal and constitutional rights have been threatened and, in some cases, egregiously violated. Dig a little deeper and you find that some of these complainants have included many christians and, in one very infamous case, the American Nazi Party of George Lincoln Rockwell - not exactly a flaming liberal but, nonetheless, someone who just wanted to do a little ‘goose-stepping’ in a very jewish area. Against local sentiment they did indeed defend the guy and won in court. Not a very popular thing to do but they did so as a matter of ‘principle’.
The ACLU certainly does not have a ‘financial’ agenda. In fact, the board I served on was constantly struggling to to stay afloat. The lawyers serve pro bono, as well as the individual board members. Your pitiful attempt to demonize the ACLU and, by inference, all other organizations that work to preserve and protect our constitutional rights is simply dishonest and mean-spirited. A_P et al, please stay off the personal attacks and get back to the point - assuming you can actually remember what that is.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 10:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I’ve been through all the Bill Hugenberg letters regarding the invocation I can find, and I have seen no reference to the ACLU whatsoever. The closest thing I have located is this bit from his letter of June 11:
“However, to avoid any misunderstanding, I offer the following clarifications: First, I do not represent the WCA, but rather sought to clarify and explain current law for the benefit of the council. Second, my legal memorandum to the council did not mean to “hint” that the WCA intended to file a lawsuit — only to acknowledge the possibility that it or some other injured party might do so if the council persisted in its current practices. Thus, rather than seeming to dare the council to “pursue litigation,” my intention was to caution against “inviting” such litigation by refusing to modify any arguably unconstitutional practices.”
You may notice that there is no reference to the ACLU. Unless you can support your claim more than you have in the past, I will simply consider this yet another baseless rant by Willis, and will ignore it like most everyone else does.
Posted July 1st, 2008 at 10:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Unless you can support your claim more than you have in the past, I will simply consider this yet another baseless rant by Willis, and will ignore it like most everyone else does.”
Scott you are such a nice guy and so patient, that you have taken longer to come to that conclusion than most of us. But of course WLJ can prove us wrong by quoting the relevant letter (don’t hold your breath).
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
Oh, I came to that conclusion along with the rest of you. I just enjoy letting him demonstrate that he can’t put his money where his mouth is.
Wow. The Flying Spaghetti Monster just came to me in a vision and told me that Willis next post here would be nothing but an irrelevant and snide comment having nothing to do with the topic. Then God appeared and said that of course Willis would back up his claim, because no follower of his would make empty claims.
We’ll see which one turns out to be right.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 7:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I found it, keep looking.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why? You found it, prove it. I don’t believe you. You made the claim, you back it up.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 8:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What part of the atheist message don’t you understand? It is really quite simple. The atheist love our Grand Junction city council, and they are especially fond of the taxpayers in Grand Junction. And in that spirit they have made a good faith offer that they believe will save the city council great embarrassment, and will avoid bankruptcy for the taxpayers. What they are saying is; we believe that the city council is breaking the law, by having an invocation as any part of the public meeting, and we are offering our elected officials an opportunity to mend their ways of their own free will and without duress, which BTW would conform not only to what we believe the law is, but also to the atheist agenda. And the ACLU is not involved in any way with this good faith gesture, however, if the city council refuses to accept their good faith offer, then the atheists may find it necessary to deploy the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the ACLU. This, of course, ignores the fact that the 800 pound gorilla is an integral part of the “or else” factor in the negotiations, and has been omnipresent in the room since the beginning. It is all about image. You see, the presence of the 800 pound gorilla transforms what the atheists would have us think is a good faith gesture into an or else demand, and that image is counter productive for the atheists. This creates a dilemma. How do you hide an 800 pound gorilla and still make sure that everyone understands that the gorilla is still in the room? The obvious answer is to release an official statement saying; don’t make us have to use the invisible 800 pound gorilla to embarrass the city council and bankrupt the taxpayers.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So we have:
- The WCAF is not working with the ACLU
and
- So what if they were.
Case closed!
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger - AMEN!
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
A very interesting choice of words.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Almost. You’re close, but off on a few details.
Yes, actually. The WCAF did approach the city council primarily to prevent a lawsuit, from one of the national organizations or depending on the outcome, on behalf of the WCAF. I would submit that anytime a group of citizens approaches the city council to discuss an issue, that “gorilla” is in the room. Why is this any different?
To my knowledge, the ACLU has never been mentioned as one of potential litigants, but it’s certainly possible. I do know that there has been contact with a lawyer from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, but nothing from the ACLU.
What difference does it make? The city council is doing something unconstitutional. They have admitted this. The WCAF did not file a lawsuit, they approached the city and asked to discuss the issue. Why is it so hard to imagine that they have anything other than the city’s best interest’s in mind? What would they gain from a lawsuit?
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What difference it makes has to do with the difference between a request and a demand. Are you familiar with the provision in law that defines assault as a threat coupled with the ability to carry out that threat. It is all about perception, Scott. As you know, in today’s world, it’s not what is, it’s the public perception of what is.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Do you have any evidence that the WCAF ever did anything other than make a request of the city? Or does it not matter simply because of the potential for a lawsuit?
The public perception does not make something true. The WCAF has never threatened the city with a lawsuit. They have pointed out the city’s vulnerability to a lawsuit as a result of them doing something unconstitutional, and offered several ways for them to fix it. Thanks to Chuck Norris and the Daily Sentinel, national awareness of this issue has increased, thus increasing the potential for litigation by a national group. Just because the public is misinformed doesn’t make the misinformation true.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The proper metaphor is not criminal threat/assault. It is more like nicely asking your neighbor to stop letting his dogs crap on other neighbors’ lawns, and reminding him that there are legal recourses if he ignores the request.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s there Scott, I just went back and looked again.
Obviously you need the practice in proper research.
Have fun.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you aren’t going to provide the date of the letter in question, I am going to assume that you can’t. It’s not my job to support your claim.
I’m still waiting.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Isn’t it odd how that works out Scott?
A lot of us have been waiting for reliable documentation from the BBB for quite some time.
Some of us have been waiting for simple questions to be answered with none forth coming.
A lot of us are still waiting for some indication of honesty in a couple of the members of the BBB.
Some of us keep hoping for some semblance of honest discourse on numerous subjects instead of the hateful, belittling and argumentative diatribes from classless, little bobbie and others.
So you just go ahead and wait and see how much sympathy you get.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m not looking for sympathy. I’m looking for you for once to put your money where your mouth is and support a claim you have made. You said you have the information, but you are childishly withholding it apparently under the misapprehension that I am obligated to search for it myself.
If you are unable to actually give a date for the letter in question, then it will become obvious rather quickly. It is already becoming so.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As usual scott, your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.
You research skills are in question, and for me to do the research for you would place you in the position of needing me to accomplish that which you are not able to accomplish by your own efforts.
Whether or not you are able to perform has no effect on my life.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And your understanding of how discussions work is apparently non-existant.
You make a claim. In this case, it was that Bill Hugenberg stated in a letter to the Sentinel that he was in contact with both the WCAF and the ACLU. If you want anyone to take your claim seriously, you need to provide support for that claim. You don’t get to make a claim and sit back and wait for someone to prove you wrong. you will simply be ignored instead.
Since you are unwilling to support your claim, you apparently cannot. Color me surprised.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 11:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I don’t need any evidence. I never made a claim that the WCAF made anything but a request. You are the one who has made a statement as to there being no affiliation, and as you stated, to your knowledge, no planned affiliation between the WCAF and the ACLU. Now comes the statement by Anne Landman stating the contingency that if the city does not comply with their request/demand, that just such an affiation with a “national association” may be in the offing. You will recall that you put yourself in the position you presently enjoy. My post that you took issue with makes no claim other an analysis of what has taken place, and relates that to possible public perception. While public perception does not make something true or false, it is simply what the public perceives the truth to be. If there is a public perception that there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, then for the public, there is an 800 pound gorilla in the room. It goes to hearts and minds, Scott.
I think I should let you know here, that today is national hug an atheist day, so don’t freak out like you did last year. No one is trying to hurt you.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott,
As I stated earlier, and which you chose to ignore, the Bombastic Buffoon Brigade has consistently thrown out unsubstantiated claims and refused to offer any reliable sources.
usually, IF we are given ‘details’ they come from a website with a name like http://www.hatetheUSA.org or hitlerforever.commie…
Normal rules of discussion have never applied to them personally.
You are getting the same treatment that we receive.
You don’t like it very much do you?
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Doesn’t matter to me in the least. You have never supported a single claim you have made, as far as I can remember. This is just more of the same. It also doesn’t matter if anyone else’s claims were supported or not. We are talking about YOU. You say you have the information that supports your claim. You refuse to disclose this information because someone hurt your feelings. Perhaps in Willisworld, that is a valid argument. But then a lot of things are different in Willisworld. When you decide to grow up and join the rest of us here in reality, we’ll talk again. Maybe.
AP,
If you feel justified in making assumptions about the motivations of people you don’t know, in situations you are not familiar with without evidence, then go right ahead. These kinds of assumptions are one of the main reasons why the public perception is what it is.
Of course a lawsuit is a contingency. I never said it wasn’t. The US government has contingency plans to invade Canada, but that doesn’t mean they’re planning to do it. Claiming nefarious motives just because of that is hardly justified. You’re right about the 800 pound gorilla in the room. You’re wrong that the atheists put it there. It’s been there as long as the city council has been conducting unconstitutional prayers. The atheists just pointed it out to them. If you want to vilify them for that, go ahead. They’ve already gotten at least one death threat from a “Christian.” If you find hard to believe that atheists could be doing this for any reason other than self-aggrandizement and selfishness, then you don’t know much about atheists.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh scott, now yer making me blush…
It really is all about ME?
Oh golly gee whiz.
And the ‘death threat’ thing….?
Well, gene made a claim that he got a phone call one day, and everybody felt anger that such an event could have occurred.
Then, with some reflection a few days later when it became extremely obvious that sometimes gene creates things in attempts to garner sympathy or pity, I decided there probably was not a phone call.
And the whiners deliberately pushed the 800 pound gorilla into the room to use as a threat.
The sole purpose was to push their agenda.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I think you are creating boogie men where there are none. The atheists put their own spin by trying to create the impression that they were only trying to help. Like you said, the possibility of a law suit has been there all the time. What I did was point out, as you well know, that there may be a different perception based on the same evidence. If you find that truth to be unacceptable, then you can just keep trying to spin it your way, and I will just keep presenting the other side. That’s not a problem. Public perceptions are what they are, but I think the public is entitled to input from both sides, don’t you? You may not like the public’s perception and you may do everything you can do to change that perception, but I don’t think it is right to point the finger at the other side for doing the same thing. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
You are right, a contingency plan is just that, a contingency plan. But contingent upon what? In this case, we have Ms. Landman’s statement which outlines the contingency that would be the tripwire for implementation. And that makes it a little more real in the public mind. As far as nefarious motives are concerned, I would leave that up to the reader. I just pointed out the possibilities, but since you brought it up. Have you read Mr. Kearsley’s latest letter. You may notice some similarities there to what you claim I am doing. Again, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. Or perhaps you would like to condemn his letter at the same time. No, I didn’t think so.
Again, you are right. The atheists are the ones that made sure that everyone realized that the 800 pound gorilla was in the room. Now why would they do that? Nefarious purposes perhaps? For a simple request, did they really need the 800 pound gorilla? A word of advise, Scott, spinning is a political art form, and the rules that hold true for politics also hold true for spinning. One of the hardest lessons to learn in politic is knowing when to quit.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I am sure you know that there is an unfavorable opinion of the request from the atheists already by the public in general. I am sure that there are hot heads on both sides, and as with any issue of this kind, there may be incidents, however, the idea that if they don’t get their way (demands), they will litigate and the majority of taxpayers will have to pay for it, is not a very neighborly way to advance your cause.
The other thing that seems interesting is the timing. First it is an election year, and second, all across the United States, including one of the military academies and thousands of small towns and cities, these same “requests” are being made by “groups” claiming to be small independent citizens of citizens just trying to “help”. I think the public perception is exactly right, that it is a coordinated national effort to impose their agenda onto the rest of the nation as a whole.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6: ” I think the public perception is exactly right, that it is a coordinated national effort to impose their agenda onto the rest of the nation as a whole.
GM6 assumes that her perception is identical with the public perception. Her way of thinking represents only the far right wing in small town Western Colorado, a cultural and intellectual backwater for many years until relatively quite recently. I venture to say that you would hear a very different public response in places like Aspen, Boulder, perhaps Telluride, etc and certainly in Boston, New York City, San Francisco, the halls of the Supreme Court and other places where people’s thinking is representative of the 21st century, not the 18th.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am not involved other than the debate on this forum, but the way I see it, the ONLY thing at issue is local leaders behaving in a way that is unconstitutional.
Whoever has the time and courage to address issue has my respect and gratiitude. I don’t care who they are or what motivates them or the names of their cats. All I care is that they are trying to do a good thing.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are probably right about the communities you named, but we don’t live there and since I am from the south and southwest (and still have friends there), I think you might find you are sadly mistaken, on local levels.
And, I really don’t care if you think we are backward here, we live here and we are in the majority here, so guess what public opinion is here. You are the one I don’t understand. You say you are almost 74 years old, why do you live in a place you where obviously despise all the people with whom you live? If I despised this area and the people here as much as you claim to, I believe I would find a place where I was happier for the rest of my years. As Callahan, Edfast mortuary says in their ads; Life is short, don’t waste it.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is why I admire the courage of those who are taking up this issue; because they are going against a local majority that seems to have forgotten, that in our Republic the majority does not always rule.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6: You say you are almost 74 years old, why do you live in a place you where obviously despise all the people with whom you live? If I despised this area and the people here as much as you claim to, I believe I would find a place where I was happier for the rest of my years.
What in the world gave you such an idea. My family and I love living here. This town is full of people who share our ideas and interests. The Grand Junction Symphony, (where I have been a member of the Board) is marvelous (do you attend?) and the music and drama outlets here are great. The outdoors life and the fly fishing is outstanding. The community is changing rapidly for the better as more and more educated people with a diversity of interests move here to retire. The only thing I dislike about Grand Junction is the current ultraconservative views of the majority of voters. However, that will change before long and it currently only affects local politics. As shown in recent elections, voting in Mesa county is out of step with the majority of Colorado voters, out of touch with national realities and divorced from world opinion. That means it is largely irrelevant where it really counts and I can put up with local dinosaurs like Ms. Rowland and Josh Penry since I don’t have to interact with either of them (and Penry gets outvoted by the Democratic majority).
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
I said nothing about majority rule. Actually, I don’t have an axe to grind here. I am just tired of people like Class demeaning, and slamming the place we live at every opportunity. It seems like every thing has turned upside down, and no matter what it is from farming to prayer, he and a couple of others (not necessarily you) have nothing but disdain for us and our way of life, so I decided to speak up. The old timers here, who have had booms and busts before have never been under such an assault as we are now. If people like class want to live in Boulder or Apsen, fine, but don’t try to change my home town to be what you want when everyone else seems happy here, or did until these little groups started being so “helpful”.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6: “If people like class want to live in Boulder or Apsen, fine, but don’t try to change my home town to be what you want when everyone else seems happy here, or did until these little groups started being so “helpful”.”
I am sure that the Native Americans who lived here felt exactly the same way when your ancestors moved in and dispossesed them (usually with violence).
You and the “old timers” need to get over the notion that you own the place. Things change continuously and this community is changing rapidly.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 - Amen, progressive brother-in-arms! I agree that Grand Junction is slowly emerging from it’s position as an intellectual and cultural “backwater.” As time advances, people with modern ideas and adequate educations will supplant the ever-diminishing cadre of local “yokels” who are desperately waging a losing war against progress.
I look forward (even willing to pray to a deity, of such a mythical creature exists) to the day (not far off) when the citizens of Grand Junction can proudly unfurl a new flag proclaiming the place we love to live as “The Peoples Republic of Grand Junction.”
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GM6 - Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that no one should challenge the City Council prayers because the majority would like to see these prayers continue.
If you are just sick and tired of people who imply that this valley is full of backwater hicks, I understand your frustration with that. It is rude.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Atheists and Socialists
It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter. They cling to their communism, or their atheistic beliefs or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-American sentiment, or anti-capitalism sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix has lived here for years, and perhaps has come to believe that such entitles her to more ‘ownership’ of the town in which she lives. Actually, that is not the case. What she owns is her own personal property, and is no more nor less of a ‘citizen’ than an individual who has been here a single year or even a single month. Some may believe diffently but, such is an illsusion which they choose to entertain. If she, as well as other long time residents, in any community or even the country, were to recognize that length of residence is not a standard of measurement to be used making one person more of a ‘citizen’ than another, they might alleviate a great deal of their frustration.
As we get older, there is one thing that must be recognized and actively fought. It is that we are all, to one degree or another, averse to any type of change. Those who can adapt to it, live happy and productive lives, those who cannot condemn themselves to isolation, bitterness and misery. Some have the courage to change, while others do not. And, that is a choice that each and every person must make.
While some may attempt to ‘live in the past’, that is an impossibility. The world is ever changing, even locally. The secret to success (whether personal, business, or otherwise) is to learn and adapt. Othewise, on will definitely end up miserable, wasting one’s time bemoaning the loss of what is, and all too often, a ‘romanticized’ version of what was.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A_P it is also rude to run down atheists. We do not agree on some things but I am surprised to hear you spouting generalities about people who do not believe as you do.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP once again presents us a very clear indicator that whatever knowledge or understanding of what his country is about, has been picked up ‘by accident’. “It’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter. They cling to their communism, or their atheistic beliefs or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-American sentiment, or anti-capitalism sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
That statement, along with his own definition of what he believes is ‘patriotism’ (found in the forum section), makes it clear that the individual would have been as much of a zealot in whatever country and in whatever period of time he lived.
If he had lived in Germany during the NAZI period, he would have waved the ‘twisted cross’ with as much ardor as he now waves the ’stars and stripes’.
If he had lived in Soviet Russia or China under Bolshevism or Maoism, he would have proudly displayed and waved the hammer and sickle with as much ardor.
Such is what happens to individuals who do not have a center of their own. They are controlled by externals, from whatever source. The only requirement is that it be ‘absolute’ in nature.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhuger,
on the prayer issue, I don’t really care. My point is and always has been to be a law abiding citizen.
RL
I understand that I am not more than a citizen, however, I worked for more hours than you have been alive, maybe to make this town a city with parks etc, and to see a group enter and want to change it to a socialist community with them on the hill, and the rest of us in the streets, as their socialist programs make it necessary for me to leave my home, as my retirement income does not grow at the same rate, breaks my heart, but it also makes me angry. If you feel that is living in the past, then OK.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From this letter writer I understand that everybody else is supposed to love the changes brought in by people that moved here in the last few years.
Not being really old enough to understand all the twists and turns made by people who would rather mis-direct a conversation than answer honest questions I am confused.
RLLaitres is kind of new to this area. Classof62 is also somewhat new to the area, and some others. They are also very liberal in their political positions which is very unamerican. People should be able to live their lives without the government making lots of decisions about who can do anything with their lives and property.
They think the government should be able to brainwash children to not believe in God of what their parents want them to believe. That is not what this country was founded on. Some guys keep asking questions about gun control that don’t get answered because whoever WLJ is asked the questions first. What a stupid argument.
I thought this would be a good place to learn about local stuff but its only a bunch of old people sniveling about conservatives and what they did to this country. From my history books and studies on the net, this country was a much better place before the democrats elected President Johnson.
RLaitres uses a lot of words to go around a subject and I sometimes just want to ask him what he is trying to hide.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yeah I don’t really agree with the whole “move over old-timers and make way for the new” rap.
For one thing the Grand Valley has, for a long time been a place of “down to earth” folks — Utes of course, and more recently ranchers, farmers, blue collar workers, and retirees.
I don’t like people insulting the current populace and implying that this area is on its way to being “just like” other places so we should all just get used to it.
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh let me be clear I was responding more to grandmasix, not Alexander! Sheesh!
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander, I think you’ve pegged it. There is allot of sniping that goes on back and forth… but, I believe it has improved in the past few weeks. Most times if you read past the sniping and ignore the posts of the snipers, you can learn some good info and have decent discussions. Hang in there!
Posted July 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“It is not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigration sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Barack Hussein Obama, April 6, 2008
I suppose it is just a matter of interpretation, and what your agenda may be.