Posted 3 months, 23 days ago in 
Loading ...
The July 30 editorial, “Rowland right on prayer,” again returns to the Chuck Norris version of the Constitution and invites Mesa County to play poker with public monies.
While Janet Rowland is certainly to the “right” (conservative – as opposed to the more liberal “left”) on the issue of invocations at county commissioner meetings, both Janet and the Sentinel are dead wrong when it comes to interpreting and abiding by the law.
Curiously, the Sentinel still relies exclusively on the 1983 Marsh case (permitting some invocations based on historical tradition), but ignores the Supreme Court’s own clear interpretation of Marsh in Allegheny County (1989) and 20 years of subsequent court rulings interpreting Marsh (as excluding invocations routinely referencing Jesus).
Moreover, as the Sentinel notes, Marsh itself applied specifically to invocations offered by paid chaplains – not by elected officials themselves. Our courts have consistently described Marsh as a narrow exception to the test announced in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion.
Likewise, the Sentinel confuses two distinct clauses of the First Amendment – the free speech clause (which would permit prayer services at the Mesa County Fair Grounds) and the establishment clause (which – as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Allegheny County – prohibits direct “affiliation” of state with church).
Meanwhile, our county commissioners – although sworn to “support the Constitution of the United States” – seem entirely unconcerned with what the First Amendment does or does not require (having not even sought a legal opinion from our county attorney).
Thus, it is disingenuous at best for the Sentinel to accuse Dave Kearsley of “tap dancing” around the issue – when he advocates following the law rather than cavalierly ignoring it (as the Sentinel would have it and as Janet Rowland routinely and irresponsibly obliges).
BILL HUGENBERG
Grand Junction
94 Responses to “Rowland, Sentinel wrong on invocation law”
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Daily Sentinel’s editorial writer was either ignorant of the actual situation with respect to Marsh or as Hugenberg says, disingenuous. Either way we ought to expect better from the Sentinel.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
They also repeated the incorrect claim that the atheists “demanded” that the invocations stop, when in fact they offered three alternatives to the city that would bring the invocations in line with the cinstitutional guidelines. If they do, in fact, have a copy of the original letter then they should know this.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yup, they just asked as sweet as honey.
Then followed up with a non-paid for, non-representing ambulance chaser that included the implied threat of a lawsuit if their “requests” were not met.
And the question still remains, since this is provably not about the first Amendment, but about a so far, hidden, political agenda during a political season, WHAT is the agenda, and WHY is it hidden from the public?
Or, can we expect public statements from the whiners that all this time they have been too stupid to notice the invocation and how badly it made them feel?
It nearly brings tears to my eyes to think there are people in America today that are that stupid.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 3:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
If this is “provably” not about the First Amendment but about a hidden agenda, how about you prove it? You’re pretty much the only one going on about this so-called “hidden agenda”. Everyone who is actually involved is aware that it is in fact a First Amendment issue. Everyone who is actually involved has agreed to the facts in the matter. If it’s “provable”, then isn’t it about time you got around to proving” it?
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why Scott, I would be tickled to death to do that just special for you, since you seem to be the main spokesperson, ware carrier, and general all-around flunky for the atheist bunch.
You take the total number of years the city council has been reciting an invocation, and figure in how long it took the ‘atheists’ to notice the fact, then take into consideration that it was not until a political season with two of the most undesirable candidates running for President, and the atheists just now caught on to the invocation?
So Scott, which is it, The atheists are really too stupid to walk the streets unattended?
Or there is a political agenda at work.
Personally, I’m highly in favor of labeling the atheists as total retards and should be in an institution to protect themselves from their own stupidity.
And I say this with all due respect to those who truly do have deep mental and emotional problems, and I truly regret any damage they may suffer from being placed in the same classification with the atheists.
Any more questions on the subject Scott?
oh, you are one of the atheists, are you not?
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 4:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Easily impressed, aren’t you?
So, you combine the fact that the city council has been having a sectarian invocation for years with the fact that the atheist group only mentioned it this year, and you “prove” that there is a hidden agenda.
Sounds like a “just so” story to me. You remember those, right? Those explanations for little bits of data that that don’t prove anything?
Here’s another “just so” explanation. The WCAF has only been in existence for a year and a half. Combine that with the fact that they were involved with the library display most of last year, and the self-evident fact (well, self-evident to most people) that an organization cannot do anything before it exists, and you get an explanation that says that the group just started last year, decided to put on a library display first of all, then decided to tackle the unconstitutional city council invocation.
Hmm. I know which one I think is most likely. Willis, if this is what you call “proof” then I can’t understand why you don’t accept evolution. It has literally tons more evidence than your so-called “proof” and it isn’t even considered proven by science.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 5:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WOW!!!
What an interesting concept.
None of these whiners existed prior to the organization coming into existence….
Oh yeah, back to the library thing again.
Same usual suspects, same attorney ‘not’ representing anybody, throwing out the same non-threatening, though heavily implied threat of a lawsuit unless the library board caved to the same group of whiners.
And there is no political agenda?
Wanna keep playing Scott?
I have a Constitutional question for you, or master of the Constitution that you admit to never having read.
Since your favorite ’supreme court’ has declared fag burning is a ‘freedom of speech by expression’.
Would that flag burning extend to any flag?
Or just to the United States Flag?
I mean, could we burn say a Chinese flag? A Mexican flag?
Maybe a Canadian Flag?
Or a rainbow flag?
Where does the ‘freedom of speech through expression’ end Scott?
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“WOW!!!
What an interesting concept.
None of these whiners existed prior to the organization coming into existence….”
You really don’t need anyone to respond to you, do you? You just make up whatever you need if the person doesn’t say what you want to hear.
“Oh yeah, back to the library thing again.
Same usual suspects, same attorney ‘not’ representing anybody, throwing out the same non-threatening, though heavily implied threat of a lawsuit unless the library board caved to the same group of whiners.”
Are you sure you understand what happened? The library board didn’t cave to anyone. Everyone had their fair shot. No problem, except for those who didn’t think the atheists had a right to their own free speech. You aren’t one of those, are you?
“And there is no political agenda?”
Just the one to see that the council abides by the US Constitution.
“Wanna keep playing Scott?”
Sure. Can you up the difficulty level a bit, though?
“I have a Constitutional question for you, or master of the Constitution that you admit to never having read.”
Again, you just make up what you want to hear.
“Since your favorite ’supreme court’ has declared fag burning is a ‘freedom of speech by expression’.”
I’ll assume you meant “flag burning.” I also think it’s rather humorous that you refer to a court packed with conservative judges as “my favorite.” This is also the same court that you once referred to when you claimed that Roe vs. Wade was in danger of being overturned. You can’t seem to keep your own arguments straight.
“Would that flag burning extend to any flag?”
Or just to the United States Flag?
I mean, could we burn say a Chinese flag? A Mexican flag?
Maybe a Canadian Flag?
Or a rainbow flag?
Where does the ‘freedom of speech through expression’ end Scott?”
As far as I know, the only prohibition, real or perceived, against burning any flag in this country was against burning the US flag. That was ruled as a legitimate means of protest by the Supreme Court, although it was never technically illegal.
Any more rabbit trails you want to run off on to distract attention away from the fact that you cannot “prove” that any hidden agenda actually exists?
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 5:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, in your honest opinion, a US Citizen, in a mood to protest, can burn ANY flag?
And yes, it was a typo. Sticky key I guess….
Yes Scott, I do remember the library issue, as does the entire Christian Community.
Once again, THEIR Rights were under assault by the local ambulance chaser that never represents anyone, nor makes any threats, except for the ‘perceived’ threats issued by him in letters to the editor.
And, once again, it was the same bunch of incredibly stupid people that did not exist prior to the formation of this ‘organization’.
Question, did the ambulance chaser that never represents anybody provide any free, or pro bono, assistance in the formation of this organization?
I still find it amazing Scott, that none of these people ever had a clue that they were, in all reality, ‘victims’ until this year.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“So, in your honest opinion, a US Citizen, in a mood to protest, can burn ANY flag?”
Distraction!!
“And yes, it was a typo. Sticky key I guess….”
No worries. It happens, usually in the worst possible spot.
“Yes Scott, I do remember the library issue, as does the entire Christian Community.
Once again, THEIR Rights were under assault by the local ambulance chaser that never represents anyone, nor makes any threats, except for the ‘perceived’ threats issued by him in letters to the editor.”
You apparently don’t remember the same library issue that I’m talking about. The rights of the atheists were never in question. Only the backlash from the Christian community who didn’t think they should have the right to post their own display.
“And, once again, it was the same bunch of incredibly stupid people that did not exist prior to the formation of this ‘organization’.”
Never said they didn’t exist. You’re making stuff up again. I said the organization didn’t exist. And, of course, this is simply a distraction from the main issue since it doesn’t matter how long the city council was doing this before anyone complained. You simply don’t want to deal with the fact that the city council is wrong, they’ve admitted they’re wrong, and they’re going to change it.
“Question, did the ambulance chaser that never represents anybody provide any free, or pro bono, assistance in the formation of this organization?”
Nope.
“I still find it amazing Scott, that none of these people ever had a clue that they were, in all reality, ‘victims’ until this year.”
No one ever said that either. Seriously, why should anyone respond to you when you just make up their answers for them? And once again, it doesn’t matter. The invocation is still unconstitutional. And you’re still trying to distract attention away from the constitutionality issue as well as your own complete failure to “prove” that the hidden agenda exists.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I did notice that you are no longer mentioning the hidden agenda during a political campaign.
Does this mean that you are trying to run away from the issue and hope it goes away?
During all those years of these ‘not yet aware of themselves’ victims, herein after referred to as the atheist bunch of whiners, criers, and complainers, none ever once noticed the invocation UNTIL this presidential election season?
This may be a difficult concept for you to grasp Scott, but you are not trying to convince me, but all the people who have logged on to read this little discussion we have going.
A large percentage of whom would truly like to see some honest answers to the problems of your various positions.
So, a word of advice, suck it up, take a deep breath, and let it all hang out Scott.
The TRUTH shall set you free.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And the original letter writer stated this so eloquently for our consumption.
” Moreover, as the Sentinel notes, Marsh itself applied specifically to invocations offered by paid chaplains – not by elected officials themselves. Our courts have consistently described Marsh as a narrow exception to the test announced in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion. ”
Under this ‘interpretation’, Dan Robinson, as a pastor of a religion based church (it sounds redundant doesn’t it? but required for clarity for the original writer) CANNOT be elected because that would be a “direct entanglement”
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“Scott, I did notice that you are no longer mentioning the hidden agenda during a political campaign.
Does this mean that you are trying to run away from the issue and hope it goes away?”
You didn’t actually read my last post, did you. I specifically mentioned the hidden agenda. I also mentioned your total and utter failure to prove that any such thing existed. You still haven’t.
“During all those years of these ‘not yet aware of themselves’ victims, herein after referred to as the atheist bunch of whiners, criers, and complainers, none ever once noticed the invocation UNTIL this presidential election season?”
I never said that. You are, once again, making things up. You are also continuing under the false impression that it makes any difference whatsoever.
“This may be a difficult concept for you to grasp Scott, but you are not trying to convince me, but all the people who have logged on to read this little discussion we have going.”
Believe me, Willis. That’s the only reason I have ever responded to you.
“A large percentage of whom would truly like to see some honest answers to the problems of your various positions.”
You mean like the one where no one mentioned it until this year, so somehow it is meaningless? You have an odd definition of problem.
“So, a word of advice, suck it up, take a deep breath, and let it all hang out Scott.”
No way. I am in no kind of shape for that. You may not believe that the atheists are getting the city council to change for the common good, but believe me when I say that my letting anything hang out is certainly not in anyone’s best interest.
The TRUTH shall set you free.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Under this ‘interpretation’, Dan Robinson, as a pastor of a religion based church (it sounds redundant doesn’t it? but required for clarity for the original writer) CANNOT be elected because that would be a “direct entanglement””
Not at all. You may be familiar with Mike Huckabee, who is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, and was also governor of Arkansas. The fact that someone is a pastor is irrelevant. “No religious test”, remember? What he does in the office he is elected to is what is important.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, the phrase ‘let it all hang out’ generally is accompanied with a request to do so in the privacy of your own home.
Now, back to the hidden political agenda.
It is your position that after all these years, the atheists all had an epiphany at the same time and “POOF!” they all realized at the same time that they were victims, and the victimizers were those rascally Christians?
And it just happens that in Ohio, Iowa, and several other States, other groups of whiners had the exact same epiphany?
Truly, God does work in mysterious ways.
And all this ‘coincidently’ occurred during the beginning of a Presidential election cycle with two less than useless candidates running for that office?
And there is NO hidden political agenda?
Maybe the agenda is to distract the voter from noticing what a couple of losers are running for President?
Now that I could understand. And I think the local party headquarters should be supplying free beer and booze to further help take out minds off this garbage.
But, that still doesn’t explain the sudden realization that the whiners all discovered at the same time they wuz victims does it?
Just “POOF!!!”, an epiphany, nationwide….
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From hugenberg:
” Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion.”
Being a ‘pastor’ is not an after thought, but a ‘direct entanglement’ with ‘religion’.
Now, could yer buddy bill be wrong? (again)
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In his editorial article, the author maintains that Janet Rowland is right in her insistence on continuing the “prayer’ at the start of Mesa County BOCC meetings. With that, I humbly but strongly disagree. Her position appears more reflective of intransigence and “We, the public officials, own the government and can do what we want” or “We can do what we damned well please.”
There may be political advantage to her taking the position she does but, if that is the reason, she shows herself willing to prostitute religion in order to achieve political ends. Such does not reflect one who has much ‘respect’ for religion, even her own, not if she is willing to suborn it to achieve what is a materialistic objective. Ms. Rowland might wish to restrict he pronouncements to those having to do with her duties, that instead of attempting to address an issue which she apparently know little if anything about.
In the article, the author also refers to the First Amendment as defining the prohibition of religion getting involved in government. For those who have bothered to read the Constitution, it is clearly not.
The authoritative and more comprehensive one is found in another article prohibiting any ‘religious test’. While some quite conveniently, and for self-serving purposes, seek to limit that restriction solely to government or political organizations, if it is to have any meaning whatsoever, it must apply to each and every member of the electorate (including Ms. Rowland). Every person would therefore do well to examine him/herself to insure that he/she is applying it. If not, they should begin.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I know you men well. And I know that you feel you have been given straight information regarding the subject at hand, but I feel you may have been misled just a tad…
In the body of the Constitution, there is no “separation of Church and State” clause.
What may have been contained in a letter Jefferson wrote many years after the Constitution has no bearing. And the phrase has historically been taken out of context and occasionally rephrased to fit various political agendas.
Take it for what it is worth.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“It is your position that after all these years, the atheists all had an epiphany at the same time and “POOF!” they all realized at the same time that they were victims, and the victimizers were those rascally Christians?”
No. That was your invention.
“And it just happens that in Ohio, Iowa, and several other States, other groups of whiners had the exact same epiphany?”
Could be. I don’t know.
“Truly, God does work in mysterious ways.”
Let’s don’t go there.
“And all this ‘coincidently’ occurred during the beginning of a Presidential election cycle with two less than useless candidates running for that office?”
Apparently.
“And there is NO hidden political agenda?”
Not that I’m aware of. The obvious one, to get the local officials to comply with the Constitution is more than enough.
“Maybe the agenda is to distract the voter from noticing what a couple of losers are running for President?”
Most people aren’t as easily distracted as you are, Willis.
“Now that I could understand. And I think the local party headquarters should be supplying free beer and booze to further help take out minds off this garbage.”
You’re on your own there.
“But, that still doesn’t explain the sudden realization that the whiners all discovered at the same time they wuz victims does it?”
Not to you, but then you’ve already found an explanation that you like. far be it for any other possibilities to be considered.
“Just “POOF!!!”, an epiphany, nationwide….”
Apparently.
“Scott, I know you men well. And I know that you feel you have been given straight information regarding the subject at hand, but I feel you may have been misled just a tad…”
By the US Supreme Court?
“In the body of the Constitution, there is no “separation of Church and State” clause.”
You’re right, it’s in the First Amendment.
“What may have been contained in a letter Jefferson wrote many years after the Constitution has no bearing. And the phrase has historically been taken out of context and occasionally rephrased to fit various political agendas.”
According to you? Sorry if I don’t take your word on it. It was less than twenty years after the Constitution was enacted, and the phrase was coined by one of the people who were directly involved. I’ll take his word on it over yours, Willis. No offense.
“Take it for what it is worth.”
Don’t worry, I’ll waste no time considering it.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott.
” “In the body of the Constitution, there is no “separation of Church and State” clause.”
You’re right, it’s in the First Amendment.”
Now it’s time for you to do a little copy and paste Scott.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America.
(From memory Scott)
“Congress shall make no law respecting the 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 to peaceably assemble. and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
THAT my little friend is the COMPLETE First Amendment to the Constitution.
There is no ‘wall of separation’ contained in any words or intentions.
What you have just stated as fact is nothing more than an oft repeated lie.
To quote Mr. Josef Goebbels of Nazi fame(?)
““If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.””
Congratulations Scott, you have shown your inability to present factual evidence with out falling back onto tired, worn out Nazi doctrine.
Now, if you would care to continue with reality, and use the correct wording of the Constitution, we can do that.
But your credibility just took you to minus 500 in your honesty score card.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Is it possible for you to address the points that people actually bring up, rather that your own twisted version of what you wanted them to say?
I never said the words “separation of church and state” were in the Constitution. You didn’t ask that. You asked where that clause was located, and I told you - the First Amendment. Whether you agree or not, the First Amendment was described by one of the writers of that document as creating a wall of separation between the two. That is how it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, again whether you personally agree or not. Your own personal interpretation of the Constitution is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you, the city council doesn’t agree with you, the city attorney doesn’t agree with you and I don’t agree with you.
You can continue to attempt to distract those who are reading this thread from your failure to prove the hidden agenda, but they know, Willis. They know.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“From hugenberg:
” Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion.”
Being a ‘pastor’ is not an after thought, but a ‘direct entanglement’ with ‘religion’.
Now, could yer buddy bill be wrong? (again)”
If you are right, then how did Mike Huckabee, an ordained minister, get elected as Governor of Arkansas?
Or could YOU be wrong? (again!)
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “In his editorial article, the author maintains that Janet Rowland is right in her insistence on continuing the “prayer’ at the start of Mesa County BOCC meetings. With that, I humbly but strongly disagree. Her position appears more reflective of intransigence and “We, the public officials, own the government and can do what we want” or “We can do what we damned well please.”
RL is so polite. I would have put it a little differently. Ms Rowland is just sucking up to the right wing Christian voters which abound in the hills around GJ in the hopes of diverting the voters from her truly abysmal record as a County Commissioner looking out for the interests of the oil companies in the hopes that they will utilize her newly announced PR firm in the future.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott, post #20;
” “In the body of the Constitution, there is no “separation of Church and State” clause.”
You’re right, it’s in the First Amendment.”
My post #19;
” In the body of the Constitution, there is no “separation of Church and State” clause. ”
__________________
Scott, what you are referring to is known as the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
By your own, oft repeated, admission that you have never studied the body of the Constitution keeps getting you into trouble with your arguments based on what some jackass told you.
Either READ AND LEARN IT, or stop trying to argue things of which you admittedly have no knowledge.
As it stands, I am arguing with an uneducated idiot with no formal training in the art of debate, or even honest discussion.
To quote rush Limbaugh (deliberately to irritate the liberals), WORDS MEAN THINGS!
There is a very large difference between “ESTABLISHMENT” and the non existent ’separation of church and state’.
What Tomas Jefferson wrote AFTER the Constitution was ratified has no bearing on the Constitution.
And only a total retard, of liberal, would believe otherwise.
My apologies to the mentally disabled through no fault of their own.
The retardation I have to deal with is self taught in liberal school apparently.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Scott
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:32 pm PM This User Report this comment
Willis,
“From hugenberg:
” Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion.”
Being a ‘pastor’ is not an after thought, but a ‘direct entanglement’ with ‘religion’.
Now, could yer buddy bill be wrong? (again)”
If you are right, then how did Mike Huckabee, an ordained minister, get elected as Governor of Arkansas?
Or could YOU be wrong? (again!)”
No scott, hugenberg got it wrong, AGAIN.
It was his words from his letter. Go read it very carefully scott.
Or find a 4th grader to read it to you.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Scott, what you are referring to is known as the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
By your own, oft repeated, admission that you have never studied the body of the Constitution keeps getting you into trouble with your arguments based on what some jackass told you.
Either READ AND LEARN IT, or stop trying to argue things of which you admittedly have no knowledge.
As it stands, I am arguing with an uneducated idiot with no formal training in the art of debate, or even honest discussion.
To quote rush Limbaugh (deliberately to irritate the liberals), WORDS MEAN THINGS!
There is a very large difference between “ESTABLISHMENT” and the non existent ’separation of church and state’.
What Tomas Jefferson wrote AFTER the Constitution was ratified has no bearing on the Constitution.
And only a total retard, of liberal, would believe otherwise.
My apologies to the mentally disabled through no fault of their own.
The retardation I have to deal with is self taught in liberal school apparently.”
Gee, a whole post of nothing but nit-picking, and doing absolutely nothing towards “proving” that a hidden agenda on the part of the atheists exists. Just more attempts to distract attention away from the fact that the Supreme Court disagrees with him and his failed attempts to prove the hidden agenda. You’re getting predictable, Willis. You are, once again, doing far more damage to your own cause that I ever could.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No scott, hugenberg got it wrong, AGAIN.
It was his words from his letter. Go read it very carefully scott.
Or find a 4th grader to read it to you.”
Hugenberg is right, Willis. It’s your interpretation of it that’s wrong. The Lemon decision does not and never has prevented members of the clergy from holding public office.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 7:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Hugenberg is an attorney. What exactly was it you expected.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 8:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I would expect him to know more about the situation than Willis, for a start.
I would also want to check to see if what he says is consistent with what others say on the subject. In this case, it is.
I would also look at what those opposed to that position say. In this case, the only ones opposed are those with an admitted religious purpose.
Then you decide which side carries more weight.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 8:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
k, veeerrrry sloowly for scott.
This is what hugenberg said…
” Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion. ”
A ‘pastor’ has a very serious religious entanglement due to the nature of his calling.
Under bills ‘interpretation, any person with a direct religious entanglement is prohibited.
Now scott, you may not like it, but that is exactly what your best little buddy said.
And this subject also shows your total lack of knowledge of the Constitution scott.
You are not only ignorant on the subject, but you are too stupid to acknowledge that you are ignorant on the subject.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“k, veeerrrry sloowly for scott.”
Leopards don’t change their spots, I see. Yawn.
“This is what hugenberg said…
” Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion. ””
Yes, very good. That is what he said.
“A ‘pastor’ has a very serious religious entanglement due to the nature of his calling.”
If he feels that way, then he should not enter politics. However, the law cannot discriminate against someone because they happen to be ordained. remember the “no religious test?”
“Under bills ‘interpretation, any person with a direct religious entanglement is prohibited.”
No, you’re confusing your interpretation with Mr. Hugenberg’s.
“Now scott, you may not like it, but that is exactly what your best little buddy said.”
But he didn’t mean what you claim he meant. Are you ever going to explain how Huckabee got elected Governor of Arkansas if he was an ordained minister? That fact alone blows your little idea out of the water.
“And this subject also shows your total lack of knowledge of the Constitution scott.”
Yawn.
“You are not only ignorant on the subject, but you are too stupid to acknowledge that you are ignorant on the subject.”
Are you just going to insult me or get around to proving that hidden agenda? You have failed spectacularly thus far. You are apparently still trying to distract attention from that. Figures.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott.
” But he didn’t mean what you claim he meant. Are you ever going to explain how Huckabee got elected Governor of Arkansas if he was an ordained minister? That fact alone blows your little idea out of the water. ”
THAT is mr hugenbergs problem.
Now, it is really against the new policy to refer to you as you truly deserve to be referred to scott.
You are incapable of carrying on a coherent conversation due to your total lack of Constitutional knowledge, and your inability to comprehend the English language as used in the United States.
But, I’ll try one more time, even slower this time.
From the fourth paragraph of the original letter by bill hugenberg.
” Moreover, as the Sentinel notes, Marsh itself applied specifically to invocations offered by paid chaplains – not by elected officials themselves. Our courts have consistently described Marsh as a narrow exception to the test announced in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion. ”
______________________
hugenberg brought the lemon v Kurtman into the discussion.
It is hugenbergs words ” which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion. ”
It is a problem because his position on that case is faulty in his rendering on this website.
The term “HIS” refers, in each and every case to mr bill hugenberg, and n other party.
Now, about the total stupidity of the atheists that didn’t know they were victims until they had a nationwide epiphany, where all across the country all these little groups of whiners suddenly discovered that they were all victims and they didn’t even notice until this year?
A nationwide epiphany, exactly the same from coast to coast, and border to border. (but not beyond)
Yessiree bob, God does indeed work in mysterious ways.
Just one little nationwide happy little accident….
yeah scott, you stick with that.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 9:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott.
“THAT is mr hugenbergs problem.”
No, actually it’s yours. You apparently don’t understand. I’ll break it down for you. You say that a pastor (i.e. someone who is ordained as a minister in a religious sect) cannot be elected to a government position because of the “entanglement” caused by their religious affiliation.
However, the example of Mike Huckabee completely destroys your claim, because not only did an ordained minister get elected as Governor of Arkansas, he also ran for president. Now, if he was disqualified for running as you claim, why did no one point that out? I’ll bet you’ll just ignore this as usual. Leopards don’t change their spots.
“Now, it is really against the new policy to refer to you as you truly deserve to be referred to scott.”
That obviously hasn’t stopped you before. Don’t hold back on my account.
“You are incapable of carrying on a coherent conversation due to your total lack of Constitutional knowledge, and your inability to comprehend the English language as used in the United States.”
Come on. You can do better than that. Not even a “little moron?”
“But, I’ll try one more time, even slower this time.
From the fourth paragraph of the original letter by bill hugenberg.
” Moreover, as the Sentinel notes, Marsh itself applied specifically to invocations offered by paid chaplains – not by elected officials themselves. Our courts have consistently described Marsh as a narrow exception to the test announced in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) – which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion.”
We already know you can cut-and-paste, Willis.
“hugenberg brought the lemon v Kurtman into the discussion.”
Which does not apply to an individual’s qualifications for holding office. It applies to actions taken by the government. I can’t help it if you continually misunderstand this point.
“It is hugenbergs words ” which prohibits direct “entanglement” of public officials with religion. ””
And it’s your misunderstanding that you refuse to correct.
“It is a problem because his position on that case is faulty in his rendering on this website.”
But that’s your position, not his. How difficult is this to see?
“The term “HIS” refers, in each and every case to mr bill hugenberg, and n other party.”
Good for you.
“Now, about the total stupidity of the atheists that didn’t know they were victims until they had a nationwide epiphany, where all across the country all these little groups of whiners suddenly discovered that they were all victims and they didn’t even notice until this year?”
Well, let’s just examine this claim. Remember the Marsh ruling? That was 1983. So apparently there was someone complaining about legislative prayer back then. How about Rubin vs. Burbank? 2000. There was obviously someone complaining then too. Sorry, Willis.
“A nationwide epiphany, exactly the same from coast to coast, and border to border. (but not beyond)”
Obviously not, since there are previous rulings on this issue. You must be new at this.
“Yessiree bob, God does indeed work in mysterious ways.”
Yeah, he picked you as a spokesman. He’s either got a strange sense of humor or is completely incompetent. I’d complain, if I were you.
“Just one little nationwide happy little accident….
yeah scott, you stick with that.”
Sorry that’s your line. Not mine.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 9:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, you are, without a doubt, deserving of the title “Village Idiot” You continue to offer statements without proof, dispute matters of law without support, and, in general, with your name-calling and insulting manner, just prove that you, and others like you, are nothing more than the lunatic fringe that, in a sick sort of manner, support the notion that we should devote more attention to the task of cleaning up the gene pool.
SHUT UP, WILLIS, AND JUST GO AWAY! Let the rest of us return to the task of analyzing, and, hopefully, contribute to reasoned and meaningful discussions. Your mean-spirited and totally dishonorable rants are less than welcome and, quite frankly, more proof that you should be totally ignored. Hate, Willis, is something none of us needs or should tolerate.
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 10:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
DaBookie,
As Willis pointed out, there are people reading these forums who don’t participate. Can you think of any better advertisement for the complete moral, factual and logical bankruptcy of Willis’ position than his own posts?
Posted July 30th, 2008 at 10:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “As Willis pointed out, there are people reading these forums who don’t participate. Can you think of any better advertisement for the complete moral, factual and logical bankruptcy of Willis’ position than his own posts?”
No I cannot Scott (not speaking for DaBookie). But you have to understand that WLJ probably does not care. He hides behind his anonymity and deliberately insults and taunts everybody because in my opinion he is very likely otherwise a pathetic little loser with no significant accomplishments. Here he gets the attention which he craves and on which he feeds (just as children misbehave to get attention). Apparently this is about the only thing he does all day judging by the number of messages and the enormous amount of cut and paste garbage he foists on these forums. Pathetic, really.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 6:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
No argument here. I have noticed that he seems to get more insulting as the day goes on. I think he get frustrated not being able to get a rise out of me. Compared to some of the people I have discussed things with on boards like this, Willis is small potatoes. He’s not even in the top five as far as insults go.
If he wants to continue showing people how petty and close-minded he is, I say let him.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Allrighty then Scott.
Did you get a good nights sleep?
Yesterday you demanded that I prove there is a political agenda at work with the fuss created by the atheists and their complaint about the invocation.
Yesterday I repeatedly referred to you and your whiney friends as some of the stupidest people to ever walk the face of the earth.
Either that, or this was politically motivated.
You spent the whole time going out of your way to allow my claims of their total lack of awareness throughout their entire lives than admit this is POLITICALLY MOTIVATED Scott.
My points have been made.
hugenberg is nothing more than a strawman that you through out to deflect the issue.
No, strike that, hugenberg is nothing more than the chaff drifting off the threshers during grain harvest time.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
class, you spent a good amount of time slandering respected scientists in the Global Warming forum.
I have posted quite a few FACTS that you refuse to respond to because they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you and your opinions on that subject as irrelevant.
You sir are nothing less than a useless old man with nothing but failed political beliefs to hold you together in your declining years.
Your dreams of a utopia here in Western Colorado are never going to be realized because you are surrounded by intelligent, reasonable Citizens that understand the concept of Freedom, and have long denied socialism as an acceptable form of government.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“Allrighty then Scott.
Did you get a good nights sleep?”
Better than average, actually. Thanks.
“Yesterday you demanded that I prove there is a political agenda at work with the fuss created by the atheists and their complaint about the invocation.
Yesterday I repeatedly referred to you and your whiney friends as some of the stupidest people to ever walk the face of the earth.
Either that, or this was politically motivated.”
It figures. You think its proven because you can’t imagine any other possibilities. You have a rather limited imaginiation then.
“You spent the whole time going out of your way to allow my claims of their total lack of awareness throughout their entire lives than admit this is POLITICALLY MOTIVATED Scott.”
Your inability to see other possibilities only demonstrates the shallowness of your position. Reality tends to be more complicated than you have shown yourself to be aware of.
“My points have been made.”
If that’s the best you can do, then you should be ashamed. My seven year old can come up with a better argument than that.
“hugenberg is nothing more than a strawman that you through out to deflect the issue.”
Are all your dreams in Technicolor?
“No, strike that, hugenberg is nothing more than the chaff drifting off the threshers during grain harvest time.”
Come on. You’re disappointing me. You didn’t call anyone “little moron” in this whole post.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 8:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I don’t need to use the phrase anymore, it’s ingrained into your response patterns.
But, which is it Scott?
The atheists are incredibly stupid?
The atheists are politically motivated?
Or, a third possibility, they are merely pawns in hugenbergs quest for publicity? (in which case they would still be incredibly stupid)
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 8:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Willis Sir.
My parents and all their friends talk about how hateful the liberals are and asked me to thank you for showing them for what they are. I don’t sign on much because of the hatred but I like reading what you and the other nice people say to the mean hateful grouchy people.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 8:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, you thought of a third possibility! You’ve exceeded my expectations. Funny how the one I gave you yesterday, which happens to be the truth, still doesn’t register with you. Oh well.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 8:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander,
Why doesn’t this: “you and your whiney friends as some of the stupidest people to ever walk the face of the earth.” (From Willis’ post #38)
qualify as hateful to you? Just curious.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 8:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
If you go back through all your previous posts, not only on this subject, but all threads you have chosen to play in, you will notice that YOU have consistently pretended to have superior knowledge and intellect in ALL subjects.
And yet, in each instance where we have lowered the bar of civil discussion to nothing more than childish temper tantrums, I have shown you to be lacking in any form of knowledge on the subject.
In this instance, you have claimed superior knowledge of the Constitution, as well as the First Amendment, all the while admitting that you have never even read the Constitution.
How does one gain such amassed knowledge with no education on the subject?
You, and your ‘friends’ have continuously pushed the issue of a ‘kinder, gentler’ board with claims of higher knowledge, yet refuse to exhibit such knowledge, but pushed liberal, socialist doggerel deliberately to irritate other users.
This entire issue is politically motivated, and everybody knows it but you.
And you know it Scott, but it’s not in the best interests of the overall plan that the fact be admitted to, lest it destroy the cause before it makes any meaningful gains.
You, and your friends have hoped this would degrade to the former shouting match and name calling, because you, class, gjblubber, and others cannot live with civil discussion.
Civil discussion is problematic for people of your belief system.
It brings forth knowledge and ideas that run contrary to the concept of socialism and communism.
Unrestricted ideas and thoughts brought forth openly and honestly, and discussed in public are the anathema of your political beliefs, and it cannot be allowed.
Thus, the continual attempts at destroying the vestiges of Christianity, other religious belief systems, and Free and open discussions of ideas.
All thought must be tightly controlled lest people see what is being heaped upon them by the socialist elite among us.
This site will be open to thoughts and beliefs from ALL people, not restricted to the beliefs of the few who would seek to control that thoughts of others when presented for discussion.
Ridicule of others thoughts and ideas will not be tolerated, nor will lies and demeaning posts against those who choose to place their ideas and beliefs into the open market for discussion.
If you choose to remain, and be treated with courtesy and respect, first you must show the courtesy and respect to others.
That my little friend is the AMERICAN WAY!
Now, have a nice day.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 9:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott.
Your post #44 directed at Alexander?
You felt the need to take a portion of a sentence OUT OF CONTEXT…
Why is that scott?
Did the entire post make you look bad?
Is it just a liberal habit that the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, must be broken down into manageable phrases and sound bites to fool the people?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“If you go back through all your previous posts, not only on this subject, but all threads you have chosen to play in, you will notice that YOU have consistently pretended to have superior knowledge and intellect in ALL subjects.”
Only if you consider pointing out where you make mistakes or demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the subject to be “having superior knowledge.” And I have never said so in ALL subjects.
“And yet, in each instance where we have lowered the bar of civil discussion to nothing more than childish temper tantrums, I have shown you to be lacking in any form of knowledge on the subject.”
Your temper tantrums only demonstrate your lack of maturity. The fact that you cannot hold s to a single subject but keep introducing distractions is very telling.
“In this instance, you have claimed superior knowledge of the Constitution, as well as the First Amendment, all the while admitting that you have never even read the Constitution.
How does one gain such amassed knowledge with no education on the subject?”
You are mistaking your misunderstandings with what I have actually said. In reality, where I choose to live, I said no such thing.
“You, and your ‘friends’ have continuously pushed the issue of a ‘kinder, gentler’ board with claims of higher knowledge, yet refuse to exhibit such knowledge, but pushed liberal, socialist doggerel deliberately to irritate other users.”
It must be irritating to be shown to be wrong so often.
“This entire issue is politically motivated, and everybody knows it but you.”
And yet, everyone who thinks they know that is outside the situation looking in. Why should I take their word for it when I know first-hand that it is otherwise?
“And you know it Scott, but it’s not in the best interests of the overall plan that the fact be admitted to, lest it destroy the cause before it makes any meaningful gains.”
Unless there is nothing to admit to. The best evidence of a conspiracy is that there is no evidence of a conspiracy, right?
“You, and your friends have hoped this would degrade to the former shouting match and name calling, because you, class, gjblubber, and others cannot live with civil discussion.”
Yet you’re the one calling people names. Interesting.
“Civil discussion is problematic for people of your belief system.
It brings forth knowledge and ideas that run contrary to the concept of socialism and communism.
Unrestricted ideas and thoughts brought forth openly and honestly, and discussed in public are the anathema of your political beliefs, and it cannot be allowed.”
Thus, the continual attempts at destroying the vestiges of Christianity, other religious belief systems, and Free and open discussions of ideas.
All thought must be tightly controlled lest people see what is being heaped upon them by the socialist elite among us.
Yawn. Come up with something new once in a while, will you? This tired mantra of “liberals are communists and socialists” gets old after a while. Especially when the two are mutually exclusive and thus your accusation is simply laughable.
“This site will be open to thoughts and beliefs from ALL people, not restricted to the beliefs of the few who would seek to control that thoughts of others when presented for discussion.”
Yet you’re trying to stop the opinions that are contrary to your own. I love irony, don’t you?
“Ridicule of others thoughts and ideas will not be tolerated, nor will lies and demeaning posts against those who choose to place their ideas and beliefs into the open market for discussion.”
You’re one calling people names, remember?
“If you choose to remain, and be treated with courtesy and respect, first you must show the courtesy and respect to others.”
Since you apparently consider pointing out your errors to be rude and discourteous, every posy I’ve made qualifies under that definition. Too bad.
“That my little friend is the AMERICAN WAY!”
Most Americans I know aren’t afraid to be shown they are wrong. They don’t like it, of course, but that’s how they learn. Some however, start calling people names when they their mistakes are pointed out. I think that’s called the “Five-Year-Old American Way.”
“Now, have a nice day.”
You too.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alexander,
Thank You for your words of encouragement and support.
I appreciate all the nice things that people say to any user on this board.
Compliments and courtesy are always welcomed.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 9:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis said:
“Scott.
Your post #44 directed at Alexander?
You felt the need to take a portion of a sentence OUT OF CONTEXT…
Why is that scott?
Did the entire post make you look bad?
Is it just a liberal habit that the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, must be broken down into manageable phrases and sound bites to fool the people?”
Sorry, I didn’t think the part where you admitted saying that made any difference. Here’s the whole sentence:
“Yesterday I repeatedly referred to you and your whiney friends as some of the stupidest people to ever walk the face of the earth.”
Care to explain how the context makes that not a hateful thing to say?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 9:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ah yes, full context.
” Willis_Leon_Johnson
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:19 am PM This User Report this comment
Allrighty then Scott.
Did you get a good nights sleep?
Yesterday you demanded that I prove there is a political agenda at work with the fuss created by the atheists and their complaint about the invocation.
Yesterday I repeatedly referred to you and your whiney friends as some of the stupidest people to ever walk the face of the earth.
Either that, or this was politically motivated.
You spent the whole time going out of your way to allow my claims of their total lack of awareness throughout their entire lives than admit this is POLITICALLY MOTIVATED Scott.
My points have been made.
hugenberg is nothing more than a strawman that you through out to deflect the issue.
No, strike that, hugenberg is nothing more than the chaff drifting off the threshers during grain harvest time.”
Now it makes perfect sense.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 9:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And scottie, you were given the choice.
Either it is political, or the atheists have been totally retarded for their entire lives.
Your choice scott.
There are no other options in this case.
You keep choosing the ‘atheists are stupid’ option.
Why is that scott?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 9:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“Ah yes, full context.
” Willis_Leon_Johnson
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 7:19 am PM This User Report this comment
Allrighty then Scott.
Did you get a good nights sleep?
Yesterday you demanded that I prove there is a political agenda at work with the fuss created by the atheists and their complaint about the invocation.
Yesterday I repeatedly referred to you and your whiney friends as some of the stupidest people to ever walk the face of the earth.
Either that, or this was politically motivated.
You spent the whole time going out of your way to allow my claims of their total lack of awareness throughout their entire lives than admit this is POLITICALLY MOTIVATED Scott.
My points have been made.
hugenberg is nothing more than a strawman that you through out to deflect the issue.
No, strike that, hugenberg is nothing more than the chaff drifting off the threshers during grain harvest time.”
Now it makes perfect sense.”
The point, Willis, which apparently is flying right over your head, is that calling a group of people “some of the stupidest people to ever walk the face of the earth” is hateful. You don’t seem to have any problem with it, nor do those who agree with you. That speaks volumes to those reading this.
“And scottie, you were given the choice.
Either it is political, or the atheists have been totally retarded for their entire lives.
Your choice scott.
There are no other options in this case.”
Except the truth, which I know and you continually ignore.
“You keep choosing the ‘atheists are stupid’ option.
Why is that scott?”
Really Willis, aren’t you getting tired or repeating the same insults over and over again? You used to be much more creative.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 9:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And, once again scott, you cannot answer the question honestly.
Why not scott?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ve given you my answer (post #6, fourth paragraph). You rejected it out of hand, despite the fact that you are not in any position to know what is actually going on. You are making it all up, Willis. I know it, and so do you.
And so do those reading this. You really were much better arguing evolution. You still didn’t know what you were talking about, but at least your arguments werre interesting.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I seem to recall a member of the opposition side of this issue stating that it was OK to insult a group, as opposed to an individual. But I think what Willis did was leave up to Scott to choose whether the term applied. It appeared to me that Willis was simply offering the option. I suppose in much the same way as the “rabid majority” remark (by the progressives side) left it up the individual whether they were a member of that group. Scott seems to have made his choice. What goes round, comes round.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #6, fourth paragraph.
” Here’s another “just so” explanation. The WCAF has only been in existence for a year and a half. Combine that with the fact that they were involved with the library display most of last year, and the self-evident fact (well, self-evident to most people) that an organization cannot do anything before it exists, and you get an explanation that says that the group just started last year, decided to put on a library display first of all, then decided to tackle the unconstitutional city council invocation. ”
Post #7, just the relevant first part….
” WOW!!!
What an interesting concept.
None of these whiners existed prior to the organization coming into existence….”
So, it is your position that none of these people had any awareness of the world around them until the ‘wcaf’ came into existence?
We have been here scott.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No Willis. All I said was that the group came into existence at that time. You are the one who ran off on the tangent that it meant anything else. That was the part you made up all by yourself.
We have been there, but you have ignored this as a possibility, “There are no other options”, remember?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“I seem to recall a member of the opposition side of this issue stating that it was OK to insult a group, as opposed to an individual. But I think what Willis did was leave up to Scott to choose whether the term applied. It appeared to me that Willis was simply offering the option. I suppose in much the same way as the “rabid majority” remark (by the progressives side) left it up the individual whether they were a member of that group. Scott seems to have made his choice. What goes round, comes round.”
That wasn’t me. Personally, I think insults and personal attacks are out of line no matter who is the target. Maybe that’s just my atheist morality talking.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now scott.
” No Willis. All I said was that the group came into existence at that time. You are the one who ran off on the tangent that it meant anything else. That was the part you made up all by yourself. ”
Prior to the time this organization came into being, there were no claims of victimhood.
Ergo, there were no problems that were noticed by any of the members of the newly formed group.
It was not until this group formed, and decided to make their politics an issue with the rest of the community.
Now, either all these persons were totally unaware of their surroundings BEFORE the formation of this group.
Or it is politically driven.
Once again, your choice scott.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From post #58.
” That wasn’t me. Personally, I think insults and personal attacks are out of line no matter who is the target. Maybe that’s just my atheist morality talking. ”
Yes scott, it is you who is making the insults come into existence.
You would have the people believe that these issues are not politically driven.
The only way for that position to be true would be that the atheists were totally unaware of their surroundings prior to the formation of the group.
Since the issue this group has raised has been an integral part of their lives since they first came to this area, they each had, as individuals, to ask for changes to be made.
None made such a request.
So, it was not a problem in their eyes.
Or, they were just too stupid to notice the issues.
Or, it is politically driven.
And scott, by continually denying it is political, you are the person placing the stupid label on them.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis said:
“Now scott.
Prior to the time this organization came into being, there were no claims of victimhood.
Ergo, there were no problems that were noticed by any of the members of the newly formed group.”
Noticing problems and having the support of others to do something about them are two different things. This is simply an equivocation on your part that has no support in reality. Since no one complained, not on must have had any problems. Black or white. No middle ground. Typical.
“It was not until this group formed, and decided to make their politics an issue with the rest of the community.”
Only because the law was on their side. Which has been acknowledged by everyone involved. It just those few on the outside looking in who are still trying to argue what has been settled.
“Now, either all these persons were totally unaware of their surroundings BEFORE the formation of this group.
Or it is politically driven.
Once again, your choice scott.”
Once again, all or nothing. The idea of some middle ground is just completely alien to you, isn’t it? Why do women have the right to vote, Willis? Women didn’t have the right to vote for over a hundred years in this country. Are you saying that until the suffragette movement, all women were completely unaware of their surroundings? Same logic applies here. You’re just having trouble dealing with the fact that the council is in the wrong, they’ve admitted they’re in the wrong, and they’re going to change what they’ve been doing. How long it took for someone to complain has absolutely no bearing on the issue whatsoever. What motivations the atheists might have has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. You are trying to fix the plumbing on a sinking ship, Willis. You’re ranting over issues that are completely irrelevant to what is actually going on, because you know you can’t argue the actual facts.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 10:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, it is politically driven then?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 11:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, and scott.
I served in the Submarine fleet.
I have no problem with sinking your ships.
It’s kinda fun watching you flounder.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 11:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“Yes scott, it is you who is making the insults come into existence.”
Yes, by pointing out your errors and mistakes. You can’t deal with that in a mature manner, so you are lashing out with insults.
“You would have the people believe that these issues are not politically driven.”
No, I would have people believe that there is no “hidden agenda.” As was pointed out earlier, any time you have more than one person you have politics.
“The only way for that position to be true would be that the atheists were totally unaware of their surroundings prior to the formation of the group.”
Says you, and you know how high I hold your opinion.
“Since the issue this group has raised has been an integral part of their lives since they first came to this area, they each had, as individuals, to ask for changes to be made.
None made such a request.”
Willis, I have lived in this valley from 1980 to 1990, and moved back in 2002. In all that time, I never had occasion to attend a city council meeting. I didn’t even know they had invocations, and it wasn’t until I became an atheist that I would have had any problem with it. Prayer at city council meetings is hardly an “integral part” of the lives of the vast majority of the population here. This doesn’t change the fact that it’s wron, and it’s going to change.
“So, it was not a problem in their eyes.
Or, they were just too stupid to notice the issues.
Or, it is politically driven.
And scott, by continually denying it is political, you are the person placing the stupid label on them.”
Only in your eyes, Willis, and I couldn’t care less what you think. If I had known Christians like you existed, I would have become an atheist a lot sooner.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Oh, and scott.
I served in the Submarine fleet.”
Thank you for your service.
“I have no problem with sinking your ships.
It’s kinda fun watching you flounder.”
If I’m floundering, how come you keep raising all these distractions? Why does it change by the atheists not raising this issue until now? Does it somehow make the council’s invocation constitutional? Does it change the issue in any way?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 11:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says it wasn’t I who said it was OK to insult a group. That is exactly the point, Scott. Each atheist has adopted their own rules of civility, so that another atheist may use this double standard as a point of viable deny-ability to accuse the opposition of wrong doing. The more you use these tactics, the more transparent they become. And under these circumstances, the atheist argument of Christians are like alligators, (seen one seen them all) loses credibility. For it is the atheist group through stereotyping and labeling which has tried to create the idea of cookie cutter Christians. And I don’t think the public is buying. This is just another form of atheist self-indoctrination to cover the fact that your ideas just don’t hold water.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 11:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“This is just another form of atheist self-indoctrination to cover the fact that your ideas just don’t hold water.”
How would you know? You claim to know what motivates us, why we think the way we do, and what our real purpose is.
Yet you get it wrong, time after time. You don’t know what motivates us. You have concocted this wild, paranioac conspiracy theory that you are absolutely convinced is the truth. You don’t want to hear that the atheists just happened to bring up this issue this year. You want to believe that we are pawns of the ACLU and that it’s all some grand anti-gun scheme that you must fight against. You’re essentially playing a live-action Dungeons and Dragons game, against foes and threats that aren’t really there. You won’t accept anything if it contradicts what you want to believe. You’ve said you accept my word, except you don’t when I tell you something you don’t want to hear. How can I accept your word, if you break it whenever you need to to preserve your beliefs?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So scott, the question remains.
Extremely stupid, or politically motivated?
None of these people, all relative newcomers to the area, had any awareness of their surroundings UNTIL this group was formed?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Are you once again trying to apply your word to the whole group? You should know the pitfalls of such action by now. You seem to be trying to mix your conversation with Willis and your conversation with me. I suppose it serves some type of shorthand purpose for you. True I don’t know what is in your mind, anymore than you know what is in mine, but I do know what you say, and I know what the other members of your group say. And then I see your group’s actions, which are often diametrically opposed to what they say. Contrary to popular belief, the way to win hearts and minds is not with revolving threats of lawsuit and litigation, no matter how thinly veiled. That is the inherent problem in using a strategy that in order to work, a threat must be clear enough to be perceived, yet must be veiled enough to permit viable deniability. You run the risk of people understanding what is meant by what is said. This discussion, like the assertions of your group is going nowhere fast. Perhaps it is time for the atheists to have a new strategy session. I think a new strategy would not only create more enthusiasm, but would also serve to assuage the constant rehash of the same old information that the atheists continuously post. I will look forward to something new from the group. And don’t forget to give the talking points to Mr. Hugenberg this time.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 12:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“So scott, the question remains.
Extremely stupid, or politically motivated?
None of these people, all relative newcomers to the area, had any awareness of their surroundings UNTIL this group was formed?”
Talk about a false dichotomy. Willis simply can’t understand that there might be other possibilities. He’s trying to force me into a corner with this “Have you stopped beating your wife” type question. He will not accept any other answer, because no other answer fits his opinions. Since his opinions can’t be wrong, one of these answers must be right.
He still has not answered the question of why this matters? What would change if the atheists had brought this up sooner, or later? He knows he can’t deal with the fact that the council has already acknowledged that the invocation needs to change, so he is desperately trying to draw attention away from this by vilifying the atheists.
Here’s my new answer, Willis. It doesn’t matter. You can call them stupid (again) or you can call it politically motivated. It doesn’t matter in the slightest. If there was a hidden agenda, it wouldn’t change the fact that the council has acknowledged that the invocation needs to change. If the atheists were so stupid that they didn’t realize there was a problem it wouldn’t change the fact that the council has acknowledged the invocation needs to change. In fact, you’d better hope there is a hidden agenda, because if there isn’t, it means that the stupid atheists realized there was a problem long before you noticed it. How does that make you look?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 12:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Are you once again trying to apply your word to the whole group?”
No, just to the situation.
“You should know the pitfalls of such action by now. You seem to be trying to mix your conversation with Willis and your conversation with me.”
Well, the two of you seem to be in lock-step most of the time.
“I suppose it serves some type of shorthand purpose for you. True I don’t know what is in your mind, anymore than you know what is in mine, but I do know what you say, and I know what the other members of your group say.”
“My group?” Which group would that be?
“And then I see your group’s actions, which are often diametrically opposed to what they say. Contrary to popular belief, the way to win hearts and minds is not with revolving threats of lawsuit and litigation, no matter how thinly veiled. That is the inherent problem in using a strategy that in order to work, a threat must be clear enough to be perceived, yet must be veiled enough to permit viable deniability. You run the risk of people understanding what is meant by what is said. This discussion, like the assertions of your group is going nowhere fast. Perhaps it is time for the atheists to have a new strategy session. I think a new strategy would not only create more enthusiasm, but would also serve to assuage the constant rehash of the same old information that the atheists continuously post. I will look forward to something new from the group. And don’t forget to give the talking points to Mr. Hugenberg this time.”
The atheists aren’t trying to win hearts and minds. Sorry, but you’re wrong again. The city council invocation isn’t about winning hearts and minds, or about popular opinion. It’s about what the law is, and what the city council is doing, and making sure that they are the same so the city isn’t leaving itself open for a lawsuit. I am under no illusions that if left to popular opinion, the invocation would remain exactly as it is. But this isn’t a question of popular opinion, despite your attempts to make it so.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 1:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, in response to a post by AP, made the following statement: “How would you know? You claim to know what motivates us, why we think the way we do, and what our real purpose is.”
In many of AP’s posts, what is all too evident is that the gentlman simply cannot move beyond what he believes (and he does believe it) in order to consider anything else as in any way plausible enough to be considered. It would appear that he is no longer able to do so.
When looking at his posts, what is also obvious is that he reads or listens to only those sources with which he is in agreement. Some of us would call that for what it really is ’self-indoctrination’.
Another poster, Mr. Johnson, also stated it quite simply. Read only ‘conservative’ literature and viewpoints. Don’t read anything considered ‘liberal’. That also follows the so-called ‘conservative’ line, expressed by one of their heroes, Pat Robertson who, in one of his political diatribes told his sycophants not to read Thomas Paine.
One has to wonder if such people would advocate ‘book burning’? If it were suggested that they would, they might take great umbrage. Yet, what they are advocating is the very same thing. One does not to ‘burn’ books. Not reading them accomplishes the same objective.
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 1:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott, from post #70
” He still has not answered the question of why this matters? What would change if the atheists had brought this up sooner, or later? He knows he can’t deal with the fact that the council has already acknowledged that the invocation needs to change, so he is desperately trying to draw attention away from this by vilifying the atheists. ”
Now scott, this entire discussion has been about the ‘why’.
I claim that it is politically motivated, and i have presented a very accurate case to prove my claim.
You, on the other hand, have consistently claimed that it is not politically motivated.
But you offer nothing to indicate anything other than a purely political motivation.
You have thrown out so many smokescreens and strawmen, but the question still remains.
The issue of the invocation was never a problem, until it became politically attractive for it to become an issue.
This is an election season, and suddenly it is an overwhelmingly important issue.
Not just right here in happy valley, but in cities and towns across America.
Now scott, you can keep right on trying to deny this, but it has been proven as FACT quite a few times, not just here, but in cities and towns across America.
The question remains scott.
Exactly what is this political agenda? What all is entailed?
And if it is such a wonderful agenda, why are you, and others, going to so much trouble to deny its existence?
Posted July 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, post #72.
” Another poster, Mr. Johnson, also stated it quite simply. Read only ‘conservative’ literature and viewpoints. Don’t read anything considered ‘liberal’. ‘
That is a lie bob, and you know it.
We have discussed a great many issues on this site with courtesy and respect.
A number of those discussions have been on liberal subjects.
For you to come on here and present a lie is just typical of you and your pathetic friends refusal to treat others with respect unless they follow your liberal drivel.
Civil discussion is problematic for people of your belief system.
It brings forth knowledge and ideas that run contrary to the concept of socialism and communism.
Unrestricted ideas and thoughts brought forth openly and honestly, and discussed in public are the anathema of your political beliefs, and it cannot be allowed.
Thus, the continual attempts at destroying the vestiges of Christianity, other religious belief systems, and Free and open discussions of ideas.
All thought must be tightly controlled lest people see what is being heaped upon them by the socialist elite among us.
This site will be open to thoughts and beliefs from ALL people, not restricted to the beliefs of the few who would seek to control that thoughts of others when presented for discussion.
Ridicule of othe